Herbigny - Vladimir Soloviev

8/2/2019 Herbigny - Vladimir Soloviev

1/285


2/285


3/285

VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV: A RUSSIANNEWMAN


4/285


5/285


6/285

VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV.At the ag-e of 38.


7/285

VLADIMIR SOLOVIEVA RUSSIAN NEWMAN(i853-T 9oo)

BYMICHEL D HERBIGNY

TRANSLATED BYA. M. BUCHANAN, M.A.

R. & T. WASHBOURNE, LTD.PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDONAND AT MANCHESTER, BIRMINGHAM, AND GLASGOW

All rights restrvca.


8/285


9/285

TRANSLATOR S PREFACETHE present translation of d Herbigny s VladimirSoloviev a work crowned by the AcademicFranaise was undertaken at the request of thelate Father Thomas Gerrard, who intended to editthe English version and to write an introductoryappreciation of the Russian Newman. FatherGerrard died without accomplishing his design; hehad, however, written an article on Soloviev, whichappeared in the Catholic }Yorld of June, 1917; and,through the courtesy of the editor, this article ishere reproduced.The translator is deeply indebted to Father

William MacMahon, S.J., for his extreme kindnessin reading the manuscript of the translation, andfor the many valuable suggestions and emendationsthat he has made.


10/285


11/285

CONTENTSPAGEINTRODUCTION: ARTICLE ON SOLOYIEY BY

FATHER THOMAS J. GERRARD - ICHAPTER

I. NEWMAN AND SOLOVIEV 2QII. THE INFLUENCE OF TOLSTOI* AND TCHADAIEV - 35

III. EARLY INFLUENCES 50IV. SOLOVIEV AS PROFESSOR - 68V. SOLOVIEV AS WRITER 88VI. SOLOVIEV AS LOGICIAN 99vii. SOLOVIEV AS MORALIST: "THE JUSTIFICATION

OF GOOD " nSVIII. THE BEGINNING OF SOLOVIEV S WORK AS A THEO

LOGIAN : "EARLY ESSAYS" "THE GREATDEBATE " " JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY " 135

ix. SOLOVIEV S DEVELOPMENT AS A THEOLOGIANQUESTIONS PUT TO THE RUSSIAN HIERARCHY

HIS RELATIONS WITH MGR. STROSSMAYER" THE HISTORY AND FUTURE OF THEOCRACY " 164

X. THE CONCLUSIONS OF SOLOVIEV THE THEOLOGIAN : "THE RUSSIAN IDEAL" "LARUSSIE ET L EGLISE UNIVERSELLE " 184

xi. SOLOVIEV S ASCETICISM - 232


12/285


13/285


14/285

2 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEVNewman. There were other striking similaritiesbetween the two men, although their divergencieswere even more striking and more numerous.

Soloviev, like Newman, was very lonely in hissoul. He worked always from within the voice ofconscience was his all-impelling guide and force.His method was the personal one. He conceivedin his own peculiar way a philosophy of the wholeman, which was neither intellectualist, voluntarist,nor sentimentalist. With the watchword of " in-tegralism," he stood for the due equipoise of all thefaculties of man in the search for truth. He workedout for himself a method remarkably analogous toNewman s doctrine of the Illative Sense, but withthis important difference, that he always preserveda profound respect for the use and the value of thesyllogism.Yet if, on the one hand, he was personal andsubjective, it was always with a sane appreciationof the value of objective evidence. Like Newmanagain, he took a special delight in the study of HolyScripture and the Fathers, of Church history andthe development of religion. Like Newman, too,he had an ardent love for his own country. Hethought of Catholicism for Russia, and believed thatif only Russia were Catholic it would mean thereligious transformation of the whole world.Unlike Newman, Soloviev never became a priest.

Both before and after his conversion he preferredto work as a layman. Nevertheless, he deemedthat he could best follow his calling by remaininga celibate. Once, at the age of eighteen, he did


15/285

INTRODUCTION 3think of marriage, but, by the time he had arrivedat the age of twenty, he had fully resolved to leada single life.

Soloviev was born on January 16, 1853, theson of the Russian historian, Serge MikhailovitchSoloviev. His grandfather was a priest of theOrthodox Church, whilst on his mother s side hewas related to the philosopher Skovorod. Thusall the influences of his childhood tended to imbuehim with the spirit of the Slav. He grew up aSlav of the Slavs. What he wrote of his father inlater years was a summary of the influences whichbore on his own early life: " With a most passionatelove he loved Orthodoxy, science, and the Russianfatherland."The son, however, did not remain long under the

supervision of his parents. In 1864, at the age ofeleven, he passed into the gymnasium at Moscow.At once, even in these boyish years, he began toshow himself alive to the thought of the West. Itwas something other than what he had been accustomed to in his parental home. He read Strauss sLeben Jesu and Renan s Vie de Jesus. But thebook that most captivated him was Biichner sForce and Matter. It had just been censured, andwas consequently in the hands of many of the olderstudents. And consequently, also, it had to bein the hands of this boy philosopher. He read eachbook in its original language, and persuaded himselfthat he was solving a great question. So at theage of fourteen he came to the conclusion that hecould never more take part in any religious act.


16/285


17/285

INTRODUCTION 5own personal method of philosophizing made himsee that God must be both personal and transcendent.On leaving the gymnasium he had decided to be aphilosopher by profession, but not for the sake of aliving, nor yet for the sake of philosophy. He hada particular detestation of the principle of art forart s sake. All these things were for the sake oflove love of God and love of souls. Hence hecould have no use for the impersonal God of Spinoza.Thus did his personal method carry him over thestumbling-block of pantheism. Having cleared hisown mind, he next sought to bring his convictionto bear on his country. But he found himselfopposed both on the right and on the left. Hiscountrymen were divided into two camps, thosewho stood for the introduction of liberal thoughtfrom the West, and those who stood for the nationaltraditions. To these parties were given the namesrespectively of Occidentalists and Slavophiles.The Occidentalists, enamoured of the catchwords

" liberty " and " evolution," were ready for everykind of revolution. Existing institutions no longercommanded their respect. They wanted no moreTsar, nor yet any more Orthodox Church. Theycould even do without any form of Christianitywhatsoever. If they were to have any religion atall, they preferred the positivism of Auguste Comte.The Slavophiles, on the other hand, were guidedby two simple and almost identical principles,namely, to have nothing to do with the West, andnever to depart from the customs of the East. Thisdouble principle, of course, included the further one


18/285

6 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEVthat Orthodoxy was to remain the religion of Russia,and that every resistance must be offered to theRoman Catholic Church. The offices both in theState and in the Church were naturally filled withSlavophiles, whilst the Universities afforded opportunities for the Occidentalists. Both parties, however, were united in their hostility to Rome.Such was the general trend of thought whenSoloviev entered upon his career as a professor of

philosophy. He set for himself the task of reconciling the opposing camps. He would show thatliberty and authority were not mutually exclusive,but that an equipoise could be established betweenthem. This equipoise was also to be attainedbetween faith and science one could be learnedwithout giving up the faith. It was also to be attained between the Church and the fatherlandone could belong to a Universal Church and at thesame time be loyal to one s country. Solovievwas thus above all parties, and, consequently, wonfrom them varying measures of approval andopposition. The opposition, especially in the formsof the rigours of censorship, was so insistent throughout his short life that it was not until after his deaththat his influence began to produce evident effects.The ground wherein he proposed to sow his seedhad been prepared by two other philosophers, towhom he also was much indebted. The sterility

of Russian thought had been mercilessly exposedby Pierre Tchadaiev. The evils, economic andpolitical, with which Russia was afflicted, had beenlaid bare by Leo Tolstoi. But neither Tolstoi


19/285


20/285

8 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEVfor the utilization of the material world, a politicalsociety for the ordering of relations between manand man, and a religious society for the due subordination of man to God. Thus there is establisheda free theocracy. By this term Soloviev meant aknowledge of the divine prerogatives, a consequentlove of them, and a free acceptance of them whichalone could bring real liberty.

Russia, however, was not yet ripe for such advanced thought. The young professor s successwas brilliant, but it led to jealousy and intriguesagainst him. After three months of teaching hewas removed from his chair. He was not yet badenough for Siberia. So he was silenced by beingsent upon a scientific mission to London and Paris.The ostensible purpose of this journey was thestudy of spiritism and cabalism. In London, however, he occupied himself much with Anglicanismand the question of reunion with the OrthodoxChurch. From London he went to France and Italy,making his way to Egypt to study the beliefs ofthe Arabs. In the train he had his first experienceof Catholic clergy two hundred and fifty of themon their way to Rome. " Fine fellows," he calledthem, " and not one of them looked like a Jesuit."On his return he spent a month in Italy and a fortnight in Paris. It was in Paris that he first conceived the idea of a book on the Principle of UniversalReligion, an idea which fructified eventually in hischief work, Russia and the Universal Church. InParis, too, he met Renan, who made no betterimpression on him than that of " a vulgar boaster,"


21/285


22/285


23/285

INTRODUCTION nChrist. Every earthly activity must be subordinated to this end. The purpose of all societies,civil and economic, is to serve the Kingdom of God,the Church, the Universal Church, the CatholicChurch.From the above it is evident that from his early

manhood Soloviev was fully convinced of the doctrineof the Filioque. Living in the theological atmospherewhich he did, this alone must have been a tremendoushelp to him in adjusting his ideas on the UniversalChurch. As yet his concept of the Church waswanting in definition, and indeed some of its lineswere very crooked in comparison with the objectivereality. Nevertheless he hoped to see a UniversalChurch some day realized by an agreement betweenthe East and the West, and to bring about thisunion became the ruling passion of his life.One would have thought that the formulation of

his ideas would have been met with great favour bythe various authorities who were watching him.For he maintained that the Eastern Church represented a Divine foundation, whilst the Westernrepresented only human weakness; and it was theunion of these two elements which would producea spiritualized humanity, a Universal Church.But the proposal pleased no one. Conservativesand Liberals conspired together for the removalof Soloviev from the Petrograd University. Andwithin four months, namely in March, 1881, hiscareer as a professor was brought to a close, andthis time for ever.

In deference, however, to the Russian authorities,


24/285

12 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEVwe ought to say that it was not merely his abstractviews on a Universal Church which caused him tobe removed. These views fructified into certainpractical conclusions of which the Russian Statewas bound to take notice. For instance, Solovievprotested against the frequent executions in Russia,and invited the new Tsar to give Christian example.He asked him, for instance, not to execute regicides,but to give them a chance of moral enlightenmentand conversion. But Russia was not ready forsuch developments of the City of God.Thenceforward to the end of his life Soloviev wasrefused all public utterance, except by way of writingwhich could be controlled by the censor. A fewmonths before his death the University of Warsawobtained permission to offer him a chair. Theincident was useful as an indication of the growingtolerance of the Russian State, but it came too lateto be of any service to Soloviev as a lecturer. Henceforward his life was that of a writer.But even as a writer the censorship held him

within what he believed too limited a sphere. Hepersevered as long as he could in his native tongue.But the annoyances became so frequent that he atlength sought an outlet for his work in a foreignlanguage. His first article outside Russia appearedin a Croatian journal, Katolik List, under the titleEastern Church or Orthodox Church. In all hisevasions of the law, however, he remained loyal tothe Tsar and to Russia. When he was chargedwith want of patriotism he replied that his patriotismwas of a much better kind than was commonly


25/285

INTRODUCTION 13supposed; for his love for Russia was not a blindlove, blinding him to her faults, but a love whichenabled him to love her in spite of her faults. Whilstloving her he condemned her acts of injustice. Helonged for a greater and more beautiful Russia,less dominating and less violent. He wished fora Russia better ordered, more moral and moreChristian more truly worthy to be called HolyRussia. He hoped for a Russia influential less byits arms than by its faith and charity. He wanteda Russia that would develop the mystic body ofChrist and that would glorify the only and holyChurch of Jesus Christ.

In the past the hindrance to all religious progresshad been the schism between the East and the West.Here, then, was his problem of the future. Howcould there be an Orthodoxy truly Slavophile, yetobedient to the command to teach all nations ?To solve this question, Soloviev gave himself upto a systematic study of theology, at the same timekeeping his philosophy in living contact with thequestion. Indeed it is remarkable how he madenearly every question he touched lead up to thetheme of the Universal Church.As a philosopher his thought divided naturally

into two streams, the mental and the moral science.His treatise, The Philosophical Principles of anIntegral Science, laid down the basis of his metaphysics. He maintained that nearly all contemporaneous philosophy treated the intellectual life withtoo much isolation. It had been rudely divorcedfrom the life of man as a whole. Such a method,


26/285

I 4 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEVwhether by way of Hegelianism, or of empiricism,would be sure to lead to scepticism. Moreover,such a method missed the supreme question ofphilosophy, namely : Whither does this life lead ?Therefore Soloviev replied with his integralismor whole-man philosophy. In addition to theintelligence seeking the True, the full appropriationof reality involves a disposition of the will seekingthe Good, and a quickened sensibility seeking theBeautiful. Thus was this integral philosophy infull communication with physical science on theone hand and speculative thought on the other.With such experience it could turn human reflectiontowards superhuman realities. It could mount upbeyond human life, beyond cosmic life, until itreached the absolute Essence-Existence. As amoralist, Soloviev summed up his teaching in awork entitled, The Justification of the Good. Hisaim was to show his readers the real meaning oflife. He proposed to them three questions : Has lifegot a reason for its existence ? Must one seek forthe meaning of life in the moral order ? Does thehigher flight into that which is spiritual require,permit, or exact a sacrifice of that which would beexcess in physiological tendencies ?We have said that Soloviev was one of the foremost examples of the modern mind. This isespecially evident in his great work on morals.He not only showed the clearest grasp of thepresent situation, but also, like the EnglishNewman, he showed a keen anticipation of thefuture.


27/285

INTRODUCTION 15First, he dealt with the pessimists who abandoned

their lives to caprice, and who, when furthersatisfaction was not to be had, committed suicide.Even they bore witness to a higher meaning of life.They felt it and saw it, but they were too lazy tomake the effort to reach it.Then came the aesthetes of every kind. To them

life had a meaning because it was a great force,because it had a grandeur and a beauty. Moralitydid not enter into such concepts. The moral lifewas inconvenient and uncomfortable. Beauty,however, was fascinating, and the grandeur of lifeexalted and quickened us. It was the doctrineof the strong man set up by Nietzsche: " Slavescan adore a God Who makes Himself man andhumbles Himself. But the strong adore onlytheir own ascent to the superman, the endless progression of human beauty, human grandeur, andhuman power."

But, replied Soloviev, that endless progressionends in a corpse. Instead of beauty you haveputrefaction. The inexorable fact of death reducesthe body s beauty and grandeur and power tonothing. Christianity, on the contrary, is notfounded upon death, but upon the First-born fromthe dead, and real beauty, grandeur, and powercould only be found in the Absolute Good.Such is the general trend of the work, the finalaim being " the perfect organization of an integralhumanity." And such organization postulated aUniversal Church. Thus the philosopher has allunconsciously transformed himself into a theologian.


28/285

1 6 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEVYet not unconsciously, for he is careful to noticethat the superhuman is not acquired by naturalscience, having need of a special communication." This communication, willed by God, opens to ourthought a new sphere of studies and contemplations :the intimate deeps of divinity become accessibleto theology and the mystical life." Henceforward,therefore, theology was to claim a larger share ofhis attention. And he needed it. He was soextremely nationalist, so thoroughly imbued withSlavophile ideas, that he thought the Christianrestoration of the world was reserved for Russiaand the Orthodox Church. The Western Churchhad dwelt too much on the material element ofthe Incarnation, propagating the faith by force,and thinking more of ecclesiastical domination thanthe love of Christ. And as for the Reformation,although it fought against these abuses, yet it wasitself poisoned with Western individualism, andshrunk into sheer rationalism. Soloviev, in aword, had just that view of " Romanism " whichwas traditional and current in the East.

Nevertheless he resolved to face an independentinquiry into the value of the Roman Catholic claims.He gave himself up to the volumes of Mansi andMigne. The Councils and the Fathers were thesources whence he sought the truth. He made aRussian translation of the Didache, claiming, inhis introduction, that it showed how Providencewas always allied to a perpetual hierarchy and thedogma of the sacraments. The due developmentsof these doctrines, therefore, were not novelties


29/285

INTRODUCTION 17invented by the Catholic Church, as the OrthodoxChurch asserted.Once again the enemies of Soloviev were roused.He went forward, however, and even ventured to

censure the spiritual power in Russia. He blamedthe Holy Synod for the sin of inaction. At thesame time he delivered a counter-blast againstthe Roman Catholic Church. In the West, he said,the Papacy had set up the Pope in place of Christ,and Protestantism had hunted out Christ. Orthodox Russia alone, up to the eighteenth century,had respected the liberty of souls. The separationof the East from the West ought never to have takenplace. The evil wrought by Constantinople shouldbe repaired by Russia. Having grown up andbecome conscious of herself, Russia should no longercontinue the historic sin of Constantinople. Romewas thoroughly Christian because she was universal.Let us not exaggerate her faults.Then he issued his important work: The GreatConflict and Christian Politics. The conflict, ofcourse, was that between the East and the West.It was not essentially a religious conflict, but oneof radical tendencies. The East was contemplative,and in this guise yielded itself to every form ofinactivity. The West was active, and in this guiseyielded itself to the merely human. The Incarnationrestrained the two tendencies. Nevertheless theywere the real cause of the schism of 1054 : the Filioquewas but the pretext. Pride and ambition, hemaintained, had caused the Popes to restore theold Caesarism. That was not the authority with


30/285

i8 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEVwhich the Church of Christ should be ruled. Theword Caput Ecclesia," he wrote,

" cannot be appliedto all the Popes ; only those have merited it in whomChristian humanity has been able to recognize theEternal Pontiff." The book caused a big sensation.Its purpose was immediately turned into a politicaldirection. Soloviev was charged with agitatingon behalf of Poland !A refutation of the work was attempted by theArchpriest A. M. Ivantzov-Platanov. Solovievreplied with nine leading questions. These wereintended rather for the whole Russian hierarchy.But they reached much farther. They travelledas far as Rome, and were made the subject of aconference by Cardinal Mazzella.There was now an active communication set

up between Soloviev and certain representativeCatholics. Soloviev wrote to Bishop Strossmayerof Bosnia and Sirmium, asking for an intervieweither at Agram or Djakovo. The Russian police,however, were on the watch. They interruptedhis plans, and for six months prevented him fromleaving the country. But on June 29, 1886, hemanaged to arrive at Vienna, and from there wroteimmediately to Bishop Strossmayer. The Bishopwelcomed him as his guest at Djakovo, where heremained for two months. Both host and guestwere enthusiastically Slavophile, a circumstancewhich enabled them to come near together in theirdiscussions on the cause of reunion.Yet with all his good intentions towards Rome

Soloviev asserted his constancy towards Russia


31/285

INTRODUCTION 19and the Church of Russia. Writing to BishopStrossmayer on his way home, he enclosed a memorandum in which he declared that after the reunion" the superior position which always belonged tothe Eastern Church, and which now in Russiabelonged to the Orthodox Emperor, should remainintact."

This memorandum marked a new direction forSoloviev. He understood that henceforward hismission in life was, at the cost of every personalsacrifice, to work for an agreement between Russiaand the Catholic Church. He would show by hisexample that a Slav could and ought, whilst remaining a Slav, to widen his heart and soul towardsCatholic faith and zeal, and prove that RomanCatholicism completed, crowned and unified allthat was legitimate in the traditional Orthodoxyof the East.For the realization of this idea he planned a largework in three volumes, to which he gave the title of

The History and Future of Theocracy. But onlyone volume saw the light. The censor refusedpermission to print. Soloviev again had recourseto a foreign publisher. After having made certainexcisions in the hope that the book might be admittedto Russia, he issued it at Agram. But the compromise was ineffective; the book was prohibited.Soloviev now felt that it was waste of time to writeany further in Russian for the Russians. He musttry a more roundabout way. So he began a newwork in French, one which proved to be his greatestand most effectual : Russia and the Universal Church.


32/285

2o VLADIMIR SOLOVIEVThe fundamental thesis of this, which embodied

his one aim in life, might be stated as follows:" The Universal Church is founded on the truthaffirmed by our faith. Since truth is one, the truefaith must also be one. And since the unity offaith does not reside really and directly in thewhole body of the faithful, it must be sought in thelawful authority residing in one head authorityhaving the guarantee of divine assistance andthus received with love and confidence by all thefaithful/ * And the first step in the explicationof the thesis was "to establish a moral and intellectual bond between the religious conscience ofRussia and the truth of the Universal Church."His hope lay in the simple Russian people. Hedrew a big distinction between the intellectualsand officials on the one hand and the multitude onthe other. The latter, he maintained, were reallyCatholic in their faith and piety. It was the officialtheologians who were so anti-Catholic.A work of less importance, though perhaps of moretopical interest at the present moment, is the onewhich has lately been offered to the English-speakingpublic. Its correct title is: War, Progress, and theEnd of History : Three Discussions. Two Englishtranslations have appeared during

the past year,one issued by the University of London Press underthe aforesaid title, the other issued by Constableunder the title: War and Christianity from theRussian point of view : Three Conversations.The book was written as an antidote to Tolstoi.

* La Russie et I Eglise universetle, Paris, 1889, p. 93-


33/285

INTRODUCTION 21The question of militarism was exercising people sminds. Tolstoi had been writing against war,and with such effect that men were resenting conscription. Officers even were known to have beenashamed of the army and to have given up theirprofession in consequence. Tolstoi had, in fact,created an impression that war had no moraldefence.

Soloviev came forward as the champion of hiscountry s cause. He was quite as good a Slav asTolstoi and a much better disputant. Tolstoihad preached from the text: " Resist not him thatis evil, but whosoever smiteth thee on the rightcheek, turn to him the other also." From that hehad inferred that the use of physical force in thesettlement of disputes showed a desire to do evil,and therefore was wrong.The logical outcome of such teaching requiredthe abrogation of all military and police arrangements. Soloviev saw in this nothing but the downfall of European civilization, and its replacementby a Pan-Mongolism. So he asks: " Can reasonand conscience count up to three ?" If so, then theymust see how wrong it is for number one to standby, whilst number two persecutes the innocentnumber three.

This argument he embodies in an imaginaryconversation, which takes place between fiveRussians in a garden on the shores of the Mediterranean. An old General, a politician, a youngprince, a lady of middle age, and Mr. Z. make upthe company. The prince is obviously meant for


34/285

22 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEVTolstoi, and Mr. Z. for Soloviev himself. TheGeneral, who is the chief speaker in the first conversation, tells the story of one of his exploits inthe Russo-Turkish War. A large party of Bashi-Bazouks had sacked an Armenian village, committing unspeakable atrocities. " I could not mention,"says the General, " all the details. One picture isclear in my eyes at this moment a woman lyingon her back on the ground, her neck and shoulderstied to the cart-wheel in such a way that she couldnot turn her head, and she lay there neither burntnor broken, but with a ghastly twisted expressionon her face she had evidently died from terror.In front of her was a high pole stuck into the ground,and a naked baby was tied to it probably herown son all black with fire and its eyes protruding."With Cossacks and artillery he set out in pursuitand overtook them. First one Cossack and thenanother rolled over, until at length the eldestcenturion came to him and asked: "Order us toattack, Excellency ! Otherwise anathema will fallupon us before we get the artillery into position."" Be patient, darlings," he replies, "just for a little.I know you can scatter them, but what sweetnessis there in that ? God orders me to make an endof them, not to scatter them."And he did make an end of them. " God blessedall my six cannon. It was the one occasion in mylife when I experienced a complete moral satisfaction. My act remains till now, and will of courseremain for ever, my purest memory. Well, and thatone good act of mine was a murder, and not by any


35/285


36/285

24 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEVOrthodox by the venerable John, and the Protestants by one Professor Ernest Pauli. The company,all told, numbered twelve. They assembled together" in the darkness of the night on a high and lonelyplace," on the barren hills near Jericho, andthen and there was the union of the Churchesaccomplished.

Soloviev, therefore, was keenly conscious of themany obstacles which were in the way of the objectfor which he laboured, and of the time it must takebefore it could be realized. He seemed to knowthat his own end was not far distant, for he leaveshis allegory unfinished the writer, he said, wishedto write more when he got better. But he did notget well, and the end of the tale was buried withhim in the Danilof monastery. Soloviev, as amatter of fact, died suddenly a few weeks later at theage of forty-seven on a journey to see his mother.But what about his own conversion ? Long,long ago he had sung his " Lead, Kindly Light ":

" Beneath the morning mists I went with tremblingfootsteps towards the enchanted land shores fullof mystery. The crimson of the dawn put out thestars; my dreams still hovered round me, and mysoul, still wrapped in them, prayed to the UnknownGod.

" In the white freshness of the day I walk, alwaysalone, through an undiscovered country. Themists disperse. Mine eyes see clear ahead howsteep the mountain path is, and how far awayeverything still seems everything that I havedreamed !


37/285

INTRODUCTION 25" Until nightfall will I go; marching with un

wearied stride to the long-desired shore, where,under the light of the early stars and in the blazeof triumphal fires, glows on the mountain top thetemple that was promised me the home that shallbe mine."But did the mist clear away, and did the temple

of the Church reveal itself to his vision ? Duringthe later years of his life and for some years afterhis death certain doubts have prevailed concerningthis. Nor have reasons for the doubts been wanting.First there was some necessity for keeping the mattersecret. Soloviev had been warned that if he leftParis to enter Russia he would surely be arrestedand deported. Orders had actually been given forhis internment in a monastery in Archangel. Hencethere was need of a prudent silence. Then afterhis death his relations who remained Orthodox wereat pains to show that he had never become Catholic.At length, however, the full truth came out.On February 18, 1896, he was received into the

Catholic Church by a convert priest, M. NicolasTolstoi. The event took place in the chapel ofNotre Dame de Lourdes at Moscow in the presenceof the members of M. Tolstoi s family and of severaleminent people of Petrograd and Moscow. Thepriest was arrested next day, but managed to evadeprosecution, and a few days later was in Rome toreport the conversion to Pope Leo XIII.

Soloviev had ever stood for the privileges of theEastern rites, and now he made it quite clear thatin joining the Catholic Church he was not joining


38/285


39/285

INTRODUCTION 27Russian Government has shown so much oppositionto a pioneer of Catholicism, and now tolerates himand gives him freedom, let us take hope for thefuture. Big institutions always move slowly, andRussia is a very big institution.


40/285


41/285

CHAPTER INEWMAN AND SOLOVIEV

AT first sight there seems to be little resemblancebetween the great English Cardinal and the so-called Russian Newman. Further consideration,however, will show that their chief points of difference may be reduced to two Soloviev was nevera priest, either before or after his conversion toCatholicism, and his compatriots never knew withcertainty whether it was on account of the liturgicalceremonies that he sought admission to the Churchof Rome. He personally was convinced that hehad at no period been completely outside her fold,but thought that the Slavonic nations were notabsolutely cut off from the Church, because thehistoric excommunication affected Constantinopleand not Russia. For instance, in 1888 he wrote:" Russia is not formally and regularly separatedfrom the Catholic Church. It occupies in thisrespect an abnormal and undecided position,eminently favourable to reunion. The false andanti-Catholic doctrines, taught in our seminariesand theological colleges are not binding upon theRussian Church as a whole, nor do they in any wayaffect the faith of the people, The government of

29


42/285

30 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEVthe Russian Church is illegal, schismatical, condemned (lata sententia) by the third canon of theseventh (Ecumenical Council; it is rejected by aconsiderable number of orthodox Russians (theOld Believers), and is tolerated in a half-heartedfashion by the rest. It is unfair to blame theRussian nation for the Csesaropapism underwhich it groans, and against which it neverceases to protest. Men like Pobedonostsev andTolstoi are no more representative of Russia thanmen such as Floquet, Goblet, and Freycinet are ofFrance."

Soloviev used to refer, in support of his theory,to the attitude adopted by Mgr. (afterwards Cardinal)Vannutelli, at the time of his legation to Moscowin 1883. For a member of the Russian Churchto embrace Catholicism two things only were, inhis opinion, necessary viz., to reject the anti-canonical claims of the Sacred Synod, and to submitto the jurisdiction and infallible authority of thePope. Under existing circumstances, since theSlav Uniate rite, being forbidden by the RussianGovernment, could not be established in the empire,Soloviev thought that it would be a mistake to requireanything further, because it would involve disobedience to the pontifical laws against the latini-zation of Orientals, and would justify the calumniousstatement that Rome cherishes an undying hostilityto the holy and venerable traditions of the East.To the end of his life he desired that the membersof the Orthodox Church in Russia should be permitted to submit directly to the Holy See, without


43/285

NEWMAN AND SOLOVIEV 3*being forced, or even allowed, to go through anycanonical formality.

Soloviev s profession of faith was as completeas Newman s, and bore no resemblance to Pusey stimid hesitation. The anguish of mind that preceded it, and the ostracism that followed it, werenot unlike Newman s trials. Both felt at first astrong prejudice against the Papacy, and in the caseof each this prejudice was overcome by loyaltyto religion, fervour in prayer, desire to see the light,and resolution to do God s will. Both sufferedkeenly when they felt it to be their duty to giveup the instruction of others; Newman ceased hissermons in St Mary s at Oxford, and Soloviev wasremoved from his lectureship in Petrograd.It is no easy task to analyze the more subtlepoints of likeness between these two men. Eachpossessed the soul of a philosopher; each was anintuitive theologian, an artist, and a scholar; eachhad deep affections and perfect purity. Theirtastes seem to have been identical ; they both lovedHoly Scripture and the Fathers, especially St.Augustine; both studied ecclesiastical history andthe philosophy of religious development, bothstrove to raise human knowledge to God, and toinculcate the daily duties of religion. Both, evenbefore their conversion, pledged themselves toperpetual celibacy; both were impelled to sacrificeearthly friendships that they might follow Christ;both were so passionately enamoured of theircountry and the Catholic Church as to offer themselves to undergo any suffering, if only a reconcili-


44/285

32 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEVation could be effected between these objects oftheir love.A man s mind often affects his outward appear

ance and expression, and those who knew Newmanin his younger days might have discovered somelikeness to him in the description of Soloviev atthe age of twenty-three, given by the Vicomte deVogue", after meeting him for the first time in 1876,at the house of M. de Lesseps in Cairo. De Voguewrites: " Soloviev has one of those faces that cannever be forgotten; he has fine regular features,his face is thin and pale, surrounded by long, curlyhair. His eyes are wonderful, piercing and thoughtful. He seems to be an idea clothed in flesh, ofthe type of the Slav Christ depicted by the monkson old ikons, one who loves in spite of calumny andsuffering. Soloviev is a dialectician and a dreamer;frank as a child, complex as a woman, perplexing,attractive, and indescribable."

Fifty years earlier a familiar figure in the streetsof Oxford was that of a young clergyman, wearinga shabby long coat ; he was thin and pale, and stoopeda little, his eyes were large and flashing, but he gavethe impression of being frail and delicate. Hegenerally walked quickly, absorbed in thought, orelse engaged in conversation with some friend.This Englishman certainly bore some resemblanceto the Russian whom Eugene Tavernier met inParis in 1888, at the house of the Princess vonSayn-Wittgenstein, and whom he describes as" very tall and thin, with splendid eyes, marvellouslygentle, clear, and piercing, in spite of being short-


45/285

NEWMAN AND SOLOVIEV 33sighted. His manner was unassuming and somewhatshy; his speech revealed his energetic daring andfirmness; his voice was expressive, deep, and fullof startling inflections, now serious, now caressing.A mind characteristically French was as natural tohim as to a Parisian."

Soloviev s life was much shorter than Newman she died at an age when Newman was still at

Littlemore, but his influence in Russia is neverthelessvery great. During his lifetime " many calledhim a prophet, sometimes in jest, sometimes inearnest ; but now we can see that the service whichhe rendered us was in very truth that of a prophet,and, although he was at first misunderstood andridiculed in his own country, he is becoming morehighly appreciated year by year." The abovewords, written by S. N. Boulgakov in 1903, aremore true now than then. Soloviev s works havehad a powerful influence upon the trend of philosophical and religious thought in Russia, and thisinfluence continues to increase Before, however,he was in a position to exert it, he was himselfmoulded and impressed by his surroundings, andin order to gain a correct opinion of him, we mustlook at his environment, and consider in broad outlines the prevailing tendencies of Russian thoughtbetween 1850 and 1880. When we have donethis, we shall perceive the circumstances thatformed his character, and shall be able to appreciate his originality. The study of his personality will disclose the historical importance of hiswork, and will perhaps throw some light upon

3


46/285

34 VLADIMIR SOLO VIEVthe probable course of the movement that heinitiated.

We can draw upon Soloviev himself for a description of the state of Russia during this period.He often dealt with this subject, and treated itfully in his National Question in Russia, as well asin numerous articles, such as The Russian NationalIdeal and The Historical Sphinx, Byzantinism andRussia. From the moment of their publication,his opinions aroused much discussion, but he neverabandoned them.

Prejudice and excessive attention to detail havecaused many to overlook the truth of an independentsynthesis, which may even now astonish someRussians. They would do well, however, to notethat the following pages do not contain any preconceived system devised by a foreigner, but theopinions expressed by a Russian thinker, whosepatriotism is beyond question, and whose viewshave often been proved correct by subsequentevents. The very severity of his judgments willemphasize the progress already made by Russiaduring the past few years.


47/285

CHAPTER IITHE INFLUENCE OF TOLSTOI AND TCHADAIEVSOLOVIEV S first essay was written in 1873, a yearthat marks the centre of a period during whichRussia achieved great success in her foreign policy,but began to lose her vital energy through internaldisputes. The German Emperor was solemnly received at Petrograd, and his nephew, Alexander II.,congratulated him publicly on having establisheda new empire, and exacted vengeance for the misfortunes of the Crimean War. Since the latestrebellion in Poland had been crushed, just beforethe insurrections destined to deliver the ChristianSlavs of the south from the Turkish yoke, Russiaseemed to dominate the East, just as Germany wassupreme in the West of Europe she had regainedher diplomatic and military prestige in the eyes offoreign nations.On the other hand, signs of disturbance were increasing in the interior. Tolstoi s influence hadrevealed to the masses and to individuals theirsecret grievances. The evil was not the directresult of his teaching, but each reader suspectedits existence in himself and others. During anepidemic, the mere description of contagious dis-

35


48/285

36 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEVeases tends, doubtless, to spread them, and a bookon medicine may, at such a time, be dangerous topeople with a morbid imagination. In the sameway Tolstoi s works aggravated the sense of individual suffering, or actually caused it by way ofsuggestion. Everyone thought that, because allmen suffered, he himself was suffering; everyonefelt pity for his own lot; did not Count Tolstoigrieve over the misery of Russia ?We must not, however, exaggerate. M. Radlov,Soloviev s venerable friend, wrote the followingremark in his Biographical Notes on Soloviev :" Tolstoi certainly contributed towards checkingthe influence of materialism in Russia, and developing interest in religious questions." We may readilyendorse this opinion, and we shall see how Solovievhimself was at first affected by German materialism,that for a long time predominated in Russia, whilstlaity and clergy alike displayed total indifferenceto religious thought. On minds and hearts thuspoisoned with indifferentism, Tolstoi s works actedin many cases as an antidote. Nevertheless, ananti-Christian movement is associated with thename of Tolstoi, although his fame is greater inthe West than among his own countrymen, towhom many of his creations appear unreal andfanciful.We are perhaps too apt to believe that he personifies every type of Russian character, that his heroesand their actions represent accurately the psychologyof individuals and social realities, and that theparadoxes of his gospel, built on clouds with fantastic


49/285

TOLSTOI AND TCHADAIEV 37outlines, would form collectively the ideal of everySlav thinker, whether simple or refined.Men of intellect in Petrograd and Moscow donot share all our enthusiasm; they acknowledge

Tolstoi s merits as a writer and his generoussacrifices as a man ; they admire the painful accuracyof his descriptions, the precision of his analysis,and the purity of his style, but at the present timethey criticize him as a thinker, condemn his theories,and resist his influence.

This resistance hardly existed in 1873, and wecannot estimate all the depressing results of Tolstoi steaching, which was the more disastrous becauseit found justification in facts. We are told thathe is not the incarnation of Russia, and it is true;he and the characters in his books are Russian,but they do not stand alone. Karataiev, Gricha,and Vronsky are drawn from nature, but there aremany other types besides these ; and it may be thatTolstoi s influence will be fleeting, like that ofNihilism, and we should judge Russia unfairlyif we looked at it altogether from his point of view;we might as well examine it through a telescope,the object-glass of which was directed towards thesmoke of bombs. Russia deserves better treatmentthan this.The foregoing remarks would certainly not havebeen accurate during the stormy period between

1860 and 1885. Then, indeed, both individualsand society in general seemed only too often incapable of distinguishing good from evil; in fact,they were not far from regarding right and wrong


50/285

38 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEVas identical. As early as 1830 Count PeterTchadaiev (1794-1856), a very original thinkerand a true forerunner of Soloviev, had a presentiment of this misfortune. In a letter written atMoscow on December i, 1829, he says: " We areall deficient in enterprise, method, and logic, andthe syllogism of the West is unknown to us. Yetthere is something more than frivolity in our bestintellects, although our noblest ideas, for want ofconnection and sequence, are productive of nothing,and remain paralyzed in our brains." And again:" Ours is the recklessness of a life without experience or foresight, which is connected with nothingbut the ephemeral existence of an individualisolated from his species. . . . We have absolutely no idea of what is general; everything is tous particular, vague, and incomplete."Such statements, like all satires, are exaggerated,but contain an element of truth. Until towardsthe end of the nineteenth century, philosophicalthought seemed incapable of growth in Russia.In these circumstances philosophy is unknown, andthis lack of general culture allows all sorts of folliesto run riot; minds have to choose between beingpoisoned or dying of starvation.The philosophism of the eighteenth centurysupplied no remedy for the evil, since it containedvery little real philosophy, and this little remainedsomething foreign to the Russian mind, not beingits product, and not penetrating to its depths.There were the same defects in the pseudo-scholasticism of the Orthodox seminaries. Derived


51/285

TOLSTOI AND TCHADAlEV 39as it was from miserable German school-books of1730, it was still further impoverished by theelimination of everything distinctively Catholic orProtestant in tone. No Russian element was addedto supplement this defective teaching, and noeffort at adaptation enabled the Russian mind toassimilate it. There was nothing but a Latinhandbook, dry and unintelligible; and scholasticismhas thus always been caricatured in Russia, sothat it is easy to understand why it fell into disfavour, and is still regarded with contempt by menof the highest intelligence. Philosophy became asynonym for incoherence, and under such conditionsit was bound to perish, and its final disappearancewas effected by the reform of 1840, which requiredit to be taught in Russian and not in Latin. Thename, indeed, continued to appear in the syllabus,and no one noticed that it stood for nothing. Wecan hardly say that philosophy disappeared, forit had never been anything but a name in Russia.Very few perceived the danger of an educationthat filled the brain with knowledge without culti

vating the intellect. Words learnt by heart, listsof events, etc., cannot replace human thought,and the least spark may cause an explosion wheregunpowder is loosely stored.Tchadaiev wrote: "Where are our scholars,our thinkers ? Who amongst us has ever thought

at all and who is thinking for us to-day ?" Hewas in a pessimistic mood when he said: " Thereis something in our blood averse to all true progress.We live only that our remote descendants, who


52/285

40 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEVunderstand what it is, may learn a great lesson fromus." But perhaps he did not exaggerate when heremarked to his contemporaries: " Isolated as weare in the world, we have given it nothing, we havetaught it nothing; we have not added a single ideato the body of human thought ; we have contributednothing to the progress of the human mind, and wehave disfigured all that this progress has bestowedon us. Since the first moment of our social existence, nothing has emanated from us for the commongood of mankind; not one useful thought has beenproduced by the barren soil of our country ; not onegreat truth has flashed out from our midst ; we neverhave taken the trouble to imagine anything ourselves, and from what others have imagined we haveborrowed only deceptive appearances and uselessluxury."

This passage, unfortunately, was brought to thenotice of Nicholas I., with terrible results. TheTsar wrote on the margin of the manuscript threewords only: " Is he mad ?" but the courtiers wentfurther, and Tchadaiev was forthwith deprived ofall his degrees and appointments. The Courtphysician was ordered to visit him daily to reporton his mental condition, until the count was reducedto writing the Apology of a Madman, dedicated tothe Emperor.Under the burden of his misfortunes Schelling spupil turned his attention to the study of Christianity, and there can be no doubt that what hewrote then regarding the universal influence ofChrist and His work contributed towards the


53/285

TOLSTOI AND TCHADAIEV 4*conversion to Catholicism of his old pupil, PrinceGagarin. The latter, who subsequently became aJesuit, did much to restore his master s reputationby publishing a selection from the works ofthis first Russian thinker. At the present timeTchadaiev, once regarded as a maniac, is studied,admired, and respected, almost as if he were aprophet.

Soloviev had much in common with Tchadaiev,though he went further, and rendered the ideas,derived from his predecessor, more precise andcomplete. Soloviev concerned himself with synthesis and deductions; Tchadaiev was contentedto express his occasionally very remarkable intuitions regarding the philosophy of history. Letus consider two or three instances in which he servedas a model to Soloviev.On the subject of the dignity of thought beforeand after the time of Christ he wrote: " There isnothing more simple than the glory of Socrates,the only man in the ancient world to die for hisconvictions. This unique example of heroism couldnot but amaze the men of his nation (materialisticGreeks). But is it not foolish for us to misunderstand him as they did, when we have seen wholenations lay down their life for the sake of truth ?"

In 1898 Soloviev wrote:" By his death Socratesdisplayed all the moral force of which pure humanity

is capable; anything further requires the supernatural strength of Him who has power to riseagain to everlasting life. The weakness and downfall of the divine Plato show that man cannot


54/285


55/285

TOLSTOI AXD TCHADAlEV 43was expelled from the ranks of the clergy for havingexpressed opinions tinged with Tchadaiev s philosophy.After Tchadaiev there were a few poets, novelists,and some sincerely religious men like Khomiakov,the elite of Orthodox Russia in the middle of thenineteenth century, who studied the aspirations ofthe Slavs. At first sight the Slavs are a quietrace, very uniform in character, but in reality theyare restless and varied. Their feelings are in a kindof irregular ebb and flow, and sudden storms followlong periods of calm. Outbursts of rage in individuals and rebellions among the masses are rare,but terrible when they occur. There is still anunderlying current of barbarism and fanaticismin the race. Many students have been contentedwith a superficial examination of the Russiancharacter; they are struck by the spirit of apathyand resignation, and do not fathom the depth ofhidden feeling. Yet it is in the restless subcon-sciousness that storms arise; and there, for the lastsixty years, a steady movement has been going on fvery slow at first, but becoming more perceptibleyear by year; the hoary mass of ancestral traditionsis slowly but surely yielding to the pressure of theWestern nations, and more than once it has seemedon the point of giving way altogether, as thoughthe house had been built on sand, and not on a rock.A spectacle such as this impels men to reflect.At the end of the nineteenth century several Russiansattempted to philosophize, some with considerablesuccess, but their influence was invariably limited


56/285

44 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEVto a narrow circle, and of them all Soloviev alone iswidely known. In spite of the attacks of jealousrivals, his fame now surpasses that of all the rest,and he tends to eclipse them altogether.For a long time there was in Russia much op

position to Soloviev s prestige and activity in thedirection of reform. Towards the middle of thenineteenth century utilitarians and Utopians formedtwo antagonistic camps, and, in spite of all remonstrances on the part of some few serious thinkers,they adopted two opposite lines of action, bothequally extreme and intolerant. The one partyaimed at copying the Western nations, and wasknown as that of the Occidentalists, whereas theSlavophile party clung to its own national traditions.The latter refused to have anything to do with theWest, or to abandon any ancestral custom, and soit enjoyed proud isolation both in politics andreligion, and insisted upon absolute immobility ineducation and legislation. It called itself theNationalist party, and although it could not requireall its adherents to be believers, it forced them, byits veneration for the past, to struggle in defence ofnational and anti-Roman Orthodoxy. A decidedbut judicious scheme of social and religious reformhad been already drawn up by a few clear-sightedpoliticians, some reformers who understood the trueinterests of their country and some sincere Christians.All these desired to give fresh life to nationalthought and activity by bringing them into touchwith the best elements of Western life, if it could


57/285

TOLSTOI AND TCHADAlEV 45be done gradually and without causing any violentupheaval. These reformers quickly drew uponthemselves the hostility of the extreme Nationalists.At the beginning of their conflict, members of bothparties continued to meet in society, but in courseof time the most noisy and violent spirits prevailedover men who held more moderate opinions. Beingconfronted with the most bigoted Slavophiles, theother party inevitably went further in the oppositedirection, and in its turn displayed more enthusiasmthan wisdom. This was deeply regretted by theprudent members of the party, but after 1860 theirinfluence waned entirely.The programme put forward by the Occidentalistswas, in its way, as simple as that of the most rabidSlavophiles. Under the pretext of evolution andprogress, it aimed at a universal overthrow of theexisting state of affairs. It made positivism itsexcuse for violent efforts to destroy authority andlevel all inequalities; there was to be no tchin, noTsar, no empire, and the liberty of the individualwas to take the place of organized society. Theleaders of the Occidentalist movement had latelyproclaimed their wish to have no purely nationalChurch, fatally enslaved to the civil power. Thosewho claimed to be their followers declared thatthey would not have any Church at all. The" Young Liberals," both doctrinaires and revolutionaries, condemned alike every form of Christianity,resisted every sign of a Christian spirit, and went sofar as to assert dogmatically, in the name of theirparty, the incompatibility of science and faith.


58/285

46 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEVThey held that the modern spirit produced bypositivism would destroy all religion, but especiallyall the religions known as positive. Most of theSlavophile party were connected with the Government, and thus they were supported by the forceof the State and the influence of the State Church;they traded upon the traditional passivity of themasses.The Liberals occupied almost all the chairs atthe Universities, and so possessed a means of

propaganda valuable everywhere, but of almostincalculable importance in a country where allother free manifestation of thought is proscribed.They were the scientific party, and had everyopportunity of appealing to the critical tastes ofan aristocracy which had come into contact withWestern nations, of stirring up excitement amongnoisy or frivolous students, and of taking the leadamong a half-educated middle-class, that followedthem like a flock of sheep. Open hostilities soonbroke out, and the two parties engaged in skirmishesalmost every day. Their chiefs conceived a deadlyhatred of one another the expression is not exaggerated and only the more moderate weresatisfied with sending their rivals to Siberia, whilstthe rank and file in each camp assumed an attitudeof bitter antagonism.Men of the same nation, who hardly knew oneanother, were always ready to welcome and tospread any calumny likely to bring their opponentsinto disrepute or ridicule. They were divided onevery point save one hostility to Rome. Rome


59/285

TOLSTOI AND TCHADA!EV 47insisted upon the universality of the Church,whereas the Russian national spirit was determinedto enforce everywhere, even in the service of God,the isolation of one chosen race. This principlewas described as racial independence. Rome stoodat the head of the most vigorous and prolific organization of Christians, and the boldest leaders ofRussian liberalism were bent upon destroyingChristianity root and branch.

" Resistance to the encroachments of Rome "was the only war-cry raised by all Russians,regardless of party, though the truces between thembecame less frequent, and of shorter duration, astime went on.Otherwise the line of division was unbroken, and

there was no via media between the two extremeparties; unbelievers and Orthodox alike adoptedas their motto the words " He that is not with meis against me "words intelligible enough whenuttered by One whose wisdom is infallible, but almostblasphemous when used to support the institutionsof a man like Peter the Great or indigenous superstitions. Yet neither Liberals nor Slavophilestroubled about such considerations, and did nothesitate on every occasion to employ this imperiousand autocratic formula.Vladimir Soloviev felt the incongruity more than

once, and often complained bitterly that in eachcamp theory and practice were in constant conflict ;but his complaints for a long time attracted noattention. Even when this contradiction waspointed out, no one troubled about it. Was party


60/285

4 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEVspirit to be put aside for such a trifle ? What didcontradictions matter ? Each was fighting for hisown ideas, and that was enough. Could they berequired to search deeply into these ideas and bringthem into harmony, and then take them as a rulefor conduct ? Such were the replies given toSoloviev.The tactics and systems of both parties were

indeed incoherent and contradictory, but no oneseemed disturbed or surprised at it. In spite oftheir claims to stability, the Slavophiles strayedinto unforeseen paths and pursued in all directionsincongruous traces of a past that had never hadany real existence. Their vivid imaginations causedthe imperfections of the true past to disappear, and,with complete disregard of chronology, they viewedit in a manner both historically inaccurate andlogically incoherent. They had to select certainfeatures of the past for revival, and the selectionwas carried on secretly; the features that did notfind favour were rejected unconditionally. Forinstance, the most ardent admirers of all the nationaltraditions of Christianity tried to crush with theiranathemas and judicial decisions certain Christiansects, essentially Slav, that were known as Staro-veres, and consisted of Old Ritualists or OldBelievers.On the other hand, striding across the centuries,they put in juxtaposition all the remains that tooktheir fancy; they dug up relics of bygone ages,and imagined that, by dint of decking an old trunkwith flowers stored up in some herbarium since the


61/285

TOLSTOI AND TCHADAtEV 49tenth century, they could impart to the tree a lifethat should be unchanging and eternal.There were similar contradictions among theextreme Neo-Occidentalists, who would fain havecut down the tree in order, forsooth, to give morefreedom to its parts, and more life to its cells andtissues. They spoke only of evolution, but thechanges that they desired would have involved disintegration. They wished to make progress, butthe absolute equality, that they aimed at imposingupon all, would have killed all spontaneity andhindered all development and movement.

Soloviev s influence gradually affected both groupsof combatants. We shall see later on what furiousopposition he encountered from the militant partywhen he began his work; but before we considerthese struggles, and his task in the capacity of peacemaker, we must see how, through the events thatformed his character, Providence prepared him tounderstand and help his fellow-countrymen.


62/285


63/285

EARLY INFLUENCES 51had a passionate affection for Orthodoxy, science,and his native land."On his mother s side Vladimir was connectedwith the family of the Ukraine philosopher Skovorod.Her name was Polyxene Vladimirovna Romanov,and she survived until June, 1909. Vladimir sgrandfather, Mikhail Vassilievitch Soloviev, wasa priest of the Orthodox Church. The boy wasbrought up in the principles of primitive Slavophilism until he entered the Gymnasium at Moscowin 1864, when his surroundings underwent a complete change. Although the book had been condemned by the censor, Biichner s Force and Matterwas

being studied enthusiastically by youngRussians, and Soloviev secretly read it in German;afterwards he read Strauss, and then Renan sVie de Jesus in French.As early as 1867 he cast aside Christianity andall faith in the spiritual life, and wrote: " Biichner scatechism of science prevailed over the religiouscatechism compiled by Philaretus." It was achildish judgment, and its deliberate reversal ata later date revealed a maturity of thought unusual in one so young. Until this change of opiniontook place, the boy had no religious convictions.On

August 18, 1872, when he was nineteen, hewrote: " At the age of thirteen or fourteen I was azealous materialist, and puzzled how there couldbe intelligent people who were at the same timeChristians. I accounted for this strange fact bysupposing that they were hypocrites, or that therewas a kind of madness peculiar to clever men."


64/285

52 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEVThis boy of fourteen refused to take part in anyreligious act, even at home, and regarded this refusal as a point of honour. His father knew himwell, and was careful to avoid taking any suddenstep in dealing with him; he uttered no reproaches,and only insisted upon the serious nature of theproblem of life, urging him to beware of rashdecisions. The boy undoubtedly considered allarguments for and against materialism, and yieldedat last to objections that had more weight than theunscientific reasoning of men like Buchner andRenan. Thus by taking his son s difficultiesseriously, Serge Soloviev delivered him from them.A strange kind of intellectual precocity occurssometimes among the Northern nations, and thislittle Russian of fourteen endured religious agonysuch as St. Augustine felt before his conversion.Like the great Latin Doctor, to whom he was eventually to owe so much, the young Slav, faced by thetwo problems regarding matter and the existenceof evil, had recourse to a kind of Manichean philosophy, which German pessimists, and especiallySchopenhauer, inculcated. He saw further thanhis fellow-students, who almost all adopted practicalmaterialism and the delights of positivism. Theycared little for theories, and were contented to haveat hand a few aphorisms, just enough to excusetheir conduct. This lack of interest as to the truthshocked Soloviev, who once for all made up hismind to respect truth always and to sacrifice everything to it. His devotion to truth was not unrewarded.


65/285

EARLY INFLUENCES 53It is worth while to trace the path a most

remarkable one for a child by which he cameback to religion. A mind poisoned by materialismoften needs philosophy as an antidote before itcan be converted. German sophistry had obscuredSoloviev s intellect, so that he had come to acceptnothing except on the evidence of his senses, andto recognize nothing as real except matters stillincompletely differentiated, and ever tending throughworld processes to a state of yet more calamitousevil. Where could a remedy be discovered for thismalady ? He found it in Spinoza, whose workshe read at the age of fifteen, and who was to himwhat Plotinus and the Platonic school had beento St. Augustine. The reality of the spirituallife and the necessary existence of God, that he hadrecently rejected as absurd hypotheses, now suddenlywere seen to be firmly established, and his conversion began. Four years later, on the subjectof the " Orthodox materialists of Biichner s school,"he writes: " The logical absurdity of their systemis apparent, and the more rational materialistshave adopted positivism, which is quite anothersort of monster, by no means despicable. As tomaterialism, it has never had anything in commonwith reason or conscience, and is a fatal productof the logical law which reduces ad absurdum thehuman mind divorced from divine truth."At the age of nineteen, when he wrote the above

words, Soloviev had definitely taken up the studyof philosophy. The choice had not been madehastily.

On leaving the Gymnasium he had


66/285

54 VLADIMIR SOLOV1EVachieved such success in the faculty of physicalscience and mathematics at the University ofMoscow, and seemed to have so great an aptitudefor science, that both professors and studentsforetold that he would soon occupy the chair ofpalaeontology. Suddenly, however, he found thatnatural science threw but little light on the mysteriesof human life, and was incapable of consoling,guiding and saving souls, whilst Russia stood insuch urgent need of consolation, guidance andsalvation. Consequently he abandoned science andturned to philosophy, not in a dilettante spirit,but in that of an apostle, for he felt himself calledto an intellectual apostolate, and determined tostudy and think, not as a scholar or dreamer, butin order to help and teach others.

Art, thought, and poetry practised simply fortheir own sake filled Soloviev with horror, as beingselfish amusements. He was an artist, a thinker,and a poet, but always for the sake of others, andfrom the beginning of his conversion he made ithis aim to live for others, and to think for the loveof God and the good of souls. Later on he expressed his aims in the graphic phrase: " He willbe saved who has saved others." But, it may beasked, was not his conversion attended by moredangers than his materialistic errors ? Spinoza spseudo-divinity is a bottomless abyss, and men ofvigorous intellect have been overwhelmed by themysterious fascination of its half-lights, and by themajesty of its shadows, that are always vague anduncertain in their logical development. Must not


67/285

EARLY INFLUENCES 55an attempt to fathom these depths be fraught withperil to a boy as enthusiastic and unbalanced asSoloviev then was ?No; at the age of sixteen he could resist Spinoza s

charm, and perceive and condemn his exclusiveapriorism, and, whilst appreciating his master srigorous method, he asked himself whether it werelegitimate in its origin. He had recourse to otherteachers, and ere long his philosophical and religioustraining brought him to accept the transcendentnature of God and His personality. He alwaysretained an appreciation of Spinoza s practicalmethods, and justified it by his own experience.In 1897 he wrote that " in this period of unintelligentempiricism or narrow criticism, certain formulaeof the Ethics, expounded to an audience consistingof Russian positivists, would effectually rouse themfrom the slumber of materialism. Contact with thede Deo would be a revelation to many minds, andwould almost constrain them to adopt the attitudethat bents us all in face of the Absolute viz., theattitude of humility, which is the prelude of everyconversion."

During Soloviev s youth, whilst he lapsed intounbelief, and then regained his faith, party spiritincreased in Russia, and young men and evenchildren were affected by it. In a town like Moscowno one could ignore or be indifferent to the struggle,and all were forced to range themselves on one sideor the other, until practically all educated Russianswere divided into two groups of approximately the


68/285

56 VLADIMIR SOLO VIEVsame size, representing the two lines of thoughtalready described. At first the forces were inequilibrium, but, as the strife continued betweenthe hostile parties, the more violent spirits monopolized the direction of each, as is generally the casein times of crisis. Moderate Slavophiles, such asKirievsky, Khomiakov, and Aksakov sank intoinsignificance in comparison with men like Katkov,Strakhov, and Danilevsky, and it was not longbefore the Sacred Synod passed completely underthe oppressive and intolerant sway of Pobedonostsev,its procurator-general.The same thing happened in the Liberal party,and the years 1862-1864 witnessed both the gloriesof Katkov, the Neo-Nationalist, and the firsttriumphs of Tchernitchevsky. Under the latter sleadership a small but noisy section of the Occi-dentalists adopted revolutionary principles, andclaimed to be heard because all Russia supportedthem. Even the wiser members of the partyseemed compromised, and the Slavophiles rejoicedaccordingly.For a time Herzen still continued to rise; afterwards Lavrov, Kropotkine, and Bakounine. Outbreaks of violence occurred, which were sternly putdown ; and no one could foresee what would follow.Russia has been profoundly affected by the eventsof the years 1900-1909, but it has stood firm, and

the worst that has happened is trifling in comparisonwith what might have been anticipated from themutual misunderstanding of prominent men between1860 and 1880, when there seemed every probability


69/285

EARLY INFLUENCES 57of the conflict of thought leading to civil war.Had this actually broken out, there can be no doubtthat it would have been a war of extermination, sogreat were the accumulated grievances, the long-repressed enmities, and the needs of personaldefence. To intelligent spectators the " executions "in Poland in 1863 appeared to be merely a prelude,a comparatively mild rehearsal, of the great dramain which Russians would fight against Russians.Unknown to the Imperial Government of Russia,the insurrectionary Government of Poland remainedin the capital of the kingdom, using the Universityof Varsovie as its headquarters. Bands of peasantswere under the direct command of the studentsand the indirect control of the professors; and manypeople expected similar organizations to be formedthroughout the Empire. The struggle in Russiawould be, they thought, far longer and fiercer thanthat in Poland, as the field of battle was at oncemuch larger and more subdivided. Enemies wouldmeet face to face on every square mile of the boundless plains; men would engage in countless singlecombats, and never be able to withdraw into awell entrenched camp ; and both sides would displaythe same endurance, the same quiet enthusiasm,the same passive obedience to their chiefs, the samecalm fatalism in face of death, the same mysticaldevotion to their cause, and the same determinationto kill or be killed.From 1860 to 1880 this civil war was continuallyon the point of breaking out, and pessimistic

observers foretold the approaching disturbance,


70/285

58 VLADIMIR SOLOVISVif not the total destruction, of the Russian Empirebefore another fifty years had passed.During fifteen years there was a constant succession of deeds of violence, beginning with Kara-

kozov s attempted assassination of the Tsar inApril, 1866, and lasting until the explosion whichdestroyed part of the Winter Palace, and buriedunder the ruins a hundred soldiers of the Finlandregiment (February 17, 1880). Later still, onMarch 13, 1881, Alexander II., the Liberator, wasassassinated. In discussing these fifteen years,M. Leroy-Beaulieu remarks that twenty or thirtyresolute young men, having entered into a compactwith death, held in check the Government of thelargest Empire in the world. Their audacityfound support in a kind of tacit connivance on thepart of the nation. The horrible nature of theircrimes ought to have roused the masses againstthem, but the short-sighted severity with whichthese crimes were punished bestowed a certainamount of prestige upon their perpetrators. Wherea few students were guilty, thousands suffered, andwhere a few officials incurred suspicion, hundredswere dismissed. Hence there was no lack ofrecruits to the party of malcontents, and manydeluded people received an impetus in the directionof revolution, whilst their hasty actions strengthenedthe extreme party of Orthodox Slavophiles. Thusthe irreconcilable differences between the twoschools of thought were ever increasing; the gulfbetween them grew wider and wider, and no oneattempted to bridge it over. Each party upheld


71/285

ftABLY tJSfSJrESGES 59a. |P^fciiu"i of trnth. but was so much dazzled by itsbrilliancy

that they never even attempted to con-tenpiate, as a whole, the jewel to which their frag-meat belonged. The war-cry of one party was" the dignity of the individual, that of the other." the sanctity of authority. The former failed tosee that th

Herbigny - Vladimir Soloviev

Documents

Transcript of Herbigny - Vladimir Soloviev