Sophiology in Russian Orthodoxy: Solov'ev, Bulgakov, Losskii and Berdiaev 0773456090, 9780773456099

Table of contents :
SOPHIOLOGY IN RUSSIAN ORTHODOXY: Solov'ev, Bulgakov, Losskii and Berdiaev
Copyright Page
Contents
Foreword
Chapter1
Chapter2
Chapter3
Chapter4
Chapter5
Chapter6
Conclusions
Bibliography
Appendices
Index

Citation preview

SOPHIOLOGY IN RUSSIAN ORTHODOXY

Solov'ev, Bulgakov, Losskii and Berdiaev

Mikhail Sergeev

The Edwin Mellen Press Lewiston.Queenston.Lampeter

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Sergeev, Mikhail (Mikhail IU.) Sophiology in Russian orthodoxy : Solov' ev, Bulgakov, Losskii, and Berdiaev / Mikhail Sergeev. p.cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN- 13: 978-0-7734-5609-9 ISBN- 10: 0-7734-5609-0 1. God (Christianity)--Wisdom--History of Doctrines--19th century. 2. Wisdom--Religious aspects--Russkaia pravoslavnaia tserkov'--History of doctrines--19th century. 3. Russkaia pravoslavnaia tserkov'--Doctrines--History--19th century. 4. Philosophy theology--Russia--History--19th century. 5. God (Christianity)--Wisdom--History of doctrines--20th century. 6. Wisdom--Religious aspects--Russkaia pravoslavnaia tserkov'--History of doctrines--20th century. 7. Russkaia pravoslavnaia tserkov'--Doctrines--History--20th century. 8. Philosophical theology--Russia--History--20th century. 9. Philosophical theology--Soviet Union. I. Title. BT150.S47 2006 230'.1947--dc22

2006047056

hors serie. A CIP catalog record for this book is available from the British Library. Front Cover: Orthodox icon of Sophia: Sophia the Wisdom of God (Kievan). Source: .

Copyright © 2006 Mikhail Sergeev All rights reserved. For information contact The Edwin Mellen Press Box 450 Lewiston, New York USA 14092-0450

The Edwin Mellen Press Box 67 Queenston, Ontario CANADA LOS 1L0

The Edwin Mellen Press, Ltd. Lampeter, Ceredigion, Wales UNITED KINGDOM SA48 8LT Printed in the United States of America

Contents

Foreword

i

Acknowledgements

v Part I

Chapter 1: Introduction The Problem The Subject of the Research Purpose of Study Relevance of the Project Theoretical Framework Model of Religious Cycle Transformation of Christianity Religion in Postmodern Time Design of the Work Remarks on Methodology The Scope of the Study Structure of the Book

1 1 3 5 7 7 10 13 17 17 19 21

Chapter 2: Historical Background Wisdom in Ancient Thought Variety of Approaches The Integrative Principle Demonized Sophia Sacred Scriptures Personified Wisdom Divine and Human Aspects Christ as Sophia Sacred Tradition Trinitarian Wisdom Created and Uncreated Sophia Secular Developments

25 25 28 31 35 35 38 42 45 45 48 50

Chapter 3: Beginning of Russian Sophiology Russia and the West Search for Religious Identity Encounter with Protestantism Fate of Westernism and Slavophilism Orthodoxy at the Crossroads Renewal vs. Revival Ecumenical Vision Beyond Historical Confessions Sophia as the Principle of Integration Theological Aspects of Sophia Metaphysics of Total-Unity Aesthetic Dimension of Sophiology

55 55 61 65 67 67 70 73 75 75 79 86

Part II Chapter 4: Sophia in Theology Initial Formulations The Fourth Hypostasis Sophia as Created Total-Unity Neither Creature nor Divinity Trinitarian Sophiology The Nature of the Deity Triune Character of Wisdom Two Aspects of Sophia The Unfolding of Controversy Philosophical Replies Theological Objections Ecclesiastical Reaction

91 91 95 98 103 103 107 110 113 113 117 123

Chapter 5: Sophia in Philosophical Discourse General Observations The Kantian Challenge Ontologism in Epistemology Aspects of Divine Sophia Summary of Losskii’s worldview Intuitivist Theory of Knowledge Hierarchical Pluralism in Ontology The Problem of the Absolute

127 127 130 134 137 137 142 146

Sophiology Revisited The Created Wisdom Sophia as Spiritual Reality Implications for Political Philosophy

149 149 153 156

Chapter 6: Sophia as the Disclosure of Creativity Exposition of Berdiaev’s Philosophy Reality of the Spirit The Sin of Objectification The Meaning of History The Metamorphosis of Sophiology Sophia as Beauty The Dark Side of Sophia Uncreated Freedom Entry into Postmodernity The New Middle Ages Power of Machine / Machine of Power Return of Religion

161 161 164 168 175 175 178 181 186 186 188 193

Conclusions

197

Bibliography

205

Appendix

Index

A. Vladimir Solov’ev: Life, Works and Bibliography

215

B. Fr. Sergii Bulgakov: Life, Works and Bibliography

218

C. Nikolai Losskii: Life, Works and Bibliography

221

D. Nikolai Berdiaev: Life, Works and Bibliography

223

E. Chronology of Selected Works Related to Sophiology

226 229

i

FOREWORD

The idea of Sophia—Holy Wisdom, or the Wisdom of God—is one of the least clarified concepts in modern religious thought, but not because it is rarely discussed. "Sophiology" flourishes in a number of venues. It was a constant preoccupation during the most creative period of Russian religious thought, from the 1880s to the 1930s. No Russian thinker of the time could avoid it, and several leading figures of the Russian religious-philosophical renaissance embraced it with enthusiasm.

Quite apart from Russian thought, discussions of Sophia figure

prominently in contemporary Western feminist theology, revisionist biblical hermeneutics and scholarly interpretations of mysticism. Clearly, the idea of Sophia has been a catalyst for theological creativity in modern times. But creativity is messy, and sophiology is no exception. The amount of confusion generated by it has been considerable, leading many Russian Orthodox thinkers as well as traditionalist Christian intellectuals in the West to lose patience with sophiology and reject it altogether. In The Renewal of Orthodoxy in Modern Russia, Mikhail Sergeev charts a welcome middle course between undisciplined enthusiasm for the subject and traditionalist censure. His aim is to clarify the idea of Sophia and, by clarifying it, to facilitate a more mature appreciation of its value. He does his job well. This book is the best introduction to Russian sophiology available in English. Sergeev's success stems first of all from his decision to focus on the idea of Sophia rather than the people who expounded it. Most discussions of Russian sophiology are embedded in articles and monographs on individual thinkers—

ii Solov’ev, Bulgakov, Florenskii and others.

There are two problems with this

approach. First, it fails to expose the general and recurrent themes of sophiology. Second, it makes it difficult to identify the bias of individual practitioners for lack of anyone to compare them with. By focusing on Sophia rather than sophiologists, Sergeev helps us see the full dimensions of the subject. At the same time he leaves us with a clearer picture of the sophiologists themselves by setting them in a comparative perspective. Sergeev's approach leads him to two general observations about sophiology in the modern Russian intellectual tradition. The first is the remarkable persistence of the enterprise. The second is the relative independence of the sophiological theme from particular epistemological or ontological positions. The persistence of sophiology in the Russian religious-philosophical tradition is not something Sergeev has discovered. It is a known fact. But there has been serious debate about the significance of this fact. Nobody would deny that sophiology was a serious enterprise for Solov’ev, Florenskii and Bulgakov. But for the modern Russian philosophical tradition as a whole? Are we dealing with a substantive matter or with a fashionable convention? Sergeev makes a convincing case for the former. As for the relative independence of the sophiology from particular epistemological or ontological positions, this actually is a discovery on Sergeev's part; or at the very least a powerful corrective to mainstream interpretation. Most scholarly interpreters of Sophia have felt compelled to treat the subject as an exercise in systematic philosophy or ontology. At its best this approach equates sophiology with one of its many versions and ignores the others. At its worst, it submerges the subject in a morass of irrelevant speculation. Through careful exegesis of the meaning of Sophia for thinkers representing divergent systematic positions, Sergeev demonstrates the serpentine quality of the sophiological theme in modern Russian thought and the limitations of a purely speculative approach to the subject.

iii While the portrait of Sophia rather than her expositors is Sergeev's main concern, his portraits of Russian religious philosophers are masterfully drawn. They are not biographical sketches but line-drawings, so to speak, of conceptual worlds. This feature of The Renewal of Orthodoxy in Modern Russia makes it a helpful guide to the paths of Russian religious philosophy quite apart from sophiology. At the same time it proves Sergeev's point about the persistence of the sophiological theme. The fact that a specialized study of sophiology can serve as a vehicle for an effective general introduction to Russian religious philosophy is strong evidence that the author's primary subject possesses the centrality he claims for it. The prominence assigned to Nikolai Losskii in Sergeev's portait gallery is especially welcome. Losskii—the father, not his son Vladimir whose "apophatic" method dominates contemporary Orthodox theology—may be the least studied of the great Russian religious philosophers, at least in the West. This is because Losskii was very much a philosopher's philosopher, a master of the highly specialized conceptual language and analytic methods of modern European philosophy from Descartes through Kant and the German Idealists. Most Western interpreters of Russian religious philosophy do not have sufficient technical expertise in the history of philosophy to appreciate him fully. As is well known, Russian religious philosophy has been studied in the West mainly by literary scholars, religion scholars and theologians. With a few revered exceptions such as George Kline and James Scanlan, professional philosophers have ignored the subject, especially in the English-speaking world, where professional philosophy confines itself within the narrow canons of the Analytic method. This unusual disciplinary distribution has steered the study of Russian religious philosophy away from certain aspects of its properly philosophical heritage, including Losskii's thought. Yet Losskii's "intuitivism," as he called it, arguably provides a more rigorous, ultimately more satisfying venue for the main themes of Russian religious philosophy than the much more popular metaphysics of "total-unity" (vseedinstvo).

iv After reading Sergeev on Losskii's view of Sophia, one can see that Losskii's contribution was to shape up sophiology by trimming away undisciplined, subjective-romantic elements. Sergeev's chapter on Losskii should be required reading for students of Russian religious philosophy. Sergeev does a good job handling notoriously controversial aspects of Russian sophiology, such as the notion of a demonic Sophia and the heresy charges brought against the sophiologists by Orthodox traditionalists. Sergeev brings a welcome sobriety to these parts of the story, avoiding side-tracks and keeping us focused on what was ultimately at stake in the sophiological enterprise. One of the most attractive features of this book is the author's appreciation for how much remains to be discovered about sophiology. The book is an invitation to join a discussion that is only beginning, not a verdict on debates that ended long ago. This holds true also for Sergeev's treatment of individual thinkers. He feels no need to paste labels on them, to tailor their thought to a preconceived conceptual scheme. As a result, The Renewal of Orthodoxy in Modern Russia conveys a strong sense of the vitality of Russian religious philosophy. And not just in the past. Sergeev aptly observes that the steady stream of publications on religious philosophy in contemporary Russia makes it plausible to argue that we are in the midst of a new Russian religious-philosophical renaissance in our own day. At the very least, we are in the midst of a fresh discussion of the texts and themes of Russian religious philosophy. And where Russian religious philosophy is found, so is Sophia. She was, and perhaps still is, its Muse.

Paul Valliere McGregor Professor in the Humanities Butler University (Indianapolis, Indiana)

v

Acknowledgments

The author of this book gratefully acknowledges and thanks all those-colleagues, friends and relatives--who in various, but always significant, ways supported me in the successful completion of this project. I would like to express particular thanks to Dr. Alexander V. Riasanovsky and Dr. George L. Kline for their professional guidance and moral support. The author is also very grateful to the Trustees of the Spalding Trust, England, for having provided a research grant which allowed me to work at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. while completing the present study. `The greatest debt of thanks goes to my family: to my wife, Elena, who sacrificed her career in Russia to make it possible for me to pursue my academic interests, and to my son, Dmitry, who, along with his mother has always been supportive and helpful throughout this long project.

vi

I will tell you what wisdom is and how she came to be, and I will hide no secrets from you, but I will trace her course from the beginning of creation, and make knowledge of her clear... The Wisdom of Solomon, 6:22

But where shall wisdom be found? where is the place of understanding? Mortals do not know the way to it, and it is not found in the land of the living. Job, 28:12-13.

1

Part I Chapter 1 Introduction

The Problem The Subject of the Research Sophia is one of the most intriguing and complex notions in modern Russian thought. Its complexity is conditioned first of all by the fact that in the history of Russian culture, Sophia is represented in at least two aspects--as a literary-mystical image and a religious-philosophical concept. These twin manifestations of Sophia are often so interlaced with each other that it becomes difficult to analyze them separately. A pioneer of Russian sophiology, Vladimir Solov'ev, for instance, introduced the notion of Sophia to both philosophy and literature. Solov'ev was a brilliant speculative thinker as well as a gifted poet, and in one of his poems, "Three Meetings," composed two years before his death, he described mystical visions of the "Eternal Feminine" which he interpreted as the appearance to him of God's Wisdom. This personified Sophia also became the center of his philosophical reflection. Solov'ev's followers, philosophers and poets, developed his sophiology from the end of the 19th and throughout the 20th century both in their native land and abroad. The sophiological trend in modern Russian culture has existed, therefore, for

2 more than a hundred years now, and it includes the thought of many of the major Russian religious thinkers in the 20th century. Another thing, which makes Russian sophiology a complicated phenomenon to study, is the complexity of following the thought of individuals who changed their sophiological views in the course of their careers. This is true, for example, of both Vladimir Solov'ev and Fr. Sergii Bulgakov, who, in different periods of their lives developed different teachings about Sophia. Finally, it should not be forgotten that modern Russian sophiology is not finished. It is still a part of a living stream of a cultural tradition, which contains rich content for future developments. It is natural then, that, given the complexity of the sophiological movement in Russia, a researcher will tend to approach it from a specific, and often narrow, angle. Leaving aside works of literary criticism, which is beyond the scope of this monograph, the study of sophiology was commonly accomplished in a twofold manner. On the one hand, most scholars have studied the work and creative evolution of a particular thinker as a sophiologist.1 On the other hand, several studies have explored the different aspects of sophiology itself in the context of Russian thought.2 It has to be noted, however, that for several reasons, including, the repression of Orthodox thought in Soviet Russia and, perhaps, the potentially heretical nature of the sophiological movement, sophiology still remains one of the most understudied topics in modern Russian religious thought. 1

See, for example, Aleksei F. Losev, "Filosofsko-poeticheskii simvol Sofii u Vl. Solov'eva," Strast' k dialektike, Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel', 1990, pp.203-255. Here Losev distinguishes ten different aspects of Solov'evian teaching about Sophia: absolute, divine-human, cosmological, anthropological, universally-feminine, theoretically-aesthetic, intimately-romantic, magical, national-Russian and eschatological (p.252). 2

This refers first of all to Nikolas O. Lossky's History of Russian Philosophy, New York: St. Vladimir's seminary Press, 1951; and Vasilii Zenkovsky's A History of Russian Philosophy, 2 vols., (authorized translation by George L. Kline), New York: Columbia University Press, 1953, which discuss sophiological problems in several chapters. There is also a quite recent study by N. S. Semenkin, Filosofiia bogoiskatel'stva: Kritika religiozno-filosofskoi idei sofiologov, Moscow: Politicheskaia literatura, 1986.

3 The authors of the already-existing studies formulated several ways to understand Sophia as a religious philosophical concept. In terms of religion, probably the most interesting theory was proposed by Paul Valliere who portrays sophiology as a dialogue of Orthodox Christianity with modern civilization.3 As a philosophical category, Sophia seems to be described less clearly and is often reduced to other concepts. Many scholars, even those who recognize the important role of sophiology in Russian philosophy, including Aleksei Losev, argue that the concept of Sophia represents a concretization of the broader idea of total-unity (vseedinstvo).4 And Vasilii Zenkovskii, in A History of Russian Philosophy, in his turn, writes that the exposition of the philosophical system of Vladimir Solov'ev, for example, can be done even without mentioning Sophia because the content of this concept coincides with that of Divine humanity (Bogochelovechestvo).5 Purpose of the Study The aim of the present work is to revisit sophiology as a reaction of Russian religious-philosophical thought to the rise of Protestantism in Europe and to the religious crisis of the 20th century. This specific approach determines the choice of topics to be discussed in the monograph. For instance, as a religious symbol, Sophia stands here for the encounter of the divine and the human, for a re-evaluation of the human element in its relation to the divine source.

3

See, for example, Paul Valliere, "Sophiology as the Dialogue of Orthodoxy with Modern Civilization," in Russian Religious Thought, ed. Judith D. Kornblatt and Richard F. Gustafson, Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1996, pp.176-195. 4

Losev, Strast' k dialektike, pp.254-255. The term vseedinstvo is rendered in English in different ways--as total-unity, all-unity, or sometimes as uni-totality. 5

Zenkovsky, A History of Russian Philosophy, p.483. The term Bogochelovechestvo is rendered in English also in many ways--as Godmanhood, Divine humanity or humanity of God.

4 In connection with Protestantism, this re-evaluation finds expression in the very beginning of modern Russian thought with its commonly negative stand toward the Western confessions. Solov'evian sophiology, on the contrary, can be understood both as an attempt to reconcile Orthodoxy with Western Christianity, and also, later, as a disappointment with all the historical forms of Christendom. The development of this second phase of sophiology--as a response to the religious crisis of the 20th century--can be traced, for instance, in the discussions of such themes as the demonization of Sophia, the interpretation of the phenomenon of totalitarianism, and of the "new religious consciousness." From the point of view of philosophy, the concept of Sophia is defined in the book as a principle of integration. Depending upon the concrete level of integration, Sophia can be associated with other religious-philosophical concepts such as those of total-unity and Divine humanity. However, further analysis will demonstrate that, as such, Sophia is not linked to any particular metaphysical system, but may become an organic part of different ontological, epistemological and political philosophies. Special attention is paid in the course of this investigation to the connection between Russian sophiologists and Kant, whose thought seems to have presented the greatest challenge for the rethinking of the Orthodox Christian tradition in light of modern philosophical discourse. To sum up, the purpose of the present work is to systematically analyze the origin and evolution of Russian sophiology in the 19th and 20th centuries in the dynamics of interaction between religion and philosophy. Most studies of this sophiological movement list, apart from the founder, such prominent figures as Pr. Evgenii Trubetskoi, Fr. Sergii Bulgakov, and Fr. Pavel Florenskii. Lev Karsavin and Nikolai Losskii are also mentioned in connection with sophiology.6 In addition to 6

See, for example, Sergei Averintsev, "Sofiia," in Filosofskaia Entsiklopediia, 5 vols., Moscow: Sovetskaia entsiklopediia, 1960-1970; and A. P. Kozyrev, "Sofiologiia," in Russkii Filosofskii Slovar', Moscow, 1995.

5 this already-impressive list we will examine the works of such major thinkers as Fr. Georgii Florovskii, Fr. Vasilii Zenkovskii, and Nikolai Berdiaev.

Relevance of the Project Sophia and its expression in the arts, literature, mysticism, philosophy, and religion were extremely popular in the Russia of the turn of the century. This enthusiasm characteristic of the so-called "Silver Age" of Russian culture was to a higher degree provoked by Solov'ev's works and especially by the influence of his followers, the symbolist poets and novelists. Between the First and the Second World Wars the sophiological debates were carried on by the Russian émigrés in Europe, this time more in the fields of philosophy and theology. In the '40s and the early '50s, the representatives of this first wave of emigration, which took place in the 1920s, produced landmark studies of Russian religious thought. However, those who belonged to the second and the third waves of emigration, in the '40s and the '70s, even while sharing Orthodox convictions, were not as much interested in the problems of sophiology. Needless to say, this subject, along with its origin and evolution, has not been systematically and objectively studied in the scholarly literature published in Soviet Russia. The Iron Curtain firmly separated the Soviet cultural elite from the pre- (and post-) revolutionary alternative religious tradition, which has been preserved and developed outside of the country. The situation has dramatically changed with the collapse of the Soviet empire and its official communist ideology. On the ruins of the Soviet Union, in search of a new identity, the Russian people have with increasing attention begun to rediscover their Orthodox religious roots. The Orthodox Church itself, which struggled to survive more than seventy years of state persecution, appears to have

6 been reborn like a phoenix from the ashes.7 In particular, in the last six years books on Russian religious philosophy have become so popular, widely published, and discussed that one may well speak of another religious renaissance in Russia at the turn of the 21st century. The relevance of the study of sophiology, a significant movement within the larger domain of Russian religious thought, is directly connected with this revival of Orthodox Christianity in Russia and the inclination toward a renewed religious consciousness in general throughout the world. Since the time of the October Revolution the transmission of the Russian religious and cultural tradition has been practically interrupted. The task, hence, which stands before contemporary Russian scholars is to assimilate the heritage of the Russian diaspora and to reinterpret the thought of the émigré thinkers in light of the present post-Soviet situation. More specifically, such scholarly work will serve as the foundation for a future ideology, which would allow Russia to join, and to determine its place in, the global community.8 The present book is seen by its author as just one in a series of ongoing steps toward this goal. It seeks to contribute to the process of Russia's religious and cultural reintegration in several ways. As one of the first general accounts of modern Russian sophiology in the era of post-Soviet scholarship this monograph will attempt to enrich the general understanding and to fill in a significant gap in the study of the Christian religion. Then, by focusing the analysis on the relationship among Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism, as well as on the Orthodox approach to the spread of secularism,

7

For a discussion of the Orthodox Church in the 20th century see, for example, Dimitry V. Pospielovskii, Russkaia pravoslavnaia tserkov' v XX veke, Moscow: Respublika, 1995. 8

These issues are discussed with more details in my paper "Liberation from the Soviet Past: A Reflection on the Possibility of Post-Gulag Theologies" published in Religion in Eastern Europe, vol. XIX, n.6 (1999), pp.1-14.

7 it also seeks to contribute to the spirit of ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue which has to prevail in the era of the "Global Village." Finally, this book introduces some of the original religious philosophical works written by Russian emigré thinkers and not yet translated and published in the English-speaking world. Theoretical Framework Model of Religious Cycle In order to approach the phenomenon of Russian sophiology as a complex, mixed intellectual reaction to the Reformation of the Western Church and to the crisis of Christianity in the 20th century, one has to formulate a general understanding of these two important landmarks in the history of the Christian religion. It is necessary because both the Protestant movement and the contemporary situation in "Christendom" themselves represent extremely broad topics, and their discussion is open to a variety of conflicting interpretations. The same is true of the cultural terms "modernity" and "postmodernity," which are often applied in different contexts and discourses (and are used in the monograph as well). To make all these important clarifications, it will be necessary to introduce a hypothetical model of the religious cycle, which serves as a working hypothesis in the discussion of Russian sophiological thought. It has to be mentioned that religion is a highly complicated issue about which to theorize. The study of religion is as broad and delicate as that of human culture itself. Traditional theism has always interpreted religion as a relationship between humanity and the supreme Divine Being. However, at the end of 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries European thinkers produced challenging theories, which have shaken the very foundations of religion and claimed to "scientifically" discover its origin and true role in society.

8 The characteristic feature of these new theories was their tendency to portray the positive content of religion as merely a projection of other human needs. This reductionist approach found its ardent defenders in the views of such European scholars as, Emile Durkheim, Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx. Durkheim, for instance, identified religion entirely with the social organization of human life. He arrived at this conclusion by abstracting the "essential features" of religion, and then reducing this essence to an other-than-religious form of human activity, namely, to social life.9 In the case of Freud and Marx, a similar strategy led to corresponding claims about psychology and economics.10 As a result, all three of the theories ignored the pattern of historical change in religion. Having once discovered its static nucleus the authors immediately lost interest in its dynamics, representing, as they thought, a parallel to the development of society, the human psyche11 or economics. The emphasis on the evolutionary understanding of religion, in its turn, is found in the works of Max Weber.12 In his work the German sociologist concentrated on the dynamics of the relationship between the religious Reformation of Western Christianity and the capitalist developments in economics. An evolutionary approach toward religion with a focus on Protestantism still finds its adherents among contemporary scholars. 9

See, Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. (Translated from the French by Joseph W. Swain). New York: The Free Press, 1965. 10

For an exposition of the views of Freud and Marx on religion see, for example, Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion. (Translated by W. D. Robson-Scott). New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 1955; and Karl Marx & Frederick Engels, On Religion, Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1957. 11

The former disciple of Freud, Carl Jung, shared this static approach toward religion with the exception that he recognized its independent and positive values as the expression of the deepest levels of the human collective unconsciousness. See, for example, Carl G. Jung, Two Essays on Analytical Psychology. 2nd. edition. (Translated by R. F. C. Hull). Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977. 12

See, for example, Max Weber, The Sociology of Religion. (Translated from the fourth German edition by Ephraim Fischoff). Boston: Beacon Press, 1964.

9 Robert Bellah, for example, proposes a typology of evolutionary stages of religion including primitive, archaic, historic, early modern or of Protestant origin, and modern stages.13 To each he ascribes a corresponding type of institutional expression, from shamanistic cults up to monotheistic ecclesia and present day denominationalism with its ecumenical spirit. In spite of the apparently hierarchical nature of the proposed scheme, its author argues that the evolved stages are not "higher" than the earlier ones, which still exist in modern-day societies. The understanding of religion developed in this monograph shares this evolutionary approach, but in a slightly different way than the theories presented above. To be sure, it does not pretend to discover the "origin" of religion or a static nucleus to which all the varieties of religious expressions can be reduced. It rather focuses on the dynamics of the development of religion in an attempt to grasp the regularities of this dynamic. Thus, let us suppose that any religious system consists of two main components, namely, the "revelatory" and the "interpretive" aspects. The term "revelatory" does not refer here to the idea of revelation found in Semitic religions, but depicts a specific property characteristic of any religious tradition. Apart from the life of the founder, his sayings and/or writings, the revelatory aspect commonly includes the lives of other people whose preaching acquires the status of ultimate authority within the community of believers. The scriptural texts, which belong to the revelatory aspect, are usually fixed; nothing can be changed in or added to them. In addition, these scriptures generally have different degrees of authority like, for example, the Vedas as compared to the Upanishads in Hinduism or Torah in contrast to other prophetic writings in Judaism.

13

See, Robert N. Bellah, Beyond Belief: Essays on Religion in a Post-Traditional World. New-York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1970.

10 The "interpretive" aspect of religion essentially differs from its revelatory side, whether concerning human beings or texts, by not being invested with unlimited authority within the community of the faithful. The interpretive side is represented by religious leaders commonly appointed as legitimate successors of the established revelatory teaching of the faith. They exercise a legal authority over believers based on the right to interpret but never to replace the primary scriptural writings. The evolution of a religious system, hence, can be understood as the interaction of its revelatory and interpretive sides. As social organism, it passes through certain stages of development, namely, birth, growth, maturity, and decline. The transition from one stage of the cycle to another proceeds through the crisis of revelation or interpretation. The interpretive or "structural" crisis of religion is usually resolved by the appearance of innovative interpretations within the existing tradition. The revelatory or "systemic" crisis, in its turn, is typically overcome by the creation of new religious movements. Transformation of Christianity How can this hypothetical model or religious cycle be applied to the subject of the present study, the Christian religion? To begin with, the religious cycle usually starts in response to the systemic crisis of a mother religion by a consecutive birth of another tradition in the midst of the old one. Thus, Christianity and Buddhism, for instance, were born in the midst of Judaism and Hinduism. It is interesting to note in passing that Buddhism was not the only surviving answer to the challenge of the Hindu crisis. At the same time the establishment of the young traditions of Christianity and Buddhism gave a new impulse to their mother religions as well. Jews adapted to the growth of Christianity by creating in the conditions of exile the unique religious institution of Rabbinic Judaism. As for Hinduism, its successful

11 one-thousand-year competition with Buddhism ended up with an almost complete disappearance of Buddhism from its motherland. Christianity, as previously mentioned, appeared as a sect within the Jewish tradition. Its founder's life and the unique spiritual experience of the resurrection served as the impetus for the subsequent growth of Christianity as an independent religion. The life story and the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth were also the focus of the Gospels, which had been written and compiled by Christ's followers drawing on earlier sources. Along with the other writings of the New Testament, these texts acquired the status of primary scriptural authority in the Christian religion. In addition to the life of the founder, Jesus Christ, and to the Sacred canon, the revelatory aspect of Christianity is represented by the work of the Apostles who poured out the "new wine" of the Christian religion to the generations of believers. Among the Apostles, perhaps Paul played the most important role in promoting the Christian teaching. His message was basically fourfold. Paul taught that Christ was indeed the Messiah; that Christ suffered for the sins of humanity; that He attained victory over death; and that those who have faith in Christ acquire the gift of eternal life. The interpretive aspect of the Christian religion as embodied in the history of the Church produced four main divisions, the Early, the Orthodox, the Catholic, and the Protestant forms of Christianity, each in its own way developing the Apostle Paul's vision. Thus, the Early Church was primarily preoccupied with the formation of the Christian canon centered on the messiaship of Jesus. Christian theologians of the first centuries after Christ, known as the "Fathers of the Church," were especially interested in an adequate understanding of Christ's God-Manhood. After many discussions and controversies, in the 4th century the Council of Nicea at last agreed upon the formulation of the classic Christian creed. In the same century final consensus was also achieved regarding the status and structure of the Christian Scriptures. The inclusion of the Book of Revelation in the New Testament ended the

12 formation of the Christian Scriptural canon and the epoch of the Early Church. Under the Emperor Constantine Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, possessing the established Sacred texts as well as the tradition preserved and continued by the Church. The next stage in the development of the interpretive side of Christianity is manifested in Orthodoxy. The Orthodox form of the Christian religion freezes the balance between the Scriptural texts and their interpretation as formulated by the Early Church. The continuity of tradition through its uninterruptedness, which is the heart of Orthodoxy, is perfectly expressed in a precise formula: "The Sacred Scripture is the written tradition; the Sacred tradition is the living Scripture." Another characteristic feature of the Orthodox form of Christianity--as well as of any religious Orthodoxy, perhaps--is its internal resistance to innovation. In the Orthodox context an innovative change is regarded as a break in the tradition, which calls for a re-interpretation of what has already been established. It should also be said that as compared to another interpretive division of Christianity, Catholicism, which emphasizes Christ's suffering, Christian Orthodoxy focuses more on Christ's resurrection. Despite this and many other differences in interpretation, however, these two divisions of the interpretive aspect of Christianity are in many ways alike. Thus, both of them carefully preserve traditional teachings and rituals and pay great respect to the chain of authoritative interpretations appropriate for each confession. Both also esteem highly the institutional unity within the congregation and rely on a Church hierarchy purportedly established by the Apostles and their legitimate successors. Protestantism as an offshoot of the Catholic confession and a fourth interpretive division within the Christian religion, on the contrary, seems to differ significantly from both Catholicism and Orthodoxy. As a religious movement, Protestantism, in fact, represented a new interpretation of the Christian Sacred Tradition, which consisted of rejecting all previous interpretations in favor of the

13 revelatory aspect of Christianity manifested in the Bible. The main slogan of the Reformation was the appeal to come back to the sources of revelation: "Sola Scriptura!" As a result, the center of religious life in Protestantism gradually shifted from the Orthodox and Catholic focus on tradition to an emphasis on the individual understanding of the Word of God. In a sense, the Protestant praise for innovative interpretation was especially antagonistic to the Orthodox adherence to the heritage of the Sacred Tradition. The rise of Protestantism in Europe was a response to what is called here a structural crisis of religion and represented an appearance of a new interpretation of the same revelation. However, from approximately the middle of the 19th century European Christianity has undergone a systemic crisis. In contrast to the restructuring of religion, which challenges the existing interpretations, but never doubts the subject of interpretation itself, which is revelation, the systemic crisis of religious authority is always marked by the loss of faith in the revelatory side of religion, be it people or texts. Thus, the previously unshakable authority of the Bible in Europe and Russia was contaminated with doubts. The historical authenticity of both the Old and New Testaments was questioned. Doubts in the authenticity of revelation were paralleled by the spread of materialism, atheism, nihilism, and revolutionary enthusiasm. The culmination of these processes was the creation of the Soviet Union, a gigantic atheistic empire that survived for three quarters of a century in the face of immeasurable internal and external obstacles to its existence. Religion in Postmodern Time To formulate more precisely the specificity of the contemporary crisis of Christianity, as it is understood in the book I will introduce two more concepts, namely, those of "modernity" and "postmodernity." It is worth noting that many Western thinkers usually connect the coming of modernity with the Enlightenment.

14 Thus, an ardent defender of the "incomplete project of modernity," the German philosopher Juergen Habermas, explains: The project of modernity formulated in the 18th century by the philosophers of the Enlightenment consisted in their efforts to develop objective science, universal morality and law, and autonomous art according to their inner logic.14 Habermas' French colleague, Michel Foucault in his article "What is Enlightenment," also argues that: “Modern philosophy is the philosophy that is attempting to answer the question raised so imprudently two centuries ago: Was ist Aufklarung?”15 Foucault himself is inclined to characterize modernity not as a historical epoch but rather as a special attitude, "a mode of relating to contemporary reality," commonly described “in terms of consciousness of the discontinuity of time: a break with tradition, a feeling of novelty, of vertigo in the face of the passing moment...”16 In other words, it is a style of life which since its inception has found itself in a constant struggle with the attitude of "counter modernity."17 Most of the proposed approaches to modern times, including those described above, share one important feature. Whether describing modernity as a unique style or historical epoch centered on the Enlightenment or, perhaps, the Renaissance,18 it is depicted as based on cultural, but not religious, periodization. The same cultural thesis seems to be highly characteristic of mainstream postmodern thought as well. 14

Juergen Habermas, "Modernity - An Incomplete Project." The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays On PostModern Culture. Edited by H. Foster. Port Townsend, Wa: Bay Press, 1983, p.9. 15

Michel Foucault, "What is Enlightenment?" (Trans. by Catharine Porter). The Foucault Reader. Edited by Paul Rabinow. New York: Pantheon Books, 1984, p.32. 16

Ibid., p.39.

17

For more on the distinction between the (post)modern historical epoch and style see, for example, Frederick Jameson, Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1991. 18

A thinker who associated the Renaissance with the beginning of modernity was Nikolai Berdiaev. For a discussion of his theory see Chapter 6 of this book.

15 Contemporary thinkers in fact do not relate postmodernism to religion in general or to the Reformation in particular. On the contrary, they seem to take for granted the lack of any religious foundation as the already-given intellectual situation. They trace the genealogy of postmodernism in terms of a gradual loss of authority. Thus, the traditional society built upon religious foundations was replaced, in their views, by the Enlightenment model of society, the function of which was primarily based on the indisputable authority of science. The coming of the postmodern age, in its turn, is related to the deconstruction of any single authoritative discourse, be it religious or scientific, and an attempt to find an orientation in a polysemantic intellectual field of dispersed powers. Needless to say, this main standpoint leads postmodern thinkers to endless attacks on the project of the Enlightenment, which operates with the notions and categories of an atemporal, objective--i.e. “modern scientific”--world view.19 Among the opponents of the postmodern trend of thought who have also brought attention to the religious aspects of the concept of modernity is Juergen Habermas. By tracing the etymology of the term "modern," Habermas demonstrates that its usage had a long history going back to the distinction between the Ancients and the Moderns. He writes, for instance, that this word “in the Latin form "modernus" was used for the first time in the late 5th century in order to distinguish the present, which has become officially Christian, from the Roman and pagan past.”20 The author of the monograph shares this religiously- oriented understanding of modern times, but, in contrast to Habermas, does not apply the term modernity to 19

For a more detailed discussion of postmodernism, see, for example, Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Differand: Phrases in Dispute, (translated by George Van Den Abbrele) and The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, (translated by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1988 and 1991. 20

Habermas, "Modernity - An Incomplete Project," The Anti-Aesthetic, p.3.

16 the Christian religion as opposed to the previous paganism nor to a specific cultural paradigm within Christianity, such as the Renaissance or the Enlightenment. Instead this term is used in the present work to denote the structural crisis of Christianity, the result of which was the Reformation of the Western Church. In its turn, the term postmodernity here refers--but not exclusively--to the ongoing systemic crisis of the Christian religion. The point is that the specificity of postmodern times consists of the systemic crisis of at least three world religions--Islam, Buddhism and Christianity. Indeed, postmodernity is a unique phase in the recorded history of humankind: it is the age of the global religious crisis. In fact, the former Soviet Union represented a truly postmodern empire, which affected the lives of peoples who professed all three major religious traditions. It is no surprise that Russian Orthodox thinkers became deeply affected by and very sensitive to what is called here modern, and especially postmodern, times. Because of various historical circumstances, as well as the specificity of its own evolution, Russia responded comparatively late to the challenge of Protestantism. During the 18th and 19th centuries modern Russian thought developed quickly from absorbing and assimilating the ideas of modernity to preparing itself for the coming postmodern era. The appearance and popularity of the concept of Sophia, which symbolized the meeting of God with humankind, the interaction between divine and human wisdom, was quite natural in times of such a religious turmoil. The Russian sophiological school, which appeared, as mentioned, in the late 19th century, however, brings with it the often irreconcilable dualism of a mixed response to both the modern and postmodern challenges. When analyzing the formulation and elaboration of the concept of Sophia in modern Russian thought, one must

17 distinguish, therefore, between these two trends and trace how certain Orthodox circles have dealt on an intellectual level both with Protestant thought as well as with the secular thought mostly characteristic of 20th-century culture. Design of the Work Remarks on Methodology The theoretical framework, which was presented in the previous section of the chapter, constitutes an organic part of the methodology used in this monograph. It formulates the author's mode of entering the discussion of Russian sophiology and determines its focus and direction. The discussion itself is accomplished by the use of two basic methods: a historical and a comparative one, which complement each other in the course of the study. Broadly speaking, the historical method consists of the analysis of the subject of study in the context of its historical background, development and influence. This method is used in order to understand the nature, present condition and future potential of the subject matter through its historical development. In the book the method is applied to the study of the evolution of the concept of Sophia and its different aspects in modern Russian thought. In particular, the historical method is used first of all in those parts of the monograph, which deal with the investigation into the historical sources of Russian sophiological thought. This refers to an overview of distinct approaches to the concept of wisdom found in different epochs and cultures, primarily in the ancient Greek and the Judeo-Christian world. This also includes a discussion of the historical roots and the beginning of modern Russian religious thought as well as of its different aspects such as, for example, ontological, epistemological, and political doctrines.

18 The historical method is also applied in the book when the author describes the intellectual evolution of a particular thinker in general, and/or of his sophiological ideas in particular. In some way or another this method is used in the study of the four main figures--Vladimir Solov'ev, Fr. Sergii Bulgakov, Nikolai Losskii, and Nikolai Berdiaev. At the same time, despite the special emphasis on the views of these thinkers, the monograph is not intended to be another study of certain thinkers. The point is that in most books on Russian religious thought the historical method is usually applied in the form of a history of personalities. Thus, the Russian religious-philosophical tradition is presented as merely the history of philosophers and not the history of ideas. Most recently, however, with the publication in Russia of many studies devoted to specific aspects and/or schools within the tradition of Russian thought, this formerly dominant approach seems to be seriously challenged.21 This study joins the recent tendency by concentrating on the history of thought, rather than on the lives and works of particular persons. In addition to and in conjunction with the historical method, the author employs the comparative method. The comparative method in general consists of the analysis of the different attributes of the subject of study as compared with and contrasted to each other. This strategy may be also applied with or without a reference to the historical change in the subject itself. In particular, the comparative method is used in the monograph to analyze different aspects of the religious-philosophical concept of Sophia in contrast to each other as well as to other relevant religious-philosophical themes and concepts. The comparisons are accomplished with a consideration of the changes in the understanding of Sophia by individual thinkers and/or of the historical development 21

Two of the many examples are: Vladimir N. Akulinin, Filosofia vseedinstva: Ot V.S. Solov'eva k P.A. Florenskomu, Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1990; and R. A. Gal'tseva, Ocherki russkoi utopicheskoi mysli XX veka, Moscow: Nauka, 1992.

19 of sophiology in general. Furthermore, the comparative method is applied on the following different, but inter-dependent, levels. First, the comparisons and contrasts are made in relation to the evolution of the religious-philosophical views of a certain thinker, which refers, for example, to the analysis of Solov'ev's and Fr. Bulgakov's sophiologies. Next, the thought of several thinkers is compared with regard to a particular religious-philosophical theme or concept. As in other circumstances, this does not always refer specifically to Sophia, for instance, as in the case of the discussion of Chaadaev's, Khomiakov's and Solov'ev's respective perceptions of Protestantism. Finally, comparisons are drawn as related to a certain topic without a reference to individual thinkers. The Scope of the Study Modern Russian sophiology is a huge topic and its study requires the student to accept certain restrictions so as not to make the results of the study too broad and vague. Some of these restrictions relating to the specific perspectives from which sophiology is analyzed in this work have been already mentioned in the previous parts of the chapter. Here I will briefly summarize the most important and provide more explanatory details. First, the study focuses on the religious-philosophical side of Russian sophiology and, therefore, a discussion of its artistic, mystical, or other aspects is usually avoided or reduced to a minimum. That is also why in most cases, except those directly linked to the personified character of wisdom, Sophia is referred to as "it" and not "she." One has to note, however, that in the Russian language words have gender, and Sophia (premudrost') as a feminine noun is always "she." The depersonification of this term in English, which would apparently lead to its

20 impoverishment, nonetheless seems appropriate because in this book the term refers to a religious-philosophical concept.22 Another restriction refers to a study of sophiology in relation to the rise of Protestantism and the 20th-century crisis of religion. Such a specific focus of the work determines the direction of analysis, which selects some and rejects other possible themes for discussion. In this particular case the chosen themes include, for example, the relation among major Christian confessions, and the comparison of distinct ontological, epistemological and political philosophies. Finally, the last important restriction to be noted here is connected with the study of the thinkers whose ideas are presented in the monograph. On the one hand, side-by-side with the sophiologies of Solov'ev, Bulgakov, Losskii and Berdiaev the views of a number of other important figures are discussed as well. On the other hand, information regarding the life and intellectual evolution of individual thinkers has been reduced to the extent needed for the general plan of research. Thus, the summary of a general philosophical outlook is provided in the monograph only in the discussion of Losskii and Berdiaev--in those chapters which deal more with the philosophical aspects of sophiology. Accordingly, the theological views of Solov'ev and Bulgakov are analyzed in the context of the different periods of their creative activity. Also in the appendixes to the monograph will be found tables with the most important dates in the lives and major religious-philosophical works of each of these four main thinkers. As for minor figures, the reader will be referred to a specific book from which he or she can find information about this person's life, work and general worldview. For some other thinkers only the dates of life are provided for the convenience of the reader.

22

As compared to the feminine noun Sophia, the word "God" (Bog) in the Russian language has a masculine gender and is traditionally referred to as "He," which is accepted in the monograph.

21 Structure of the Book The monograph consists of two parts, each including three chapters, which are summarized in a conclusion. The first, introductory, chapter presents the subject of the study, and the purpose and relevance of the project. It also discusses the methodology of research and describes the design of the work by focusing on its scope and overall structure. The second chapter puts the subject of study--modern Russian sophiology-in a historical context. It begins with a brief overview of the variety of approaches to the idea of wisdom in ancient civilizations, including ancient African, Near Eastern and Asian cultures. Then it specifically concentrates on the three main sources of Russian sophiological thought which seem to be the ancient Greek and the JudeoChristian traditions. Each of these historical sources is discussed with reference to the doctrines about wisdom, or Sophia, which later become explicitly developed in Russian thought. Thus, the understanding of wisdom as an integrative principle is emphasized in the discussion of the ancient Greek heritage. The demonization of Sophia in Gnostic religious teaching is taken into consideration as well. Judeo-Christian Scriptures introduce another set of ideas about wisdom, the most important of which, for our purposes, are the personification of wisdom, the distinction between its divine and human aspects, and the association of Sophia with Christ. The Christian Sacred Tradition, in its turn, adds to this the Trinitarian approach toward and the distinction between created and uncreated wisdom. The chapter ends with an analysis of secular developments of the concept of wisdom in the West in resistance to which Russian sophiology was born and evolved. The third chapter of the book opens with a discussion of Russian sophiological thought. It focuses on its beginning again by setting it in a historical context, namely, by tracing the relationship between modern Russia and the West. The search for Russia's religious identity is analyzed in comparison with Western

22 Christendom--first Catholicism and then Protestantism. Accordingly, the two major ideological movements of the 19th century Russia, Westernism and Slavophilism, with their late modifications as a reaction mainly to the rise of Protestantism, are discussed in the chapter. These two seemingly opposite ideological movements represent what is depicted in the monograph as the radicalization of an Orthodox Christian consciousness often distinctive by its exclusivistic and nationalistic claims. In contrast to this "revival," another position taken toward the Western confessions is described in terms of the Orthodox "renewal." This was the position of Vladimir Solov'ev. The two periods of Solov'ev's mature intellectual activity, which correspond to his assessment of Catholicism and especially, Protestantism, and his later disappointment with all the historical forms of Christianity are discussed in the second section of the chapter. The last section is devoted specifically to Solov'ev's sophiological teaching. It discusses Solov'ev's sophiology in the three distinct aspects--theological, ontological and aesthetic--, which become the focus of the analysis in relation to other thinkers in the next three chapters. The second part of the monograph begins with the fourth chapter, devoted entirely to the development of sophiological doctrines in the field of theology. Here the analysis starts with the initial formulations of theological sophiology, which deals with the hypostatization of Sophia by Fr. Pavel Florenskii and young Fr. Sergii Bulgakov, and with the consecutive problem of created and uncreated wisdom. The second section of the chapter considers the Trinitarian sophiology defended by Fr. Bulgakov in his mature years. The last part of the chapter discusses the critique of the Bulgakovian sophiology by such thinkers as Fr. Vasilii Zenkovskii, Fr. Georgii Florovskii, Nikolai and Vladimir Losskii. The chapter concludes with a brief exposition to the ecclesiastical reaction, which followed the publication of the sophiological works by Fr. Bulgakov in the course of which he and other sophiologists were accused of initiating a new Christian heresy.

23 The fifth chapter discusses Russian sophiological thought in relation to modern philosophical discourse. It begins by putting the development of modern thought in the context of the European philosophical tradition, primarily classical German idealism. Then it focuses on some specific features of the epistemological theories proposed by Russian religious thinkers and presents several sophiological doctrines directly linked to these intuitivistic epistemologies as well as to the socalled metaphysics of total-unity. The second section of the chapter provides a summary of Nikolai Losskii's philosophical outlook, including his epistemology, ontology and religious philosophy. Based on this general introduction to Losskii's worldview, the third section discusses the peculiarities of his sophiology, which is not connected with the Solov'evian idea of total-unity. The chapter ends with an analysis of the implications of Losskii's sophiology for his political philosophy. The sixth and last chapter continues the study of sophiology in the philosophical context, and is centered on the aesthetic aspect of sophiology. The chapter begins with an exposition of Nikolai Berdiaev's philosophical views, which encompass his religious philosophy, ontology, and philosophy of history. Next, it proceeds to the analysis of Berdiaev's sophiology, which underwent a significant transformation in his thought. Berdiaev's understanding of Sophia as beauty is then connected to his demonization of wisdom and finally to his famous doctrine of the uncreated freedom. The last section of the chapter discusses the postmodern themes of Berdiaev's philosophy, which include his assessment of 20th century historical events, especially the phenomenon of communism, the progress of technology and the return of religion. The chapter is followed by a conclusion, which summarizes the discussion of the genealogy and the evolution of Russian sophiology in the 19th and 20th centuries.

24

25

Chapter 2 Historical Background

Wisdom in Ancient Thought Variety of Approaches The concept of wisdom has a truly international significance. Its traces can be found in all the civilizations of the earth. The sage or the wise person who teaches how to master one's life is one of the favorite folk story characters around the globe. At the same time, in spite of an enormous popularity, the very broad and widespread idea of "wisdom" escapes a precise and all-embracing definition. Broadly speaking, the terms "wisdom" and "wise" may "apply to human efforts to master the self, society or the environment."23 Wisdom is also described as "the power of judging rightly and following the soundest course of action based on knowledge, experience, understanding, etc."24 In most cultures wisdom is usually associated with traditional thought. The fruits of wisdom are not considered to belong exclusively to the work of a single thinker, but are thought to reflect the experience of generations of people. The living 23

Barry L. Bandstra. Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1994, p.425. 24

Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language. David B. Guralnim, Editor in Chief. Second College Edition. Cleveland, OH: William Collins Publishers, 1979, p.1632.

26 stream of tradition, which collects all the treasures of the spoken and written word is usually transmitted from parents to children century after century. Traditional wisdom also is often associated with religious teachings. Wisdom writings, which existed in the ancient Near Eastern civilizations of Egypt and Mesopotamia serve as a good example of this important connection. Thus, the core of the Egyptian sapiential literature, for instance, is expressed in the concept of ma'at, commonly rendered into English as "truth" or "justice" and having a clearly theological meaning. According to ancient Egyptian theologians, ma'at denotes the eternal order in the cosmos as established by the supreme Creator Deity. It is also applied to the social dimension of human life and represents the order of society. Finally, it refers to the individually wise person who is able to follow the guidelines of wisdom. Such regulations of ma'at were believed to have been formulated as wisdom instructions, enabling the sages to understand one's proper place in the natural and social network and to live in tune with the whole of creation. Ancient Egyptians believed, furthermore, that the order of ma'at is maintained by means of the law of retribution regulated by the primeval deity. According to the doctrine of retribution, in its ultimate results a wise/righteous act leads to a beneficial result, whereas a foolish/wicked action leads to the punishment and possibly the destruction of the perpetrator, and, at times, even the social unit or units with which the offender is associated.25 The sages of Egypt insisted that, through their activity, the supreme Deity advances order and justice in the state and promotes the wealth and prosperity of its citizens. The majority of religious teachings, including those in Hinduism, Zoroastrianism and the religions of the Semitic root, attributed wisdom primarily to 25

Leo G. Perdue. Wisdom and Cult: A Critical Analysis of the Views of Cult in the Wisdom Literatures of Israel and the Ancient Near East. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1977, p.21.

27 divinity. There is, however, at least one remarkable exception found in the Buddhist wisdom tradition commonly associated with the development of Prajnaparamita or the Perfection of Wisdom literature.26 In the context of Buddhist religion the concept of prajna is exactly what is denoted in English scholarship by the term "wisdom." Strictly speaking, prajna is, as Williams puts it, “a mental event, a state of consciousness, normally in the Indo-Tibetan Buddhist context a state of consciousness which results from analysis, investigation.”27 The analysis, in its turn, is said to be on two levels. The mundane or conventional prajna results from investigation into worldly affairs. The deeper prajna, however, represents the "understanding, which results from an investigation into the way things really are."28 A theoretical investigation of wisdom in Buddhism turns to its practical implementation, which is supposed to generate an infinite compassion toward all beings. When following this path those who aim at enlightenment master a number of perfections. The perfections of lesser importance--namely, of giving, morality, patience, effort, meditative concentration--are believed to be led by the perfection of wisdom. The latter provides the state of complete selflessness in which perfect deeds are carried out without any purpose or simply for their own sake. Thus, the perfection of giving, for example, becomes of the highest order when it is performed "with no conception of an inherent existence of giver, gift, or receiver, that is, it is giving in the light of perfect prajna."29 26

Scholars refer the elaboration of its basic text to the first century B.C.-100 C.E. They also connect the origin of the Perfection of Wisdom sutras with the beginning of Mahayana Buddhism, for at the present in scholarship they appear to represent perhaps the earliest Mahayana sutras. For a general discussion on the topic, see, Paul Williams, Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. London & New York: Routledge, 1991. 27

Williams, Mahayana Buddhism, p.42.

28

Ibid., p.43.

29

Ibid., p.45.

28 From all these different approaches to wisdom, which have a lot in common but also reflect the peculiarities of the philosophical and religious traditions from which they originated, we have to choose those which specifically influenced the object of our study, namely, modern Russian sophiology. It has to be remembered that the historical background of Russian culture in general included the ancient pagan Greek heritage, the Christian Scriptures and the Orthodox Sacred Tradition. These very sources shaped Russian sophiological thought as well and will be briefly discussed in the following sections. The Integrative Principle The heritage of ancient Greek thought may be considered one of the sources of modern Russian sophiology for a simple reason. The Greeks were the first in the Western philosophical tradition to introduce the concept of wisdom or Sophia into the philosophical vocabulary and consequently to analyze it as a philosophical category. They invented the very term "philosophy," or love of wisdom, which designated a special science different from the sciences about nature. Of course, Russians have learned the wisdom of ancient Greeks in a form already assimilated by Hellenic Christianity. However, the impact of pagan thought, especially of Platonism, on the Russian soil was nevertheless extremely important.30 Not without reason, one of the 20th-century followers of Vladimir Solov'ev, Aleksei Losev (1893-1988), when being deprived by the Soviet authorities of the possibility of publishing philosophical manuscripts, turned to the study of ancient aesthetics and completed an exhaustive survey of its thousand-year history.31 In one 30

For a discussion of the "Platonic drama of Russian thought" and its attraction to the "Platonic tendency to integrate philosophical and religious teachings and to implement them politically"(p.58), see, Mikhail Epstein, "The Phoenix of Philosophy: On the Meaning and Significance of Contemporary Russian Thought," SYMPOSION. A Journal of Russian Thought, Vol. 1, 1996, pp.35-73. 31

See: Aleksei F. Losev, Istoriia antichnoi estetiki, 8 vols., Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1963-1994.

29 of the concluding volumes of this monumental work Losev gives a brief account of ancient "sophiologies" and a summary of different uses of the category of wisdom.32 Here he emphasizes an integrative function of this category, a characteristic, we should say, which will also become central in its later Russian modifications. In ancient pagan thought focused on the material-sensuous world, the term Sophia denoted the integration of "expressed objectivity and meaningfulness that expresses." Broadly speaking, as Losev points out, it meant "any meaningful activity, ability, skill and, in general, teleological activity of any kind."33 After Socrates, however, the Greeks emphasized the intellectual rather than the practical aspect of Sophia. Socrates himself understood wisdom as the "wholeness of mind not reducible to any separate and specific functions of pure thinking."34 Such an intellectualist interpretation of wisdom was developed later by Plato, who thought of it in terms of the "mind and the sphere of meaning in general in the aspect of their practical-technical purposefulness."35 In another place Losev notes that "in its most general form Plato defines wisdom as the greatest consonance."36 Thus, Plato writes in Laws, book III: “The fairest and greatest of consonances may very properly be called the greatest wisdom. In this wisdom he who lives by rule has his share, while he who is without it will invariably be found to be a waster of his substance.”37 Plato then separates real wisdom based on knowledge from the illusory 32

Aleksei F. Losev. "Termin sofiia." Istoriia antichnoi estetiki. Itogi tysiacheletnego razvitiia. Vol. 8, Book II. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1994, pp.220-232. 33

Ibid., p.220.

34

Ibid., p. 224.

35

Ibid., p. 225.

36

Aleksei F. Losev. Istoriia antichnoi estetiki: Sofisty, Sokrat, Platon. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1969, p.479. 37

Plato. Laws. The Collected Dialogues of Plato Including the Letters. (Translated by A. E. Taylor) Edited by Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963, 289d.

30 one, which is related to human vanity and self-interest, and salutes true wisdom for, as he says, a person "should think it shame to speak of wisdom and knowledge as anything but the most powerful elements in human life."38 Plato's most famous disciple, Aristotle, in his own philosophy restates this integrative-intellectual approach toward Sophia. Distinguishing wisdom from the perception of sensible things, Aristotle defines it in his Metaphysics as "knowledge of the original causes."39 In the Nichomacean Ethics he makes a further distinction between theoretical wisdom and its practical counterpart, the former being "the most finished of the forms of knowledge."40 He states here that “[w]isdom must be comprehension combined with knowledge--knowledge of the highest objects which has received as it were its proper completion.”41 The dialectic of ancient sophiology finds its logical culmination and ultimate expression, according to Losev's analysis, in the teaching of Plotinus and his disciples. Thus, Plotinus also understands wisdom as a "pure intelligible sphere, but that which has its own becoming or life which is intelligible as well." That is why here, as Losev writes, “mind is treated not just as meaningful being and not just as life but as a connection of the one and the other in something which must be called a living entity or living entities.”42

38

Plato, Protagoras, (Trans. by W. K. C. Guthrie), ibid., 352d.

39

Aristotle. Metaphysics. The Complete Works. The Revised Oxford Translation, 2 vols. (Bollingen Series LXXI.2) (Trans. and edited by Jonathan Barnes). Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984, Book I, Ch.3, 983a24. 40

Aristotle, Nichomacean Ethics, ibid., VI, 7, 1141a15.

41

Ibid., 1141a17-19.

42

Losev, Istoriia antichnoi estetiki, Vol. 8, Book II, p.226.

31

Demonized Sophia Our discussion of pagan sophiologies would not be complete without addressing the complex religious and intellectual movement of the first centuries after Christ known as Gnosticism.43 The point here is that the personified Sophia is present as a main character in many of the Gnostic texts.44 Moreover, in parallel with the Orthodox Christian understanding of wisdom, Sophia is often portrayed in Gnosticism in close connection with Christ. One of the Gnostic treatises rediscovered with the Nag Hammadi Library in 1945 bears a title directly linking the two characters. This manuscript, entitled The Sophia of Jesus Christ

and composed

approximately in the latter half of the first century, contains a gnostic vision of cosmology which aims at delivering a hidden knowledge about an invisible reality beyond the visible world. As the risen Christ explains to his disciples in the text, the concealed region is ruled by a hierarchy of five principal divine beings; Unbegotten Father; his reflection, called Self-Father; Self-Father's hypostatized power, Immortal Man, who is androgynous; Immortal Man's androgynous son, Son of Man; and Son of Man's androgynous son, the Saviour... the names of the female aspects of the last three include the term Sophia.45

43

For a general discussion of Gnostic religion see Benjamin Walker. Gnosticism. Its History and Influence. Wellingborough, Northamptonshire: The Aquarian Press, 1983; and Giovanni Filoramo. A History of Gnosticism. (Translated by A. Alcock). Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, 1990. 44

For more information on the feminine imagery of Sophia in Gnostic tradition see: Deirde J. Good. Reconstructing the Tradition of Sophia in Gnostic Literature. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1987; and Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism. Karen L. King, editor. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988. 45

The Nag Hammadi Library in English. (Translated and introduced by members of the Coptic Gnostic Library project of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity in Claremont, California under the editorship of James M. Robinson. 3rd. edition. San Francisco: Harper, 1988, p.220.

32 Later the name Sophia is specifically applied to one being that is directly identified with Christ: First Man is called 'Begetter, Self-Reflected Mind'. He reflected with Great Sophia, his consort, and revealed his first begotten, androgynous son. His male name is designated 'First Begetter, Son of God'; his female name, 'First Begetress Sophia, Mother of the Universe'... First-begotten is called 'Christ'.46 This mysterious Sophia here, as in many other gnostic stories, is held responsible for the fall of the beams of light from the divine world to the visible reality. The work of Jesus as the Savior in its turn consists of ending human ignorance and bringing to earth a unique salvific knowledge, which reveals the Kingdom of the Son of Man. Despite many striking similarities in the description of Christ as Sophia in Gnostic texts and the New Testament there is a substantial difference between these two traditions.47 Gnostic teachings, and especially those of Christian Gnosticism, describe Sophia as the center of creation, which links the unknowable God to the world of matter. However, in contrast to Orthodox Christian doctrine, the very creation of this world is portrayed by Gnostics, with slight variations, as the "fall of Sophia" which can be restored by the salvific activity of Christ. In other words, the origin of evil, which in classical Christianity is attributed to human beings (the original sin of Adam), in Gnosticism turns out to be the fault of the heavenly aeon, Sophia, who is also able to correct this tragic mistake by act of self-redemption through Christ. This distinction brings an inevitable ambiguity into the Gnostic sophiological teachings, for in most of them Sophia is said to possess a dark, demonic side. The nature of the fatal duality of the Gnostic Sophia again is appropriately explained by 46 47

Ibid., p.231.

For a specific discussion of the differences between Christian Gnosticism and Orthodoxy see: Kurt Rudolph. Gnosis. The Nature and History of Gnosticism. (Translated by P. W. Coxon, K. H. Kuhn and R. McL. Wilson). Edited by Robert M. Wilson. San Francisco: Harper, 1987.

33 Aleksei Losev.48 In Losev's view, Gnosticism organically combined two religious intuitions, which seem incompatible with each other. On the one hand, it was driven by the new intuition of the absolute personalism of Christianity, but, on the other hand it inherits the characteristic features of pagan cosmology. God is treated by Gnostics as an ideal person different from the pre-unity of pagan philosophers. At the same time, in Gnosticism this God possesses all the imperfections of human nature and the material cosmos, and acts in a limited and dramatically human way. It is no surprise, therefore, that the character of Sophia has taken the central place in so many Gnostic systems. Gnostic thinkers pictured it as the living entity, which symbolized the integration of divine perfections and the sinful world of matter. Sophia, thus, as Losev argues, represents a unique Gnostic mode of thought which organically combines Christian and pagan elements, but cannot be reduced to either of them. Losev distinguishes the following important variants of this favorite Gnostic character of Sophia, depending upon the extent of its school's alienation from the absolute and personalistic monotheism of Christian Orthodoxy. Sophia's sin of desiring immediate relationship with the Father and later repentance shows the initial degree of such an alienation. Sophia's fault in rejecting her husband in the Pleroma, and the creation of the world according to her own plans, discloses a much more complex sin than the previous simple one of pride. The next variation depicts Sophia creating, not only the world, but also some of its principles, which makes her equal to the deity. One reads, for instance, in the treatise The Apocryphon of John, that Sophia is the mother of the head of evil powers, Yaltabaoth, who proclaims himself to be the true God: 48

See: Aleksei F. Losev. Istoriia antichnoi estetiki. Itogi tysiacheletnego razvitiia. Moscow: Isskusstvo, 1992. Vol.8, Book I, Part 3, Ch. III, pp.242-308.

34 And the Sophia... conceived a thought from herself... something came out of her which was imperfect and different from her appearance, because she has created it without her consort... And its eyes were like lightning fires, which flash... And she called his name Yaltabaoth.49 In another treatise called On the Origin of the World, this monstrous creatorgod Yaltabaoth, "lionlike in appearance, androgynous, having great authority within him, and ignorant of whence he had come into being" openly says: "I have no need of anyone... It is I who am God, and there is no other one who exists apart from me".50 When Sophia gives birth to this satanic, self-proclaimed god-like Yaltabaoth, she is already in need both of her own sincere repentance and an act of redemption performed by Christ, which returns Sophia to the Pleroma. There is, however, an even worse and last option in the Gnostic sophiology, which presents the ultimate degree of Sophia's fall and imperfection. She is compared here to a prostitute and becomes an eternal tutor of human sinfulness. She is also described, for instance, as the tempter of Cain, Abel's murderer, and of Judas, who betrayed Jesus. In all cases, as Losev points out, Sophia "is still formally one and the same, namely, an absolute deity in its complete unity with purely human imperfections".51 Russian sophiologists, of course, never depict their Sophia in such a degraded fashion. However, the tendency to view the divine Sophia as a dual entity, which combines both good and evil principles remains active in the sophiological doctrines of modern Russian thinkers as well. This "sophiological temptation" took captive the early Solov'ev, as well as Bulgakov and Berdiaev, who just as in ancient Gnostic systems, but each in his own terms, demonized Sophia when trying to understand the creation of the sinful world by the all-good and omnipotent Creator. 49

Nag Hammadi, p.110.

50

Ibid., pp.173, 175.

51

Losev, Istoriia antichnoi estetiki, Vol. 8, Book I, p.303.

35 Sacred Scriptures Personified Wisdom The understanding of wisdom found in the texts of the Old Testament was radically different from that of pagan antiquity. The ancient Jewish approach toward wisdom was expressed in the so- called Jewish wisdom writings. Biblical scholars usually include Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes and the wisdom psalms under this rubric, with an addition of such deutero-canonical works as The Wisdom of Solomon and Ben-Sirach. This vast body of wisdom literature was created over a very long period of time. Thus, Proverbs is believed to have originally been compiled as a separate collection of various sayings and later included in the Jewish canon. The book of Job is commonly dated as to the 5th century B.C.E. Ecclesiastes is considered by scholars much younger and is referred to the 3rd century. The Wisdom of Jesus Ben-Sirach is approximately the same age, while The Wisdom of Solomon was written two centuries later, in about 30 B.C.E.52 The legacy of Jewish wisdom, hence, was the result of a profound tradition, which took shape over several centuries and resulted in what may be called the wisdom school of thought as well as the wisdom way of life. However, the genre of "wisdom writings" does not go back to an original Hebrew definition, but represents a scholarly designation, which is applied to specific books of the Bible. In fact, the interest of Biblical scholarship in the Jewish wisdom literature was always intense

52

See, for example: O. S. Rankin. Israel's Wisdom Literature: Its Bearing on Theology and the History of Religion. New York: Schocken Books, 1969, (1st edition 1936). Here in the opening chapter under the wisdom rubric this author also considers some other Biblical as well as non-Biblical books.

36 and has significantly increased in the 20th century, especially since the Second World War.53 Contemporary study of the Jewish wisdom literature has taken several directions. Scholars have analyzed the wisdom tradition as it stands both within and outside the Bible.54 They have looked for the influences of wisdom literature upon other streams of Jewish culture.55 Many researchers have done scholarly work to put the wisdom tradition into a broader social and political context while seeking to learn its connections with certain social classes and types of political behavior.56 Finally, some of them have used wisdom literature, as well as recent scholarly investigations on the topic, to work on the task of providing a workable contact between the ancient but living past and the contemporary situation in theology.57 The completion of these many searches and a definitive conclusion about the Jewish wisdom tradition and its proper place in world culture are, perhaps, as far off as it was a century ago. Nonetheless certain general observations can be made on the basis of this research and the original Scriptural texts themselves. Thus, unlike the

53

A brief overview of wisdom scholarship after World War II is contained in Gerald T. Sheppard. Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct: A Study in the Sapientializing of the Old Testament. BerlinNew York: Walter de Gruyter, 1980, pp.1-12. 54

See, for example, a collection of essays entitled Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom. Selected with a Prolegomenon by James L. Crenshaw. New York: KTAV Publishing House, 1976; as well as a more recent work by Anthony Perry. Wisdom Literature and the Structure of Proverbs. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993. 55

See among other books, Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Robert L Wilken. Notre Dame-London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975. 56

On this topic see, for example, Joseph Blenkinsopp. Wisdom and Law in the Old Testament: The Ordering of Life in Israel and Early Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983; and also William McKane. Prophets and Wise Men. Naperville, Il: Alec R. Allenson, 1965. 57

See, Leo D. Lefebure, Toward a Contemporary Wisdom Christology: A Study of Karl Rahner and Norman Pittenger. Lanham, New York, London: University Press of America, 1988. This book, in my view, represents a remarkable example of this last option.

37 polytheistic ancient Greeks, the Hebrews developed the idea of one God, the supreme Person, and the omnipotent Creator. This Biblical personalism was reflected in the Jewish Scriptures in the personification of Wisdom as well. In the pages of the Bible Wisdom appears not an impersonal force or principle, but rather as a living entity which connects the transcendent and personal Creator with the creatures. She is portrayed now as a personified semi-deity, having a special mission in creation. Ben-Sirach mentions, for example, that "wisdom was created before all other things."(Sir.1:4)58 One finds here the word of Wisdom about herself as well: "Before the ages, in the beginning, he created me, and for all the ages I shall not cease to be." (Sir.24:10) Proverbs develop the same theme by emphasizing the primacy of Wisdom over creation: The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth... when he established the heavens, I was there. (Prov.8:22-24,27) Later in the same passage Wisdom's role in creation, and especially her relationship with humankind, is underlined. She says, for instance: When he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like a master worker, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the human race. (Prov.8:29-31) From the book of The Wisdom of Solomon one learns more about the nature, attributes and beneficial work of Lady Wisdom, this "fashioner of all things." Solomon's narrative tells also that Wisdom emanates from the Creator and represents a "spotless mirror of working" as well as "an image of his goodness". (Sol.7:26) She is one and remains in herself; she renews everything while making a 58

All references to the Bible are made from The Complete Parallel Bible with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books. New Revised Standard Version. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.

38 special contact with chosen people who become the messengers of her goodness. As it is written in the text, “in every generation she passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God, and prophets; for God loves nothing so much as the person who lives with wisdom.” (Sol.7:27-28) Wisdom develops, therefore, her relations to humanity through communication with specific individuals. In other words, she works in history and influences human affairs by guiding, teaching and saving her followers. The tenth chapter of The Wisdom of Solomon presents the story of Wisdom visiting and protecting the righteous ancestors back to Adam, the "firstformed father of the world, when he alone had been created". (Sol.10:1) Those who ignore Wisdom, on the contrary, are not just "hindered from recognizing the good, but also left for humankind a reminder of their folly, so that their failures could never go unnoticed". (Sol.10:8) Divine and Human Aspects It has to be said that the words "wisdom" (hokmah) and "wise" (hakam) are used in the Hebrew Scriptures in many and various contexts. Thus, Robert Scott, for example, argues in his book The Way of Wisdom that The primary meaning of hokmah is 'superior mental ability or special skill', with no necessary moral reference. Broadly speaking, the moral and religious element is a later enlargement of the meaning of the term.59 His colleague, John Rylaarsdam, accordingly, notes that the term "wisdom" is generally used in wisdom literature in at least four broad ways, such as (1) an individual's understanding of life... obtained by the use of all his natural endowments... (2) the accumulated lore of the past... produced by the sages... (3) an element of God, the divine intelligence... never wholly

59

Robert Scott. The Way of Wisdom in the Old Testament. New York: The Macmillan Company London: Collier-Macmillan Ltd., 1971, p.6.

39 comprehensible by man, and finally (4) a special divine gift granted by God to men... a special grace.60 Due to the polysemantic meaning of the term scholars propose classifications of different types of wisdom. Gerhard Von Rad, for instance, distinguishes between "theological" and "apocalyptic" wisdom.61 Another Biblical scholar, James Crenshaw, relates distinct types of wisdom to the specific group, which originated it. Thus, natural wisdom, which aims at understanding the world of nature, and its practical counterpart focused on the social order, most likely originated in the family and clan. Judicial wisdom, which deals with disputes, sprang from the royal court. Finally, theological or speculative wisdom, which centers on philosophical issues, is attributed by Crenshaw to professional scribes.62 The social-political environment, which gave birth to the wisdom tradition especially attracts the attention of Biblical scholars. Some of them are inclined to see in wisdom literature a tradition, which is related to a certain political system, namely a monarchy headed by a king.63 The defenders of this view argue that, in fact, the wisdom tradition was closely associated with, if not inspired by, the royal court, and the King of Israel himself was considered "a divinely appointed agent for organizing and imposing a just order upon earth which would embody the requirements of wisdom." This interpretation also tends to link wisdom with a conservative attitude 60

John C. Rylaarsdam. Revelation in Jewish Wisdom Literature. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1946, pp.55-56. 61

See: Gerhard Von Rad. Old Testament Theology, 2 vols. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. For an elaborate discussion of Israelite wisdom see also his book: Wisdom in Israel. Nashville and New York: Abingdon Press, 1972. 62

James L. Crenshaw. "Method in Determining Wisdom Influence upon 'Historical' Literature." Journal of Biblical Literature, 1969, 88:129-42. 63

For an elaborate elucidation of this thesis see, for example, Ronald E. Clements. Wisdom in Theology. (The Didsbury Lectures). Carlisle: The Paternoster Press and Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992, Ch. 4, "Wisdom and Politics."

40 directed toward the preservation of the existing social order, of life which is, again, the "system of wise... legal administration based on fairness, absence of favoritism... and in which the king held the highest office."64 Such a dynastically oriented courtly wisdom eloquently discloses itself in the following statements from the Proverbs: "Oracular decisions are on the lips of a king; his mouth makes no mistake when passing sentence;" or, "My son, fear the Lord and the king." (Prov. 16:10) However, as Leo Lefebure, for instance, points out, “[a]lthough the wisdom tradition could function among the upper classes as a guide to success, it could also offer a sharp criticism of the wealthy classes from within their own ranks.65 His own investigation has suggested, moreover, that the “wisdom tradition was never limited to the upper classes; its origins and appeal were rooted in the folk wisdom of the people and are essentially universal in scope.”66 The preoccupation of wisdom literature with human observations, as contrasted to the divine guidance expressed in the Torah and Prophets, has even led some of the scholars to claim its initially secular character.67 In their view, the secular stream of wisdom teaching was only later incorporated into the sacred canon of Judaism.68 Nevertheless, it seems that neither linguistic, nor sociological, nor political analysis of the background of the wisdom tradition can provide an ultimate explanation of its novelty, simplicity, and depth expressed in the famous statement:

64

Ibid., p.96.

65

Lefebure, Wisdom Christology, p.209.

66

Ibid., p.209.

67

For a discussion of the emphasis of Biblical scholarship on the secular character of wisdom see, for example, Donn F. Morgan. Wisdom in the Old Testament Traditions. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981. 68

Ronald Clements, for example, in his book, Wisdom in Theology argues that "it was not until the time of Ben Sira that wisdom and torah were drawn into a close alliance." Clements, p.153.

41 "Truly, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom." (Job 28:27-28) Wisdom here has apparently nothing to do with mental abilities, but is considered a state of consciousness, a humble relation to the one and universal God. Proverbs restates the same idea by repeating that the "fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight." (Prov.9:10) This key idea of wisdom in the Jewish Scriptures is paralleled by an important distinction between the human and divine wisdom. The theme of the conflict and mutual attraction between the divine wisdom and its human counterpart was, most probably, inherited by the Hebrews from the ancient Egyptian and other Near Eastern civilizations.69 The character of the "righteous sufferer" from the Babylonian Theodicy, a sapiential writing difficult to date precisely, is quite typical in this respect. The narrative tells a story of a person who thinks that he suffers unjustly and blames the gods for what has befallen him. His interlocutor argues against his friend and supports the traditionalist outlook of the just order of the universe. In the course of their dramatic conversation he makes an argument, which sets the pattern for future debates about wisdom. He distinguishes between the wisdom of the gods and the wisdom of humans, while assuming that humans, who are not able to understand fully the divine plan, will simply have to accept any suffering they experience. The limitation of human wisdom and the omniscience of God's are abundantly mentioned in the pages of the Bible as well. Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes) focuses on the first part of the dichotomy when he denounces the vanity of knowledge:

69

For a more elaborate discussion on the interdependence of the ancient Near Eastern and specifically Jewish wisdom traditions see: Leo G. Perdue. Wisdom and Cult: A Critical Analysis of the Views of Cult in the Wisdom Literatures of Israel and the Ancient Near East. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1977; and Glendon E. Bryce. A Legacy of Wisdom: The Egyptian Contribution to the Wisdom of Israel. London: Associated University Press - Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1979.

42 I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me; and... I perceived that this also is but a chasing after wind. For in much wisdom is much vexation; and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow. (Eccl.1:16-18) Such a disconsolate conclusion drawn by the wise Qoheleth is repeated and reinforced throughout the entire text. The intrepid judgment about the futility of wisdom even leads the speaker to inquire "What advantage have the wise over fools"? (Eccl.6:8) Qoheleth does recognize that "wisdom excels folly as light excels darkness" and that the "wise have eyes in their head, but fools walk in darkness." However, he also acknowledges that "the same fate befalls all of them." (Eccl.2:1314) Finally, he rejects as "vanity" even the questioning of the topic, "for there is no enduring remembrance of the wise or of fools, seeing that in the days to come all will have been long forgotten." (Eccl.2:16) Thus, in place of human wisdom and understanding come its divine counterpart, the wisdom and knowledge of God. One reads, for instance, in Proverbs that "the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth comes knowledge and understanding." (Prov.2:6) The apocryphal book of Ben-Sirach echoes this: "All wisdom is from the Lord, and with him it remains forever." (Sir.1:1) Christ as Sophia The Biblical dialectic of divine and human wisdom has been transposed in the New Testament into the figure of the God-man, Jesus Christ. If the Jewish Scriptures insisted on keeping the commandments as an expression of the acceptance of divine wisdom by humans beings--"The whole of wisdom is fear of the Lord, and in all wisdom there is the fulfillment of the Law" (Sir.19:18)--the New Testament recognized just one law and one commandment, which was faith in Christ, the Messiah.70 Accordingly, Christ in the New Testament was understood as 70

See, for example, the Apostle Paul's Epistle to the Romans, Ch. 5.

43 the meeting point between human and divine wisdom and even directly identified with Sophia, an idea, which later became central in Russian sophiological thought. Before going into any further discussion of this peculiarly Christian understanding of wisdom, it is worth mentioning that the traditional Hebrew interpretation of wisdom is also found, for instance, in the Epistle of Paul to the Christian Church at Corinth. In his missionary preaching the Apostle developed a series of Christian doctrines, which appropriated the ideas and literary forms known to the wisdom schools of Hellenistic Judaism.71 In particular, when referring to the Corinthian Church and criticizing that community for strife and jealousy, Paul develops the theme of the wisdom of God as superior to human wisdom and understanding. He then defends his Apostolic duty to proclaim the cause of Christ as opposed to the wisdom of the world. He says: “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power. (1 Cor. 1:17) In another passage Paul emphasizes the same essential point: My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God. (1 Cor. 2:4) And later he repeats: we speak God's wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory... in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things to those who are spiritual. (1 Cor. 2:6-13) He also makes a famous comparison of worldly wisdom with foolishness in the eyes of God, and, in reverse, God's wisdom as foolishness in human's eyes, while insisting that "God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom". (1 Cor. 1:25) While affirming his Apostolic authority, Paul argues that the cornerstone of the Christian

71

For a further discussion of this topic see an article by Birger A. Pearson "Hellenistic-Jewish Wisdom Speculation and Paul" in Aspects of Wisdom, ed. by R. Wilken, pp.43-67.

44 faith--the cross of Christ--is considered folly by those who belong to the perishing world: For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is a power of God. For it is written, 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart'. (1 Cor.1:18-19) He adds more about the uselessness of human wisdom: "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God... The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise that they are futile". (1 Cor. 3:19-20) Finally, Paul explicitly relates the wisdom of God to the person of Jesus Christ in a passage, which, probably, summarizes all his different uses of the former concept. Thus, he exclaims with an inherent dramatism and prophetic insight: Where is the one who is wise?.. Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe... to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (1 Cor. 1:20-24) The direct association of wisdom with Jesus Christ is found elsewhere in the Gospels. One reads, for instance, in Mark, about the young Jesus preaching in the synagogue, that "many who heard him were astounded. They said, 'Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him'?" (Mark 6:2-4) Luke too mentions, referring to Jesus’ childhood, that the "child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him". (Luke 2:40) Luke relates the person of Jesus to Lady Wisdom who sends her messengers into the world, where people reject them.72 A full identification of Jesus Christ with wisdom, however, first appears in Paul's message to Colossians in which he declares Christ to be "the wisdom of God". (1 Col. I:30) By developing this comparison in his epistle,

72

In Luke 7:33-35, Jesus says, referring to John the Baptist and himself that "wisdom is proved right by all her children". See also the parallel text in Matthew 11:18-19.

45 Paul already refers to Christ the Biblical functions of wisdom in creation and redemption. Hence, he says about Christ: He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation... all things where created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead. (1 Col. 1:15-18)

Sacred Tradition Trinitarian Wisdom The three important Judeo-Christian scriptural ideas about wisdom--namely, its personification, the distinction between the divine and human wisdom, and the identification of Sophia with Christ--were actively used by modern Russian thinkers in their sophiological doctrines. However, Russian Orthodoxy based its teachings on the ground of both Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition, i.e., the tradition of the Church Fathers who gave a standard for the Orthodox interpretation of the Christian Scriptures. The prestige of this interpretive tradition is so strong in Orthodox Christianity that some Russian thinkers, in particular Fr. Sergii Bulgakov and Fr. Georgii Florovskii, have systematically studied the writings of the Church Fathers, including those of the Byzantine period, in order to prove or disprove by the appeal to their authority the correctness or falsity of certain sophiological theories. Let me focus in this context on two of the sophiological doctrines developed in the Christian thought within the Sacred Tradition and explicitly debated in Russian sophiological thought.73 The first one is related to the association of wisdom or Sophia, not with

73

The reader will find a more detailed account of the modern Russian rediscovery of Patristics in Chapter 3, which discusses sophiological teachings in theology.

46 Christ alone, but with the Holy Trinity, and can be traced by briefly comparing Origen's and St. Augustine's approaches to the concept of wisdom. To be sure, in their discussions of Sophia the Church Fathers relied mostly on the Biblical accounts. More specifically, for them wisdom was the revelation of Jesus Christ as taught by the Apostles. Thus, following the Apostle Paul, the 3rd century Christian theologian, Origen, in his writings proclaims Christ to be the "true wisdom of God" which was finally given to humanity: Indeed, the possession of the wisdom by which everything was established-for according to David, God made 'everything by wisdom' (cf. Ps. 104:24)-was an impossibility for human nature. But from an impossibility it became a possibility through our Lord Jesus Christ, whom God made our wisdom.74 Origen develops the thesis in the Commentary On the Song of Songs by equating the Wisdom status of Christ with his characteristics as Logos. He notes in this respect that in the scriptures "Christ is quite suitably called Loving Affection, just as He is called Wisdom and Power and Righteousness and Word and Truth."75 Origen later clarifies the distinction between Wisdom and Logos as two different aspects of Christ. He describes them as follows: With respect to the basic structure of the contemplation of the universe and of thoughts, Wisdom is understood, while with respect to the communication to rational beings of what has been contemplated, the Logos is understood. And it is no wonder if the Savior... comprises in himself... first and second.76 Representing for Origen the goal of human life, wisdom thus is not considered merely a collection of facts or theories, but everyone's share in Christ. To have wisdom, Origen argues, means primarily to have Christ--a formula that he 74

Origen. An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works. Translation and introduction by Rowan A. Greer. New York-Ramsey-Toronto: Paulist Press, 1979, p.81. 75 76

Ibid., p.226.

Origen. Commentary on the Gospel of John. (Trans. by A. Menzies). The Ante-Nicene Fathers, X. Books I-X only. 1.19 (I118. sect.111-112). Quoted in John C. Smith. The Ancient Wisdom of Origen. London and Toronto: Associated University Press-Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1992, p.176.

47 applies even to pre-Christian Jewish or Greek thinkers. "Each of the sages", as he puts it, "in proportion as he embraces wisdom, partakes to that extent of Christ, in that he is wisdom."77 This specifically Christian understanding of wisdom was shared by St. Augustine in the 4th century. Augustine departs in his analysis of wisdom from its classical Stoic definition as rerum humanarum divinarumque scientia. He transforms it, however, by separating the former from the latter and by distinguishing between the sapientia, or true wisdom, which belongs to the eternal reality of divine things, and scientia, or knowledge, which refers to human and temporal affairs. Further, he understands true wisdom "in such a way that the knowledge of divine is properly called wisdom, but the name science properly belongs to the knowledge of human things."78 The true or divine wisdom now is not considered by Augustine as one of the natural human virtues acquired by one's own efforts. Instead, such a wisdom represents a precious divine gift achieved as a result of the super-natural act of God's grace. It is, in other words, the knowledge of the Triune God as manifested in Christ. The important addition to Origen's traditional identification of Christ with wisdom is that Augustine here introduces the idea of wisdom or Sophia into the concept of the Holy Trinity. Augustine makes of wisdom that attribute of the Deity associated with the second person of the Trinity by which everything was believed to have been created and which was even referred to as the very essence of the divine substance. Thus, in his treatise, The Trinity, Augustine writes: The Father is wisdom, the Son is wisdom, and the Holy Spirit is wisdom, and together they are not three wisdoms but one wisdom; and because there, to 77 78

Ibid., 1.34 (43.24ff.), 317B. Quoted in Smith, Wisdom of Origen, p.176.

Saint Augustine, The Trinity. The Fathers of the Church. A New Translation. (Translated by Stephen McKenna). Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1963, Vol. 18, c.2, Book XIY, p.413.

48 be and to be wise is one and the same, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one essence.79 In another book of the same treatise he repeats this thesis: God does not receive it from someone as we receive wisdom from Him; but He is Himself His own wisdom, because His Wisdom is not one thing, and his essence another thing, to whom to be is the same as to be wise.80 Created and Uncreated Sophia Along with the Trinitarian sophiology of Augustine, another important sophiological teaching, namely, that of created and uncreated wisdom, was debated, this time by the Eastern Church Fathers. When addressing the issue of wisdom the Eastern Fathers commonly accepted its identification with the Logos, which was established in the early Christian tradition. As one contemporary Orthodox historian and theologian, Fr. John Meyendorff, notes in this respect, that the “identification of the Old Testament Wisdom with the Johannine Logos had been taken for granted since the time of Origen, and no one would have thought of challenging it.”81 The real challenge for the Christian East became, however, the task of overcoming its strong Hellenist heritage, especially as manifested in the flourishing of the neo-Platonic schools of thought. Echoing Plato, neo-Platonic thinkers pictured the world as essentially one with and emanating from the divine source of unity through the eternal ideas. The Christian theologians opposed this pantheistic metaphysics by introducing the idea of creation, according to which the divine unity creates a universe totally different from itself. The immediate problem, which arose was how to interpret the uncreated divine ideas about creation. In other words, how is the eternal wisdom of God associated with Christ related to the created wisdom of 79

Ibid., Book YII, p.229.

80

Ibid., Book XIY, p.462.

81

John Meyendorff. Byzantine Theology. Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes. New York: Fordham University Press, 1974, p.21.

49 the world? The theological puzzle about created and uncreated wisdom became central in Byzantium for, as Fr. John Meyendorff notes: Throughout its history, Byzantine theology, both 'Greek' and Biblical as it was, struggled with the possibility of integrating, into a consistent Christian view of creation, a theory of divine 'ideas' about the world.82 This controversy, which has been revitalized in modern Russian theology of the 20th century, in Byzantium seems to have been resolved in a quite sophisticated manner. A separate entity of the wisdom of God was understood, as Meyendorff writes, not as "God's essence, nor the world's, nor an essence in itself" but in relation to God's manifestation to the world through God's will, energies, etc.83 This concept of divine Sophia was strongly defended by the Byzantine monks against the attempts of the Byzantine "humanists" to revitalize secular Greek philosophy. The wisdom of God was always regarded there as immeasurably higher than the speculations of the Greeks whose thought displayed "the deceiving appearance of true wisdom."84 In addition let it be mentioned that Orthodox Byzantine artistic expressions of wisdom, especially in icons and architecture, strongly influenced Russian religious art. In fact, three main Russian churches built in the 11th century in Kiev, Novgorod, and Polotsk were dedicated to Sophia. There also appeared a rich iconography of Sophia, whose image was often linked to that of the Virgin Mary. This visual imagery inherited from Byzantium played an important role as well in

82

Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, p.131.

83

Ibid., p.131.

84

John Meyendorff. The Byzantine Legacy in the Orthodox Church. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1982, pp.134-135. The reference here is to the famous 14th century dispute between Gregory Palamas who defended Byzantine Orthodoxy and Barlaam who represented the "humanist" trend in Byzantine thought. The "monastic party" celebrated the victory while Barlaam moved to Italy.

50 shaping the sophiological intuitions of modern Russia.85 Secular Developments As compared to the Eastern Church which preserved unchallenged the early Christian understanding of wisdom, the Western Christian tradition developed this concept, often in unorthodox fashion. At first the Augustinian purely religious idea of wisdom as contrasted to the natural capacities of the human mind survived practically unchanged until the rediscovery of Aristotelian philosophy in Medieval Europe. Then, however, the concept of wisdom underwent a massive transformation in the face of the scholasticism of the Middle Ages. The main general task of scholastic philosophy, as is well known, was to achieve a concord between the Christian Sacred Scriptures and ancient pagan thought. Moreover, scholastic philosophers were willing to prove that Scripture and philosophy are not only reconcilable with each other, but are, indeed, completely compatible to the extent that Greek, and especially Aristotelian, thought must fully support the data of the Christian revelation. The temporal union of faith and reason in the project of the scholastics affected their approach to the balance between the natural and divine aspects of wisdom as well. The scholastic thinkers argued that the former culminates in metaphysics, or the science about the essence of things, as contrasted to other sciences, which study different qualities of things. Metaphysics, they claimed, has an autonomous character and represents an intellectually acquired human form of wisdom. Its divine counterpart, on the contrary, while also independent, is nevertheless a divinely revealed knowledge, a gift of the Holy Spirit otherwise inaccessible to the natural human person. 85

For an exposition of the historical roots of Russian sophiology in Orthodox religious art see, for example: Pavel Florenskii. Stolp i utverzhdenie istiny. [1914]. Moscow: Pravda, 1990. Part 1, Ch.XI.

51 The specificity of the scholastic approach was, again, in claiming the perfect unity of the two types of wisdom, which deal, as the scholastics argued, with the same truth of God in their respective domains. The divine illumination of theology was declared, of course, higher than that of the natural science of metaphysics. Nevertheless, the results of the true metaphysics were considered as necessarily supporting the conclusions made from the investigation of the heavenly wisdom. Thus, one of the main authorities in medieval scholasticism, St. Thomas Aquinas, says about wisdom that its object surpasses the objects of all the intellectual virtues: because wisdom considers the supreme cause, which is God... wisdom exercises judgment over all the other intellectual virtues, directs them all, and is the architect of them all.86 And, earlier, of the harmony between the human and the divine wisdom: wisdom is said to be the knowledge of divine things... But sacred doctrine essentially treats of God viewed as the highest cause--not only so far as He can be known through creatures just as philosophers knew Him... but also so far as He is known to Himself alone and revealed to others.87 After scholasticism the next shift toward a human and secular wisdom was accomplished by the Renaissance inheritors of medieval thought. In accordance with their intention to revive classical education and philosophy, the thinkers of the Renaissance began to put more emphasis on wisdom's natural, rather than divine, side. They paid tribute to the dignity of the human person who is able to acquire knowledge and wisdom by his or her own efforts. The cultural hero, whose symbol became the widely recognized character of Prometheus, was often portrayed as a terrestrial deity having the keys of wisdom in his hands.88 86

A Summa of the Summa: The Essential Philosophical Passages of St.Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica. (Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province in 1920). Edited and explained for beginners by Peter Kreeft. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990, p.477. 87 88

Ibid., p.43.

See, for example, Carolus Bovillus. Liber de Sapiente. Edited by R. Klibansky as an Appendix to Ernst Cassirer's Individuum und Kosmos in der Philosophie der Renaissance. Leipzig, 1927.

52 As compared to the Greeks, the Renaissance standard of wisdom nonetheless remained Christian and displayed an acute sense of personalism. The idea of wisdom in the Renaissance was indeed centered on a notion of humanism unknown to the Ancients. However, as contrasted to the Middle Ages, it represented a radical secularization of the previous religious outlook, almost the deification of a selfsufficient humanity. Thus, according to Renaissance thinkers, wisdom is innate in human beings and needs no grace or other divine powers to reach its mature and encyclopedic perfection. Wisdom was also established in the Renaissance not only as an intellectual virtue or contemplation, but more as a perfection of will or moral action focused on the ethical precepts and a useful, energetic life. The distinctive features of the Renaissance approach to wisdom were summarized by the French thinker, Charron, in his work, De La Sagesse. In this "most important Renaissance treatise on wisdom", as one contemporary scholar, Eugene Rice, describes it,89 Charron defends his thesis that humans are good by nature and have a natural predisposition, as well as the appropriate power, to become wise. Such a natural wisdom, while not excluding, in Charron's conviction, a religious piety, is nevertheless as distinct from pure religion as the realm of reason differs from the sphere of faith, and philosophy from revelation. As Rice points out, Charron recognizes that religion is far above the highest capacities of human intelligence, and its truths come to us solely by extraordinary and celestial revelations [to which] men must submit simply and humbly, without discussion.90 The supreme authority of religion, however, as Charron thinks, is perfectly compatible with the sovereign and independently valid domain of wisdom. 89

Eugene F. Rice, Jr. The Renaissance Idea of Wisdom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1958, p.178. 90

Charron, De La Sagesse trois livres. Seconde édition revue et augmentée. Edition of Amaury Duval. 3 vols. Paris, 1820-24, Book II, Ch.v: Vol.II, pp.128-129; and Book II, Ch.ii: Vol.II, p.34. Quoted in Rice, The Renaissance Wisdom, p.203.

53 Moreover, he argues, the former gives no guarantee for the latter for, as one knows from history, religious people may do evil while good and wise people can be unbelievers. This autonomization of human wisdom from the divine alternative, which was initiated by scholasticism and carried out further in the age of the Renaissance, presented a serious challenge to the Russian Orthodox understanding of wisdom. The Western Christian sophiologies served as another source for Russian thought which it usually polemicized with and often opposed. Modern Russian sophiology was in fact born and developed in resistance to and in dialogue with Western Christendom and its influence over Russia.

54

55

Chapter 3 Beginning of Russian Sophiology

Russia and the West Search for Religious Identity Russia accepted the Christian religion in its Eastern Orthodox version from the Byzantine Empire in the 10th century. This historic choice, made under the rule of the prince Vladimir, definitively influenced the succeeding cultural development of the country. The newly formed Russian Church became an ecclesiastically subordinate part of the Greek Orthodox Church, centered in Byzantium, from which it received spiritual guidance and educational support.91 The historical ties between the Greek Mother-Church and its Russian offshoot grew even closer after the official separation of Eastern and Western Christianity. Nonetheless, the pull of Russia toward Byzantium was countered by religious and political forces, which worked to distance Russia from the Eastern Roman Empire. The dramatic fall of Byzantium strengthened the search for a separate identity when Russia found itself to be the sole heir of the Byzantine legacy and generated stronger resistance to Western influences. Indeed, the opposition of Russia to the West became the major focus of the Russian intellectual tradition. Beginning with the medieval doctrine of Moscow as 91

For a brief discussion of the Byzantine influence on Russia see, for example: Valentin A. Riazanovskii. Obzor russkoi kul'tury. Istoricheskii ocherk. Part One. New York, 1947, Ch.I; Ch.III, section on religion.

56 the "Third Rome" it reappears in countless religious and secular forms throughout Russian history.92 This strong antagonism remained even when Russia was apparently learning from the West, as, for example, during the reforms of Peter the Great, which had, seemingly, a pro-Western character. To fight the West, Russians may have to put on a Western uniform first, so-to-say. The development of Western-style theology in Russia, while rooted in Orthodox soil, was rather accelerated by the defensive posture taken toward the competing traditions. Modern Russian thought was actually born out of the attempts to study theology and philosophy in order to be able to respond adequately and to preserve the true faith against the influence of other confessions, especially Catholicism. As is noted, for instance, in the recently published A History of Russian Philosophy: the first version of philosophical opposition between Russia and the West was... the 'Eastern-centric' conception, which is based on a description of the uniqueness of Russian philosophical thought by means of the character and specific features of Christianity in its Eastern Orthodox version.93 It must also be said that the tradition of theological education went to Russia from Ukraine since the late 16th century again in response to "the need for a defense against the aggressive gestures of Roman Catholicism." In Ukraine there appeared first philosophical groups, publication programs and the famous 'fraternity' movement which among other things, as Zenkovskii writes,

92

The variety of its manifestations can be reduced to the following polar statements. Russia is seen either as bringing salvation to the declining West or, on the contrary, as a backward country never reaching the heights of Western civilization. A dubious middle way consists of recognizing Russia's backwardness as an advantage for its radiant future. One example of such an ideology is Leninism, which considered the backwardness of the country as an advantage in escaping capitalism and going directly to a more advanced socialism. 93

A History of Russian Philosophy. From the Tenth Through the Twentieth Centuries. Edited by Valerii Kuvakin. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1994, Vol.2, p.717.

57 established schools and organized a translation program, in order to make use, in their struggle against the opponents of Orthodoxy, of the latter's weapons. 94 In 1631 in Kiev one of the Fraternity's schools was transformed into a college, later renamed the Academy. It became a prototype of theological academies, which spread throughout Russia beginning from the late 17th century, initially in Moscow and then in other cities. The first modern Ukrainian-Russian philosopher, Grigorii Skovoroda (1722-94), was graduated from the Kievan Theological Academy.95 The two main ideological movements of 19th century Russia, Westernism and Slavophilism, although born outside theological institutions, were conceived "near the Church walls" as well. The dispute over Russia's vocation seen through the prism of religious identity and destiny by the two camps of the Westernizers and the Slavophiles determined Russian intellectual history for almost two centuries. The utmost significance of their polemics has led contemporary scholars in their turn to pay special attention to the nature of the disagreements between the two parties. According to one position, which is commonly established among English speaking scholars, the Westernist movement was not particularly linked to religion. One reads, for example, in an anthology of Russian philosophy, that, in its initial stage, Westernism was mainly a difference of value judgment on the place of Russia in history... a positive movement based on the view that Russia was a European nation, which had unfortunately been retarded by the long Mongol subjugation and had now to mature as a nation, to transform itself, and to take its place in Europe.96 94

Zenkovsky, A History of Russian Philosophy, Vol.I, pp.46-47.

95

For further discussion of the topic see the relevant chapters of Zenkovsky's A History of Russian Philosophy. 96

Russian Philosophy. (1965) Edited by James M. Edie, et al. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1976, Vol.I, p.274.

58 At the same time, another point of view considers this turn to the West as initially having religious overtones. Such a standpoint--advocated, for example, by the Russian émigré historian and theologian Fr. Georgii Florovskii and accepted in this book--sees the true beginning of Westernism in the writings of Piotr Chaadaev (1794-1856).97 Thus, in his monumental work Ways of Russian Theology Florovski writes: The historiosofic theme of Russia's destiny... became fundamental... the uniqueness of Russia was historically counterposed to "Europe." From the outset the difference was analyzed as a difference in religious destiny. Petr Ia. Chaadaev's fateful "Philosophical Letter" posed the question precisely in this manner.98 And later: Chaadaev is often called the first Westerner, and with him begins the history of Westernism ... As a Westerner he was unique; his was a religious Westernism.99 It is well known that Chaadaev's religious views were centered on the notion of history. His pioneering approach, as George Kline, for example, suggests, was that he turned a searching critical and analytical gaze on Russian history in the light of world history, raising for the first time the fateful and much-to-be discussed question of the relation between "Russia and the West."100 97

In the anthology Chaadaev is portrayed as the precursor of both Westernist and Slavophile movements. For specific arguments against Chaadaev's Westernism see Raymond T. McNally. The Major Works of Peter Chaadaev. A Translation and Commentary. University of Notre Dame Press, 1969. 98

Georges Florovsky. Ways of Russian Theology (Translated by Robert L. Nichols) in Collected Works. Vaduz: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1987. Vol.YI, pp.14-15. 99

Ibid., pp.14-15.

100

George L. Kline. "Peter (Petr) Iakovlevich Chaadaev." Dictionary of Literary Biography. Vol. 198: Russian Literature in the Age of Pushkin and Gogol: Prose. Edited by Christine A. Rydel. Detroit: Gail Research, 1998, pp.101-109. This article contains the titles of the works by and about Chaadaev.

59 Chaadaev understood the historical process in terms of providential mystery, i.e., God's work with humanity toward the establishment of God's Kingdom on Earth. Religion, in his view, is the necessary instrument for achieving this sacred goal. Accordingly, religious institutions are ideally designed to unite all of humankind and to improve society and culture. Chaadaev writes, for instance, in the First Philosophical Letter: the doctrine founded on the supreme principle of unity...the true spirit of religion... is wholly contained in the idea of the fusion of all the moral forces in the world into a single thought, a single feeling, and in the progressive establishment of a social system or church which will make truth reign among men.101 Chaadaev emphasized the unity of religion and, therefore, was in great sympathy with Roman Catholicism and the Pope who symbolized this unity. In the sixth Letter he ardently defends the Roman papacy which, in spite of all its vicissitudes and all the disasters it has suffered, in spite of its own faults and guilts, in spite of all attacks and the unheard-of triumph of unbelief, [is] standing more steadfast than ever!102 The superiority of the Western Church, in his view, manifested itself in the ideal of unity and determined the advantages of European civilization as compared to Russia, which dramatically disunited itself from the mainstream Christianity by accepting Orthodoxy. As the inheritor of "miserable, despised Byzantium,"103 which is to blame for the fateful break between the Churches, Russia, Chaadaev argues, has become a country without either a past or a future. Here Chaadaev's pessimism about his motherland reaches truly cosmic proportions. He exclaims:

101

Pyotr Chaadaev. Philosophical Letters and Apology of a Madman. Translated with introduction by Mary-Barbara Zeldin. Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press, 1969, p.32. 102

Ibid., p.132.

103

Kline, "Peter Chaadaev," p.21.

60 it would seem that the general law of [hu]mankind had been revoked in our case. Isolated in the world, we have given nothing to the world, we have taken nothing from the world... we have contributed nothing to the progress of the human spirit. And we have disfigured everything we touched of that progress.104 One of the founders of the Slavophile doctrine, and also a close friend of Chaadaev, was Alexei Khomiakov (1804-60). He, however, was of an opposite opinion about Russia and the West, as well as the Orthodox and Catholic forms of Christianity. In the center of Khomiakov's worldview stands the idea of the Church being not the force of external history, but instead the inner reality of spiritual life. For Khomiakov it is distinguished by an organic wholeness and represents the mystical body of Christ who is its real and only head. The foundation of this Church is love, and by participating in its life a person is born anew. Thus, Khomiakov writes that one discovers in the Church a self which is not powerless in its spiritual solitude, but strong in its candid spiritual unity with its brethren and its Saviour... each particle of matter assimilated in a living body becomes an inalienable part of the organism and acquires in the process new meaning and new life: such is man in the Church, in the body of Christ.105 However, in this and many other similar heartfelt passages, Khomiakov referred not to all the historically existing forms of Christianity, but primarily to Orthodoxy. Correspondingly, he thought that the highest unity within the true Church is attained, not by subordination to external authorities as if they possess the absolute truth, but by organic religious togetherness in the search for salvation. From this standpoint, Khomiakov attacks Roman Catholicism. He accuses "Romanists" or "Latinists," as he labels Catholics, for the break in this Christian ecumenicity and for 104 105

Zeldin, Philosophical Letters, p.41. [Trans. rev'd.]

Aleksei S. Khomiakov. "Po povodu poslaniia arkhiepiskopa parizhskago." A Documentary History of Russian Thought: From the Enlightenment to Marxism. Edited and translated by W. J. Leatherbarrow and D. C. Offord. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1987, p.91.

61 replacing the idea of internal unity with the principle of external authority. He argues, for instance, that The pope's authority was substituted for ecumenical infallibility, and his authority was external... A purely external and consequently, rational law had replaced the living, ethical law which alone does not fear rationalism, since it embraces not only [hu]man's reason, but also the whole of his [or her] being.106 Encounter With Protestantism As one can see, since the beginning the problem of Orthodox religious identity, primarily in relation to Catholicism, became the heart of modern Russian thought. In fact, it produced a radical split between the two conflicting camps of Westernizers and Slavophiles, who disagreed, among other things, on the issue of the origin of Christian disunity. The initial schism of Christendom into Orthodoxy and Catholicism happened, of course, for a variety of reasons among which the political were not the least. However, the presence of social competition between the Eastern and Western Empires must not conceal the religious roots and consequences of the separation of the Churches. The break of the sacred unity shocked both communities and left a deep trace in their religious subconsciousness. It may have especially affected the Orthodox believers, who asserted the unchangeability of their apostolic faith. In any case, since that dramatic split, the re-union of the Churches was understood as either the Catholics joining the Orthodox or vice versa. Meanwhile, the evolution of Christianity was accompanied by the division into three formally autonomous Churches--Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant. The rise of Protestantism as an offshoot of the Catholic Church created new problems for Orthodoxy. At first Orthodox Christians felt sympathy with the Reformists for their 106

Aleksei S. Khomiakov. "Po povodu broshiury g-na Loransi" [Concerning the Brochure of Mr. Loransi]. (Translated by Asheleigh E. Moorhouse under the title “On the Western Confessions of Faith”). Ultimate Questions: An Anthology of Modern Russian Religious Thought. [1965] Edited by Alexander Schmemann. New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1977, pp.48-49. [Trans. rev'd.]

62 attempts to come back to the original teaching of Christ and because of their common enemy, the Catholics. There was a moment in 1599, for example, as Zenkovskii writes, when Orthodox and Calvinist believers organized a congress in Ukraine in order to unite their efforts in a common struggle against Catholicism.107 This temporary union, however, very soon manifested its artificial nature. In fact, in its formal essence, Protestantism is dramatically opposed to the spirit of Orthodoxy. The heart of Orthodox faith is the living Sacred Tradition (Predanie) as an organic part of the Sacred Scripture (Pisanie). This very tradition and its "untouchability" is exactly what Protestantism rejects when trying to come to the origin of Christian revelation purified of the authority of previous interpretations. That is why, perhaps, in the course of development the relations between Orthodoxy and the new Christian division of Protestantism becomes even more complicated than those with Catholicism.108 The Protestant Reformation began a new epoch in Christianity, commonly called modern times, which represented a serious and perhaps unique challenge for Orthodoxy. The historical encounter of these two confessions symbolized the coming together of the roots and the fruits of the same tree. The choice which stood before Orthodoxy in its extremes consisted of either accepting modernity and the West in general as part of itself, in order to enrich and to renew the old faith on a new level without losing its specific identity, or isolating Orthodoxy from its sister divisions, claiming its exclusivity and an "inevitable" victorious revival in the future. Ever since the beginning modern Russian thought has been clearly and distinctively marked by the second tendency.

107 108

Zenkovsky, Russian Philosophy, Vol.I, p.58. See also: Florovsky, Russian Theology, Ch.II.

The Anglican Church, which blends certain features of Catholicism and Protestantism and in many ways comes very close to Orthodoxy, represents a special and, perhaps, unique case in the history of the Christian religion.

63 The examples of the two founders of Slavophilism and Westernism, Khomiakov and Chaadaev, speak for themselves. Thus, while completely disagreeing with Chaadaev on the status and religious validity of Orthodoxy and Catholicism, as well as the role of Russia as compared to the West, Khomiakov surprisingly is in accord with his opponent on one very important point. For different reasons Khomiakov and Chaadaev agree in their mutual criticism of Protestantism. In the case of Chaadaev, the hostility toward the Reformation of the Western Church is directed, as Zenkovskii puts it, "by historiosophical rather than dogmatic considerations"109 and spreads from his admiration of Catholicism and the emphasis on unity, which is challenged by the Protestants. Thus Chaadaev writes, for instance, The Reformation set the world back again into the disunity of paganism... it also removed the fertile, sublime idea of universality and unity, the unique source for the progress of [hu]mankind, i.e. true infinite progress.110 Of course, he has certain reservations in his critique, condemning, for instance, Calvin more harshly than Luther, or, for example, saluting Anglicanism along with Khomiakov, who had friendly relations with several Anglican churchmen.111 However, Chaadaev ridicules the very principle of Protestantism, which rejects the Sacred Tradition and blindly, as he thinks, focuses only on the Holy Scriptures. He says in this respect: People think that, if this book were dispersed over the earth, that would suffice to convert all the earth. A paltry notion, which [merely] feeds the passions of the recalcitrants.

109

Zenkovsky, Russian Philosophy, Vol. I, p.165.

110

Zeldin, Philosophical Letters, p.157. [Trans. rev'd.]

111

See: Kline, "Peter Chaadaev," p.19.

64 And later: “Hence it is, let us not say heterodox, but certainly not very philosophically sound to suppose, as the sectarians do, that all wisdom is contained in the pages of a book.”112 In contrast to Chaadaev, Khomiakov has quite different reasons for attacking Protestantism. For him the seed of the Protestant movement was already contained in Catholicism, which represents a perversion of Christianity. He describes, therefore, the Reformation as a product of an inevitable degradation of Western Christianity. In his well-known essay "On the Western Confession of Faith" he formulates this approach in the following fashion: Romanism began at the moment it placed the independence of individual or regional opinion above the ecumenical unity of faith; it was the first to create a heresy of a new type, a heresy against the dogma of the nature of the Church, against her own faith in herself. The Reform was only the continuation of this same heresy under another name.113 Khomiakov rightly sees the "point of departure" of the Reformation in the acknowledgement of "an interruption in the ecclesiastical tradition" lasting for several centuries and the essence of Protestantism "in the absence of legitimate tradition" in general. In addition he underlines its purely negative character: The Protestant world is by no means the world of free investigation... Protestantism is one world simply negating another. Take away this other world, which it is negating and Protestantism will die, since its whole life consists in negation.114 Khomiakov gives his own understanding of the Protestant Christianity in the beginning of the essay. According to him it "means the expression of doubt in

112

Zeldin, Philosophical Letters, pp.158-159.

113

Aleksei S. Khomiakov. "Po povodu broshiury g-na Loransi," Ultimate Questions: An Anthology of Modern Russian Religious Thought, p.60. Ibid., pp.41, 44.

114

65 essential dogma. In other words, the denial of dogma as a living tradition; in short, a denial of the Church."115 Fate of Westernism & Slavophilism It is highly symptomatic that the initiators of the two conflicting ideologies of modern Russia, Westernism and Slavophilism, so unanimously rejected the spirit of Protestant reforms. This negative reaction to the Reformation produced the "revival" of Orthodoxy in two seemingly incompatible forms, which, in essence, were the two heads of the same eagle. The radical idea of completely rejecting Orthodoxy in favor of other confessions, and similarly the extreme approach of defending it exclusively as the only true faith, shared a common ground. The subsequent evolution of both trends in Russian thought is also quite remarkable and develops this general tendency. Thus, Westernism in the 19th century went through several significant transformations. Scholars usually connect these with the names of Vissarion Belinskii (1811-48) and Alexander Hertsen (1812-70), who were inclined toward socialist and republican ideals while criticizing the religious worldview. Belinskii, for example, expressed his dissatisfaction, not just with Orthodoxy or other divisions of historical Christianity, but also with ideal Christendom. In his famous letter to Gogol, Belinskii asserts that the Russian people are "deeply atheistic" and argues that the “Church [has been and is] a champion of inequality, a flatterer of authority, an enemy and persecutor of brotherhood among men.” In a letter to Hertsen he extends this attitude to religion in general: "I see darkness, obscurity, chains, and the knout in the words "God" and "Religion."116 115 116

Ibid., p.40.

Vissarion G. Belinskii. Izbrannye filosofskie sochineniia. Moscow, 1948, p.506. Quoted in Zenkovsky, Russian Philosophy, Vol. I, p.269.

66 In the following generation the tendency toward primitive atheism prevailed over the will to republican liberalism. The atheistic pseudo-prophecy, however, as Florovskii notes, "was directly counterposed to religious prophecy," being "an answer to the religious question."117

After a short period of the nihilism and

materialism of Dmitrii Pisarev (1840-68) and Nikolai Chernyshevskii (1828-89)--the latter was himself the son of an Orthodox priest--Russia gave birth to extremist revolutionary ideologies such as Bolshevism, a Russian (per)version of Marxism which was destined to take over the country for more than seventy years. The metamorphosis of Westernism toward leftist radicalism was paralleled by the degradation of Slavophilism to a reactionary nationalism. The so-called "younger Slavophiles," Nikolai Danilevskii (1822-85) and Konstantin Leontiev (1831-91), were already able to sacrifice the principle of Christian universalism for the glorification of the future greatness of the "Slavonic cultural type" and the Russian nation correspondingly. Here the remoteness from Protestantism was expressed in terms of philosophy of culture and corresponding differences between Russia and the West. Leontiev, for example, who accepted Danilevskii's triadic formula according to which, as George Kline puts it, any culture, like a living organism goes, “from an infantile stage of 'initial simplicity' to a mature stage of 'flourishing complexity', and then [sinks] through a stage of 'leveling interfusion' to organic death',” claimed that Western Europe, having passed the second stage "during the high Middle Ages, is now far advanced in the terminal process of 'leveling interfusion'."118 Leontiev's hostility to the West is extended to characteristic, as he thinks, features of its decay, namely, egalitarian ideas and democratic institutions. He proposed to "freeze" Russia to keep it from rotting. 117

Florovsky, Russian Theology, Vol.6, p.13.

118

Kline, "Russian Religious Thought," p.195.

67 The project of "freezing" Russia politically and religiously was carried out further in this line of thought by the variety of right-wing ideologies which appear at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century in Russia simultaneously with the popularization of Marxist communism.119 It is not surprising that both the rightist and leftist programs, while seeming opposites, were unanimous in claiming the unique and salvific role of Russia as opposed to the West. The doctrines, which used religious symbolism expressed this national messianism by applying it to the "only true" Church, Russian Orthodoxy, which would save the world from the power of the Antichrist. Secular theories, such as Marxism-Leninism, claimed that socialism would be built first in one isolated country (Russia) and then conquer the rest of the world. To sum up, having begun as the Orthodox response to the challenge of Protestantism, Westernism and Slavophilism, as two variations of the same negative stand, in the course of their transformation took on extremist and exclusivist forms as well. Russia became even less prepared for the 20th-century crisis of Christianity than for the previous crisis manifested in the Reformation of the Western Church.

Orthodoxy at the Crossroads Renewal vs. Revival As compared to Westernism and Slavophilism, with their later modifications, which represent a revival of different forms of Orthodox consciousness in the 19th century, there was also an attempt to create an alternative movement to the Orthodox renewal, a positive and constructive response to the challenge of modern Western civilization. The word "renewal" does not mean here specific changes in the 119

For a further discussion on the evolution of Slavophilism and its rebirth in the second half of the 20th century Russia see a book written by Russian émigré historian and political philosopher, Alexander Ianov: Russkaia ideia i 2000 god [The Russian Challenge and the Year 2000]. New York: Liberty Publishing House, 1988.

68 Orthodox rituals or the denial of the tradition, but rather an intellectual assimilation and an appropriate reformist response to the spirit of modernity. This "middle way," or the path of moderation, would have assumed the recognition of, and a sincere alliance with, the West without losing Russia's national consciousness, and acceptance of Catholicism and Protestantism, but not at the price of undermining the Orthodox identity of the Russian people. A tremendously difficult task of Orthodox renewal was promoted within religious circles as well as in the midst of the secularized culture by the laity. One such lay-led attempt was made by Vladimir Solov'ev, a poet, philosopher, mystic and seer (see Appendix A). Solov'ev's own religious experience was decisive for the role he played in modern Russian thought.120 Vladimir grew up in a very religious atmosphere and was educated at home in the strong spirit of Orthodox faith. However, early in his youth he experienced doubts and after losing his faith went through a deep spiritual crisis which led him to defend--briefly--the position of extreme materialism and nihilism. As Nikolai Losskii notes in his History, at that time young Vladimir succumbed to atheism, threw his icons into the garden, became keen on Buchner's materialism and Pisarev's nihilism. Socialism and even communism became his social ideals.121 It took about four years for Solov'ev to overcome the crisis and to come back consciously to a religious worldview. As a result he decided to devote himself to "justifying the faith of the Fathers", and putting the eternal truth of the Christendom into a contemporary rational form. This spiritual path: naive Orthodox childhood, rebellious atheistic youth and then theorizing religious adulthood--became a

120

See, for example, a Solov'ev's biography written by Sergei Solov'ev: Zhizn' i tvorcheskaia evolutsiia Vladimira Solov'eva. Brussels: Zhizn' s Bogom, 1977. 121

Lossky, History of Russian Philosophy, p.80.

69 customary pattern for many of Solov'ev's followers in the 20th century, including Berdiaev, Losskii and particularly Fr. Sergii Bulgakov. What makes Solov'ev unique, however, is that this highly gifted person combined the talent of a philosopher with a poetical and mystical vocation. He wrote philosophical treatises and also many poems, which reflected personal mystical visions of the divine realm and described mysterious encounters with Sophia, the Eternal Feminine, the Queen of Heavens or the Eternal Wisdom of God.122 Solov'ev himself portrays his mystical experience without any impassioned element but instead with a self-irony distinctive to his literary style in general. The first of these "meetings," as Solov'ev tells his readers in a poem "Tree Meetings" composed not long before he died, happened during a church service in his childhood. A second, incomplete, vision, occurred much later in London in 1875 where Solov'ev was sent to study philosophy, while the third one took place in the Egyptian desert to which he was mysteriously asked to come from London. Here is Solov'ev's own recollection of the episode in Egypt: What is, what was, and what will always be-A single motionless look encompassed everything here... ........................... I saw everything, and everything was one thing only-A single image of female beauty... The infinite fit within its dimensions: Before me, in me--were you alone.123 Strongly influenced by his mystical visions, Solov'ev introduces the symbol of Sophia into his poetry and also makes an attempt to conceptualize this mythological character by making it the foundation for a philosophical system. Even Zenkovskii, who seriously doubts the major significance of the concept of Sophia in 122

For a discussion of the relation between Solov'ev's mystical experience and his philosophical sophiology see, for example, a book written by K. V. Mochulskii: V. S. Solov'ev. Paris, 1936. 123

Vladimir S. Solov'ev. "Tri svidaniia." (Translated by Ralph Koprince). The Silver Age of Russian Culture: An Anthology. Edited by Carl and Ellendea Proffer. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1975, p.132.

70 Solov'evian thought, and is convinced that "it must be assigned a 'secondary' place among the 'roots' of Solov'ev's philosophy" whose "basic doctrines can be expounded without reference to his Sophiology," nevertheless recognizes that Solov'ev “held steadfastly to his Sophiological conception, and this means, of course, that it was one of the basic elements in his perception and interpretation of the world.”124 In other words, Sophia, once discovered during his studies in the Theological Academy in Moscow, and experienced personally in mystical vision, took captive the powers of Solov'ev imagination. As a living intersection between the human and the divine, she symbolized a renewal of religious life under the strong influence of which Solov'ev, who regained his faith, poses to himself the task of reevaluating it in the light of the achievements of modern science and civilization. Ecumenical Vision Solov'ev entered the path of religious philosophy as the continuer of the cause of the Slavophiles. However, from the beginning the intention of his religiousphilosophical program was much broader, especially concerning the relation of Orthodoxy to Catholicism and Protestantism. In fact, renovationist tendencies in Solov'evian thought were most clearly manifested in his approach toward other confessions, which anticipated contemporary ecumenical and inter-religious attitudes. Far from setting Russia against the West (or vice versa)125 he tended to understand the positive contributions of each civilization and to reconcile them in the unity of a universal synthesis. Correspondingly, as an Orthodox Christian, Solov'ev nevertheless never opposed Orthodoxy to Western confessions, or Christianity to 124 125

Zenkovsky, Russian Philosophy, Vol.II, pp.483, 479.

A book about Solov'ev written by Egbert Munzer was appropriately named: Solov'ev: Prophet of Russian-Western Unity. New York: Philosophical Library, 1956.

71 other religions. On the contrary, he always tried to find a perspective where all different opinions could be viewed as partially true.126 In the conclusion of his Lectures On Divine Humanity, written at the beginning of his philosophical career, one finds, for instance, the following characteristic statement: In the history of Christianity, the fixed divine foundation in humankind is represented by the Eastern Church, while the Western world represents the human principle... after the human principle has completely isolated itself... can it enter into a free union with the divine foundation of Christianity, preserved in the Eastern Church.127 The idea of the complementary and, therefore, the relative value of the three major Christian confessions runs through many of Solov'ev's other works as well. In his article "The Slavonic Question" he writes, for example: Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Catholicism in their formative principles do not exclude, but complement each other. Their hostile opposition is not derived from their true substance, but is just a temporary historical fact.128 He is also quick to criticize the absolutization by each confession of the relativity of the values it represents. Thus, for example, in The Great Debate and Christian Politics he argues that If the contemplative East sinned by not thinking at all about the practical means and conditions of the accomplishment of the God's work on earth, the practical West was also mistaken in thinking primarily of these means and converting them into the goal of its activity.129 The positive ideal defended by Solov'ev, in contrast to one-sided absolutization, is the universal re-union of Christianity in which all the relative 126

In this respect Solov'ev's openness, for example, to Judaism was quite remarkable. He wrote several appreciative and warm essays about the Jewish people and his last prayer was for the Jews. 127

Vladimir Solov'ev. Lectures on Divine Humanity. (Translated from the Russian by Peter Zouboff). Revised and edited by Boris Jakim. Hudson, N.Y.: Lindisfarne Press, 1995, p.174. 128 129

Vladimir Solov'ev. "Slavianskii vopros" [The Slavonic Question]. Soch., Vol. 5, p.73.

Solov'ev, Velikii spor i khristianskaia politika [The Great Dispute and Christian Politics]. Soch., Vol. 4, p.61.

72 merits of each historical confession will take an appropriate place. The only seed and the guarantor of such a re-union is, for him, Christ himself, the God-man and the founder of the Christian Church, which in a historical sense represents a reconciliation of the two formative principles: the Eastern which consists of passive devotion to Deity, and the Western, which affirms the initiative of human beings.130 The union of the Eastern and Western Churches, as envisioned by Solov'ev, will not represent an absorption of one confession by another, but rather a free reconciliation in one body. As he himself puts it: "The ideal of the Church is not in the merging of these two different activities, but in their concordance."131 Speaking from his own Orthodox heritage Solov'ev keeps insisting that the “primary task of our times is the spiritual re-union and renewal of Christianity, the beginning of its actual realization in the common life of humanity.”132 His own ecumenical position, however, as mentioned, consists of adherence to ideal Christianity with no particular preference for any of its existing historical forms. Sometimes he sounds even more favorable to the Western than the Orthodox confession. He sees the positive side of Catholicism, for instance, in creating a suprapolitical organization, which affirms the primacy of religion over political powers. He recognizes the "principle of ecclesiastical authority or spiritual power, represented primarily by the Roman Church."133 The contribution of Protestantism Solov'ev finds in the advancement of the principle of free investigation. Thus, he

130

Ibid., p.48.

131

Ibid., p.49.

132

Solov'ev, "Slavianskii vopros," ibid., Vol. 5, p.73.

133

Solov'ev, Velikii spor, ibid., Vol. 4, p.78.

73 writes: “A decisive affirmation of the religious freedom of a person and the inviolability of the personal conscience constitute the merits of Protestantism.”134 As for Orthodoxy, Solov'ev limits himself to sarcastic observations about those who, using Losskii's expression, want to become more Orthodox than Orthodoxy itself. For example, regarding Christians aspiring toward heaven: Catholics believe that it is safer to cross the sea together in a large and seaworthy vessel... Protestants, on the contrary, claim that it is for each one to construct a cockle-shell to his own liking... But what is to be said to these self-styled Orthodox who maintain that the best way of reaching harbor is to pretend that you are there already?135 Beyond the Historical Confessions Solov'ev's ecumenism and the religious philosophy, which stands behind this project had a mixed reception even in his lifetime, as well as after his death in 1900. In his own motherland during the Soviet period of Russian history he was completely forgotten and his works remained massively unpublished until the 1980s. Russian émigré thinkers, in their turn, characterized Solov'ev's intellectual biography in a polarizing fashion, on the one hand, attributing to him a prophetic spirit, on the other, accusing him of initiating a new Christian heresy.136 Finally, scholars also disagree whether to view Solov'ev as a true follower and the spiritual inheritor of the Slavophiles or to emphasize the Solov'evian critique of Russian Orthodoxy, in which

134

Ibid., p.100. For more discussion about Protestant influences on Solov'ev see: Ludolf Mueller. Solovjev und der Protestantismus. Freiburg: Verlag Herder, 1951; and Gregory Gaut, "Christian Politics: Vladimir Solovyov's Social Gospel Theology," Modern Greek Studies Yearbook, 10/11 (1994/1995): pp.653-674. 135

Vladimir Solov'ev. Russia and the Universal Church. (Translated by Herbart Rees). London: Geoffrey Bles, The Centenary Press, 1948, p.57. 136

Later on in the 20th century similar accusations were brought up against Solov'ev's followers, Nikolai Berdiaev and especially Fr. Sergii Bulgakov.

74 he goes even further than Chaadaev, as well as Solov'ev's sympathy for secular social movements, such as socialism.137 Of course, these disagreements are largely due to the complexity of Solov'ev's worldview and the evolution of his thought. In the scholarly literature three main periods of Solov'ev's creative work have been distinguished, namely, the preparatory; the theocratic, or utopian; and the final, or apocalyptic.138 This basic division is necessary for, as Zenkovskii rightly mentions, Solov'ev's judgments on a number of questions differed in the various periods ... Thus, in the first period Solov'ev was very close to the Slavophiles; in the second he broke with them sharply and decisively.139 From the point of view proposed in this book, these periods, however, would have been given a slightly different interpretation. The first, "preparatory" period, was followed by the "renovationist," in which Solov'ev developed his religiousphilosophical program for Orthodox renewal. In the last, "apocalyptic" stage he went further and became deeply affected by his intuitions of the future crisis of Christianity. Hence, toward the end of his life, seeing no real future for his teaching in Russia, Solov'ev became more and more disillusioned with utopian theocratic ideals and the ardent hope for Christian re-union. His thought turned to the problems of evil and eschatological vision. He also tried to re-work radically his whole

137

Nikolai Losskii, for example, belongs to the first group. A standard American anthology of Russian philosophic thought portrays Solov'ev as neither a Slavophile nor a Westernizer, but a thinker who "can be viewed as the ultimate reunion of the two tendencies, though purely on the religious plane." (Russian Philosophy, Vol.III, p.55). 138

See, for example: Pr. Evgenii Trubetskoi, Mirosozertsanie Vl. S. Solov'eva, 2 vols. Moscow, 1913. 139

Zenkovsky, Russian Philosophy, Vol.II, p.478.

75 philosophical system.140 In his famous 1892 letter to Rozanov Solov'ev makes a remarkable confession giving a hint of his spiritual condition at that time. He writes: I am as far from Latin narrowness as I am from Byzantine narrowness or that of Augsburg or Geneva. The religion of the Holy Spirit, which I profess is broader and at the same time fuller and richer than all separate religions. It is neither the sum nor the extract from them, as the whole person is neither the sum nor the extract of his separate organs.141 Solov'ev’s last work, Three Conversations, portrays the final days of the world and the coming of the Antichrist. In a supplement to this, A Short Story of the Antichrist, he also describes an ultimate reunion of Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism, which follows the unmasking of the Emperor of the World. In the literary masterpiece this occurs in Jerusalem in the 21st century when Pope Peter II, the Starets John and Professor Ernest Pauli refuse to acknowledge the ultimate authority of the Emperor. The reunion of the Churches happens "during a dark night in a high and solitary place" with the words of the professor: "So also, Vaterchen, nun sind wir ja Eins in Christo."142 Sophia As the Principle of Integration Theological Aspects of Sophia Formally, Solov'ev introduces the concept of Sophia into his religiousphilosophical system in the Lectures on Divine Humanity, written at the beginning of his career. Let us first concentrate on the specifically theological side of the concept 140

Unfortunately, Solov'ev died before he substantially changed it. He left several fragments of this new project such as Theoretical Philosophy, in which he seems to challenge the Cartesian concept of the "self" as substance. 141

Solov'ev, "V.V. Rozanovu" [To V.V. Rozanov]. Pis'ma, 3:43-44. These motifs were picked up by the "New Religious Consciousness" movement in Russia in the beginning of the 20th century and were echoed in the philosophy of Nikolai Berdiaev. 142

Solov'ev, Tri Razgovora [Three Conversations]. Soch., 10:218.

76 as it appears in this work. One has to remember that religious questions have a general priority for Solov'ev over everything else, including philosophy. Thus, at the outset of his Lectures, Solov'ev, whose aim is "to discuss the truths of positive religion," defines it, "generally and abstractly," as the "connection of humanity and the world with the absolute principle and focus of all that exists." It is evident, he argues further, that If we admit the existence of such an absolute center, all the points on the circle of life must be linked to that center with equal radii. Only then can unity, wholeness, and harmony appear in human life and consciousness. As such, however, or "as the center of spiritual attraction", he points out, religion has ceased to exist. He says, Instead , our so-called religiosity is a personal mood, a personal taste. Some people have this taste, others do not, just as some people like music and others do not.143 The pessimistic picture drawn by Solov'ev does not discourage him in the long run because of his strong conviction that the pitiful state of contemporary religious consciousness is but a stage in its subsequent triumph. The coming renewal of religion, as has been shown, is understood by Solov'ev in terms of the reunion of the positive aspects of Eastern and Western Christendom. He puts this most precious of his beliefs into the following words: The old, traditional form of religion issues from faith in God... Contemporary extrareligious civilization proceeds from belief in humanity... But when both of these beliefs, the belief in God and the belief in humanity are carried consistently to the end and actualized in full, they meet in the one, complete, integral truth of Divine humanity.144 The order in which Solov'ev unfolds his metaphysical system follows the same triadic scheme. First, he analyses the concept of the Absolute and connects it 143

Solov'ev, Lectures on Divine Humanity, pp.1-2.

144

Ibid., p.24.

77 with the Christian notion of the triune God. Next, when analyzing the world of creation, he defines the place of human beings in it. Finally, he comes to the synthesis and presents the idea of Divine humanity (Bogochelovechestvo) as the perfect union of the divine and the human. In a word, Solov'ev begins and ends with the analysis of the concept of Deity. The Absolute, he affirms, is higher than anything else and has nothing outside of itself. In other words, it represents the unity, which embraces all or simply the "total-unity." As Solov'ev puts it, just as every real entity has a determinate essence or content, of which it is the bearer, in reference to which it says 'I am', that is, I am this and not another, so the divine being affirms its 'I am' not with respect to any separate particular content, but with respect to the all. Or, for example, later: the divine principle is not a person only in the sense that it is not exhausted by a personal determination; it is not only the one but also all, not only an individual being but also the all-embracing being...145 In the following lecture Solov'ev identifies the abstract philosophical idea of the Absolute with the personal God, namely, with the triune God of Christianity. Here this Christian Deity is understood as posited in three ways in relation to its content, correspondingly, as a single substance, which essentially includes all in its absolute power... as manifesting or actualizing its own absolute content, opposing the latter to itself... as maintaining and asserting itself in its own content.146 The three mentioned aspects of the Absolute Being correspond, according to Solov'ev, to the three persons of the Holy Trinity, and constitute, as he emphasizes, the "three consubstantial and indivisible subjects, each of which in its own way is

145

Solov'ev, Lectures on Divine Humanity, pp.64-65, 67.

146

Ibid., p.83.

78 related to one and the same absolute essence..." He calls them the "absolute First Principle," the "essential Word," and the "Holy Spirit."147 The particular content of the Christian religion is mainly focused on the second hypostasis of the Holy Trinity. "In Christianity as such," as Solov'ev argues, "we find Christ, and only Christ." Here, he continues, the only new teaching specifically different from all other religions is Christ's teaching about Himself, His reference to Himself as living, incarnate truth: 'I am the way, the Truth and the life' [John 14:6]. 'He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life' [John 3:36].148 Solov'ev then develops his teaching about the Christ as the second person of the Trinity in the following way: as the unconditional oneness, he writes, God is realized in the multitude of beings united as the whole. This divine and living unity is the most universal because it includes everything which exists. The more universal this unity is and the more inter-related elements it includes, the more original and unique it seems to be. For that reason, the most universal organism is also the most particular one. Hence, as Solov'ev concludes, such a unique "universal organism, which expresses the absolute content of the divine principle... is Christ."149 The unity of every organism, however, is twofold. On the one hand, it is active as uniting plurality to itself. On the other hand, as plurality reduced to unity, this is a produced unity. The first kind of unity in Christ, as Solov'ev argues, in the Christian tradition is called the Word or Logos, while the second one bears the name of Sophia. As Solov'ev puts it: If we distinguish in the absolute in general between the absolute as such, (that which absolutely is) and its content, essence, or idea, we will find the

147

Ibid., p.96. Here the term "First Principle" stands for the Russian Pervonachalo.

148

Ibid., p.105.

149

Ibid., p.107.

79 former directly expressed in the Logos, and the latter directly expressed in Sophia, which is thus the expressed, realized idea.150 Christ himself represents a properly divine being as related to Logos, while as belonging to Sophia he is a human being, a man or, according to the Sacred Scripture, the second Adam. Sophia, therefore, expresses the idea of humanity and is, as Solov'ev acknowledges, the "ideal or perfect humanity, eternally contained in the integral divine being or Christ."151 Metaphysics of Total-Unity The triune God, the supreme Divine Being, represents the complete goodness, truth and beauty, which are different manifestations of its essence of love. How, then, could such a perfect Being who encompasses all that exists have created the imperfect world of existence? What does the concept of the total-unity as applied to the Absolute lead to when it comes to theodicy? Solov'ev explains that the solution to the puzzle must lie in deriving the conditional from the unconditional... contingent reality from the absolute idea, in deriving the natural world of phenomena from the world of divine essence.152 Solov'ev concludes that in its essence the world of nature must have not differed from the divine realm. He argues, accordingly, that if "there cannot be any entities that have the ground of their being outside of God..." then nature in its contraposition to divinity, “can only be another positing or permutation of given essential elements that have their substantial being in the divine world.”153 In

150

Ibid., p.108.

151

Ibid., p.113.

152

Ibid., p.112.

153

Ibid., p.124.

80 Solov'ev's view, therefore, the divine world and that of nature, while not substantially opposed to each other, are nevertheless distinct accidentally through the positioning of their elements. Thus, he continues, the realm of Deity "represents the unity of all existents [where] each finds itself in all, and all in each." The reality of nature, on the contrary, consists of entities each of which asserts itself apart from and against the others (which is evil), and thereby experiences, against its will, the external actuality of the others (which is suffering).154 The necessary bridge between the two worlds of nature and of divinity is represented by humanity, for every human person combines, as Solov'ev puts it, all possible oppositions which can all be reduced to one great opposition between the unconditional and the conditional, between absolute essence and the transitory phenomenon or appearance.155 As part of the natural kingdom, human beings desire to center everything on them and suffer from the radical impossibility of fulfilling this egocentric drive. At the same time they dream of realizing the essential unity with everything that exists while sacrificing their exclusive will. The question, however, remains as to why God, as the absolute perfection, sanctions the appearance of the imperfect natural world culminating in suffering humanity? Here Solov'ev introduces the concept of Sophia and develops his sophiological teaching. First, Solov'ev equates Sophia with normative or ideal humanity, uniting all the individual living beings or souls. This "world soul" being "one and all", as Solov'ev writes, occupies a mediating position between the multiplicity of living entities, which constitute the real content of its life, and absolute unity of Divinity, which is the ideal principle and the norm of its life.156 154

Ibid., p.124.

155

Ibid., p.113.

156

Ibid., p.131.

81 Moreover, Sophia, or the soul of the world, is a dual entity which remains free because, as he adds, "the divine principle, [inherent in it], liberates it from its created nature, while this nature in turn liberates it with respect to Divinity."157 This special place of Sophia in the order of creation results in a paradoxical, gnostically-flavored temptation. While belonging to divinity and possessing the fullness of being, it can still desire to possess it as God does, namely from itself as well as for itself. However, by actualizing this intention, Sophia loses its freedom and its dominant power over creation, which it possesses not from itself but from the Deity. Accordingly, having lost their common volitional center, the parts of the disintegrated universal organism break the organic ties and turn into separate elements, which pursue their own ego-centered goals. As a result, as Solov'ev concludes, all of creation is thus made subject to the vanity and bondage of corruption not willingly, but by the will of... the world soul, as the one free principle of natural life.158 In spite of the animosity existing since Sophia's fall among the members of the natural kingdom, expressed in their constant struggles with each other and the reign of death over all without exception, the striving toward unity, love and eternal life remains in them potentially as well. It is hidden in the fallen beings as a sign of the "lost paradise" and a deposit of the future reacquired bliss and immortality. The gradual realization of this tendency, as Solov'ev argues, "constitutes the meaning and goal of the cosmic process."159 The re-creation of primordial unity goes through several stages in the evolution of the natural world, which culminates in the appearance of human beings 157

Ibid., p.132.

158

Ibid., p.134.

159

Ibid., p.136.

82 capable of the incarnation of the divine idea in matter and the consequent theosis (obozhenie) of the latter. "In humanity," Solov'ev writes, "the world soul is, for the first time, inwardly united with the divine Logos in consciousness as a pure form of [total]-unity." The human person, he continues, having in consciousness the faculty of comprehending the reason, or the inner connection and meaning (logos) of all that exists, appears, in idea, as the all. In this sense, the human being is the second all-one, the image and likeness of God."160 While the image of God, as Solov'ev explains, is represented in the ideal human consciousness, the likeness of God is expressed in the "formal limitlessness of the human I,"161 i.e., its ultimate freedom from normative as well as factual existence. The historical process consists, therefore, of the "liberation of the human self-consciousness and the gradual spiritualization of humanity through the inner assimilation and development of the divine principle."162 In the religious sphere it is reflected by the gradual emancipation of humanity from the external natural and the inner psychic forces, and, finally, from the personal, but also external--through the covenant of the law--relationship with the Deity. The coming of Christ, or the "inner unification of Divinity with the human soul in the person of the Messiah, the son of David and the son of God,"163 signifies the turning point in human history as well as in the process of creation, for it reintegrates the primordial total-unity between God and the creaturely world. "The incarnation of the divine Logos in the person of Jesus Christ," Solov'ev writes, "is the appearance of the new spiritual Man, the second Adam... a universal being,

160

Ibid., p.141. [Trans. rev'd.]

161

Ibid., p.142.

162

Ibid., p.147.

163

Ibid., p.153.

83 embracing the whole of regenerated, spiritual humankind."164 It is not a miracle, though, a supra-natural or irrational event, but, on the contrary, a fulfillment and a perfectly reasonable result of the long chain of evolution. As Solov'ev emphasizes, while "[a]ll nature strove and gravitated towards humanity... the whole history of humankind was moving toward Divine humanity."165 From this point of view, Christianity also is not just one of many religious confessions, but represents the religion, with its focus on Christ, who is the center of the divine life and creation. As the body of Christ, the Christian Church accordingly possesses the eternal and universal character and ideally comprises those who have lived in the past, those who are alive at present, and those who will be born in the future "so as to embrace, at the end of time," as Solov'ev believes, "all humankind and all nature in one universal divine-human organism."166 Needless to say, the Godman, Jesus Christ, and the Church founded by him are, therefore, the ultimate manifestations of Sophia, the wisdom of God, as well. Solov'ev's main lines of teaching about Sophia exposed in his Lectures on Divine Humanity and presented above remained essentially unchanged throughout his intellectual career. Speaking, for example, of another work in which Solov'ev develops his sophiology, namely, the later Russia and the Universal Church, a contemporary historian of philosophy, Frederick Copleston, affirms that The context of the theory of Sophia is here formed more by Christian belief, devotion and hopes than by the complicated metaphysics of the [Lectures on Divine Humanity]... It is not a question of claiming that Solov'ev abandoned

164

Ibid., p.155.

165

Ibid., p.157.

166

Ibid., p.164.

84 or repudiated his metaphysics; it is more a question of a temporary shift of interest.167 In spite of the generally unchanged spirit, however, in Russia and the Universal Church Solov'evian sophiology underwent some significant modifications. Perhaps the most important one concerned the problem of the origin of evil. In his Lectures, Solov'ev initially invested all the responsibility for producing evil in Sophia, whose fall doomed the creatures, including itself, to separation from the Deity. The solution was designed to help the thinker in reconciling his faith in the perfect God and his recognition of the imperfections of the world. Nevertheless, by blaming Sophia, Solov'ev did not complete the task for one simple reason. In his view, Sophia represents one of the aspects of God himself and to accuse Sophia of originating evil ultimately means to attribute the principle of imperfection to the perfect God. In Russia and the Universal Church Solov'ev is already aware of this puzzle. At the same time he still holds to a firm conviction that creation "is not a direct work of God" "for the various parts of the work, considered in themselves... deserve from the mouth of God only a relative approval or none at all".168 God could not have "directly and exclusively" created our physical reality of space, time and casualty, and neither could Sophia as sharing God's perfection and being the ideal humanity. To preserve the formal purity of the Godhead and God's wisdom, Solov'ev dissociates the concept of Sophia from that of the world soul, while ascribing the origin of evil to the latter. He argues now, that

167

Frederick C. Copleston. Russian Religious Philosophy: Selected Aspects, Notre Dame, Ind., London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989, p.85. 168

Solov'ev, Russia and the Universal Church, p.171.

85 The divine Wisdom is not the soul, but the guardian angel of the world, overshadowing all creatures with its wings as a bird her little ones, in order to raise them gradually to true being.169 And here is how Solov'ev describes the difference between Sophia and the world soul: If the eternally actual state of absolute substance (in God) is to be all in unity, its potential state (outside God) is to be all in division. This is indeterminate and anarchic plurality, the Chaos or... the tohu va bohu of the Bible.170 The second redaction of Solov'ev's theodicy describes the world soul as the chaotic force, "the materia prima, the true substratum of our created world" and, finally, the "subject putting itself in a false relationship and producing in itself the distorted image of truth."171 In another chapter one reads that the world soul is a "lower antitype" of "the higher Wisdom" and that, while not directly creating "the various manifestations of physical life," God determines, directs and ordains the productive force of this agent called "earth", that is, earthly nature, primal matter, the soul of the lower world... in itself simply an indeterminate and inordinate force.172 The separation of the evil principle, or chaos, exemplified in the world soul from the Creator and Sophia, however, still remains quite indeterminate itself. Thus, one finds ambiguous passages where the world soul merges again with Sophia, such as one in which Solov'ev argues that as “a creature, it does not exist eternally in itself, but it exists from all eternity in God, in the state of pure potentiality, as the latent basis of the eternal Wisdom.”173 On the other hand, the wisdom of God, 169

Ibid., p.167.

170

Ibid., p.157.

171

Ibid., pp.162-163.

172

Ibid., pp.170-171.

173

Ibid., p.163.

86 considered formally purified from the shadow of evil and imperfection, acquires here a unique role in the re-integration of the fallen world and becomes, as Solov'ev puts it, "the true rationale and end of creation."174 The realization of this goal leads from the incarnation of Christ to the gradual divinization of nature and society. The universal history, as Solov'ev argues, bears threefold fruit: the "perfect Woman, or nature made divine, perfect Man or the GodMan, and the perfect Society of God with humans--the final incarnation of the eternal Wisdom."175 Accordingly, if Jesus Christ as a Divine-human being is the "central and completely personal manifestation," or the incarnation, of Sophia, its "feminine complement is the Blessed Virgin" and its "universal extension is the Church." These three aspects of the "essential Wisdom or the absolute substance of God," represent, in Solov'ev's views, the three successive and permanent manifestations, distinct in existence but indivisible in essence, assuming the name of Mary in its feminine personality, of Jesus in its masculine personality, and reserving its proper name for its complete and universal appearance in the perfect Church of the future, the Spouse and Bride of the divine Word.176 Aesthetic Dimension of Sophiology The concept of Sophia, as one may note, has a variety of meanings and applications in Solov'ev's philosophy. However, one thing common to all of the aspects of Sophia is immediately clear. Solov'ev uses this concept as the instrument of the reconciliation of all sorts of opposites, a working symbol of synthesis. As such a general principle of integration, depending upon specific level, Sophia receives a concrete manifestation, beginning from the primordial total-unity 174

Ibid., p.166.

175

Ibid., p.175.

176

Ibid., p.176.

87 (vseedinstvo) up to the Divine humanity (Bogochelovechestvo) of Christ and the coming Kingdom of God. Sophia unites the incompatible: the divine and the human, the spiritual and the material, the ideal and the real. Aleksei Losev, who argues that in the philosophy of Solov'ev Sophia is "the main and central image or the idea of all of his philosophizing," also says that Solov'ev thought of Sophia "as an inseparable identity of the ideal and the material, i.e., as the materially realized idea or as ideally transfigured matter."177 It is important to mention that a similar definition is given by Solov'ev to beauty as well. In his article, "Beauty in Nature," for instance, he defines the former as the "transfiguration of matter through the incarnation in it of another, supramaterial principle."178

He writes later in the same work that "[b]eauty as the

incarnate idea is the better half of our real world, namely that half which not only exists but also is worthy of existence," while understanding this worthiness as the "complete freedom of the composite parts in the perfect unity of the whole."179 It then follows that beauty becomes a complete and perfect manifestation of the Absolute, its "complete sensuous realization... not only as the idea's reflection of matter, but as its actual presence in matter."180 The link between beauty and Sophia becomes closer when one considers Solov'ev's theory of the correspondence between the persons of the Holy Trinity and the absolute values of goodness, truth, and beauty. Thus, according to Solov'ev, Almighty God, being in his essence the Divine Nothingness, is beyond any manifestation and exemplifies pure love, the inexhaustible and complete sacrifice of 177

Aleksei F. Losev. Strast' k dialektike. Literaturnye razmyshleniia filosofa. Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel', 1990, p.208. 178

Vladimir Solov'ev. "Krasota v prirode" [Beauty in Nature]. Soch., Vol. 6, p.41.

179

Ibid., p.44.

180

Ibid., p.81.

88 the One to all. The three persons of the Holy Trinity, namely the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, by sharing the same essence, are, therefore, the bearers of the three absolute values of goodness, truth and beauty which "are only different forms of love" if by love be meant "every inner unity, every unification of the many from within." Hence Goodness is... love as what is willed...its unity is essential. Truth is also love... but as objectively represented; its unity is ideal. Finally, beauty is also love... it is love as manifested or made available to the senses; its unity is real.181 The special significance of beauty among the absolute values, in Solov'ev's opinion, consists of the fact that without it, the first two values would be incomplete. Complete goodness and truth, as he argues, necessitate their realization in beauty, otherwise they lose their fullness when the realm of matter is excluded. The moral human order based on the material domain of its existence must, as Solov'ev claims, include in itself the material foundation of being as an independent part of ethical action which is transformed here into aesthetic action, for the material being can be introduced into the moral order only through its enlightenment, spiritualization, i.e., only in the form of beauty. The final touch of beauty, therefore, he concludes, “is needed for the completion of goodness in the material world because only by beauty can the evil darkness of this world be enlightened and subdued.182 The ultimate realization of beauty--that is, the spiritualization or transformation of the whole creation--directly coincides with the establishment of the Kingdom of God, which is also the final manifestation of Sophia. Here the concept of beauty almost blends with that of Sophia. Accordingly, Solov'ev declares the goal of art to be the essential realization of beauty, the contributing in its own sphere to the coming of God's Kingdom. He defines an artistic creation as "every 181

Solov'ev, Lectures on Divine Humanity, p.103.

182

Solov'ev, "Obschii smysl iskusstva" [General Meaning of Art]. Soch., Vol. 6, p.77.

89 perceptive image of any thing or phenomenon from the point of view of its ultimate condition or in the light of the world-to-come."183 From a religious-philosophical concept, Sophia again turns into a mythological character, a literary figure. Having descended from the heights of religion it becomes incarnated as the "Eternal Feminine" in wonderful Solovievian lyrics. In the 20th century these rich sophiological intuitions of Solov'ev have been developed in all of the three aspects discussed above--theological; philosophical or ontological; and aesthetic. The fourth chapter will be devoted to the theological fruits of the Solov'evian project. We will focus our analysis on one of the central figures of modern Russian theology, Fr. Sergii Bulgakov. The fifth chapter will discuss the philosophical aspects of sophiology in the example of the philosophical system created by Nikolai Losskii. Finally, the sixth chapter will present the aesthetic dimension of sophiology manifested in the works of another Russian thinker, Nikolai Berdiaev.

183

Ibid., p.85.

90

91

Part II Chapter 4 Wisdom in Theology

Initial Formulations The Fourth Hypostasis Modern Russian sophiology represents a complex and multidimensional phenomenon. As Vasilii Zenkovskii, for instance, points out, the nucleus of any sophiological system comprises at least three aspects: (a)the theme of nature-philosophy, a conception of the world as a 'living whole'... (b)the theme of anthropology, which relates man and the mystery of the human spirit to nature and the Absolute; and finally (c)the theme of the 'divine' aspect of the world, which relates the ideal sphere in the world to what is 'beyond being'.184 In my view, however, the nerve of Russian sophiology is centered in its third aspect, namely, the connection between Creator and creation. In the specific historical circumstances of the crisis of Christianity, since approximately the end of the 19th century, this theme has acquired the utmost significance. Highly sensitive to the cataclysmic events of the 20th century, Russian thinkers felt a strong need to reexamine the very foundations of human existence. They attempted to rethink the Divine-human relationship, even to revise the Christian Trinitarian understanding of divinity. As a result, Sophia was introduced into the heart of Christianity, into the concept of the Holy Trinity itself. 184

Zenkovsky, Russian Philosophy, Vol.II, pp.840-841.

92 Such a fundamental restructuring of the theological field, which reflected unprecedented spiritual turmoil, turned out to be a double-edged sword. The addition of Sophia to the Trinity manifested a highly provocative dualism existing in the concept of Sophia itself, which consisted of the combining in it of both good and evil principles. Consequently, the expansion of the Trinity to include Sophia made the Absolute responsible for the origin of evil as it happened in the first redaction of Solov'ev's sophiology as well. In other words, the rethinking of the Trinitarian dogmas in the light of sophiology seemed essentially contradictory to the accepted views of the Christian Church. Vladimir Solov'ev, the "father" of Russian sophiology and also the first to apply its schema to Trinitarian doctrine, was more than anyone else aware of these dangers of the project. He himself pictured Sophia as an aspect of divinity, the "Absolute in process of," the "substance of the Trinity." In his Lectures on Divine Humanity Solov'ev also names Sophia the "God's body, the matter of Divinity, permeated with the principle of divine unity." At the same time he immediately warns his readers that to "speak about Sophia as an essential element of Divinity is not, from the Christian point of view, to introduce new Gods."185 In the preface to the edition of his poems Solov'ev confesses his philosophical and personal devotion to Sophia, but again emphatically states that “the transposition of carnal, animalhuman relations into the realm of the superhuman is the greatest abomination and the cause of utter ruin” which has nothing to do with the "true adoration of the eternal femininity."186 However ambiguous it may have appeared after Solov'ev's

185 186

Solov'ev, Lectures on Divine Humanity, p.108.

Stikhotvoreniia Vladimira Solov'eva. 5th edition. Ed. by S.M. Solov'ev. p.XIV. Quoted in Lossky, History of Russian Philosophy, p.131.

93 warning, sophiology still attracted young theologians who developed their theories along the lines of the sophiological concepts of their teacher.187 One of the most brilliant among the Solov'evian followers in theology was the priest, philosopher and scientist, Fr. Pavel Florenskii (1882-1937). He was convinced that the intuition of Sophia "determines Russian religious consciousness in its very sources and in it is precisely the deepest foundation of its originality." Florenskii even goes so far as to claim that "'Russia' and 'Russian' without Sophia are contradictions in terms."188 He dedicates one chapter of his principal work, The Pillar and Foundation of Truth, to the elaboration of his sophiological doctrine.189 One finds here an elaborate excursus into the history of Christian sophiology in the works of the Church Fathers as well as liturgical and iconographical sources of the veneration of the Holy Sophia. The theoretical elucidation of the idea of the wisdom of God seems nevertheless somewhat sketchy and open to conflicting interpretations.190 In the beginning of the chapter, the reader comes to know, as Frederick Coplestone, for instance, points out in his Russian Religious Philosophy: Selected Aspects, that Sophia is "the bridge between God and the world" belonging, therefore, "to two levels of reality, the divine and the creaturely." As a part of the heavenly 187

The theme of the "Eternal Feminine" also attracted the young generation of Russian poets and was developed in the symbolist poetry of Andrei Belyi and Alexander Blok. The relation of Solov'evian sophiology to feminism is another interesting, but understudied, topic. For an introductory discussion of the latter see, for example, Elizabeth S. Fiorenza, Jesus Miriam's Child, Sophia's Prophet: Critical Issues in Feminist Christology, New York: Continuum, 1995. 188

Pavel Florenskii. "Pamyati Feodora Dmitrievicha Samarina" Sergiev Posad, 1917. Quoted in Robert Slesinski, Pavel Florensky: A Metaphysics of Love, Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir Seminary Press, 1984, p.170. 189

See: Pavel Florenskii. Stolp i utverzhdenie istiny - opyt pravoslavnoi teoditsei v dvenadtsati pis'makh. Moscow: Pravda, 1990, Chapter XI, "Tenth Letter: Sophia," pp.319-393. 190

For a discussion of Florenskii's sophiology, see, for example, Slezinski's book, Chapter VII, pp.169-215.

94 sphere, Coplestone continues, it is described as "intimately related to the Logos or Word," "the thought-content of divine mind" and, finally, as "the archetype of creation and its transcendental unity."191 Furthermore, Sophia is called the "Eternal Bride of God's Word" having no existence "without Him and independently of Him."192 Florenskii portrays Sophia as being so tied to the Trinitarian life that he speaks about it as a "fourth hypostatic element" of the Holy Trinity.193 However, he seems never to advance any claim about the uncreated nature of Sophia. On the contrary, Florenskii is quick to dismiss anyone's accusation of heresy by insisting that Sophia represents the "fourth, created and, therefore, nonconsubstantial Person" of the Holy Trinity. It is not divinity, as he argues, but only partakes of the divine life. Sophia, he stresses, 'is' not Love but only enters into the communion of Love, is allowed to enter into this communion by the unexpressed, unfathomable, unthinkable Divine humility.194 Sophia is, hence, a created intermediary between God and the rest of creation, the "Great Root of the integral creation," he writes, “by which creature sinks into the inner Trinitarian life and through which it receives for itself Eternal Life from the Unified Source of Life.195 Accordingly, from the creaturely and particularly the human point of view, Sophia is described here as an "ideal human person," the

191

Florenskii, The Pillar, p.326. Quoted in Frederick C. Coplestone. Russian Religious Philosophy: Selected Aspects. Notre Dame, Ind., London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989, p.88. 192

Florenskii, Stolp, p.329.

193

Ibid., p.323.

194

Ibid., p.349.

195

Ibid., p.326.

95 human "Guardian Angel, as the gleam of the eternal dignity of the person, and as God's image in the human being."196 To sum up, Florenskii understood Sophia as the total-unity of creation and, at the same time as distinct from the Creator. Unfortunately, due to the tragic circumstances of his short life Florenskii was not able to elaborate fully on the initial sketches of his sophiology. Its theological development was continued by his contemporary, Fr. Sergii Bulgakov, who believed that Florenskii had put the "problem of sophiology in an absolutely Orthodox setting."197 Sophia As Created Total-Unity Fr. Sergii Bulgakov, like many of the Russian thinkers of his generation, went through a long and complex religious-philosophical evolution (see Appendix B).198 Having been born into a family of Orthodox priests Bulgakov became a Marxist theorist. Later he found the courage to renounce atheistic Marxism for idealist philosophy and then came to Orthodox theology and the priesthood. This profound spiritual metamorphosis, unusual even for the representatives of the socalled Russian religious renaissance of the early 20th century, occurred under the banner of the religious philosophy of Solov'ev. Bulgakov was especially attracted to the metaphysical concept of total-unity revived by Solov'ev. The intuition of total-unity, as Zenkovskii notes, was in tune with

196

Ibid., p.329.

197

Sergius Bulgakov. The Wisdom of God. A Brief Summary of Sophiology. New York - London: The Paisley Press - Williams and Norgate, 1937, p.25. 198

For a detailed account of Bulgakov's life and work see also a book by Catherine Evtuhov, The Cross and the Sickle: Sergei Bulgakov and the Fate of Russian Religious Philosophy, 1890-1920, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1997.

96 those minds which feel keenly not only the wholeness and living unity of natural being, but the connection of the cosmos with the transcendent absolute principle of being.199 As he adds in another place, "to understand the inner dialectic of the development of the idea of 'total-unity', we must consider its Sophiological aspect," which is "the key to this dialectic."200 As one of those who absorbed the Solov'evian heritage as a synthesis of sophiological teaching and the metaphysics of total-unity, Bulgakov, in one of his early articles, also emphasizes the "positive total-unity" as the "basic principle of Solov'ev's philosophy, its alpha and omega."201 In the first religious-philosophical period of his creative work, which begins with the publication of the book, Philosophy of Economy, Bulgakov does not yet extend the concepts of total-unity and Sophia to the Absolute or the Godhead.202 In accordance with traditional religious views, he strictly distinguishes the spheres of Creator and creation. Thus, when discussing the question of human creativity, for instance, he mentions that: Creativity in the strict sense, the creation of what is metaphysically novel, is not given to the human person as a created being and belongs only to the Creator. As for the creature, it exists and acts in the created world, it is not absolute and, therefore, not metaphysically original.203 As part of the creaturely world, humanity is called in the course of the historical process to become master of nature (khoziain), including its own nature as well. 199

Zenkovsky, Russian Philosophy, Vol.II, p.873.

200

Ibid., p.840.

201

See: Anthology, p.42.

202

For a detailed discussion of the early Bulgakov's sophiology see, for example, Bernice G. Rosenthal, "The Nature and function of Sophia in Sergei Bulgakov's Prerevolutionary Thought," Russian Religious Thought, edited by Judith D. Kornblatt and Richard F. Gustafson, Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1996, pp.154-176. 203

Sergei N. Bulgakov. Filosofiia khoziaistva Moscow: Nauka, 1993, Vol. I, p.159.

[Philosophy of Economy]. Sochineniia, 2 vols.

97 Such a reworking of nature into culture Bulgakov generally calls "economy" (khoziaistvo). The specifically political-economic term "economy" acquires here a broader and fundamentally religious-philosophical character. Seeking to define it, Bulgakov writes: The struggle for life against the hostile forces of nature for the purpose of defense, affirmation, enlargement, the striving to possess, domesticate and master them is exactly what can be called economy in the broadest and most preliminary sense.204 The striving for "economy" in this sense belongs to all living creatures, but especially to human beings, who conquer nature in order to humanize or, as Bulgakov notes, "to transform it into a potential human organism."205 Accordingly, he understands "economic" process as the "expression of the struggle of these two metaphysical principles--life and death, freedom and necessity, mechanism and organism."206 Analyzed from this perspective, "economy" may also have its own eschatology, which deals with the overcoming of the metaphysical power of death. In any case, economy, as Bulgakov again points out, "is the labor activity" which "includes in itself human labor in all of its applications." "The world as an economy", he continues, "is, hence, the world as the object of labor and, as such, the product of labor as well."207 Human creative activity transforms the natural universe into an artificial, "cultural" world. This human economic power has dramatically increased in the last century. What is the source of such an explosion of human economic and creative activity in general?

204

Ibid., p.84.

205

Ibid., p.85.

206

Ibid., p.85.

207

Ibid., pp.86-87.

98 Bulgakov's response to this question leaves room for two important reservations. First, as was already said, Bulgakov basically limits the human creative capacities of created beings as contrasted to those of their Creator. Second, and here he argues along the line of the tradition of Russian religious thought, human creativity requires nevertheless the necessary condition of freedom. However, the origin of creativity, as Bulgakov asserts, lies neither in the Creator nor in the individual human creature, but in the transcendental subject of the "economy" which is "integral humanity, the World Soul, Divine Sophia."208 He writes: The Unified World Soul, natura naturans, strives to possess nature or the world, natura naturata... in such a way that natura naturata fully knew itself in natura naturans.209 This ideal total-unity existed already potentially since eternity for, as Bulgakov argues, the whole world represents a kind of artistic reproduction of everlasting ideas... which in their integrity form an ideal organism, the Divine Sophia, that Wisdom which was before God during the creation of the world.210 Neither Creature Nor Divinity The schematic sophiology of The Philosophy of The Economy expressed in economico-philosophical terminology finds further and more detailed elaboration in Bulgakov's mature religious-philosophical work, The Unfading Light. Here Bulgakov abandons economic language and directs all his scholarly efforts to the analysis of purely religious experience. Formally, however, he remains faithful to the critical method of the master of his youth, Immanuel Kant.

208

Ibid., p.143.

209

Ibid., p.147.

210

Ibid., p.149.

99 As Bulgakov emphasized in the foreword to another of his books, From Marxism To Idealism, "Kant always seemed more indubitable to me than Marx; I felt it necessary to check Marx against Kant, and not vice versa."211 He begins thus his investigation of the phenomenology of religious belief with a typically Kantian question: how is religion possible? His answer, however, demonstrates how distant in fact Bulgakov is from the Kantian philosophical position. To begin with, Bulgakov writes that religion, from religio and religare meaning "to hold together," "to connect," establishes the "connection of the human person with that which is beyond the human" and represents the "feeling of the transcendent becoming immanent while preserving, however, its transcendence." Moreover, he postulates the existence of a specific religious organ which, as he puts it, assures a human person of the reality of another divine world not by proving its existence or convincing him with various arguments of the necessity of the latter but by leading him to a living immediate connection with religious reality.212 Personal experience of the divine is accepted by Bulgakov as the only source of the autonomy of religion. Individual religious claim, as he argues, is not analytical, but is "religious synthetic judgment a priori."213 In order to support this important thesis Bulgakov uses Kantian teaching about the antinomic nature of transcendental reason: "Antinomian thinking," he says, "possesses its object, makes it immanent in itself only in part, only to a certain limit which is disclosed in an antinomy."214 Religious experience also manifests itself in the form of an antinomy. 211

Sergei Bulgakov. Ot Marksizma k idealizmu. St. Petersburg, 1903, p.xi. Quoted in Zenkovsky, Russian Philosophy, p.894. 212

Sergei Bulgakov. Svet nevechernii. Sozertsaniia i umozreniia. Moscow: Respublika, 1994, p.12.

213

Ibid., p.19.

214

Ibid., p.89.

100 Thus, the main antinomy of religious consciousness is the transcendence and, at the same time, the immanence of the Deity. Such a coincidentia oppositorum finds eloquent expression in the essential dualism of theology. On the one hand, apophatic theology claims the only possible knowledge of God to be that of what God is not. In other words: It is impossible to say about the Absolute that It is and also impossible to say that It is not; here... there is only the silent philosophical-mystical gesture, only negation, the naked NO.215 On the other hand, the fully "naked NO" would have excluded even questioning about the Deity, for it would have negated any contact between him and his creatures. The Deity, however, communicates with humanity through revelation, which opens the possibilities for cataphatic or positive theology. As Bulgakov puts it: God is born with the world and within the world... Here begins the possibility of defining God as being immanently-transcendent... there appears the necessity of dogma and myth; finally, there arises, as a religious-philosophical problem, the critical establishing of the concept of God.216 In other words, the knowledge of Creator as related to creation or the relative knowledge of God primarily postulates the ontological difference between the former and the latter. "The world is real in its Divine foundation," as Bulgakov says, "for its existence is existence in the Absolute,--the ideas of creation and emanation agree here." "But in the idea of creation," he continues, "the world is also posited outside the Absolute, as something self-sufficient and relative."217 The act of creation, adding a relatively independent and new entity to that which already comprises the whole, may seem illogical. However, Bulgakov is not 215

Ibid., p.92.

216

Ibid., p.93.

217

Ibid., p.157.

101 daunted by the incomprehensibility of this Divine operation. "The transition from the Absolute to the relative," he says, "is not available to understanding, for it comes up against an antinomy which can be sensed, though this does not make it intelligible for discursive thinking."218 In fact, the limitations of logic do not necessarily indicate real-life impossibility. On the contrary, the creation of our relative world represents for Bulgakov the most real event, having its roots in the free will and the allgoodness of the Absolute. The Creator here is not considered the cause of creation but instead the "creative sacrifice of love" to creation. As Bulgakov puts it again: "Creation is the sacrifice by the Absolute of Its absoluteness, a sacrifice which is caused by nobody and nothing."219 The Divine sacrifice leads to the positing not only of the created world, but also of a borderline, which divides the Deity from his creation as well. This imaginary link which, by its very concept exists between God and the world, Creator and creation being itself neither the one nor the other but something completely peculiar, simultaneously connecting and separating the one and the other,220 is called Sophia. Sophia is "God's angel," the "beginning of God's ways." It possesses a unique personality but, nevertheless, as Bulgakov emphasizes, is "distinct from the Hypostases of the Holy Trinity, is special, of a different order, a fourth hypostasis."221

218

Ibid., p.156.

219

Ibid., p.159.

220

Ibid., p.186.

221

Ibid., p.186. In a special article "Ipostas' i ipostasnost'" included in the volume in honour of P. B. Struve, Prague, 1925, Bulgakov distinguishes between "hypostasis" (ipostas’) and "hypostasity" (ipostasnost') to which Sophia is referred. By this theoretical distinction he attempts to define Sophia's specific nature,-- neither Triune nor creaturely.

102 Again he insists on the essential distinction between the Trinitarian God and Sophia when one reads, for instance, later: The generation of the world in Sophia is the action of the entire Holy Trinity in each of Its Hypostases extended to a receptive being, the Eternal Feminine, which thus becomes the origin and principle of the world, as it were, a natura naturans, forming the foundation of the created world, natura naturata.222 However, if Sophia belongs neither to the Godhead nor to the realm of creation, what is the root of its own peculiar nature? The desire to define Sophia positively drives Bulgakov into a long discourse on the "metaphysical substance" of the Eternal Feminine. After sophisticated comparisons and analysis he nevertheless comes back to where he began. Bulgakov's final conclusions struggle in their repetitive and metaphorical uncertainty. Thus, one reads, for example, that Sophia is uni-plural--everything, the only yes without no, affirmation without negation, light without darkness, is that which is absent in being, that is, both is and is not... exists between being and supra-being without being either the one or the other or is both at the same time.223 One comes to know that the "metaphysical nature of Sophia cannot fully be covered with common philosophical categories: absolute and relative, eternal and temporal," and so on. As related to God, it represents God's "Image, idea, Name;" as contrasted to creation it is the "eternal foundation of the world."224 It appears that the sole unique characteristic of Sophia finally provided by the author turns out to be its foundational or integral function in creation. To Sophia, Bulgakov says, belongs the "positive total-unity" of the whole of creation. As such a total-unity, Sophia may be seen in two different aspects. Thus, "creation of the world in the Beginning and Principle, i.e. in Sophia," Bulgakov 222

Ibid., p.187.

223

Ibid., p.188.

224

Ibid., p.189.

103 understands in terms of the "separation of [its] potentiality from [its] eternal actuality." "The world," he argues accordingly, "is Sophia in its basis but is not Sophia in its condition."225 However, the present version of Bulgakov's sophiology still remains unclear. On the one hand, he develops the concept of Sophia as something special and different from the rest of creation. In contrast to Florenskii, who described Sophia as one with the creatures, Bulgakov draws a definite borderline between the former and the latter. Hence, Sophia as an uncreated entity becomes linked to the idea of totalunity and manifests itself as the soul and the goal of the world process. Bulgakov's consistently monotheistic worldview, on the other hand, prescribes that there be only one and unique uncreated entity, namely, God the Creator. So if Sophia does not belong to creation, it must, seemingly, be an aspect of the Triune God. As long as Bulgakov hesitates to take this logical next step, his sophiology retains its vague and amorphous character. Finally, the logic of his religious-philosophical evolution, however, leads him to extend his sophiology to the Trinitarian problem. In the last, purely theological period of his creative work, Bulgakov decisively introduces the concept of Sophia into the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Trinitarian Sophiology The Nature of the Deity The fruits of Bulgakov's late theological synthesis can be evaluated differently. Such an authority on the history of Russian thought as Vasilii Zenkovskii, for example, criticizes him for applying the metaphysics of total-unity along with sophiology to Trinitarian dogmas. Zenkovskii writes in his History that 225

Ibid., p.195.

104 "in reconstructing his system theologically," when Bulgakov "adopted a position of Sophiological monism, he obviously doomed his system to failure."226 However, independently of either a negative or positive appraisal of Bulgakov's sophiology, the general course of its evolution appears quite consistent. From the beginning, Bulgakov tied his philosophy of religion to the polysemantic concept of Sophia, which, in its broadest sense, was understood as an organic synthesis of universality and particularity. The intuition of "unity in diversity" became so all-embracing that at the end it penetrated the sacred realm of the Trinity. Bulgakov was simply, the most sensitive Orthodox theologian, perhaps, to have the courage to express this tendency openly and systematically. Without betraying his "first love," Sophia, he turns to the eternal love of Christianity, the Holy Trinity. Broadly speaking, the concept of the Holy Trinity is the keystone of all Christian thought. One of the founders of the Slavophile movement, Ivan Kireevskii, notes that the "direction of philosophy in its first principle depends on what concept of the Holy Trinity one has."227 Bulgakov's philosophical career culminated with a similar approach. He judged philosophical systems as being either the truth or a lie about the Holy Trinity.228 Bulgakov himself found the mark of tri-unity in everything surrounding him. In his late works, Philosophy of the Name and The Tragedy of Philosophy, he develops, for instance, a thesis about the Trinitarian structure of judgment. Any judgment, as he claims in The Tragedy of Philosophy, for instance, "consists of the subject, predicate and copula" and can be reduced structurally to the sentence "I am 226

Zenkovsky, Russian Philosophy, Vol II, p.908.

227

Ivan Kireevskii. Sobranie sochinenii. Ed. by Gershenzon. Moscow, 1911, p.79. Quoted in Lossky, History of Russian Philosophy, p.40. 228

See, for example, Sergei N. Bulgakov, Tragediia filosofii [The Tragedy of Philosophy], Soch., Vol. I, Moscow: Nauka, 1993, pp.389-446.

105 something." "A human being in a certain sense," he says, "is a judgment, and the life of the human spirit is a constantly developing judgment in the course of realization."229 As a type of judgment, the human person displays the mystery of the image and likeness of God, the Holy Trinity, which represents, so to speak, the "Primary Judgment," or the archetype of the total Triunity of life. The analogical correlation between the human and divine spirit discloses, however, the essential difference between the two of them. The former, like any kind of spirit, be it "divine, angelic or human," contains two main principles, namely, its essence or the "self" and its existence, in which this self is manifested. As Bulgakov writes, This unbreakable unity of personal self-consciousness, of the self and nature, which lays the foundation of the life of personal spirit is the extreme intuition of the spirit about itself and at the same time is the basic ontological axiom.230 The specific feature of human spirituality consists, furthermore, in that its existence or self-conscious life never equals its essence or nature. The human spirit is always overcoming itself, trying to realize its potential. As compared to the potentially perfect human spirit, the Divine Spirit or God represents actual perfection. The Divine essence, hence, is fully realized in God's personal existence. Another specificity of the life of Divinity, Bulgakov believes, is that God's essence manifests itself not in one but in three persons or hypostases. As he puts it, the Divine Spirit is not just personal, but also a tri-hypostatic spirit, a tri-hypostatic person which has one nature and correspondingly one (not a common but 229 230

Ibid., p.391.

S. Bulgakov Agnets Bozhii. O Bogochelovechestve. Part I. Paris: YMCA Press, 1933, p.112. Bulgakov makes further clarifications that the "concept of a nature [priroda] is taken... as the potential life of the spirit... as personal self-consciousness belonging, however, to it and disclosed for it and by it."(p.113)

106 particularly one) life, just as the nature and life of any uni-hypostatic spirit is one.231 What is then the peculiar relation of the three Divine persons to their one nature or substance? First, Bulgakov argues, God's nature has to be distinguished from, but not in any case opposed to, God's personal hypostatic manifestation as "another principle, the "fourth" in the Holy Trinity, 'Divinity' in God." On the contrary, as he continues, the nature is hypostatized from eternity in God... and the hypostases are connected from eternity in their life with the nature, being, however, distinct from it.232 In addition, this one nature is differently related to each of the three persons. As Bulgakov describes it, "every hypostasis has it in its own way, for itself and for the other hypostases inside the circle of the Trinity."233 Here one comes to a particularly Bulgakovian understanding of the term "substance" or "nature". He generally argues that this category, taken from ancient Greek philosophy and applied by the early Christian theologians to the concept of the Trinity, was not fully developed in the Trinitarian doctrine. As Bulgakov writes, for example, in his book The Wisdom of God, in the process of theological creativity "the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity, as well as the actual conception of substance or nature, has been... apparently, almost overlooked."234 In particular, the concept of substance or nature was well established in respect to the Divinity itself as the three persons united in one essence. This same concept, however, was neglected in respect to the Creator as related to creation. In other

231

Ibid., pp.112-113.

232

Ibid., p.120.

233

Ibid., p.121.

234

Bulgakov, The Wisdom of God, p.44.

107 words, while remaining one and the same, the nature in the aspect of God-forHimself has to be also understood as the nature of God-for-Others. In Bulgakov's own terminology, the Divine nature can be analyzed in two aspects, namely, as ousia and Sophia. Bulgakov argues that Sophia cannot be dissociated from ousia, because without God-in-Himself there is no God-for-Others. Furthermore, ousia is necessarily more than Sophia, because God never completely reveals himself. Finally, both represent the same nature of God in relation to the Creator himself (ousia) or the creature (Sophia). As Bulgakov puts it: having Ousia, God at the same time has Ousia as Sophia. God is Sophia, Sophia is--Divine, is God in God's self-revelation, Deus revelatus... although the contrary is not true: Sophia is not God... [Sophia] cannot be equated to the Divine Person, and, therefore, in particular, to the Logos.235 The Triune Nature of Wisdom Accepting this new understanding of wisdom as the substance or nature of God revealed to creation, Bulgakov still retains another of his favorite concepts, namely, that of total-unity, as associated with his sophiology. In this revised version, Sophia, or the revealed substance of God, contains the fullness of creation as well. Here is how Bulgakov describes it: The totality as unity and the unity as Totality, Total- unity. The Divine life is this positive Total-unity, and the Total-unity is the nature of God. As such the nature of God, as an absolute content of God's life, is that which in the Word of God... is called the Wisdom of God, Sophia. Or later: “The Divine Sophia is nothing but the nature of God, ousia, understood not only as force and depth, but also as a revealed content, as Total-unity.”236

235

Bulgakov, Nevesta Agntsa, p.125.

236

Ibid., p.125.

108 It is also important that in relation to the total-unity of creation, Sophia, or God's nature, while remaining the same, in Bulgakov's view, discloses its different aspects in every person of the Holy Trinity. He emphasizes that, without being a hypostasis itself, Sophia, is nevertheless always hypostatized and cannot be separated from each of the hypostases as, for example, from the person of the Son or Logos. Instead, as Bulgakov points out, the “Divine Sophia is not just the Son... nor only the Holy Spirit either, but a di-unity of the Son and the Holy Spirit as the one self-revelation of the Father.” As he puts it in another place, "both hypostases are connected through the self-revelation of the Father in the Divine Sophia inseparably and unbindingly."237 One could say, therefore, that in their revelation the Logos and the Holy Spirit are the divine Sophia, but it is impossible to say, on the contrary, that the divine Sophia is both the Logos and the Holy Spirit. The second hypostasis, or the person of the Son, manifests Sophia or God's wisdom in the aspect of Logos, or the Word. As for the third person of the Holy Spirit, it discloses the same wisdom in the aspect of the Glory or Beauty. As Bulgakov puts it: if Sophia, as the Wisdom of the Word, as Logos, is the self-revelation of God in the Second Hypostasis, then the Glory is the Self-revelation of God in the Third Hypostasis. In other words, Sophia as the Glory belongs to the Holy Spirit.238 Manifesting the revelatory power of the Deity, Sophia is not limited to its relations within God to the three persons of the Trinity. According to Bulgakov, Sophia is also a bridge to the created reality. In fact, being portrayed as the "panorganism of ideas of all things about all things and in all things,"239 Sophia, a priori, contains in itself the whole of creation. Containing all of creation and being also God's substance or nature, Sophia seems to imply no difference between the Creator 237

S. Bulgakov. Uteshitel'. O Bogochelovechestve. Part II. Paris: YMCA Press, 1936, p.210.

238

S. Bulgakov. Nevesta Agntsa. O Bogochelovechestve. Part III. Paris: YMCA Press, 1945, p.133.

239

Ibid., p.135.

109 and his creation. In other words, the consistent development of sophiology leads Bulgakov's system to become infected with the seeds of pantheism and is, thus, the very opposite of the traditional creationist Christian approach. Aware of the theoretical difficulty, Bulgakov searches for a solution by formally distinguishing between "pantheism" and "panentheism." According to him, the former completely identifies God and his creation while the latter does so only partially by affirming their essential identity but making reservations for the difference in manifestation. Hence, the idea of creation, in panentheistic doctrine, expresses the distinction between God and the creatures which is, however, only a relative difference because, strictly speaking, the Absolute made everything out of himself and, therefore, could not have created anything which is not himself. As Bulgakov illustrates this thesis in The Wisdom of God, the creaturely world "is distinct from the deity not in respect of the source of its being, but only in respect to the particular mode of its reception of that being."240 He repeats this later: Nothing new is introduced for God by the life of the world of creatures. That world only receives, according to the mode proper to it, the divine principle of life.241 So, on the one hand, there is nothing but the omnipotent and self-sufficient Creator who is inseparable from his creation. God does not need his creation to fill any lack in himself. On the contrary, creation goes on out of self-abundance and divine love. As Bulgakov writes, "God created the world not for Himself, but for the world, moved by love unlimited even by the Divinity Himself and pouring outside of Himself."242 Creation, therefore, shares with God both the source and, consequently, the necessary character of existence. It cannot not exist for, as Bulgakov justly notes, 240

Bulgakov, Wisdom of God, p.96.

241

Ibid., p.99.

242

Bulgakov, Agnets Bozhii, p.142.

110 the presence of creation and the relation to it are included into the fullness of the very concept of God; it cannot be removed from God as something accidental, 'non-essential', which can or cannot be.243 On the other hand, as Bulgakov emphasizes, the claim about such closeness, and even indivisibility, between Creator and creation does not eliminate, in any sense, a definite line, which separates one from the other. Bulgakov says that the "boundary between the Creator and creation must be inviolably observed" which, in its turn, does not mean the absence of any connection between the two of them. As he adds, the "world cannot overcome the abyss between Creator and creation, but God Himself overcomes it."244 Two Aspects of Sophia On the ground of his Trinitarian sophiology Bulgakov develops more in details his position with regard to the central problem of creation--the communication between the divine and creaturely principles. Here, as elsewhere in his theological system, the most important role is played by Sophia. Understood as the principle of God's revelation to the creatures, Sophia becomes associated with this link between God and creation. Sophia still remains one insofar as God and his creation are also considered one in essence. As Bulgakov describes it: Everything in the Divine and created world, in the Divine and the created Sophia, is one and identical in content (although not in being). 'A single' Sophia is disclosed both in God and in the creation.245 However, insofar as God differs from the creatures, and in addition to what Bulgakov has already conjectured of Sophia, this truly omnipresent figure turns out to have two distinct aspects or centers, the divine and the creaturely, which correlate 243

Ibid., p.143.

244

Ibid., p.143.

245

Ibid., p.148.

111 with the divine and created principles respectively. Moreover, as Bulgakov points out, the doctrine of "creation ex nihilo" means nothing but the appearance of these two aspects in Sophia. The nothing (nihilo) as an ouk on--chaos or the absence (nonfullness) of being--in the process of creation is changed into a meon, or the potentiality of being. The appearance of the meon out of the ouk on is manifested in the split of the eternal Sophia and the origination of its temporal, created twin. Furthermore, as Bulgakov explains, the created part of Sophia as [t]he world in process of becoming must in its becoming traverse a long path of cosmic existence in order to reflect in itself the countenance of the Divine Sophia. The latter, while it is the foundation of cosmic existence, its entelechy, exists only in a potentiality, which the world must actualize in itself.246 There are several other characteristics, which Bulgakov ascribes to the two-divine and created--aspects of Sophia. He says, for example, that the "divine Sophia is the foundation of the created Sophia" in which "not only the word of creation, but also its life is realized."247 He also maintains: As related to the divine foundation of being, creation is the divine world, but in its originality and self-directedness it is the natural world, i.e. still striving for, but not yet having become, the full revelation of Sophia.248 This general understanding of the universal drama of creation is applied, then, by Bulgakov to such specific Christian theological concepts as those of original sin, Incarnation and Divine humanity. He does not introduce here, however, new points in the elaboration of these themes from the sophiological angle. First, in accordance with classical Solov'evian sophiology and his own early views, Bulgakov identifies the appearance of humanity on earth with the decisive moment in the development of the created aspect of Sophia. Thus, he writes: 246

Ibid., p.149.

247

Ibid., p.166. Also in Uteshitel', p.242.

248

Bulgakov, Uteshitel', p.243.

112 The world is the created Sophia, created humanity... However, the relation to the world of the human being, as the created 'god', is only the image of God in Sophia, which, having its foundation in the Primal-image, substantially differs from it in its existence.249 Having "two centers of being, the spiritual and the created one,"250 humanity, once having made the sinful ontological choice, has broken God's commandment and since the event described in the Bible symbolically as Adam's fall has died spiritually. Human beings still retain their potential divinity but have lost it in their actual lives, which have been turned by them toward their fallen, natural side. Hence, humanity finds itself in the world which, in Bulgakov's words, "became godless, self-sufficient," the "fallen Sophia", "divided in the image of its being, although not in its foundation, of course, from the Divine Sophia."251 The proper and eternal balance between the created and divine aspects of Sophia, that balance which has been broken because of human wickedness and the embracing of temptation, may be restored only within humanity itself. The beginning and the irreversible deposit of such a restoration occurred in the incarnation of the second hypostasis of the Holy Trinity in the human person of Jesus Christ. As the incarnation of God-man, Christ redeemed the original sin of humanity, as Bulgakov says, "through the connection of two natures, the created and Divine Sophia, the human and Divine"252 in one Divine-human spirit. From now on the God-man as the head of the renewed creation leads humanity forward to achieve its Divine-human status, which has been temporarily shaken, but nevertheless, preserved in eternity. Humanity, therefore, was predestined to have been resurrected

249

Bulgakov, Agnets Bozhii, p.166.

250

Ibid., p.168.

251

Ibid., p.176.

252

Bulgakov, Uteshitel', p.249.

113 through the death of Jesus and to gain, after a series of failures, the final victory, because, as Bulgakov emphasizes, “Divine humanity and the Godman--the humanity of the Divinity and the divinity of humanity--are given in God from all eternity.”253 The Unfolding of the Controversy Philosophical Responses It has already been mentioned that, from the point of view of religion, Sophia most generally symbolizes the divine-human relationship, the Divine call and the human response. In different times and distinct cultures, the concretization of this religious meaning of Sophia, or wisdom, has varied significantly. The gnostic sophiology of the first Christian centuries, for instance, as Aleksei Losev argued254, displayed along with pagan elements a new Christian intuition of human personalism absent in ancient thought. Similarly, modern Russian sophiology, which was rooted already in the Christian religion, manifested the same many-sidedness of the concept of Sophia. Apart from the old reawakened Gnostic motifs, and the Christian personalistic impulses, it contained another distinct and powerful theme--that of unity in diversity, or "particular universality." In Bulgakov's thought this last theme was, perhaps, pushed to its extreme and merged with the established Christian dogmas about the Triune God. The Orthodox community responded with suspicion to this Bulgakov's sophiological innovation as apparently incompatible with traditional Orthodox teachings. In particular, Bulgakov was criticized by many of his colleagues-Orthodox theologians, and philosophers. Let me say here in passing that in Orthodox 253

Ibid., p.137.

254

See Chapter 2 of the book.

114 thought, as opposed to the Christian West, the difference between theology and philosophy is not sharply drawn. Many 20th-century Russian thinkers, for example, considered themselves to be "religious philosophers," and dealt with the problems of theology on the basis of free philosophical inquiry. By distinguishing Orthodox "theologians" from "philosophers," hence, the author is but pointing out whether these thinkers, in defending their views, did or did not resort in their argumentation primarily to the Sacred Scripture and Tradition. Many philosophical opponents of Bulgakov simply avoided discussions of theological matters, especially of the Trinitarian doctrine, which they often took for granted as already established. Accordingly, they argued that the concept of Sophia can by no means be applied to the Absolute. While recognizing the importance of sophiology for Orthodox thought, the proponents of this position insisted on the purely created nature of Sophia, which shares with the rest of creation the impassable abyss between creation and Creator. Such a thesis was defended, among others, by Fr. Vasilii Zenkovskii (18811962) in his works devoted to the problems of sophiology. In his essay "The Overcoming of Platonism and the Problem of the Sophia-ness of the World," for instance, he begins with the statement that the "Orthodox sophianic perception of the world was always especially close to the consciousness," which assumes that behind its external diversity and finitude "stands the One, Infinite, Absolute Foundation--the integral fullness of the genuine being."255 At the same time, as Zenkovskii continues: The main problem of the sophianic understanding of the world consists of just this question: to which sphere does the sophianic foundation of the world belong?--to the sphere of the created world or to the sphere of the Absolute?"256 255

Vasilii V. Zenkovskii, "Preodolenie platonizma i problema sofiinosti mira," Put', no 24 (1930): 340, pp.4, 12. 256

Ibid., p.17.

115 He ascribes the discovery of the sophiological theme to the genius of Plato who was the first in Western thought to analyze the sphere of eide. However, Platonism initiated a tradition according to which these eide or forms are considered as eternal and uncreated. The influential Platonic interpretation of the ideal or sophianic aspect of the world, as Zenkovskii argues, inevitably leads its many adepts to various forms of pantheism in which the boundary between the created and uncreated is completely or partially effaced. The task of Christian philosophy, again as Zenkovskii understands it, is finally to overcome this pantheistically flavored Platonism by defending the concept of creation as the link between the two opposite ontological entities, namely, the Creator and the created world. Accordingly, as a relatively independent entity Sophia must be fully associated with the latter. As Zenkovskii puts it: The world is the created being in all things--and if we see in it the ideal aspect, then this very ideal aspect of the world, its sophianic foundation must be interpreted within the limits of created being.257 And few pages later: From the metaphysical point of view the world is creaturely in things all over--both in its ideal foundation and its sensuous diversity... but there is the eternal 'tree of life', there is the genuine, although not beginningless, eternity of the sophianic foundation of the world.258 The denial of Sophia's divine aspect and the opposite affirmation of its fully created nature was shared by another contemporary of Bulgakov's, the philosopher, Nikolai Losskii (see Appendix C). In his essay, "Fr. Sergii Bulgakov's Doctrine of Total-Unity and the Divine Sophia," Losskii briefly summarizes his arguments against Bulgakov's divinization of Sophia crowned with the subsequent divinization of the whole creation.259 First, he attacks Bulgakov's claim that "[e]verything exists 257

Ibid., p.31.

258

Ibid., pp.34, 35.

259

For a detailed discussion of Losskii's sophiology, see Chapter 5 of the book.

116 in God because the existence of anything positive outside of God would be a limitation of God." As Losskii argues, the "Supra-being of God and the being of the world are so different from each other that the relation of limitation cannot exist between them."260 The doctrine of total-unity as extended to the Godhead, he continues, serves as a serious obstacle for the development of a concept of creation as the only borderline between God and his creatures. According to Bulgakov, God created the world out of nothing, that is out of himself. Losskii, on the contrary, interprets the famous Christian formula of "creatio ex nihilo" in a completely different way. As he puts it, it means that for the creation of the world it is not necessary for God to use any material, either... from outside, or... from Himself. God creates the world as something new, as other than Himself.261 Such a clear theistic position, as Losskii argues, allows one to understand the origin of evil and the freedom of will as basic human responsibilities which do not contradict God's omnipotence. As for Bulgakov's sophiological approach, it appears to fail as an adequate and consistent explanation of these primary religiousphilosophical problems. In Bulgakov's view, for example, as Losskii puts it, one has to think that everything positive is produced in the human being by the uncreated 'Divine spark' i.e. God Himself, and the free will of a created human being is capable only of sin, of introducing evil into the world.262 In addition to this,

260

Nikolai Losskii. Uchenie o. Sergiia Bulgakova o vseedinstve i o Bozhestvennoi Sofii. South Canaan, Pa.: St. Tikhon Press, 1960, p.6. 261

Ibid., p.6.

262

Ibid., p.16.

117 One gets the impression that the source of evil is contained in the createdness of the world; in this case, God Himself would be responsible for the origin of evil.263 Nevertheless, Losskii concludes, taking into consideration all the serious defects of Bulgakov's system connected with the doctrine of the divine Sophia, it is necessary to preserve in the philosophical-theological system the doctrine of the created Sophia, namely, the doctrine of the structure of created beings... which, if it corresponds to the will of God, leads to a greater sophianization of the world.264 Theological Objections A similar approach to Bulgakov's sophiology is shared by two other prominent Russian thinkers, Fr. Georgii Florovskii (1893-1979), and Vladimir Losskii (1903-1958), the son of Nikolai Losskii. Their critique of the "sophiological temptation" is focused, however, not on the philosophical, but rather on the theological dimension of the issue. The Orthodox theological response to Bulgakov by Florovskii and Losskii, fils, is twofold. First and foremost it is centered around the religious-philosophical defense of the Orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Second, but no less important, the argument for the original and true Trinitarian theology is necessarily bound up, in the mind of these theologians, with the rediscovery of classical Patristic Trinitarianism. It should be mentioned that many Russian sophiologists, including Florensky and Bulgakov, developed their theories not only by ingenious speculation but also by appealing to the authority of the Eastern Fathers of the Church and found textual support for sophiological views in those works. Thus, Bulgakov, for instance, in his

263

Ibid., p.18.

264

Ibid., p.20.

118 programmatic book, The Wisdom of God, draws the attention of the readers to the "line of thought in the teaching of some of the Fathers of the Church" in which God contained within Himself before the creation of the world the divine prototypes... so that the world bears within it the image and, as it were, the reflection of the divine Prototype.265 As Bulgakov recognizes later, these prototypes are not described explicitly by the Fathers as the divine Sophia. Nevertheless, he is convinced that, overall, the "doctrine of Sophia as the prototype of creation finds ample support in the tradition of the Church."266 To Bulgakov's insistence on the compatibility of modern Russian sophiology with Patristic thought, Florovskii and Losskii argued just the opposite. Florovskii makes a case that Patristic thought preserves pure Christianity, while Russian sophiology is in reality based on German idealism, which represents a revival of pagan Greek philosophy. This argument, which to a certain extent reflects traditional Orthodox uneasiness with the Protestant Reformation--now hidden under the mask of modern German philosophy--was systematically developed by Florovskii in his essay "The Crisis of German Idealism." In the beginning one reads here that, on the one hand, "Idealism was long the acknowledged philosophy of Protestantism"267 and that, on the other hand, in the course of the development of idealistic thought "the incompatibility of these two ideologies, the Idealistic and the Christian, showed itself." The premise inspiring Florovskii is evident and consists of challenging the Christian character of Protestant civilization. He clearly states this when insisting on the link between German 265

Bulgakov, Wisdom of God, p.99.

266

Ibid., p.101.

267

Georges Florovsky. "The Crisis of German Idealism I: The 'Hellenism' of German Idealism." (Trans. from the German Claudia Witte). The Collected Works, 14 vols. Edited by Richard S. Haugh. Vaduz, Europa: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1989. Vol. XII, p.23.

119 idealism and ancient pagan thought. Thus Florovskii speaks "of a creative revival of ancient traditions of thought in German Idealism, of a strong Hellenization of the German philosophical consciousness."268 He also makes it clear that one should not think of German idealistic philosophy as a "renunciation of the Reformation." On the contrary, he emphasizes that idealism represented "its inevitable consequences": idealism "was only possible after and on the basis of the Reformation."269 As the only solution to this intellectual crisis of Christianity and in a full accord with the spirit of Orthodoxy, Florovskii proposes to go back to the Patristic sources, in which the Hellenic heritage was once positively overcome and adjusted to the Christian world-view. He then advances the idea of a neo-Patristic synthesis as a form of "an intellectual return to the Church" leading "into the future... from the tradition of the forefathers."270 Florovskii understands tradition not merely as a human enterprise, a dusty collection of memories and rituals. For him, as he puts it, "'tradition' is the continuity of divine assistance, the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit" who guides the Church "into the fuller understanding of the divine truth, from glory to glory."271 Tradition is, therefore, by no means static, but dynamic, and its uninterrupted continuity in the Orthodox Church represents, in Florovskii's view, not a decline, which followed the flourishing of the early Patristic thought of the Ecumenical councils, but a process of perpetual self-development and theoretical clarification. Moreover, Florovskii does not limit the authority of the Fathers to the first five or even eight centuries, but extends it to the Byzantine period. Indeed, he says, "Byzantine theology was much 268

Ibid., p.24.

269

Ibid., p.39.

270

Ibid., pp.20, 40.

271

Florovsky, Aspects of Church History. The Collected Works. Vol. IV. Belmont, MA: Nordland, 1975, p.16.

120 more than a servile 'repetition' of Patristics. It was an organic continuation of the Patristic endeavor."272 A "creative return" to the Fathers might help, Florovskii argues, to overcome the contemporary idealistic challenge leading ultimately to contamination with materialism and atheism. The theological works of Florovskii himself serve as an impressive and influential example of such a neo-patristic system. From the variety of themes, which have been touched upon in his thought of special interest for our purposes is the problem of sophiology tightly linked, in its turn, to the concept of creation. When discussing the doctrine of creation in his programmatic book, Creation and Redemption, and summarizing his own approach based on the study of patristics, Florovskii defends a purely theistic ground. He writes, for instance: There is an infinite distance between God and creation, and this is a distance of natures... And this distance is never removed, but is only, as it were, overlapped by immeasurable Divine love.273 He adds later: Any trans-substantiation of creaturely nature into the Divine is as impossible as the changing of God into creation... In the one and only hypostasis and person of Christ--the God-Man--in spite of the completeness of the mutual interpenetration... of the two natures, the two natures remain with their unchanged, immutable difference.274 What, then, in Florovskii's view, is the nature of the connection between these two essentially distinct entities, the Creator and the creature? Taking into consideration the assumed difference between the two, creation cannot be understood as rooted in the nature of the Creator. Instead, Florovskii 272

Ibid., p.20.

273

Georges Florovsky. Creation and Redemption. The Collected Works. Vol. III. Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Company, 1976, p.46. 274

Ibid., p.47.

121 postulates that God created the world not from his nature, but from his will. He supports this thesis by the Patristic interpretation of the difference between the concepts of generation and creation as the origination from nature and will, respectively. He quotes, for example, St. Athanasius the Great: “Creating is an act of will... and therefore is sharply distinguished from the Divine generation, which is an act of nature.”275 Florovskii also cites St. John of Damascus' definitions: Begetting means producing from the substance of the begetter an offspring similar in substance to the begetter. Creation or making, on the other hand, is the bringing into being, from outside and not from the substance of the creator... Generation is accomplished 'by a natural power of begetting'... and creating is an act of volition and will.276 The distinction between generation and creation allows Florovskii to reconsider Bulgakov's sophiology, namely, the claim that the divine Sophia as God's idea of creation belongs to God's essence, ousia. Instead, as Florovskii argues, the divine plan for creation, although eternal, is related not to God's eternal nature, but to God's will. As Florovskii puts it, The idea of the world, God's design and will concerning the world, is obviously eternal, but in some sense, not co-eternal, and not conjointly everlasting with Him, because distinct and separated, as it were, from His 'essence' by His volition.277 Further exploring his sophiological theory, Florovskii clarifies the relations among the persons of the Holy Trinity to the divine will and Sophia accordingly. He writes, for instance, that

275

St. Athanasius. C. arian. Or. 3, nfl. 60ss. c. 448 squ. Quoted in Florovsky, Creation and Redemption, Vol. III, p.48. 276

St. John Damascene. De fide orth. I, 8, PG xciv, c. 812-813. Quoted in Florovsky, Vol. III, p.48.

277

Ibid., p.56.

122 the Trinitarian structure is antecedent to the will and thought of God, because the Divine will is the common and undivided will of the All-Holy Trinity, as it is also antecedent to all the Divine acts and 'energies'.278 As for the relation of the divine will as the source of the idea of creation to creation itself, Florovskii emphasizes that "the idea of the world and the world of ideas are totally in God... and in God there is not, and there cannot be, anything of the created."279 This doctrine, formulated as a critique of Bulgakov's distinction between the divine and created Sophia, is strongly defended by Florovskii. He writes, for example, in response to Bulgakov: The Divine Idea of creation is not creation itself; it is not the substance of creation , it is not a bearer of the cosmic-process... not a process within the Divine Idea... but the appearance, formation, and the realization of another substratum, of a multiplicity of created subjects... [and it] remains always outside the created world, transcending it.280 As always, Florovskii supports this conclusion by quoting the Church Fathers, especially Maximus the Confessor. He also points out that, according to their teaching, the "divine idea" of a thing is dissociated from its "created nucleus," and is, therefore, neither its "substance" or "hypostasis," nor the "vehicle of their qualities and conditions" but rather "the truth of a thing, its transcendental entelechy."281 The heterogeneity in principle between Creator and the creatures, which has been theoretically established through the distinction of God's nature and will, brought several other advantages when considering the relation between God and the world. On the one hand, God, being substantially different from creation, is,

278

Ibid., p.58.

279

Ibid., p.58.

280

Ibid., p.61.

281

Ibid., p.62.

123 therefore, also perfectly free from it and makes it not for himself but for the good of the creatures. As Florovskii writes: The might of God... must be defined not only as the power to create and to produce but also as the absolute freedom not to create... God creates out of the absolute superabundance of His mercies and goodness, and herein His pleasure and freedom are manifest.282 On the other hand, as related to such an immeasurable fullness of the Creator, the created world as substantially different from God acquires a relative independence and corresponding freedom in determining the paths of its evolution. As Florovskii puts it in another place, The reality and substantiality of created nature is manifested first of all in creaturely freedom... And creaturely freedom is disclosed first of all in the equal possibility of two ways: to God and away from God.283 The creaturely freedom, however, is substantially limited, as Florovskii argues, in one crucial point. Although the creatures are able to turn away from God and, therefore, to originate evil, they can never commit "metaphysical suicide"-totally annihilate their pre-existent essence or be in absolute opposition to Divinity. In other words, however far the world has fallen, it always remains possible for it to be saved, because the divine idea of creation, this wisdom of God or Sophia rooted in God's will, is eternal and unchangeable, and serves as an unchallengeable guarantee for the ultimate goodness of every creature.284 Ecclesiastical Reaction Together with the religious-philosophical critique, Bulgakov's sophiology provoked a negative reaction from the ecclesiastical authorities of the Orthodox 282

Ibid., p.57.

283

Ibid., p.48.

284

For a brief discussion of this issue see: ibid., p.50.

124 Church. Here are some of the highlights of this administrative controversy.285 The tension around the sophiological teaching of Bulgakov began to grow in the early 20th century with the appearance in print of an article by the head of the Church in Exile, the Metropolitan Antonii, who accused Fr. Florenskii and Fr. Bulgakov of establishing a new heresy.286 In March 1927 the Synod of the Church in Exile sent a message to Metropolitan Evlogii in which "it was advised to pay attention to the doctrine of The Very Reverend Sergii Bulgakov."287 At the request of the Metropolitan Evlogii, Bulgakov presented a written response in which he ardently denied any heretical element in his theological system. Nevertheless, in 1935 one of the émigré Christian organizations, The Brotherhood, named after the Patriarch Fotii, made a report to the Moscow patriarchate that Bulgakov, while "the dean of the Orthodox Theological Academy in Paris, is involved in 'theological incorrect thinking'."288 As a result, the Moscow patriarchate issued a decree unambiguously stating that "Bulgakov's doctrine of the being of God has nothing in common with the Church tradition and does not belong to the Orthodox Christian Church."289 Moreover, it demanded from Bulgakov, in order to be accepted into official communion with the Moscow Patriarchate,

285

For an elaborate discussion see: Igumen Gennadii (Eikalovich). Delo prot. Sergiia Bulgakova: Istoricheskaia kanva spora o Sofii. San Franscisco, 1980. 286

See: Delo Bulgakova, p.5.

287

Ibid., p.9.

288

Ibid., pp.10-11.

289

O sofii premudrosti bozhiei. Ukaz moskovskoi patriarkhii i dokladnye zapiski prof. prot. Sergiia Bulgakova mitropolitu Evlogiiu. Paris, 1935, p.9.

125 his written repudiation of his sophianic interpretation of the dogmas of faith and of his other mistakes in the teaching of faith as well as a written promise of unchanging fidelity to the teaching of the Orthodox Church.290 Oil was poured onto the fire by the "Definition" of the Arhiereiskii Sobor of the Church in Exile, which immediately followed the Moscow decree. The "Definition" was compounded in October of 1935 and condemned "F. Sergii Bulgakov's doctrine of St. Sophia as heretical."291 In the same year the polemical book of Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev), entitled A New Doctrine of Sophia The Wisdom of God, was published.292 The emotional content of this book displayed the already well-known concern about Trinitarian sophiology. The Archbishop wrote, for example, that Bulgakov "teaches about two deities: about the God-Sophia and God-the Holy Trinity," that by his sophianic definitions and especially by his designation of Sophia as Ousia in which [Sophia] is named the source of the Divine life and the Divine life itself, he forces out the Holy Trinity and in this way negates It.293 The attack on Bulgakov's understanding of the Trinity became so strong that Metropolitan Evlogii again asked Bulgakov for a written explanation and convened a special commission to investigate the Bulgakov "case." In November of 1937 there was also a meeting of the Bishops of Orthodox Russian Churches in Western Europe which emphasized the "'weak' and 'unacceptable' themes of F. Sergii Bulgakov's doctrine" but nevertheless "decisively rejected the accusation that he was a

290

Ibid., p.19.

291

Delo Bulgakova, p.12.

292

See: Seraphim Sobolev. Novoe uchenie o sophii premudrosti bozhiei. Sophia, 1935. See also by the same author: Zashchita sofianskoi eresi protoiereem S. Bulgakovym pred litsom arkhiereiskogo sobora russkoi zarubezhnoi tserkvi. Sophia, 1937. 293

Sobolev, Novoe uchenie, p.370.

126 heretic."294 The theological attacks ended when Bulgakov became seriously ill and died in 1944. Several important remarks are needed to conclude this dramatic story. Of course, the criticism of Bulgakov's sophiology by the Church authorities may be viewed as tendentious with respect to the freedom of theological inquiry. It is also possible that behind it laid intentions, which were far from purely theoretical.295 Nevertheless, these debates were by no means only an accident dictated by sectarian passion. Its authors were driven by their deep conviction of the basic incompatibility of classical Trinitarian Christianity with sophiological doctrines. They felt that sophiology calls for a radical reconsideration of the divine-human relationship, a reconsideration which they flatly rejected.

294

Delo Bulgakova, p.19.

295

See, for example: Delo Bulgakova, pp.4-5.

127

Chapter 5 Sophia in Philosophical Discourse

General Observations The Kantian Challenge The concept of Sophia, introduced into modern Russian thought by Vladimir Solov'ev and applied to the specific domain of theology, was also used in many philosophical systems. To be sure, the formal distinction between theology and philosophy in the Russian context, as was previously noted, often acquires rather an artificial character. As compared to theologians, those thinkers who were inspired primarily by the Solov'evian philosophy did not base their views directly upon the dogmas of the Orthodox Christian faith. However, having been formulated in conformity with the principle of free investigation, these philosophical systems ultimately displayed a religious orientation as well. As Vasilii Zenkovskii suggests in his History of Russian Philosophy:, Russian thought remained at all times connected with its own religious elementality, to its own religious soil; this was and is, the chief root of its specific quality, but also of various complications in the development of Russian philosophical thought.296 It is not surprising, therefore, that in the 19th century the creative thought of modern Russia found itself in a perpetual dialogue--if not an active struggle--with the fruits of West-European philosophy rooted in Protestant Christianity and 296

Zenkovsky, Russian Philosophy, Vol.I, p.2.

128 matured in the German idealist movement. Thus, another authoritative historian of Russian thought, Nikolai Losskii, argues, for example, that the beginnings of independent philosophical thought in Russia date back to the Slavophiles Ivan Kireyevsky and Khomyakov [who aimed at overcoming] the German type of philosophizing, on the strength of the Russian interpretation of Christianity based upon the works of the Eastern Fathers of the Church and nourished by the national peculiarities of Russian spiritual life.297 One distinctive feature of this original philosophical tradition which attempted, so to speak, to squeeze between the Scylla of Kant and the Charybdis of Hegel is especially worthy of mention. It is well known that Schelling and Hegel had a decisive influence on Russian intellectuals. Romanticism, in particular, developed in philosophy by Schelling (whom both Kireevskii and Chaadaev knew personally), was widely favored in 19th-century Russia.298 The impact of the Hegelian school on Russian thought became even more profound and apparently served as one of several reasons for the attraction of Russian thinkers to Marxism. As compared to the extreme popularity both Schelling and Hegel gained in Russia, the two other classical German philosophers, Kant and Fichte, who put emphasis on the subjective side of human experience, stirred significantly less enthusiasm in Orthodox circles. Indeed, the founder of German idealism instead provoked the greatest intellectual resistance and a stubborn effort to overturn his philosophical schemes. As a result, Losskii writes, "Western Europians sometimes state that Russian philosophical thought did not go through the test of Kant's criticism." He later adds, however, that, in fact, "Kant entered the field of Russian philosophy no less than his influence exercised itself on English and French

297 298

Lossky, History of Russian Philosophy, pp.13-14.

See, for example, Z. A. Kamenskii, Russkaia filosofiia nachala XIX veka i Shelling, Moscow: Nauka, 1980.

129 philosophies."299 With no intention to disprove this last statement one should still keep in mind, perhaps, that the impact of Kantian philosophy on Russian thought was generally of a negative kind. One major reason for this resistance to Kantian innovative system consisted of Kant's extremely well grounded critique of traditional metaphysical theories, which supported religious worldview. Unlike the medieval followers of Plato and Aristotle Kant was not trying to reconcile faith with the results of reasoning. On the contrary, by having laid the foundation of critical philosophy, Kant proved that the lack of adequate capacities does not allow human reason to compete with the power of divine revelation. Needless to say, Kant himself was quite aware of this important aspect of his work. He wrote, for instance, in the first preface to the Critique of Pure Reason about his intentions, which are incomparably more moderate than the claims of all those writers who...profess to prove the simple nature of the soul or the necessity of a first beginning of the world. For while such writers pledge themselves to extend human knowledge beyond all limits of possible experience, I humbly confess that this is entirely beyond my power.300 And as he repeated in the second preface, I have... found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith. The dogmatism of metaphysics... without a previous criticism of pure reason, is the source of all that unbelief, always very dogmatic, which wars against morality... Criticism alone can sever the root of... atheism... fanaticism and superstition, which can be injurious universally...301 One of the main instruments for the successful accomplishment of this task was the distinction drawn by Kant between the phenomenal and noumenal realms, or 299

Lossky, History of Russian Philosophy, p.163.

300

Immanuel Kant. Critique of Pure Reason. (Trans. by Norman K. Smith). New York: St. Martin's Press, 1965, p.10. 301

Ibid., pp.29, 32.

130 between the objects of experience and the so-called thing-in-itself. The subsequent development of German idealism represented rather a reaction against the spirit of Kantian criticism, though attempts to get rid of the opposition between the noumena and phenomena took different forms. Thus, Fichte in his system points to the subject as the only source of experience and, thus, eliminates the noumenal sphere, which served the same purpose for Kant. Schelling formally retains the distinction between the noumenal and phenomenal, but simultaneously postulates the existence of a special kind of knowledge, an "intellectual intuition" capable of penetrating the noumenon and delivering a direct knowledge of it. Finally, Hegel, in absolutizing the totality of reason, culminates the process of erasing the essential difference between the noumenon and the phenomenon. From the beginning, distinctively modern Russian philosophers joined this reaction against Kant, especially on the side of Schelling and Hegel.

Ontologism in Epistemology Epistemological theories proposed in the 19th century by the early Slavophiles were also characterized by the concept of intuition. This intuition, they claimed, gives to its possessors an immediate comprehension of what is ultimately real or of things as they are and thus serves as a justification of the eternal truth of Orthodoxy. In the heart of the Slavophiles' intuitivist theories lay, therefore, an insistence on faith as the necessary pre-condition for any rational knowledge. Another theme, which attracted the Russian devotees of intuitivism was the harsh critique directed against the separation between faith and reason in contemporary German Protestant thought. Alexei Khomiakov, for instance, who saw in the philosophy of Hegel the culmination of Western rationalism, celebrating abstract thinking--that is, thought

131 abstracted from the roots of life and morality--opposes to it the idea of living knowledge.

The living knowledge or living truth, according to Khomiakov,

transcends logical understanding and represents an immediate apprehension or partaking of reality. "It is," as Losskii explains in his History, "an object of faith, not in the sense of subjective certainty but in the sense of immediate givenness."302 "Only where a harmony of faith and understanding is achieved," Losskii continues, "is there 'a wholeness of reason'."303 The concept of faith is used by Khomiakov to determine, as Zenkovskii notes, in his turn, "the initial stages of cognition--the primary acts which initiate the process of knowing"--or the "total and 'immediate' union with reality."304 Western rationalism ignores faith, Khomiakov argues, while integral reasoning includes it as an organic part. “What I call faith,” he says, “is that faculty of reason which perceives actual (real) data and turns them over to the analysis and consciousness of rationality.”305 Khomiakov also relates this understanding of faith to his idea of the Church as an organic unity of believers mystically partaking of the life of the Holy Spirit.306 From this point of view the reality of faith represents religious knowledge, a function of an ecclesiastical consciousness, as Zenkovskii writes, "a matter of seeking a supplementation of individuality in the Church--a social organism illumined by

302

Lossky, History of Russian Philosophy, p.32.

303

Ibid., p.33.

304

Zenkovsky, Russian Philosophy, Vol.I, p.194.

305

Aleksei Khomiakov. "Second Letter on Philosophy to Yu. F. Samarin." Sochineniia. Moscow, 1900, Vol. I, p.327. Quoted in Zenkovsky, Russian Philosophy, p.194. 306

For a discussion of Khomiakov's views on the nature of the Church see, for example, his essay, "Tserkov’ odna” [The Church Is One], Sochineniia, vol. 2, Moscow: Moscow Philosophical Fund/Medium/Voprosy filosofii, 1994, pp.5-25.

132 grace." Khomiakov even radicalizes this ecclesiological aspect of his epistemology when he proclaims that the Church in its wholeness (and not the individual believers), is the only true manifestation of "ecclesiastical reason" and "the sole organ for the cognition of total truth."307 Similar epistemological views were advocated by Khomiakov's friend, the like-minded Ivan Kireevskii. The key doctrines of Kireevskii's theory of knowledge are the interrelated concepts of the believing or integral reason and the wholeness of the spirit. Their common denominator, the ideal of wholeness of integrity, was Kireevskii's main inspiration and his ground for rejecting the opposition between reason and faith. The dramatic dissonance between heart and mind, between faith and reason, he thinks, is eloquent testimony to the lack of integration between the inner and the outer in the human person. It is a characteristic feature of the sinful condition of humanity in general, and of Western civilization in particular, because the West inherited from the classical world of ancient paganism... the triumph of pure, naked reason, founded only in itself, which acknowledged nothing above or beyond itself[, in other words,] the triumph of rationalism over the tradition of immediate wisdom and inner, spiritual intelligence.308 For Kireevskii, as much as for Khomiakov, this "immediate wisdom" or faith is the result neither of an external authority nor of a subjective certainty, but is a "spiritual vision," a real union with the Absolute. The wholeness of the spirit which lifts up thought "to a sympathetic agreement with faith," as he argues, is brought

307 308

Zenkovsky, Russian Philosophy, Vol. I, p.191.

I. V. Kireevsky. "A Reply to Khomyakov." A Documentary History of Russian Thought: From the Enlightenment to Marxism. (Ed. and trans. W. J. Leatherbarrow and D. C. Offord). Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1987, p.81.

133 about by the unification of its various powers.309 This process is characterized, according to Kireevskii, who follows the Eastern Christian mystical tradition on this point, by the recovery of the "inner nucleus" of human person originally hidden because of the power of sin, and gradually brought to harmonization with the outer aspect of the human being. The epistemological views of the fathers of Slavophilism, Kireevskii and Khomiakov--labeled an "ontologism" because of the "assertion that knowledge is a part and function of our 'existential' penetration of reality not by thought alone but with our whole being"310--were generally accepted and further developed by Vladimir Solov'ev. As Zenkovskii points out in this respect, in every period of his philosophic activity Solovyov distinguished three basic sources of knowledge: experience, reason, and the "mystical realm," corresponding to the three kinds of being (phenomena, the realm of ideas, and absolute being).311 These three ways of knowledge strive to achieve truth which in Solov'ev's definition is that which exists (sushchee), is one (edinoe), and comprises all (vsio), because "every particular thing, being or event taken separately from the whole is not truth, because in its separateness it does not even exist."312 In other words, truth is for Solov'ev but an aspect of the Absolute, the positive total-unity. True knowledge is possible, therefore, only insofar as there exists an internal connection between the subject and the Absolute, a mysterious link referred to by Solov'ev in some works as faith, and in others as mystical experience or intellectual intuition. 309

See Ivan Kireevskii, "O neobkhodimosti i vozmozhnosti novykh nachal dlia filosofii" ["The possibility and Necessity of New Principles in Philosophy"], Sochineniia, 2 vols., edited by Gershenson, Moscow, 1911, Vol. I. 310

Zenkovsky, Russian Philosophy, p.219.

311

Zenkovsky, Russian Philosophy, Vol.II, p.519.

312

Vladimir Solov'ev, Kritika otvlechennykh nachal [Critique of Abstract Principles]. Soch., Vol.II, p.296. Quoted in Lossky, History of Russian Philosophy, p.96.

134 Various types of knowledge such as knowledge by experience, reason, or intuition differ in their possible degree of reaching the goal of unity with truth. Neither experience nor reason abstracted from faith can provide one with certain knowledge, and philosophy based on consistent empiricism or consistent rationalism, according to Solov'ev, leads to self-contradictions. However, the rational and empirical aspect of knowledge should not be underestimated because of that condition for, as Losskii points out, in Solov'ev's view, "true knowledge... is the result of empirical, rational and mystical cognition in their right interconnection."313 This concept of integral knowledge with the emphasis on its intuitive aspect found its culmination in the epistemology of Nikolai Losskii himself. Divine Aspects of Sophia Beginning with Solov'ev, the intuitivist theory of knowledge becomes closely associated with a specific ontological doctrine commonly called the "metaphysics of total-unity." Those Solov'evian followers who developed this ontology argued for the substantial unity of the Absolute and the world. They understood Sophia, or the wisdom of God, respectively, as the bridge between Creator and creation. The sophiology developed on this ground by Fr. Sergii Bulgakov serves, perhaps, as an ideal illustration of the theological implications of this metaphysics. There were other, similar religious-philosophical projects designed for the very same task. Zenkovskii mentions, for instance, the philosophical system developed by Semion Frank (1877-1950), whose doctrine of total-unity as related to the world represents, as he suggests, "a typical Sophiological construction... combining the themes of nature philosophy and anthropology with the 'divine' aspect of the

313

Lossky, History of Russian Philosophy, p.97.

135 world."314 Zenkovskii also refers to the thought of another Russian philosopher, Lev Karsavin (1882-1952), whom the "conception of total-unity...led...unswervingly to the same theoretical constructions to which it had led Solovyov."315 Karsavin unfolds his sophiological doctrine in the book Noctes Petropolitanae. Here, almost at the outset, one finds reference to the Absolute which "contains everything in itself," as the "one and only existing absolute Being, the fullness of self-sufficient Goodness and the Loving Total-Unity itself."316 Later Karsavin elaborates on this initial thesis in a direction, which leaves no doubt about his intentions. Thus, he says in relation to the Absolute that its "Divinity surpasses the distinction between Deity and Creation," and in relation to the world that the "Total-unity of the world [is but] God's Total-unity, Divine Mind and Reason, Word and Son."317 Given the substantial oneness of Creator and creation apparently described by Karsavin, Sophia appears in his philosophy partly as divine, partly as created, in other words, as the link between the two entities. Thus, on the one hand, he speaks of "Sophia Akhamot [that] descended from the Divine Pleroma." On the other hand, the same Sophia becomes the "created Wisdom... the creaturely hypostasis and the Church as the total-unity of human beings and of the world in them."318 The sophiology of a close friend of Vladimir Solov'ev, Prince Eugene Trubetskoi (1863-1920), takes a slightly different direction. In his main work, Smysl zhizni, Trubetskoi develops his own version of the metaphysics of total-unity under 314

Zenkovsky, Russian Philosophy, Vol.II, pp.855-856.

315

Ibid., p.846.

316

Lev Karsavin. Noctes Petropoliitanae. Malye sochineniia. St. Petersburg: Aleteia, 1994, pp.157, 160. 317

Ibid., pp.171, 177.

318

Ibid., p.181.

136 the strong influence of Solov'ev's ideas. The cornerstone of this metaphysics, the very intuition of total-unity in Trubetskoi's philosophy, takes the specific form of "vseedinoe soznanie," the "consciousness of total-unity." According to him, human consciousness lives by the measure of its partaking of the unconditional total-unityconsciousness. "The entire process of our knowing," Trubetskoi says, "occurs only through the revelation of absolute consciousness in our consciousness." However, he adds, "experience discloses not [that which is absolutely], but only the absolute consciousness of the 'other'... becoming, imperfect."319 Trubetskoi sharply distinguishes the "Absolute" and the "natural" spheres and criticizes Solov'ev for merging these two different orders and for advocating a pantheistic worldview. Trubetskoi takes a critical standpoint toward the sophiological views of the early Bulgakov as well. Faithful to the Christian tradition, Trubetskoi thinks of Sophia "not only inseparable from God as a power but also as a quality inalienable from Him."320 However, the divinity of Sophia, according to him, excludes its substantial sameness to the natural world. "God's Wisdom," he argues, "belongs to the divine nature and therefore cannot be the substance or essence of creatures developing in time."321 In other words, the sophianic element or the idea of creation is not its nature but another reality, which can be reached by the efforts of the free will. The world of nature is lower in actuality, but matches in potentiality its sophianic archetype. Apart from this important clarification, which anticipates the later critique of sophiology by Fr. Georgii Florovskii, Trubetskoi's views on Sophia continue the line 319

Evgenii Trubetskoi. Smysl zhizni. Berlin, 1922, p.211. Quoted in Zenkovsky, Russian Philosophy, Vol.II, p.808. [Trans. rev'd. by George L. Kline] 320

Evgenii N. Trubetskoi. Smysl zhizni. Moscow: Respublika, 1994, p.100.

321

Ibid., p.101.

137 of Solov'evian thought. Thus, he writes, for instance, that the "eternal Wisdom which creates the world is the principle of its other... it creates everything... out of nothing.322 "[T]he reality of the world," in its turn, Trubetskoi continues, "is a certain revelation of Sophia, a revelation that is preliminary and therefore inevitably partial and incomplete."323 Finally, he concludes, the "world strives for total-unity; and the effective and realized total-unity is Sophia."324 Trubetskoi's sophiology, like those of Frank and Karsavin, ends, therefore, by associating the concepts of total-unity and Sophia with that of the Absolute. In this respect, the sophiological views developed by Nikolai Losskii substantially differ from the former line of thought. While Losskii continues, and even intensifies, the tradition of Russian epistemological intuitivism, he proposes a distinct ontology, which breaks with the divinization of wisdom and applies both the concepts of Sophia and of total-unity only to the domain of creation. Summary of Lossky's Worldview Intuitivist Theory of Knowledge In line with many other Russian thinkers, Losskii develops his intuitivist epistemology as an attempt to overcome Kant's theory of knowledge or, in his words, "to avoid the rocks upon which... the philosophy of Kant was wrecked."325 He is convinced, moreover, that in its major premises, Kantian critical philosophy 322

Ibid., p.102.

323

Ibid., p.109.

324

Ibid., p.110.

325

N. O. Lossky. The Intuitive Basis of Knowledge. An Epistemological Inquiry [Obosnovanie intuitivizma]. (Authorized translation by Natalie A. Duddington). Preface by Prof. G. Dawes Hicks. London: MacMillan and Co., 1919, p.14.

138 does not differ essentially from the epistemology of Kant's predecessors, namely, the European empiricists and rationalists. Thus, he says, the representatives of Western empiricism who initiated a tradition of systematic epistemological investigation in the West, based their approach on the notion of experience. For them, knowledge was caused by the object and experienced by the subject, being part neither of the former nor the latter. The unspoken premise of this approach consisted of the claim that the subject had no direct contact with the object, receiving the content of its knowledge, not from the object itself, but from something else and as a result of the reaction of this intermediary, such as the nervous system in its contact with the object. Such a view, therefore, as Losskii points out, defends the doctrine of transcendent knowledge, i.e., of knowledge which as a real process takes place entirely in the knowing subject, but which refers to processes that are external to the knowing subject.326 When developed to its logical extreme, this hidden presupposition easily leads to extreme skepticism--to the claim that even the very existence of the external world cannot be proven. This final conclusion, however, seems self- contradictory because from the presupposition of the transcendent character it affirms the final immanence and subjectivity of knowledge. The basic premises of the pre-Kantian rationalists, Losskii argues, are very similar to those of the empiricists. Building their epistemology on the primary division between the subject and the object they also assume that knowledge, while belonging to the subjective states of consciousness of the knowing subject, represents a certain copy of the external world. Recognizing the transcendent character of human knowledge, the rationalists, however, attempt to avoid the skeptical conclusions of the empiricists.

326

Ibid., p.43.

139 If knowledge about external reality belongs to the cognizing substantival subject, the rationalists say, its appearance can be a result of the subject's efforts or a product of reason. In this case, the copy of external reality is produced by the knowing subject out of that subject's own cognitive resources. The rationalist position consists, therefore, of the claim that adequate transcendent knowledge is composed exclusively of materials which arise from within the knowing mind, i.e. are immanent in it as regards both content and origin.327 The formulae of empiricists and rationalists coincide, as Losskii thinks, on one key point, namely, in the opposition of transcendence and immanence in respect to human knowledge, which is the natural consequence of the idea of a disconnection between subject and object. One way to overcome this subject-object split was to consider the object as not having independent existence from and being completely dissolved in the process of knowledge itself. Such a theory was proposed by Kant whose critique, however, as Losskii argues, took over some of the premises of previous philosophical movements of empiricism and rationalism. Kant rejected the transcendent theory of knowledge, and he was also convinced that experience, while serving as a reliable source for knowledge, could not in itself justify of its necessary character. Thus, Kant claimed that knowledge obtains its universal character from a certain structure of human reasoning: it is always a representation, whether of the external world or of ourselves, which has passed through the prism of understanding. In Kant's theory, therefore, both "self" and "not-self" are described as things-in-themselves and the process of cognizing is the only reality given to humankind. This ultimate resolution reflects in an almost unrecognizable shape the basic presupposition of the rationalists and empiricists about the separation of "self" and "not-self" in the process of knowing. In Kant's system knowledge depends, not on 327

Ibid., p.67.

140 the relationship between subject and object, but on the a priori capacities of the cognition process. Therefore, this premise, as Losskii points out, can be formulated in a slightly different fashion, namely, that the "cognitive process and the things-inthemselves (the appearance and that which appears) are isolated from one another."328 Though born out of an intention to free the theory of knowledge from this last presupposition, the intuitivist approach shares some of the positive achievements of Kant's epistemology. Thus, it denies, with Kant, the possibility of transcendent knowledge and recognizes its immanence in the object as the only solution for developing non-contradictory epistemological views. However, in addition, intuitivism, Losskii claims, takes a step forward by affirming the necessary connectedness between subject and object in the process of acquiring knowledge. Generally speaking, knowledge is associated with the activities of "self" toward its object, presented as "not-self." Where, according to intuitivist theory, can the borderline be drawn between these two realms? In Losskii's opinion, the only appropriate criterion for distinguishing the spheres of "self" and "not-self" would be the sorting of all experiences as "belonging to me" and "given to me." Accordingly, those which are "mine," contain the realm of "self"; the others are concerned with what "appears to me" and constitute the domain of "not-self." Generally speaking, as Losskii points out, only the experiences of a medium degree of complexity belong to that individual's self, while the simplest and the more complicated belong to the sphere of the not-self.329

328

Ibid., p.117.

329

Ibid., p.88.

141 The "self"-part contains, therefore, much less than people usually think. Even some elements of our inner experience, such as, for example, fantasies, might have the character of "givenness" to us and belong to the sphere of "not-self." The presence of an undifferentiated "self" as well as "not-self" in almost all our experiences and their mixture in the acts of cognition drive Losskii to the conclusion that these two realms are not disconnected, but closely linked to each other. In other words, "self" is considered by him an extension of "not-self" and vice versa. The ultimate unity of "self" and "not-self" makes possible, among other things that the world of "not-self" is known by the same direct process of cognition as the world of "self." Finally, Losskii comes to the conclusion that “in knowledge of the external world, the object is transcendent in relation to the knowing subject, but immanent in the process of knowing.”330 The intuitivist theory of knowledge, therefore, on the one hand, affirms that, in the acts of knowing, the object of knowledge is "not a copy, symbol, or appearance of the thing that is to be known but the thing as it really exists."331 On the other hand, it states that although the object of knowledge exists in the process of knowing, the content of knowledge contains more than its own object and is the result of the subject's efforts of comparison and distinction. Finally, according to the intuitivist approach, that truth which one can achieve in the cognitive process, is never complete because the process of differentiation, however strong it may be, always leaves unexplored some part of a "dark, inexhaustible, unknown reality."332

330

Ibid., pp.92-93.

331

Ibid., p.82.

332

Ibid., p.232.

142 Hierarchical Pluralism in Ontology In accordance with the tradition of modern Western philosophy Losskii first anchored his ontological investigations by constructing a theory of knowledge, which, as he argued, was--or at least ought to be--free from any dogmatic presuppositions. The basic insight of this theory, in Losskii's own words, consisted of an assertion that "the world of the not-self (the whole of that world, including God, if He exists,) is known no less immediately than the world of the self."333 This epistemological teaching, however, coupled with some other views, such as, for example, the inseparability of the sphere of "self" and "not-self," already inclined Losskii toward certain ontological claims, namely, the idea of the organic interconnectedness of all elements in the world. It has to be added that in Losskii's theory of knowledge, named by its founder "intuitivism," intuition does not only constitute an aspect--although a decisive one--of cognition, but is extended to, and covers, all cognitive processes. Traditional intuitivists, on the contrary, defended the opposite view. For them knowledge is always of two kinds: an "outside," rational knowledge, in which the subject opposes the object, and an "inside," intuitive one, in which the subject penetrates or becomes part of the object. While rational explanation, they say, operates under the rules of formal logic, intuitive understanding goes beyond those rules to a fuller picture of reality. In contrast to this formulation, which opposes intuition to rationality, Losskii, in his attempts to efface the split between rational and irrational in human cognition, argues that there is simply no knowledge apart from intuition. All knowledge, he points out, is intuitive by nature but can be differentiated by the type of intuition. He then distinguishes the three types: sensuous, intellectual, and

333

Ibid., p.100.

143 mystical intuition, to which real, ideal and metalogical levels of existence respectively correspond.334 Like Solov'ev, Losskii in his ontology thus distinguishes three levels of reality: the real, abstract and concretely-ideal spheres. The last one "transcends both real and abstract ideal being [and because of it] the multiplicity of the real world exists in the form of an organic unity."335 This third sphere consists of the living agents which Losskii calls concrete ideal entities, substances or, with more precision, substantival agents. As compared to the abstract ideal aspect of reality, which includes, for instance, abstract relations, substances represent active agents originating their own manifestations in time. Substance "cannot possibly be regarded," as Losskii points out, "as merely an abstract aspect in the temporal process" and represents both an ideal and a real entity, i.e. a comparatively independent being."336 The human self is one of the substantival agents, and as a supra-temporal and supra-spatial unit, is responsible for creating psychic processes in time as well as material events which occur in a spatiotemporal framework. Hence, Losskii concludes, the "world as a whole, including material nature, is the work of spirit or of beings that are akin to spirit."337 Are there many such beings in the world or is there only one all-embracing substance? It seems natural to assume the latter because of the organic unity existing in the whole world. On the other hand, as Losskii notes,

334

For an elaborate discussion of different types of intuition see Nikolai Losskii, Chuvstvennaia, intellektual'naia i misticheskaia intuitsiia, Moscow: Respublika, 1995. 335

N. O. Losky. The World As an Organic Whole. (Translated from the Russian by Natalie A. Duddington). London: Oxford University Press, 1928, p.373. 336

Ibid., p.44.

337

Ibid., p.48.

144 in addition to the aspect of wholeness the world, has an aspect of unresolved fragmentariness, which implies a plurality of substantival agents standing to one another in the relation of irreconcilable opposition.338 Generally speaking, Losskii distinguishes two kinds of oppositions built into the structure of the world. The first type is the ideal opposition between any of the two contents, such as, for instance, a-ness and b-ness or blueness and loftiness. The members of the ideal opposition do not eliminate or limit each other. Thus, the sky is both blue and lofty, the "human soul can be simultaneously possessed by sadness and reverence, and so on." To sum up, the ideal opposition leads to "the richness, the complexity and the diversity of the world" and, therefore, can be properly named an "individualizing opposition"339 The other type of opposition, however, represents constant struggle and mutual incompatibility among the elements of the world and is called by Losskii, appropriately, the conflicting opposition. Although the basis for this conflict is constituted by the ideal side of reality, it also exists in the spatio-temporal network and has a real character. As Losskii writes, The presence of conflicting opposition in the world, so far from increasing its richness and fullness diminishes the number of possible combinations and expressions of life.340 The conflicting opposition reduces the expressions of life by the very fact that its aspects mutually exclude each other. It appears impossible without a multitude of independent substances, which constitute, therefore, the realm of enmity. However, if, according to Losskii's religious outlook, the Absolute is responsible for the creation of the world, how can this created world include enmity, of which death is the ultimate fruit? In other words, how are we to understand and 338

Ibid., p.53.

339

Ibid., p.54.

340

Ibid., p.55.

145 reconcile, if at all possible, the simultaneous existence of a perfect Creator and cosmic evil? Losskii's solution to the eternal problem of theodicy consists of imposing certain restrictions in relation to God's creativity. Basically, he reduces God's initial creative impulse to the making of substantival agents to whom God has given the freedom to choose their own way of evolution. In the book God and Cosmic Evil, for example, Losskii states this argument in a slightly different form: The first act which preceded the six days of creation of different domains of the world is the creation of beings whose primordial properties are such that they are capable of beginning their activity guided by a love of God, that is greater than the love of themselves, and also by love of all created beings and the absolute values of goodness, truth and beauty.341 At the same time, the Absolute could not have created the actual, but only the potential, persons who must independently and freely use their powers in order to become actual persons. Otherwise, as Losskii points out, the concept of creation loses its proper meaning for, if God had created not only the basis of the person, but also the very life of a person, i.e. its manifestations in time, then this would have meant that the life of the world is the life of God Himself and, strictly speaking, that which we call the world is in fact one of the aspect side of God's existence.342 In reality, by having created the substantival agents which themselves possess creative powers, God did not determine their empirical character. As Losskii explains this in another book, Freedom of the Will: God created free substantival agents; the caring out one of specific action out of many possible actions is up to the free agent itself; in other words, the creative act of God, which creates the world, does not determine it in all of its aspects.343 341

Nikolai Losskii. Bog i mirovoe zlo. Moscow: Respublika, 1994, p.329.

342

Ibid., p.330.

343

Nikolai Lossky. Svoboda voli [Freedom of the Will]. Izbrannoe. Moscow: Pravda, 1991, p.568.

146 This does not mean that God does not care about the creatures or does not intervene in the process of their evolution. On the contrary, Losskii argues, not just the creation of the substances, but "also their manifestations in time occur in accordance with God's will, at least in the sense of being permitted."344 In any case, as he concludes, this world is the best of all possible [worlds] as regards the original substances i.e. God's share... but regarding the actual course of events... this world is not the best: the best of all possible worlds, namely, a quite perfect world, would have occurred in the case in which not a single being had abused his freedom.345 It is important to note that the doctrine of the freedom of substances, which are responsible for their own life does not contradict the faith in either the omnipotence or the omniscience of God. In fact neither of these Divine attributes limits the freedom of God's creatures because, as Losskii points out, from the intuitivist perspective, Knowledge of the free future actions of the creatures which does not violate their freedom can be thought of... as intuition, i.e. as an immediate contemplation which is directed toward these same free actions in their original form. The relation of God to the world and to the creatures, as Losskii emphasizes again, is not contrary to, but necessarily presupposes, mutual freedom "thanks to which... God is free from the creatures and from participation in their evil deeds.346 The Problem of the Absolute Losskii devotes special attention to the question of the existence of the Absolute Being and the possibility of knowledge of him. He discusses related 344

Ibid., p.566.

345

Ibid., p.569.

346

Ibid., p.574.

147 philosophical problems in many of his books, beginning with the early The World as an Organic Whole and in his later works, Conditions of Absolute Goodness and God and Cosmic Evil. In these books, especially in the later ones, Losskii's philosophical analysis practically merges with his Orthodox Christian convictions. Here, for example, is how Losskii approaches the theme of the Absolute in his main ontological work, The World as an Organic Whole. First, he recognizes that the "problem of the Absolute is the most difficult problem in philosophy." He argues, however, that it can be successfully resolved within the framework of the "organic conception of the world.”347 The primary postulate of it states that any object constitutes a system by virtue of the principle, which lies beyond that system. Considering the whole world in its systemic unity, one naturally concludes that there must exist the principle which "is the source of the world's plurality and of its original unification" and which "does not contain any plurality in itself, and... therefore... stands above all systems."348 This principle, being "in all respects independent," as Losskii continues, is properly named the "Absolute" and can be carefully studied, in its relation, first, to itself, and, second, to the world. It is easy to see that no positive definition can grasp the Absolute as such. The nature of the Absolute in itself can be defined, therefore, only in negative terms, as negations of any particular characteristic. However, as Losskii insists, These negations do not by any means reduce the Absolute to nothing: they only refer to such characteristic of it as are limited and fall short of the fullness of being, that in truth they are negations of all negativity.349

347

Lossky, The World As an Organic Whole, p.59.

348

Ibid., p.63.

349

Ibid., pp.65-66.

148 Furthermore, Losskii believes that the impossibility of positive definitions does not prevent the Absolute from becoming the object of knowledge. In fact, he points out, "[i]t is precisely the immediate contemplation of it which enables us to know that it is different from all the elements of the world."350 In addition to apophatic or negative theology, with its claim that the Absolute is totally different from the world and unfathomable in itself, cataphatic or positive theology, speaks about the Absolute as related to and manifested in the world of creatures. Losskii describes this theological enterprise as "relational theology" for it is possible only insofar as the Absolute has relations with the world upon which the Absolute does not become, however, dependent. When it comes to this positive theological speculation, Losskii finds himself standing on the ground of Christian revelation. By cataphatic theology, he writes, “Christian religious thought is accustomed to understand... the doctrine of God as a Person, or a Trinity of Persons, almighty, omniscient, etc.”351 In his later book, The Conditions of Absolute Goodness, he also points out that philosophy has the right to include in its make up religious teachings about God as a person and about the Trinity [for it] must be based not only on speculation, but on all kinds of experience, including religious experience as well. 352 Philosophical reasoning, however sophisticated it might be, he says, could never have given to humankind the revealed truth of the Trinity, "as the fullness of life of the Three Persons consubstantial in their perfect love" and rooted in "the Divine Supra-Being (Sverkhchto) inexpressible by any words or concepts."353 The

350

Ibid., p.66.

351

Ibid., p.67.

352

Nikolai Losskii. Usloviia absoliutnogo dobra. Moscow: Politicheskaia literatura, 1991, pp.50-51.

353

Ibid., p.62.

149 idea of creation as the original relation of this Divine and Triune Being to the world of creatures is derived from the data of revelation too, and is used by philosophy for its own purposes. Thus, in Losskii's view, the Absolute as Creator is not the cause of the existence of the world, but rather represents its absolute ground. While any effect contains some part of its cause, as Losskii argues, the world differs completely from its Creator, being a result of "absolute creation--creation in the highest and exact sense of the term."354 Accordingly, he writes in another place, the Biblical doctrine about creation of the world out of nothing should be understood more simply: in order to create the world God had no need to take any material either from Himself or from outside; He creates the world as a perfectly new being, other than Himself.355 He later adds: Ontologically [God] and the world are absolutely different, for the difference between them is not logical, but metalogical[, and] if the difference between two objects is metalogical, no identical elements can be found in their makeup.356 Such a strong emphasis on the doctrine of creation in conjunction with his hierarchical, but pluralistic, ontology leads Losskii to a reconsideration of sophiological doctrines. Sophiology Revisited The Created Wisdom Although Losskii claimed that his epistemological theory is free from any ontological presuppositions, one may have assumed that as the principal continuer of 354

Lossky, The World As an Organic Whole, p.69.

355

Lossky, History of Russian Philosophy, p.257.

356

Ibid., p.283.

150 the modern Russian epistemological line of thought, in his ontology and sophiology Losskii would also adhere to traditional theories. Nevertheless, Losskii's ontological doctrines proved to be different from the widely popular among Russian thinkers Solov'evian metaphysics of total-unity. While rejecting this metaphysics Losskii, however, still found place in his ontology for the concept of Sophia. This remarkable feature of Losskii's thought, in my opinion, shows, first, the persistence of sophiological theme in modern Russian intellectual tradition, and, second, the relative independence of sophiology which may be combined with different epistemological and ontological teachings. Losskii himself, for instance, strongly disagreed with the mainstream of Russian sophiologists and rejected any doctrine about the divine nature of Sophia, or about Sophia as the bridge between the divine and created realms. Instead, he postulated a totally created reality of Sophia-i.e. one distinct from the Absolute-- which was at the same time different from the whole of the creaturely world as well. Losskii develops this sophiology based on his general organic or, using another term, holistic approach. Broadly speaking, for him all philosophical systems can be classified not as materialist or idealist, monist or pluralist, dogmatic or skeptical, but as either mechanistic or organic. According to the mechanistic view, Losskii writes, the "elements are absolute, primordial and exist unconditionally" of the whole, which is "derivative, relative, and entirely determined by its parts." The organic position, on the contrary, affirms that the whole "exists primarily and the elements can exist and come into being within the system of the whole."357 Losskii himself is convinced that "no philosophical movement can dispense with the idea of [such] a whole which is prior to its parts."358

357

Lossky, The World As an Organic Whole, pp.1-2.

358

Ibid., p.8.

151 He applies this idea of integral system or organism to all forms of existing reality with only one--very significant--exception. Unlike Solov'ev, whose metaphysics of total-unity covers the Absolute as well, Losskii decisively puts God beyond the framework of the cosmic system. He criticizes the followers of Solov'evian metaphysics, such as Semion Frank for identifying, at least partially, the world of the creatures with their Creator. Evaluating the philosophical consequences of this teaching, Losskii notes that Too great an approximation between God and the world, inevitably involved in the conception of the Absolute as [total]-unity, leads to insuperable difficulties with regard to the origin of evil and individual freedom, as is always the case with pantheistically-colored theories.359 He also points to an incompatibility of these theories with traditional Christian views, affirming, on the one hand, the eternal perfection of the Holy Trinity and, on the other, the original sin of Adam. Besides, by postulating the mutual freedom between the Absolute and the creaturely world, one can explain why humanity, together with substantival agents of lower levels, struggles for survival in the kingdom of enmity instead of enjoying the fullness of life in the kingdom of love. The point is that, as Losskii thinks, the gate to everlasting life is always open with the necessary condition that those who are willing to enter it must abandon egoism. Those substantival agents who choose selfishness and prefer their own interests to God's will are forced to continue their evolution on the lower levels of existence and for their sins engage in the long and difficult process of redemption. The original sin of self-centeredness, in its turn, symbolized in the famous Biblical story of the fall of Adam, does not signify that perfection was once attained and then freely lost. The life of the spirit has to come as a result of efforts by the creature itself; otherwise creaturely freedom loses its real character. 359

Lossky, History of Russian Philosophy, p.283. [Trans. rev'd.]

152 Where is the guarantee, however, that the multitude of created and struggling substances will not ultimately transform the universe into irreversible and total chaos? Losskii's answer to this question consists of affirming the consubstantiality of all substantival agents crowned with and headed by the cosmic substance. On the one hand, this substance, which Losskii, following the tradition calls Sophia, is not identical with the Absolute and, like all other creatures, belongs to the creaturely realm. On the other hand, as compared to the imperfect substantival agents the cosmic or supreme substance, though created, is perfect and unites the multiplicity of creation in one cosmic whole. Here is how Losskii describes the relations between the supreme substance, Sophia, and the rest of creation: The supreme substance is not the ultimate ground of the world, because other substances are not originated by it; so far as their existence is concerned, they are just as ultimate and independent as it is and it is only in their manifestations, in their activities, that they are partially subordinated to the supreme substance.360 He compares the connection between the supreme substance and other substantival agents with the relations existing between individuals and society. Thus, he says, "the community does not create the individual, but some of the individual's activities have a social character, i.e., they are subordinated to the demands of the social whole."361 Accordingly, Sophia as the supreme substance participates to a certain degree in the life of all creatures, while, nevertheless, being significantly distinct from them, especially, from those belonging to the different levels of the kingdom of enmity. To sum up, Sophia, or the cosmic substance, is the most perfect creature, one who never experienced the Fall and whose activity decisively affects the whole of creation. As Losskii writes in his book, God and Cosmic Evil: 360

Lossky, The World As an Organic Whole, pp.61-62.

361

Ibid., p.62.

153 The correlation of all beings and all events which forms a single world is explained by the fact that the Cosmic Spirit stands at the head of the world, a substantival agent, who co-ordinates all activities of all beings, who is isolated from none, and therefore, belongs to the structure of God's Kingdom.362 In the History of Russian Philosophy he also repeats, in the spirit of the Orthodox Christian teaching: At the head of the whole world, next to Christ as His closest co-worker, stands a created being, the World Spirit, St. Sophia [which had] no part in the Fall.363 Sophia As Spiritual Reality The Kingdom of God led by Sophia represents the true goal for every substantival agent. However, on the way to its spiritual realization, those agents who have not yet attained this level may grow, either in goodness or in evil. The psychophysical reality in which we all participate shows the bitter fruits of the latter way: This exclusive self-affirmation of a dissentient being directed against the Absolute and the kingdom of the Spirit is accompanied by exclusive selfaffirmation of the infinite multitude of its own parts against one another.364 The irreconcilable struggle gradually leads to the appearance of the material layers of existence, which, as Losskii continues, brings the struggling entities... into a state of the most extreme isolation possible, expressing itself in phenomena that are the very opposite to what takes place in the kingdom of the Spirit--that is, in processes of repulsion which create extended bodies impenetrable to one another.365

362

Losskii, Bog i mirovoe zlo, p.301.

363

Lossky, History of Russian Philosophy, p.266.

364

Lossky, The World As an Organic Whole, p.106.

365

Ibid., pp.106-107.

154 The continuation of life in the kingdom of enmity, as Losskii points out, is "only possible at the cost of death." In a general sense of the term, death, as the "transition of any aspect of life into the realm of the past,"366 is the necessary condition and consequence of an egocentrically-oriented life. This unsatisfactory existence, inevitably and ultimately crowned with death, would have left no hope for human beings if they had not had an intimate and divinely ordained connection with the kingdom of love and with the supreme substance, Sophia. It might seem as if this supreme universal substance, the "living wisdom, Sophia," is what ancient philosophers like Plato and modern thinkers like Schelling called the World Soul. In this case Sophia, or the World Soul, would possess the whole of the world as its body. Losskii opposes such a sophiological doctrine, characteristic of the views of the young Solov'ev, for example. Losskii's argument is quite simple. First, he says, although the soul sustains the body it is at the same time the cause of the body being material, in other words, its activity always preserves a more or less exclusive character, hostile to some other beings in the world. Second, Sophia cannot have any material body because, as Losskii continues, “a material body can only exist in contraposition to some other material body... but outside the world-whole there is nobody which it could oppose.”367 Therefore, he concludes, Sophia as the supreme substance is not the World Soul but the Spirit which is, on the one hand, free from any exclusivity and, on the other hand, related to the world as to its not-material body. As Losskii puts it: "The Spirit stands above the world which may be said to be the body spiritualized, and not merely animated by it."368 366

Ibid., p.104.

367

Ibid., p.121.

368

Ibid., p.122.

155 The life of the spiritual kingdom is thus described by Losskii as contrasted to the life of the world, or the kingdom of enmity. First of all, the existence of the spiritual kingdom makes it possible for the fallen beings to restore their true divine identities and to partake of their divine share in the heavenly life. Apart from helping such beings, God's kingdom, led by Sophia and inhabited by the multitude of other divine entities, has a positive activity of its own. Spiritual life is not an eternal rest, but an extremely intensive movement. In fact, the spirit "does not contain the whole fullness of being--if it did, it would be the Absolute," and it is pursuing "the task of acquiring greater and greater fullness of being... by drawing nearer and nearer to its goal in an infinite temporal process of change.369 In the Kingdom of God, as Losskii points out, everyone is in harmony with all, and everyone is all. Therefore, in that kingdom "every moment of the life of the Spirit has absolute value;" and in that life "there is change but no annihilation... there is no falling back into the realm of the past."370 The life of the kingdom headed by Sophia, thus, represents a constant growth by every member in all possible dimensions, which ideally complement and enrich one another. In other words, as Losskii puts it, the meaning of that kingdom and the justification of its existence lie in its perfection, in the fact that its life is perfect goodness and beauty [realized by its members] of their own free will, on their own initiative.371 In another book, Value and Being, he also mentions: Any creative act in the kingdom of God brings into its structure a new and infinitely complex, individual content; that is, it represents something, which

369

Ibid., p.90.

370

Ibid., p.91.

371

Ibid., p.93.

156 is uniquely distinctive and irreplaceably valuable within the bounds of the cosmic being.372 Implications for Political Philosophy The originality of Losskii's sophiology apart from his ontological teaching was vividly manifested in his political philosophy. Compared to other Russian thinkers, such as his contemporaries Il'in or Berdiaev, he published only a few articles devoted to the special problems of politics.373 However, again unlike many of his Russian colleagues, Losskii consistently stands for democratic values, and-what seems even more important--defends them theoretically on the basis of his sophiological or, as he calls it, hierarchical personalism. One should mention that the idea of democracy was never popular among Russian intellectuals brought up in the strong tradition of authoritarian rule. The distaste for democratic political institutions was especially evident in Russian religious thought. Neither Chaadaev, nor the early--not to speak of the late-Slavophiles, nor even Solov'ev in his post-theocratic years, came to appreciate this form of government. Many of the 20th-century Russian philosophers strongly criticized existing European democracies as well. The criticism was generally twofold. First, democracy as the rule of majority was opposed in its basic idea--as having a formal character and being, therefore, indifferent to truth and goodness. The counting of votes, its opponents argued, is mechanistic and does not guarantee the finding of the right solution; the holders of truth often are in the minority. Moreover, they added, most contemporary 372

Nikolai O. Losskii. Tsennost' i bytie [Value and Being]. Bog i mirovoe zlo, p.278.

373

Here are some of the main titles: "Organicheskoe stroenie obschestva i demokratiia," Sovremennye zapiski, 1925, Vol.25; "V zashchitu demokratii," 1926, Vol.27; "Svoboda i khoziaistvennaia deiatel'nost'," Novyi grad, 1932, Vol.3; "Industrializm, kommunizm i utrata lichnosti," 1936, Vol.11; "Smysl istorii," Vol'naia mysl', 9-1961, Vol.3; "O znachenii Rossii," Transactions of the Russian Scholars in the USA, 1976, Vol.10.

157 democracies represent secular communities, while all societies established on sacred principles have been undemocratic.374 Based on this general criticism, democracy was usually rejected in favor of a traditional monarchy. In contrast to democratic rule, the monarchical system was considered in perfect harmony with the organic foundations of life. Monarchy was also seen as the bearer of truth entrusted to it by religious authorities. In his defense of democracy Losskii, hence, challenges both of these assumptions. First, he argues that organic or holistic philosophy is not specifically tied with a certain political system, and then he makes a strong case for democracy, arguing that it is not relativistic per se. As a promoter of organic conception of the world himself, Losskii recognizes, of course, that it presupposes the monarchical order of the world. However, as he notes, this ontological monarchism has nothing to do with monarchy as a political system. Thus, for instance, according to Losskii's hierarchical personalism, the world as a system united by the Supreme Substance, Sophia, is composed of an infinite multitude of smaller sub-systems governed by the appropriate substantival agents. Accordingly, a nation, for example, is united and moved by the nation's soul. Nevertheless, the soul of the nation, which realizes its unity does not coincide with any of its members, just as the human soul does not equal any molecule of the human body. It does not follow, therefore, that an authoritarian monarch expresses the soul of the nation better than a democratically elected president. On the contrary, in the course of the growing complexity of social life, the unity of the state, as Losskii notes, is achieved more securely by the dispersion of power and by a constitutional limitation on the absolute power of the monarch. As Losskii emphasizes, the 374

These arguments were stated, for example, in Berdiaev's essay, "Democracy, Socialism and Theocracy." For more discussion of Berdiaev's views on democracy see Chapter 6 of the book.

158 “purity of the pursuit of the monarchical principle of the structure of the universe requires the conciliar order of power in the life of the state.” And the "order of the democratic republic or democratically limited monarchy," he continues, is one of the means of creating a conciliar, supra-human unity of power where it is possible to neutralize the egocentric aspirations of certain persons which are not in harmony with the whole.375 To sum up, the democratic form of the state organization is not only compatible with the organic worldview, but fits it even better than absolute monarchy. In both cases, one deals with the rules of government, which organize, in a different way, the systemic unity of the nation. Neither of them, as Losskii points out, is unconditionally perfect. In some circumstances monarchy is preferable; under other conditions people should embrace democracy. The choice depends upon what system of government can best balance the united will of the nation with the rights and development of its members.376 Together with his defense of democracy as compatible with the organic foundations of society, Losskii rejects the charge that democracy is indifferent to truth and leads to epistemological and ethical relativism. As he had done previously, he bases his criticism on his general philosophical views. Thus, Losskii reminds the reader about epistemological intuitivism, which he develops. According to intuitivist theory, truth is absolute. However, he exclaims, "to whom would it occur to affirm that in earthly conditions we possess all the fullness of the absolute truth!" "Even the Christian religion...in its dogmas gives only fragments of the absolute truth," Losskii continues, "while leaving completely

375

Nikolai Losskii. "Organicheskoe stroenie obschestva i demokratiia." Sovremennye zapiski. XXY, Paris, 1925, p. 351. 376

Losskii elaborates on these issues in his article "V zaschitu demokratii" published in Sovremennye zapiski, XXYII, Paris, 1926, pp.369-381.

159 unresolved questions about the economic system, political forms, etc."377 To realize the limitations of human knowledge while attempting to increase our understanding in a reasonable fashion does not mean, however, to adopt relativism. Accordingly, the more people participate in the discussion and decision making process for the improvement of social life and organization, the better are the chances of achieving an improvement. Social progress entails a synthesis of all positive ideas into a harmonious whole. "As far as democracy opens a field for a free struggle for truth," Losskii concludes, "it facilitates the working out of such a harmonious synthesis."378

377

Losskii, "Organicheskoe stroenie obschestva i demokratiia," p.352.

378

Ibid., p.353.

160

161

Chapter 6 Sophia as the Disclosure of Creativity

Exposition of Berdiaev's Philosophy Reality of the Spirit Nikolai Berdiaev is often considered in the West as the best-known Russian religious philosopher manifesting in his creative work the spirit of contemporary Orthodoxy (see Appendix D).379 Berdiaev is also judged a complicated, even contradictory, thinker whose writings escape simple definition. Vasilii Zenkovskii, in his History of Russian Philosophy, portrays Berdiaev as a "neo-Romantic."380 Other scholars usually label him an existentialist.381 Berdiaev himself, in his late philosophical and autobiographical works accepts, with certain reservations, the characterization of "existential thinker." In addition, when discussing the "problem of the primacy of Sophia or Logos, cosmos or personality" he usually contrasts the cosmological foundation of sophiology with the anthropological orientation of his existentialism. Thus, in the article "Russian Spiritual Renaissance of the Early 20th Century," Berdiaev writes, for instance: 379

For a detailed account of Berdiaev's life and work see also: N. K. Dmitrieva and A. P. Moiseeva, Nikolai Berdiaev: Zhizn' i tvorchestvo. Filosof svobodnogo dukha, Moscow: Vysshaia shkola, 1993; and Aleksandr Vadimov, Zhizn' Berdiaeva. Rossiia, Oakland, Ca: Berkeley Slavic Specialties, 1993. 380 381

Zenkovsky, Russian Philosophy, Vol.II, pp.762-763.

See, for example, Christian Existentialism. A Berdyaev Anthology, selected and translated by Donald A. Lowrie, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1965; and Fuad Nucho, Berdyaev's Philosophy: The Existential Paradox of Freedom and Necessity. A Critical Study, London: Victor Gollancz, 1967.

162 I myself did not stand in this Platonic-Sophiological line of Russian religious philosophy... My religious philosophy was always oriented anthropologically, not cosmologically, and I was always closer to that type of thought, which is now called existential philosophy.382 And then, speaking of modern Russian thought: There are two orientations in religious-philosophical thought--orientation towards the primacy of Sophia and orientation towards the primacy of freedom. I belong to the second movement, although not at all denying the problem connected with Sophia and the cosmic enlightenment.383 In one of his last books, The Russian Idea, Berdiaev repeats the same point: The Sophiological theme is the theme about the Divine and the created world. This is first of all the cosmological theme [whose main is the] problem of evil, which is neither adequately faced nor resolved. This is the optimistic system. Not the idea of Sophia, but that of freedom, proves to be the key one.384 However, while "the captive of freedom," as one scholar called Berdiaev,385 strongly rejects any inclination towards "optimistic Sophiology," his thought, in my opinion, shows remarkable signs of it although in a significantly transformed version. In order to trace the way sophiological doctrines have been appropriated by Berdiaev one must briefly consider his general philosophical outlook, focused primarily on the category of spirit. At the core of Berdiaev's worldview lies the opposition between nature and spirit where nature is understood as the "object, thing, necessity, determinateness, passive endurance, immobility" and spirit, accordingly, as the "subject, life... 382

Nikolai Berdiaev. "Russkii dukhovnyi renessans nachala XX v." Zapiski russkoi akademicheskoi gruppy v SSHA [Transactions of the Association of Russian-American Scholars in the U.S.A.]. Vol. XXV. New York, 1992-1993, p.15. 383

Ibid., p.15.

384

Nikolai Berdiaev, Russkaia ideia. Osnovnye problemy russkoi mysli XIX veka i nachala XX veka. Paris: YMCA-Press, 1946, p.342. 385

See: Spinka, M.N. Berdyaev, Captive of Freedom. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1950.

163 freedom, creative activity."386 The discussion of spiritual as opposed to natural reality runs throughout all of Berdiaev's major works and involves different levels of human existence. In his book, The Divine and the Human, Berdiaev writes, for example: Spirit is freedom and free energy, which breaks through into the natural and historical world... The spiritual quality and spiritual value of man are determined not by nature of any sort, but by the union of freedom and grace.387 It is significant that, for Berdiaev, the spiritual realm is beyond conceptual thinking, which is crowned by the category of being, to which he contraposes spiritual freedom as having precedence over being. In another book, Truth and Revelation, in the chapter devoted to the Age of the Spirit, Berdiaev applies this understanding of spirit to the Holy Spirit. He continues to emphasize that the "distinction between spirit and nature is" fundamental; that they do not represent "various degrees of the same reality." On the contrary, he notes here, the human spirit and the Holy Spirit "are one and the same reality [but] in different degrees."388 Finally, Berdiaev connects the notion of the spirit with the reality of God. In The Realm of Spirit and the Realm of Caesar, for instance, he argues that God is not being...not essence...not the cause of the world... not a force in the natural sense... not the master and director of the world [but rather God is] the meaning, the Truth of the world...spirit and freedom.389

386

Nicolas Lossky, History of Russian Philosophy, p.234.

387

Nicolas Berdiaev. The Divine and the Human. (Translated from the Russian by R.M. French). London: Geoffrey Bles, 1949, p.128. 388

Nicolas A. Berdiaev. Truth and Revelation. (Translated from the Russian by R.M. French). New York: Harper, 1953, pp.140-141. 389

Nicolas Berdiaev. The Realm of Spirit and the Realm of Caesar. (Translated by Donald A. Lowrie). New York: Harper, 1952, pp.36; 39-40.

164 The meeting with God, therefore, is always a spiritual experience which can be lived through and spoken of only in the language of symbols. This relationship of divine and human is in fact what provides human beings with ultimate enrichment and satisfaction. Berdiaev's position may be called in the highest sense personalistic or anthropocentric for, as he puts it, the "fundamental problem of existential philosophy is that of the [personhood]."390 The roots of a human person for Berdiaev lie in the existential dimension of life manifested in the primacy of spirituality over the phenomenal side of existence. The true human person, he writes, is the "direct expression of the impact of the spirit on [human] physical and psychical nature."391 As belonging to the realm of spirit every human person is thus unique, and exists in communion with the Holy Spirit and God, the Creator. Being the "image and likeness of God," humans are aspiring for the “supra-personal: [they] could not exist but for a Higher Power, a supra-personal content."392 The Sin of Objectification Berdiaev applies his ontological dualism of spirit and nature to the general framework of Kantian philosophy of which he, unlike so many Russian religious thinkers, had an extremely high opinion. Berdiaev regarded Kant "as the greatest and most original philosopher in the history of human thought."393 Moreover, in

390

Nicolas Berdiaev. Solitude and Society. (Translated from the Russian by George Reavey). London: Geoffrey Bles, 1938, p.159. [Trans. rev'd.] 391

Ibid., p.160. [Trans. rev'd.]

392

Ibid., p.160.

393

Nicolas Berdiaev. The Beginning and the End. [Opyt eskhatologicheskoi metafiziki. Tvorchestvo i obektivatsiia]. (Translated from the Russian by R. M. French). New York: Harper, 1952, p.5.

165 Berdiaev's view, Kant "was a metaphysician and he ought to be interpreted from a metaphysical point of view."394 Kant's metaphysics is, however, as Berdiaev points out, not of a traditional "naturalistic rationalist type... derived from the object." Kant's dualism of the noumenal and phenomenal spheres, the "greatest merit of his philosophy," for the first time in the history of European thought definitely overcomes the domination of the object over the subject. The dualism clearly assumes that "what refers merely to appearances and phenomena must not be transferred to what is noumenal, to thingsin-themselves."395 As a result of this discovery and the "establishment of the frontiers of reason," the human being becomes "aware of himself not only as a phenomenon."396 This crucial shift from objective to subjective metaphysics is hard to overestimate. Scholars usually accept, as Berdiaev notes, that "mediaeval philosophy was Christian, whereas the philosophy of modern times is non-Christian or even anti-Christian." However, in reality medieval scholasticism had more of a Greek than Christian foundation for "it was a philosophy of the object, that is to say it was cosmocentric."397 The philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas (although, as Berdiaev remarks, he was "much more of a Christian than Hegel") did no more than add an upper storey of theology to a purely Greek philosophical foundation, and that theological storey was infected by Aristotelian categories of thought.398

394

Ibid., p.8.

395

Ibid., p.9.

396

Ibid., p.10.

397

Ibid., p.11.

398

Ibid., p.12.

166 In contrast to scholasticism, modern philosophy was able finally to emancipate Christianity from the Greek heritage of the objectifying thought. The philosophy of modern times, as Berdiaev concludes, "has become a philosophy of the subject; it is anthropocentric and its centre of gravity is transferred to man."399 Berdiaev sees the importance of the Kantian contribution to philosophy, therefore, in the two main points. First, Kant clearly established the irreconcilable difference between two distinct worlds, the noumenal and the phenomenal, or in Berdiaev's terms, the realms of spirit and of nature respectively. Second, Kant showed the impossibility of reaching the noumenal sphere of the thing-in-itself by means of conceptual thought, or, again in Berdiaev's own terminology, separated the noumenal realm of existence from the intellectual sphere of being which is now assigned to the world of phenomena. Berdiaev adds to these two pillars of Kantian thought, as he interprets it, a third innovative assumption of his own. He affirms that, in the final depth, every human being is rooted not in the phenomenal world of nature, but in the noumenal life of the spirit. In other words, he claims that "it is surely necessary to recognize that the object is not the thing-in-itself, the subject is the thing-in -itself." As for the object, he continues, it "is only a phenomenon and an appearance for the sake of the subject."400 The phenomenal side of human existence reflects its fallen and distorted nature. Human life in the noumenal sphere, on the contrary, is perfect and sinless. Here Berdiaev paradoxically connects Kantian epistemology with Christian philosophical anthropology. He asks himself a question about the link between the noumenal and the phenomenal, a "fundamental question":

399

Ibid., p.11.

400

Ibid., p.53.

167 does the conversion of 'things-in-themselves' into 'appearances' take place in the process of knowledge and arise from it, or does it precede all cognition and occur within the actual 'things-in-themselves,' in the primary reality itself, in existence itself, and is merely reflected in cognition?401 The answer given by Berdiaev transfers this problem from the merely epistemological to the ontological domain. According to Berdiaev's schema, the relations between the noumenal and the phenomenal arise first not in cognition but in the depth of real existence as a result of the corruption of spiritual human nature. The division into noumenal and phenomenal manifests the original sin of Adam leading to the loss of immediate spiritual awareness. Respectively, Berdiaev affirms here that "the subject is the creation of God while the object is the creation of the subject."402 And in another place: The thing-in-itself is not an object or 'not-Self', it is a subject, or 'Thou'... The subject, the human 'Self' and 'Thou', are turned into objects and things as a result of a fall...403 The falling of the noumenal into the phenomenal world Berdiaev calls "objectification." Objectification, which "takes place through our agency and for our sake," is described by Berdiaev as the fall of the world, the "loss of freedom, and the alienation of its parts."404 It produces "enslavement... the objectified world, the natural and social world of necessity, servitude, enmity and dominance." The world of objectification is perfectly real, but its existence has no authentic character for it is in a "spiritual and moral condition in which it ought not to be."405

401

Ibid., p.67.

402

Ibid., p.17.

403

Ibid., p.59.

404

Ibid., p.56.

405

Ibid., p.59.

168 For human beings this means an exteriorization, the "subjecting... to the conditions of space, time, casualty and rationalization."406 The objectification, therefore, represents "an existential problem" as a result of the "alienation of spirit from itself."407 The recovery of spiritual life, the victory over objectification, on the contrary, would signify the return to the sinless condition, communion with the Holy Spirit and the partaking of divine life. As Berdiaev puts it, the "fight against the power of objectification is a spiritual revolt of noumena against phenomena... a spiritual revolution"408 which makes possible an encounter with God or, in other words, the sophiological experience. The Meaning of History Berdiaev's general metaphysical position is worked out in detail in relation to the problems of history. It is worth noting that Berdiaev saw himself primarily as a philosopher of history. Thus, in his autobiography Berdiaev confesses that he strongly dislikes history but has a deep intuition about the historical process.409 In his major work devoted to the philosophy of history, The Meaning of History, Berdiaev also mentions that the construction of "a religious philosophy of history" systems is perhaps the vocation of the Russian philosophical tradition as such.410 For Berdiaev himself, in accordance with his metaphysical approach, the historical process consists of the disclosure of the human spirit in relation to nature. He distinguishes three stages in this relationship. The primary pre-Christian, or 406

Ibid., p.60.

407

Ibid., p.63.

408

Ibid., p.62.

409

Nikolai Berdiaev. Samopoznanie, Moscow: DEM, 1990, p.274.

410

See: Nicolas Berdiaev. The Meaning of History, (Translated from the Russian by George Reavey). London: Geofrey Bles, 1936, p.vii.

169 pagan, period is characterized by a deep union of the human spirit with the forces of nature. Here spirit sees itself as a culmination of nature while nature is considered a manifestation of spirit. Different forms of pantheism and animistic beliefs serve as the religious expression of this general framework. The second, or Christian stage, on the contrary, is marked by the heroic struggle of spirit against nature and natural forces as a source of sin. The plan and purpose which is set before humanity in this age consists of overcoming the alien powers of nature in order to dominate them. The religious form, which corresponds best to this epoch is medieval Christendom with its external theocratic centralization and internal spiritual concentration. It brought forth such magnificent fruits of the early Christian Renaissance as St. Francis d'Assizi and Dante. However, the medieval culture proved insufficient for the success of its task. The main cause for the "defect of this medieval idea of the Kingdom of God" Berdiaev sees in the insufficiency of the "free play of [human] creative energies" in a specific medieval consciousness, which "had strengthened [human] spiritual forces, but had prevented their free participation in the work of creative culture." The miscarriage of a "compulsory fulfillment of the Kingdom of God," of its establishment "without the free consent and participation of [human] autonomous forces,"411 has led to a renewed relation between spirit and nature. This new turn of the human spirit towards nature begins with the Renaissance and goes on through the whole of modern history. Dominance over the blind forces of nature in the name of human interests and prosperity becomes the main goal of this stage. The Christian foundation of culture again becomes mixed and often contaminated with the pagan past of humanity. The essence of this Renaissance return to nature is, however, purely religious; as Berdiaev argues:

411

Berdiaev, The Meaning of History, pp.129-130. [Trans. rev'd.]

170 It was necessary that [humanity] should pass freely through this trying and tragic experience; that [it] should at last discover higher forms of religious consciousness.412 One must note that Berdiaev uses the word "renaissance" in two different senses: "Renaissance" as a specific cultural epoch which followed the Middle Ages in Europe is distinguished from and constitutes only part of the broader "Renaissance" of European culture which Berdiaev associates with modern times in general. The whole of modernity, according to Berdiaev, was such a human Renaissance in a broad sense, a period which brought with it the liberation of [human] creative forces, spiritual decentralization, and the differentiation of all the spheres of social and cultural life, [when all the domains of culture] become autonomous.413 The development of this process has gone through certain phases and has had, therefore, a gradual character. It began with the Renaissance in a strict sense which introduced into European culture the principle of humanism as its spiritual foundation. Renaissance humanism was not, however, just a rediscovery of the ancient heritage. It was, as Berdiaev says, "a new morality and a new movement in the sciences and the arts... a new view of life and a new relationship with the universe."414 In its initial phase Renaissance humanism did not break with its medieval Christian roots for, as Berdiaev puts it, the "waters of Baptism are not wiped away by any return to antiquity, by mingling with them a superficial paganism."415 The Christian Italian Renaissance of the trecento, on the contrary, was the greatest age of 412

Ibid., p.130. [Trans. rev'd.]

413

Ibid., p.130. [Trans. rev'd.]

414

Nicholas Berdyaev. The End of Our Time. (Trans. by Donald Atwater). New York: Sheed & Ward, 1933, p.14. 415

Ibid., p.19.

171 European history, its culminating point, when the "showing forth of man's creative forces...seems almost to be the answer of human revelation to divine revelation." The following quattrocento was already a different age, "a time of division," as Berdiaev calls it, when "there came the violent collision between Christian and pagan principles."416 Quatroccento liberated further the creative power of humanity and turned from the otherworldly to the earthly life but paradoxically it did not enrich but instead exhausted the human potential. The results of the Renaissance project thus became quite the opposite of what its thinkers wanted them to be. The fatal logic of the Renaissance, which ends up with its own negation has, as Berdiaev repeats, a religious basis: [A human person] without God is no longer [a human person]: that is the religious meaning of the internal dialectic of modern history, the history of the grandeur and of the dissipation of humanist illusions.417 The metamorphosis of humanism appealing to the human powers apart from the power of the Deity begins with the arts and sciences. It later extended into the sphere of religion. Thus, the Italian cultural Renaissance is followed by the German Protestant Reformation, which, according to Berdiaev, also has a dual character: The humanism of the German reformation affirms both the true freedom of human nature as against the compulsion which has been exercised in the Catholic world and the false freedom which was to lead [human beings to their] perdition.418 Following Vladimir Solov'ev, Berdiaev sees the positive aspect of the Reformation in the affirmation of the human right of freedom. However, in accordance with his own understanding of history, Berdiaev considers this religious 416

Ibid., pp.20-21.

417

Ibid., pp.54-55. [Trans. rev'd.]

418

Berdyaev, The Meaning of History, p.144. [Trans. rev'd.]

172 struggle for freedom as part of the general Renaissance quest for human liberation. The Reformation, therefore, expresses the same dialectic of the Renaissance modified for the specific purposes of religious reform and "contains an anti-humanist as well as a humanist principle."419 Its negative aspect as part of the Renaissance movement consists, in Berdiaev's opinion, of placing the human being "on a lower plane than the Catholic consciousness had done."420 Accordingly, like many other 20th-century Russian thinkers, Berdiaev views the general course and the results of the Reformation in terms of descent and negation. Thus, on the one hand, he recognizes in Protestantism the "eternal truth of Christianity" manifested by the "thirst for purification, for renewal, for restoration of the Church herself." On the other hand, Berdiaev thinks that overall this religious movement came "to be more a revolt and a protest than a religious creation."421 If Catholic consciousness, Berdiaev writes, stood for humanity's "independence before God," Luther, on the contrary, although defending the freedom of religious expression "affirmed the existence uniquely of God and Divine Nature, denying the independence of human nature."422 Hence, he argues, [i]n his protest against Catholicism [Luther] asserted the autonomy of [human] religious consciousness, but he denied the primal foundations of [human] freedom... The unique divine principle is revealed within [human being] but the latter's independent nature and freedom before the divine principle is denied.423 The deeply Orthodox roots of this critique of Protestantism are clearly revealed in another passage about the Reformation. Here, in my view, Berdiaev 419

Ibid., p.145.

420

Ibid., p.144.

421

Berdyaev, The End of Our Time, p.30.

422

Berdyaev, The Meaning of History, p.144.

423

Ibid., pp.144-145. [Trans. rev'd.]

173 touches the very nerve of the Orthodox uneasiness with Protestantism, which "was the first to doubt the sacred tradition": The work of discrediting [sacred tradition] was developed until it led ultimately to the discrediting of the Scriptures themselves, which were in reality an inalienable part of the sacred tradition. Therefore the denial of the sacred tradition involves that of the Scriptures in their turn.424 The fateful turn from the tradition, the break from the truly "historical" and the organic depth of human existence inevitably leads, according to Berdiaev, to the overestimation of reason. Purged of everything sacred, reason is then proclaimed as able to resolve all the puzzles of existence. The negation of the traditional roots results, hence, in the development of the Enlightenment, a specific period through which every civilization passes. Berdiaev defines the Enlightenment in general terms as that age in the history of every people when the self-confident human reason rears itself above the mysteries of being and of life, above those divine mysteries which are the source of all human life and culture.425 The self-assertive "enlightened" reason, he continues, “which celebrated its classical triumphs in the eighteenth century knew comparatively little; its sympathies were few, its intelligence limited.”426 The modern European Enlightenment was in fact the shadow of the Reformation, another step in the self-denial of Renaissance humanism. The spirit of the Enlightenment already lacks the humanist enthusiasm and its faith in the capacities of human intellect to know and master nature. Instead, "reason itself begins to be undermined," Berdiaev writes, "its quality is affected

424

Ibid., p.8.

425

Ibid., pp.5-6.

426

Ibid., p.7.

174 because the tie with the higher reason uniting [humanity] with the divine cosmos has become weakened."427 The fateful dialectic of the Renaissance which began with the affirmation of human power apart from the divine source and went through all the domains of human creativity, is finally, transferred from theory into practice. As Berdiaev puts it: that which in the Renaissance was occurring in science and art, that which in the Reformation was occurring in religious life, that which in the epoch of the Enlightenment was happening in the sphere of reason, must have been transferred into social communal action.428 The quest for liberation and creativity in this practical sphere similarly turns into an enslavement and self-destruction unparalleled in human history. The noble task of human liberation is reversed into cruel tyrannies and the profanation of humanity. The projects for reorganizing human society end with bloody revolutions, which are powerless to fulfill their alleged mission. Revolutions to the ultimate depth display the dualism of the Renaissance ideal and reveal the abyss toward which it has driven civilization. At the same time these catastrophic events prepare humankind for the next age of the disclosure of the spirit and a new relationship between spirit and nature.

427

Ibid., p.146. [Trans. rev'd.]

428

Ibid., p.113.

175 The Metamorphosis of Sophiology Sophia as Beauty Berdiaev's original ontology and philosophy of history led to a significant transformation of traditional sophiological themes in his works. In modern Russian thought Sophia was primarily considered the principle of integration, especially of the divine and the human realms. In Berdiaev's philosophy, respectively, Sophia is understood as the link between the noumenal and the phenomenal, or, with more precision, as the disclosure of the spirit in the natural domain of phenomena. Such spiritual breakthroughs, in Berdiaev's view, are never adequately described in words and concepts, because they represent pure existential experience. They always reflect, however, the play of free creativity and introduce novelty into the world. Noumenon and phenomenon are connected, therefore, by the acts of creation and human creativity, and, as Berdiaev writes, "it is from the noumenal world that the prophet and the creative genius enter into this world."429 The ultimate fruits of the rapprochement of the two realms, accordingly, are "good news" and beauty, which is one of the traditional aspects of Sophia. Berdiaev's sophiology then takes a specific form of the philosophy of beauty. The inter-related problems of newness and creativity occupy the central place in Berdiaev's thought and are dealt with in many of his articles and books.430 In his autobiography Berdiaev himself confesses the special importance these topics have had for his entire life: The matter of creativity and of the creative vocation of man is not only a facet or one of the facets of my outlook, reached as a result of philosophical

429 430

Berdiaev, The Beginning and the End, p.66.

In one of his last works, The Beginning and the End, Berdiaev summarizes his thought about creativity in Part 3: "Being and Creativity: The Mystery of Newness."

176 reasoning, but a source of my whole thinking and living--an initial inner experience and illumination.431 One of Berdiaev's most important early books, The Meaning of Creativity, is entirely devoted to this subject. The cardinal issue, which Berdiaev discusses in this book is how novelty in general is possible. To put it differently, what is the relation of creativity as the source of novelty to being? Berdiaev approaches this problem from a definitely religious standpoint. The very possibility of both creativity and being, he says, is due to the existence of the Creator. The created world speaks about its Creator who accomplished an original creative act in which the non-existent, neither derivative from anything that preceded, nor that which takes away nor diminishes the absolute power of the Creator, became the existent.432 The meaning of such a creative act is not a redistribution of already existing energy, but a realization of novelty, creation from nothing. "Any creative act," Berdiaev argues, "in its essence is creation from nothing." It brings about an "absolute profit, a surplus." The surplus of the created world designed by its Creator has the potential for creativity as well. As Berdiaev writes: The universe was created not only as creaturely, but also as creative. The image and likeness of the Creator is imprinted in its creatureness, that is there are creators in the very creatureliness.433 It is important, he continues, that divine creativity "presupposes monopluralism, that is the assumption of a multitude of free and independent beings along with the Divine Being."434 The union of the human person with God cannot lead to 431

Nicolas Berdyaev. Dream and Reality. An Essay in Autobiography [Samopoznanie]. (Translated from the Russian by Katharine Lampert). New York: The MacMillan, 1951, p.207. 432

Nikolai Berdiaev. Smysl tvorchestva [The Meaning of Creativity]. Filosofiia tvorchestva, kul'tury i iskusstva, 2 vols. Moscow: Iskusstvo/Liga, 1994, Vol I, p.137. 433

Ibid., p.138.

434

Ibid., p.142.

177 the dissolution of the former in the latter. Human beings are the bearers of the image and likeness of God; they possess the capacity to co-participate in the process of creation, to "supplement and enrich God's creation."435 What is then the correlation between the divine and human creative powers? Where is the limit, if any, of human creativity? “Human creativity is similar to the creativity of God, is not equal, not identical, but similar," Berdiaev cautiously answers. "A human being is not the absolute and therefore cannot possess absolute power."436 Then Berdiaev develops his understanding of the distinction between the divine and human creativity which anticipates similar formulations by Nikolai Losskii. Thus, Berdiaev postulates that the creation of persons is the special prerogative of the Creator himself: The very hierarchy of living beings of the world is created by the Creator as the eternal structure of Being. Substances cannot be created in the creative process. Any attempt to understand creativity as the creation of new living beings, and not as the surplus of energy, not as the increase and ascension of those beings created by God, is godless and demonic.437 True human creativity, on the contrary, results in heavenly beauty, which is its essence, goal and ultimate fruit. The creative act at its best, therefore, is manifested in the world of art. "Art is the creative domain par excellence," Berdiaev writes, "it is usual even to call any creative element in all the spheres of spiritual activity artistic."438 In the future, however, Berdiaev thinks, beauty will become a real value in all spheres of life. The very creation of life will be transformed into an artistic enterprise. People will learn to be the artists of their own lives in the all-

435

Ibid., p.146.

436

Ibid., p.144.

437

Ibid., p.149.

438

Ibid., p.217.

178 encompassing theurgical action, a "continuation of creation jointly with God."439 In this theurgical act, Berdiaev suggests, "all kinds of human creativity come together," and the "creation of beauty in art is connected with the creation of beauty in nature."440 Berdiaev devotes a special chapter to the idea of beauty in theurgical action in his late work, The Divine and the Human. Here, echoing the Solov'evian tradition, beauty not only acquires a truly universal and all-embracing character, but also becomes associated with the ultimate integration of life in the Kingdom of God, which "can be thought of only as the reign of beauty."441 The path toward this kingdom of beauty is not, however, idyllic, but always tragic. Beauty is the result of tragedy, and catharsis or spiritual purification.442 The attainment of beauty is, therefore, a spiritual liberation, the achievement of higher--divine--freedom. Here begins a new theme in Berdiaev's sophiology, which ultimately leads its author to a complete turnaround in his understanding of creation and novelty. The ideas of creativity and beauty, accordingly, experience a fatal metamorphosis, which puts them beyond God, religion and even morality. In other words, as happened with Solov'ev, Bulgakov and several other modern Russian sophiologists, the divine aspect of Sophia turns out to be inseparable from its demonic twin. The Dark Side of Sophia The dualism which manifests itself in so many Russian sophiological systems reminds the contemporary student of the gnostic understanding of Sophia, 439

Ibid., p.237.

440

Ibid., p.238.

441

Berdiaev, The Divine and the Human, p.139.

442

For more details see: ibid., p.140.

179 which also paradoxically combined both good and evil principles. This gnostic flavor already exists in Solov'evian sophiology. It is inherited by Bulgakov's theology, but is avoided in the philosophy of Nikolai Losskii. Unlike Losskii, Berdiaev apparently is not able to overcome completely this gnostic aspect of the Russian sophiological tradition. His position reveals only a specific interpretation of the "dark" side of Sophia, an interpretation, which Berdiaev proclaims, however, the cornerstone of his whole philosophical edifice. The first sign of Berdiaev's sophiological twist is apparent when he explores his views on creativity in the light of the Christian Scriptures. As was previously mentioned, Russian religious thinkers never fully embraced the principle of modern European rationalism, which considers empirical and rational knowledge to be the only credible sources of knowledge. Accordingly, these Russian philosophers did not accept a strict Western separation between philosophy and theology, which leaves Scriptures and Sacred Tradition in the hands of professional theologians. Instead, Berdiaev, for example, seeks to justify his religious-philosophical doctrines by the authority of the Scriptural texts. So, on the one hand, Berdiaev is convinced that the "truth of the New Testament, of the Gospel is the absolute, the only saving truth (pravda)" which has as its source the "uniqueness, exclusivity, incomparability with anything else, of the truth of Christ."443 On the other hand, this very Christian truth revealed in the Gospels, in Berdiaev's opinion, also has to provide a religious sanction for the creative human impulses. To put it in Berdiaev's terms, religion based on redemption and resurrection must somehow sanction the legitimacy of creation and creativity. The New Testament, however, passes over the creative vocation of humanity in silence. An approved way to reconcile the ancient revelation with the new human aspirations would be to argue that the Gospel at least does not prohibit creativity. 443

Berdiaev, Smysl tvorchestva, p.108.

180 The absence of prohibition here equals permission. Berdiaev, however, is not comfortable with such a solution. "We want at whatever cost," he says, "to extract from the Gospel something that it does not contain."444 The result of these efforts is the inevitable return to the old religious consciousness, which, as he argues, ultimately excludes the contemporary problems of humanity. Nevertheless, Berdiaev cannot leave his favorite idea of creativity without religious justification. Hence, he chooses a nonOrthodox option by making the case for the insufficiency of the Christian revelation. He argues that "New Testament Christianity is not the full and complete religious truth" but "is the religion of redemption," "one of the stages of the spiritual path"445 which will be crowned by its further continuation and fulfillment. It may seem that, given this premise, Berdiaev would look for another revelation, which would religiously sanction the future stage of spiritual life, namely, the epoch of creativity. Instead, Berdiaev takes a different approach. To begin with, he fully acknowledges that human creativity does not have its Sacred Scripture, that "its ways are not open from above to the human being." Nevertheless, he continues, this fact shows the "great wisdom of God" and speaks of the "sacred authority of the Gospel's being silent about creativity."446 One finds out further that the highest form of human self-consciousness consists not of relying in a creative enterprise on the words of the Scriptures, but, on the contrary, of realizing it freely and from the human self. The new epoch of creativity, in Berdiaev's view, cannot be based on the revelation of the Father and the Law of the Old Testament. Nor can it be justified by the word of the Son and the Redemption in the New Testament. The coming age of the Spirit, the Third 444

Ibid., p.109.

445

Ibid., p.110.

446

Ibid., p.111.

181 Testament of creativity will come not from divine guidance, but from the human being. "The revelation of creativity comes not from above, but from below," Berdiaev insists, "this is an anthropological, and not a theological revelation."447 He develops this claim even further: The Creator does not want to know what the human being will create, [God] awaits from the human being revelations in creativity and that is why [God] does not know what the anthropological revelation will be.448 Uncreated Freedom The concept of human self-revelation whose content is hidden even from the all-knowing God is coupled with another compatible doctrine, namely, that of human freedom. Berdiaev spoke of freedom on many occasions. He taught, for instance, as the reader may remember, about spiritual freedom as higher than any other kind of Being--natural, historical or intellectual. Such an existential freedom is a manifestation of human spirituality and creativity. It turns out, however, that this concept of spiritual liberty is intended by Berdiaev to justify creativity, which goes beyond both the authority of Sacred Scriptures and God himself. "Creativity cannot be cut off from freedom," Berdiaev writes, "only a free being creates." "The mystery of creativity is the mystery of freedom," he continues, the "mystery of freedom is fathomless and inexplicable."449 Freedom "can be neither derived from anything nor reduced to anything";450 it can never be rationalized and has no other foundation than itself. Freedom, Berdiaev repeatedly insists, "is a

447

Ibid., p.112.

448

Ibid., p.114.

449

Ibid., p.150.

450

Ibid., p.151.

182 positive creative power which is justified and conditioned by nothing, pouring out from a fathomless source."451 Arguing again and again for the self-sufficiency of freedom Berdiaev extends its independence, not just of being, but of its Creator as well. He speaks of a freedom "which continues the work of God's creation and does not rebel against God in negative arbitrariness,"452 but he also places its origin beyond God in the Abyss, the Godhead, or, following the terminology of a German mystic, Jacob Boehme, the Ungrund. This idea of freedom as the beginningless Ungrund, or the uncreated nothingness, runs through many of Berdiaev's works. In The Destiny of Man he writes, for instance: Out of the Divine Nothing, the Gottheit or the Ungrund, the Holy Trinity, God the Creator is born... From this point of view it may be said that freedom is not created by God: it is rooted in the Nothing, in the Ungrund... out of which God created the world.453 He describes freedom similarly in The Beginning and the End. Here one reads that the "Ungrund is indeed... the free nothingness which precedes God and is outside God..."454 As unlimited freedom, the divine nothingness potentially contains both good and evil while God the Creator represents perfect goodness. According to Berdiaev, every human being is both the "child of God and the child of freedom--of nothing, of non-being." As a free agent, he or she becomes capable of making an evil choice and bringing it forth into the world. God the Creator cannot be held responsible for the appearance of this evil for, as Berdiaev writes, the “Creator is all-powerful over being, over the created world but He has no 451

Ibid., p.152.

452

Ibid., p.153.

453

Nicolas Berdyaev. The Destiny of Man [Sud'ba cheloveka]. (Translated from the Russian by Natalie Duddington). New York: Scribner's Sons, 1937, p.33. 454

Berdyaev, The Beginning and the End, p.107.

183 power over non-being, over the uncreated freedom which is impenetrable to Him.”455 God possesses, however, Berdiaev continues, the power to redeem a fallen humanity and to save people from their evildoing. Berdiaev pictures God in the aspect of Redeemer and Savior who "manifests Himself not in power but in sacrifice" and whose "self-crucifixion must conquer evil meonic freedom by enlightening it from within without forcing it, without depriving the created world of freedom."456 To put it simply, he constructs a theodicy, which aims at reconciling the independent origin of evil with the inevitable victory of the good. Unfortunately for its author, however, the proposed schema does not work. In fact, if the Ungrund or the anarchic freedom supersedes God the Creator, how can God completely eliminate evil, which proceeds from the higher principle? Here Berdiaev's theodicy leads to results contrary to its initial purpose. As for humanity, which, according to Berdiaev, partially has its roots in the Ungrund as well, it ultimately finds itself greater than God, who is powerless not only to prevent evil, but also to extinguish it. As it is rightly noted by one of Berdiaev's interpreters, the "primacy of freedom over being in the final analysis signifies the primacy of the human being not only over the world, but also over God."457 The dialectic of freedom in Berdiaev's philosophy had its corresponding impact on his ethical views. Thus, as Losskii points out in his History: Berdyaev distinguishes three kinds of freedom: primary irrational freedom, i.e. arbitrariness; rational freedom, i.e., the fulfillment of moral duty; and finally, freedom permeated by the love of God.458 455

Berdyaev, The Destiny of Man, p.34.

456

Ibid., p.35.

457

P. Gaidenko. "Misticheskii revoliutsionarism N.A. Berdiaeva" [Mystical Revolutionism of N. A. Berdiaev]. In Nikolai Berdiaev. O naznachenii cheloveka. Moscow: Respublika, 1993, p.16. 458

Lossky, History of Russian Philosophy, p.235.

184 Among these three, the primary unconditional freedom lies beyond the difference between good and evil; the rational freedom corresponds to traditional morality; and the third kind of freedom is related to the higher ethics of creativity. Berdiaev develops his teaching on the ethics of creativity in his major ethical treatise, The Destiny of Man. Here he draws another important distinction between the ethics of the law and of redemption on the one hand, and that of creativity on the other. For Berdiaev the ethics of the law finds its origin in the norms and prohibitions imposed on individuals by the social community. This ethics presupposes, he argues, "first and foremost, that the subject of moral valuation is society and not the individual," and, therefore, "it never penetrates into the intimate depths of personal moral life, experience and struggle."459 The ethics of redemption introduced by Christianity, on the contrary, is centered around concrete individuals--not legalistic norms and abstract ideas. The morality taught in the Gospel, Berdiaev writes, is founded upon human being's "personal relation to God and to his [or her] neighbors."460 This ethics of love, he continues, "knows no abstract moral norms, binding upon all [people] and all times" but instead teaches the "significance of each human soul which is worth more than all the kingdoms of this world."461 Built upon this foundation, the ethics of creativity goes further and fulfills both the principle of law and that of redemption for, in Berdiaev's words, it is "more than anything else reminiscent of [human] vocation before the Fall and is in a sense 'beyond good and evil'." Besides, he points out, the "law says nothing about

459

Berdyaev, Destiny of Man, p.112.

460

Ibid., p.136. [Trans. rev'd.]

461

Ibid., pp.137, 139. [Trans. rev'd.]

185 vocation, nor does the ethics of redemption."462 The ethics of creativity, hence, supersedes both by, first, considering any moral task as "absolutely individual and creative," impossible to "be solved by an automatic application of universally binding rules," and, second, by being concerned "with values and not with salvation."463 Berdiaev makes a characteristic elaboration of the last part of the statement. He suggests that the ethics of creativity is not simply superior to the ethical law and the idea of redemption, but also may enter into conflict with, speaking simply, traditional moral norms. This is how the lofty rhetoric of searching for the ideal human morality becomes infected with doubts about commonly accepted ethical behavior. The heroic claims for the supra-ethical display here the hidden tendency to immoralism. This tendency finds its clearest expression in Berdiaev's insistence on the incompatibility of ethical and aesthetic values. In The Destiny of Man one reads, for instance, that the "greatness of creative genius is not correlative to moral perfection"; that it "is not connected with his moral or religious efforts to attain perfection and become a new creature."464 Being justified by itself, creativeness, as Berdiaev puts it, represents "a path that demands heroism, but... is different from the path of personal improvement and salvation."465 Such is one of the results of the sophiological dialectic in Berdiaev's thought.

462

Ibid., p.169. [Trans. rev'd.]

463

Ibid., pp.170-171.

464

Ibid., p.167.

465

Ibid., p.168.

186 Entry into Postmodernity The New Middle Ages The last aspect of Berdiaev's sophiological thought,466 which we will discuss here is related to his understanding of contemporary historical events. They became a special focus of Berdiaev's philosophical meditations because he thought that 20thcentury history reveals a new epoch of the spirit, a disclosure of the wisdom of God, Sophia, in the future flourishing of human creativity. He connects this new era, however, with none of the existing forms of social life established in past centuries. Moreover, he does not relate this future epoch to modern times altogether. Berdiaev warns his critics with one striking but remarkable assertion. He asks them not to judge his philosophy from the standpoint of modernity. Modernity, he writes, has come to an end, its “spiritual principles and forces are used up, the rationalist day of [modern] history declines: its sun sets and night is upon us.”467 In the Meaning of History Berdiaev expresses the same point in a slightly different fashion:

466

In an editorial written by Berdiaev and published in the first issue of his journal, Sofiia: Problemy dukhovnoi kul'tury i religioznoi filosofii [Sophia: The Problems of Spiritual Culture and Religious Philosophy], Berlin: Obelisk, 1923, one finds a remarkable testimony characteristic of Berdiaev's broad understanding of sophiology. He says here on page 4: "There is a Sophianic school in Russian religious philosophy which has been developed by some thinkers [like Florenskii, Bulgakov, and others], and which is not obligatory for other representatives of Russian religious and philosophical thought [like myself]. But there is Sophiology (Sofianstvo) which must be acknowledged as belonging to Russian Christian thought as a whole... A philosophy which has Sophia as its foundation must be contraposed to a philosophy based upon abstract reason and analytical rationality (otvlechennyi razum ili rassudok). The opening of the Sophianic principle in the spiritual makeup of a human being is our main task." 467

Nicholas Berdyaev. "The New Middle Ages." The End of Our Time. (Translated from the Russian by Donald Atwater). New York: Sheed & Ward, 1933, p.70. [Trans. rev'd.]

187 There can be little doubt... that not only Russia but Europe and the world as a whole are now entering upon a catastrophic period of their development. We are living at a time of immense crisis, on the threshold of a new era.468 The transition from modern to "postmodern" times brings about an unprecedented and all-embracing crisis of Western civilization. Old and vast layers of traditional culture cease to exist and are replaced by new cultural formations gradually coming to life. This is the age of global turmoil and catastrophic changes, Berdiaev notes, which could be compared with the time of the decline of the ancient world and the birth of Christianity. The specificity of this period in the history of humankind is related, he later says, to "[t]hose movements whose object it is to surmount national barriers and unify the world."469 In contrast to the epoch of modernity Berdiaev calls the newly arriving postmodern times the "New Middle Ages." Any attempts to decide which epoch is better would be, perhaps, an oversimplification. The night of history, he argues, is neither worse nor better than the preceding historical day. The night is deeper, "more ontological." During the nocturnal period people are getting in touch with the foundations of life; they become more concentrated on intense spiritual discipline and the inner problems of existence. The Middle Ages was such a "night" in the history of European nations. It was not simply the dark ages of religious fanaticism, social inequality, and scientific ignorance. It was also an epoch of enormous spiritual intensity, a working towards integrity and an aspiration towards a high common ideal. During the following "day" of European history the nations of Europe mastered the accumulated energy. They applied their inner experience to the external world and explored the innumerable joys of earthly life. The potentials which were joined together during the Middle

468

Berdyaev, The Meaning of History, p.2.

469

Berdyaev, "The New Middle Ages," The End of Our Time, p.100.

188 Ages gave rise to the Renaissance which, according to the logic of Berdiaev's thought, was the beginning of the diurnal epoch in Europe. The end of this epoch in its turn is marked by the revolutions, which pursue the goal of cleansing the old and decaying forms of culture. Revolutionaries themselves are not aware of their true mission. They proclaim noble ideals, but leave behind after their "heroic" activity an extreme degradation in all spheres of life. The Russian revolution of 1917 with its apocalyptic horrors serves as incontrovertible evidence of this nature of revolutions.470 The October revolution has put a tragic dilemma before humanity. The Renaissance movement from God ultimately resulted in the struggle against God. Humanity cannot remain neutral anymore: the rejection of brotherhood in Christ in Russian communism is exchanged for "comradeship with the Antichrist." In this respect the communist movement already goes beyond the borders of modern times. It pertains rather to a period of transition from destructive cleansing to constructive human activity. A special role in this phase of transition, according to Berdiaev, belongs to the problem of technology and a related quest for power. Power of Machine / Machine of Power Berdiaev approached the theme of the progress of technology almost half a century before it acquired, under the rubric of the "information age," a central place in the thought of contemporary postmodernist thinkers. However, unlike his postmodern successors Berdiaev analyzes this subject primarily in the light of a previously proposed general outlook, his own "meta-narrative" of the struggle between spirit and nature. Thus, Berdiaev sees in the rapid progress of machinery a

470

For a detailed discussion of the meaning of Russian communism see, for example, Nikolai Berdiaev, Istoki i smysl russkogo kommunizma, Paris: YMCA-Press, 1955. [Reprinted in Moscow: Nauka, 1990].

189 decisive turning point from the Renaissance in a broad sense with its inclination toward nature to a new overcoming of the natural elements in humanity. In his essay, "The Crisis of Art," he writes, for instance, The machine entered this world victoriously and disturbed the everlasting harmony of organic life... Life was cut off from its organic roots. Organic flesh is substituted for by the machine; organic development finds its end in mechanism.471 The machine enters a space between nature and human beings. On the one hand, it liberates humanity by conquering the forces of nature. On the other hand, while enriching human powers, it also creates a new form of slavery, a dependence upon the machine. The power of the machine being neither natural nor human, alienates humankind from nature by displacing all that is natural in human beings. Here the natural humanism of the Renaissance, which stimulated the progress of machinery, reaches the limit beyond which the opposite process of the dehumanization of humanity begins. The dominance of machinery over both human beings and nature, as Berdiaev develops this point in the book The Meaning of History, turns human beings into the slaves of the lower powers. It makes them "disintegrate into the elements of [their] own nature and become the victim of an artificial nature of the machine" which "de-personalizes, weakens and finally annihilates" them.472 In another essay, entitled "Man and Machine," Berdiaev adds that the fateful supremacy of the machine is to be understood as "a transition from organic to organized life, from growth to construction." Technology brings into life, he says, a

471

Nikolai Berdiaev. Krizis iskusstva. Moscow: Izdanie Lemana i Sakharova, 1918 [Reprinted by JW Interprint, 1990], pp.13-14. 472

Berdyaev, The Meaning of History, p.155.

190 new world because it "destroys ancient bodies and the new ones which it creates do not resemble organic bodies; they are organized bodies."473 Nevertheless, the technological age represents a true landmark in the history of humankind. As the ultimate product of the Renaissance, it finally elevates human consciousness to planetary proportions. The positive contribution of technology thus, Berdiaev writes, is primarily that it closes the tellurgical period of human history when man was determined by the earth not only in the physical, but also in the metaphysical, sense.474 While affecting the whole of humankind, technology provides us with powers of a truly universal scale. Humanity reaches maturity and enters outer space feeling no more need for Mother Earth's protection. Another significance of the technological age is that "its very principle is democratic," as Berdiaev insists, "a technical era is an age of democracy and socialization in which everything is collectivized."475 One has to mention, that while recognizing the democratic spirit of our times, Berdiaev shares the traditionally negative Russian attitude toward the very idea of democracy.476 The liberal democratic form of government, in his view, develops in the sphere of politics the general principle of modern times, namely, the ideal of formal freedom. He writes, for instance, in his early essay, "The New Middle Ages": Liberalism, parlamentarism, constitutionalism, juridical formalism, rationalism and empirical philosophy, so many fruits of the individualist 473

Nicolas Berdyaev. "Man and Machine." The Bourgeois Mind And Other Essays. New York: Books for Libraries Press, 1966, p.39. [First published in 1934]. 474

Ibid., p.46.

475

Ibid., p.49.

476

Among those rare 20th-century Russian religious thinkers who have defended democratic ideals were, for example, Georgii Fedotov, Evgenii Trubetskoi and Nicolai Losskii, whose views are discussed in the previous chapter.

191 spirit and of humanist self-affirmation, are all reactionary, they have had their day and their original significance is played out.477 And again: Monarchical and democratic governments are [collapsing] because they alike had their origins in Humanism... No 'legitimism', whether of the old monarchies or of the young sovereignties of the people, retains its hold over [human souls].478 The main objection which Berdiaev levels at democracies is this accusation of their so-called "formal" character. Democracy aims at actualizing the people's collective will, but, as he writes in the essay "Democracy, Socialism and Theocracy," for example: It is indifferent to the direction and essence of the popular will, and has no criterion whereby it may judge its tendencies or decide the worth of the will itself.479 The indifference of democracy toward good and evil principles, while very suitable to the age of doubt and lack of faith, nevertheless, represents a state of permanent transition, "a complete relativism, the negation of all absolutes." Such a democracy betrays the truth for, as Berdiaev argues, it has left its discovery to the votes of a majority, for it is only on the condition of ignoring or not believing in Truth that one can accept quantitative power and revere the opinion of a crowd.480 He emphasizes that truth "is sacred in its very nature and a society founded on it cannot be exclusively secular." Democracy, on the contrary, produces a profane society and stands in opposition to the sacred organization of social life. It denies the

477

Berdyaev, "The New Middle Ages," The End of Our Time, p.86.

478

Ibid., p.89. [Trans. rev'd.]

479

Berdyaev, Nicholas, "Democracy, Socialism and Theocracy," The End of Our Time, p.174.

480

Ibid., p.175.

192 spiritual principles that lie more deep than the formal expression of what a people wants, [representing] a turning-upside-down of the whole hierarchical structure of society.481 The defenders of democratic institutions, in their turn, refer exactly to the spiritual foundations of this form of government in the Protestant Reformation. In his later book, The Fate of Man in the Modern World, Berdiaev agrees: If there is an eternal element in democracy... it is surely connected, not with the idea of the supremacy of a nation, but with the idea of the subjective rights of human personality, with freedom of spiritual life, freedom of conscience... derived... from Christianity and the movements connected with the Reformation.482 However, the negative, formal freedom, which represents the core of contemporary liberal democracies exchanges the spiritual liberty proclaimed by Protestantism for the social liberation enjoyed within secular society. The extreme conclusions of this deification of the nation's will are manifested, according to Berdiaev, in both the Fascist and the Communist organization of the state. The former, as Berdiaev argues, reveals the dialectic of democracy. He recalls the words of Mussolini, who cynically declared "that Fascism is democracy, but democracy of an authoritarian sort."483 The metamorphosis of democracy into "ideocracy," a political system, in which the state appropriates to itself pseudoecclesiastical functions, was realized also in Russian communism. Here, as Berdiaev writes, Rousseau's doctrine of the "common will of a sovereign people... holy and infallible," has been replaced by another myth of the "infallibility and sanctity of the will of the proletariat."484 481

Ibid., pp.175-176.

482

Nicholas Berdyaev. The Fate of Man in the Modern World. (Trans. by Donald A. Lowrie). New York: Morehouse Publishing Co, 1935, p.34. 483

Ibid., p.54.

484

Ibid., p.56.

193 The Return of Religion Berdiaev again and again returns in his thought to the tragedy of communism in Russia. He sees it as a negative reminder of the ultimate religious vocation of humanity. He writes, for instance, in his essay, "The New Middle Ages": Communism... discards the modern independent and lay systems and demands a "sacred" society, the submission of all phases of life to the religion of Satan and Antichrist.485 In another essay, "The Russian Revolution," he emphasizes the same point: The Russians... are spiritually a non-political people who aspire only to... the Kingdom of God; they tend either to this Kingdom, to brotherhood in Christ, or to comradeship in Antichrist, the kingdom of the prince of this world.486 The real historical significance of communism, hence, is manifested not in the political or social domain, but in the sphere of religious life, which communism ardently denies. In his book, The Origin and Meaning of Russian Communism, Berdiaev notes that communism as religion is fanatically hostile to all religion and most of all to Christianity. It itself wants to be the religion which replaces Christianity; it claims to provide the answer to the religious quest of the human soul, to give meaning to life.487 A positive result of the reign of this false religion and a constructive achievement of the transitory "New Middle Ages" in general, would apparently be the revival of a true Christian spirit, which resists the dehumanization of the human image. Thus, Berdiaev concludes his book on Russian communism with a typical statement: The problematic of communism contributes to the awakening of the Christian conscience and must lead to the disclosure of creative social

485

Berdyaev, "The New Middle Ages," The End of Our Time, p.81.

486

Berdyaev, "The Russian Revolution," ibid., p.149.

487

Nikolai Berdiaev. Istoki i smysl russkogo kommunizma. Moscow: Nauka, 1990, p.129.

194 Christianity...in the sense of the disclosure of Christian truth-justice as related to social life.488 The forms, in which the Christian rebirth may take place, however, are portrayed by Berdiaev in a quite unorthodox fashion. First, his early writings already demonstrate that, faithful to the spirit of Solov'ev, he associates the "future universal Church" with none of the existing Christian churches. Berdiaev would rather relate the future of Christianity to a "new religious consciousness" which goes beyond, but does not negate, historical Christianity. In the article, "Leontiev as Philosopher of Reactionary Romanticism," he notes, for example, that the "religious Renaissance must appropriate in itself all the dear-to-us experience of modern history" and can "contain a greater fullness of revelation than the preceding religious epochs."489 In another article, "Christ and the World," he makes the same point more explicitly. He says: I think that none of the existing historical churches is the Universal Church, none contains in itself the fullness of revelation, but the world goes towards the Universal Church, thirsts for consecrating its life in it.490 Finally in an essay, "New Christianity," when discussing the issue of the new religious consciousness, Berdiaev develops his thesis most fully: The new religious revelation can only be a revelation of the human being and a revelation about the human being as divine hypostasis. The new revelation will be just the disclosure of human creativity. The Third Testament is exactly the covenant of human creativity.491 These declarations, which may easily be considered heretical by traditional Christians convinced of the finality and exclusiveness of the already-given 488

Ibid., p.153.

489

Nikolai Berdiaev. "K. Leont'ev - filosof reaktsionnoi romantiki" [Leontiev as Philosopher of Reactionbary Romanticism]. Filosofiia tvorchestva, Vol. 2, p.263. 490

Berdiaev, "Khristos i mir" [Christ and the World], ibid., p.290.

491

Berdiaev, "Novoe khristianstvo" [New Christianity], ibid., p.386.

195 revelation, are also connected by Berdiaev with the notion of "Ideal Christendom." In fact, Berdiaev often talks about Christianity not as one religion among many but as the eternal religion of God or Christ. This eternal or ideal Christianity was but partially manifested in the historical forms of Christian religion. Ideal Christendom, in its turn, is by no means opposed to the historical Church, although the latter may be seen as insufficient to fulfill its divine mission on earth. Berdiaev, then, never dissociates himself from membership in the Orthodox Church. When foreseeing the coming epoch of the religious revival he first of all addresses the Church. He writes, thus, that the "spiritual centre in the near future will be, as in the old middle ages, the Church alone."492 He indicates certain reservations, however, as to the substance of this Church while thoughtfully observing that its “life is developing unseen, outside official lines, for [its] boundaries are not clearly marked and cannot be pointed out as if they were a material object.”493 The New Middle Ages would represent the rediscovery of the Church as the life of the spirit that "breathes where it wills." It does not mean, of course, that this age must be peaceful. On the contrary, Berdiaev predicts the future appearance of new totalitarian powers built upon religious foundations. He warns that "the wars will not be so much national and political as religious and spiritual."494 Perhaps, Berdiaev would have seen the recent resurgence of Islam, the wars in the former Yugoslavia and Soviet republics as well as the rise of orthodox religious ideologies throughout the world as the first intimations of the fulfillment of this dramatic forecast.

492

Berdyaev, "The New Middle Ages," The End of Our Times, p.108.

493

Ibid., p.108.

494

Ibid., p.101.

196

197

Conclusions

When beginning my investigation of the origin and evolution of the concept of Sophia in Russian religious thought of the 19th and 20th centuries, I aimed at making a general study of modern Russian sophiology and its different religiousphilosophical aspects. In particular, the sophiological movement was to be analyzed as a reaction to the spread of Protestantism and to the religious crisis of the 20th century, or, in other words, to the challenges of modern and postmodern times. It is now appropriate to summarize the final results of this study. The book started with the analysis of the historical roots of modern sophiological thought in Russia. From all the variety of different possible approaches toward wisdom in many cultures of the world the attention of the reader was drawn to the three main sources of Russian sophiology, namely, pagan antiquity, Christian Sacred Scriptures and Christian Sacred Tradition. Within this still-large framework the focus of discussion was on ideas of wisdom which were later explicitly developed by Russian thinkers. After the discussion of the roots of Russian sophiology it became clear that all of the aspects of wisdom debated in Russian religious thought were in some way or another already present in the ancient Greek, Jewish and/or Christian teachings about wisdom. Thus, the understanding of Sophia as the principle of integration, which, in the author's view, is central for Russian sophiologists may be found in the doctrines of pagan Greek philosophers. Similarly, the demonization of Sophia, so characteristic for Russian thought beginning with Solov'ev and continuing through Bulgakov and Berdiaev, also occupied a place of central concern in Gnostic religious-philosophical systems.

198 Three other representative features of Russian sophiological doctrines about wisdom--its personification, the distinction between its divine and human aspect and, especially, its association with Christ--are easily discovered in the Christian Scriptures. The Christian Sacred Tradition adds to these historical parallels two important themes: created and uncreated wisdom and Trinitarian Wisdom--both topics which have been highly controversial in the Russian theological polemics of the 20th century. Finally, the secularization of the concept of wisdom in the West after the Renaissance provides a negative backdrop against which Russian sophiological thought was born and developed. The originality of Russian sophiology, hence, seems to lie not in its distinct elements, which are, at least in separate ways, already present in the history of culture, but rather in a unique synthesis of those elements created in response to the specific circumstances which Russia faced in the modern period of its history. Those circumstances--primarily due to the rise of Protestantism in Europe--forced Russian intellectuals to reconsider Russia's religious identity in its relation to Europe and European forms of Christianity. The beginning of this process was marked by the appearance of two ideological movements in modern Russia, Westernism and Slavophilism, both of which in the course of their transformations in the 19th century took radical left and radical right forms. Compared to the radical programs, which are grouped in the monograph under the rubric of the Orthodox "revival," the sophiology introduced into Russian thought by Vladimir Solov'ev is a more moderate response to the challenge of modernity, representing a "renewal" rather than "revival" of the Orthodox consciousness. It is significant, however, that Solov'ev's sophiology itself became a more complex religious philosophy in many ways affected by the oncoming religious crisis of the 20th century. The dynamic nature of Solov'ev's intellectual vision is well-illustrated by his own changing attitude toward Christian confessions. Thus, at the end of his life Solov'ev already abandoned his previous ecumenical

199 optimism and expressed a deep disillusionment with all the historical forms of the Christian religion in general. Solov'ev's sophiological thought reflected the ambiguity of his intellectual search and the transformation of his religious-philosophical positions during his lifetime. The germ of his thinking contained different theological, philosophical and aesthetic teachings about wisdom or Sophia. Perhaps the most controversial for its theological consequences was Solov'ev's doctrine about Sophia and the Trinity. In philosophy he laid a foundation for many future sophiologies by combining his ideas about wisdom with the metaphysics of total-unity. He also emphasized the aesthetic dimension of sophiology by connecting Sophia with the idea of beauty and artistic creativity. In the 20th century this initial planting of the seeds of sophiological doctrines gave way to an abundant flowering in the religious-philosophical thought of the whole pleiad of Solov'ev's followers. To begin with, the application of Solov'evian sophiology in the theological field disclosed the ambiguity of this religious philosophical project which had been anticipated in the warnings of Solov'ev himself. The first attempts to understand Sophia as a "fourth hypostasis" in the context of the Trinitarian theology were made by Fr. Pavel Florenskii and then by Fr. Sergii Bulgakov. The young Bulgakov interpreted Sophia as a created entity or as being neither creature nor divinity. Later on, however, Bulgakov reconsidered this approach and argued that Sophia has an uncreated aspect and is in fact part of the Trinity itself. By exploring the possibilities of sophiological theories in connection with the doctrine of the Trinity Bulgakov made a remarkable step in the development of sophiology. He never seemed to explain convincingly why the classical Trinitarian dogmas already established by the Fathers of the Church needed further revision and clarification. Nevertheless, by remodeling the Trinitarian theology with his sophiological doctrine Bulgakov implicitly recognized that the intellectual foundations of Christianity had been deeply shaken.

200 At the same time, Bulgakovian sophiology as a reply to the religious crisis of the 20th century, revealed its controversial side in the idea of the demonization of Sophia. The combination of these two ideas--the understanding of Sophia as belonging to the Trinity and also as the root of all evil--resulted in a doctrine which makes divinity ultimately responsible for the origin of evil, a doctrine which was strongly condemned by the Orthodox Church hierarchy abroad. The religiousphilosophical objections to Bulgakov's doctrines made by his collegues became another important "side effect" of this controversy. Thus, Vasilii Zenkovskii saw the failure of Bulgakov's sophiology in the latter's insistence on the metaphysics of totalunity which does not clearly distinguish between the Creator and the creature. And Georgii Florovskii in the spirit of the critique offered to sophiology developed a "neo-Patristic synthesis," an alternative Orthodox theological system of his own. The application of Solov'evian sophiology in philosophical discourse was neither less controversial, nor less fruitful than its application in theology. To be sure, the borderline between these two disciplines, theology and philosophy, is not so sharply demarcated in Russian thought as it is in the Western tradition. While Russian Orthodox theologians may apply the newest critical methods of European thought in their work, Russian Orthodox philosophers in their argumentation often appeal to the authority of the Sacred Scripture and Tradition. For the purpose of clarity, however, in the monograph the discussion of sophiological doctrines in philosophy was separated from that in theology. Furthermore, the development of sophiology in philosophical investigations was analyzed against the background of modern European philosophy, especially German idealism, which many Russian religious thinkers viewed as the expression in philosophical thought of the Protestant Reformation. In this historical and philosophical context the author has paid special attention to the generally negative reaction of Russian thinkers to the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and to the appearance in Russian thought of intuitivist epistemological theories designed to

201 meet the Kantian challenge in epistemology. This intuitivist epistemology, developed by the founders of Slavophilism, had an underlying religious cause and was intended to prove the truth of Orthodoxy over the other two major Christian confessions. Meanwhile, the work of a prominent Russian philosopher of the 20th century, Nikolai Losskii, was moving in essentially the same direction. A translator into the Russian language of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, Losskii in his own epistemological theory attempted to overcome Kantian critical philosophy. However, his adherence to this traditional intuitivism in epistemology (brought by Losskii, probably, to its logical culmination) did not prevent him from rejecting the Solov'evian metaphysics of total-unity and defending a different kind of ontology, which he called "hierarchical personalism." Accordingly, sophiology also appeared in Losskii's philosophy in a significantly transformed version. Thus, in contrast to other Russian sophiologists, including Pr. Evgenii Trubetskoi and Lev Karsavin, who insisted on the existence of the divine aspect of Sophia, Losskii argued that Sophia is a created entity and, therefore, has nothing in common with divinity. Losskii was also one of the rare Russian thinkers who not only held to democratic political convictions, but supported them with his sophiological philosophy. Overall, it can be said that Losskii's system represents an exemplary and positive Orthodox religiousphilosophical response to the challenge of the Protestant Reformation. The thought of another famous Russian philosopher, Nikolai Berdiaev, was featured in the discussion in the last chapter of the book. Berdiaev did not consider himself a sophiologist. He related sophiological inquiry to cosmology, to the theme of the connection between the Creator and the world. His own philosophy was not cosmocentric, but instead highly anthropocentric to the point of often being labeled existentialist.

202 Nevertheless, if sophiology is not limited to cosmology, but is understood in terms of the connection between the human and the divine, Berdiaev's philosophy must be recognized as sophiological as well. The point is that sophiology in Berdiaev's thought underwent a significant transformation connected with the spirit of his philosophy. Berdiaev was greatly influenced by Kantian critical philosophy which he basically accepted but which he modified slightly for the purposes of his own philosophical system. Thus, he distinguished between the noumenal or divine realm of spirit and the phenomenal world of nature. The human being, placed by Berdiaev in between because of the sin of objectification, is attracted toward the spiritual sphere and can attain redemption by the salvific power of beauty. Under these assumptions, traditional cosmological sophiology takes the form of a personalistic philosophy of beauty, and Sophia turns out to be an existential link between the human and the divine. Apart from this peculiarity and an emphasis on the aesthetic aspect of Sophia, Berdiaev's philosophy displays--and in a very specific fashion--some of the already-marked traits of sophiology with regard to the religious crisis of the 20th century. This is clearest primarily in regard to the demonization of Sophia which in Berdiaev's case is connected with his famous doctrine about uncreated freedom. It also involves Berdiaev's analysis of communism and his anticipation of the inevitable and militant return of religion in Russia. To sum up briefly what has been learned about the origin and different modifications of modern Russian sophiology one must say the following. From the point of view of religion, Russian sophiology represents an Orthodox religiousphilosophical response to both the challenges of Protestantism and the contemporary crisis of religion. From the point of view of philosophy, sophiology is a product of a unique synthesis of a series of religious-philosophical themes known separately in the history of culture. Furthermore, as a religious-philosophical movement,

203 sophiology is not specifically associated with a particular philosophical system, but can be connected with different ontologies, epistemologies, and political philosophies. Finally, taking into consideration the collapse of the Soviet Union with its atheistic ideology and the growing interest in religion around the globe, one may certainly expect more sophiological systems to appear in Russia in the near future. These new developments will suggest the course, which the Russian sophiological movement will take in the 21st century and beyond.

204

205

Bibliography

Books Akulinin, Vladimir N. Filosofiia vseedinstva: Ot V. S. Solov'eva k P. A. Florenskomu [Philosophy of Total-Unity: From V. S. Solov'ev To P. A. Florenskii]. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1990. Aristotle. The Complete Works, 2 vols. Edited and translated by Jonathan Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Robert L Wilken. Notre Dame-London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975. Bandstra, Barry L. Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Bellah, N. Beyond Belief: Essays on Religion in a Post-Traditional World. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1970. Berdiaev, Nicolas. Solitude and Society. (Trans. G. Reavey). London: Geoffrey Bles, 1938. Berdiaev, Nicolas. The Beginning and the End. [Opyt eskhatologicheskoi metafiziki. Tvorchestvo i ob''ektivatsiia]. (Trans. R.M. French). New York: Harper & Brothers, 1952. Berdiaev, Nicolas. The Divine and the Human. (Trans. R.M. French). London: Geoffrey Bles, 1949. Berdiaev, Nicolas. The Meaning of History. (Trans. George Reavey). London: Geoffrey Bles: The Centenary Press, 1936. Berdiaev, Nicolas. The Realm of Spirit and the Realm of Caesar. (Trans. Donald A. Lowrie). New York: Harper, 1952. Berdiaev, Nicolas. Truth and Revelation. (Trans. R.M. French). New York: Harper, 1957. Berdiaev, Nikolai. Filosofiia tvorchestva, kul'tury i iskusstva [Philosophy of Creativity, Culture and Art]. 2 vols. Moscow: Iskusstvo/Liga, 1994.

206 Berdiaev, Nikolai. Istoki i smysl russkogo kommunizma [The Origin and Meaning of Russian Communism]. Moscow: Nauka, 1990. [Reprinted from the YMCA-Press: Paris, 1955]. Berdiaev, Nikolai. Krizis iskusstva [The Crisis of Art]. Moscow: Izdanie Lemana i Sakharova, 1918. [Reprinted M.: JW Interprint, 1990]. Berdiaev, Nikolai. O naznachenii cheloveka [The Destiny of Man]. Moscow: Respublika, 1993. Berdiaev, Nikolai. Russkaia ideia. Osnovnye problemy russkoi mysli XIX veka i nachala XX veka. [The Russian Idea. The Fundamental Problems of Russian Thought of the 19th Century and the Early 20th Century]. Paris: YMCA-Press, 1946. Berdiaev, Nikolai. Samopoznanie [Self-Knowledge]. Moscow: DEN, 1990. Berdyaev, Nicholas. The End of Our Time. (Trans. Donald. Atwater). New York: Sheed & Ward, 1933. Berdyaev, Nicholas. The Fate of Man in the Modern World. (Trans. Donald A. Lowrie). New York: Morehouse Publishing Co., 1935. Berdyaev, Nicolas. Dream and Reality. An Essay in Autobiography [Samopoznanie]. (Trans. Katharine Lampert.) New York: The MacMillan Co., 1951. Berdyaev, Nicolas. The Bourgeois Mind and Other Essays. (Trans. Countess Bennigsen and Donald Attwater). New York: Books for Libraries Press, 1966. [First published in 1934]. Berdyaev, Nicolas. The Destiny of Man [O naznachenie cheloveka]. (Trans. N.A. Duddington). New York: Scribner's Sons, 1937. Bible. The New Oxford Annotated with the Apocryphal/ Deuterocanonical Books. Edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Roland E. Murphy. New Revised Standard Version. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Wisdom and Law in the Old Testament: The Ordering of Life in Israel and Early Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983. Bryce, Glendon E. A legacy of Wisdom: The Egyptian Contribution to the Wisdom of Israel. London: Associated University Press - Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1979. Bulgakov, S. Agnets bozhii. O bogochelovechestve [God's Lamb. On the Divine Humanity]. Part I. Paris: YMCA-Press, 1933. Bulgakov, S. Nevesta Agntsa. O bogochelovechestve [The Bride of the Lamb. On the Divine Humanity]. Part III. Paris: YMCA-Press, 1945.

207 Bulgakov, S. Uteshitel'. O bogochelovechestve [The Comforter. On the Divine Humanity]. Part II. Paris: YMCA-Press, 1936. Bulgakov, Sergei. Izbrannye sochineniia [Selected Works], 2 vols. Moscow: Nauka, 1993. Bulgakov, Sergei. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1991.

Khristianskii

sotsializm

[Christian

Socialism],

Bulgakov, Sergei. Na piru bogov [On the Feast of Gods]. Sophia: Russian Bulgarian Pub., 1921. Bulgakov, Sergei. Ot Marksizma k idealizmu [From Marxism to Idealism]. St. Petersburg, 1903. [Reprinted in Frankfurt: "Posev," 1968]. Bulgakov, Sergei. Svet nevechernii. Sozertsaniia i umozreniia. [The Unfading Light. Contemplations and Meditations]. Moscow: Respublika, 1994. Bulgakov, Sergius. The Wisdom of God. A Brief Summary of Sophiology. New York - London: The Paisley Press - Williams and Nargate, 1937. Chaadaev, Pyotr. Philosophical Letters and Apology of a Madman. Translated with an introduction by Mary-Barbara Zeldin. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1969. Christian Existentialism. A Berdyaev Anthology. Selected and translated by Donald A. Lowrie. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1965. Clements, Ronald E. Wisdom in Theology. Carlisle: The Paternoster Press, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992. Copleston, Frederick C. Russian Religious Philosophy: Selected Aspects. Notre Dame, Ind., London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989. Dmitrieva N. K., Moiseeva, A. P. Nikolai Berdiaev: Zhizn' i tvorchestvo. Filosof svobodnogo dukha [Nikolai Berdiaev: Life and Creative Work. Philosopher of the Free Spirit]. Moscow: Vysshaia shkola, 1993. A Documentary History of Russian Thought: From the Enlightenment to Marxism. Edited and translated by W. J. Leatherbarrow and D. C. Offord. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1987. Durkheim, Emile. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. (Translated from the French by Joseph W. Swain). New York: The Free Press, 1965. Evtuhov, Catherine. The Cross and the Sickle: Sergei Bulgakov and the Fate of Russian Religious Philosophy, 1890-1920. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1997.

208 Filoramo, Giovanni. A History of Gnosticism. (Translated by Anthony Alcock). Cambridge: Basil Blackwell, 1991. Filosofskaia Entsiklopediia [Encyclopedia of Philosophy], 5 vols. Moscow: Sovetskaia Entsiklopediia, 1960-1970. Fiorenza, Elizabeth Schussler. Jesus: Miriam's Child and Sophia's Prophet. Critical Issues in Feminist Christology. New York: Continuum, 1995. Florenskii, Pavel. Stolp i utverzhdenie istiny - opyt pravoslavnoi teoditsei v dvenadtsati pis'makh [The Pillar and Foundation of Truth: An Essay in Orthodox Theodicy in Twelve Letters]. Moscow: Pravda, 1990. Florovsky, Georges. Collected Works. Vols. III, IV. Belmont, Ma: Nordland Publishing Co., 1975, 1976. Florovsky, Georges. Collected Works. Vols. VI, XII. Vaduz, Europa: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1987, 1989. Foucault, Michel. The Foucault Reader. Edited by Paul Rabinow. (Translated by Paul Rabinow and others). New York: Pantheon Books, 1984. Freud, Sigmund. The Future of An Illusion. (Translated by W.D. RobsonScott). New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 1955. Gal'tseva R. A. Ocherki russkoi utopicheskoi mysli XX veka [Essays On Russian Utopian Thought of the 20th Century]. Moscow: Nauka, 1992. Good, Deirdre J. Reconstructing the Tradition of Sophia in Gnostic Literature. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1987. A History of Russian Philosophy. From the Tenth Through the Twentieth Centuries, 2 vols. Edited by Valerii Kuvakin. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1994. Ianov, Alexander L. Russkaia ideia i 2000 god [The Russian Challenge and the Year 2000]. New York: Liberty Publishing House, 1988. Igumen Gennadii (Eikalovich). Delo prot. Sergiia Bulgakova. Istoricheskaia kanva spora o sofii [The Case of the Rev. Sergii Bulgakov. Historical Outline of the Debate about Sophia]. San Francisco, 1980. Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism. Edited by Karen L. King. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988. Jameson, Frederick. Postmodernism or Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1991. Jung, Carl G. Two Essays On Analytical Psychology. Second Edition. (Translated by R.F.C. Hull). Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977.

209 Kamenskii, Z. A. Russkaia filosofiia nachala XIX veka i Schelling [Russian Philosophy of the Early 19th Century and Schelling]. Moscow: Nauka, 1980. Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. (Trans. by Norman K. Smith). New York: St. Martin's Press, 1965. Karsavin, Lev. Malye sochineniia [Short Works], 2 vols. St. Petersburg: Aleteia, 1994. Khomiakov, Aleksei. Sochineniia [Works], 2 vols., Moscow: Moscow Philosophical Fund/Medium/Voprosy filosofii, 1994. Kireevskii, Ivan. Sochineniia [Works], 2 vols. Edited by Gershenson. Moscow, 1911. Lefebure, Leo D. Toward a Contemporary Wisdom Christology: A Study of Karl Rahner and Norman Pittenger. Lanham, New York, London: University Press of America, 1988. Losev, Aleksei F. Istoriia antichnoi estetiki [History of Ancient Aesthetics]. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1963-1994. Losev, Aleksei F. Strast' k dialektike. Literaturnye razmyshleniia filosofa [A Passion for Dialectic. Literary Meditations of a Philosopher]. Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel', 1990. Losskii, Nikolai O. Bog i mirovoe zlo [God and Cosmic Evil]. Moscow: Respublika, 1994. Losskii, Nikolai O. Chuvstvennaia, intellektual'naia i misticheskaia intuitsiia [Sensuous, Intellectual and, Mystical Intuition]. Moscow: Respublika, 1995. Losskii, Nikolai O. Izbrannoe [Selected Works]. Moscow: Pravda, 1991. Losskii, Nikolai O. Uchenie o. Sergiia Bulgakova o vseedinstve i o bozhestvennoi sofii [Fr. Sergii Bulgakov's Teaching of Total-Unity and the Divine Sophia]. South Canaan, Pa.: St. Tikhon Press, 1960. Losskii, Nikolai O. Usloviia absoliutnogo dobra [Conditions of the Absolute Goodness]. Moscow: Politicheskaia literatura, 1991. Lossky, N. O. History of Russian Philosophy. New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1951. Lossky, N. O. The Intuitive Basis of Knowledge. An Epistemological Inquiry. (Authorized trans. Nathalie A. Duddington). Preface by Prof. G. Dawes Hicks. London: MacMillan and Co, 1919. Lossky, N. O. The World As an Organic Whole. (Translated from the Russian by Natalie A. Duddington). London: Oxford University Press, 1928.

210 Lyotard, Jean-François. The Differend: Phrases in Dispute. (Translation by George Van Den Abbrele). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1988. Lyotard, Jean-François. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. (Translation by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1991. Marx, Karl & Engels, Frederick. On Religion. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1957. McKane, William. Prophets and Wise Men. Naperville, Illinois: Alec R. Allenson, Inc., 1965. McNally, Raymond T. The Major Works of Peter Chaadaev. A Translation and Commentary. University of Notre Dame Press, 1969. Meyendorff, John. Byzantine Theology. Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes. New York: Fordham University Press, 1974. Meyendorff, John. The Byzantine Legacy in the Orthodox Church. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1982. Mochulskii, K. V. V. S. Solov'ev. Paris, 1936. Morgan, Donn F. Wisdom in the Old Testament Traditions. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981. 1951.

Mueller, Ludolf. Solovjev und der Protestantismus. Freiburg: Verlag Herder,

Munzer, Egbert. Solovyev: Prophet of Russian-Western Unity. New York: Philosophical Library, 1956. Nucho, Fuad. Berdyaev's Philosophy: The Existential Paradox of Freedom and Necessity. A Critical Study. With an introduction by Dr. Richard Kroner. London: Victor Gollancz, 1967. O sofii premudrosti bozhiei. Ukaz moskovskoi patriarchii i dokladnye zapiski prof. prot. Sergiia Bulgakova mitropolitu Evlogiiu [On Sophia, the Wisdom of God. Decree of the Moscow Patriarchy and the Reports of the Rev. Prof. Sergii Bulgakov to the Mitropolitain Evlogii]. Paris, 1935. Origen. An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works. Translation and introduction by Rowan A. Greer. New York-Ramsey-Toronto: Paulist Press, 1979. Perdue, Leo G. Wisdom and Cult: A Critical Analysis of the Views of Cult in the Wisdom Literatures of Israel and the Ancient Near East. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1977.

211 Perry, Anthony. Wisdom Literature and the Structure of Proverbs. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993. Plato. The Collected Dialogues. Edited by Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns. (Translated by Lane Cooper and others). Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963. Pospielovskii, Dimitry V. Russkaia pravoslavnaia tserkov' v XX veke [The Russian Orthodox Church in the 20th Century]. Moscow: Respublika, 1995. Rad, Gerhard Von. Wisdom in Israel. Nashville and New York: Abingdon Press, 1972. Rankin, O. S. Israel's Wisdom Literature: Its Beaking on Theology and the History of Religion. New York: Schocken Books, 1969. Riazanovskii, Valentin A. Obzor russkoi kul'tury. Istoricheskii ocherk [Historical Survey of Russian Culture], 3 vols. New York, 1947. Rice, Eugene F. Jr. The Renaissance Idea of Wisdom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958. Rudolph, Kurt. Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism. (Translation edited by Robert Mc. Wilson). San Francisco: Harper, 1987. Russian Philosophy, 3 vols. (1965) Edited by James M. Edie, et al. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1976. Russian Religious Thought. Edited by Judith D. Kornblatt and Richard F. Gustafson. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1996. Rylaarsdam, John C. Revelation in Jewish Wisdom Literature. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1946. Saint Augustine. The Trinity. (Translated by Stephen McKenna). Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1963. Scott, Robert. The Way of Wisdom in the Old Testament. New York: The Macmillan Company - London: Collier-Macmillan Ltd., 1971. Sheppard, Gerald T. Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct: A Study in the Sapientializing of the Old Testament. Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1980. Slezinski, Robert. Pavel Florensky: A Metaphysics of Love. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir Seminary Press, 1984. Smith, John C. The Ancient Wisdom of Origen. London and Toronto: Associated University Press-Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1992.

212 Sobolev, Seraphim. Novoe uchenie o sofii premudrosti bozhiei [New Teaching about Sophia, the Wisdom of God]. Sophia, 1935. Sobolev, Seraphim. Zashchita sofianskoi eresi protoireem S. Bulgakovym pred litsom arkhiereiskogo sobora russkoi zarubezhnoi tserkvi [A Defense of the Sophianic Heresy by the Rev. S. Bulgakov before the Council of the Archbishops of the Rusian Church Abroad]. Sophia, 1937. Solov'ev, Sergei M. Zhizn' i tvorcheskaia evolutsiia Vladimira Solov'eva [Life and Creative Evolution of Vladimir Solov’ev]. Brussels: Zhizn' s Bogom, 1977. Solov'ev, Vladimir S. Lectures on Divine Humanity. (Translated from the Russian by Peter Zouboff). Revised and edited by Boris Jakim. Hudson, N.Y.: Lindisfarne Press, 1995. Solov'ev, Vladimir S. Pis'ma [Letters]. Edited by E. L. Radlov. St. Petersburg, 1908. Solov'ev, Vladimir S. Russia and the Universal Church. (Translated by Herbert Rees). London: Geoffrey Bles, 1948. Solov'ev, Vladimir S. Sobranie sochinenii [Collected Works], 10 vols. 2nd edition. St. Petersburg: Prosveshchenie, 1911-1914. Spinka, M.N. Nicholas Berdyaev, Captive of Freedom. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1950. Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom. Selected with a Prolegomenon, by James L. Crenshaw. New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1976. A Summa of the Summa: The Essential Philosophical Passages of St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica. (Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province in 1920) Edited by Peter Kreeft. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990. The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays On Post-Modern Culture. Edited by H. Foster. Port Townsend, Wa: Bay Press, 1983. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. Translated and introduced by members of the Coptic Gnostic Library project of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity in Claremont, California under the editorship of James M. Robinson. 3rd. edition. San Francisco: Harper, 1988. The Silver Age of Russian Culture: An Anthology. Edited by Carl and Ellendea Proffer. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1975. 1913.

Trubetskoi, Evgenii Pr. Mirosozertsanie Vl. Solov'eva, 2 vols. Moscow,

213 Trubetskoi, Evgenii N. Smysl zhizni [The Meaning of Life, 1918]. Moscow: Respublika, 1994. Ultimate Questions: An Anthology of Modern Russian Religious Thought. (1965) Edited by Alexander Schmemann. New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1977. Vadimov, Alewsand. Zhizn' Berdiaeva [Berdiaev’s Life]. Rossiia, Oakland, Ca: Berkeley Slavic Specialties, 1993. Walker, Benjamin. Gnosticism: Its History Wellingborough, Northamptonshire: The Aquarian Press, 1983.

and

Influence.

Weber, Max. The Sociology of Religion. (Translated from the fourth German edition by Ephraim Fischoff). Boston: Beacon Press, 1964. Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language. David B. Guralnim, Editor in Chief. Second College Edition. Cleveland, Ohio: William Collins Publishers, Inc., 1979. Williams, Paul. Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. London & New York: Routledge, 1991. Zapiski russkoi akademicheskoi gruppy v SShA [Transactions of the Association of Russian Scholars in the U.S.A]. New York. 1992-1993. Zenkovsky, Vasilii V. A History of Russian Philosophy, 2 vols. (Translated by George L. Kline). New York: Columbia University Press, 1953.

Articles Berdiaev, Nikolai. "Russkii dukhovnyi renessans nachala XX v" [The Russian Spiritual Renaissance of the Early 20th Century]. Zapiski russkoi akademicheskoi gruppy v SSHA [Transactions of the Association of RussianAmerican Scholars in the U.S.A.]. Vol. XXV. New York, 1992-1993, p.15. Crenshaw, James L. "Method in Determining Wisdom Influence upon 'Historical' Literature." Journal of Biblical Literature, 1969, 88:129-42. Epstein, Mikhail. "The Phoenix of Philosophy: On the Meaning and Significance of Contemporary Russian Thought." SYMPOSION. A Journal of Russian Thought, Vol. 1, 1996, pp. 35-73.

214 Gaut, Gregory. "Christian Politics: Vladimir Solovyov's Social Gospel Theology." Modern Greek Studies Yearbook, 10/11 (1994/1995): pp.653-674. Kline, George L. "Russian Religious Thought." Nineteenth Century Religious Thought in the West. Edited by Ninian Smart, et al. Cambridge, Vol. 2, Ch. 6, England: Cambridge University Press, 1985, pp. 179-229. Kline, George L. "Peter (Petr) Iakovlevich Chaadaev." Dictionary of Literary Biography. Vol. 198: Russian Literature in the Age of Pushkin and Gogol: Prose. Edited by Christine A. Rydel. Detroit: Gail Research, 1998, pp.101-109. Losskii, Nikolai O. "Industrializm, kommunizm i utrata lichnosti" [Industrialism, Communism and the Loss of Personhood]. Novyi grad, 1936, Vol.11. Loskii, Nikolai O. "O znachenii Rossii" [On the Significance of Russia]. Transactions of the Russian Scholars in the USA, 1976, Vol.10. Losskii, Nikolai O. "Organicheskoe stroenie obshchestva i demokratiia" [Organic Structure of Society and Democracy]. Sovremennye zapiski, 1925, Vol.25. Losskii, Nikolai O. "Smysl istorii" [The Meaning of History]. Vol'naia mysl', 9-1961, Vol.3. Losskii, Nikolai O. "Svoboda i khoziaistvennaia deiatel'nost'" [Freedom and Economic Activities]. Novyi grad, 1932, Vol.3. Losskii, Nikolai O. "V zashchitu demokratii" [In Defense of Democracy]. Sovremennye zapiski, 1926, Vol.27. Zenkovskii, Vasilii V. "Preodolenie platonizma i problema sofiinosti mira" [The Overcoming of Platonism and the Problem of the Sophia-ness of the World], Put', no. 24 (1930):3-40.

215

Appendix A Vladimir Solov’ev: Life, Works and Bibliography

1853 1862 1867 1871 1873 1874 1875 1877 1978 1880 1881 1884 1887 1889 1990s 1897 1897-99 1900 1900

Born in Moscow. First vision of Sophia. Became an atheist. Returned to Orthodoxy. Graduated from the Department of History and Philology of the Moscow University. Defended his master's thesis, The Crisis of Western Philosophy. Against the Positivists. [Krisis zapadnoi filosofii. Protiv positivistov]. Two visions of Sophia--in England and in Egypt. Moved to St. Petersburg. Delivered his Lectures on Divine Humanity [Chteniia o bogochelovechestve]. Defended his doctoral dissertation, A Critique of Abstract Principles [Kritika otvlechennykh nachal]. Left his professorship. A new period of life and work began, called "theocratic" or "utopian." Pub. The Spiritual Foundations of Life [Dukhovnye osnovy zhizni]. Pub. History and Future of Theocracy [Istoriia i budushchnost' teokratii]. Pub. Russia and the Universal Church [La Russie et l'Eglise Universelle]. Became increasingly disillusioned with the existing forms of the Christian religion. Pub. The Justification of the Good [Opravdanie dobra]. His Theoretical Philosophy [Teoreticheskaia filosofiia] remained unfinished. Solov'ev's last work, Three Conversations. A Novel on the Antichrist [Tri razgovora. Povest' ob antikhriste]. Died on the estate of Pr. S. Trubetskoi.

216

English Translations A Solovyov Anthology. Arranged by S.L. Frank. (Trans. Natalie A. Duddington). New York: Scribner, 1950. Foundations of Theoretical Philosophy (excerpts). (Trans. Vlada Tolley and James P. Scanlan). In Russian Philosophy, vol. 3: Pre-Revolutionary Philosophy and Theology--Philosophers in Exile--Marxists and Communists, ed. J.M. Edie, J.P. Scanlan, and Mary-Barbara Zeldin, with the collaboration of George L. Kline. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1965, 1967. pp. 97-134. God, Man and Church: The Spiritual Foundations of Life. (Trans. Donald Attwater). London: J. Clarke, 1938. Lectures on Divine Humanity. (Trans. Peter Zouboff). Rev. trans. and ed. Boris Jakim. Hudson, N.Y.: Linsdisfarne Press, 1995. Plato. (Trans. Richard Gill). London: S. Nott, 1935. 1948.

Russia and the Universal Church. (Trans. Herbert Rees). London: G. Bles,

The Antichrist. (Trans. W.J. Barnes and H.H. Haynes). Edinburgh: Floris Books, 1982, 1990. Tale of the Anti-Christ. Edmonds, Wash.: Holmes Publishing Group, 1989. The Crisis of Western Philosophy (Against the Positivists). Trans. and ed. Boris Jakim. Hudson, N.Y.: Lindisfarne Press, 1996. The Justification of the Good: An Essay on Moral Philosophy. (Trans. Natalie A. Duddington). London: Constable, 1918. The Meaning of Love. (Trans. Jane Marshall. Rev. trans Thomas R. Beyer.) Introd. Owen Barfield. Stockbridge, Mass.: 1985, 1992. War, Progress and the End of History. (Transl. A. Bakshy). Ed. and rev. trans. Thomas R. Beyer. Introd. Czeslaw Milosz. Hudson, N.Y.: Lindisfarne Press, 1990.

217

Selected Secondary Sources Dahm, Helmut. Vladimir Solovyev and Max Scheler: Attempt at a Comparative Interpretation. Dordrecht, Holland/Boston, USA: D. Reidel Publishing Co, 1973. Klum, Edith. Natur, Kunst und Liebe in der Philosophie Vladimir Solov'ev's: Eine Religionsphilosophische Untersuchung. Munchen: Verlag Ott Sagner, 1965. Losev, Aleksei F. Vl. Solov'ev. 2nd ed. Moscow: Mysl', 1994. Martin, George. Mystische und religiöse Erfahrung im Denken Vladimir Solov'ev's. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988. Sutton, Jonathan. The Religious Philosophy of Vladimir Solovyov. Towards a Reassessment. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1988.

218

Appendix B Fr. Sergii Bulgakov: Life, Works and Bibliography

1871 1884 1894 1897 1898 1900 1901 1903 1905 1906 1912 1917 1918 1923 1925 1927 1928 1929

Born in Livny, in the province of Orel, the son of a 6th generation Orthodox priest. Entered the local seminary which he left one year before graduation as a result of religious crisis. Graduated from Moscow University. Received his master's degree. Married Elena Ivanovna Tokmakova. Published his first major work, a Marxist study, Capitalism and Agriculture [Kapitalizm i zemledelie]. Accepted position at the Polytechnic Institute of Kiev as Professor of Political Economics. Published a collection of articles, From Marxism to Idealism [Ot marksizma k idealizmu] which marked break from Marxism and beginning of religious-philosophical period of his work. Together with Nikolai Berdiaev founded the journal Questions of Life [Voprosy zhizni]. Became lecturer at Moscow University. Pub. Philosophy of Economy [Filosofiia khoziaistva]. Published his greatest philosophical work, The Unfading Light [Svet nevechernii]. Was ordained an Orthodox priest. Exiled from the Soviet Union and went to Prague. Moved to Paris where he became chair of Dogmatic Theology and associate dean of the Paris Orthodox Theological Institute. The third, theological, period of creative activity had begun. The first book of the "smaller trilogy," The Burning Bush [Kupina neopalimaia], and Die Tragoedie der Philosophie are published. Pub. the second book of the trilogy, The Friend of the Bridegroom [Drug zhenikha]. Pub. the third book of the trilogy, Jacob's Ladder [Lestnitsa Iakovleva].

219 1933 1936 1939 1944 1945 1948 1953

Pub. Orthodoxy [Pravoslavie] and the first volume of the "greater trilogy," The Lamb of God. On the Divine Humanity [Agnets bozhii. O bogochelovechestve]. Pub. the second volume of the trilogy, The Comforter. On the Divine Humanity [Uteshitel'. O bogochelovechestve]. Underwent an operation for throat cancer. Died in Paris. The third volume of the trilogy, The Bride of the Lamb. On the Divine Humanity [Nevesta Agntsa. O Bogochelovechestve] published posthumously. Philosophy of Language [Filosofiia iazyka] published posthumously. Philosophy of the Name [Filosofiia imeni] published posthumously.

English Translations A Bulgakov Anthology. Ed. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970

James

Pain

and

Nicolas

Zernov.

"At the Feast of the Gods." From the Depths. (Trans. and introd. by William Woehrlin). Preface by Bernice Glatzer Rozenthal. Irvine, Ca.: Charles Schlacks, Jr., 1986, pp.65-118. Karl Marx as a Religious Type. Introd. Donald Treagold. Belmont, Mass.: Nordland, 1979. "Meditations on the Joy of the Resurrection." Ultimate Questions: An Anthology of Modern Russian Religious Thought. Ed. Alexander Schmemann. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1977. The Orthodox Church. (Trans. Lydia Kesich). Introd. Thomas Hopko. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1977. Social Teaching in Modern Russian Orthodox Theology. Evanston: SeaburyWestern Theological Seminary, 1934. [Hale Memorial Sermons no. 20] Sophia, The Wisdom of God: An Outline of Sophiology, Hudson, N.Y.: Lindisfarne Press, 1993.

220 Selected Secondary Sources: Crum, Winston F. "Sergius N. Bulgakov: From Sophiology.: St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 22 (1982):3-25.

Marxism

to

Evtuhov, Catherine. The Cross and the Sickle: Sergei Bulgakov and the Fate of Russian Religious Philosophy, 1890-1920. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997. Graves, Charles. The Holy Spirit in the Theology of Sergius Bulgakov. Geneva, 1972. Meerson, Michael A. "Sergei Bulgakov's Philosophy of Personality." Russian Religious Thought. Ed. Judith Deutsch Kornblatt and Richard F. Gustafson. Madison, Wi.: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1996, pp.139-154. Newman Barbara. "Sergius Bulgakov and the Theology of the Divine Wisdom." St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 22 (1978):39-73. Rozenthal. Bernice G. "The Nature and Function of Sophia in Sergei Bulgakov's Prerevolutionary Thought." Russian Religious Thought. Ed. Judith Deutsch Kornblatt and Richard F. Gustafson. Madison, Wi.: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1996, pp.154-176. Sutton, Jonathan. "Fr. Sergei Bulgakov on Christianity and Judaism." Religion, State and Society 20, no. 1 (1992):61-67. Valliere, Paul. "Sophiology as the Dialogue of Orthodoxy with Modern Civilization." Russian Religious Thought. Ed. Judith Deutsch Kornblatt and Richard F. Gustafson. Madison, Wi.: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1996, pp.176-195.

221

Appendix C Nikolai Losskii: Life, Works and Bibliography

1870 1903 1906 1907 1916 1917 1919 1921 1922 1927 1931

1934 1938 1941 1944 1945 1946 1951 1965

Born in the province of Vitebsk, west of Moscow. Received master's degree in philosophy. Pub. The Intuitive Basis of Knowledge [Obosnovanie intuitivizma]. Received his Doctoral degree. Became Professor of Philosophy at the University of St. Petersburg. Pub. World as an Organic Whole [Mir kak organicheskoe tseloe]. Pub. Basic Problems of Epistemology [Osnovnye voprosy gnoseologii]. Left University because of his Christian religious views. Expelled from the Soviet Union and settled in Prague where he was Professor of Philosophy at the University of Bratislava. Published his Logic [Logika]. Pub. Freedom of Will [Svoboda voli]. Pub. Value and Existence [Tsennost' i sushchestvovanie]; God and the Kingdom of God as the Foundation of Values [Bog i tsarstvo bozhie kak osnova tsennostei]; Types of Worldviews [Tipy mirovozzrenii]; Pub. Dialectical Materialism in the USSR [Dialekticheskii materialism v SSSR]. Pub. Sensuous, Intellectual and Mystical Intuition [Chuvstvennaia, intellektual'naia i misticheskaia intuitsiia]. Pub. God and Cosmic Evil [Bog i mirovoe zlo]. Pub. The Conditions of Absolute Goodness [Usloviia absoliutnogo dobra]. Emigrated to France. Published his book, Dostoevskii and His Christian Worldview [Dostoevskii i ego khristianskoe mirovozzrenie]. Took up residence in the United States where he taught philosophy at the Russian Orthodox Seminary in New York. Pub. History of Russian Philosophy. Died in Paris.

222 English Translations Freedom of the Will. (Trans. N.A. Duddington). London, 1932. (Russian original, Paris, 1927). History of Russian Philosophy. London and New York, 1951. The Intuitive Basis of Knowledge. (Trans. N.A. Duddington). London, 1919. (Russian original, St. Petersburg, 1906). The World as an Organic Whole. (Trans. N.A. Duddington). Oxford, 1928. (Russian original, Moscow, 1917). Value and Existence. (Trans. S.S. Vinokooroff). London, 1935. (Russian original, Paris, 1931).

Selected Secondary Sources Kohanski A.S. Lossky's Theory of Knowledge. Nashville, Tenn., 1936.

223

Appendix D Nikolai Berdiaev: Life, Works and Bibliography

1874 1898 1901 1905 1911 1916 1918 1922 1923 1924 1925 1929 1931 1934 1937 1939 1946 1947 1948 1949

Born in Kiev Province to a family of military aristocrats. Studies of law at the University of Kiev interrupted because of arrest and three-year-exile to Vologda for participation in socialist activities. Pub. first book, Subjectivism and Individualism in Social Philosophy [Sub''ektivism i individualism v obshchestvennoi filosofii]. Together with Sergei Bulgakov founded the journal Questions of Life [Voprosy zhizni]. Pub. Philosophy of Freedom [Filosofiia svobody]. Published his programmatic book, The Meaning of Creativity [Smysl tvorchestva]. Founded "Free Religious-Philosohical Academy." Banished from the Soviet Union and settled in Berlin. Founded Religious-Philosophical Academy. Pub. Meaning of History [Smysl istorii]. Philosophy of Inequality [Filosofiia neravenstva], Dostoevskii's Worldview [Mirosozertsanie Dostoevskogo]. Pub. New Middle Ages [Novoe Srednevekov'e]. Moved to Paris; became editor of the journal Put', and the head of the publishing company, YMCA-Press. Pub. Philosophy of Free Spirit [Filosofiia svobodnogo dukha]. Pub. Destiny of Man [Sud'ba cheloveka]. Pub. A Self and the World of the Objects [Ia i mir ob''ektov]. Pub. Spirit and Reality [Dukh i real'nost']; The Origin and Meaning of Russian Communism [Istoki i smysl russkogo kommunizma]. Pub. Slavery and Freedom of Man [Rabstvo i svoboda cheloveka]. Pub. Russian Idea [Russkaia ideia]. Pub. An Essay on Eschatological Metaphysics [Opyt eskhatologicheskoi metafiziki]. Died in Paris. His autobiography, Self-Knowledge [Samopoznanie] published posthumously.

224 English translations Cristianity and Anti-Semitism. (Trans. Alan A. Spears and Victor B. Kanter). New York: Philosophical Library, 1954. Christianity and Class War. (Trans. Donald Attwater). New York: Sheed & Ward, 1933 Dostoevsky: An Interpretation. (Trans. D. Attwater). New York: Sheed & Ward, 1934. Dream and Reality. An Essay in Autobiography. (Trans. Katharine Lampert.) New York: The MacMillan Co., 1951. 1944.

Slavery and Freedom. (Trans. R.M. French). New York: Scribner's sons,

Solitude and Society. (Trans. G. Reavey). London, Geoffrey Bles: The Centenary Press, 1938. The Beginning and the End. (Trans. R.M. French). New York: Harper & Brothers, 1952. The Bourgeois Mind and Other Essays. (Trans. Countess Bennigsen and Donald Attwater). New York: Books for Libraries Press, 1966, [First published in 1934]. The Destiny of Man. (Trans. N.A. Duddington). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1937. 1949. 1933.

The Divine and the Human. (Trans. R.M. French). London, Geoffrey Bles, The End of Our Time. (Trans. D. Attwater). New York: Sheed & Ward,

The Fate of Man in the Modern World. (Trans. Donald A. Lowrie). New York: Morehouse Publishing Co., 1935. The Meaning of History. (Trans. George Reavey). London: Geoffrey Bles: The Centenary Press, 1936. 1937.

The Origin of Russian Communism. (Trans. R.M. French). London: G. Bles,

The Realm of Spirit and the Realm of Caesar. (Trans. Donald A. Lowrie). New York: Harper & Brothers, 1952. The Russian Idea. (Trans. R.M. French). London: G. Bles, 1947.

225 Towards a New Epoch. (Trans. from the original French edition by O. F. Clarke). London: Geoffrey Bles, 1949. 1957.

Truth and Revelation. (Trans. R.M. French). New York: Harper & Brothers,

Selected Secondary Sources Calian, C.S. The Significance of Eschatology in the Thoughts of Nicolas Berdyaev. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965. Clarke, O.F. Introduction to Berdyaev. London: G. Bles, 1950. Lowrie, Donald A. Rebellious Prophet: A Life of Nicolai Berdyaev. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1960. Nucho, Fuad. Berdyaev's Philosophy: The Existential Paradox of Freedom and Necessity. London: Gollancz, 1967. Seaver, G. Nicolas Berdyaev. An introduction to His Thought. New York: Harper, 1950. Spinka, M.N. Nicholas Berdyaev, Captive of Freedom. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1950.

226

Appendix E Chronology of Selected Works Related to Sophiology

1876 1878 1889 1911 1912 1914 1916 1917 1917 1918 1922 1930 1931 1932 1935

1936

Solov'ev, Vladimir. "Sofiia" (Sophia). Solov'ev, Vladimir. Chteniia o bogochelovechestve [Lectures on Divine Humanity]. Solov'ev, Vladimir. La Russie et l'Eglise Universelle [Russia and the Universal Church]. Florenskii, Pavel. "Sofiia" [Sophia]. Bulgakov, Sergei. Filosofiia khoziaistva [Philosophy of Economy]. Florenskii, Pavel. Stolp i utverzhdenie istiny [The Pillar and Foundation of Truth]. Berdiaev, Nikolai. Smysl tvorchestva [The Meaning of Creativity]. Losskii, Nikolai. Mir kak organicheskoe tseloe [World as an Organic Whole]. Bulgakov, Sergei. Svet Nevechernii [The Unfading Light]. Pr. Trubetskoi, Evgenii. Smysl zhizni [The Meaning of Life]. Karsavin, Lev. Noctes Petropolitanae. Zenkovskii, V.V. "Preodolenie platonizma i problema sofiinosti mira" [The Overcoming of Platonism and the Problem of the Sophianity of the World]. Losskii, Nikolai. Bog i tsarstvo bozhie kak osnova tsennostei [God and the Kingdom of God as the Foundation of Values]. Florovskii, Georgii. "O pochitanii sofii, premudrosti bozhiei, v Vizantii i na Rusi" [On the Veneration of Sophia, the Wisdom of God, in Byzantium and in Rus']. O sofii premudrosti bozhiei. Ukaz moskovskoi patriarkhii i dokladnye zapiski prof. prot. Sergiia Bulgakova mitropolitu Evlogiiu. [On Sophia, the Wisdom of God. Decree of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Reports by the Rev. Prof. Sergii Bulgakov to the Metropolitan Evlogii]. Lossky, Vladimir. Spor o Sofii [The Debate about Sophia].

227 1937

1945 1947 1949 1960 1979 1980 1986 1990 1996

Bulgakov, Sergei: The Wisdom of God: A Brief Summary of Sophiology. Sobolev, Seraphim. Novoe uchenie o sofii premudrosti bozhiei [A New Doctrine of Sophia, the Wisdom of God]; and Zashchita sofianskoi eresi protoierem S. Bulgakovym pred litsom arkhiereiskogo sobora russkoi zarubezhnoi tserkvi [The Defense of the Sophianic Heresy by the Rev. S. Bulgakov Before the Council of Archbishops of the Russian Church Abroad]. Bulgakov, Sergei. O Bogochelovechestve [On the Divine Humanity], 3 vols: Agnets bozhii [The Lamb of God]; Uteshitel' [The Comforter]; Nevesta Agntsa [The Bride of the Lamb]. Berdiaev, Nikolai. Opyt eskhatologicheskoi metafiziki [An Essay on Eschatological Metaphysics]. Florovskii, Georgii "The Idea of Creation in Christian Philosophy," Losskii, Nikolai. Utshenie o. Sergiia Bulgakova o vseedinstve i o bozhestvennoi sofii [The Teaching of Fr. Sergii Bulgakov on the Total-Unity and the Divine Sophia]. Bulgakov, Sergei. "Sofiologiya smerti" [Sophiology of Death]. Igumen Gennadii (Eikalovich). Delo prot. Sergiia Bulgakova. Istoricheskaia kanva spora o sofii [The Case of the Rev. Sergii Bulgakov. Historical Outline of the Debate about Sophia]. Semenkin, N.S. Filosofiia bogoiskatel'stva: Kritika religioznofilosofskoi idei sofiologov [Philosophy of God-seeking: Critique of the Religious-Philosophical Idea of Sophiologists]. Losev, Aleksei. "Filosofsko-poeticheskii simvol sofii u Solov'eva" [The Philosophical-Poetic symbol of Sophia in the Works of Solov'ev]. Rosenthal, Bernice. G. "The Nature and Function of Sophia in Sergei Bulgakov's Prerevolutionary Thought." Valliere, Paul. "Sophiology as the Dialogue of Orthodoxy with Modern Civilization."

228

229

Index

Adam: 32, 82, 151, 167 Alienation: 168 Anglicanism: 62, 63 Aquinas, St. T.: 51, 165 Apophaticism: 100, 148 Aristotle: 30, 50, 129, 166 Assizi, Francis D’: 169 Atheism: 120 Augustine, St.: 46, 47, 48, 50 Belinskii, V.: 65 Bellah, R.: 9 Boehme, J.: 182 Byzantium: 45, 49, 55, 59, 119 Calvinism: 62, 63 Cataphatic theology: 148 Catholicism: 6, 11, 12, 22, 56, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 171 Chaadaev, P.: 58, 59, 60, 63, 64, 74, 128, 156 Church Fathers: 45, 46, 48, 118, 119, 120 Communism: 23, 66, 67, 128, 192, 193 Consubstantiality: 152 Cosmology: 33, 161, 201, 202 Chernyshevskii, N.: 66 Danilevskii, N.: 66 Dante, A.: 169 Divine humanity: 3, 4, 76, 77, 83, 87, 111, 113 Durkheim, E.: 8

Ecumenism: 7, 9 Emanation: 100 Empiricism: 134, 138, 139, 179, 190 Enlightenment: 13, 14, 15, 16, 173 Eschatology: 97 Eternal Feminine: 89, 92, 102 Existentialist: 161, 168, 175, 181, 201, 202 Fichte, J. G..: 128, 130 Florenskii, P.: 22, 93, 94, 95, 103, 199 Florovskii, G.: 5, 22, 45, 58, 66, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 136, 200 Foucault, M.: 14 Frank, S.: 134, 151 Freud, S.: 8 God-man: 11, 42, 83, 86, 112, 112, 113, 120 German idealism: 23, 118, 119, 128, 130, 200 Gnosticism: 21, 31, 32, 33, 34, 81, 113, 179, 197 Habermas, J.: 14, 15, 16 Hegel, G. W. F.:128, 130, 154 Hertsen, A.: 65 Hierarchical personalism: 156, 201 Humanism: 170, 171, 172, 173, 191 Hypostasis: 94, 101, 105, 108, 112, 122, 135, 194, 199

230 Icons: 49 Ideocracy: 192 Incarnation: 82, 86, 87, 89, 111, 112 Il’in, I.: 156 Intuition: 130, 133, 134, 142 Intuitivism: 137, 140, 141, 142, 146, 158, 201

Objectification: 164, 167, 168, 202 Omnipotence: 146 Omniscience: 146 Origen: 46, 47, 48 Original sin: 32, 111, 112, 151, 167 Ouk on: 111

Kant, I.: 4, 98, 99, 127, 128, 129, 130, 137, 138, 139, 140, 164, 165, 166, 167, 200, 201, 202 Karsavin, L.: 135, 201 Khomiakov, A.: 60, 63, 64, 128, 130, 131, 132, 133 Kireevskii, I.: 104, 128, 132, 133

Panentheism: 109, 151 Pantheism: 48, 109, 115, 136, 169 Paul, St.: 11, 43, 44, 45 Personalism: 164, 202 Phenomena: 129, 130, 165, 166, 167, 168, 175, 202 Pisarev, D.: 66 Plato: 29, 30, 48, 115, 129, 154 Platonism: 28, 114, 115, 162 Plotinus: 30, 48 Pluralism: 150 Pope: 59, 61 Postmodernity: 7, 13, 15, 16, 23, 187, 188, 197 Prajna: 27 Protestantism: 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 22, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 70, 72, 75, 118, 119, 127, 130, 171, 172, 173, 192, 197, 198, 200, 201, 202

Leontiev, K.: 66, 194 Liberalism: 190 Logos: 48, 78, 79, 82, 94, 108, 161 Losev, A.: 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 87, 113 Losskii, V.: 22, 117, 118 Luther, M.: 63, 172 Ma’at: 26 Marx, K.: 8, 99 Materialism: 120, 150 Maximus the Confessor: 122 Meon: 111, 183 Meta-narrative: 188 Middle Ages: 50, 52, 169, 170, 187, 190, 195 Modernity: 7, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 62, 70, 165, 170, 173, 179, 186, 187, 190, 197, 198, 200 Monism: 150 Noumena: 129, 130, 165, 166, 167, 168, 175, 202

Rationalism: 134, 138, 139, 179, 190 Redemption: 120, 179, 180, 183, 184, 185, 202 Renaissance: 16, 51, 52, 53, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 188, 189, 190, 198 Resurrection: 179 Revelation: 179, 180, 181, 194 Romanticism: 128, 194 Rousseau, J.-J.: 192

231 Salvation: 185 Secular: 6, 17, 21, 40, 49, 50 Schelling F. W. J.: 128, 130, 154 Scholasticism: 50, 51, 53 Slavophilism: 22, 57, 60, 61, 63, 65, 66, 67, 70, 73, 74, 104, 128, 130, 133, 156, 198, 201 Socrates: 29 Soul: 80, 82 Substance: 106, 107, 108, 121, 122, 125, 136, 144, 177 Substantival agent: 143, 145, 151, 152, 153, 157 Supreme substance: 152, 154, 157 Theism: 7 Theocracy: 169, 191 Theodicy: 79, 85, 145, 183 Theosis: 82 Theurgy: 178 Thing-in-itself: 139, 165, 166, 167 Totalitarianism: 4, 192

Total-unity: 3, 4, 23, 77, 79, 82, 86, 95, 96, 98, 102, 103, 107, 115, 116, 133, 134, 135, 137, 150, 151, 199, 201 Total-unity-consciousness: 136 Trinity: 21, 22, 46, 47, 48, 77, 79, 87, 91, 92, 94, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 113, 114, 117, 121, 122, 125, 126, 148, 151, 182, 198, 199, 200 Trubetskoi, E.: 135, 136, 137, 201 Ungrund: 182, 183 Weber, M.: 8 Westernism: 22, 57, 58, 61, 63, 65, 66, 67, 198 World soul: 80, 81, 84, 85, 98, 154 Zenkovskii, V.: 3, 5, 22, 56, 62, 63, 69, 74, 91, 95, 103, 114, 127, 131, 133, 134, 135, 161