Vladimir Soloviev : a Russian Newman, 1853-1900

VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV: A RUSSIAN

NEWMAN

VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV.
At the ag-e of 38.

VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

A RUSSIAN NEWMAN
(i853-T9oo)

BY

MICHEL D'HERBIGNY

TRANSLATED BY

A. M. BUCHANAN, M.A.

R. & T. WASHBOURNE, LTD.

PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON

AND AT MANCHESTER, BIRMINGHAM, AND GLASGOW

All rights restrvca.

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE

THE present translation of d'Herbigny's Vladimir
Soloviev — a work crowned by the Academic
Fran£aise — was undertaken at the request of the
late Father Thomas Gerrard, who intended to edit
the English version and to write an introductory
appreciation of the Russian Newman. Father
Gerrard died without accomplishing his design; he
had, however, written an article on Soloviev, which
appeared in the Catholic }Yorld of June, 1917; and,
through the courtesy of the editor, this article is
here reproduced.

The translator is deeply indebted to Father
William MacMahon, S.J., for his extreme kindness
in reading the manuscript of the translation, and
for the many valuable suggestions and emendations
that he has made.

CONTENTS

PAGE

INTRODUCTION: ARTICLE ON SOLOYIEY BY
FATHER THOMAS J. GERRARD - I

CHAPTER

I. NEWMAN AND SOLOVIEV 2Q

II. THE INFLUENCE OF TOLSTOI* AND TCHADAIEV - 35

III. EARLY INFLUENCES 50

IV. SOLOVIEV AS PROFESSOR - 68

V. SOLOVIEV AS WRITER 88

VI. SOLOVIEV AS LOGICIAN 99

vii. SOLOVIEV AS MORALIST: "THE JUSTIFICATION

OF GOOD " nS

VIII. THE BEGINNING OF SOLOVIEV'S WORK AS A THEO
LOGIAN : "EARLY ESSAYS" — "THE GREAT

DEBATE " — " JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY " 135

ix. SOLOVIEV'S DEVELOPMENT AS A THEOLOGIAN —

QUESTIONS PUT TO THE RUSSIAN HIERARCHY

— HIS RELATIONS WITH MGR. STROSSMAYER

" THE HISTORY AND FUTURE OF THEOCRACY " 164

X. THE CONCLUSIONS OF SOLOVIEV THE THEO
LOGIAN : "THE RUSSIAN IDEAL" — "LA
RUSSIE ET L'EGLISE UNIVERSELLE " 184

xi. SOLOVIEV'S ASCETICISM - 232

VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

THE RUSSIAN NEWMAN

INTRODUCTION*

ONE of the fortunes of war has been the revelation
to Western eyes of a Russian mystic. It is Vladimir
Soloviev. He is not only the foremost spiritual
philosopher of Russia, but he is also one of the most
distinguished types of the modern mind. Towards
the end of his life he happened to write a book
against Tolstoi, combating that writer's doctrine of
the non-resistance of evil. The book has lately re
ceived two translations into English, as a statement
of the philosophy of war from the Russian point
of view.

The subject of war, however, holds but a secondary
place in the book, and indeed a very secondary place
in the life of Soloviev. His great lifework was an
exposition and propaganda of the claims of the
Universal Church. He was a convert from Ortho
doxy to Catholicism, and the one ruling passion
of his life was to familiarize Russia with the idea of
a Universal Church, monarchical in its constitution.
This is the chief reason for calling him the Russian

* Article on Soloviev, contributed to the Catholic World by
Father Thomas Gerrard.

2 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

Newman. There were other striking similarities
between the two men, although their divergencies
were even more striking and more numerous.

Soloviev, like Newman, was very lonely in his
soul. He worked always from within — the voice of
conscience was his all-impelling guide and force.
His method was the personal one. He conceived
in his own peculiar way a philosophy of the whole
man, which was neither intellectualist, voluntarist,
nor sentimentalist. With the watchword of " in-
tegralism," he stood for the due equipoise of all the
faculties of man in the search for truth. He worked
out for himself a method remarkably analogous to
Newman's doctrine of the Illative Sense, but with
this important difference, that he always preserved
a profound respect for the use and the value of the
syllogism.

Yet if, on the one hand, he was personal and
subjective, it was always with a sane appreciation
of the value of objective evidence. Like Newman
again, he took a special delight in the study of Holy
Scripture and the Fathers, of Church history and
the development of religion. Like Newman, too,
he had an ardent love for his own country. He
thought of Catholicism for Russia, and believed that
if only Russia were Catholic it would mean the
religious transformation of the whole world.

Unlike Newman, Soloviev never became a priest.
Both before and after his conversion he preferred
to work as a layman. Nevertheless, he deemed
that he could best follow his calling by remaining
a celibate. Once, at the age of eighteen, he did

INTRODUCTION 3

think of marriage, but, by the time he had arrived
at the age of twenty, he had fully resolved to lead
a single life.

Soloviev was born on January 16, 1853, the
son of the Russian historian, Serge Mikhailovitch
Soloviev. His grandfather was a priest of the
Orthodox Church, whilst on his mother's side he
was related to the philosopher Skovorod. Thus
all the influences of his childhood tended to imbue
him with the spirit of the Slav. He grew up a
Slav of the Slavs. What he wrote of his father in
later years was a summary of the influences which
bore on his own early life: " With a most passionate
love he loved Orthodoxy, science, and the Russian
fatherland."

The son, however, did not remain long under the
supervision of his parents. In 1864, at the age of
eleven, he passed into the gymnasium at Moscow.
At once, even in these boyish years, he began to
show himself alive to the thought of the West. It
was something other than what he had been ac
customed to in his parental home. He read Strauss's
Leben Jesu and Renan's Vie de Jesus. But the
book that most captivated him was Biichner's
Force and Matter. It had just been censured, and
was consequently in the hands of many of the older
students. And consequently, also, it had to be
in the hands of this boy philosopher. He read each
book in its original language, and persuaded himself
that he was solving a great question. So at the
age of fourteen he came to the conclusion that he
could never more take part in any religious act.

4 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

According to his judgment the Christian faith could
not withstand the discoveries of science. The
spiritual world was an illusion.

Such ill-digested food, however, could never
agree with him. Both his mind and his feelings
were dissatisfied with his immature conclusion.
In later years he wrote of this time: " At the age of
thirteen or fourteen, when I was a zealous materialist
my great problem was this: How can any sensible
people remain Christians ? And I could only explain
the strange fact by supposing either hypocrisy or a
peculiar kind of madness. This was silly enough
for a boy. . . ."

It was his father who saved him. He took him
seriously and impressed upon him the importance
of the problem of life. Young Soloviev continued
to treat his problem seriously, and for three years
remained absorbed in the obscurities of matter and
evil. His very sincerity served him well and kept
him straight morally. Where his fellow-students
carried the subversive doctrines to a practical
conclusion, Soloviev kept true to his saner instincts.
In fact it was through one of his rationalist authors
that he found his conversion, the one being none
other than Spinoza. Through the study of that
writer he gradually reached a conviction of the
reality of the spirit world, and of the necessary
existence of God. Of course, there was in Spinoza
the danger of the other extreme. The reaction
from materialism might easily, under such a leader,
have led him into an equally crude spiritualism.
But Soloviev saw farther than his master. His

INTRODUCTION 5

own personal method of philosophizing made him
see that God must be both personal and transcendent.
On leaving the gymnasium he had decided to be a
philosopher by profession, but not for the sake of a
living, nor yet for the sake of philosophy. He had
a particular detestation of the principle of art for
art's sake. All these things were for the sake of
love — love of God and love of souls. Hence he
could have no use for the impersonal God of Spinoza.
Thus did his personal method carry him over the
stumbling-block of pantheism. Having cleared his
own mind, he next sought to bring his conviction
to bear on his country. But he found himself
opposed both on the right and on the left. His
countrymen were divided into two camps, those
who stood for the introduction of liberal thought
from the West, and those who stood for the national
traditions. To these parties were given the names
respectively of Occidentalists and Slavophiles.

The Occidentalists, enamoured of the catchwords
" liberty " and " evolution," were ready for every
kind of revolution. Existing institutions no longer
commanded their respect. They wanted no more
Tsar, nor yet any more Orthodox Church. They
could even do without any form of Christianity
whatsoever. If they were to have any religion at
all, they preferred the positivism of Auguste Comte.

The Slavophiles, on the other hand, were guided
by two simple and almost identical principles,
namely, to have nothing to do with the West, and
never to depart from the customs of the East. This
double principle, of course, included the further one

6 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

that Orthodoxy was to remain the religion of Russia,
and that every resistance must be offered to the
Roman Catholic Church. The offices both in the
State and in the Church were naturally filled with
Slavophiles, whilst the Universities afforded oppor
tunities for the Occidentalists. Both parties, how
ever, were united in their hostility to Rome.

Such was the general trend of thought when
Soloviev entered upon his career as a professor of
philosophy. He set for himself the task of recon
ciling the opposing camps. He would show that
liberty and authority were not mutually exclusive,
but that an equipoise could be established between
them. This equipoise was also to be attained
between faith and science — one could be learned
without giving up the faith. It was also to be at
tained between the Church and the fatherland —
one could belong to a Universal Church and at the
same time be loyal to one's country. Soloviev
was thus above all parties, and, consequently, won
from them varying measures of approval and
opposition. The opposition, especially in the forms
of the rigours of censorship, was so insistent through
out his short life that it was not until after his death
that his influence began to produce evident effects.

The ground wherein he proposed to sow his seed
had been prepared by two other philosophers, to
whom he also was much indebted. The sterility
of Russian thought had been mercilessly exposed
by Pierre Tchada'iev. The evils, economic and
political, with which Russia was afflicted, had been
laid bare by Leo Tolstoi. But neither Tolstoi

INTRODUCTION 7

nor Tchadaiev provided a remedy. Their work had
to be perfected by Soloviev.

Before he had reached the age of twenty he had come
back to the Christian faith. The concluding years
of his student life at the University of Moscow were
marked by a wide variety of interests— he followed
the courses of history and philology, physical science
and mathematics, and also a course of theology
at the ecclesiastical academy.

At length the time came for his final examination,
which took place at Petrograd on November 24,
1874. His first thesis, which was formulated
against the positivists, was entitled A Criticism
of Western Philosophy. It treated of the double
evolution of thought, idealism from Descartes
Hegel, and empiricism from Bacon to Mill,
lines of thought, he maintained, ended in a positivism
which was at once atheist, egoist, pessimist, and
revolutionary. His act made a sensation,
hearers were captivated and immediately began to
take sides for or against him.

In spite of his many adversaries he was nominated
to a minor professorship at the University of Moscow.
Thus at the age of twenty-one he began his career
as a teacher. The opening words of his first lecture
were characteristic: " In every sphere of his activity,
and before all else, man dreams of liberty." It was
a bold word in the Russia of those days, for it implied
the curtailment of many a governmental activity.
His development of the theme was, however, still
bolder. The necessities of existence imposed on
man three kinds of societies, an economic society

8 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

for the utilization of the material world, a political
society for the ordering of relations between man
and man, and a religious society for the due sub
ordination of man to God. Thus there is established
a free theocracy. By this term Soloviev meant a
knowledge of the divine prerogatives, a consequent
love of them, and a free acceptance of them which
alone could bring real liberty.

Russia, however, was not yet ripe for such ad
vanced thought. The young professor's success
was brilliant, but it led to jealousy and intrigues
against him. After three months of teaching he
was removed from his chair. He was not yet bad
enough for Siberia. So he was silenced by being
sent upon a scientific mission to London and Paris.
The ostensible purpose of this journey was the
study of spiritism and cabalism. In London, how
ever, he occupied himself much with Anglicanism
and the question of reunion with the Orthodox
Church. From London he went to France and Italy,
making his way to Egypt to study the beliefs of
the Arabs. In the train he had his first experience
of Catholic clergy — two hundred and fifty of them
on their way to Rome. " Fine fellows," he called
them, " and not one of them looked like a Jesuit."
On his return he spent a month in Italy and a fort
night in Paris. It was in Paris that he first con
ceived the idea of a book on the Principle of Universal
Religion, an idea which fructified eventually in his
chief work, Russia and the Universal Church. In
Paris, too, he met Renan, who made no better
impression on him than that of " a vulgar boaster,"

INTRODUCTION 9

By the beginning of 1877 the agitation against
him had calmed down, so that he was allowed to
return to Moscow. But almost immediately there
was trouble. He was not minded to suppress the
truth which was so dear to his heart, nor were his
enemies minded to allow him to express it. A
conference which he called The Three Forces was
the occasion of his further persecution. His thesis
was that mankind was influenced by three forces,
a tendency towards social unity, a tendency towards
individualism, and a higher tendency to respect
God in other individuals and in their societies.
The first tendency had been exaggerated by the
Mussulman, with the result that he had become
stagnated. The second had been exaggerated by
the peoples of the West, with the result that their
energies had become isolated almost to vanishing-
point. The third tendency remained as something
to be realized by the Slav of the East. Then would
Russia live and be the leavening influence of the
world.

Such a thesis, however, was pleasing to neither
party. To the Slavophiles it was not exclusive
enough. To the Occidentalists it was not revolu
tionary enough. Both parties, therefore, combined
to have silence imposed on Soloviev and to have
him sent into retirement.

By the intervention of friends an honourable
retirement was found for him. He was appointed
to a position on the Council of Education at Petro-
grad. The appointment was generally considered
as a sort of reparation, but nevertheless it kept

io VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

Soloviev directly under the control of the authorities,
and effectively hindered his liberty of speech.

Shortly afterwards he was nominated to a minor
professorship in the Petrograd University, but his
career there was even shorter than at Moscow.
His thought was developing rapidly, and had
now taken a direction leading straight towards
Catholicism.

The embodiment of his thought took the shape
of twelve Lectures on Theandrism. " Theandrism "
was the companion word to his " Theocracy."
By theocracy he meant a full and free acknowledg
ment of the rights and authority of God. Such an
acknowledgment made us recognize God in His
creatures, and led us to love our neighbours as our
selves. But all these traces of God in man were but
sketches of the great divine appearance, when the
Word was made flesh in the womb of a Virgin.
Thus did the figurative theandrisms give way to
the real theandrism, God made man in history.
The purpose of this theandrism was that all men
might become united to God. We are all called to
be partakers of the divine nature. Thus there is
now a universal theandrism, which is made up of the
united multitude of participated theandrisms.

A savour of pantheism, perhaps, some will say.
Soloviev, however, took pains to guard against
this by declaring that the Man-God was one unique
Person. Jesus Christ alone was the Word eternally
begotten. And from Him, as from the Father, the
Holy Ghost eternally proceeds. For a universal
theandrism every man must be incorporated into

INTRODUCTION n

Christ. Every earthly activity must be subordin
ated to this end. The purpose of all societies,
civil and economic, is to serve the Kingdom of God,
the Church, the Universal Church, the Catholic
Church.

From the above it is evident that from his early
manhood Soloviev was fully convinced of the doctrine
of the Filioque. Living in the theological atmosphere
which he did, this alone must have been a tremendous
help to him in adjusting his ideas on the Universal
Church. As yet his concept of the Church was
wanting in definition, and indeed some of its lines
were very crooked in comparison with the objective
reality. Nevertheless he hoped to see a Universal
Church some day realized by an agreement between
the East and the West, and to bring about this
union became the ruling passion of his life.

One would have thought that the formulation of
his ideas would have been met with great favour by
the various authorities who were watching him.
For he maintained that the Eastern Church repre
sented a Divine foundation, whilst the Western
represented only human weakness; and it was the
union of these two elements which would produce
a spiritualized humanity, a Universal Church.
But the proposal pleased no one. Conservatives
and Liberals conspired together for the removal
of Soloviev from the Petrograd University. And
within four months, namely in March, 1881, his
career as a professor was brought to a close, and
this time for ever.

In deference, however, to the Russian authorities,

12 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

we ought to say that it was not merely his abstract
views on a Universal Church which caused him to
be removed. These views fructified into certain
practical conclusions of which the Russian State
was bound to take notice. For instance, Soloviev
protested 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 enlightenment
and conversion. But Russia was not ready for
such developments of the City of God.

Thenceforward to the end of his life Soloviev was
refused all public utterance, except by way of writing
which could be controlled by the censor. A few
months before his death the University of Warsaw
obtained permission to offer him a chair. The
incident was useful as an indication of the growing
tolerance of the Russian State, but it came too late
to be of any service to Soloviev as a lecturer. Hence
forward his life was that of a writer.

But even as a writer the censorship held him
within what he believed too limited a sphere. He
persevered as long as he could in his native tongue.
But the annoyances became so frequent that he at
length sought an outlet for his work in a foreign
language. His first article outside Russia appeared
in a Croatian journal, Katolik List, under the title
Eastern Church or Orthodox Church. In all his
evasions of the law, however, he remained loyal to
the Tsar and to Russia. When he was charged
with want of patriotism he replied that his patriotism
was of a much better kind than was commonly

INTRODUCTION 13

supposed; for his love for Russia was not a blind
love, blinding him to her faults, but a love which
enabled him to love her in spite of her faults. Whilst
loving her he condemned her acts of injustice. He
longed for a greater and more beautiful Russia,
less dominating and less violent. He wished for
a Russia better ordered, more moral and more
Christian — more truly worthy to be called Holy
Russia. He hoped for a Russia influential less by
its arms than by its faith and charity. He wanted
a Russia that would develop the mystic body of
Christ and that would glorify the only and holy
Church of Jesus Christ.

In the past the hindrance to all religious progress
had been the schism between the East and the West.
Here, then, was his problem of the future. How
could there be an Orthodoxy truly Slavophile, yet
obedient to the command to teach all nations ?
To solve this question, Soloviev gave himself up
to a systematic study of theology, at the same time
keeping his philosophy in living contact with the
question. Indeed it is remarkable how he made
nearly every question he touched lead up to the
theme 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 an
Integral Science, laid down the basis of his meta
physics. He maintained that nearly all contempo
raneous philosophy treated the intellectual life with
too much isolation. It had been rudely divorced
from the life of man as a whole. Such a method,

I4 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

whether by way of Hegelianism, or of empiricism,
would be sure to lead to scepticism. Moreover,
such a method missed the supreme question of
philosophy, namely : Whither does this life lead ?

Therefore Soloviev replied with his integralism
or whole-man philosophy. In addition to the
intelligence seeking the True, the full appropriation
of reality involves a disposition of the will seeking
the Good, and a quickened sensibility seeking the
Beautiful. Thus was this integral philosophy in
full communication with physical science on the
one hand and speculative thought on the other.
With such experience it could turn human reflection
towards superhuman realities. It could mount up
beyond human life, beyond cosmic life, until it
reached the absolute Essence-Existence. As a
moralist, Soloviev summed up his teaching in a
work entitled, The Justification of the Good. His
aim was to show his readers the real meaning of
life. He proposed to them three questions : Has life
got a reason for its existence ? Must one seek for
the meaning of life in the moral order ? Does the
higher flight into that which is spiritual require,
permit, or exact a sacrifice of that which would be
excess in physiological tendencies ?

We have said that Soloviev was one of the fore
most examples of the modern mind. This is
especially evident in his great work on morals.
He not only showed the clearest grasp of the
present situation, but also, like the English
Newman, he showed a keen anticipation of the
future.

INTRODUCTION 15

First, he dealt with the pessimists who abandoned
their lives to caprice, and who, when further
satisfaction 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 to
make 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. Morality
did not enter into such concepts. The moral life
was inconvenient and uncomfortable. Beauty,
however, was fascinating, and the grandeur of life
exalted and quickened us. It was the doctrine
of the strong man set up by Nietzsche: " Slaves
can adore a God Who makes Himself man and
humbles Himself. But the strong adore only
their own ascent to the superman, the endless pro
gression of human beauty, human grandeur, and
human power."

But, replied Soloviev, that endless progression
ends in a corpse. Instead of beauty you have
putrefaction. The inexorable fact of death reduces
the body's beauty and grandeur and power to
nothing. Christianity, on the contrary, is not
founded upon death, but upon the First-born from
the dead, and real beauty, grandeur, and power
could only be found in the Absolute Good.

Such is the general trend of the work, the final
aim being " the perfect organization of an integral
humanity." And such organization postulated a
Universal Church. Thus the philosopher has all
unconsciously transformed himself into a theologian.

1 6 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

Yet not unconsciously, for he is careful to notice
that the superhuman is not acquired by natural
science, having need of a special communication.
" This communication, willed by God, opens to our
thought a new sphere of studies and contemplations :
the intimate deeps of divinity become accessible
to theology and the mystical life." Henceforward,
therefore, theology was to claim a larger share of
his attention. And he needed it. He was so
extremely nationalist, so thoroughly imbued with
Slavophile ideas, that he thought the Christian
restoration of the world was reserved for Russia
and the Orthodox Church. The Western Church
had dwelt too much on the material element of
the Incarnation, propagating the faith by force,
and thinking more of ecclesiastical domination than
the love of Christ. And as for the Reformation,
although it fought against these abuses, yet it was
itself poisoned with Western individualism, and
shrunk into sheer rationalism. Solo vie v, in a
word, had just that view of " Romanism " which
was traditional and current in the East.

Nevertheless he resolved to face an independent
inquiry into the value of the Roman Catholic claims.
He gave himself up to the volumes of Mansi and
Migne. The Councils and the Fathers were the
sources whence he sought the truth. He made a
Russian translation of the Didache, claiming, in
his introduction, that it showed how Providence
was always allied to a perpetual hierarchy and the
dogma of the sacraments. The due developments
of these doctrines, therefore, were not novelties

INTRODUCTION 17

invented by the Catholic Church, as the Orthodox
Church asserted.

Once again the enemies of Soloviev were roused.
He went forward, however, and even ventured to
censure the spiritual power in Russia. He blamed
the Holy Synod for the sin of inaction. At the
same time he delivered a counter-blast against
the 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. Ortho
dox Russia alone, up to the eighteenth century,
had respected the liberty of souls. The separation
of the East from the West ought never to have taken
place. The evil wrought by Constantinople should
be repaired by Russia. Having grown up and
become conscious of herself, Russia should no longer
continue the historic sin of Constantinople. Rome
was thoroughly Christian because she was universal.
Let us not exaggerate her faults.

Then he issued his important work: The Great
Conflict and Christian Politics. The conflict, of
course, was that between the East and the West.
It was not essentially a religious conflict, but one
of radical tendencies. The East was contemplative,
and in this guise yielded itself to every form of
inactivity. The West was active, and in this guise
yielded itself to the merely human. The Incarnation
restrained the two tendencies. Nevertheless they
were the real cause of the schism of 1054 : the Filioque
was but the pretext. Pride and ambition, he
maintained, had caused the Popes to restore the
old Caesarism. That was not the authority with

i8 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

which the Church of Christ should be ruled. ' The
word Caput Ecclesia," he wrote, " cannot be applied
to all the Popes ; only those have merited it in whom
Christian humanity has been able to recognize the
Eternal Pontiff." The book caused a big sensation.
Its purpose was immediately turned into a political
direction. Soloviev was charged with agitating
on behalf of Poland !

A refutation of the work was attempted by the
Archpriest A. M. Ivantzov-Platanov. Soloviev
replied with nine leading questions. These were
intended rather for the whole Russian hierarchy.
But they reached much farther. They travelled
as far as Rome, and were made the subject of a
conference by Cardinal Mazzella.

There was now an active communication set
up between Soloviev and certain representative
Catholics. Soloviev wrote to Bishop Strossmayer
of Bosnia and Sirmium, asking for an interview
either at Agram or Djakovo. The Russian police,
however, were on the watch. They interrupted
his plans, and for six months prevented him from
leaving the country. But on June 29, 1886, he
managed to arrive at Vienna, and from there wrote
immediately to Bishop Strossmayer. The Bishop
welcomed him as his guest at Djakovo, where he
remained for two months. Both host and guest
were enthusiastically Slavophile, a circumstance
which enabled them to come near together in their
discussions on the cause of reunion.

Yet with all his good intentions towards Rome
Soloviev asserted his constancy towards Russia

INTRODUCTION 19

and the Church of Russia. Writing to Bishop
Strossmayer on his way home, he enclosed a memo
randum in which he declared that after the reunion
" the superior position which always belonged to
the Eastern Church, and which now in Russia
belonged to the Orthodox Emperor, should remain
intact."

This memorandum marked a new direction for
Soloviev. He understood that henceforward his
mission in life was, at the cost of every personal
sacrifice, to work for an agreement between Russia
and the Catholic Church. He would show by his
example that a Slav could and ought, whilst re
maining a Slav, to widen his heart and soul towards
Catholic faith and zeal, and prove that Roman
Catholicism completed, crowned and unified all
that was legitimate in the traditional Orthodoxy
of the East.

For the realization of this idea he planned a large
work in three volumes, to which he gave the title of
The History and Future of Theocracy. But only
one volume saw the light. The censor refused
permission to print. Soloviev again had recourse
to a foreign publisher. After having made certain
excisions in the hope that the book might be admitted
to Russia, he issued it at Agram. But the com
promise was ineffective; the book was prohibited.
Soloviev now felt that it was waste of time to write
any further in Russian for the Russians. He must
try a more roundabout way. So he began a new
work in French, one which proved to be his greatest
and most effectual : Russia and the Universal Church.

2o VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

The fundamental thesis of this, which embodied
his one aim in life, might be stated as follows:
" The Universal Church is founded on the truth
affirmed by our faith. Since truth is one, the true
faith must also be one. And since the unity of
faith does not reside really and directly in the
whole body of the faithful, it must be sought in the
lawful authority residing in one head — authority
having the guarantee of divine assistance — and
thus received with love and confidence by all the
faithful/'* And the first step in the explication
of the thesis was "to establish a moral and in
tellectual bond between the religious conscience of
Russia and the truth of the Universal Church."
His hope lay in the simple Russian people. He
drew a big distinction between the intellectuals
and officials on the one hand and the multitude on
the other. The latter, he maintained, were really
Catholic in their faith and piety. It was the official
theologians who were so anti-Catholic.

A work of less importance, though perhaps of more
topical interest at the present moment, is the one
which has lately been offered to the English-speaking
public. Its correct title is: War, Progress, and the
End of History : Three Discussions. Two English
translations have appeared during the past year,
one issued by the University of London Press under
the aforesaid title, the other issued by Constable
under the title: War and Christianity from the
Russian point of view : Three Conversations.

The book was written as an antidote to Tolstoi.

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

INTRODUCTION 21

The question of militarism was exercising people's
minds. Tolstoi had been writing against war,
and with such effect that men were resenting con
scription. Officers even were known to have been
ashamed of the army and to have given up their
profession in consequence. Tolstoi had, in fact,
created an impression that war had no moral
defence.

Soloviev came forward as the champion of his
country's cause. He was quite as good a Slav as
Tolstoi — and a much better disputant. Tolstoi
had preached from the text: " Resist not him that
is evil, but whosoever smiteth thee on the right
cheek, turn to him the other also." From that he
had inferred that the use of physical force in the
settlement of disputes showed a desire to do evil,
and therefore was wrong.

The logical outcome of such teaching required
the abrogation of all military and police arrange
ments. Soloviev saw in this nothing but the down
fall of European civilization, and its replacement
by a Pan-Mongolism. So he asks: " Can reason
and conscience count up to three ?" If so, then they
must see how wrong it is for number one to stand
by, whilst number two persecutes the innocent
number three.

This argument he embodies in an imaginary
conversation, which takes place between five
Russians in a garden on the shores of the Medi
terranean. An old General, a politician, a young
prince, a lady of middle age, and Mr. Z. make up
the company. The prince is obviously meant for

22 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

Tolstoi, and Mr. Z. for Soloviev himself. The
General, who is the chief speaker in the first con
versation, tells the story of one of his exploits in
the Russo-Turkish War. A large party of Bashi-
Bazouks had sacked an Armenian village, commit
ting unspeakable atrocities. " I could not mention,"
says the General, " all the details. One picture is
clear in my eyes at this moment — a woman lying
on her back on the ground, her neck and shoulders
tied to the cart-wheel in such a way that she could
not turn her head, and she lay there neither burnt
nor broken, but with a ghastly twisted expression
on 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 her
own son — all black with fire and its eyes protruding."

With Cossacks and artillery he set out in pursuit
and overtook them. First one Cossack and then
another rolled over, until at length the eldest
centurion came to him and asked: "Order us to
attack, Excellency ! Otherwise anathema will fall
upon 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 sweetness
is there in that ? God orders me to make an end
of them, not to scatter them."

And he did make an end of them. " God blessed
all my six cannon. It was the one occasion in my
life when I experienced a complete moral satis
faction. My act remains till now, and will of course
remain for ever, my purest memory. Well, and that
one good act of mine was a murder, and not by any

I
INTRODUCTION

means a small murder, for in a quarter of an hour I
killed considerably more than a thousand men. . . .
Certainly I did not kill with my hands, with these
sinful hands, but with the aid of six pure, sinless,
steel cannon, with the most virtuous and beneficial
shrapnel."

Of course, he is speaking ironically when he calls
it murder, using the terminology of the pacificists.
But in this way he deals blow after blow against
the Tolstoi position.

The curious thing is that the question of the
military power of Russia brought Soloviev once
again to the question of Rome. The concluding
pages of the Three Discussions are an allegory of
the end of history. Through the centuries the
union of Rome and Russia has not been accom
plished, but now at the end of time it is clamouring
for consummation.

Soloviev used the political situation of the time
to symbolize the spiritual. Japan was made to
represent the kingdom of Antichrist, whilst Russia
represented the Kingdom of Christ. With remark
able foresight Soloviev prophesied the defeat of
Russia by Japan, the realization of which event
gave point to his visions of the future Church, and
made him a prophet accepted in his own country.
There was an Antichrist and an Antipope, and
Tolstoi himself was pictured as one of the fore
runners of Antichrist. These drew the multitudes
after them and victory seemed to be on their side.
Only a few Christians remained faithful to the
true Christ, the Catholics led by Pope Peter II., the

24 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

Orthodox by the venerable John, and the Protest
ants by one Professor Ernest Pauli. The company,
all told, numbered twelve. They assembled together
" in the darkness of the night on a high and lonely
place," on the barren hills near Jericho, and
then and there was the union of the Churches
accomplished.

Soloviev, therefore, was keenly conscious of the
many obstacles which were in the way of the object
for which he laboured, and of the time it must take
before it could be realized. He seemed to know
that his own end was not far distant, for he leaves
his allegory unfinished— the writer, he said, wished
to write more when he got better. But he did not
get well, and the end of the tale was buried with
him in the Danilof monastery. Soloviev, as a
matter of fact, died suddenly a few weeks later at the
age 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 trembling
footsteps towards the enchanted land— shores full
of mystery. The crimson of the dawn put out the
stars; my dreams still hovered round me, and my
soul, still wrapped in them, prayed to the Unknown
God.

" In the white freshness of the day I walk, always
alone, through an undiscovered country. The
mists disperse. Mine eyes see clear ahead — how
steep the mountain path is, and how far away
everything still seems— everything that I have
dreamed !

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 blaze
of triumphal fires, glows on the mountain top the
temple that was promised me — the home that shall
be mine."

But did the mist clear away, and did the temple
of the Church reveal itself to his vision ? During
the later years of his life and for some years after
his death certain doubts have prevailed concerning
this. Nor have reasons for the doubts been wanting.
First there was some necessity for keeping the matter
secret. Solo vie v had been warned that if he left
Paris to enter Russia he would surely be arrested
and deported. Orders had actually been given for
his internment in a monastery in Archangel. Hence
there was need of a prudent silence. Then after
his death his relations who remained Orthodox were
at 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. Nicolas
Tolstoi. The event took place in the chapel of
Notre Dame de Lourdes at Moscow in the presence
of the members of M. Tolstoi's family and of several
eminent people of Petrograd and Moscow. The
priest was arrested next day, but managed to evade
prosecution, and a few days later was in Rome to
report the conversion to Pope Leo XIII.

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

26 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

the Latin rite. He, therefore, made a profession
of faith which he had fixed upon long before the
time came to make it :

" As a member of the real and venerable Orthodox
Eastern or Greek-Russian Church which speaks
neither by an anti-canonical synod nor by the
servants of the secular power ... I acknowledge
as supreme judge in matters of religion . . . the
Apostle Peter who lives in his successors, and has
not heard in vain the words of the Saviour: Thou
art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church
—confirm thy brethren — feed My sheep, feed My
lambs."

On his deathbed, however, he could not obtain
the services of either a priest of the Uniate rite or
of the Latin rite. So he availed himself of the
services of the village cure" who happened to be
of the Orthodox rite. This he was quite entitled
to do, for every validly ordained priest has juris
diction at the hour of death. One thing, however,
is quite certain, namely, that when Soloviev for
the last time confessed his sins, he retracted none
of his theological judgments. He died in full
communion with Rome.

After his death the Russian authorities removed
the ban from his works, and row the voice of the
apostle of the Universal Church, although silent,
begins to speak, and the sound thereof becomes
ever more and more audible. Just as in the West
we have Newman societies, so in the East there are
Soloviev societies, formed for the study and pro
pagation of his ideals. And if in the past the

INTRODUCTION 27

Russian Government has shown so much opposition
to a pioneer of Catholicism, and now tolerates him
and gives him freedom, let us take hope for the
future. Big institutions always move slowly, and
Russia is a very big institution.

CHAPTER I
NEWMAN AND SOLOVIEV

AT first sight there seems to be little resemblance
between the great English Cardinal and the so-
called Russian Newman. Further consideration,
however, will show that their chief points of differ
ence may be reduced to two — Soloviev was never
a priest, either before or after his conversion to
Catholicism, and his compatriots never knew with
certainty whether it was on account of the liturgical
ceremonies that he sought admission to the Church
of Rome. He personally was convinced that he
had at no period been completely outside her fold,
but thought that the Slavonic nations were not
absolutely cut off from the Church, because the
historic excommunication affected Constantinople
and not Russia. For instance, in 1888 he wrote:
" Russia is not formally and regularly separated
from the Catholic Church. It occupies in this
respect an abnormal and undecided position,
eminently favourable to reunion. The false and
anti-Catholic doctrines, taught in our seminaries
and theological colleges are not binding upon the
Russian Church as a whole, nor do they in any way
affect the faith of the people, The government of

29

30 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

the Russian Church is illegal, schismatical, con
demned (lata sententia) by the third canon of the
seventh (Ecumenical Council; it is rejected by a
considerable number of orthodox Russians (the
Old Believers), and is tolerated in a half-hearted
fashion by the rest. It is unfair to blame the
Russian nation for the Csesaropapism under
which it groans, and against which it never
ceases to protest. Men like Pobedonostsev and
Tolstoi are no more representative of Russia than
men such as Floquet, Goblet, and Freycinet are of
France."

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 Moscow
in 1883. For a member of the Russian Church
to embrace Catholicism two things only were, in
his opinion, necessary — viz., to reject the anti-
canonical claims of the Sacred Synod, and to submit
to the jurisdiction and infallible authority of the
Pope. Under existing circumstances, since the
Slav Uniate rite, being forbidden by the Russian
Government, could not be established in the empire,
Soloviev thought that it would be a mistake to require
anything further, because it would involve dis
obedience to the pontifical laws against the latini-
zation of Orientals, and would justify the calumnious
statement that Rome cherishes an undying hostility
to the holy and venerable traditions of the East.
To the end of his life he desired that the members
of the Orthodox Church in Russia should be per
mitted to submit directly to the Holy See, without

NEWMAN AND SOLOVIEV 3*

being forced, or even allowed, to go through any
canonical formality.

Soloviev's profession of faith was as complete
as Newman's, and bore no resemblance to Pusey's
timid hesitation. The anguish of mind that pre
ceded it, and the ostracism that followed it, were
not unlike Newman's trials. Both felt at first a
strong prejudice against the Papacy, and in the case
of each this prejudice was overcome by loyalty
to religion, fervour in prayer, desire to see the light,
and resolution to do God's will. Both suffered
keenly when they felt it to be their duty to give
up the instruction of others; Newman ceased his
sermons in St Mary's at Oxford, and Soloviev was
removed from his lectureship in Petrograd.

It is no easy task to analyze the more subtle
points of likeness between these two men. Each
possessed the soul of a philosopher; each was an
intuitive theologian, an artist, and a scholar; each
had deep affections and perfect purity. Their
tastes seem to have been identical ; they both loved
Holy Scripture and the Fathers, especially St.
Augustine; both studied ecclesiastical history and
the philosophy of religious development, both
strove to raise human knowledge to God, and to
inculcate the daily duties of religion. Both, even
before their conversion, pledged themselves to
perpetual celibacy; both were impelled to sacrifice
earthly friendships that they might follow Christ;
both were so passionately enamoured of their
country and the Catholic Church as to offer them
selves to undergo any suffering, if only a reconcili-

32 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

at ion could be effected between these objects of
their love.

A man's mind often affects his outward appear
ance and expression, and those who knew Newman
in his younger days might have discovered some
likeness to him in the description of Soloviev at
the age of twenty-three, given by the Vicomte de
Vogue", after meeting him for the first time in 1876,
at the house of M. de Lesseps in Cairo. De Vogue
writes: " Soloviev has one of those faces that can
never be forgotten; he has fine regular features,
his face is thin and pale, surrounded by long, curly
hair. His eyes are wonderful, piercing and thought
ful. He seems to be an idea clothed in flesh, of
the type of the Slav Christ depicted by the monks
on old ikons, one who loves in spite of calumny and
suffering. 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 streets
of Oxford was that of a young clergyman, wearing
a shabby long coat ; he was thin and pale, and stooped
a little, his eyes were large and flashing, but he gave
the impression of being frail and delicate. He
generally walked quickly, absorbed in thought, or
else engaged in conversation with some friend.
This Englishman certainly bore some resemblance
to the Russian whom Eugene Tavernier met in
Paris in 1888, at the house of the Princess von
Sayn-Wittgenstein, and whom he describes as
" very tall and thin, with splendid eyes, marvellously
gentle, clear, and piercing, in spite of being short-

NEWMAN AND SOLOVIEV 33

sighted. His manner was unassuming and somewhat
shy; his speech revealed his energetic daring and
firmness; his voice was expressive, deep, and full
of startling inflections, now serious, now caressing.
A mind characteristically French was as natural to
him as to a Parisian."

Soloviev's life was much shorter than Newman's
— he died at an age when Newman was still at
Littlemore, but his influence in Russia is nevertheless
very great. During his lifetime " many called
him a prophet, sometimes in jest, sometimes in
earnest ; but now we can see that the service which
he rendered us was in very truth that of a prophet,
and, although he was at first misunderstood and
ridiculed in his own country, he is becoming more
highly appreciated year by year." The above
words, written by S. N. Boulgakov in 1903, are
more true now than then. Soloviev's works have
had a powerful influence upon the trend of philo
sophical and religious thought in Russia, and this
influence continues to increase Before, however,
he was in a position to exert it, he was himself
moulded and impressed by his surroundings, and
in order to gain a correct opinion of him, we must
look at his environment, and consider in broad out
lines the prevailing tendencies of Russian thought
between 1850 and 1880. When we have done
this, we shall perceive the circumstances that
formed his character, and shall be able to ap
preciate his originality. The study of his person
ality will disclose the historical importance of his
work, and will perhaps throw some light upon

3

34 VLADIMIR SOLO VI EV

the probable course of the movement that he
initiated.

We can draw upon Soloviev himself for a de
scription of the state of Russia during this period.
He often dealt with this subject, and treated it
fully in his National Question in Russia, as well as
in numerous articles, such as The Russian National
Ideal and The Historical Sphinx, Byzantinism and
Russia. From the moment of their publication,
his opinions aroused much discussion, but he never
abandoned them.

Prejudice and excessive attention to detail have
caused many to overlook the truth of an independent
synthesis, which may even now astonish some
Russians. They would do well, however, to note
that the following pages do not contain any pre
conceived system devised by a foreigner, but the
opinions expressed by a Russian thinker, whose
patriotism is beyond question, and whose views
have often been proved correct by subsequent
events. The very severity of his judgments will
emphasize the progress already made by Russia
during the past few years.

CHAPTER II
THE INFLUENCE OF TOLSTOI AND TCHADAIEV

SOLOVIEV'S first essay was written in 1873, a year
that marks the centre of a period during which
Russia achieved great success in her foreign policy,
but began to lose her vital energy through internal
disputes. The German Emperor was solemnly re
ceived at Petrograd, and his nephew, Alexander II.,
congratulated him publicly on having established
a new empire, and exacted vengeance for the mis
fortunes of the Crimean War. Since the latest
rebellion in Poland had been crushed, just before
the insurrections destined to deliver the Christian
Slavs of the south from the Turkish yoke, Russia
seemed to dominate the East, just as Germany was
supreme in the West of Europe— she had regained
her diplomatic and military prestige in the eyes of
foreign nations.

On the other hand, signs of disturbance were in
creasing in the interior. Tolstoi's influence had
revealed to the masses and to individuals their
secret grievances. The evil was not the direct
result of his teaching, but each reader suspected
its existence in himself and others. During an
epidemic, the mere description of contagious dis-

35

36 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

eases tends, doubtless, to spread them, and a book
on medicine may, at such a time, be dangerous to
people with a morbid imagination. In the same
way Tolstoi's works aggravated the sense of in
dividual suffering, or actually caused it by way of
suggestion. Everyone thought that, because all
men suffered, he himself was suffering; everyone
felt pity for his own lot; did not Count Tolstoi
grieve over the misery of Russia ?

We must not, however, exaggerate. M. Radlov,
Soloviev's venerable friend, wrote the following
remark in his Biographical Notes on Soloviev :
" Tolstoi certainly contributed towards checking
the influence of materialism in Russia, and develop
ing interest in religious questions." We may readily
endorse this opinion, and we shall see how Soloviev
himself was at first affected by German materialism,
that for a long time predominated in Russia, whilst
laity and clergy alike displayed total indifference
to religious thought. On minds and hearts thus
poisoned with indifferentism, Tolstoi's works acted
in many cases as an antidote. Nevertheless, an
anti-Christian movement is associated with the
name of Tolstoi, although his fame is greater in
the West than among his own countrymen, to
whom many of his creations appear unreal and
fanciful.

We are perhaps too apt to believe that he personi
fies every type of Russian character, that his heroes
and their actions represent accurately the psychology
of individuals and social realities, and that the
paradoxes of his gospel, built on clouds with fantastic

TOLSTOI AND TCHADAIEV 37

outlines, would form collectively the ideal of every
Slav thinker, whether simple or refined.

Men of intellect in Petrograd and Moscow do
not share all our enthusiasm; they acknowledge
Tolstoi's merits as a writer and his generous
sacrifices as a man ; they admire the painful accuracy
of his descriptions, the precision of his analysis,
and the purity of his style, but at the present time
they criticize him as a thinker, condemn his theories,
and resist his influence.

This resistance hardly existed in 1873, and we
cannot estimate all the depressing results of Tolstoi's
teaching, which was the more disastrous because
it found justification in facts. We are told that
he 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 are
many other types besides these ; and it may be that
Tolstoi's influence will be fleeting, like that of
Nihilism, and we should judge Russia unfairly
if 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 the
smoke of bombs. Russia deserves better treatment
than this.

The foregoing remarks would certainly not have
been accurate during the stormy period between
1860 and 1885. Then, indeed, both individuals
and society in general seemed only too often in
capable of distinguishing good from evil; in fact,
they were not far from regarding right and wrong

38 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

as identical. As early as 1830 Count Peter
Tchadaiev (1794-1856), a very original thinker
and a true forerunner of Soloviev, had a presenti
ment of this misfortune. In a letter written at
Moscow on December i, 1829, he says: " We are
all deficient in enterprise, method, and logic, and
the syllogism of the West is unknown to us. Yet
there is something more than frivolity in our best
intellects, although our noblest ideas, for want of
connection and sequence, are productive of nothing,
and remain paralyzed in our brains." And again:
" Ours is the recklessness of a life without experi
ence or foresight, which is connected with nothing
but the ephemeral existence of an individual
isolated from his species. . . . We have abso
lutely no idea of what is general; everything is to
us particular, vague, and incomplete."

Such statements, like all satires, are exaggerated,
but contain an element of truth. Until towards
the end of the nineteenth century, philosophical
thought seemed incapable of growth in Russia.
In these circumstances philosophy is unknown, and
this lack of general culture allows all sorts of follies
to run riot; minds have to choose between being
poisoned or dying of starvation.

The philosophism of the eighteenth century
supplied no remedy for the evil, since it contained
very little real philosophy, and this little remained
something foreign to the Russian mind, not being
its product, and not penetrating to its depths.

There were the same defects in the pseudo-
scholasticism of the Orthodox seminaries. Derived

TOLSTOI AND TCHADAlEV 39

as it was from miserable German school-books of
1730, it was still further impoverished by the
elimination of everything distinctively Catholic or
Protestant in tone. No Russian element was added
to supplement this defective teaching, and no
effort at adaptation enabled the Russian mind to
assimilate it. There was nothing but a Latin
handbook, dry and unintelligible; and scholasticism
has thus always been caricatured in Russia, so
that it is easy to understand why it fell into dis
favour, and is still regarded with contempt by men
of the highest intelligence. Philosophy became a
synonym for incoherence, and under such conditions
it was bound to perish, and its final disappearance
was effected by the reform of 1840, which required
it to be taught in Russian and not in Latin. The
name, indeed, continued to appear in the syllabus,
and no one noticed that it stood for nothing. We
can hardly say that philosophy disappeared, for
it had never been anything but a name in Russia.

Very few perceived the danger of an education
that filled the brain with knowledge without culti
vating the intellect. Words learnt by heart, lists
of events, etc., cannot replace human thought,
and the least spark may cause an explosion where
gunpowder 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 ?" He
was in a pessimistic mood when he said: " There
is something in our blood averse to all true progress.
We live only that our remote descendants, who

40 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

understand what it is, may learn a great lesson from
us." But perhaps he did not exaggerate when he
remarked to his contemporaries: " Isolated as we
are in the world, we have given it nothing, we have
taught it nothing; we have not added a single idea
to the body of human thought ; we have contributed
nothing to the progress of the human mind, and we
have disfigured all that this progress has bestowed
on us. Since the first moment of our social exist
ence, nothing has emanated from us for the common
good of mankind; not one useful thought has been
produced by the barren soil of our country ; not one
great truth has flashed out from our midst ; we never
have taken the trouble to imagine anything our
selves, and from what others have imagined we have
borrowed only deceptive appearances and useless
luxury."

This passage, unfortunately, was brought to the
notice of Nicholas I., with terrible results. The
Tsar wrote on the margin of the manuscript three
words only: " Is he mad ?" but the courtiers went
further, and Tchadaiev was forthwith deprived of
all his degrees and appointments. The Court
physician was ordered to visit him daily to report
on his mental condition, until the count was reduced
to writing the Apology of a Madman, dedicated to
the Emperor.

Under the burden of his misfortunes Schelling's
pupil turned his attention to the study of Chris
tianity, and there can be no doubt that what he
wrote then regarding the universal influence of
Christ and His work contributed towards the

TOLSTOI AND TCHADAIEV 4*

conversion to Catholicism of his old pupil, Prince
Gagarin. The latter, who subsequently became a
Jesuit, did much to restore his master's reputation
by publishing a selection from the works of
this first Russian thinker. At the present time
Tchada'iev, once regarded as a maniac, is studied,
admired, and respected, almost as if he were a
prophet.

Soloviev had much in common with Tchada'iev,
though he went further, and rendered the ideas,
derived from his predecessor, more precise and
complete. Soloviev concerned himself with syn
thesis and deductions; Tchadaiev was contented
to express his occasionally very remarkable in
tuitions regarding the philosophy of history. Let
us consider two or three instances in which he served
as a model to Soloviev.

On the subject of the dignity of thought before
and after the time of Christ he wrote: " There is
nothing more simple than the glory of Socrates,
the only man in the ancient world to die for his
convictions. This unique example of heroism could
not but amaze the men of his nation (materialistic
Greeks). But is it not foolish for us to misunder
stand him as they did, when we have seen whole
nations lay down their life for the sake of truth ?"

In 1898 Soloviev wrote: " By his death Socrates
displayed all the moral force of which pure humanity
is capable; anything further requires the super
natural strength of Him who has power to rise
again to everlasting life. The weakness and down
fall of the ' divine ' Plato show that man cannot

42 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

make himself superhuman by means of thought,
genius, and moral purpose; none but a God-man
can do this."

Tchadaiev was fond of tracing Christ's influence
upon non-Christians, and says: " No one can have
a clear idea of the great work of redemption, nor
comprehend the mysteries of Christ's reign on earth,
unless he sees the action of Christianity wherever
the Saviour's name is uttered, and realizes that His
influence affects every mind which, in one way or
another, is brought into contact with His doctrines."

This line of thought led to a universalist or Catholic
conclusion, which inevitably had something to do
with Prince Gagarin's conversion, and which was
to Soloviev a source of inspiration. Elsewhere
Tchadaiev writes: " Nothing more plainly reveals
the divine origin of this religion than this character
istic of absolute universality, which enables it to
affect men in every possible way, taking possession
unawares of their minds, dominating and controlling
them, even when they seem to resist most stoutly,
by introducing to them truths previously unknown,
by inspiring emotions hitherto unfelt, and imparting
thoughts that bring them, though they know it not,
into the general order."

Russians of the present day call Soloviev the first
national philosopher, but philosophical reflection
had at least been attempted by his predecessor,
Count Tchadaiev, who, however, long remained
unappreciated, and died in 1856, when the man
who was to win him recognition was only three years
old. In 1862 the Archimandrite professor Feodor

TOLSTOI AXD TCHADAlEV 43

was expelled from the ranks of the clergy for having
expressed opinions tinged with Tchadaiev's philo
sophy.

After Tchadaiev there were a few poets, novelists,
and some sincerely religious men like Khomiakov,
the elite of Orthodox Russia in the middle of the
nineteenth century, who studied the aspirations of
the Slavs. At first sight the Slavs are a quiet
race, very uniform in character, but in reality they
are restless and varied. Their feelings are in a kind
of irregular ebb and flow, and sudden storms follow
long periods of calm. Outbursts of rage in in
dividuals and rebellions among the masses are rare,
but terrible when they occur. There is still an
underlying current of barbarism and fanaticism
in the race. Many students have been contented
with a superficial examination of the Russian
character; they are struck by the spirit of apathy
and resignation, and do not fathom the depth of
hidden feeling. Yet it is in the restless subcon-
sciousness that storms arise; and there, for the last
sixty years, a steady movement has been going onf
very slow at first, but becoming more perceptible
year by year; the hoary mass of ancestral traditions
is slowly but surely yielding to the pressure of the
Western nations, and more than once it has seemed
on the point of giving way altogether, as though
the 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 Russians
attempted to philosophize, some with considerable
success, but their influence was invariably limited

44 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

to a narrow circle, and of them all Soloviev alone is
widely known. In spite of the attacks of jealous
rivals, 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 the
direction of reform. Towards the middle of the
nineteenth century utilitarians and Utopians formed
two antagonistic camps, and, in spite of all remon
strances on the part of some few serious thinkers,
they adopted two opposite lines of action, both
equally extreme and intolerant. The one party
aimed at copying the Western nations, and was
known as that of the Occidentalists, whereas the
Slavophile party clung to its own national traditions.
The latter refused to have anything to do with the
West, or to abandon any ancestral custom, and so
it enjoyed proud isolation both in politics and
religion, and insisted upon absolute immobility in
education and legislation. It called itself the
Nationalist party, and although it could not require
all its adherents to be believers, it forced them, by
its veneration for the past, to struggle in defence of
national and anti-Roman Orthodoxy. A decided
but judicious scheme of social and religious reform
had been already drawn up by a few clear-sighted
politicians, some reformers who understood the true
interests of their country and some sincere Christians.
All these desired to give fresh life to national
thought and activity by bringing them into touch
with the best elements of Western life, if it could

TOLSTOI AND TCHADAlEV 45

be done gradually and without causing any violent
upheaval. These reformers quickly drew upon
themselves the hostility of the extreme Nationalists.
At the beginning of their conflict, members of both
parties continued to meet in society, but in course
of time the most noisy and violent spirits prevailed
over men who held more moderate opinions. Being
confronted with the most bigoted Slavophiles, the
other party inevitably went further in the opposite
direction, and in its turn displayed more enthusiasm
than wisdom. This was deeply regretted by the
prudent members of the party, but after 1860 their
influence waned entirely.

The programme put forward by the Occidentalists
was, in its way, as simple as that of the most rabid
Slavophiles. Under the pretext of evolution and
progress, it aimed at a universal overthrow of the
existing state of affairs. It made positivism its
excuse for violent efforts to destroy authority and
level all inequalities; there was to be no tchin, no
Tsar, no empire, and the liberty of the individual
was to take the place of organized society. The
leaders of the Occidentalist movement had lately
proclaimed their wish to have no purely national
Church, fatally enslaved to the civil power. Those
who claimed to be their followers declared that
they would not have any Church at all. The
" Young Liberals," both doctrinaires and revolu
tionaries, condemned alike every form of Christianity,
resisted every sign of a Christian spirit, and went so
far as to assert dogmatically, in the name of their
party, the incompatibility of science and faith.

46 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

They held that the modern spirit produced by
positivism would destroy all religion, but especially
all the religions known as positive. Most of the
Slavophile party were connected with the Govern
ment, and thus they were supported by the force
of the State and the influence of the State Church;
they traded upon the traditional passivity of the
masses.

The Liberals occupied almost all the chairs at
the Universities, and so possessed a means of
propaganda valuable everywhere, but of almost
incalculable importance in a country where all
other free manifestation of thought is proscribed.
They were the scientific party, and had every
opportunity of appealing to the critical tastes of
an aristocracy which had come into contact with
Western nations, of stirring up excitement among
noisy or frivolous students, and of taking the lead
among a half-educated middle-class, that followed
them like a flock of sheep. Open hostilities soon
broke out, and the two parties engaged in skirmishes
almost every day. Their chiefs conceived a deadly
hatred of one another — the expression is not ex
aggerated — and only the more moderate were
satisfied with sending their rivals to Siberia, whilst
the rank and file in each camp assumed an attitude
of bitter antagonism.

Men of the same nation, who hardly knew one
another, were always ready to welcome and to
spread any calumny likely to bring their opponents
into disrepute or ridicule. They were divided on
every point save one — hostility to Rome. Rome

TOLSTOI AND TCHAD A! EV 47

insisted upon the universality of the Church,
whereas the Russian national spirit was determined
to enforce everywhere, even in the service of God,
the isolation of one chosen race. This principle
was described as racial independence. Rome stood
at the head of the most vigorous and prolific organi
zation of Christians, and the boldest leaders of
Russian liberalism were bent upon destroying
Christianity 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 them
became less frequent, and of shorter duration, as
time went on.

Otherwise the line of division was unbroken, and
there was no via media between the two extreme
parties; unbelievers and Orthodox alike adopted
as their motto the words " He that is not with me
is against me "—words intelligible enough when
uttered by One whose wisdom is infallible, but almost
blasphemous when used to support the institutions
of a man like Peter the Great or indigenous super
stitions. Yet neither Liberals nor Slavophiles
troubled about such considerations, and did not
hesitate on every occasion to employ this imperious
and autocratic formula.

Vladimir Soloviev felt the incongruity more than
once, and often complained bitterly that in each
camp theory and practice were in constant conflict ;
but his complaints for a long time attracted no
attention. Even when this contradiction was
pointed out, no one troubled about it. Was party

4» VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

spirit to be put aside for such a trifle ? What did
contradictions matter ? Each was fighting for his
own ideas, and that was enough. Could they be
required to search deeply into these ideas and bring
them into harmony, and then take them as a rule
for conduct ? Such were the replies given to
Soloviev.

The tactics and systems of both parties were
indeed incoherent and contradictory, but no one
seemed disturbed or surprised at it. In spite of
their claims to stability, the Slavophiles strayed
into unforeseen paths and pursued in all directions
incongruous traces of a past that had never had
any real existence. Their vivid imaginations caused
the imperfections of the true past to disappear, and,
with complete disregard of chronology, they viewed
it in a manner both historically inaccurate and
logically incoherent. They had to select certain
features of the past for revival, and the selection
was carried on secretly; the features that did not
find favour were rejected unconditionally. For
instance, the most ardent admirers of all the national
traditions of Christianity tried to crush with their
anathemas and judicial decisions certain Christian
sects, essentially Slav, that were known as Staro-
veres, and consisted of Old Ritualists or Old
Believers.

On the other hand, striding across the centuries,
they put in juxtaposition all the remains that took
their fancy; they dug up relics of bygone ages,
and imagined that, by dint of decking an old trunk
with flowers stored up in some herbarium since the

TOLSTOI AND TCHADAt'EV 49

tenth century, they could impart to the tree a life
that should be unchanging and eternal.

There were similar contradictions among the
extreme Neo-Occidentalists, who would fain have
cut down the tree in order, forsooth, to give more
freedom to its parts, and more life to its cells and
tissues. They spoke only of evolution, but the
changes that they desired would have involved dis
integration. They wished to make progress, but
the absolute equality, that they aimed at imposing
upon all, would have killed all spontaneity and
hindered all development and movement.

Soloviev's influence gradually affected both groups
of combatants. We shall see later on what furious
opposition he encountered from the militant party
when he began his work; but before we consider
these struggles, and his task in the capacity of peace
maker, we must see how, through the events that
formed his character, Providence prepared him to
understand and help his fellow-countrymen.

CHAPTER III
EARLY INFLUENCES

SOLOVIEV'S family surroundings and the social
conditions under which his childhood was passed
prepared him for the task that lay before him. He
grew up during a great crisis of national thought,
and his precocious experience enabled him fully
to understand the aspirations and sorrows of his
people. An early initiation into such matters is
dangerous for men of average ability, but most
valuable to those of higher intelligence. It prepares
them to influence those around them in a manner
that may be both very effectual and very op
portune.

Vladimir, the second son of Serge Mikhailovitch
Soloviev, the first and most painstaking Russian
historian, was born on January 16, 1853. His
father, then thirty-three years of age, had just
published the first volumes of the great work that
he continued until his death : The History of Russia
from the Most Remote Times (until 1780). In 1896
Vladimir wrote a touching article in memory of
his father, from which we shall derive some personal
information. His merits as an historian are summed
up by his son in a few eloquent words: " My father

50

EARLY INFLUENCES 51

had a passionate affection for Orthodoxy, science,
and his native land."

On his mother's side Vladimir was connected
with the family of the Ukraine philosopher Skovorod.
Her name was Polyxene Vladimirovna Romanov,
and she survived until June, 1909. Vladimir's
grandfather, Mikhail Vassilievitch Soloviev, was
a priest of the Orthodox Church. The boy was
brought up in the principles of primitive Slavo
philism until he entered the Gymnasium at Moscow
in 1864, when his surroundings underwent a com
plete change. Although the book had been con
demned by the censor, Biichner's Force and Matter
was being studied enthusiastically by young
Russians, and Soloviev secretly read it in German;
afterwards he read Strauss, and then Renan's
Vie de Jesus in French.

As early as 1867 he cast aside Christianity and
all faith in the spiritual life, and wrote: " Biichner's
catechism of science prevailed over the religious
catechism compiled by Philaretus." It was a
childish judgment, and its deliberate reversal at
a later date revealed a maturity of thought un
usual in one so young. Until this change of opinion
took place, the boy had no religious convictions.
On August 18, 1872, when he was nineteen, he
wrote: " At the age of thirteen or fourteen I was a
zealous materialist, and puzzled how there could
be intelligent people who were at the same time
Christians. I accounted for this strange fact by
supposing that they were hypocrites, or that there
was a kind of madness peculiar to clever men."

52 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

This boy of fourteen refused to take part in any
religious act, even at home, and regarded this re
fusal as a point of honour. His father knew him
well, and was careful to avoid taking any sudden
step in dealing with him; he uttered no reproaches,
and only insisted upon the serious nature of the
problem of life, urging him to beware of rash
decisions. The boy undoubtedly considered all
arguments for and against materialism, and yielded
at last to objections that had more weight than the
unscientific reasoning of men like Buchner and
Renan. Thus by taking his son's difficulties
seriously, Serge Soloviev delivered him from them.

A strange kind of intellectual precocity occurs
sometimes among the Northern nations, and this
little Russian of fourteen endured religious agony
such as St. Augustine felt before his conversion.
Like the great Latin Doctor, to whom he was eventu
ally to owe so much, the young Slav, faced by the
two problems regarding matter and the existence
of evil, had recourse to a kind of Manichean philo
sophy, which German pessimists, and especially
Schopenhauer, inculcated. He saw further than
his fellow-students, who almost all adopted practical
materialism and the delights of positivism. They
cared little for theories, and were contented to have
at hand a few aphorisms, just enough to excuse
their conduct. This lack of interest as to the truth
shocked Soloviev, who once for all made up his
mind to respect truth always and to sacrifice every
thing to it. His devotion to truth was not un
rewarded.

EARLY INFLUENCES 53

It is worth while to trace the path — a most
remarkable one for a child — by which he came
back to religion. A mind poisoned by materialism
often needs philosophy as an antidote before it
can be converted. German sophistry had obscured
Soloviev's intellect, so that he had come to accept
nothing except on the evidence of his senses, and
to recognize nothing as real except matters still
incompletely differentiated, and ever tending through
world processes to a state of yet more calamitous
evil. Where could a remedy be discovered for this
malady ? He found it in Spinoza, whose works
he read at the age of fifteen, and who was to him
what Plotinus and the Platonic school had been
to St. Augustine. The reality of the spiritual
life and the necessary existence of God, that he had
recently rejected as absurd hypotheses, now suddenly
were seen to be firmly established, and his con
version began. Four years later, on the subject
of the " Orthodox materialists of Biichner's school,"
he writes: " The logical absurdity of their system
is apparent, and the more rational materialists
have adopted positivism, which is quite another
sort of monster, by no means despicable. As to
materialism, it has never had anything in common
with reason or conscience, and is a fatal product
of the logical law which reduces ad absurdum the
human mind divorced from divine truth."

At the age of nineteen, when he wrote the above
words, Soloviev had definitely taken up the study
of philosophy. The choice had not been made
hastily. On leaving the Gymnasium he had

54 VLADIMIR SOLOV1EV

achieved such success in the faculty of physical
science and mathematics at the University of
Moscow, and seemed to have so great an aptitude
for science, that both professors and students
foretold that he would soon occupy the chair of
palaeontology. Suddenly, however, he found that
natural science threw but little light on the mysteries
of human life, and was incapable of consoling,
guiding and saving souls, whilst Russia stood in
such urgent need of consolation, guidance and
salvation. Consequently he abandoned science and
turned to philosophy, not in a dilettante spirit,
but in that of an apostle, for he felt himself called
to an intellectual apostolate, and determined to
study and think, not as a scholar or dreamer, but
in order to help and teach others.

Art, thought, and poetry practised simply for
their own sake filled Soloviev with horror, as being
selfish amusements. He was an artist, a thinker,
and a poet, but always for the sake of others, and
from the beginning of his conversion he made it
his aim to live for others, and to think for the love
of God and the good of souls. Later on he ex
pressed his aims in the graphic phrase: " He will
be saved who has saved others." But, it may be
asked, was not his conversion attended by more
dangers than his materialistic errors ? Spinoza's
pseudo-divinity is a bottomless abyss, and men of
vigorous intellect have been overwhelmed by the
mysterious fascination of its half-lights, and by the
majesty of its shadows, that are always vague and
uncertain in their logical development. Must not

EARLY INFLUENCES 55

an attempt to fathom these depths be fraught with
peril to a boy as enthusiastic and unbalanced as
Soloviev then was ?

No; at the age of sixteen he could resist Spinoza's
charm, and perceive and condemn his exclusive
apriorism, and, whilst appreciating his master's
rigorous method, he asked himself whether it were
legitimate in its origin. He had recourse to other
teachers, and ere long his philosophical and religious
training brought him to accept the transcendent
nature of God and His personality. He always
retained an appreciation of Spinoza's practical
methods, and justified it by his own experience.
In 1897 he wrote that " in this period of unintelligent
empiricism or narrow criticism, certain formulae
of the Ethics, expounded to an audience consisting
of Russian positivists, would effectually rouse them
from the slumber of materialism. Contact with the
de Deo would be a revelation to many minds, and
would almost constrain them to adopt the attitude
that bents us all in face of the Absolute — viz., the
attitude of humility, which is the prelude of every
conversion."

During Soloviev's youth, whilst he lapsed into
unbelief, and then regained his faith, party spirit
increased in Russia, and young men and even
children were affected by it. In a town like Moscow
no one could ignore or be indifferent to the struggle,
and all were forced to range themselves on one side
or the other, until practically all educated Russians
were divided into two groups of approximately the

56 VLADIMIR SOLO VI EV

same size, representing the two lines of thought
already described. At first the forces were in
equilibrium, but, as the strife continued between
the hostile parties, the more violent spirits monopo
lized the direction of each, as is generally the case
in times of crisis. Moderate Slavophiles, such as
Kirievsky, Khomiakov, and Aksakov sank into
insignificance in comparison with men like Katkov,
Strakhov, and Danilevsky, and it was not long
before the Sacred Synod passed completely under
the 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 glories
of Katkov, the Neo-Nationalist, and the first
triumphs of Tchernitchevsky. Under the latter's
leadership a small but noisy section of the Occi-
dentalists adopted revolutionary principles, and
claimed to be heard because all Russia supported
them. Even the wiser members of the party
seemed compromised, and the Slavophiles rejoiced
accordingly.

For a time Herzen still continued to rise; after
wards Lavrov, Kropotkine, and Bakounine. Out
breaks of violence occurred, which were sternly put
down ; and no one could foresee what would follow.
Russia has been profoundly affected by the events
of the years 1900-1909, but it has stood firm, and
the worst that has happened is trifling in comparison
with what might have been anticipated from the
mutual misunderstanding of prominent men between
1860 and 1880, when there seemed every probability

EARLY INFLUENCES 57

of the conflict of thought leading to civil war.
Had this actually broken out, there can be no doubt
that it would have been a war of extermination, so
great were the accumulated grievances, the long-
repressed enmities, and the needs of personal
defence. To intelligent spectators the " executions "
in Poland in 1863 appeared to be merely a prelude,
a comparatively mild rehearsal, of the great drama
in which Russians would fight against Russians.
Unknown to the Imperial Government of Russia,
the insurrectionary Government of Poland remained
in the capital of the kingdom, using the University
of Varsovie as its headquarters. Bands of peasants
were under the direct command of the students
and the indirect control of the professors; and many
people expected similar organizations to be formed
throughout the Empire. The struggle in Russia
would be, they thought, far longer and fiercer than
that in Poland, as the field of battle was at once
much larger and more subdivided. Enemies would
meet face to face on every square mile of the bound
less plains; men would engage in countless single
combats, and never be able to withdraw into a
well entrenched camp ; and both sides would display
the same endurance, the same quiet enthusiasm,
the same passive obedience to their chiefs, the same
calm fatalism in face of death, the same mystical
devotion to their cause, and the same determination
to kill or be killed.

From 1860 to 1880 this civil war was continually
on the point of breaking out, and pessimistic
observers foretold the approaching disturbance,

58 VLADIMIR SOLOVISV

if not the total destruction, of the Russian Empire
before another fifty years had passed.

During fifteen years there was a constant suc
cession of deeds of violence, beginning with Kara-
kozov's attempted assassination of the Tsar in
April, 1866, and lasting until the explosion which
destroyed part of the Winter Palace, and buried
under the ruins a hundred soldiers of the Finland
regiment (February 17, 1880). Later still, on
March 13, 1881, Alexander II., the Liberator, was
assassinated. In discussing these fifteen years,
M. Leroy-Beaulieu remarks that twenty or thirty
resolute young men, having entered into a compact
with death, held in check the Government of the
largest Empire in the world. Their audacity
found support in a kind of tacit connivance on the
part of the nation. The horrible nature of their
crimes ought to have roused the masses against
them, but the short-sighted severity with which
these crimes were punished bestowed a certain
amount of prestige upon their perpetrators. Where
a few students were guilty, thousands suffered, and
where a few officials incurred suspicion, hundreds
were dismissed. Hence there was no lack of
recruits to the party of malcontents, and many
deluded people received an impetus in the direction
of revolution, whilst their hasty actions strengthened
the extreme party of Orthodox Slavophiles. Thus
the irreconcilable differences between the two
schools of thought were ever increasing; the gulf
between them grew wider and wider, and no one
attempted to bridge it over. Each party upheld

ft ABLY tJSfSJrESGES 59

a. |P^fciiu"i of trnth. but was so much dazzled by its
brilliancy 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 to
see that th<*fr materialism could not account for
this, dignitv; they overlooked the fact that, where
Itareis no authority, there is no safeguard for mutual
nspect; and, above all, they forgot that men in
authoritv were still human personalities. The
others laid too much stress upon Authority, and their
statements, though fair enough if restricted to the
primary source of power. And the obligation which
mak.es just laws binding upon men s conscience,
were faisuied bv their exclusive and absolute

whatever is not Slavophile.

The assassination of Alexander 11. on March, rj,
1681, disarmed neither party; he was killed by
one and avenged by the other. Crime is unpro
ductive,, and excessive chastisement effects no
lanedy ; wounds are not cured by bloodshed.

Tlie malady that infected men's minds remained
wadetected. and no one thought of discovering And
what was right. Both parties were
to thwart by violence every unpleasant
application of ideas held by their opponents. If
this slate of mutual exasperation had continued, its
logical consequences would have developed, and the
ent might have brought about a

60 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

disaster. For instance, the troubles that followed
the war in the East would, if they had occurred a
few years earlier, have assumed quite another
form. Between 1905 and 1907 the disturbances
that took place, and the measures employed to
repress them, were mild in comparison with what
had been foretold twenty years previously ; immense
progress had been made since 1880.

No one can, or attempts to, deny that great
progress has been made, but what caused it ?

The causes are certainly complex; men were
weary of continual acts of violence; they had learnt
more, and gained experience; they had come into
closer contact with Western Europe, and their
dreams had been dispelled by the force of realities.
All these things facilitated a better mutual under
standing between rulers and ruled, and encouraged
those who advocated the adoption of a less hostile
attitude towards the Catholic Church. But who
taught Russians of the present century to hold
broader views ? To their parents the ideas of
authority and liberty seemed so fatally antagonistic
that there was no possible via media between
Orthodoxy and unbelief. Yet now it is plain that
an agreement can be effected between authority
and liberty, if they are well apportioned. Such a
reconciliation is necessary and even easy. A man
can be at once a scholar and a believer, and the
human conscience can resent the stagnation pro
duced by Oriental Orthodoxy without denying
Christ; and, finally it is possible to love the Catholic
Church without any loss of patriotism.

EARLY INFLUENCES 61

To what is this transformation due ? We do not
hesitate to ascribe it, to a very large extent, to
Vladimir Soloviev's example, work, and posthumous
influence.

That Soloviev's influence is very great is proved
by the evidence of facts, as well as by written
testimony. Many Russians acknowledge it, and
still more, though they hesitate to confess it, are
affected by it indirectly and almost unconsciously.

It is a remarkable fact that Soloviev had recourse
to no compromises or half-truths in order to effect
a rapprochement between the two parties that were
apparently quite irreconcilable. He never thought
of forming a party himself, and consequently all
were disposed to listen to him; and nothing was
further from his intentions than to meddle with
politics, and, by thus holding aloof, he was able to
accomplish more than could have been effected by
ill-timed intervention. Frank independence was
the keynote of his power. He loved truth for its
own sake, and welcomed it wherever he found it.
In so doing he exposed himself to ostracism on one
side and anathemas on the other, but both were
alike to him, if only truth could thus be discovered
more completely and stated in all its fulness.
He desired the whole truth, and abhorred
exclusivisms to such a degree that the very titles
of his books reveal his tendency to exalt the
integrism of truth in opposition to formalism.
He was an integrist, but he was honest; and
although his plain speaking as a moralist offended

62 VLADIMIR SOLO VI EV

all parties at first, his honesty won them over in
the end.

Professor Bruckner of Berlin writes as follows of
Solo vie v in his History of Russian Literature :
" Soloviev, a moralist and theologian, is one of the
most interesting representatives of modern Russia
and its intellectual fermentation. He is fearless
and quite devoid of all self-seeking in his ardent
zeal for making the truth known. ... In an age
of absolute positivism and indifference to all theories
and metaphysics in general, his great merit has
been to bring back men's attention to the eternal
problems, to have upheld the great moral principles
in eloquent and poetical language, with the force
of intense conviction, brilliant dialectic, and pro
found knowledge. This is his great merit, and it
is doubly great in a country whose native literature
is very poor in works on moral philosophy, and
where the people are intellectually so indolent [the
German author is expressing his own opinion] that
they are satisfied with the merest outlines of truth;
for instance, they welcomed positivism between
1860 and 1870 and Marxism in 1890 and the follow
ing years."

Soloviev's influence was partially felt for a long
time before it reached its full strength in 1900,
the year of his death, and it still continues to
increase. In 1907 Hoffmann, a competent critic,
wrote: " One of Tolstoi's stoutest opponents in the
department of philosophy and religion is Soloviev,
who has acquired great respect and popularity in
his own country. He has taken up a position

EARLY INFLUENCES 63

differing from Tolstoi's on two essential points, for
he adheres to the historical conception of Chris
tianity and to the Nicaean creed, and rejects the
axiom of Tolstoism that forbids resistance to evil.
No one can read Soloviev's last work, completed
only a few days before his death, without indescrib
able emotion. His historical insight is so profound,
so clear, and so penetrating . . . and is plainly
the outlook of a believer, a true follower of Him
Who said: Ego et Pater unum sumus. At this
point criticism is silenced, for love begins."

The same note is struck in the Slovo of March 13/26,
1909, in an article by Vassili Goloubiev on a lecture
given by N. A. Kotliarevsky : " The name of Vladimir
Soloviev is becoming more and more popular. No
one can begin to read his works without yielding
to their charm and loving the author. As a theo
logian he believed in a personal God and in the truth
of Christianity. He made it his aim to reveal the
living Christ to our generation, and to prove the
reality of the Christian spirit in our modern civili
zation. He had profound faith in the other life.
We accept this belief as a dogmatic formula, but
what influence has it upon our daily life ? None at
all, and this is the cause of our practical materialism.
Now Soloviev, though living in the world, possessed
most lively faith, and in this lay his originality.
His whole life was ordered so as to testify to his
faith in the divinity of Christ, and yet it would be
difficult to imagine a more accomplished man of
the world than Soloviev. He was to be found where-
ever there was life; he was keenly interested in

64 VLADIMIR SOLO VI EV

every aspect of life, in art and politics, and even in
the irrigation of the Steppes. He was not out of
touch with the things of earth and his verses are
full of human feeling. But at the same time God
was always present with him, and he was a Christian
in the highest sense. This union between worldli-
ness and spirituality was the great mystery in
his character. His life was in keeping with his
writings."

Hundreds of similar quotations might be made,
from authors differing widely one from the other.
They do not prove that Soloviev attracted men of
every type. Furious attacks did indeed give place
to esteem, ;md hatred to respect, but a man of such
marked personality could not fail to arouse contra
diction. The opposition to him died down, but did
not disappear, and perhaps it does more than in
discriminate enthusiasm could do to increase his
prestige.

Let us see what his antagonists say of him.
Merejkovsky and Ossip-Lourie express very clearly
their opinions. The former, in a book bearing the
title The Tsar and Revolution, bears witness to
Soloviev's extraordinary influence, which is, from
the author's point of view, an additional reason for
regretting his attitude. Soloviev had, he says,
inspired the Russian nation with his moral teaching;
if he had chosen, he could have incited it to revolu
tion, and that he failed to do so is regarded by
Merejkovsky as an unpardonable mistake; " he
preferred to become a Russian John the Baptist,
and to preach obsolete duties in the desert."

EARLY INFLUENCES 65

Merejkovsky seems to have forgotten that John the
Baptist attracted crowds, in spite of preaching in
the wilderness, and taught as a precursor, not as
one recalling the past. M. Ossip-Louri6's com
plaints are more varied. He pronounces Soloviev
to be " an extremely shrewd and spiritual dia
lectician, a scholar, a poet, and an honest thinker,
possessing a thorough knowledge of all the systems
of philosophy." Elsewhere he writes: " In Soloviev
reason and sensation are in perfect equipoise; he is
not an ecstatic, and his mysticism may be described
as the outcome of his reason, rather than of his
inward religious perception." " In his private life
he was an ascetic. ... As a rule the force of the
religious idea weakens other intellectual states,
but this was not the case with Soloviev, whose
mental activity never flagged during his whole life.
... He was neither neurotic nor subject to
hallucinations, but simply contemplative, and a
fine thinker." There was, however, one point on
which Ossip-Lourie differs from Soloviev, and it
redounds more to the latter's credit than all the
praise lavished upon him: " Soloviev thinks that
the salvation of the world will be found in Chris
tianity and in the union of the Churches. This
fact appears strange, for he must undoubtedly
have been aware of their conflicts, and yet it is
certain that in his mind Christianity occupies the
place assigned by Spinoza to Absolute Substance.
We should readily accept Soloviev's opinions if he
did not insist upon the point that the sole aim of
each individual and nation was to participate in

5

66 VLADIMIR SOLO VI EV

the life of the universal Church, each according
to his own particular power and capacity. He
maintains that no union is possible among men
except in God, the principle of union."

Members of the opposite party brought another
charge against Soloviev, and even some of his own
friends share their opinion. They speak of him as
a true Christian, but many stop short at that point,
and feel bound to criticize what they call his Latinism.
Even Radlov expresses some uneasiness on this
subject in his article on Soloviev's mysticism, as
well as in the biographical introduction to his
friend's collected works. It is incorrect to speak
of Soloviev's Latinism, and it would be better to
say that he possessed Catholicity in heart and mind,
or, as Father Aurelio Palmieri puts it, " religious
enthusiasm for the truth and unity of Catholicism."
The accusations brought against him fall into
two classes. The one party objected to him for
holding antirevolutionary and Christian views ;
the other complained that his religious convictions
were too decidedly Catholic, and not sufficiently
nationalist. This explains why he was so violently
attacked by the extremists, whose bigotry and
intolerance we have already discussed. Finally,
however, the spirit of intolerance broke down and
its former champions, recognizing the bad results
of their exclusive policy, listened to arguments
on the other side, and not a few were convinced
of their justice. The miracle worked by Soloviev is
that two antagonistic parties have come to agree
ment regarding him. They unite in admiring and

EARLY INFLUENCES 67

praising him, and even go so far as to proclaim
him to be " the greatest European philosopher
during the last quarter of the nineteenth century,
and the creator of the first genuinely Russian
system of philosophy." Thus those who once
joined in opposing him now agree in extolling him,
and this change of opinion marks the extraordinary
ascendancy that he has acquired over the Slavs.
Palmieri accounts for it as follows: " Soloviev
united with his ardent religious enthusiasm wonder
ful intellectual gifts and extraordinary learning,
so that he possessed the most vigorous mind and
the most generous heart in modern Russia." Vogue
writes in similar terms of " this Doctor mirabilis,
one of the most original figures of the last twenty-
five years; a strong man, originator of fresh ideas.
. . . His vigorous intellect was developed by his
encyclopaedic reading, his knowledge of every kind
of philosophy, natural science, and languages,
many of which he spoke perfectly. The inward
beauty of his soul was revealed in his features and
in his piercing eyes. . . . He was a great man,
and thoroughly representative of his race." We
shall see the justice of this opinion when we have
studied Soloviev's works and character.

CHAPTER IV
SOLOVIEV AS PROFESSOR

SOLOVIEV'S life would seem uneventful were it not
for the frequent attacks made upon him. It might
be interesting to review these attacks in detail,
but, owing to the imperfect knowledge possessed
by Western nations of Russian affairs, it would be
necessary to insert so many explanations that it
appears better merely to mention the principal
events, with the dates at which they occurred.
They will suffice to outline the history of a thinker
who was always progressive, though constrained
by his very loyalty to go slowly and cautiously.
Having done this, we shall be in a position to
examine the psychological reasons for his ever-
increasing influence.

After his conversion to Christianity, before his
twentieth year, Soloviev took up the study of
philosophy. We have already seen what course
of reading, what lines of thought, and what aims
led him to do this. So great was his zeal for work
that at the same time he attended lectures on history,
philology, physical science, mathematics, and the
ology. His favourite professors were P. D. lourke-
vitch and V. D. Koudriatsev-Platonov, and he

68

SOLOVIEV AS PROFESSOR 69

consulted the works of all the chief philosophers,
both ancient and modern. He read and annotated
in their original languages the writings of Plato,
Origen, Seneca, St. Augustine, Bacon, Stuart Mill,
Descartes, de Bonald, Kant, Schopenhauer, Hegel,
Schelling, Tchadaiev, and Khomiakov. He fre
quently spent entire days and nights in philosophical
reflections, thus working out his own personal
line of thought from the abundant material at his
disposal.

On November 24, 1874, he read his first thesis
in Petrograd. It was a critical study, too systematic,
perhaps, but very well thought out, of the twofold
evolution which caused idealism, as represented by
Descartes and Hegel, and empiricism, as repre
sented by Bacon and Mill, to converge in the
direction of atheistic positivism, egpistic, revolu
tionary, and pessimistic in character. This thesis,
which was entitled The Crisis in Western Philosophy,
attracted much attention, and brought Soloviev into
contact with a large number of intellectual Russians,
who were divided in opinion regarding him. His
enthusiastic admirers pronounced him to be an
inspired prophet. Bestoujef-Rioumine, a friend,
admirer and rival of Serge Soloviev, wrote: " If
to-day's hopes are fulfilled in the future, Russia
possesses a new genius, who in manner and style
resembles his father, although he will surpass him.
I have never been conscious of such prodigious
intellectual force at the reading of any other thesis."

Opponents soon came forward, for the repre
sentatives of philosophy in Russia were at that

7° VLADIMIR SOLO V IE V

time all infected with positivism, and the thesis
was plainly directed against them, as its secondary
title showed. Soloviev replied to the attacks of
Lessevitch and Kavelyne, and for a time victory
rested with him. A month later, when he was
only twenty-one, he was appointed lecturer in
philosophy at the University of Moscow, where his
first course of lectures on metaphysics and positive
science began on January 27, 1875. The young
professor's introductory words were characteristic:
"In every sphere of activity, man thinks primarily
of liberty." This was a bold but seductive state
ment to make before a class of Russian students,
and the closing remark, expressive of a wish rather
than an assertion, struck the same note: " Human
thought turns instinctively in the right direction,
towards what will give breadth and freedom to
the knowledge and life of man, and is far from
imposing obstacles and restrictions."

This allusion to freedom might be supposed to
refer to a relaxation in the severity of the Govern
ment, but it really called for changes of quite
another kind, and the professor proceeded to develop
his argument as follows : The necessities of existence
impose upon every man three social obligations,
economic to enable him to utilize the material
world, political to regulate his relations with his
fellow-men, and religious, to put him in due sub
mission to God. Why do we accept these social
conditions only under constraint ? Why should
philosophy reject them, whilst professing to amelior
ate them ? Is man incapable of recognizing in them

SOLO VI EV AS PROFESSOR 71

a providential will, worthy of his voluntary affection?
On these arguments Soloviev founded his theory of
a free theocracy, by which he meant a deliberate
and loving recognition of God's supremacy, in the
voluntary acceptance of which true liberty could
alone be won.

There was in his theory more asceticism than
danger to the Government. At first he was under
stood, but this was not always the case, and the
suspicion of the ruling class led to a series of actions
that brought Soloviev's brilliant career to an
abrupt end only six years later. It is true that
this catastrophe had been foreshadowed more than
once by partial disgrace and long periods of sus
pension, during which he was forbidden to lecture.
This severity was the result of the young professor's
extraordinary success. From the very beginning
of his career he occupied the position which aston
ished Viscount de Vogue in 1880, when everyone
in Russia was talking about " the Doctor mirabilis,
who was delighting the students by his eloquence
and personal charm." This testimony given by
a Frenchman is worth quoting, for he describes
vividly what no one else of his nationality had an
opportunity of observing. " Soloviev," he says,
" occasionally achieved genuine triumphs, when
his eloquence won the applause of all his pupils.
We used to listen with alarm to his bold words,
with much the same sensation as one watches an
acrobat on the tight-rope, wondering if any false
step would cause his downfall. But no such thing
occurred. He knew how to lead his audience

72 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

back to the religious ideal, and reassure the strictest
conservatives; he avoided pitfalls with an innate
skill which upset all our opinions, and that in a
country where one can say nothing and everything.
His success was startling though short-lived, for
his lectures were soon suspended."

Triumphs of this kind aroused implacable j ealousy
of the young professor, many of whose colleagues,
feeling themselves eclipsed, avenged themselves by
intriguing against him, though they were not at
once successful in suppressing their rival. In May,
1875, after he had lectured for three months, he was
suspended for the first time under the pretext of
being appointed to take part in a scientific mission
to London and other towns in Western Europe.
His absence lasted fifteen months, and the solitude
to which he was condemned was a great trial to
him, especially as his health was already undermined
by overwork. For some time he devoted himself
with almost morbid energy to the study of spiritism
and the Cabala. In a letter addressed to Prince
Tsertelev he explains why he took up this pursuit;
his object was purely scientific and philosophical;
he hoped that fresh light cast by spiritistic
phenomena would be of assistance to him in con
structive metaphysics; but, he added prudently,
" I have no intention of proclaiming this aloud;
such a proceeding would not help me in attaining
my desired end, and would only get me into
trouble."

Some Russian friends, resident in London, tried
to induce him to take some rest, and Soloviev

SOLOVIEV AS PROFESSOR 73

readily complied with their wishes and accepted
an invitation to spend an evening with them.
His stories added greatly to the merriment of the
conversation, although they were interrupted by
outbursts of nervous laughter, which is often a
sign of overwork in men who lead studious lives.
Presently he became serious, and protested kindly
though energetically against the vulgarity of thought
and the life of logical positivists. Suddenly a
playful word brought back a smile to his lips, and
his animation prevented his remonstrances from
giving offence. This style of conversation remained
characteristic of him throughout life; he employed
it among Anglicans, who are always eager to welcome
Christians belonging to the Eastern Churches, since
they wish to effect a rapprochement between them
and their own Established Church. So great was
the fancy that they took to Soloviev that they
called him " the Russian Carlyle."

After a few hours of recreation, Soloviev always
resumed work with redoubled energy, feeling im
pelled to make good the time that he had just
wasted. If his visit to London had not been cut
short, he would probably have broken down com
pletely; but at the beginning of November he set
out for Egypt, travelling through France and Italy.
It was on this journey that he first met Catholic
clergy, though he did not come into close contact
with them. His impressions were not unfavourable,
for on November 6, 1875, in writing to his mother,
he says: " From Chambe'ry to Turin I travelled with
two hundred and fifty priests from Vendee, who were

74 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

on their way to Rome . . . worthy men, some of
them not at all like Jesuits."

Soloviev was anxious to visit the Thebaid, to
learn Arabic and to study the popular religions
of Egypt. Before the end of * November his Bedouin
guides had robbed and deserted him, but he was not
discouraged and continued his studies until March,
1876. This first journey beyond the boundaries of
Russia ended with a month's stay in Italy and a
fortnight's visit to Paris. Innumerable plans were
floating in his mind, and it was in Paris that he
conceived the idea of writing a book on the principles
of universal religion, Abbe Guettee to be his chief
collaborator. Nothing came of this idea, except the
production of Russia and the Universal Church, which
aroused Guettee's fury against the "Papist" Soloviev.

During his visit to Paris Soloviev called upon
Renan, Prince Tsertelev having expressed a wish
that led him to do so. As a child he had admired
the author of the Life of Jesus, but as a man he
criticized him severely, and wrote to the prince as
follows: " I could not execute your commission
except by going to Renan," then, after giving
Renan's reply, Soloviev adds: " Perhaps he was not
speaking the truth; he gave me the general impres
sion of being a vulgar braggart."

On his return Soloviev thought Russia a very dead-
alive country, and, in a letter to his mother written
on May 4, he says: " Petrograd takes no interest in
important matters. It is only a distant colony,
whilst history would seem to be concerned with
some place in Atlantis."

SOLOVIEV AS PROFESSOR 75

On resuming his lectures at Moscow, he met with
the same success and the same opposition as before.
On February 14, 1877, when he was only twenty-
four, he was informed that he was placed temporarily
on the retired list. This time the posit ivists were
not his only enemies ; they were reinforced by Katkov
and the Neo-Slavophile party, whose ostensible
reason for attacking Soloviev was that he had
spoken in defence of a colleague who had fallen into
disgrace. The real reason was probably a sense of
uneasiness regarding his opinions.

In 1877 he had formulated his ideas in a lecture
on The Three Forces. There was nothing revolu
tionary about his views, but they were not exclusively
Slavophile, and this fact was enough to rouse
opposition. He maintained that from the beginning
the human race had been influenced by three
forces — viz., a tendency to social union, a tendency
to individualism, and a higher tendency to reverence
God in other individuals and societies. Any
exclusive development of the first tendency would
result in bringing all men to a dead level, to a
uniformity equivalent to slavery and death. The
unchanging character of Mahometanism is due to
this cause, whilst the Western nations are suffering
in consequence of having exaggerated the second
tendency, and the Slavs of the East will live on, if
they carry the third into effect. The essay deserves
to be studied. No one can read it without being
amazed at the narrow-mindedness of those who
could find in it any ground for alarm. The following
quotations will give some idea of its spirit.

76 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

" In the West each man's energy is isolated, since
each claims the right to aim at his own development
to the utmost limit, so that suddenly this energy
fails and threatens to disappear. . . . The social
organism of the West is divided into isolated and
mutually hostile sections, which are further sub
divided into their final constituents — viz., distinct
personalities. A tendency to individualism has
dominated all evolution in the West, from the time
when German particularism began to contend with
Roman authoritativeness. It was not, however,
until the French Revolution that this individualism
was regarded and proclaimed as a serious principle.
It began by destroying the organic groups perform
ing the vital functions in the State; then it trans
ferred the supreme power to the people; but in the
people which had only just become a living body,
it took into account only the aggregation of distinct
individualities, that were united by one single
bond — viz., community of aims and interests.
Such a community may exist, but it may also dis
appear. . . . Yet there must be in every society
some ideal principle of unity. In the Middle Ages
it was supplied by feudal Catholicism; the Revolu
tion abolished this ideal without providing a sub
stitute. Men talked of liberty, but liberty is a mode
of action, not an end in itself. I wish to have liberty
of action, not to be impeded, but this liberty cannot
be the final end of my activity. . . . Now the
Revolution, though it gave an absolute importance
to the individual elements, limited their activity
to the needs of the material order. It denied the

SOLOVIEV AS PROFESSOR 77

principle of devotion to the common good and of
personal disinterestedness. . . .

" At the present day one thing is of supreme
importance in the West — viz., capital; and money
is the only difference between the upper and lower
classes. Socialism, the enemy of the mid<j£ class,
aims at levelling this inequality in the distribution
of wealth, but even if it triumphed without pro
ducing a neo-proletariate class, even if it succeeded
in effecting a fair division of all material goods and
an equal enjoyment of all the benefits of civilization,
it would still not have solved the problem of the aim
of human existence; in fact, it would only have
raised the question in an aggravated form; and
socialism is no more able to supply an answer to it
than is the whole civilization of the West in its
present condition.

"We are told that science is to take the place of
faith, but with what does empirical science deal ?
With facts and phenomena. I ask for an explana
tion of them, and all that science can do is to sub
ordinate them to other more general facts. . . .
Contemporaneous art is a failure; it no longer
believes in the ideal, and being content to imitate
and not create, it ends in producing a caricature.
Without underestimating the progress made in
science and economics, we must rise to a higher level.
The primordial necessity of the Russian nation is
neither to augment its power nor suddenly to develop
a wholly exterior form of activity. Our true strength
both in our past history and in our mission for the
future has been, and must ever be, our being superior

78 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

to all national egotism, our care not to waste our
best energy in lower regions of activity — in a word
our faith in the existence of a higher world, towards
which we stand in the attitude of submission that
befits us. This is the essentially Slav characteristic
of the Russian nation. Even the material humilia
tion of our country would not destroy her spiritual
force. . . . Let us therefore awaken in our nation
and in ourselves a positive consciousness of this
faith. It is the normal result of interior spiritual
growth; let us then go on, raising ourselves above
the worldly trifles that occupy our hearts, and the
would-be scientific arguments that engage our
thoughts. When once false gods and idols are
expelled from our souls the true God will enter and
reign within us."

The Neo-Slavophile party, though it professed
to be orthodox, considered that the Empire was
endangered by the suggestion of such an ideal.
Their jealousy led them to join the positivists in
their hostility to Soloviev, and thus they were
able to impose silence upon their too eloquent rival.

Some friends of Soloviev's came forward in his
defence, and their protests were so far effectual
that on March 4 he was offered a seat on the Board of
Public Education. This was only a partial repara
tion, for he was removed from Moscow and cut off
from his pupils and admirers, with no opportunity
of obtaining new friends. His freedom of speech
was not restored to him, and he was still regarded
with suspicion. No sooner was he installed at
Petrograd under the immediate control of his

SOLOVIEV AS PROFESSOR 79

superiors, than he began to realize what had
happened.

At first all went well, and his Philosophical
Principles of Integral Science appeared in the
Journal of the Ministry of Education for 1877. In
1878 he was even allowed to deliver a course of
lectures in a high school for girls ; and his last thesis,
A Critique of the Principles of Exclusivism, increased
his reputation still further, though after this fresh
success he had to accept the position of private
tutor at the University of Petrograd. Once more
he was employed in teaching at the University, but
his term of office, although very remarkable, was
even shorter than that at Moscow. On November
20, 1880, he delivered his opening lecture on The
Role of Philosophy in History. Sceptics ask, he
said, what philosophy has done for the human
race during the last 2,500 years. It has raised
men above material cares and resisted all exclu-
sivisms, those which absorb man into a Brahma,
and those which never rise above man. It has
set us free from all the oppression of external force,
it has put down all the pseudo-philosophical and
degenerate forms of Christianity, and remains the
indispensable intermediary between the learning
of the material world and the mystical knowledge
of God.

Soloviev's Twelve Lectures on Theandrism were
published about the same time in the Orthodox Re
view. These lectures were most carefully prepared
and delivered before an enthusiastic audience.
They expressed the deepest thoughts of a philo-

8o VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

sopher and believer and marked his first unconscious
leaning towards Catholicism. He was certainly un
aware that this was the case, for he gave utterance
with serene good faith to many prejudices, that
still stood between him and the light.

Theocracy and theandrism are words of which
Soloviev was very fond, for they expressed two ideas
that seemed to him correlative. Theocracy, as
he understood it, is the result of God's supreme
dominion over the world. If we freely recognize
His rights and authority, we must inevitably desire
Him to control all our actions. This free theocracy
imposes upon every individual certain obligations
towards his fellow-men and towards society as a
whole. This is generally admitted. But why ?
Why ought man to respect his fellow-man ? Why
should beings of the same nature, all equally limited
and equally relative, arrange their points of contact
with one another according to a scale of duties ?
If altruism is to have any right to crush my egotism,
there must be in each man a trace of the Divine,
and some resemblance to the Absolute Infinite, the
Master, must be imprinted on every human soul.
It is He who alone is, the sole Good and also the sole
Being, who must cause me to feel: " All these others
are Mine; all that thou dost for the least of My
creatures, is done to Me. If we are to love God,
whom we see not, we must love our neighbour
whom we see."

All these imperfect manifestations of God in
man, all this arrangement by which God Himself
uses men temporarily as His proxies, and all these

SOLOVIEV AS PROFESSOR Si

traces of the Creator were in the past merely the
foreshadowings of the great divine revelation.
A day dawned on which the Word, God Himself,
was made Flesh in the womb of a Virgin. Then
these figurative theandrisms ceased, because the
full theandric reality, the Man-God of history,
had come into being.

But this historical realization of the Man-God
had an object. It was not enough for God, the All
Good, to have honoured with the divine union one
single man, a supreme but isolated representative
of the human race. No doubt in Him, as in all
His brethren, abstract humanity was realized, and
through Him this humanity was associated with
the Godhead. But was the real, concrete mass of
mankind to remain cut off from and deprived of
God ? Did not God in His divine design aim at
saving mankind in general, and at uniting all men
with the Godhead? Yes; all were to be made
divine; all are called to be consortes divines natures ;
and consequently, if the figurative theandrisms
have ceased, the imitative and participating have
begun; and here we have universal theandrism.
It excludes all pantheism, for only the supreme
Head preserves for all eternity the hypostatic
union—" the Man-God is a unique personality."
Jesus Christ alone enjoys, strictly speaking, the
divine sonship; He alone is the Word eternally
begotten, consubstantial with the Father; He alone
receives eternally from the Father, the first and sole
principle, that eternal gift and fecundity that
causes the Spirit, consubstantial with the Father

6

82 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

and the Son, to proceed eternally from Him as
well as from the Father. Consequently His the-
andrism is unique. There is also a hierarchical
theandrism, for the Head imparts to the members
of His body, all in due order, manifestations and
measures of His life. Finally there is universal
theandrism, inasmuch as God designs each human
being to be united and incorporated with Christ,
so that Christ may grow in us to His perfect fulness,
and we may help Him at the same time to become
all things to all men. This is the only absolute
destiny for our indestructible personalities, and it
alone brings them to the Absolute. To it are
subordinated all the relative and finite ends of this
world. Economic and civil societies cannot adopt
any more honourable and necessary aim than to
collaborate in extending the City of God, His King
dom, called on earth the universal or Catholic
Church.

This catholicity was only an abstract conception
to Soloviev at that date. He caught glimpses of
it as an ideal still non-existent, but destined some
day to be realized through the united efforts of
believers. He felt that there must be a rapproche
ment between the East and the West, and dwelt on
this point especially in his last lecture. This idea
of religious union, then put forward for the first
time by Soloviev, gradually came to occupy all his
thoughts, but at the time of which we are speaking,
he still regarded it with naive simplicity. " In the
twofold historical development of Christianity," he
said, " the Eastern Church stands for the divine

SOLO VI EV AS PROFESSOR 83

foundation, the Western for human frailty. Could
these two principles be united, they would give
birth to a humanity both spiritual and divine,
the reality of the universal Church." So much
optimism ought to have allayed the suspicions of
the Orthodox party, but it did nothing of the kind.
The Slavophiles resented any display of interest
in the West, though it was to condone its weakness
and its rationalism. Moreover, this course of
lectures had begun with a statement which, on the
lips of a man less thoroughly convinced, might have
seemed a challenge. With calm audacity he had
brushed aside the nonsense of University positivism
and the narrowness of official orthodoxy. ' I
intend to discuss the truths of positive religion.
This subject is foreign to contemporary specula
tion, and far removed from the interests of con
temporary civilization; but these contemporary
interests did not exist yesterday and will have
passed away to-morrow. I propose to deal with
what is of vital importance in every age. I shall
refrain from personal attacks upon those who now
deny the very principles of religion, as well as upon
those who assail the religion of the present day,
for they do well to assail it, since it is not what it
ought to be."

Four months later, in March, 1881, the antagonism
to Soloviev showed itself openly, and this time he
was finally debarred from lecturing. The following
incident served as an excuse for his removal from
the University. He had been giving a course of
lectures in the Institute for the higher education

84 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

of women at Petrograd, and had taken as his subject
a criticism of revolutionary principles. Alexander II.
was assassinated on March 1/13, 1881, and this
event shed a lurid light on Soloviev's subject; but
so far from modifying his statements, he actually
alluded to contemporary affairs in his lecture of
March 13/25. In order to accommodate his vast
and increasing audience, the Credit Association in
Petrograd had offered him the use of a large hall,
where before an excited crowd, holding various
opinions, he condemned every act of violence as an
evil and a sign of weakness, saying that such acts
were justified neither by God nor by the spiritual
principle in man, but subordinated right and truth
to material force and brute passion, thus enslaving
human personality to the tyranny of environment.

No nation ever advanced in the direction of true
liberty by revolutionary methods, and no ruler
ever diminished the evils in his State by means of
capital punishment. The only force worthy of
the name is interior, and nothing but virtue, derived
from God for the purpose of uniting men in the bond
of charity, can effect changes for the better in social
conditions and secure a victory over evil. Soloviev
went on to condemn, in vigorous language, the
perpetrators of the crime that had just been
committed; but he did not stop at this point,
and proceeded to point out a remedy for the evil
that was devastating his country. Indignation
against the criminals was, he said, purely negative
in character, and something positive was needed
to prevent further outrages. The moral and in-

SOLOVIEV AS PROFESSOR 85

tellectual perversion that would lead the young
into a career of crime must be checked, and this
could not be effected by repressive measures, which
would be again purely negative; such perversion
could be prevented only by converting the masses
to morality and Christianity.

The lectures in their original form concluded with
a few remarks on the necessity of restoring the
principles of Christianity, and on the example that
the Government ought to set. The exact wording
of these remarks is unknown, as hitherto the publi
cation of the text of these lectures has always been
forbidden, and only a resume of them is given in
the third volume of Soloviev's works.

It is certain that he was horrified at the number
of executions in Russia, and always advocated a
revision of the criminal code, the very principles
of which were, in his opinion, shameful and immoral.
At the close of the lectures in question, he uttered
a few words that were perhaps inopportune, but
less inexplicable in Russia than they would have
been elsewhere, urging the new Tsar to act as a true
Christian, by inflicting upon the regicides a punish
ment that would render their conversion possible,
instead of putting them to death.

In this same year, 1881, Dostoievsky died at the
age of sixty-three, leaving unfinished a work of an
allegorical nature, entitled The Karamazov Brothers.
These brothers were three in number; the two elder
represented the past Russia of yesterday and the
passing Russia of to-day. They are both horrible
types, one immoral and the other mentally affected.

86 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

The former, Dmitri, was the incarnation of the
traditional Slavophile feeling and of Russian barbar
ism; Ivan, the second brother, preached the neces
sity of transforming Russia according to Western
ideas, lost his faith and fancied himself an Occi
dental. After drawing these caricatures, Dostoiev
sky skilfully sketched the ideal Russian of the future,
as his patriotism suggested. This Russian of the
morrow was to be the outcome of the highest
aspirations of his country in the past, but also, as
a child of history, he was to love progress. He was
to resist the folly of the Intellectuals, as being the
result of perverted morality; he would respect
national traditions, but this respect should be
strengthened and supplemented by a still higher
love, the love of God and humanity. Whoever
reads this book will feel that Dostoievsky no longer
needed to look forward to the birth of this Russian
of the future. He had already appeared, and
was then a young professor, not yet thirty years of
age, whose gentleness and extraordinary intellectual
gifts had even thus early attracted the attention
of all. In Dostoievsky's romance the name of the
third brother is Aliocha, but his readers were well
aware that this name stood for that of Soloviev.

When Dostoievsky died, Soloviev was only
twenty-eight; he had counted upon the great
influence that his ideas would acquire through his
holding the chair of philosophy at the Universities
of Petrograd and Moscow. He had desired the
position in order to make converts, not for the sake
of money, since his private income sufficed for his

SOLOVIEV AS PROFESSOR «7

simple needs. Now at twenty-eight he saw himself
finally removed from all contact with the students,
whom he loved with apostolic zeal, and who looked
up to him as a brother, not much older than them
selves, but already famous. Thenceforward Solo-
viev could never address a public audience in Russia,
and for a long time he was admitted only to private
societies and the drawing-rooms of his friends.
Towards the end of his life, as soon as the restrictions
were removed, he was elected a member of several
learned societies, and a few months before his
death a chair was offered him at the University c
Varsovie; but it was too late.

CHAPTER V
SOLOVIEV AS WRITER

BEING thus reduced to silence whilst still full of
zeal, Soloviev devoted himself to writing, and again
encountered violent opposition. The most im
portant passages in his disquisitions were frequently
suppressed by the censor, and more than once he
was subjected to so many restrictions that he was
obliged to have his books printed in Croatia or
even in Paris. He had no desire to have recourse to
such measures, and on November 28 (December 10),
1885, in order to refute the persistent charges brought
against him, he wrote from Moscow a letter inserted
two days afterwards in the Novoie Vremia (No. 3864).
In it he says: " I have just written my first article
in a foreign language, addressed to readers beyond
the Russian frontier. It has appeared in the
Katolicki List, under the title The Church : Oriental
or Catholic ?"

No book or article printed abroad, and therefore
free from censorship, contained a single word of
disloyalty towards the Tsar. In his^first French
pamphlet, Some Re/lections on the Reunion 'of the
Churches, Soloviev was so far from displaying the
least bitterness that, when stating what position

88

SOLOVIEV AS WRITER 89

the patriarchate of the East ought to hold in the
Catholic Church after reunion, he wrote: "The
superiority, that in the Eastern Church has always
belonged and still belongs in Russia to the Orthodox
Emperor, would remain intact."

During the years following his disgrace, his
labours were incessant, and the prodigious force of
his intellect made itself felt. Ta vernier remarks
of him that he was insatiable in his desire to study
and to understand. He applied himself to very
various subjects and his powers never seemed to
fail, though his modesty and affability continued
unchanged. The extent of his knowledge did not
prejudice its accuracy, and the wide field of his
studies neither overwhelmed nor concealed his
personality ; he was at once a scholar and a thinker.
Philosophy always occupied a prominent position
in his works, for he wished to familiarize the Russians
with it. Consequently he undertook, or else super
intended, the translation into Russian of ancient
and modern works on philosophy, appending to
them critical and historical notes ; but his own works
showed him to be the foremost philosopher of
his nation. He translated or annotated Plato's
Dialogues, Kant's Prolegomena, Lange's History of
Materialism, and Jodl's History of Ethics.

The whole of the section on philosophy in Brock-
haus-Ephrone's Encyclopaedia in eighty-six volumes,
was entrusted to Soloviev, who collected a band
of collaborators, and himself wrote a considerable
number of articles, some speculative, on the words
time, love, metaphysics, predetermination, causality,

90 VLADIMIR SOLO VI EV

free will, and extension ; and others historical, on
Plato, Plotinus, Valentinus and the Valentinians,
Basilides, Manicheans, Kabbala, Duns Scotus,
Nicholas de Cusa, Kant, Hegel, Swedenborg, Maine
de Biran, Joseph de Maistre, etc.

To various Russian periodicals, especially to
Questions of Philosophy and Psychology, he con
tributed numerous articles on contemporary writers,
such as lourkevitch, Grote, Minsk, Prince Troubet-
skoi, Lopatine, Chtcheglov, Tchitcherine, and de
Roberty, in Russia, and Wundt, Nietzsche, Fouillee,
Ribot, Guyau, Spencer, Hellenbach, and Hartmann,
in Western Europe.

His generous impartiality was so well known, that
in 1898 the Philosophic Society of Petrograd,
wishing to celebrate Auguste Comte's centenary,
invited Soloviev to deliver the oration, and con
sequently for one day the University opened its
doors to him, and before a vast audience he recalled
his former struggles of twenty-five years ago against
positivism. He upheld his opinions regarding Comte
and his teaching, but drew his hearers' attention to
two main points in positivism; Comte saw the
need of raising humanity to the level of the Divine,
and insisted that the living were bound to recognize
the influence of the dead. These two points were
borrowed from Christianity. Comte failed to dis
tinguish them clearly and failed too in applying
them to his conception of the Great Being; but in
spite of his faulty knowledge, I would gladly believe,
said Soloviev, that he was employed by Providence
to detach the minds of his contemporaries from

SOLOVIEV AS WRITER 9*

materialism, and to draw their attention to two
essential truths of Christianity — viz., the survival
of the dead who are destined to rise again, and the
vocation of all men to theandrism — i.e., participation
in Divinity.

These ideas recall Soloviev's views in 1880.
His metaphysical and moral convictions grew more
definite during his religious conversion, which we
shall soon have to consider. He never ceased to
state them emphatically, and, although, in order
to keep in touch with his fellow-countrymen, he
imposed upon himself a certain amount of prudent
self-restraint, he never lost his simple loyalty.
These characteristics may be traced even in his
minor works and philosophical articles. The same
depth of Christian thought and the same restrained
zeal of an apostolic soul, are manifest in 1883, when
he criticized Hellenbach's individualism and meta
physical scepticism; in 1891, when he wrote a dis
sertation on the philosophy of history; in 1893, in
an article on telepathy, dealing with the inquiries
set on foot by Gurney, Podmore, and Meyer; and
in 1894, in a paper on mediums. The same spirit
influenced all his writings, whether he was discussing
the moral value of certain political and social
theories or defending the action of reason and liberty
in matters of religion*

Though Soloviev was par excellence a philosopher,
he had no contempt for art and poetry, and achieved
considerable success as a poet. Here, too, he spoke
out of the fulness of his heart, and his verses are
often compared by Russians with those of Sully-

92 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

Prudhomme, whilst in his criticism of art he re
sembled Brunetiere. Both Soloviev and Brunetiere
were in touch with positivism, both assumed an
attitude of conviction, but at the same time looked
forward to the Catholic Church, and both were
overtaken by death before people knew whether their
actions were in conformity with their faith.

There is less justification for comparing Soloviev
with Sully-Prudhomme. Their poems have nothing
in common except depth of religious aspirations;
and even after his highest flights, Sully-Prudhomme
falls back into an abyss of doubt, and his cries for
help, which are as a rule individualist, end in
despair or blasphemy. Those of Soloviev, on the
contrary, rise gradually to the light of faith and the
confidence that proceeds from love. If from time
to time he utters cries of anguish, it is because he
sees his brethren too indifferent to follow him to
the height that he has attained. Many of Soloviev's
poems were published under pseudonyms. In
1895 he brought out a second edition of his collected
poems, and he intended to collect his literary articles
in the same way. It is impossible to mention them
all here — he published essays on almost all the
Russian poets and authors of the nineteenth
century — e.g., Fet, Polonsky, Tioutchev, Tolstoi,
Pouchkine, Lermontov, and Dostoievsky. We shall
have occasion to refer again to three lectures on
the last of these authors, which roused a sensation
in Russia because they tended to justify his uni-
versalist and " Roman " opinions. We cannot do
more than mention the titles of Soloviev's chief

SOLO VIE V AS WRITER 93

works on art and literature — viz., Beauty in Nature
(1889); The General Significance of Art, Lyric
Poetry (1890); First Steps Towards Positive .Esthetic-
ism (1893); Russian Symbolists (1895); The Pictur
esque (1897).

During the same period he was engaged upon
large works on philosophy, in which he elaborated
the ideas outlined in his theses for the degrees of
Master and Doctor. The chief of these works is
The Justification of Good, dedicated in 1897 to the
memory of his father and grandfather; a revised
edition was published in 1898, Others were left
unfinished — viz., Law and Morality, which contains
a chapter on capital punishment, and First Principles
of Speculative Philosophy, published 1897-1899 in
Questions on Philosophy and Psychology.

These treatises and the theses that preceded them
deserve full analysis, but they are overshadowed
by Soloviev's works on dogmatic and ascetic
theology, to which he devoted his chief attention.

In the midst of his multifarious occupations, he
never ceased to learn. At the age of thirty, when
his name was already on all lips, and his writings
were breaking down ancient categories, and compel
ling men to think for themselves, he determined
to study Hebrew, in order that he might read the
Old Testament in the original, and make a direct
translation of it for the benefit of the Russian
Church. With this purpose in view he retired for
several months to a monastery in Moscow. However,
contact with the past and the study of the prophets
did not turn his attention from the present and

94 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

future. He was keenly interested in all religious
questions, in the Jews, Mahometans, Poles, and
Staroviertsi or Old Believers; in official Orthodoxy
and its organization, dependence, hierarchy, and
monks. He eagerly investigated all these subjects,
which cause many difficulties in modern Russia.
Soloviev's most characteristic writings on the
Russian Church and sects are: The Spiritual Power
in Russia (1881); Old Believers in the Russian Nation
and Society (1883) ; How are we to Awaken the Powers
of the Church? (1885).

He protested, as the Catholic bishops in Poland
have done recently, against the excessive severity
of Russian legislation regarding the Jews. On this
topic, a serious bone of contention in Russia, he
wrote three important works: Judaism and Chris
tianity (1884); Israel Under the New Law (1885);
and Talmud and Anti- Jewish Polemics (1886).
In the Slav library in Brussels there is a copy of the
first of these works, in which Soloviev himself has
restored the passages suppressed by the censor.
On the Polish question he wrote: The Entente with
Rome and the Moscow Newspapers (1883); Arguments
Against the Establishment of a National Church in
Poland (1897); as well as various chapters in his
larger works. In order to find solutions for the
various problems, he had recourse to historical
records and ventured to apply the most exalted
principles; in discussing the application of his
theories, he descended to the sphere of politics,
and in all his explanations and discussions he pre
served a calm and comprehensive loyalty, which

SOLOVIEV AS WRITER 95

was destined ere long to raise him to a broader
outlook than that of the Russian Empire or of all
the Slav States collectively.

The Slavophile party, allied with the anti-
Christian Liberals in their antagonism to Soloviev;
accused him of want of patriotism, and thus his
very loyalty at first increased the number of his
foes, although it finally disarmed them and induced
them to put aside their calumnies, when their
victim's heart had long ached under the charge
of want of patriotism. His reply was that he was
inspired by the purest and most devoted patriotism.
" You tell me," he said, " that love of my country
does not take in me the form of idolatry; that is
true. I love Russia, but I perceive the mistakes
that she has made, and condemn her past and present
injustice. I long to see her still greater and more
glorious, but that does not mean more violent or
more domineering. I hope that she will be in future
better governed and more moral, and eventually
more truly Christian, worthy to be called Holy
Russia. I trust that she will care more for doing
God's will than for conquering other nations;
that she may deserve admiration and envy rather
than fear; that she may defend her Tsar, less for
his own sake than for God's; that she may acquire
influence, less by force of arms than by her faith and
charity; in short, I hope that Russia will be great,
because she acts as the apostle of the world, and, by
preaching the universality of Jesus Christ, she
increases His mystical body and glorifies His one
Holy Church — the Catholic Church — which by the

96 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

accession of Russia will become more perfectly
and visibly Catholic." Soloviev's patriotism did
not prevent him from surveying, unhindered by
time, space, and national boundaries, the religious
life of mankind, which is, alas, only too often in
direct opposition to God's designs. If we compare
His divine plan of religion with the history of
religions, we shall see a drama with a twofold action,
older than the world and more universal than the
world. It is indeed a spectacle full of interest
both for a contemplative philosopher and for a
man of action. " We behold the interests of justice,
love, and goodness; the interests of individuals
and societies, of human souls and of Jesus Christ;
in short, the interests of creation as a whole con
curring with those of God."

But everywhere these interests, human and
divine, encounter opposition. Universal thean-
drism, the uplifting of men to God, is the aim, but
the spirit that would fain attain to it is everywhere
thwarted, being weighed down by rebellious matter.
According as we live in the West or the East, we
speak of positivism or Confucianism, of theosophy
or Buddhism, of revolutionary irreligion or super
stitious traditions, of the credulous servility result
ing from free thought or false ecstasies and frauds.
All these are but episodes in the great struggle,
and of greater interest than any other is the schism
between the Eastern and Western Churches.

Christendom, originally one and undivided, has
for eight centuries been rent asunder into two
bodies; the kingdom of God torn into two hostile

SOLO VI EV AS WRITER 97

camps, is indeed calculated to arouse feelings of
sorrowful amazement. At the age of twenty-five,
Soloviev thought that the vital force of both
Churches proceeded from Christ, but the waters of
eternal life flowed in two antagonistic currents,
and the members of Christ's visible body were
engaged in bitter warfare. Instead of working
together to fertilize the ground that it might
produce new Christians, they fought one with the
other, using the Bible, the hierarchy and tradition
in their conflict. Prayer, the liturgy, the sacra
ments, and even the Mass, seemed not to be means
of offering praise and worship to God so much as
occasions of hostility. Bishops were ranged against
bishops, councils against councils, saints against
saints, and even Church against Church. Surely
it was an irony, if not a blasphemy, in spite of all
this disorder to invoke Him who prayed that all
His followers might be one ! How could a Christian
priest, who had just anathematized some sincere
worshippers of Christ, read out the words: " By
this shall all men know that you are My disciples,
if you love one another " ? How could love of a
national religion be reconciled with the doctrines
of Christ, and jealous race feeling with those of
St. Paul ? Was Slavophile orthodoxy compatible
with our Divine Master's command to teach all
nations, or with the Apostle's statement that now
there were neither Jews nor Gentiles, neither Greeks
nor barbarians ?

Only a very full and well-grounded theology
could solve these formidable antinomies, and

7

98 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

therefore Soloviev, without forsaking philosophy,
turned his attention to theology. Thenceforth
his activity in both departments was simultaneous
and converging. For purposes of criticism, we
are obliged to distinguish them, but the reader must
be careful not to think of Soloviev as at one moment
a philosopher, and at another a theologian. During
the last twenty years of his life the philosopher,
formerly attracted to natural science, devoted
himself chiefly to theology, whilst, on the other hand,
the theologian retained the clear and logical methods
that he had acquired in the course of his previous
studies.

CHAPTER VI
SOLOVIEV AS LOGICIAN

IN his first thesis, Soloviev showed that he was a
philosopher. Of course there are defects in the
volume that he finished at the age of twenty. With
the impetuosity of youth he expresses extremely
dogmatic opinions and rather forced systemati-
zations.

The pages devoted to the history of Western
philosophy before Descartes contain more than
one inaccuracy, but his overhasty conclusions
were re-examined and corrected in subsequent
works. There was some exaggeration in representing
the Unconscious of Hartmann as the fatal goal
towards which the two irreligious tendencies of
Western thought, exclusive idealism and exclusive
empiricism, converged. Still, on the whole, the
thesis itself, and the replies to the attacks that it
occasioned, revealed intensely personal and mature
thought, in direct contact— rare at that period—
with Western philosophy, and a very wide range of
intelligent reading.

The forms employed by Soloviev were often
original, as for instance was the case with the two
syllogisms in which he summed up the historical

99

ioo VLADIMIR SOLOV1EV

and logical evolution of empiricism and idealism in
modern times. The major premiss of the former
would have been borrowed from dogmatism :
We think being; the minor from Kant: We
never think except only concepts. From these
premisses Hegel deduced: Being is therefore a
concept.

Bacon furnished the major premiss of the second
syllogism: The true essence of things, that which
really is, manifests itself to our real experience.

Locke supplied the minor: To our real experience
only isolated states of consciousness manifest
themselves. And Mill deduced: Isolated states of
consciousness are the true essence of things.

This line of reasoning would justify every variety
of pragmatism, from the philosophy of the id£es-
forces to the vaguest voluntarisms of social or merely
moral conceptions.

In all Soloviev's works we see this tendency to
trace the growth of the systems in which human
thought found expression. He liked to discover
their remote origin, in order to forecast their
development and results. In this characteristic
he showed his affinity with the Western philosophers
of the nineteenth century, who were concerned with
the evolution of species. He realized that Hegel
had greatly influenced the minds and systems of
his time, and his opponents committed the strange
mistake of concluding from Soloviev's words on
the subject, that he had himself been a follower of
Hegel. As early as 1874 this anti-materialist
champion had written: " Hegel ought to be regarded

SOLOVIEV AS LOGICIAN 101

as the father of the most absolute materialism.
His metaphysics are to a great extent answerable for
every kind of positivism and for the general hostility
to every form of metaphysics. Hegel influenced
Feuerbach, whose translated works have done
much to spread atheism in Russia, and who gave
an extraordinary turn to his most disastrous
formulae. Hegel maintained that man was the
supreme substance, therefore, says Feuerbach, it
is clear that the divinity for man, is not God, but
man, and consequently homo est quod est (edit)—
man is what he eats."

But Hegel's influence is responsible for still more
outrageous results, as, for instance, in the case of
Max Stirner, who extolled egotism, absolute in
dividualism, and fratricidal struggles, embodying all
his system in one formula: " I am everything to
myself, and I do everything for myself alone." His
" divinity " waged war against all the gods — i.e.,
men — and yielded only to the physical force that
was able to crush it. Besides, Feuerbach and
Stirner, we may regard as Hegel's legitimate
descendants Auguste Comte, John Stuart Mill,
Spencer, Schopenhauer and Hartmann.

Such were Soloviev's opinions in 1874, and he
often renewed and emphasized them, so that
Ossip-Lourie is justified in saying: " It is a mistake
to think of Soloviev as a follower of Hegel; he is
the very opposite and criticizes Hegel most severely."
This remark is perfectly true, and it is difficult to
account for the fact that Soloviev was for a long time
accused of Hegelianism by his own fellow-country-

102 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

men. What can have given rise to this idea ?
Was it due to his quoting Hegel, and ascribing to
him great talents ? Neither reason seems adequate.
Does any critic take as his master a writer whose
pernicious influence he condemns ? Is it con
ceivable that a man of mean intellect could have
done as much as Hegel to increase the prevailing
confusion of thought ? My own belief is that
Soloviev would never have been suspected of
Hegelianism, if he had been nothing more than a
philosopher. One day, however, he declared that
faith in an unchanging dogma did not condemn the
human intellect to stagnation, nor suppress the
desire, need, and means of seeing truth more clearly ;
far from being a hindrance to intellectual progress,
faith encouraged and even required it.

Soloviev then understood and quoted St.
Augustine's saying: "Value the understanding of
your faith very highly. He who by the right use
of reason begins to understand his faith, is certainly
superior to him who as yet merely desires to under
stand what he believes. But if he have no such
desire, and thinks that the things, which ought to
be understood, are simply to be believed, he fails
to perceive the utility of faith " (S. Aug. Epist., 120,
c. II.-IIL, n. 8 et 13).

Some members of the Orthodox party were
scandalized at this return to tradition, and their
indignation increased when Soloviev proceeded to
state that, in order to direct this development in
a way compatible with the immutability of the
faith, the infallible Church has surely received from

SOLOVIEV AS LOGICIAN 103

Christ an appropriate organ, and this infallible
expounder of the faith is the successor of St. Peter.
This statement aroused the fury of those who
upheld the absolute fixity of Orthodox belief, and
they accused Soloviev of being a follower of Hegel,
because he admitted the possibility of growth in
Christianity, and perceived in the Catholic Church
a means of developing Christian truth that the Holy
Synod did not possess. Consequently in the eyes
of the Orthodox party Catholicism appeared to be
contaminated with Hegelianism. The grounds of
this accusation were therefore theological rather
than philosophical, and Ossip-Lourie was uncon
sciously influenced by religious prejudice when he
wrote that Soloviev, though a theist in his conception
of the First Principle, was a pantheist in his ideas
regarding the cosmic process.

These charges against Soloviev were groundless,
for he believed in Divine Providence, he knew that
God calls men to sanctification, and that prayer
places them in real communication with God. This
is what the Russians call " mysticism." Soloviev' s
mysticism was essentially Christian, as all his writings
show, even those in which he deals with philosophy
properly so called.

In the Philosophical Principles of Integral Science
an ideal system of thought, organization, and action,
is offered to humanity, but because it was ideal,
Soloviev did not expect its realization, which would
be more impossible than that of the marvels of
Utopia. Still the ideal ceases to be a chimera as
soon as it influences our will for good, and thus

io4 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

promotes real progress. This treatise, in which
ideas are presented in disconcerting abundance,
resembles a Discourse on Method, in which the same
investigation is carried on, and the same con
clusions drawn, in every department of human
activity, the nature and theory of knowledge, its
logical and metaphysical value, its psychological
conditions and consequences, and its influence upon
individual action and every kind of social cohesion.

Whether it be empirical or scientific, knowledge
limited to the facts and phenomena of the outward
world will be utilitarian, and will promote the
material interests of humanity and the economic
development of society. If it rises to general
ideas, principles, and their logical connection,
knowledge becomes philosophy, which enables
human reason to rise higher than it did when
aided only by the utilitarian knowledge of facts,
but if philosophy is content to stop there and refuses
all further light, it wastes itself on the merely formal
side of ideas and truths and on purely subjective
considerations, and men will logically deny the
objective value of these ideas as long as they refuse
to ask theology whether any absolute being exists,
and what it is.

There are in man tendencies corresponding to
these three degrees of knowledge In the social
order our appetites determine the social relations
with a view to increasing labour. A certain " ideal "
desire for order establishes a judicial and legal
order among the workers, and subordinates the
society thus organized to a form of government.

SOLOVIEV AS LOGICIAN 105

Finally there is a higher craving, that belongs to
the theological order, for an existence that is
absolute and eternal, and this desire tends to unite
men in a religious society.

Sensible activity displays also three degrees; it
may be contented with material enjoyment and
aim at nothing beyond technical progress in trade
to add to its comfort. It may encourage the
sesthetic expression of the idea by means of the
fine arts ; or it may lend itself to mystical communi
cation with the other world.

Paganism did not distinguish between these
three degrees, and the result was the most tyrannical,
exclusive, and absurd absolutism that the world has
ever seen. All knowledge was subordinated to a
theosophy without foundation, all society was
subject to a theocracy in which the sole deity might
be the caprice of a man like Caligula, and all action
was dominated by a theurgy that led only to mystifi
cation. Christianity distinguishes clearly what
paganism confounded; the profane cannot be identi
fied with the sacred, nor the city of men with the
City of God. The reign of liberty would begin at
once, if the pagan principle did not seek to avenge
itself by bringing into antagonism things that ought
to be merely distinguished. In the case of know
ledge, for instance, Comte vainly describes the
ages of theology, philosophy, and science as in
conflict one with another. Modern sociologists
emphasize the spirit of rivalry which impels the three
categories of social organisms into a warfare not
for supremacy, but for existence; economic power is

rob VLADIMIR SOLO VIE V

coveted and will soon be conquered by socialism;
the power of government is being transformed into
a Byzantine Caesarism, irresponsible and autocratic ;
and in religion there is a tendency to a kind of
papism, that Soloviev detested.

The misfortune is that each of these powers
aspires to solitary dominion, and to crush the other
two by its own force. In reality exclusivism is no
more injurious to one than to the other; it is contrary
to nature, and an alliance ought to be formed
between them, for thus alone can a development,
suited to the dignity of man, be secured both for
the individual and for society. Every man and
every group of men ought to agree willingly to this
alliance, if only they considered the relative value
of the advantages that it would safeguard; then
they would ensure their own liberty through divine
truth : veritas liberabit eos. To designate this alliance
in the three departments of human activity, Soloviev
employed the three words used by Plotinus, which
are well adapted to express the supremacy of God,
and are guarded against any pantheistic interpre
tation by the explicit mention of the human, though
Christian, principle of liberty. Free theurgy de
notes the deliberate collaboration of an artisan, an
artist and a mystic, inspired by the desire to raise
themselves and their brethren to God. Free
theocracy represents the effort of human societies
as a hierarchy; the social organism works only to
facilitate the distinctly human activity of the mind,
and minds mutually aid one another in realizing
the individual and collective divinization that God

SOLOVIEV AS LOGICIAN 107

Himself proposes as the end of man, both in His
Word and in His Church.

Finally, the agreement of science, philosophy, and
theology constitutes an intellectual wealth, a ful
ness of knowledge, that may well be termed a
divine wisdom, or in Plotinus' language/r^ theosophy.
This theosophy has nothing in common with that
introduced from India, which Soloviev opposed
strenuously. It is an organic synthesis, in which
science, philosophy, and theology are distinct, each
being an aspect of truth, not its plenitude. The same
spirit should co-ordinate the three points of view,
in order to preserve for each its integral value. It
starts from different data and follows in each case
an appropriate method, but whilst distinguishing
them, it does not represent them as in conflict.
The synthesis of an integral science is possible only
on this condition.

After this introduction, Soloviev indicates a
twofold manner of regarding philosophy strictly
so called. Some, or rather most, of his contempo
raries wished philosophy to stand alone and to be
concerned solely with theoretic speculation. In
this way it becomes simply a system, having no
relation to individual or social life, and it leads
inevitably to scepticism by way of materialism or
idealism, though various forms may be produced
by individuals or in the course of history. In an
existence where happiness is neither complete nor
lasting, the question " What is the aim of life?"
is of supreme importance. We all desire to ascertain
the object of our own existence in particular and

io& VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

that of humanity in general. Soloviev discusses
and criticizes these various systems of independent
philosophy in a few pages that are a masterpiece
of concise and logical argument.

The other kind of philosophy may be called
integral or theosophical, for it concludes nothing
a priori, but goes back to the superhuman and super-
cosmic essence, to the Essential Truth whose exist
ence is autonomous, absolute, and supremely inde
pendent of our thought as well as of the reality
of the outer world. Cartesianism and the deism of
Wolf seem to reduce this essence into a kind of
abstract principle, but integral philosophy sees in
it reality, full of life and thought, " the real source
which imparts to the world the shadow of its own
reality, and to our thought that which it copies
from the Archetype." But such a philosophy does
not stop short at fragmentary or exclusive know
ledge. According to it, truth in all its fulness
can be appropriated only by an action of the will
inspired by love of the Good, and by an uplifting
of the feelings towards the Beautiful. This integral
philosophy, being free from all exclusivism, is
naturally allied with true science, which is empirical
without being narrow; it employs a rational analysis
of ideas in order thus to distinguish and define
realities, and it rises to superhuman realities. This
intellectual reflection is what Soloviev calls mysticism,
in contradistinction to what he terms mystique,
which is a direct or rather sensible communication
with these realities.

In the third part of the same work he discusses

SOLOVIEV AS LOGICIAN 109

the lines on which logic ought to be organized with
regard to this integral philosophy. He distinguishes
the material and the formal aspects of knowledge,
and analyzes the nature, value, and origin of ideas
and intellectual processes, and finally he states
how and to what extent Absolute Being can be
known. Soloviev's critics would have avoided
many errors in their estimate of him, had they read
the pages in which he deals with this last subject.
The Absolute, he says, does not as absolute fall
under our knowledge, for our senses fail to grasp it,
nor does our intellect perceive it directly. The
abstractions that we devise do not really represent
this Being in whom essence and existence are even
logically unseparable. Hence the Absolute cannot
be known by relative beings unless He reveals
Himself to them. We know Him, therefore, by
His own action, which causes all relative beings
with all their relative essences and existences to
tend towards Him. We catch a glimpse of this
action in the empirical phenomena of the outer
world, and it stands at the beginning, centre, and
end of all our thought.

Thus true wisdom recognizes everywhere the
presence and action of God, the presence ever active,
the action ever present. True wisdom knows that
God is perfect unity and at the same time the perfect
All ; that He is One and All — not in the pantheistic
sense, for everything is not God; the sum total of
finite beings does not make them one and God.
But He is the perfect whole ; He possesses such pleni
tude of being that the addition of the finite cannot

no VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

make it more complete; for He in His simplicity
surpasses and contains all finite beings; He is in a
fuller sense than they are. He is the perfect whole,
because the manifold terms of His action, compared
with the reality of His Being, bear only a faint re
semblance to it, and merely seem to exist ; " they are
as if they were not." This conception is neither
agnostic nor pantheistic, but truly Christian, based
upon both the Old and the New Testament, and
taught by Christ and His apostles, the Fathers of
the Church, the Doctors of the Middle Ages, Councils,
theologians, and philosophers, in short, by all
whom Soloviev called " theosophic." It should be
remembered that the Russian, who handled so
skilfully these delicate and subtle questions, was
only twenty-four.

Soloviev's Philosophical Principles of Integral
Science is one of his most important works. We
have analyzed it at some length, because his sub
sequent writings and even his language are unin
telligible to those who are unfamiliar with it.

It is easy now to understand the significance
of the thesis written for his degree as Doctor of
Philosophy in 1880, Critique of Exclusive Principles,
and easy, too, to see why the word exclusive has
been substituted for abstract, which would be the
literal translation of the original. When Soloviev
speaks of abstract or separate principles, he is refer
ring to that lower form of philosophy which is con
cerned solely with thought, and not with life in its
serious aspect. He says: ' I term abstract or
exclusive principles certain fragmentary ideas de-

SOLOVIEV AS LOGICIAN in

tached from truth as a whole, and discussed to the
exclusion of all other considerations. Under these
conditions they cease to represent the truth, are
mutually contradictory, and keep the world in its
present state of intellectual dislocation. These
exclusive principles are falsified by their very ex-
clusivism; in order to criticize them, we have firstly
to determine their proper value, and show, secondly,
that they cannot be substituted for integral reality
without involving internal contradiction. Our
criticism will be an introduction to the study of
those positive principles which influence life and
conscience, but are in themselves eternal essence in
the sole perfect Absolute."

Two forms of exclusive thought are discussed
at length— viz , that which confines itself to cata
loguing facts in the name of positive empirical
science, and that which constructs a purely formal
philosophy in the name of reason emptied of all
real content and declared actually non-existent.
Through Auguste Comte and Hegel this twofold
conception has attracted many minds, but it has
the fatal defect of making void the world and
thought. Thus exclusive science and philosophy
lead to doubt and scepticism, that rob them even
tually of all objective value and condemn them
altogether. With them perish also all systems of
ethics that men have tried to base on science or
philosophy, apart from religion.

Soloviev proved this fact with accuracy and
emphasis. Fifteen years earlier than Brunetiere
he proclaimed the bankruptcy of all who attempted

U2 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

to establish a new ethical system, empirical or
rational, inspired by personal dignity or by devotion
to social progress, but still autonomous. In his
panegyric of Soloviev, pronounced at the Academy
of Science at Petrograd on January 21, 1901, Koni
drew particular attention to this priority on the
part of the Russian philosopher, and pointed out
at the same time that these views do not affect the
legitimate development of science and philosophy
in their proper spheres. There is no question of
denying scientific results, obtained by the research
and labour of centuries, nor of destroying philo
sophy in order to construct, under the name of faith,
a blind and ungrounded theology. Any theology
that is out of touch with real life, unable to justify
its existence or to develop logically, powerless to
subject intellect to truth, and still more powerless
to subject to it all human life— a theology that
would reject all science and philosophy would
display the worst features of exclusivism.

In the intellectual and moral order, in thought
as well as in action, barriers must be removed, so
that the different spheres may be distinguished, but
not cut off from one another. Soloviev suggests
that the same remark would apply to the creative
genius in art, but he postpones the development
of this idea, and never had time to revert to it.
He dwells rather on the social application of his
principles, and says that a certain essential equality
exists among all human beings, because each
individual ought to represent the absolute. Sub
specie aternitatis all men may be accounted equal,

SOLOVIEV AS LOGICIAN 113

since all are finite in comparison with the
infinite.

Each, however, represents the divine unity in
a different way, and this inequality justifies their
plurality, as also their relations of mutual love and
support. These relations necessitate spontaneous
grouping and the formation of particular societies,
but at the same time there must be one society
that aims at bringing men into direct contact with
God; and this is the Universal Church, to which,
in accordance with God's design, all mankind should
belong.

Every human society must have a government,
and in this world the hierarchy cannot be established
on a basis of personal worth; but in an ideal state
authority would be distributed according to men's
ability to promote the economic, political, or religious
welfare of society. Even societies ought to recog
nize a kind of hierarchy among themselves. " A
free Church in a free State " is a watchword that we
often hear, but no believer can accept it, for in his
opinion it destroys the essential hierarchy designed
by God, and assigns too low a position to the Church.
An unbeliever, however, thinks that it ascribes to
her too lofty a position, since she has no right to
legal recognition. History confirms the logic of
this, and the formula cannot be a principle, at best
it is a practical compromise. Church and State,
the spiritual and the secular powers, being both
based on the will of God and human nature, cannot
be mutually destructive, nor can they exist in com
plete separation. Their true relation is one of

8

n4 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

free subordination, originating in true love of God
and man, and existing in what Soloviev calls a free
theocracy. He foresaw that people would accuse
him of being a Utopian, and so he forestalled their
objections to his theory, and deliberately began by
discussing the ideal constitution of society. In
Chapter XII. he says that human society is at once
a fact and an ideal. Positivists are contented with
statical sociology, and do not go beyond facts;
but as soon as a sociologist begins to consider
social dynamics, he is in search of an ideal element
contained in facts, and perhaps, in spite of himself,
he develops an ideal sociology, and holds opinions
as to what ought to be the state of affairs in society.
The positivist conception is condemned for yet
another reason; if society is a fact, an organic
reality, as they assume, this reality is made up of
elements capable of perception and thought. The
fact, therefore, is permeated by the idea, which
directs every activity on the part of the elements,
and which, because it directs without being yet
realized, is Ideal, no matter what its nature may be.
This notion of the Ideal may be ridiculed as
Utopian, but nevertheless the Ideal will always
be the precursor of real activity, and it would be
utterly unreasonable to attempt to suppress every
directing idea. Hence, adds Soloviev, it is important
that a philosopher, who studies society, should first
determine its ideal constitution, and make up his
mind what it ought to be. This is why he omitted
for the time being all that did not bear upon
principles; means of application would depend upon

SOLOVIEV AS LOGICIAN 115

politics. In practice it would be necessary to pay
attention to all facts, but, in order to select and
arrange suitable measures, a man of action must
have a clear conception of the idea.

Soloviev was from that time forward planning
a large work on Christian Politics, but he never
finished it. In 1883 he published seven chapters
forming the part in which doctrinal and ecclesiastical
matters were discussed. They bore the title: The
Great Debate and Christian Politics. We shall
revert to this work later; other fragments of it
appeared from time to time, and those in which the
duties of Russia were laid down attracted much
attention, and also roused much indignation in some
quarters. The positivists laughed at the suggestion
of a moral idea in politics; the Neo-Slavophiles might
have accepted the principle in order to apply it to
other States, but were unwilling that Christianity
should impose on Russian politics any obligation
to be moderate. Where foreign politics were con
cerned, they wished national interests to take
precedence; and it is easy to understand their
religious attitude towards everything that they did
not consider orthodox. This " International canni
balism," as Soloviev called it, was repugnant to
him, for he felt that what was genuinely to the
interest of his country could not be discovered either
in evil or in resistance to God's will. It was in
accordance with God's design that countries, races,
and traditions should exist, but nevertheless He
created only one humanity, and subjected it all to
one moral code.

n6 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

The essays, that we have been discussing in this
chapter, all appeared before 1883. For about
fifteen years Soloviev wrote no important work on
pure philosophy; all his attention seemed to be
devoted to theology, asceticism, and the history
of religion, and only a few occasional articles proved
that he had not forsaken philosophy altogether.
In 1897 he consented to revise his thesis for the
degree of doctor, insisting only upon a clear state
ment regarding the evolution of his thought. In an
appendix headed " Corrigenda " he says: " Twenty
years ago I wrote this Critique of Exclusive Principles
at a time when I was too strongly influenced on
points of pure philosophy by Kant and Schopen
hauer." Consequently he carefully revised the
chapters dealing with Kant's principle of morality.
During the same year some articles by Soloviev
appeared in Questions of Philosophy and Psychology,
the chief philosophical review published in Russia.
Amongst them were three chapters intended to be
the beginning of a large work on knowledge. The
outline of it indicates what this Justification of Truth
was intended to be. There was to be one dominant

idea viz., to substitute for the classical TvuOt

aav-rov some more comprehensive motto which
would assert the tendency of mankind to progress,
and this Soloviev discovered in St. Augustine's
words: Deus semper idem, noverim me, noverim te.
His ideal was to begin with personal introspection
of the Ego, and then to rise to Divine truth in its
absolute Being, and subsequently to revert to the
beings in process of development that God has

SOLO VI EV AS LOGICIAN 117

produced in His own image. Thus we should raise
our thoughts from man to God, only to find God
again in all His works, and so we should learn to
know the Truth : yv&Oi rrjv aKrjdeiav.

This work on theoretical philosophy was never
finished, and we must deeply regret the fact,
especially if we judge of its value by referring to
The Justification of Good, Moral Philosophy, another
work written about the same time and on similar
lines.

CHAPTER VII

SOLOVIEV AS MORALIST— " THE JUSTIFICATION
OF GOOD "

SOLOVIEV wrote a great deal on morals, and almost
all his works deal with some aspect of this subject.
Whether he was writing as historian, theorist,
critic, or philosopher, he continually referred to
morals as the manifestation of practical reason.
Incidentally he answered many ethical questions,
such as the origin of morality, the nature of duty,
the existence and limitations of liberty, and
the individual and social bearing of our human
obligations.

We have already alluded to some of these articles,
but their synthesis is worthy of more detailed
examination, in which we can proceed on the lines
laid down by Soloviev in his Justification of Good,
an important work containing a summary of his
views as a moralist. Nine months only after its
first appearance he had to prepare a second edition,
in the preface to which he says: "During these
nine months I read the whole book through five
times, each time making corrections, so that it
might express my thought with greater precision;
but in spite of my efforts, it is still imperfect. I
trust that it will not bring down upon me the

118

SOLOVIEV AS MORALIST 119

reproach: ' Cursed be he that doth the work of the
Lord deceitfully.' '

These words, which are intentionally dated
December 8, 1898, indicate clearly in what spirit
Soloviev undertook this work on philosophy. His
method was plain; he wished to induce his readers
to investigate and recognize the reason of their
existence and the meaning of life. With this
purpose in view, he asked three questions, the first
being naturally that at which Mallock stops short:
" Is there any justification for life ? Is it worth
living?" The second is: "Must this meaning of
life be sought in what is called the moral order ?
Man's activity may be animal or properly human;
does the higher flight of the spiritual allow or re
quire the sacrifice of what would be excess in
physiological tendencies ?" Olle"-Laprune was en
gaged in analyzing the same problem — what con
stitutes the value of life for man ? It is closely
connected with another question : Whence proceeds
the meaning, the significance of life ?

The third point discussed by Soloviev is one more
frequently overlooked by contemporary thinkers,
yet it is identical with that which presents itself
sooner or later to every individual — viz., " What is
the aim of my life ? The direction of our voyage
or its point of departure should be enough to
determine what life is, and what it ought to be, in
its integral growth and development."

The rest of this preface has the charm of a frag
ment of Bourdaloue, although it is difficult to give
any idea of this in a brief re'sume'. Soloviev con-

VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

tinues: " How can human activity be displayed,
while the mind does not reflect upon these guiding
principles ? It is an honour to our generation to
have gone below the surface at which the so-called
thinkers of the last two centuries stopped short;
but the incoherence of the answers to this question
flatters the selfish interests of dilettanti. Many
have cast aside all religious truth under the pretext
of securing intellectual freedom, whereas they are
really enslaving their intellect to servile mimicry.
They fit into every kind of surroundings, provided
that two conditions are fulfilled; their selfish
indolence must be left untouched, and it must be
cloaked and decked out with many subtle and
aesthetic arguments. Some people are induced by
pessimism to enjoy life and indulge their caprices.
The mind solemnly proclaims that evil is aggravated
when perpetrated by one of higher status. There
fore they do not imitate those whose convictions
lead them to suicide, but quietly yield to matter,
and abandon every supra-instinctive element in
life. Are they indeed persuaded that life has no
meaning ? Certainly not ; they perceive its meaning
clearly, but their own life fails to satisfy them, and
their cowardice deters them from any effort to raise
it. In their fury or despair they resolve to forget, no
matter at what cost, and refuse to reflect at all.
The life-history of innumerable people at the present
day might be summed up thus. Very many others
try to avoid reflection by following attractive but
barren lines of thought. These are aesthetes, to
whom life has a meaning, because it possesses

SOLOVIEV AS MORALIST 121

force, dignity, and beauty, but they desire it to be
independent of all moral goodness, for this imposes
restraints upon them, whereas they are seduced
by beauty, and intoxicated by splendour and power.
Beauty, splendour, and power make up the trinity
which Nietzsche proposed to substitute for that
of Christianity, when he said: ' Slaves may adore
a God who became man and humbled Himself,
but the strong refuse to adore anything except
their own elevation towards the superman; in other
words, the infinite advancement of human beauty,
human grandeur, and human power.'

" How can we talk of infinite advancement ? In
the eyes of these aesthetes beauty, grandeur, and
power constitute the whole of man, and they end
in the grave — what beauty is there in a corpse ?
In the ancient world Alexander of Macedon com
bined power, beauty, and grandeur, and yet of
him, as of every other human being, it could be said:
' He fell down upon his bed, and knew that he should
die.' He was the invincible incarnation of power,
magnificence, and beauty, and yet he died, and left
nothing but a form devoid of all these qualities.
Can any power be worthy of the name that cannot
resist death ?

" Nietzsche was the impassioned preacher of the
body, the real self, the sense of earth; and cursed
those who despised it — viz., Christ and the pariahs
who worship Him. Nietzsche himself adored
nothing but bodily beauty and strength, idols
which can save neither themselves nor their adorers.
He failed to see that real beauty, majesty, and

122 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

strength are inseparable from the absolute Good,
and can belong to a creature subject to death only
in so far as they are communicated to him by and
in this absolute Good. Nietzsche did not notice
that the Gospel was not a message of death or
mourning, but the revelation of true salvation,
joy, and light. Christianity, far from being founded
on death, is based upon ' the Firstborn among the
dead/ and our risen Lord, whose example is the
guarantee of His promise, offers life everlasting
to all His followers. Is this a religion of outcasts,
slaves, and pariahs ? Do death and resurrection
affect only certain classes ? Are Nietzsche and his
supermen not liable to death ? Before condemning
the Christian doctrine of equality, he would have to
abolish the equality of all men in death. If all
have need of salvation, how can the religion which
alone can save men be the religion of slaves ?

" Christianity is a foe neither to beauty nor to
strength; it only refuses to recognize strength in
a weak mortal drawing near to death, or beauty
in a corpse undergoing decay. Phantoms of strength
and beauty, which are in reality powerless and
hideous, impose fetters on man, but Christ has
delivered us from this yoke, and every true Christian
comes to Him, the Source of all that is indeed
strong and beautiful. He rejoices with the first
soul filled with the spirit of Christianity: ' My soul
doth magnify the Lord, the Lord of my salvation;
for He hath done great things in me, and He is
mighty; He hath revealed His power, and hath
raised the humble/

SOLOVIEV AS MORALIST 123

" No one worships what is weak and hideous, but
all desire to adore what is strong, great, and beautiful.
Unhappily many devise for themselves some vague
chimera of strength, greatness, and beauty, and
rest content with their own imaginations. Others
seek for real strength and beauty, and find at length
that they are always identical with the Good,
whose eternal existence robs His worshippers of
all fear of death. They do not, indeed, look for
definite victory in this life, but expect it with
assurance in the future. The former fancy that they
will invariably triumph in this world, and their
error exposes them to frequent defeats; they fail
to grasp the present, and their divinity dies when
ever death carries off one of their number; it lies
buried in every cemetery."

These stirring passages indicate the scope of the
whole work; yet Soloviev had no desire to act as
censor. " My intention," he writes, " is not to
preach; I do not purpose to teach virtue or rebuke
vice. For a plain mortal like myself, such a design
would not merely be futile, but it would be immoral,
since it would involve an arrogant and unjustifiable
claim to be better than my neighbours. My object
is not to condemn the accidental errors, however
great they may be, which cause men to stray from
the right path, but I wish to remind my readers
that to every man is offered a choice, to be made
once for all, between two courses involving morals;
a choice which ought to be made with full knowledge
and insight, and which cannot be avoided. Many
would prefer not to make it, and desire to find

124 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

a middle course, not altogether bad, but yet not
the way of the Good; a commonplace and natural
sort of course, along which men and beasts can
saunter. Such is the ideal of which many men
dream, and they are quite content to accept the
German saying Allen Tier en fatal ist zu crepieren
(Every animal is fated to die), if only they may
previously experience the truth of another similar
proverb: Jedes Tierchen hat sein Plaisirchen" (Every
animal has his own little enjoyment).

"Such a dream is, however, impossible; animals
have no choice, and follow passively the way of
empiricism; but man must choose; he must arrive
at a personal decision, formed by his elective
activity, before he can follow the path of moral
passivity. If he claims then to be walking in com
pany with brutes, he lies, for deliberate animalism
involves a contradiction in terms. No one decides
in favour of apathy except by choosing one of the
two courses open to human beings — i.e., by de
liberately preferring evil through prejudice against
the Good.

"To prevent such prejudice, I desire to show the
Good as it really is — viz., as the way of life, the one
way that is just and safe for all and in every respect.
One thing only is necessary if this path is to lead
us to our goal, and that is, that we should choose
it. It will lead us to Him who is Good in His
essence, for it proceeds from Him. He alone is
justified in all His acts and justifies our faith in
Him. Even before an open coffin, when any other
kind of reflection would be out of place, man can

SOLOVIEV AS MORALIST 125

utter words of confidence that are the expression
of his wisdom, and say: ' Blessed art Thou, O
Lord; Thy works declare Thy goodness, and will
declare it for ever.'

4 ' For its own sake, human life ought to be directed
according to this absolute Good. The life of the
individual, the life of society and nations, and the
historical life of humanity are three spheres in which
God justifies Himself in ways of goodness and
justice — but all His loving dealings with man are
overlooked by the egoist, who refuses to make any
sacrifice or any return of love to God. Even if we
have chosen the better path, the necessary stages
sometimes seem inexplicable, and one who has
knowingly chosen the worse must find them wholly
incomprehensible. He will inevitably condemn
them as useless and vexatious, and will resent
every reminder of God, since it suggests that he has
made a bad choice. Nevertheless the light that
suddenly flashes in the depth of his soul, and un
expectedly reveals to his conscience the evil of the
path that he has chosen and followed hitherto, is
only another justification of God's goodness."

Three parts of the book are devoted to working
out this design. In the first all traces of good in
man are investigated with the precision of our
psychological methods. After triumphantly ex
posing the errors of pessimism, Soloviev proceeds
to discover the philosophical foundations of morality
in the basis of moral action. He sees in human
activity three orientations that he approves as
good; these are: (i) a tendency and ability to rule

126 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

over matter, even the matter which constitutes
our own bodies; (2) the certainty of our solidarity
as human beings; and (3) the recognition of our
mysterious and inevitable subjection to what is
superhuman.

The need of controlling matter in ourselves is
manifested first by the feeling of shame. Though
slow of growth and often very slightly developed,
and frequently cast aside altogether by the will,
the sense of shame nevertheless marks in every
man the first conscious working of his reason; his
mind, hitherto under the sway of matter, asserts its
superiority, and seeks in its turn to rule. This
effort of the spirit to subjugate the body is the
principle underlying asceticism, which weakens the
flesh to strengthen the spirit. The body is a re
bellious slave wishing to reign supreme, having to
be subdued, for its duty is to be a helper, not a
tyrant. Its functions may vary, and it may become
a criminal, but in Christianity it rises gradually to
the angelic virtue of perfect chastity. Let him who
can, understand this, said Jesus Christ.

The mutual interdependence that binds men
together is both a fact and a necessity. It would
be criminal to lead a life from which all altruism
and compassion were banished. Asceticism arrived
at the negative conclusion: "Love not the world,
and put aside its threefold attractions." But
simple and honest hearts prefer another rule that
is positive and more exalted: " Love thy neighbour
as thyself." Devotion and brotherly love are
sometimes such conspicuous characteristics of a

SOLOVIEV AS MORALIST 127

man that no one refuses to call him good, and even
pessimists recognize his goodness, although they
may be ready to crucify him in anger at their
defeat.

A student who studies human psychology more
deeply cannot fail to perceive that every man
by some mysterious instinct knows himself to be
subjected to what is superhuman. Education,
thoughtlessness, or worldly cares sometimes obscure
this fact, which lies at the root of all morality, but
if only a breath of wind disperse the clouds, if only
one man be true to his mission, the cornerstone is
revealed, and all acknowledge that upon it their
morality must be based, and this morality will be
logical and true, because it is religious. This state
ment will be proved in the second part.

Psychology has not accomplished its whole task
when it has pointed out in man three natural ele
ments of morality — viz., a tendency to asceticism, a
tendency to charity, and a tendency to submit to the
superhuman. It proceeds to study the action of
these tendencies and the development resulting from
their being brought into activity; and it is remark
able that man spontaneously describes them as
" good." This consideration leads us on to the idea
of " better," the conception of something absolutely
desirable, which should refer not to the individual,
nor to his well-being, nor to his reputation, nor to his
activity, and which should not be sought on account
of its connection with what is socially good. It is
simply better, desirable in and for itself. Such
conceptions are difficult to put into words, because

128 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

they raise our thoughts to something higher, and
are inspired by experience and spontaneously
worked out by the mind. They lead us to assume
the existence of and to desire an Absolute Good,
which is infinitely desirable, and here we have the
idea of God.

This is the culminating point reached by psy
chology, for the study of its objective value belongs
to metaphysics. Before passing on to this higher
level, we shall each of us do well to look back on
facts that have come under our own observation.
They will suffice to condemn every kind of practical
philosophy that aims at imposing itself upon the
human intellect, without justifying its existence
by definite rational principles. No Eudaemonism
and no utilitarianism can satisfy our aspirations,
for they are powerless to influence our conduct.
An impartial study of human psychology forces
every honest thinker to recognize a rule of morality,
anterior and superior to the impulses of caprice,
and this rule proclaims the existence of duty.

What is the origin of duty ? The second part
establishes the identity of the Absolute Good with
God, really existent. Thus duty cannot depend
upon Kant's postulates, and can be imposed only
by the Infinite. The human conscience is the
mouthpiece of the will of this Infinite Being, although
it may be so unconsciously; but morality, which is
fidelity to the voice of conscience, leads men step
by step towards God. The effort to do right gives
freedom to the spirit and prepares it for devotion,
which in its turn destroys self-complacency, and

SOLOVIEV AS MORALIST 129

by means of this victory over self-will, inclines
man to recognize personally, to adore and to love
Him who is infinitely good.

Man might, however, still be hindered by want
of experience, if he could not keep in view a model
of this moral perfection, and consequently the in
finitely good God offered him the Divine personality
of Christ, whose human body, raised on the cross
at the culminating point of human history, displayed
the triumph of asceticism, of devoted love for man
kind, and of worship of God. This is why every
upright soul must choose Jesus Christ, the Son of
Mary, to be the guide of his conscience and the
example of his life, before he recognizes God in this
perfect Man, and before he even professes himself
a Christian.

Only a few pages in the Justification of Good are
devoted to this moral influence of Jesus Christ;
Soloviev was right in thus condensing his arguments,
for he wished to confine himself strictly to philo
sophy. Elsewhere he described most accurately
what Jesus Christ ought to be to every Christian
conscience, but in this work he felt bound to write
with more reserve, and perhaps his very conciseness
renders his argument more trenchant.

In conclusion, Soloviev proceeded to discuss
morals; he did not attempt to determine duties
in detail, for each man's conscience must exert itself
to recognize God's way in the infinite complexity
of our conditions of life. Soloviev tried to dis
cover the principles that ought to guide our con
science in the continual conflict between apparently

9

130 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

opposing duties. He dealt with this subject in
the third part at considerable length, and devoted
ten chapters to studying " the action of the Good
throughout the history of mankind." This second
ary title suggests a line of thought dear to St.
Augustine; it might seem pretentious, had it not
been intended to indicate the simultaneous exist
ence of the historical and speculative points of
view.

After classifying the rights and mutual obliga
tions of individuals and societies, with their founda
tions and limitations, Soloviev discusses fully the
historical influences that have shed a progressive
light upon these principles. He arrives at this
conclusion: " The great epochs in which a conscious
ness of individual responsibility and social obliga
tions became precise, and the schools of philosophy
that exalted either moral subjectivity or the preroga
tives of social organisms, all concur in displaying
the great harmony of Christianity, which is more
elastic- and more comprehensive in its doctrines
than all its distorted substitutes, since it has effected
a genuine transformation of history, and is the
one absolute rule of conduct ; absolute when teaching,
absolute when promising, and absolute when
commanding."

The same synthetical power is brought to bear
upon each of the following questions: How does
ethical teaching decide the national question, or,
in other words, the relation between nationalism
and universalism ? How does it regard the problem
of crime and its repression ? What are its decisions

SOLOVIEV AS MORALIST 131

on economics ? What mutual relations does it
impose on public right, legislation, and morality ?
What justification and what limitation does it
assign to international warfare ?

This important work on the Justification of Good
concludes with a long and beautiful chapter on
the ideal, the " perfect organization of integral
humanity," that would be realized, if ethical teach
ing were freely put into practice by mankind.

Soloviev was too clear-sighted and too shrewd a
theologian to imagine that such a realization was
possible. He had no hope of a sudden transforma
tion of the world, and he was quite aware that no
change would result in the perfection which he de
sired. But individuals and societies are capable
of improvement, and it is always worth while to
aim at it.

" In the present state of human consciousness
there is peculiar need for men to exert themselves.
Those who have discovered for themselves a satis
factory and definite solution of the moral problem,
ought to justify this solution for the sake of others.
When the mind has triumphed over its own doubts,
the heart is not rendered indifferent to the errors
of others." One of the chief attractions of truth
is its integrity; it is incomparably beautiful and
persuasive, as long as it is not mutilated by the
rivalry of human passion. Hence it is most ex
pedient to show men the ideal, the thesis. There is
however, another advantage derived from so doing :
with the best will in the world, no end is ever attain
able unless it is clearly defined. We must therefore

1 32 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

study incessantly and reveal plainly God's design
for human liberties. Thus our approximations,
though very faulty, will nevertheless bring about a
real improvement.

These considerations justify several pages in
Solo vie v's work that at first sight might seem purely
Utopian. They should be borne in mind by the
reader, and especially by any Western theologian,
who comes in contact for the first time with Solo-
vie v's religious writings, for they explain the
attributes that he is fond of ascribing, in an almost
ideal world, to the three visible representatives of
God's power.

The Pontiff, the supreme guardian of Divine
truth with its spiritual fruitfulness, the centre and
highest point of the Christian priesthood, the
common father of the visible Church at every
moment of her historical existence, represents God
in the sight of mankind in general, who, in accord
ance with His design, may be identified with the
Church. The Pontiff's mission is to produce in
each soul the person of Jesus Christ, so that this
one invisible Head of human society may acquire
in that soul the fulness of His mystical body.

A second task is assigned to the ruler of each
Christian State, " to the imperial element of Christian
theocracy." It is a task subordinate to the first;
and must not be absorbed by, nor confused with,
nor separated from it. The ruler's task is to
organize the social and political order according
to the truth of religious principles. It is not
necessarily universal, but, being limited to national

SOLOVIEV AS MORALIST 133

boundaries, is destined to produce the practical
conditions and external means of development both
for individuals and societies, so that they may
attain to their full worth as men with a view to
becoming more and more like God.

" Christ's priesthood is perpetuated in and by
the Sovereign Pontiff; His kingship is delegated to
the rulers of various States. Finally, His sanctity
and the extraordinary graces of His humanity are
the object of a third mission. From time to time
God chooses certain men, and fills them with His
spirit for the salvation of their brethren. In word
or deed they are true prophets. Being subject to
the twofold authority of pontiffs and sovereigns,
they are sometimes constrained to rebuke and
condemn the very men who are pontiffs or sove
reigns. They are bound to God by the hierarchical
Church of Jesus Christ, and are placed by Him in a
civil society, so that they have no right to refuse
lawful subordination; on the other hand, as their
mission is at stake, they must not behave like dumb
dogs."

Supposing that, throughout the world, the
universal Pontiff, the supreme ruler of each State,
and the prophet divinely chosen co-operate, and
each in his proper sphere collaborates with the
others, how rapid will be the advance of mankind !
" What is good from the economic, the social, the
moral, and the religious points of view would thrive
together, and men, grouped at last in a Church
that was literally universal, would accomplish God's
design. In the future all would attain to the

I34 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

plenitude of being that God intended them to
possess, the mysterious individual and collective
divinization that He promises to the creatures that
He made out of nothing, in order to fashion them to
His own likeness."

Considerations of this kind were most attractive
to Solo vie v, but they carry us beyond the domain
of philosophy, strictly so-called. In the conscience
of our contemporaries, still impregnated with
Christianity and influenced by grace, psychology
can trace the germs of these high thoughts and some
tendency on the part of the soul to rise above the
level of mankind. But the precise notion, the
reasonable hope and practical realization of this
divinization, are beyond the scope of our natural
sciences; only a divine communication can make
them accessible to us.

" This communication, desired by God, opens to
our minds a new sphere of study and contemplation ;
the innermost depths of the Godhead become
accessible to theology and mysticism."

When Soloviev published his Justification of
Good, he had for twenty years been studying
theology; it is therefore not surprising that his
philosophical work tended to direct his readers'
attention towards his favourite pursuit.

We are now confronted by the question: " To
what conclusions did his religious investigations,
being perfectly sincere, lead him ?" We shall
make this the chief point in dealing with his theo
logical works.

CHAPTER VIII

THE BEGINNING OF SOLOVIEV'S WORK AS A
THEOLOGIAN : " EARLY ESSAYS " - - " THE
GREAT DEBATE "— " JUDAISM AND CHRIS
TIANITY "

IN Chapter V. we saw what painful problems
caused Soloviev to turn his attention to theology.
His anxiety regarding religion betrayed itself even
in his earliest works; their author evidently desired
to follow God and to bring others to Him, but
he had not yet discovered with certainty what
path to take. His essay entitled The Three Forces,
published in 1877, and others on Universal Thean-
drism, that appeared between 1877 and 1881, all
show plainly that his aim was to promote in the
world the designs of Jesus Christ. This motive
underlay all his efforts to the end of his life, and it
may be defined as a desire to assist Christ in the
task of rendering mankind in general divine.
The means of attaining this end were left vague,
or rather, Soloviev, being still under the influence
of his early Slavophile impressions, thought that
the restoration of Christianity in the world was
a task assigned to Russia and the Orthodox
Church.

136 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

He did not deny the merits of Rome in the past,
but took it for granted that the Western Church
had now fallen into decay. In the theandric Person
of Jesus Christ, as well as in His mystical body,
the West seemed to see and revere only the human ,
material, and outward element. At a very early
date it yielded to the temptation to enforce belief
by violence, and this evil had continued to grow.
From the time of St. Anselm onward, a legal fiction
had been gradually taking the place of faith in the
Roman Church. Love of Christ had been regarded
as unnecessary and the ecclesiastical supremacy was
all that was needed.

Against this brute forcefulness that professed
to be religious, the Reformers raised their protest;
but, being themselves infected with the Western
poison and by individualism, they produced merely
a human work, which finally led to unbelief. Pro
testant influence, whether rationalistic, Hegelian,
or materialistic, became a scourge to Christianity.

According to Russian prejudices, which Solo vie v
accepted in his early essays, Romanism had con
tinued to decay until at length it fell a prey to
Jesuitism, and, having thus reached the climax
of misfortune, it lost every Christian virtue; the
papal supremacy and the material authority of the
Church took the place of everything else.

This idea of Romanism is current in the East,
and with all good faith Soloviev confirmed it by a
personal anecdote. He stated that in Paris a
French Jesuit had, in his presence, denied the
possibility of still accepting the dogmas of Chris-

SOLO VI EV AS THEOLOGIAN 137

tianity, and especially the Divinity of Jesus Christ,
but nevertheless, " in the name of civilization and
in the interest of the human race," he still required
the world to submit to the Catholic Church. Solo-
viev's honesty is above suspicion, but in 1880 he
still employed the name " Jesuit " in the usual
Russian manner, as designating any member of
the Catholic clergy or of a religious congregation.*

Before 1886 Solo vie v was not acquainted with
any real Jesuit ; the first members of the Society of
Jesus with whom he had any intercourse were the
Fathers Gagarin, Martinov, and Pierling. He soon
became their friend, and the correspondence that
passed between them shows how great a place our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ occupied in their
minds and hearts. No member of the Society of
Jesus was responsible for the blasphemy recorded
in Soloviev's last lecture on Theandrism.

Soloviev himself was aware of the mistake, and
he never knew the name of the priest who made the
remark to him. Before 1880 he had been in Paris
twice, but had come into contact with Catholic
priests only through Vladimir Guette"e. This un
happy apostate, subsidized by the Holy Synod, had
been enthusiastically extolled by a semi-official
section of the Orthodox press. Soloviev was
destined soon to know him better and to ascertain
his lax morality. Guettee's hatred of the Roman
Church was so intense that every means of bringing

* The Russian code sanctions this misuse. In vol. ix.,
article 459, ed. 1899, we read: " Jesuits of all orders are
forbidden to enter Russia under any pretext,"

138 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

it into disrepute seemed permissible, and his
hostility to the Catholic clergy knew no bounds,
for he had deserted its ranks by a pretended marriage
as well as by apostasy. Such a man would shrink
from no trickery, however base, if only he could
implant anti-Roman prejudices in the mind of a
man like Soloviev.

In any case, if at first Soloviev was taken in by
his fraudulent device, it could not long hold its
ground against truth and experience, and very
soon Guette"e hurled maledictions upon the " Jesuit
ism " of this Russian, who became " more popish
than Bellarmine."

Anti - Roman prejudices, such as we have
mentioned, were universally accepted as true in
Russia. Honest believers knew the Western Church
chiefly from four series of documents — viz., Protest
ant compilations published in Germany, anticlerical
pamphlets from France, the " traditions " of
Constantinople, and the national controversy on
the Polish question.

Loyal souls may well be misled by such a con
sensus of false reports, and their complaints, often
most extraordinary, keep alive prejudices that seem
ridiculous to a reader who knows their wish to be
honest. For instance, Alexis Stephanovitch Kho-
miakov, a man of generous nature, ardently desired
the reunion of the Eastern and Western Churches,
and laboured to effect it between 1840 and 1860.
Yet he uses with full conviction phrases such as:
" Romanism is only the oldest form of Protestant
ism," and elsewhere he makes a remark, that is

SOLO VI EV AS THEOLOGIAN 139

more startling in the East, where for centuries the
idea of national churches has prevailed: " Romanism
is nothing but separatism ... do not shut your
eyes to the fact; the separatism of the Western
Roman Church is evident, and is the one formidable
scourge for humanity."*

Now Khomiakov was a wise and honest man,
whom many Russians suspected of excessive sym
pathy with Rome. The more moderate party
derived their knowledge of Catholicism from his
works, and Soloviev at first did the same. This
fact is enough to account for his contempt of
Romanism as the " implacable foe of all progress
both intellectual and social, disdaining and destroy
ing all personal dignity." In spite of the violence
of his opinions, a certain amount of reserve shown
with regard to traditional prejudices exposed Solo
viev even then to the hostility of the extreme
Slavophile party.

It was necessary to recall these original prejudices
and the influence of his Orthodox surroundings,
in order to appreciate the distance traversed by

Let ters to Archdeacon Palmer. William Palmer,
fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, was in 1840 commissioned
by the Anglican Bishops to go to Russia, in order to study
the means of forming an Anglo-Russian Church. He wrote
several books on the subject of his travels, interviews, and
plans. His study and experience gradually convinced him
that the Roman Catholic Church was the Church of divine
origin, and he became a convert some years before his death.
He never lost interest in the religious future of Russia. His
valuable library, bequeathed to Fathers Gagarin and
Martinov, is one of the treasures of the Slav Library in
Brussels.

I4o VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

Soloviev and his courage in assuming another
intellectual attitude, in the face of his fellow-
countrymen.

Certain facts caused him to doubt the justice
of the Russian national antipathy to Rome, and,
although his time was fully occupied with his
philosophical work, he resolved to find out the truth.
The task seemed likely to be overwhelming, but, if
his efforts were to be rewarded with the truth, the
labour involved was nothing to Soloviev. He
devoted himself heart and soul to the work, in which
a comparatively small part was played by handbooks
dealing with the Eastern and Western Churches.
He preferred to study the great authors and their
works at first hand.

He read the Acts of the Councils in Mansi's folio
edition, and studied history and tradition in Migne's
Greek and Latin patrologies. The abundant notes
that he took gave rise to a number of very personal
articles on the Fathers of the Church. His favourite
authors were St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, Origen, the
two St. Cyrils, St. Gregory the Theologian, St.
John Chrysostom, St. John Damascene, and among
the Latin Fathers he highly esteemed, next to
St. Augustine, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, and St.
Gregory the Great. This list is not exhaustive.

After the discovery of the Didache, he studied it
so carefully that he was asked to publish his Russian
translation of this precious record of the first century
of Christianity. The introduction to it is worthy
of notice. In it he points out that this document
shows how, from the earliest time of Christianity,

SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN 141

Providence has always coupled with the perpetuity
of the hierarchy, of dogma, and of the sacraments
a possibility of development in their outward
manifestation. The Orthodox Church makes of
this process in the Catholic Church a charge of
innovation.

It is not surprising that this essay roused much
hostile criticism, but Soloviev was not unprepared
for it; in fact, he had foreseen it from the time when
he began to revise his works on history and dogma,
and in spite of all opposition he continued his re
vision most conscientiously. Byzantinism, being
antagonistic to everything Roman, has spread
rumours, more or less fanciful, all over the East;
and Russia, so long isolated from other nations,
continues to propagate this jealous hostility. Solo
viev investigated all the strange ideas current on
the subject of Western Christianity; they were not
all unreasonable, and some, though false, could be
explained as plausible. Many real faults inevitably
occur in every human society, and even among
the representatives of divine truth. Catholic
historians made no secret of the fact, and their
opponents had no right to be scandalized at it.
Soloviev expressed his opinion on the subject quite
frankly.

In 1881 he ventured for the first time to criticize
the spiritual power in Russia, and to reproach the
Holy Synod for its inactivity. Love, he says, is
always active, and a Christian hierarchy, with no
love of Christ, has no right to exist. The task
assigned to the spiritual authority is to spread

142 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

abroad the spirit of love; it ought to effect a more
and more perfect realization of the first three
petitions of the Pater Noster. Now the sole result
of the Synod's administration has been to multiply
sects, in which hatred of the official church is the
sole bond of union. Does the actual process of
enslavement imply that the Russian hierarchy has
ceased to believe in the action of the Holy Ghost ?
If so, we could understand why it no longer even
attempted to win the world to Christ through charity.

Criticism such as this was very daring in Russia
in 1880, but the Orthodox party judged it leniently,
because the Roman hierarchy was much more
severely condemned than that of the Holy Synod.
Soloviev went on to say that, in the West, the
Pope has taken the place of Christ, and Protestantism
ignores Christ altogether He added that, amidst
the general enslavement of mind in the East,
Orthodox Russia alone had respected liberty of
conscience until the eighteenth century.

Several of these reservations disappeared in the
three discourses delivered in 1881, 1882, 1883, in
commemoration of Dostoievsky's death. In each
of them Soloviev discussed the great novelist's
idea of the Church; and no subject could have been
better suited to draw forth from the speaker his
own personal opinions.

In the panegyric delivered in 1881 Soloviev still
restricted himself to generalities; he showed that
the author of The House of the Dead aimed at
expanding and uniting the minds of men, and that,
at least in his later years, he perceived how the

SOLOVIEV^AS THEOLOGIAN 143

Church, and, of course, a Universal Church, ought
to be the true school of greatness, and the one
stronghold where souls meet together.

In the discourse delivered on February i, 1882,
Soloviev struck a new note. It is in Christ alone,
he said, that all mankind can find the principle of
unity and freedom. This idea dominated all
Dostoievsky's thought, and acquired such supremacy
over his mind that thenceforth Christianity ceased
to be to him a distant imagination. It became a
living and active reality, influencing all loyal souls
and men of good will. Dostoievsky would not
have conceived of it, said Soloviev, as a finished
temple, a marvel of architecture perhaps, but
without a soul, nor as a flame hidden within each
conscience. He desired it to shed its rays outward,
and to expand the piety of individuals so as to affect
the whole world. " His aim was to point out to
the Slavs the furrow that Providence invites them
to dig, in the field where the One Father of the human
race calls all nations to labour together."

In these two panegyrics Soloviev's comments
upon Dostoievsky's works and thoughts might be
criticized, but it still seemed that no one had any
right to complain, except the most intolerant of
the Slavophile party. The third discourse had a
wider range of subjects, and attracted as much
attention as the lecture given by Dostoievsky
himself in 1880, on the occasion of the erection of
Pouchkine's monument.

After alluding to the material development of
Russia, accomplished by Alexander II., Soloviev

I44 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

boldly attacked " the scandalous separation of the
East from the West. This separation has no right
to exist, and has been, and is, a great sin. At the
moment when Byzantium perpetrated this offence,
God called Russia into existence that she might
make it good. At the present time Russia is mature
and is attaining to fully self-conscious thought.
The question presents itself to her: ' Shall Russia
carry on the historical wrong committed by the
Byzantine Empire ?' ' There followed a twofold
apology for the Roman Church. From the historical
point of view Rome had offered magnificent re
sistance to every outbreak of anti- Christian feeling,
to heresies, Mahometanism, and the pagan develop
ments of modern civilization. Practically she has
never abandoned, but perseveres in her glorious
attempt to sanctify the whole human race: " Rome
is truly Christian, for she is universal."

It is easy to imagine the consternation caused by
such words; and it was intensified, rather than
diminished, by the closing passage regarding the
mission of the Russian nation. According to
Dostoievsky, Russia was called to effect a rapproche
ment between East and West, to unite them in
the harmony of divine truth and human liberty.
" Let us not reproach the West with its faults,
however real; we cannot put ourselves in the place
of others; but, when others do wrong, we can do
right." The publication of this discourse did not
lessen its effect; on the contrary, an appendix
emphasized the leading thought in it. K. N.
Leontiev, a writer of Slavophile tendencies, tried

SOLO V IE V AS THEOLOGIAN 145

to claim Dostoievsky as the promoter of a vague
kind of Neo-Christianity, but Soloviev vigorously
rejected this imputation. Neo-Christianity is, he
said, nothing but pure humanism, and Dostoievsky
would certainly have had nothing to do with it,
for he used to say: " Christ is known only by the
Church; love the Church above everything." God
designed the Church to embrace all mankind,
rendered divine by Christ; since, as St. Athanasius
remarks, Christ became man to make man God.
This faith is truly Christian, and in agreement
with Orthodoxy and the tradition of the Fathers,
and it leads to a reality that the New Testament
describes in two phrases—" God all in all," " One
flock and one Shepherd." The Church triumphant
will complete this harmony of the world, which can
not be the outcome of any Neo-Christianity without
Christ, but which will result from men's common
faith in the personal divinity of the Nazarene
crucified by Pontius Pilate.

The excitement produced by this panegyric,
pronounced on February 19, 1883, had not died out,
when it was revived and intensified by the publica
tion, in the same year, of an important didactic
work. The Great Debate and Christian Polity caused
in Russia a sensation comparable to that which
Newman's famous Tract 90 produced in England.
One chapter in particular gave much offence,
viz., that on Papism and the Papacy. It showed
that much darkness still obscured the author's
mind, but the light was evidently breaking through,

10

146 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

and his honesty of purpose led him to give expres
sion to some singularly bold conclusions. In these
pages, with wonderful vigour and conciseness, he
analyzed the religious attitude of Russia in his own
day under all its aspects.

The great Debate is the antagonism between
East and West, that has lasted for centuries, and
dates back almost to the beginning of Christianity.
From the earliest times and for various reasons,
many being utterly futile, a conflict of tendencies
has separated the two halves of Europe. In the
East man is more contemplative, and willingly
gives way to indolence and passivity; being selfish
and lazy, he is apt to excuse his indifference towards
his neighbours by pleading his devotion to God
alone. In the West, on the contrary, man thinks
only of action, and would readily be satisfied with
a purely human greatness. He would be contented
with a deified man, or even with the deification of
humanity in the abstract, or of strength and genius.
His innate tendency is to make human life, with
its progress and activity, the object of his cultus.

The principles of Christianity restrain these
different tendencies from excess, and lay hold of
and unite what is good in each by revealing to the
world the Man-God, God made Man. The West is
tree, therefore, to adore activity, human indeed,
but humble, submissive, and resigned to pain.
These virtues commend themselves to the Eastern
mind, but it has to grasp the fact that God is not
indifferent to the destiny of man, but deigned to
impose upon Himself a thankless task and a painful

SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN 147

death, in order to save those whom He calls His
brethren.

These habitual tendencies cause men to rebel
against the teaching of the Man-God, where it
displeases them. The spirit of the West raises its
pride, intolerance, and the skill of its ruling class
in opposition to Christ; the Roman Empire had re
course to persecution in order to withstand Chris
tianity. The more subtle Eastern character, on
the other hand, opposes Christianity by its gnosis
and heresy. It sought to exalt God very far above
man, so that the Father alone should be God, and
Christ His creature — this is Arianism; or His
helper — this is the heresy of Nestorius; or His
instrument, devoid of liberty and free will — this
is the monothelite version of an error that was
always fundamentally the same. Later on, the
same view of the relation between God and man
inspired the frenzy of the Iconoclasts in Byzantium,
and was responsible for the triumph of Mahometan-
ism, which developed the twofold principle of
individual fatalism and of social passivity in the
presence of a Deity solitary, inaccessible, and
inhuman.

Evidently the saints, ascetics, and great monks
of the East and West preserved the true spirit of
Christianity, and struggled against the still vigorous
spirit of paganism, striving to restore and unite all in
Christ. But national exclusivism came forward to
thwart them, and in the East this became a recog
nized principle; Constantinople, the second Rome,
and Moscow, the third Rome, had from remote

148 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

ages been evolving the race spirit that rends the
Eastern Church, whenever a new State is organized.
The individual egotism of the East developed into
national egotism, and Byzantium, always richer
in theologians than in true Christians, strove to
find justification for this pagan apathy, as if Christ,
because He loved His country, for that reason
sanctioned all the narrowness of Judaism.

In contrast with these evils in the East, Soloviev
discussed those of the West, where also natural
tendencies had tried to reassert themselves, after
the first triumph of Christianity. Pride, the need
of human applause, a desire to replace God by man,
and the intoxication of power, had gradually per
verted the hierarchy, and the Popes determined to
restore the ancient Csesarism for their own advantage.
In fact, according to Soloviev, they were preparing
terrible disasters for the Church, and, following
their example, the kings and nations of the West
desire a universal dominion, that shall have absolute
control over men's minds and bodies. The con
stitutions of Protestant States with the motto
Cuius regio eius religio, the Caesaropapism of
Henry VIII. , Elizabeth, and their successors, the
forms of worship organized and enforced, under
pain of the guillotine, by the Jacobin party during
the French Revolution — all these were modelled
on the example set by the Papacy.

At this point begins the central chapter of the
book, Papism and the Papacy. Before beginning it,
Soloviev gave a short summary of the opinions
already expressed. He believed that the conflict

SOLO VIE V AS THEOLOGIAN 149

between the tendencies of the East and West
respectively had been the true cause of the great
schism of 1054, the dispute as to the insertion of
the word Filioque in the Creed having served as
a pretext for it. The fact was that the spirit of
paganism had triumphed on both sides. Without
reflecting that they were about to divide the
mystical body of Christ, the Eastern nations desired
to secure their ecclesiastical independence, in order
that their religious exclusivism might add strength
to their national exclusivism. The Western nations
had attempted to set up a purely human dominion,
a violent and material absolutism, that should
establish on earth the Kingdom of God. Such was,
in Soloviev's opinion, the real cause of the long-
lasting schism : human passions had taken the place
of God's will.

Sometimes arguments are put forward, which
are apt to mislead narrow minds, as is the case
nowadays with the Polish question. But the Polish,
the Eastern, and even the Jewish questions all
revert to this fundamental problem: how can we
secure the collaboration of East and West, of all
who love Christ, either here or there, in order to
realize God's design on earth, in sight of heaven,
and add to His Kingdom, the body of Christ ?

Soloviev answered boldly: " Let us ask, not
Papism, but the Papacy for the solution. Papism
that is arbitrary, absolute, and violent must in
evitably rouse the indignation of mankind; but need
we condemn the Papacy in the same breath ? Let
us try to be impartial; we Russians always dread

1 5o VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

Rome as a foreign and even hostile power. Can
we not see clearly that in every Kulturkampf of
the West, the enemies of Roman Catholicism are
at the same time opposed to all positive religion ?
We cannot then ally ourselves with them. If we
fancy the Roman Church to be like Peter, cutting
off Malchus's ear, her enemies in the West resemble
Judas; if we assume that, like Peter on Thabor, a
Catholic talks like a parrot, and knows not what he
.says, his enemies in the WTest speak like those who
struck Christ, and bade Him say who had struck
Him, or like those who cried: Tolle, tolle !"

In contrast to anti-Christian coalitions, Rome
presents to the world the spectacle of ecclesiastical
union, centralization of the hierarchical authority,
and affirmation of supreme authority.

Three questions will serve to justify or condemn
this threefold claim on the part of the Roman
Church :

1. Is the unity of a central power essential to
the Church of Christ ?

2. With what right is this power connected with
the episcopal See of Rome ?

3. What use has Rome made of this power ?
The first question amounts, as Soloviev says, to

asking whether the Church as such, in spite of her
unchanging character, has any right and duty to
play a part in the world's history, and to make her
own history on earth — viz., the history of her
conflict with evil. If this question is answered in
the affirmative, it is impossible to deny the necessity
of visible unity, with a disciplined, hierarchical

SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN 15*

organization. Yet people maintain that .this is
contrary to the spiritual nature of the Church, for
the religion of the Spirit can dispense with authority,
being, like God and Christ, absolute truth.

Soloviev pointed out that this was a fundamental
mistake, since God, Christ, and the Church are
not only truth, but also authority — Via, veritas,
et vita. In the first place they are the way, and this
is necessarily objective and independent of caprice,
in short, it is authority. Along this way the multi
tudes ought to advance in the midst of foes within
and without, warring against the Church. They
need the guidance of visible leaders, who walk
with them and never lose touch with them. Under
these conditions the religious advancement of
Christianity must inevitably bring about a progres
sive centralization, in order to maintain unaltered
the influence and visibility of the shepherds of the
flock. The special mission of the bishops must be
discernible at the first glance, and their union with
one another revealed in the supremacy of the
patriarchs. As early as the second century Irenaeus
taught explicitly that Rome was the only possible
centre of ecclesiastical organization. Hence Irenaeus
supplies the answer to the second question, why
Rome is the hierarchical centre of the Church.
He points out that Providence, directing the course
of history, has shown plainly that there is either no
centre of the Church, or that it is located in
Rome.

But what is the extent of this authority ? And
how can we decide whether it has been exercised

152 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

legitimately or not ? On this subject Soloviev
seems uncertain. The first part of his answer is
correct: The authority conferred by orders and the
sacramental power are the same in the Pope and in
all the other bishops. The words of consecration
are no less efficacious when pronounced by an
ordinary priest than when uttered by the Pope.
His personal duty with regard to revealed truth
requires him to profess the same faith as every other
Catholic, priest or layman. He is not the source
of revelation, and has no more authority than a
layman to change or add to it. Thus far Soloviev
is in agreement with the teaching of the Popes, as
to the power that they received from Christ; but
the second part of his answer to this question is
very inaccurate. Without considering whether the
primitive revelation did not require to be defended
against its enemies, and brought back to light,
he begins at once to examine what constitutes the
authority of jurisdiction that the Pope possesses,
and he defines it thus: The right to control all the
worldly business of the Church, and to concentrate
all her forces, in order to promote God's work in
every age. Soloviev here makes a strange distinction
contrary to his usual method, and, ceasing to
regard the Pope's mission as divine, aims at sub
ordinating the papal authority to the personal
value of the man. " The name Head of the Church
cannot," he says, "be given to all the Popes; only
those deserve it in whom Christian humanity has
recognized the Eternal Pontiff." To these worthy
representatives of Jesus Christ, Eastern Christians

SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN 153

give without hesitation the title of Caput Ecdesiae,
ascribed in the Russian liturgy to St. Leo the Pope
(February 18).

In fact, continues Soloviev, the Pope's primacy
requires of him service rather than government,
and the man on whom this office is conferred ought
to think not of his own power but of the common
welfare of the Church. Judicial formulae convey
no title in the Church; Leo and Gregory relied on
the faith and on the Gospel, and these sufficed to
obtain for them the recognition and obedience of
Christendom. These Popes exercised the lawful
authority of the Papacy. Others desired to promote
Papism and to subject all spiritual life to their
personal power; and thus, by a curious revenge
on the part of Providence, they brought about the
Protestant revolt against Rome — Papism was the
cause of the decay of the Papacy. Ever since the
Reformation, says Soloviev, the Italian Popes have
kept the spiritual power in the hands of Italians,
being anxious for Italy to hold sway over the world
of souls. Here, again, Providence has chastised
human ambition, and the national exclusivism of
the Popes suggested the first idea of Italian national
ism. The Italian Popes first originated and en
couraged the conception of a united Italy, such as
has just been organized in opposition to them.

If these warnings on the part of Providence do
not succeed in reminding men that the Catholicity
of the Church should triumph over all private
patriotism, other chastisements will be inflicted;
a heresy originating with the advocates of a united

154 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

Italy might remove abuses, but its consequences
would be more disastrous to the Church, to the souls
of men, and to the Papacy than Anglicanism or
Gallicanism.

Such is a brief and impartial resume of this famous
Chapter VI. Many people in Russia considered it
a daring apology for Rome and a public declaration
of apostasy, but to a Western critic it seems to mark
a stage but not a stopping-place on Soloviev's
path. Our interest centres, not in the conclusions
at which he arrived, for they are still very vague,
and were soon revised by the author himself, but
in his frankness and in the honesty of his attempt to
understand and reconcile minds and hearts. We shall
notice only this point of view from the last chapter,
the other ideas in which will be discussed elsewhere.

To pave the way for a reunion between the Eastern
and Western Churches, Soloviev begged each
member of both to consent to do two things — viz., to
render his own union with Christ more sure and close,
and to revere in his neighbour's soul the active life
of the Holy Ghost. Development of grace cannot
take place without an increase of charity, and super
natural charity in souls leads to mutual understand
ing, and so effects a union of spirit, based on no
artificial compromise, but on the truth of Christ,
who is indivisible.

The storm raised by The Great Debate and Christian
Politics forced Soloviev to define precisely his
position. The trial of Newman before the Court of
Arches had had the same effect in former years.
In the first place the press accused Soloviev of

SOLOV1EV AS THEOLOGIAN 155

Polonism, but he had no difficulty in refuting this
calumny in an article on The Entente with Rome
and the Moscow Papers. In it he argued that to
propose a diplomatic understanding with Rome
on the Polish question, and a religious understand
ing with her apart from this question, could not
fairly be called Polonism. On the contrary, such
a proposal distinguished clearly the political and the
religious questions. If the only representatives
of Catholicism in Russia continued to be the Poles,
national rivalry would aggravate the religious
cleavage, but a nuncio, who had nothing to do with
Poland, could act independently in both matters.

About this time Dr. Reinkens, Bishop of the Old
Catholics in Germany, was seeking support from
the Eastern Churches, and his appeal had aroused
some sympathy in Russia. Soloviev was sounded
on the subject, and asked whether the proposed
alliance might not prove the means of reconciling
the anti-Roman prejudices of the Russians with
his own universalist aspirations. His answer was
most emphatic, and more trenchant than perhaps
any other of his utterances, for he was a man
of gentle disposition. He declared the position
of the Old Catholics to be fatally inconsistent.
" Though I deeply regret," he said, " the separation
between East and West, I understand it perfectly,
and understand also their separate organizations,
as well as Protestant individualism. The Church
of tradition, the Church of authority, the claim
to freedom — these three ideas account for the
antagonism existing between the supporters of

1 56 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

each. But have the Old Catholics any excuse at
all for their isolation ? If their appeal to tradition
were honest, they ought to join the Eastern Church;
if they wish to throw off ecclesiastical authority,
they should call themselves Protestants. In any
case they should abandon the use of the name
Catholic, because they are not inspired by any idea
of a universal Church. They are, in fact, separatists,
endowed in the country that planned, desired, and
favoured their schism. They might as well call
themselves ' Bismarck's Church.' Russia has no
need of intercourse with people so isolated, but, on
the other hand, she cannot refrain from coming into
touch with Rome."

This opposition to the Old Catholic movement
intensified the suspicion with which Soloviev was
regarded, and increased the number of his enemies.
Without defending himself directly, he attempted
to convince, and so to disarm, his adversaries, and
returned to the religious question from a higher
and more general point of view. A pamphlet
entitled Judaism and the Christian Question marked
the new tendency of his thought. His exergue,
taken from Isaias, sums up eloquently the forbidden
thesis: " In that day shall Israel be the third to
the Egyptian and the Assyrian: a blessing in the
midst of the land, which the Lord of hosts hath
blessed, saying: Blessed be My people of Egypt,
and the work of My hands to the Assyrian ; but Israel
is My inheritance " (Isa. xix. 24, 25). The first
few pages show how great an influence the Jews
possess now in consequence of their wealth. " Chris-

SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN 157

tian society is practically governed by the Jewish
element; hence it is right, especially in Russia, to
study not ' Christianity and the Jewish question,
but ' Judaism and the Christian question.' '

Was this the introduction to an anti-Semitic
pamphlet ? Nothing was more opposed to Soloviev's
idea. He begins by reminding his readers that in
a public lecture, delivered at the University of
Petrograd, he spoke in defence of the downtrodden
Jews, and adds: " Wherever Christianity has been
sincere, war on the Jews has been condemned by
the faithful, whose sense of compassion impelled
them to aim at instructing this unprogressive
people in the true faith. The Popes have tolerated
and protected the Jews." If Judaism is ever to
be merged in Christianity, the union will be
effected neither by material violence nor by religious
indifference, but by the display of the true principles
of Christianity in a Church resplendent with virtues.
This Church, capable of enlightening the Jews,
ought to shed its brightest rays upon Russia and
Poland, since it is in these Slav countries, where
Greek Slavs and Latin Slavs meet, that the centre
of the religious activity of the Jews is to be found.

What must the Jews think of the Orthodox
Church ? She persecutes them for no sufficient
reason, and persecutes, too, the other Christian
Churches, thus setting a detestable example, for
the greatest fault of the Jews, a fault worse even
than deicide, has been their national and religious
exclusiveness, that grew more intense after Christ's
resurrection. Of course the cross was a scandal

158 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

to the Jews, but their self-love was particularly
hurt when the Apostles preached salvation to the
Gentiles, and called all nations to be brethren in
religion. Christians at least ought not to display
to the Jews their own disobedience to the same
commandment of Christ.

The second chapter, as it appears in print, ends thus
abruptly, but in the Slav Library at Brussels there is
a copy with manuscript notes by Soloviev, and at
this point he wrote: " Here the ecclesiastical censor
cut out about ten pages. ' ' Soloviev had given ' ' Chris
tian universalism " too Catholic an interpretation,
and somewhat later the censor again intervened.

In discussing the hierarchy of the Church, Solo
viev said: " Its close and profound unity is due to
its divine origin, and this unity is shown visibly
in the life of the Church by the Councils. ..."
In the printed text of the original pamphlet this
passage is followed by two lines referring to the
ecclesiastical supremacy and the absolute inde
pendence of the Councils. In the copy belonging
to the Slav Library, Soloviev struck out these
two lines and wrote in the margin : " The censorship
of the Church here suppressed a passage bearing
on the importance of the Papacy."*

* It is much to be regretted that the editors of Soloviev's
complete works have given so few annotations. Critical
remarks on the MSS. of Soloviev, on the censor's alterations,
and the writer's reflections and protests would have been
most interesting, and might have thrown much light on the
history of Soloviev and his line of thought, as well as on the
work of the censor. Perhaps the importance and truth
of such remarks have led to their prohibition.

SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN 159

Soloviev pointed out that what he had written
on the subject of the Byzantine Emperors' hostility
to the Pope was suppressed, and replaced by an
apocryphal text. These corrections affected the
third chapter, that bears the curious heading:
Russia, Poland, and Israel. Christianity was grafted
upon Judaism by God, who aims at organizing
human society into a free theocracy; but the new
feature in Christianity is, besides theunive rsality
of the Church, the visible manifestation of thean-
drism. The Man-God has appeared on earth, and
remains the one true high priest, the one true ruler,
the one true saint. Tu solus Sanctus, tu solus
Dominus, tu solus Altissimus, as the liturgy proclaims.
He has three means whereby He continues to abide
with men: the Christian priesthood, derived from
Christ and handed on by the Apostles; the adminis
trative or ruling element in Christian society; and
the inspiration of the prophets and holiness of the
saints. We recognize here ideas that have already
been noticed, but now Soloviev studies more pre
cisely the origin, nature, limitations, rights, and
duties of authority.

The Eastern nations of antiquity used to deify
their sovereigns, and bow down before their un
limited autocracy. Ancient Greece required her
rulers to be philosophers, justiciaries, and shepherds
of their people, but for purely human reasons.
Rome wished her supreme magistrate, whatever
title he bore, to secure the supremacy of the law.
Christianity groups all these elements together in a
higher synthesis.

i6o VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

A Christian emperor forms part of the religious
order of the world, being the chief minister of the
truth and will of God, the defender and protector
of truth on earth. He is the supreme administrator
of justice, but responsible to Christ, of whose kingly
power he is the representative. Being anointed
by God and reigning by God's mercy, he is inde
pendent of popular caprice. By equity, therefore,
his authority is limited from above, not from below;
though he is the father and prince of his people, he
is the son of the Church. Christ consecrates him,
not, indeed, directly, but through the supreme
pontiff. This anointing does not bestow upon
the consecrator any direct rights over the State,
but it indicates the imperial mission in a Christian
society, and requires the emperor to be a loyal son
of the Church, and faithful in carrying out the will
of God.

To this supreme Tsar is delegated only part of
the divine or theocratic power. If he wishes to
control religion or reject the admonitions of holy
men, his exclusivism brings him back to the pagan
conception of imperialism. This tendency to
Oriental despotism proved the ruin of the Byzantine
emperors, plunging them into heresy and schism,
and making them neglect the spiritual welfare of
their people. Although Christian rulers, they forgot
their duty to the world, and did not encourage
missions that might have won fresh nations to
Christ. Their sin brought its own punishment.
Byzantium, surrounded by non-Christian races,
finally yielded to their pressure, and the triumph

SOLO VI EV AS THEOLOGIAN 161

of Mahometanism was a just penalty inflicted upon
Eastern Christianity, which had been false to its
duty of spreading the faith among all mankind.

Soloviev then proceeds to a weighty criticism of
the Protestant principle. Of the three means
whereby Christ was to continue among men,
the Reformers wished to retain only the doctrine
of inspiration. Having rebelled against pontifical
authority, and the centralization, with its uni-
versalist tendency, of the Holy Roman Empire,
their individual freedom of speech was often in
spired by narrow nationalism, and degenerated.
A Protestant preacher might, in the days of Luther
and Zwingli, claim to be a prophet, or, like Melanch-
thon, be no more than a grammarian or a rabbi.
In our own day Strauss is thoroughly anti-Christian,
and others inculcate philosophical nihilism, or else
are the docile slaves of the war party or of the
plutocracy. Like the priesthood, and like the
sacred character of the imperial power, the very
semblance of faith in divine inspiration has vanished
from Protestantism.

Only three organised bodies have preserved any
trace of the theocratic government, necessary for
the salvation of the world; these are Israel, Russia,
and Romanism, represented to the Slavs by Poland.
Israel, though retarded by its exclusiveness, remains
nevertheless capable of becoming a race of saints
and apostles, with great powers of organization,
as soon as the narrowness of Judaism is broken
down by the spectacle of unity amongst all
Christians.

ii

i6a VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

Russia has maintained the religious conception
of imperial authority, and Poland, in spite of defeat,
clings to her ideal, and is more faithful to the
universalist or Catholic voice of the mind than to
the Slav voice of flesh and blood. At the very
border of the East she upholds the memory of the
great Western pontiff, and we may well suppose that
her mission is to bring East and West together, to
set the Eastern Church free and to strengthen it
by uniting it to the supreme pontiff, and at the same
time to restore in the West the Christian dignity of
the civil power.

" Indeed the greatness of the Polish nation con
sists in their carrying to the heart of Slavism, and
representing in the face of the East, the chief
spiritual principle of the Western nations." They
have their faults, no doubt, but, says Soloviev,
' I am writing for Russians, and it is not my business
to examine the Poles' conscience for them. These
representatives of Christian universalism would be
traitors to Catholicism if they sacrificed their
religious mission to their national aspirations.
Have they in the past yielded to this temptation
to exclusiveness ? It is not for me to discuss this
question here ; it is enough for me to point out to the
Russians that the Poles are the instrument, supplied
by Providence, for uniting the East and the West.
How do we know that they may not be able to
render Christianity the incomparable service of
paving the way to reunion between the Eastern
and Western Churches, and of bringing the Pope
and the Tsar into peaceful alliance ?"

SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN 163

In speaking of union, Soloviev certainly had no
idea of sacrificing the greatness of the Russian
Empire, nor its national independence, nor the
authority of the Tsar, nor the dignity of the Slav
liturgy, so often approved, blessed, and protected
by the Popes. In his opinion union with Rome was
primarily a duty, but at the same time he thought
that it would benefit Russia, and ensure the real
liberty of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and its
religious independence. He considered that such
a union would immensely increase the importance
of the Slavs in general, and of the Russian Empire
in particular, not only in Europe, but throughout
the world. It would bestow fresh prestige upon
the Orthodox and Catholic Tsar, and, far from
subordinating Russia to Poland, it would remove
the true cause of their long-standing enmity. The
union of these two nations of kindred race would be
sanctified, as soon as they both bowed together to
receive the Pope's blessing and to reverence the
Russian Tsar.

CHAPTER IX

SOLOVIEV'S DEVELOPMENT AS A THEOLOGIAN:
QUESTIONS PUT TO THE RUSSIAN HIERARCHY
—HIS RELATIONS WITH MGR. STROSSMAYER
—"THE HISTORY AND FUTURE OF THEO
CRACY "

THE breach between official Orthodoxy and Solo-
viev grew wider and wider, until the situation
became too strained to last. The ecclesiastical
censorship, always severe, showed itself still more
rigorous. The manuscript of a sketch of The
History and Future of Theocracy was confiscated,
and the most violent attacks upon Soloviev were
sanctioned and encouraged. To these, however,
Soloviev paid but little attention, for he had no
idea of a rupture with the Orthodox Church, and
was determined not to swerve from absolute loyalty
to her. Although threats were uttered, his con
science forbade him to abandon on this account
his honest inquiries, and without any concealment
he continued his quest of the truth.

Archpriest Ivantzov-Platonov had attempted to
refute The Great Debate and Christian Politics,
and his arguments may be summed up under two
headings: (i) History bears witness to abuses in

164

SOLO V IE V AS THEOLOGIAN 165

the life and government of the Popes; and (2) the
primitive teaching of the Church regarding the
dignity of the Roman Pontiff has been tampered
with by scholastic theologians.

Soloviev replied: Possibly abuses and changes
are to be found in what I call Papism ; but how does
that affect the Papacy ? Do these things justify
our theologians in correcting what the Greek Fathers
wrote concerning the importance of the Papacy in
the primitive Church ? The Seventh Council, which
is the last recognized by our Church as oecumenical,
went further than any other in exalting the primacy
of the Pope. Since that time we profess not to have
heard the voice of the universal Church. How,
then, can we admit any depreciation of the Papacy ?
People talk, it is true, of the heresy of Rome, and
say that the Popes became schismatics, when they
inserted the Filioque in the Nicene Creed, in spite
of the prohibition of the Holy Canons; and that, by
admitting this doctrine, they became heretics.

Soloviev's keen insight took him straight to the
heart of the matter, and he addressed nine questions
on dogma to the archpriest Ivantzov-Platonov,
and through him to the whole hierarchy. This time
the sound of his voice was heard beyond the frontiers
of the Empire; the Russian hierarchy might keep
silence, but answers came from Paris and Rome.
The following account of these questions is borrowed
almost entirely from the translation of them that
appeared in the French press (L'Univers of June 27,
1887).

First Question. When the Canons of the (Ecu-

166 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

menical Councils require the Nicene faith to be
kept intact, do they refer to the letter or the meaning
of the Nicene Creed ?

Second Question. Does the word Filioque, in
serted into the primitive text of the Council of
Nicaea-Constantinople, necessarily involve heresy ?
If so, which Council has condemned this heresy ?

Third Question. This addition made its appear
ance in the Churches of the West in the sixth century
and was known in the East towards the middle of
the seventh century. If it contains a heresy, why
did not the last two (Ecumenical Councils (the sixth
in 680 and the seventh in 787) condemn the heresy,
and anathematize those who accepted it, instead
of remaining in communion with them ?

Fourth Question. If it is impossible to say with
certainty that the addition of the word Filioque
constitutes a heresy, is not every Orthodox Christian
free in this respect to follow St. Maximus the
Confessor, who in his letter to Marinus, a priest,
justifies the addition, and gives it an Orthodox
meaning ?

Fifth Question. Besides the Filioque, what other
doctrines of the Roman Church are heretical, and
what (Ecumenical Councils have condemned them ?

Sixth Question. Is it possible that the Church
of Rome should be pronounced guilty, not of
heresy, but of schism ? Now schism, as denned
by the Fathers, takes place when a portion of the
Church (both clergy and laymen) cuts itself off from
the lawful ecclesiastical authority on account of
some question of ritual or discipline. This being

SOLOV1EV AS THEOLOGIAN 167

so, we may ask from what lawful ecclesiastical
authority the Roman Church cut herself off.

Seventh Question. If the Church of Rome is not
guilty of heresy, and if she cannot be in a state of
schism, because there is no superior authority from
which she could have separated, must we not recog
nize this Church as an integral part of the one
Catholic Church of Christ, and acknowledge the
separation between the Churches to have no truly
religious and ecclesiastical justification, being merely
the work of human politicians ?

Eighth Question. If our separation from the
Church of Rome is based on no genuine principle,
ought not we, Orthodox Christians, to lay more
stress upon divine than human things ? Is it not
our duty to labour for the restoration of union
between the Eastern and Western Churches, and
thus to promote the welfare of the entire Church ?

Ninth Question. If the re-establishment of inter
communion between the East and West is for us
a duty, have we any right to delay its accomplish
ment by pleading the sins and shortcomings of
others ?

In his Answer to Danilevski (1885), Soloviev
reduced these nine questions to three. ' You
reproach me," he writes, " with being too favourable
to Catholicism. But I write in Russia, where the
works of Catholics, and of those who do them justice,
are generally suppressed. I write in Russia for the
Russians, and therefore I ought to insist upon both
our faults and our duties. For even though the
faults of the West may be more serious than ours,

1 68 VLADIMIR SOLO VI EV

yet it is our own that we are called upon to correct.
No matter who is to blame for it, the fact remains
that the separation of the East and West was and
is a worse misfortune to the universal Church, than
the origin and development of Islam, which is,
perhaps, the chastisement for the separation.
Therefore surely no Christian should fail to seek
an expiation for it.

In asking my three questions I had no other
object than to facilitate a peaceable settlement.

1. According to my Orthodox assailants, the
supreme and final authority in the Church, is the
Church herself, the Church that is bound to tell
me herself what the Church believes, for instance,
regarding the Filioque. I ask therefore how the
Church by herself can ratify and sanction the
Councils.

2. The representatives of Orthodoxy are not
agreed on the subject of Catholics. Some treat
them as heathen, and even rebaptize them, whilst
others, among whom are our greatest theologians,
refuse even to regard them as heretics. I ask,
therefore, how am I to know what the Church herself
teaches about Catholics and their Church

3. As the various nationalities belonging to the
Eastern Church are not agreed in their attitude
towards the Bulgarian Church, I ask how am I
to know the opinion of the Church herself concerning
the Bulgarians."

Finally, after appealing to the authority of
Stoianov, Vostokov, and the great metropolitan
Philaretus — the learned Philaretus who defined

SOLO V IE V AS THEOLOGIAN 109

Catholicism as " a true Church, but not altogether
true "—Solo viev concludes that Catholics ought to
be criticized and judged charitably, " otherwise,
how can they believe that the essence of our
Church is charity ?" Charity was destined to lead
Soloviev much further, and to remove his last
doubts.

These two lists of questions aroused such a storm
in Russia, that it attracted attention in other
countries, and made Soloviev's name well known in
the West. The questions were discussed in Rome
by Cardinal Mazzella, in a lecture given at the open
ing of the Catholic Academy. The Russian trans
lation of this oration was published by Herder in
1889. In Paris Abbe Tilloy brought out an octavo
volume of four hundred pages, with the title Les
Eglises Orientates dissijentes et I'Eglise Romaine.
Reponse aux neuf questions de M. Soloviev.

Before these answers appeared in the West,
Soloviev had already published his own reply to
his questions, but, owing to the severity of the
censorship, he did not write in Russian, nor did his
books appear in Russia. His first statement con
tained in his Letter to Mgr. J. G. Strossmayer , Bishop
of Bosnia and Sirmium was printed in French, at
Agram, and only very few copies of it were issued.
It was dated September 29, 1886, and proposed to
this Slav Catholic Bishop some considerations
regarding the reunion of the Churches. This
pamphlet consisted of only fourteen pages, but it
did more than repudiate the " absurd inventions
inspired by Byzantine hatred," and more than

170 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

express the author's formal acceptance of " the sub
lime truth of the Immaculate Conception."*

It declared that in Orthodox Russia the mass of
the faithful shared " the Catholic faith, apart from
some doctrinal definitions made in the West after
the separation, especially on the subject of the true
character and attributes of the supreme power in
the Church. On these points the Orthodox faithful
were ignorant." Soloviev went on to say : " As there
never have been (and, according to our best theo
logians, never can be) any (Ecumenical Councils in
the East, since the separation of the Churches . .
our schism exists for us only de facto, and by no
means de jure. What reveals even more plainly
the uncertain position of our Church with reference
to Catholicism, is that some individuals declare
publicly that they believe the ' new ' Catholic
dogmas to be the legitimate development of Orthodox
doctrine, and so they can remain in perfect com-

* In several places Soloviev points out that the opponents
of this dogma fail completely to understand it. The
Immaculate Conception is not the Virgin Birth; it does not
assume any miraculous intervention in favour of our
Lady's parents; Joiachim and Anna brought their child
into the world in the ordinary way. But the child's soul,
in virtue of the merits of Christ, foreseen by God, was
preserved from the stain resting on all other descendants of
Adam, by the outpouring of sanctifying grace. From its
creation, the soul of this second Eve was free from spot,
and pleasing to God, gratia plena. This is the whole
meaning of the Immaculate Conception, and as Soloviev
said, the dogma expresses the traditional belief of both
East and West. The physiological considerations that led
astray the scholars of the Middle Ages do not affect this
truth.

SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN 171

munion with the Eastern Church. I can bear
witness to this fact from my own personal ex
perience."

In these words Soloviev definitely professed his
intellectual adhesion to Catholic doctrine; he
accepted even the word infallible, but the feeling
that made him employ the periphrasis " on the
subject of the true character and attributes of the
supreme power in the Church," made him express
his homage to the authority of the Pope, St. Peter's
successor, in Latin: Pastor et magister infallibilis
Ecdesiae univer sails.

This declaration was not made impetuously nor
through any desire to flatter a Catholic Bishop.
Even before the censorship forced him to write in
French, Soloviev had stated the conclusions, at
which he had arrived, in an intimate correspondence
with General Alexander Alexievitch Kireev. The
latter was an earnest and fearless advocate of an
anti-Roman alliance between the Old Catholics and
the Orthodox Eastern Church. As early as 1881
Soloviev had confided to him his first Catholic
aspirations, and wrote: " I refuse to set the motto
Ad Maiorem Russiae Gloriam in place of Ad Maiorem
Dei Gloriam" Kireev thought that the visible
Church no longer existed, but had to be reconstituted
on fresh lines, on a Slavophile basis. Soloviev
replied : ' May not the visible Church, whose
unity is indissoluble, exist simultaneously among
the Catholics and ourselves ? The separation may
be only apparent; the underlying reality is the
permanent unity." In 1883, three years before

172 VLADIMIR SOLO VI EV

he wrote to Strossmayer, Soloviev had made a
clear and precise statement of the results of his
theological investigation; in writing to Kireev he
said that he was convinced, from his study of
history and patrology, that there was no dogmatic
novelty and no heresy in Infallibilitas, Immaculate
Conceptio, or Filioque. In the same letter he remarked
that Protestantism has three great defects ; it has no
apostolic succession; it has tampered with the
doctrine of the Incarnation, and no longer teaches
the perfect theandrism of Christ, God and man;
and it has lost the plenitude of the Sacraments,
and consequently Protestants are outside the
Church. " Catholics and members of the Orthodox
Church, being loyal on these three points, continue
on the contrary to share the life of the Church in
common. Therefore my motto will always be:
Ceterum censeo instaurandam esse Ecclesiae unitatem."

In 1884 he wrote again to Kireev: " The censor
wishes to remove the word infallibility from my
manuscript. The whole question is, however, to
determine whether Catholicism is true or false, and
whether Leo XIII. is one with Leo the Great or not."

Therefore it is plain that the letter to Strossmayer,
printed in September, 1886, was the outcome of
long, conscientious work. Soloviev hesitated for
a considerable time before writing it. He felt
no doubt as to the correctness of his opinions, but
he was not sure whether his conscience required
him to reveal them publicly, or whether such a
revelation would be opportune.

The history of this mental struggle is worth

SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN 173

recording. For a long time Soloviev had admired
Mgr. Strossmayer, though he did not know him
personally. He saw in him a veteran of the Catholic
episcopate, and an ardent champion of the Slavs.
In order to draw them to Rome and obtain for them
the benefits that Rome can confer, the bishop
worked with an ardour that was occasionally
excessive, but always loyal.

At the close of 1886 Soloviev resolved to put him
self into communication with him, and wrote him
a private letter, headed: " Moscow; the Feast of
the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin,
1885." To one acquainted with the prejudices of
the Orthodox party, this simple heading was
equivalent to a profession of faith. The rest of
the letter was written with great reserve. The
writer begged the bishop to give him an interview
in Croatia, either at Agram or at Djakovo. He
indicated his reason for making this request by
saying: " My heart rejoices at having such a guide
as yourself."

At the same time a very persistent rumour was
current in some of the Moscow papers, that Soloviev
was contributing attacks upon Russia to foreign
periodicals.

In order to put an end to these insinuations, on
November 28 (December 10), 1885, he wrote from
Moscow a letter that appeared two days later in
the Novote Vremia (No. 3,864), in which he says:
" I have just finished the first article that I have
ever written in a foreign language for readers out
side Russia. It has appeared in the Croatian

174 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

journal Katolicki List, under the title: Eglise Oriental
ou Eglise Orthodoxe ? In this article I have spoken
of Russia with patriotic affection." Nevertheless,
the imperial police, having found out that Soloviev
was thinking of going abroad, watched him closely,
regarding him as a " suspect," who ought not to
escape their vigilance. For six months all move
ment was impossible, and it was not until June 29,
1886, " the Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul," that
Soloviev was able to write a second letter to Mgr.
Strossmayer and say: " I have at last been able to
reach Austria, and am now free to see you."

The bishop kept Soloviev as his guest for a couple
of months, and their mutual understanding and
confidence surpassed all their expectations. The
French publication, that we have already discussed,
was the outcome of their conversations.

In September Soloviev's first visit to Djakovo
had ended, and on the 9/21 of this month he wrote
from Agram a letter full of affection and grati
tude addressed to Bishop Strossmayer. With easy
familiarity he reproached the old man with taking
too little care of his health; assured him that he
dreamt of him every night and longed to meet that
" worthy follower of Krizanic " again at Djakovo
and even at Petrograd and Moscow. Finally, he
asked the bishop for his blessing " with devotion
and veneration." With this letter he sent " the
little memorial " which the two Christians had dis
cussed at great length, being anxious to develop
Slavophilism into Catholicism. The memorial was
to be printed, but only a very few copies were to

SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN 175

be issued for private circulation. It was very care
fully edited, and appeared in a pretty white binding.
According to the notes made by Strossmayer's
private secretary, Milko Tzeppelitch, there were
only ten copies of it; three were sent to Rome, one
to Leo XIIL, another to Cardinal Rampolla, the
Secretary of State, and a third to Mgr. (afterwards
Cardinal) Vannutelli, Papal Nuncio at Vienna.
Three other copies were placed at Strossmayer's
disposal and four were sent to Soloviev. Of these
last, he presented one to the Slav Library in Brussels.
It will be reproduced in full, among Soloviev's
French works.*

This pamphlet, marking a new and definite
direction in Soloviev's line of thought, was unknown
in Russia, where no notice was taken of his first
visit to Strossmayer and his friend Canon Racki,
President of the Croatian Academy. The censor
even sanctioned the publication, in the Novote
Vremia, of some verses, written by Soloviev, that
appeared under the pseudonym of Prince Heliotrope.

Soloviev, though convinced intellectually, was still
uncertain as to the practical obligations resting
on him. At the beginning of August, 1886, he told
his mother that he should perhaps receive Holy
Communion on the Feast of the Assumption, in
the Orthodox Church, served in Croatia by Serbian
clergy.

* The pamphlet was reprinted by Radlov in his collection
of Soloviev's letters, but he probably used a rough draft
or an inaccurate copy. We have noticed some fifteen
inaccuracies, occasionally of considerable importance, some
affecting the phraseology and others the subject matter.

176 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

M. Charles Loiseau in the Correspondant of
April 25, 1905, recalls an anecdote that is character
istic of Soloviev's state of mind in 1886. ' The
intercourse between these two men (Strossmayer and
Soloviev), neither of whom had any reason to envy
the learning and influence of the other, had some
thing so noble, fraternal, and touching about it, that
those who witnessed it can never forget it. At
Djakovo Soloviev had one of those symbolical
adventures that occurred at intervals all through
his life. Being in the habit of walking about at
night, he was pacing the long paved corridor that
all who have been guests at Djakovo must know
well. At least a dozen rooms open upon it, and when
Soloviev had sufficiently thought out his meta
physical problem he was at a loss to know which
was his own room. He was one of those simple-
hearted men who confess and ask pardon for their
absent-mindedness, and do not boast of it. He
cautiously tried first one door, then another, but
the third was locked, and he felt that his tentative
method lacked discretion, so he determined to
continue to pace the corridor. Towards morning
he noticed that a door, which he had passed perhaps
a hundred times, was ajar, and certain signs con
vinced him that at last he had found the right
room. At breakfast the conversation turned on
his adventure, and when Strossmayer gently rallied
him about it, he replied in a deep, quiet voice :
' When we are in search of the truth, or uncertain
regarding which moral resolution we ought to form,
it often happens that we hesitate before a door,

SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN i?7

that looks as if it were locked, but needs only to
be pushed.' '

How many more times was the door to seem
locked to Soloviev ? What answer could he give
to the difficult case of conscience that was troubling
him ? In the profound loyalty of his soul, he
believed that Providence had imposed upon him
the task of effecting, no matter at what cost to
himself, a rapprochement between Russia and the
Catholic Church. Henceforth the aim of his life
was to show by his example that a Slav, without
ceasing to be a Slav, could and should expand
his heart and mind to embrace Catholicity in faith
and endeavour, and prove at the same time that
Roman Catholicism completes, crowns, and unifies
all that is legitimate in the traditional Orthodoxy
of the East.

He resolved to state his views in a large Russian
work, a sort of discourse upon universal history, in
which the course of religion in the past would display
to his contemporaries the universalist or Catholic
design, which Providence has laid before them with
reference to the future. This work on The History
and Future of Theocracy was to be in three volumes;
history, philosophy, and revelation were to be
shown to converge, more and more in the course
of centuries, regarding the chief individual and
collective duties of mankind. Let us examine
briefly this ambitious design. God, the Father
of the human race, desires it to be restored in Christ
its Head; and this Head of the Church wishes all
men to be united with Him through the Church.

I :

J?8 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

His aim is to bring them all together into one flock
under one Shepherd; and to perfect them in a unity
resembling the divine unity of the Trinity. With
this divine unity in view, the spirit of Christ strives
to manifest even now the charity and harmony of
His members, in spite of the diversity of their
works.

This visible unity is recommended constantly
by St. Paul, who teaches at the same time that, if
it is to exist and increase, even in a local Church,
there must be a hierarchy, which, being instituted
by God and representing Him, subordinates our
free will to other wills, that communicate to us
God's commands. How, then, in a Church, that
has spread all over the world, can harmony exist
and be the incontestable mark of divine protection,
unless there is a bond of union visibly connecting
the religious efforts of believers in Jesus Christ ?
This bond of union, the sign and symbol of universal
charity, and consequently also of liberty, has never
existed, and can never exist, except in agreement
with the successor of St. Peter. Thus the divini-
zation of the human race by a voluntary acceptance
of a Catholic theocracy has been, from the beginning
of the world, God's design. The history of the
resistance offered by man, and the new devices to
which God in His mercy has recourse, forms the
great drama being enacted in this world, the apo
theosis of which will be in eternity. The great
acts in this drama have been — the choice of the
Israelites and their instruction by the prophets, the
Incarnation of the Word in the womb of an Immacu-

SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN i?9

late Virgin, and the aid of the Holy Spirit bestowed
upon the Church to render her really universal,
by reuniting all mankind.

This aid of the Holy Ghost has a history, and a
new phase of it is in course of preparation — viz.,
the visible union of all whose loyal faith in the
Church of Christ binds them to the soul of that
Church. By means of this visible union, the body of
the Church will be revealed in all its beauty, strength,
and vigorous growth, having as its supreme eternal
Head none other than Jesus Christ, but with a
hierarchy subject to the authority of each successive
Pontiff who represents the unifying spiritual power
of Christ.

A free theocracy would not, therefore, consist
in the universal subordination of all nations to the
material kingship of the popes. Jesus Christ alone
would reign supreme over all the religious, social,
and material activity of this world, and the human
representatives of this Divine authority would
hold it only with limitations of time and space.
The popes exercise this authority in spiritual
matters, and temporal rulers in the domain of
economics and politics. Both, being mortal, will
have to render a strict account of their actions, and
the thought of their responsibility explains God's
patience with His stewards, even when guilty and
scandalous in their lives. Scandals have existed in
the case of popes and kings, and human passions
and selfish ambition have more than once corrupted
those who ought to be saints of God, and disinterested
servants of His earthly kingdom. Their most serious

i8o VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

offence is the attempt to grasp all the powers that
belong to Jesus Christ alone. If an emperor wishes
to govern the spiritual order, or a pope to manage
the temporal affairs of all the nations on earth,
both are wrong; and this fault is committed by all
who reject the union between Church and State.
These two powers, each being a specialist in its
own domain, affect the same persons and the same
social forces; they cannot ignore one another, but
should, on the contrary, be of mutual assistance.
Their ultimate aims are identical. Both are God's
delegates, and it is their task to organize mankind
and lead them to God, so that the divinization, that
He designs, may be effected.

There must then be an understanding between
Church and State, but it must be in accordance with
the interests at stake. The spirit is higher than
matter, and so purely spiritual and religious interests
must take precedence of economic prosperity and
material development. The popes are commis
sioned to enlighten and direct the conscience of
princes, to recall them to their duties as men and
responsible rulers, to rebuke their wrongdoing, if
of a nature to give scandal, and even to pronounce
a solemn anathema against them. Hence the pope
indirectly controls civil rulers, but this is not an
encroachment upon their supremacy in the State,
but a necessary result of the pope's spiritual power.
The exercise of this power requires supernatural
faith and courage; we cannot help admiring these
virtues in the great popes, and regretting their
absence in others, who, being weaker, shrank from

SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN 181

condemning, in Christ's name, men of guilty
conscience.

The carrying out of this design afforded Soloviev
abundant opportunities of studying the historical
grievances, that the Russians cherish against the
Papacy. Some of them are the results of mistakes
or false statements, others are based on facts.
But men's faults do not overthrow God's work ; the
flight of the Apostles in the Garden of Olives did
not cause their apostolic mission to be withdrawn.
The Catholic Church never teaches that the man
who is pope is impeccable, she only knows that God
will secure the accomplishment of his social mission,
and the infallibility of the Universal Teacher is
guaranteed by Providence. The ultimate aim of
this special protection is the divinization of the
human race, that is called by Christ to a life of
grace and free unity in charity.

Soloviev completed only one volume of this
great work on The History and Future of Theocracy.
He tried in the first instance to publish it in Russia,
even before his visit to Strossmayer, but the censor
absolutely refused to sanction its being printed.
A few extracts from it appeared in the Moscow
Academy Review, and eighty-five pages of it were
published between September 8 and November 21,
1885 (La rupture dogmatique dans I'Eglise et scs
relations avec la question de I' union des Eglises).
This was, however, an insignificant part of a volume
containing more than three hundred pages in the
complete edition of Soloviev's works. The extracts

1 82 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

conclude with a note, in which the editor of the
Review states that he differs from Soloviev on the
Filioque question.

Greatly against his will, Soloviev had to publish
this first volume of The History and Future of
Theocracy at Agram. On May 20, 1887, he informed
Nicolas Nicolaievitch Strakhov that he had seen
it through the press; it was badly printed, as was
natural, since the printers knew no Russian, and it
had given the author a great deal of trouble. He
hoped that the influence of the book would be worth
all the trouble and expense that it had cost him.
Of his own accord he had suppressed those passages
which would have most offended the censor, and
amongst them was a long discussion of the primacy
of St. Peter. He trusted that the book in this
modified form might be allowed to circulate in
Russia, but he was disappointed; the censor abso
lutely forbade the book to be brought into the
country, and this prohibition, which was not
removed until after Soloviev's death, caused him to
desist from his undertaking.

In a letter dated October 12, 1886, Strossmayer
informed Mgr. Vannutelli, the Papal Nuncio at
Vienna, that the work would soon be finished:
Opus trium voluminum de unitate Ecclesice ; and in
December, 1887, Soloviev told Strakhov that he
was engaged upon the second volume. A few
months later he wrote that it was finished, and that
he intended to cross the frontier in order to supervise
the printing. However, on November 12/24, 1888, he
wrote from Agram to say that he had been obliged to

SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN 183

abandon his design. " I see no general advantage,"
he remarked, " in publishing Russian books that
will undoubtedly be prohibited in Russia. I have
not the least hope that the censor will moderate
his severity towards me for a long time to come."

These confidential statements show that a great
deal of interest attaches to Soloviev's unpublished
manuscripts. Their publication would throw much
light on the history of his thought, but, as it is,
we can only trace a few stages in it, being guided
by the landmarks that he himself has fixed. Out
ward signs of this kind, designed for the guidance
of others, do not always reveal the full depths of
a man's personal convictions, and more information
can often be gathered from notes and rough sketches,
in which remarks occur that prudence would forbid
him to publish, but that would reveal to us the hidden
secrets of his soul.

Soloviev's first visit to Djakovo coincides with his
adoption of a definite direction in his thought and
life. We shall see that during his journey to Paris
he expressed his views more decidedly, wording
them, however, so discreetly as to escape the censor's
prohibition. His conclusions had been prepared
in Russia, were formed finally in Strossmayer's
company with all the sincerity of ardent faith and
charity, and were openly proclaimed in Paris; they
never changed again.

The faith of his last twelve years was the subject of
a French book that will always be considered the chief
work of this great thinker, champion, and apostle
of divine truth — viz., La Russie et I'Eglise universellc.

CHAPTER X

THE CONCLUSIONS OF SOLOVIEV THE THEO
LOGIAN : "THE RUSSIAN IDEAL " — " LA
RUSSIE ET L'EGLISE UNIVERSELLE "

TOWARD the end of 1886, M. Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu,
wishing to obtain " authentic information regarding
Soloviev's religious system," wrote to Father
Pierling on the subject. The latter forwarded
the request to Mgr. Strossmayer, who wrote in
reply a letter dated January 23, 1887. It has
hitherto not been published, and we reproduce it
in full, without altering the spelling.

REVERAND PERE ET MON CHER FRERE EN I.X.,
Voila la lettre ecrite a moi par notre excellent
Souvalof (Soloviev). II publira successiment 3
volumes, a Agram, sur la reunion des e*glises. L'im.
pression du premier volume est presque termine-
II a 1'intention d'en publier un abrege en francais.
C'est un home ascete et vraiment saint. Son idee
mere est qu'il n'y a pas un vrai schisme en Russie,
mais seulement un grand malentendue. A present
il demeure a Moscou. Je lui e*crirai instantanement,
qu'il vous expose un peu plus au fond sa doctrine.
Je c6nais un peu r excellent ecrivain Leroie-Beaulieu .
Je leus ses articles dans la revue des deux mondes-

184

SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN 185

Saluez le de ma part. II est ami des Slaves. II a
mille foi raison. II faut que la ra$e latine, a la
tete la france s'unisse a la rage slave, pour se de-
fendre centre la race altiere et egoiste, qui nous
tous menace de son joug. Adieu mon che"re frere.
Je me recdmande a votre charite* et a vos prieres.
Votre frere en I.X.,

STROSSMAYER,
DIAKOVO, 23/1, 1887. eveque.1*

A few days later Father Pierling received a
letter from Soloviev, who wrote on January 31, 1887.
The following are the most important passages in
it: " Bishop Strossmayer has forwarded me the

* Translation. — Reverend Father and dear Brother in
Christ. Here is the letter written me by our good friend
Soloviev. He intends to publish three successive volumes
at Agram, regarding the reunion of the Churches. The
printing of the first volume is almost finished. He means
to publish an abridgment of it in French. He is a mortified
and really holy man. The idea with which he starts is that
there is no actual schism in Russia, but only a great deal
of misunderstanding. Just now he is living in Moscow.
I will write to him at once and ask him to expound his
views to you rather more thoroughly. I have a slight
acquaintance with that excellent writer Leroy-Beaulieu,
and have read his articles in the Revue des deux Mondes-
Give him my kind regards. He is a friend to the Slavs,
and with good reason. The Latin races, with France at
their head, must unite with the Slavs, to defend themselves
against the overbearing and selfish race that threatens
to subjugate us all. Farewell, dear brother. I commend
myself to your charity and prayers. Your brother in Christ ,

STROSSMAYER, Bishop.

DIAKOVO.

January 23, 1887.

1 86 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

letter in which you expressed to him M. Leroy-
Beaulieu's wish. This request for authentic in
formation concerning my ' religious system ' affords
me my first opportunity of laying my ideas before
a really enlightened public. I am very glad of it,
the more so because the persistent persecution of
the censorship makes it almost impossible for me to
address a public that is, strictly speaking, Russian.
The work that you and M. Leroy-Beaulieu wish me
to undertake agrees perfectly with one of my own
schemes.

" I will myself write in French, as well as I can,
a short but complete statement of my ideas on
religion and the Church. I consider these two points
to be of supreme and fundamental importance in
the matter of reunion. I shall probably add to
this statement a philosophical justification of the
three doctrines of the Catholic Church that form
the chief doctrinal obstacle to union between her
and the Eastern Church — viz., the procession of
the Holy Ghost et a Filio (sic), the dogma of the
Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, and
lastly infallibilitas Summi Pontificis ex cathedra
(sic). All this will, when printed, cover eight or
ten pages, and will form an article that I shall be
happy to write under the title of Philosophy of the
Universal Church.

" M. Leroy-Beaulieu can make use of this article,
either in manuscript or in print, when he brings
out his third volume. I earnestly beg you to write
to me on this subject."

The suggested title was altered, and the article

became a volume containing four hundred pages.
M. Leroy-Beaulieu did far more than utilize it for
his own great work, and it was at his house in
Viroflay that Soloviev finally completed the task
that he had undertaken.

This French work occupied him for more than
two years; on January 30, 1887, he told Strakhov
what M. Leroy-Beaulieu had done, and communi
cated to him as a great secret the plan of his article.
On May 20 he still spoke, in a letter to the same
correspondent, of a work on the Philosophy of the
Universal Church. On December 6, in the same
year, he relates a very characteristic incident that
he had witnessed: " I told you, I think," he says,
" that a picture representing Christ in the act of
giving the keys to the Apostle Peter has been re
moved from our Russian exhibition of Raphael's
works." He goes on in the same letter to mention
the title now definitely chosen for his French work;
it was La Russie et I'Eglise Universelle. " In this
book I shall be able to express all my ideas freely
and fully." Finally, on November 12/24, l888> he
wrote from Agram to inform his friend that the book
was being printed in Paris. Meantime various
events had occurred which we must notice briefly.

For some years Soloviev had been acquainted
with Princess Elizabeth Volkonsky, a woman of
rare virtue and deep piety.* She was born in 1838

* The details given concerning Princess Elizabeth
Volkonsky are derived from an unpublished private docu
ment in the Slav Library. Quotations from it are printed
within inverted commas.

i88 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

and belonged to an aristocratic Orthodox family.
Her early years were passed in Rome, where she was
remarkable for her religious fervour, and when she
married Prince Michael Volkonsky, she hoped to
gather round her a family equally devoted to the
Orthodox Church.

" She always believed in the Universal Church,
considering it to be the Church of the East, but she
felt no hostility towards the Catholic Church, with
which she had been familiar in her childhood."
Gradually, however, an uneasiness on the subject
of religion disturbed her peace of mind. ' Her
character was too virile and her will too conscientious
for her to be influenced by mere impressions . . .
study, historical research, and reading the Fathers
of the Church led her in course of time to see the
truth." She was fifteen years older than Soloviev,
and had been struck by his first essays.

" Her friendship with Soloviev dated from 1880;
she understood him as soon as he came before the
public; she was his support when his enemies as
sailed him, and she did her best to obtain for him
liberty of speech. She put in circulation dozens of
copies of his first volume on Theocracy, and collected
money towards the expense of bringing out the
second volume. Soloviev did not accept the
money, and insisted upon her returning each
contribution to the giver." This sacred friendship
was strengthened by an interchange of valuable
services. Soloviev lavished his learning and zeal
upon the task of enlightening her calm, straight
forward mind, and his personal conviction, the read-

SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN 189

ing that he recommended, and the work that ahe
carried on under his direction, led at last to a
practical result.

" In 1886 she visited Rome and received the
blessing of Leo XIII. , who introduced her to others
who were also devoted to the task of reunion, and
thenceforth she lived for this end alone, although
she did not yet become a Catholic, for she thought
that she could do better work by remaining where
she was, than would be possible were she to attract
attention by her reception into the Catholic Church,
and consequently she deferred the moment so
ardently desired." Soloviev induced her to post
pone her entrance into the Church. Before his
visit to Mgr. Strossmayer, he passed through
Vienna on June 29, 1886, and called upon Father
Tondini and Princess Volkonsky. For the second
time he achieved the success that he mentioned in
a letter to the Novoie Vremia, dated November 28
(December 10), 1885. " I think," he said, " that
' conversion ' or ' outward union ' is useless, and
even harmful. I have deterred several people
from it, for our Church ought to be recognized as
professing a correct faith."

The princess yielded to his persuasion, and spent
some months in propagating prayer for reunion
among the country priests of the Orthodox Church,
especially in Carniola. " Her ardent desire was to
succeed in instituting Masses for reunion in the
Orthodox Church." To facilitate this design, she
interested herself in the unification of the calendars,
and in all the pontifical decisions that allowed Slav

1 90 ' VLA DIMIR SOLO VIE V

Catholics to use a liturgy in harmony with their
traditions and temperament.

Nevertheless she did not lose sight of the funda
mental problem, and continued to ask herself what
her personal obligations were. She was accustomed
to literary work, having compiled a genealogy of
the Volkonsky family, which was regarded as a
model by the Imperial Genealogical Society. Now
she began to arrange the notes on the Church that
she had made when reading the Fathers, and, as
soon as her Russian manuscript was completed,
further delay seemed to her no less wrong than
doubt, and she was received into the Church in
November, 1887.

Her conversion was a shock to Soloviev, but he
did not reproach her. If his own conscience bade
him follow another path, it did not, in his opinion,
require him to judge others.

In 1888 Princess Volkonsky brought out her
first theological work— The Church. Soloviev had
given her much encouragement regarding its publi
cation. In September, 1889, appeared a refutation
of it by M. Bielaiev, professor at the Ecclesiastical
Academy of Kazan, who had sent the proofs of
his work to Pobedonostsev, that they might be
submitted to experts for revision.

In October Princess Volkonsky began her reply,
and worked at it for years. It was published after
her death, in Russian, by Herder at Freiburg in
Breisgau, and bears the title The Ecclesiastical
Tradition and Theological Literature of Russia. The
author's name is not given. As her books could

SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN 191

not appear in Russia, she was forced to work
secretly and often wrote at night after returning
from a ball or after long journeys. Sometimes for
weeks or even months she wrote nothing at all.
t is easy to understand that great mental weariness
was caused by work so frequently interrupted, and
by the moral suffering of being compelled to keep
silence about the truth, whilst she was treated by
her enemies as a liar and forger. She died in
February, 1897.

These extracts from a private document are
enough to account for Soloviev's feelings during his
journey to Paris in 1888. He went thither to
superintend the printing of his French book La
Russie et I'Eglise Universelle. When he consulted
the princess with regard to it, she begged him to
suppress all bitter attacks upon his country and
he complied, but nevertheless, in spite of her
remonstrances, he brought out a sort of resume
the book, in pamphlet form, containing the
passages omitted from his larger work They are
excessively bitter and contain a reference to the cele
brated paper on The Russian Idea that Soloviev
read on May 25, 1888, at Pans, in the salon
Princess Sayn-Wittgenstein, nee Bariatynski
Ihere was a large audience, including the elite of
the faubourg Saint-Germain, some members of
the Academy and several priests and journalists
M. bugene Tavernier says that about sixty people
were present, most of them belonging to the society
the faubourg Saint - Germain, besides a few
Russians, to whom Paris was a second home some

192 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

foreign religious and three or four persons connected
with the press. Soloviev was introduced by Father
Pierling, and spoke in French so pure that his
eloquence and assurance astonished M. Tavernier,
who says that the paper, though short, gave everyone
an impression of power. Soloviev's thoughts, how
ever, were so far beyond the horizon even of the
elite among his hearers, that he felt himself mis
understood or only half understood by many. The
Russian alliance had not yet brought French and
Russians into sympathy.

Vladimir Guettee misrepresented the Russian
opinion of this lecture, when he published immedi
ately afterwards a very much biased reply to The
Russian Idea. His pamphlet, La Russie et son
Eglise, ends with a phrase intentionally insulting
and very characteristic of the writer: "Soloviev
is more papistical than Bellarmine, or the pope
himself." The lecture on The Russian Idea con
tained nothing startling. No doubt Soloviev looked
forward to the incorporation of his dearly loved
Russia with the Catholic Church; no doubt he in
sisted upon the duty of religious universalism ; but
these statements were not new; he had repeated
them in all his later works.

Whether the reader be interested chiefly in psy
chology or in religion, he will be more inclined to
appreciate whatever marks progress towards a
personal, definite solution of the ecclesiastical
problem. From this point of view the French
lecture contained nothing that a dutiful son of
Russia could not say to his mother, nothing that

SOLO VIE V AS THEOLOGIAN 193

did not betray his ambition for her. It only raised
the question of Russia's raison d'etre in universal
history.

" One sees this vast empire take its place, more
or less brilliantly, upon the world's stage, and
accept Western civilization on many points of
secondary importance, whilst obstinately rejecting
it in more important matters, thus preserving an
originality, which is no less striking because it is
purely negative. When we see this great historical
fact, we are impelled to ask: What thought does it
hide from or reveal to us ? What is the ideal
principle animating this mighty body ? What new
message has this new nation to convey to mankind ?
What part will it play in the history of the world ?
For the answers to these questions, we must not go
to public opinion at the present day, for then we
might have to change our minds to-morrow, but
we must seek them in the eternal truths of religion,
since the ideal of a nation is not what it thinks of itself
in time, but what God thinks of it in eternity."

We shall quote at some length Soloviev's develop
ment of this theme, because the original text is
generally unknown in Russia.

r' In speaking of the real and essential unity of
the human race, we ought to think of mankind as
a great collective entity, or as a social organism
of which the various nations are the living members.
It is evident from this point of view that no nation
can live in, for, and by itself, but that the life of
each is a definite participation in the general life
of humanity. The organic function that each

13

I94 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

nation has to discharge in this universal life is its
true national ideal, determined from the beginning
by God's design.

" But if it is true that the human race is one great
organic whole, we must remember that it is not
a purely physical organism, but that the members
and elements of which it is composed — nations and
individuals — are moral beings. Now the essential
condition of a moral being in this: — the particular
function that it is required to discharge in the
universal life, the idea that determines its existence
in the mind of God, is never imposed as a material
necessity, but only as a moral obligation.

" The vocation or special ideal assigned by God
to each moral being, whether an individual or a
nation, and which is revealed to the conscience
of this being as his supreme duty, has in every case
a real power, and determines the existence of a
moral being, but it does this in two different ways.
It is the law of life, when the duty is discharged,
and the law of death, when it is neglected. No
moral being can ever withdraw from the divine
design, that is his raison d'etre, but it rests with
himself to bear it in his heart and life, as a blessing
or as a curse."

In support of this statement Soloviev referred as
usual to the people of Israel.

" The nation called to give Christianity to the
world accomplished its task in spite of itself, and for
eighteen centuries the great majority of its members
have persisted in rejecting the divine ideal that was
carried in its heart and formed its true raison d'&tre.

SOLO VI EV AS THEOLOGIAN 195

It is, therefore, no longer permissible to assert
that a nation's public opinion is always correct,
and that no nation can ever fail to recognize or
reject its true vocation."

The application of this theory to Russia was
thrilling, beginning as it did with an outburst of
poetical enthusiasm, and ending with filial sorrow.

' Truly I think of the rays, presaging a grand
future, that lighted up our history at the outset ; I
recall, after the original foundation of material
order, the no less remarkable introduction of
Christianity, and the glorious figure of St. Vladimir,
the ardent and fanatical servant of idols, who,
perceiving the unsatisfying character of paganism,
and feeling a need of true religion, reflected and
deliberated for a long time before embracing it,
but, when he had become a Christian, resolved to
be one in earnest. Popular poetry calls our first
Christian ruler ' the beautiful sun ' illuminating
our early history. That sun was followed by
centuries of darkness and gloom, and, after a long
series of disasters, the Russian nation was forced
back into the icy forests of the North-East, brutalized
by slavery and the necessity of labouring on a barren
soil, and almost cut off from communication with
the centre of Christendom. Russia fell into a state
of barbarism increased by a stupid and ignorant
kind of national pride, and when the pious Muscovite,
forgetful of St. Vladimir's real Christianity, devoted
himself to absurd disputes on minute points of ritual,
suddenly, out of all this chaos of barbarism and
misery, arose the colossal figure of Peter the Great.

VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

Being filled with an enlightened patriotism that
was quick to perceive the true needs of the country,
he cast aside the blind nationalism of Moscovy, and
let nothing hinder him in his task of giving Russia
the civilization that she despised. He did not,
like a mighty protector, summon this foreign civili
zation, but went to seek it in its own home, in the
guise of a humble servant and industrious apprentice.
In spite of the grave defects in his private character,
he continued to the end of his life to set a noble
example of devotion to duty and of civic virtues.
A definite national work, that has had such pre
cursors, ought to be great and magnificent ; a country
that, in its barbarous state, was represented by
St. Vladimir and Peter the Great, ought to aim
very high. But the true greatness of Russia is
a dead letter to our spurious patriots, who wish
to impose upon the Russian nation a mission in
history that they themselves have devised. . . .
Was it worth while for Russia to have suffered and
struggled during a thousand years, to have become
Christian under St. Vladimir, and European under
Peter the Great, occupying always a place apart
between East and West, if it was only that thus
she might become a means of realizing the ' great
idea ' of Serbia and Bulgaria ?"

These were not the words of a desperate man,
for Soloviev never despaired; he only condemned
narrowness in the name of wider and higher aims.

" We must not, moreover, exaggerate the fears
of pessimists. Russia has not yet abandoned her
raison d'etre, nor been false to the faith and love

SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN 197

of her early youth. It is still within her power to
renounce the selfish policy and national dulness
that would necessarily render our historical mission
a failure. The artificial product known as public
opinion, made and sold by an opportunist press,
has not yet stifled our national conscience, which
will discover a truer expression of the real Russian
ideal. We need not go far to seek it, for it is
already present, revealed in the religious character
of the people, foreshadowed and indicated by the
most important events and the greatest personalities
in our history. And, if that were not enough, we
have still more weighty and trustworthy evidence —
the revealed Word of God."

This revealed word, silent as it is regarding
Russia and all nationalities later than the time of
Christ, is eloquent on the universalist obligations
of societies and individuals.

' To share in the life of the Universal Church, in
the development of the entire Christian civilization,
and to share in it according to one's own particular
strength and ability, is the one true mission and aim
of each nation. It is a self-evident and elementary
truth that no individual organ can be thought of
as isolated and set in opposition to other organs,
but as united with all the other parts of the living
body. From the Christian point of view, it is
undeniable that this quite elementary truth is
applicable to the human race, the body of Christ.
Christ Himself recognized the existence and vocation
of all nations, when He addressed the Apostles
(Matt, xxviii. 19), but He did not speak to any

ig8 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

one nation in particular, because, for Him, they
existed only in their organic and moral union, as
living members of one spiritual body. Thus
Christianity admits the permanence of national
life and the rights of nations, but condemns national
ism, which is, in a nation, what egotism is in an
individual."

This general truth is as applicable to Russia
as to other nations.

" The Russians are a Christian people, and con
sequently, to ascertain the true Russian idea, we
must not ask what Russia will do by and for herself,
but what she ought to do in the name of the Christian
principle that she professes, and for the good of the
universal Christianity to which she belongs. If she
is to accomplish her mission, she must with heart and
soul enter into the common life of the Christian
world, and use all her national strength in effecting,
together with other nations, that perfect and uni
versal unity of the human race, the firm foundation
of which is given us in the Church of Christ."

Soloviev was approaching the real heart of the
matter — his views on the ecclesiastical organization
of Russia.

" The spirit of national egotism is not easily
overcome. It has found means of taking root in
our midst, without openly denying the religious
character innate in the Russian people. Not only
does it admit that the Russians are Christians, but
it proclaims emphatically that they are pre-eminently
Christian, and that the Church is the true basis of
our national life; but this assertion is only an excuse

SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN igg

for the pretentious claim to possess the monopoly
of faith and Christian life, and to have the Church
solely with us. In this way, the Church, which
is really the immovable rock of universal unity
and solidarity, becomes to Russia the palladium
of a narrow nationalism, and often even the passive
instrument of a selfish and spiteful policy.

" Our religion, as manifested in the faith of the
people and in our public worship, is perfectly
orthodox. The Russian Church, inasmuch as she
preserves the true faith, the apostolic succession,
and valid sacraments, participates essentially in
the universal Church founded by Christ. If, un
happily, this unity is only latent among us, and not
a living reality, it is because for centuries the body
of our Church has been fettered to a foul corpse,
that poisons her as it decomposes.

" The official institution represented by our
ecclesiastical government and school of theology
maintains at all costs its exclusive and particular
character, and certainly is not a living portion of
the true Universal Church founded by Christ."

Soloviev had never previously so clearly dis
tinguished the popular faith of the Russians and the
organization that professes to control it. Gentle
as he was, Soloviev abandoned the latter to the
judgment of Ivan Aksakov, a decided anti-papist.

" If we are to believe its supporters, our Church
is a large but faithless flock, and the police are
the shepherds, who, with their whips, drive the lost
sheep into the sheepfold. Does this agree with
the true conception of Christ's Church ? If not,

200 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

our Church has ceased to be Christ's Church; what
is it, then ? A State institution that may serve
the interests of the State and promote morality.
But we must not forget that the Church is a domain,
where no alteration of the moral basis is admissible,
where no infidelity to the vital principle can remain
unpunished, and where, if one lies, the lie is uttered
not to men, but to God. A Church unfaithful to
Christ is the most barren and abnormal pheno
menon on the face of the earth, doomed to failure
by God's word. A Church forming part of a
State, of a ' Kingdom of this world/ has been false
to its mission, and must share the fate of all the
kingdoms of this world. It has ceased to have in
itself any raison d'etre, and condemns itself to weak
ness and death.

" The Russian conscience is not free in Russia,
and religious thought is stagnant, the abomination
of desolation reigns in holy places; speech, the
weapon of the mind, is put down by the material
force of the State; and around the Church we see,
not angels of God, guarding its portals, but gen
darmes and police inspectors, upholding Orthodoxy,
and directing our consciences."

In conclusion, Soloviev ends this scathing criti
cism with another quotation from Aksakov :

" The health-giving breath of the spirit of truth,
the spirit of charity, the spirit of liberty and the
spirit of life is lacking in the Russian Church."

He then suddenly reverts to his distinction
between the faith of the people, and the bureaucracy
of the official Church.

SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN 201

" An institution forsaken by the spirit of truth
cannot be the true Church of God. We must not
abandon the religion of our forefathers, nor the
piety of the Orthodox people with their sacred
traditions and objects of veneration. It is plain
that the one sacrifice that we ought to make to
truth is the pseudo-ecclesiastical institution, so
well described by the Orthodox author whom I
have quoted, the institution that is founded on
servility and material interest, and that acts by
means of fraud and violence."

The Christian spirit of the masses and the genuine
Orthodoxy of their faith required and had a right
to be set free from the oppressive supervision of an
administration that claimed to be ecclesiastical in
character, but was, in fact, opposed to the true
Church of Christ.

" Whatever may be the intrinsic qualities of the
Russian people, they cannot act in a normal way
as long as the thought and conscience of the nation
are paralyzed by violence and obscurantism. Our
first duty, therefore, is to let in pure air and light,
to remove the artificial barriers which keep the re
ligious feeling of our race in isolation and inactivity,
and to open up a straight path leading to full and
living truth. But people fear the truth because
it is Catholic — i.e., universal, and they desire to
have at all costs a religion apart, distinctively
Russian, and a Church united with the Empire.
They do not care for this Church in itself, but value
it as the attribute and symbol of their exclusive
nationalism."

2&2 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

Those who refuse to sacrifice their national
egotism to universal truth cannot be, and ought not
to assume the name of, Christians.

" Preparations are being made for celebrating
solemnly the ninth centenary of the introduction
of Christianity into Russia. I think, however, that
the celebration will be premature. Some patriots
talk as if St. Vladimir's baptism, efficacious as it
was to the prince himself, had been to the nation
only a baptism of water, and that we ought to
be baptized a second time by the spirit of truth
and the fire of charity. This second baptism is
absolutely necessary, if not for Russia as a whole,
at least for the section of society that speaks and
acts at the present day. If it is to become Christian,
it must renounce a new form of idolatry, less gross
indeed, but not less absurd and far more harmful,
than the idolatry practised by our pagan ancestors
and cast aside by St. Vladimir. I mean that new
idolatry, that mad epidemic of nationalism, that is
urging nations to worship their own image, instead
of the supreme and universal Godhead."

God, who governs the universe, willed to establish
through His Son, Jesus Christ, a Church with no
limitations of time and space, a universal Church, in
which " the past and the future, the traditional
and the ideal, are not mutually exclusive, but equally
essential and indispensable."

' The principle of the past, or of paternity, is
realized in the Church by the priesthood. A
universal or Catholic Church must have a universal
or international priesthood, centralized and unified

SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN 203

in the person of one Father, common to all nations,
the supreme Pontiff. It is plain that a national
priesthood cannot, as such, represent the universal
paternity embracing all nations alike. The re
union of the clergy of various nationalities into
one oecumenical body cannot be effected except by
means of an international centre, real and perma
nent, with power and right to resist all tendencies
to particularism.

" The real unity of a family, if it is to be
regular and lasting, requires a common father,
or one who can take his place. If individuals
and nations are to be bound together into one
family, the paternal principle in religion must be
realized on earth through an ecclesiastical mon
archy, capable of gathering together all the national
and individual elements, and of being always the
living image and free instrument of God our
Father."

Thus true patriotism and genuine Christianity
ought to impel all Russians to promote the religious
transformation of their country.

" Thanks to her historical conditions, Russia
displays the most complete development, and the
most vivid expression of an absolute national
State, rejecting the unity of the Church and suppress
ing religious liberty. If we were a pagan nation,
it would be quite possible for us to crystallize our
selves definitely into such a state. But the Russians
are fundamentally Christian, and the excessive
development of the anti-Christian principle of the
absolute State is only the reverse of the true principle

*°4 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

of the Kingship of Christ, which underlies the
Christian state."

A change of front is still possible, and, being
obligatory, it offers Russia a glorious future, provided
that she will acquiesce in it.

' The Russian Empire, isolated in its absolutism,
is a menace to Christendom, a probable source of
endless strife and warfare. But the Russian
Empire, willing to serve and protect the Universal
Church and social organization, will bring peace
and blessing to the nations."

This study of the Russian idea led up to a decisive
formula, that is not only the end of Soloviev's
pamphlet, but the summary of all his intellectual
activity and life-work :

' The Russian ideal, the historical mission of
Russia, requires us to acknowledge ourselves
members of Christ's one universal family.
There is nothing exclusive about this idea, which
is but a new aspect of the Christian idea itself, and
if, in order to accomplish this national mission, we
find it incumbent upon us to act with and for,
rather than against, other nations, this is the great
proof that this idea is correct. For truth is only
a form of Good, and the Good is incapable of
envy."*

8 The pamphlet on the Russian ideal was sent to
Rome by Mgr. Strossmayer. On July 23, 1888, Cardinal
Rampolla wrote: " I have forwarded the little book to the
Holy Father, ea addens quae de auctore opusculi et de
conversione in praefatis litteris patefaciebas. Sensa haec
Sanctitas sua, quae omnes populos ad Christi ovile reducere
intense cupit, et probavit et laudibus prosecuta est, ac

SOLO VIE V AS THEOLOGIAN 205

The Russian Idea, published in 1888, was the
forerunner of Russia and the Universal Church, which
appeared in 1889. In the third book of this remark
able work, the social mysticism jars somewhat
upon a Western theologian; the boldness of speech
and the continual use of symbolical language are
in harmony with the taste of the East rather than
with our own. Some comparisons and analogies
might be inoffensive in Russian, but difficult to
express in French. Yet, in spite of the defects in
the latter part of the book, it is as a whole, according
to M. Ta vernier, " admirable in the knowledge,
logic, and eloquence " that it displays. It begins
with a long introduction, in which the author
sketches, in broad outline, the history of the chief
errors threatening Christian thought and practice
since the foundation of the Church. He details
" the inner contradictions of this revolutionary
individualism " from which the world is suffering;
he regards them as being the logical result of the
habits of those spurious Christians, who were un
willing to bring their public life into conformity
with their speculative belief. " The human race
believed that it was enough to profess faith in Christ's
Divinity, without taking His teaching seriously.
Certain texts from the Gospel were so arranged that
one could derive whatever one wanted from them,
whilst men conspired to keep silence regarding

Deum forventer exorat, qui id munus omnipotent! sua
gratia hoc miraculum patrare potest, ut communia desi-
deria exaudiat." (Quoted by Dr. Svetozar Ritig from the
diocesan archives of Agram.)

206 VLADIMIR SOLO VI EV

other texts that did not fit in with these arrange
ments. They were never tired of repeating the
commandment : ' Render to Caesar the things that
are Caesar's, and to God, the things that are God's,'
in order to sanction a system that gave Caesar all
and God nothing. They were careful not to quote
the words: ' All power is given me in heaven and
on earth.' They looked upon Christ as a sacrificing
priest and as an atoning victim, but not as king. . . .
Thus history has witnessed, as we do now, the strange
phenomenon of a society professedly Christian and
yet really pagan, not only in its life, but in the law
governing its life."

According to the law of charity taught by Christ
for the divinization of men, the Kingdom of God was
to be established on earth through the agency of
the Universal Church. It was to realize the triple
union so often mentioned by Soloviev in his Russian
works; the sacerdotal union or hierarchical organiza
tion of the Church properly so-called, the royal
union or agreement on the part of the rulers to render
the State truly Christian, and the prophetic union
or joint action of the saints in order to imbue
Christian society with the true spirit of God.

Our Lord prayed that all His followers might be
one, ut omnes unum sint. Now " all are one in
the Church, through the unity of the hierarchy,
the faith and the sacraments." " The priesthood
is a fait accompli," but the State, in which all are
equal before justice and the law, cannot accomplish
its mission except by submitting to the Church,
that supplies it with moral and religious sanction,

SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN 207

and a firm basis for its work. What the State will
be in its relations to Christianity is a problem of the
utmost importance to the historical destiny of
mankind.

A society that is essentially Christian— i.e. ,
governed by the law of charity, will always remain
an ideal not realized on earth; but the attitude
adopted by States and rulers towards the Universal
Church, according as it hinders or advances sacer
dotal activity, will do much to retard or promote
the gathering of all men into supernatural brother
hood in Christ, and the formation of " the spiritual
communion of all who are regenerate, and have
become sons of the second Adam." This is the sole
bond of true and effectual solidarity between
nations and individuals.

In the pages that follow, Soloviev sketches in
broad outline, but with profound penetration,
the warfare that, ever since the time of Constantine,
has raged concerning this conception of the Christian
State; the alternations of success and defeat, due
to the incessant efforts of paganism to reassert itself,
in opposition to the teaching, the spirit and the
Church of Christ.

Instead of abandoning its underlying paganism,
the Byzantine Empire attempted to justify itself
by tampering with the purity of Christianity. The
emperors almost invariably favoured heresies of
every kind, and their compromises between truth
and error were a source of trouble from the fourth
to the ninth century.

" Intimate relations between Church and State

2o8 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

presuppose the supremacy of the former, since the
divine is anterior and superior to the human.
Heresy assailed the perfect unity of the divine and
human natures in Christ, in order thus to sever the
organic bond of union between Church and State,
and to secure for the latter absolute independence."
The imperialist and pagan tendency was towards
separation ; the Catholic and truly Christian tendency
was, on the contrary, towards union. Soloviev
emphasized this fact, and showed in vigorous
language how the Aryan, Nestorian, Monophysite,
and Iconoclastic heresies had all tended to separate
Church and State. " Each error in turn was over
come by the opposition of the pope, and consequently
the anti-Christian despots of the Byzantine Empire
finally made a direct attack upon what is, in the
Christian Church, the material realization of the
divine, the fixed point, the centre of all exterior
and visible action, the image and instrument of
God's power — the apostolic See of Rome, the
miraculous ikon of universal Christianity." " A
decisive battle had to be fought between the pseudo-
Christian Byzantine Empire and the orthodox
Papacy, which was not only the infallible guardian
of Christian truth, but also the first realization of
this truth in the history of the human race."

After the period of " imperial heresies " came
that of the evolution of " orthodox " Byzantinisin,
" a new phase of the anti-Christian spirit."

In this portion of history the decisive part was
played by a third factor, which had not the courage
of the great Eastern confessors of the Church

SOLO V IE V AS THEOLOGIAN 209

(Athanasius, Chrysostom, etc.), nor the perversity
of the heresiarchs. " The great majority of the
higher clergy of the Greek Church belonged to what
may be called a semi-orthodox or orthodox anti-
Catholic party. Being by conviction, habit, or
tradition devoted to dogma, they had nothing to
say on principle against the unity of the universal
Church, provided that the centre of this unity should
be in their midst; and since, as a matter of fact,
the centre of unity existed elsewhere, they preferred
to be Greeks rather than Christians. ... As
Christians, they could not on principle be Caesaro-
papists; but as Greek patriots they could profess
their preference of Byzantine Caesaropapism to
the Roman Papacy." These anti-Catholic and anti-
papal reactions occurred at first only after the down
fall of a fresh heresy. As soon as the first enthusiasm
over the triumph of Catholic Orthodoxy cooled down,
a large proportion of the Eastern hierarchy began
to regret that this triumph was due to the Roman
Pontiffs, and some change was felt to be necessary.
A solution of the problem was discovered at
length by Photius, who saw that the Popes would
have no excuse for interference in the East, if the
emperors would but refrain from legislation on points
of dogma. If the anti-Catholic Orthodox party
were reassured on this matter, they would gladly
put up with a purely pagan State, social and
political. The compact was concluded on these
terms. The emperors once for all embraced Ortho
doxy as an abstract dogma, and the Orthodox
hierarchy blessed the paganism of public life in

'4

2io VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

scecula s&culorum. ... It is a significant fact,
though often overlooked, that after 842 not a single
Emperor of Constantinople was a heretic or a
heresiarch. The object of this compact was to
proclaim aloud the particularism of the East, its
independence of the Pope, and its disregard of the
universal Church.

Thus this so-called Byzantine Orthodoxy was
really nothing but heresy in a new disguise. This
contradiction between professed orthodoxy and
practical heresy was the true cause of the downfall
of the Byzantine Empire. ' To one who has not
studied the anti-Christian tendency of the later
Empire, the ease and rapidity with which the
Mahometan conquest was effected must seem most
astonishing. Five years were enough to overcome
three great patriarchates in the Eastern Church;
there were no conversions to be made, but only an
old veil to be torn away."

Providence transferred to France and Germany
the mission of establishing a Christian State. " This
transference was effected by the only Christian
power with a right and duty to effect it — viz.,
by the power of St. Peter, who holds the keys
of the Kingdom." Sincere efforts to accomplish
this work were made by great Christians, such as
Charlemagne and Otho, St. Henry, and St. Louis,
but their successors, the Emperor Henry IV. and
King Philip the Fair, were jealous of the Papacy.
The political advantage of Papal influence even in
temporal matters was felt under such pontiffs as
Gregory VII., Innocent III., and Innocent IV.,

SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN 211

exceptional men, able to deal with the details of
a vast and complex policy, and subordinating always
the temporal to the spiritual and universal. Many
others, however, by their personal faults, dragged
religion down to the level of things material. Such
were the successes and failures of righteousness
in the Middle Ages.

Even so, the Papacy, not having among its
supporters any truly devoted State, failed to bring
Western society into a Christian and Catholic
organization. " Peace based on Christianity did
not exist, and a supernatural intervention alone
secured the national existence of France."*

Modern States have tried to dispense with and
yet do more than the Church, but, apart from
material progress, what have they achieved ?
Secularized Europe, at the end of the nineteenth
century, was given over to universal militarism,
national hatred, social antagonism, class enmity,
and, in the case of individuals, a lowering of the
moral force. Soloviev's ardent patriotism was
roused to indignation by his survey of past failures,
and he wrote: " The profoundly religious and mon
archical character of the Russian nation, some
significant facts in the past, the enormous size of
our Empire, the great latent power of the national
spirit contrasted with the barrenness and poverty
of its present condition, all these things seem to
suggest that Russia's destiny is to furnish the

* This remark, made by a Russian writer some years
before B. Joan of Arc was declared venerable, seems
worthy of notice.

212 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

universal Church with the political power that
she must have, in order to save and regenerate
Europe and the world."

It is incredible that the patriotism of one who
desired such a mission for his country could ever
be questioned. In his opinion the first step to be
taken was " to establish a moral and intellectual
bond of union between the religious consciousness
of Russia and the truth of the universal Church."

In these words he defined the object of his book.
It is essential to bear them in mind, if we are to
understand the author's conduct, and not be
astonished at the symbolical conceptions contained
in the third book. Soloviev wrote, it is true, in
French, but he wrote for Russians, and was well
acquainted with their habitual trend of thought.
Under the veil of allegory, he induced his readers
to seek the light. One of these allegories, very
simple and touching, occurs at the close of his long
Introduction.

A church was to be erected, and the architect,
before going away, traced out the general plan
and laid the foundations. To his pupils he said:
" I leave you the firm foundations that I have
laid, and the general outline that I have drawn.
That will be enough to guide you, if you are faithful
to your duty. Moreover, I shall not forsake you,
but shall be ever with you in thought and spirit."

Soon afterwards the workmen began to quarrel;
some said that they might as well leave the founda
tions already laid, and build a church elsewhere,
keeping the original design. In the heat of their

SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN 213

argument the men went so far as to assert (contrary
to their real opinion, frequently manifested) that
the architect never laid, nor even planned, any
foundations for the church. Others proposed to
put off the building until the master himself should
return. Many workmen, after vain attempts to
build in another place, gave up work altogether,
and the most zealous among them devoted their
life to thinking over the plan for an ideal church,
whilst the majority were contented with thinking
of it once a week. However, even amongst these
separatist labourers, there were some who remembered
the great architect's words: " These are the firm
foundations that 1 have laid, and my church is to be
built upon them." And one man said to the others:
" Let us acknowledge ourselves to be wrong, and let
us do justice and give honour to our comrades, and
join them in rearing the great building already
begun. We must all work together, if it is to be
completed on the proper foundations." This man's
speech seemed strange to mdst of his fellows, some
of whom called him Utopian, whilst others accused
him of pride and presumption. But the voice of
conscience told him clearly that his absent master
was with him in spirit and in truth.

Between this long passage and the book itself,
Soloviev inserted a solemn declaration or explicit
profession of faith, followed by a prayer that reveals
his patriotism and Christianity. He writes: " As
a member of the true and venerable Orthodox
Oriental or Greco- Russian Church, which speaks,

2i4 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

not through an anticanonical synod, nor through
the agents of the secular power, but by the voice
of her great Fathers and Doctors, I recognize as the
supreme judge in matters of religion, him who was
recognized as such by St. Irenaeus, St. Dionysius the
Great, St. Athanasius, St. John Chrysostom, St.
Cyril, St. Flavian, Blessed Theodoret (sic), St. Maxi-
mus the Confessor, St. Theodore of Studium, St.
Ignatius, etc., that is to say, I recognize the Apostle
Peter, who lives still in his successors, and who did
not hear in vain our Lord's words: ' Thou art Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my Church. . . .
Strengthen thy brethren. . . . Feed my sheep,
feed my lambs.' '

Soloviev's care to appeal to the great Oriental
tradition whilst proclaiming his obedience to the
See of Peter is very remarkable, and still more
remarkable is his prayer to St. Peter for the "hundred
millions of Russian Christians ... a multitude full
of strength and ardent desires, but with no true
knowledge of its destiny." The hour had come for
them to make common cause, in order to advance the
Kingdom of God in the future history of the world,
and to promote theocracy — i.e., Christianity in
public life, and in politics. This programme
includes liberty for the oppressed, protection for
the weak, justice and peace. " Open then to the
Russians, thou keybearer of Christ, and may the
gate of history be to them and to the whole world
the gate of the Kingdom of God."

After this introduction in the first book Soloviev
discussed the religious state of Russia and Eastern

SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN 215

Christianity; in the second book the authority of
the ecclesiastical monarchy founded by Jesus
Christ ; and in the third book he tried to formulate
a social application of the Trinitarian principle.

As these three books will probably be reprinted
with annotations, it is unnecessary to analyze them
in detail. It will be enough to draw attention to
the considerations that reveal Soloviev's personal
conclusions, for in the present work our chief aim is to
bring into prominence his deep underlying thoughts.
The first book, which abounds in shrewd remarks,
avoids all appearance of being a serious indictment
of ecclesiastical separatism. Nevertheless, Solo
viev's arguments lose none of their force, in fact,
they gain in weight through being brought forward
in a very concrete and vivid manner. Solo vie v
insists on the distinction already noticed between
the orthodoxy of the Russian nation (which
deserves its name, since the people are Catholic in
their faith and piety), and the pseudo-orthodoxy
of official theologians, which is anti-Catholic.
" This pseudo-orthodoxy of our theological schools
has nothing in common with the faith of the uni
versal Church, nor with the piety of the Russian
nation, nor does it contain any positive element. "
For a thousand years this pseudo-orthodoxy has
been reduced to appealing to an (Ecumenical
Council, which ought to be declared impossible,
and it owes its existence to the goodwill and support
of the temporal power. No positive definition of
the Church exists or can exist in Russia; neither
the official hierarchy, nor the Old Believers, nor

216 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

the Slavophile party could justify their idea of a
Church.

Non-Catholics always abandon one of the two
elements, the divine and the human, that ought
to make up the Church Militant of the Incarnate
Word. They shrink from the inevitable contrasts

that are brought into harmony by this first union

the contrast between unity and diversity, the
contrast between hierarchical authority and volun
tary adherence, the contrast between doctrinal
infallibility and confession of incapacity to explain
mysteries, the contrast between the fundamental
sanctity of the Church and the faults of her in
dividual members, the contrast between her spiritual
vitality and her material poverty, and the contrast
between her catholicity and the universal hostility
towards her centre. In order to avoid these con
trasts, non-Catholics abandon on each point one or
other of the two elements on which Christ insists,
and the consequence is, that the one which they
desire to save breaks down at once. For instance,
the adherents of the separated Eastern Church wish
to ascribe to it a real and positive unity, yet the very
name that they give it denotes two nationalities, for
it is officially described as the Greco-Russian Church.
There is no unity either of faith or ritual; with
regard to baptism, the first entrance into the Church,
Constantinople teaches one thing and Petrograd
another, and consequently a man who is an Orthodox
Christian in Russia, is a heathen in the eyes of the
Orthodox patriarch of Turkey. From one end of
the Eastern Chruch to the other abound most

SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN 217

serious differences of doctrine, that threaten to
destroy intercommunion, and occasionally actually
do so. Enforced silence alone prevents us from
hearing of all these public ruptures.

One note, however, is common to all these auto-
cephalous Churches: " Each possesses a clergy that
aims at being national and nothing else, and that
must, whether it likes it or not, acknowledge the
absolute supremacy of the secular government.
The sphere of national existence cannot in itself
have more than one centre, and that is the ruler
of the State."

' The episcopate of any particular Church cannot,
in its dealings with the State, lay claim to the fulness
of apostolic power except by really joining the nation
to the universal or international Kingdom of Christ.
A national Church, that is unwilling to submit to
the absolutism of the State, and so to cease to be a
Church at all, must necessarily have support outside
the boundaries of the State and nation."

At the end of this first book Soloviev discusses
the curious idea of establishing a religious centre, a
quasi-Papacy, either at Constantinople or at Jeru
salem; and he arrives at the justifiable conclusion:
" In the first place we must acknowledge ourselves
to be what we really are — an organic part of the
great body of Christians, and we must proclaim
our close connection with our brethren in the West,
who possess the central organ that we lack. This
moral act of justice and charity would in itself be
a great step in advance, and is indispensable to all
permanent progress in future."

218 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

In the second book of La Russie et I'Eglise Uni-
verselle Soloviev expounds the new and definite
opinions that he has formed. Fourteen chapters
are devoted to discussing, with references to
Scripture and tradition, the nature and powers of
the ecclesiastical monarchy founded by Jesus
Christ. The various objections, both ancient and
modern, whether materialist or Orthodox, are
considered and answered.

In the first book the course of argument elicited
definite statements such as the following: "The
Papacy, as it now exists, is not an arbitrary usurpa
tion of power, but a lawful development of the
principles that were plainly active before the
cleavage in the Church, and the Church has never
raised any protest against them."

" Our Lord, after praying that all His followers
might be one, as if this were the climax of His work,
desired to give this work a firm and organic basis,
and so He founded His visible Church, and gave her
one chief ruler in the person of St. Peter, in order
thus to safeguard her unity."

" If there is any delegation of power in the Gospel
it is this. No temporal government received any
promise or sanction from Christ. He founded
nothing but the Church, and He founded it on the
monarchical power of Peter: Thou art Peter, and
upon this rock I will build my Church."

The contents of the second book may be summed
up under three chief headings :

SOLO VIE V AS THEOLOGIAN 219

i. THE PRIMACY OF PETER AS A PERMANENT
INSTITUTION.

' The constitutive basis of the universal Church
is this: one man, who, with God's assistance, is
answerable for the whole world. The Church rests,
not upon the unanimity of all believers — for this
is impossible — nor upon the always doubtful agree
ment of a Council, but upon the real and living unity
of the Prince of the Apostles. Consequently, each
time that the question of truth is propounded to
Christendom, it will be solved decisively neither by
the consensus of mankind in general nor by the
advice of a few. The arbitrary opinions of men give
rise to nothing but heresies, and a hierarchy, that is
decentralized and given over to the mercy of the
secular power, will refrain from taking any action,
or will do so only in councils, such as the robber-
council of Ephesus. Only in her union with the
rock on which she is founded can the Church hold
true councils, and determine the truth by means
of authentic formulae."

2. THE UNCHANGING AUTHORITY OF PETER.

" Peter formulated the fundamental dogma of
our religion not by means of collective deliberation,
but with the direct help of God, as Jesus Christ
Himself declared. His word regulates the faith of
Christians by its own force, not through the agree
ment of others — ex sese, non autem ex consensu

220 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

3. DIVINE ASSISTANCE RENDERS THIS AUTHORITY
INFALLIBLE.

"It is no false opinion or wavering faith, but a
fixed and definite belief, that unites mankind with
the truth of God, and forms the immovable founda
tion of the universal Church. This foundation is
the faith of Peter, still living in his successors; a
faith that is personal, in order that it may be
made known to men, and also, by divine assistance,
superhuman, in order that it may be infallible."

It would be easy to make more quotations from
this second book. The soundest arguments are
presented in very original form, and are as pleasing
as they are forcible. We cannot, however, quote
one hundred and twenty pages, and the reader
can, if he likes, refer to the original text. This
reserve on our part will prove to Orthodox readers
that we really desire to avoid all polemics, and to
refrain from any remark that might hurt them. It
is our aim to give a perfectly objective account of
Soloviev's line of thought, and on this topic it seems
better to refer to his own statements as they stand
in the book; a choice of extracts might seem to
have been made in a biased and unfair manner.

We have already referred to the somewhat
strange character of the third book. Its very
title, The Trinitarian Principle and its Social Appli
cation, might well cause surprise, although perhaps
this surprise would have disappeared had Soloviev
taken pains to express himself more fully. Cir-

SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN 221

cumstances forced him to send in his manuscript
before it was revised, or even quite finished. The
extraordinary title becomes intelligible on reference
to a passage in the second book: " The one corner
stone of the Church is Jesus, but, if we believe
Jesus, the chief rock on which His Church is founded
is the Prince of the Apostles, and, if we believe
Peter, every true Christian is a living stone of
the Church" (i Peter ii. 4, 5.) These three truths
are apparently contradictory, but are really in
perfect harmony. Jesus Christ, the one cornerstone
of the Kingdom of God in the purely religious or
mystical order, appoints St. Peter with his permanent
power as the foundation-stone of the Church in the
social order, for Christians in general, and each
member of the Christian community, being united
to Christ and abiding in the order that He estab
lished, becomes an individual constitutive element,
a living stone of the Church. In this way, following
St. Augustine's method, Soloviev tried to discover
traces of the Trinity in the natural, material and
social order, as well as in Christ's supernatural
work, His Church and His sacraments. The appli
cations of this principle are sometimes obscure and
sometimes arbitrary, as are those of the great
Bishop of Hippo, and they often need to be eluci
dated by means of other passages in Soloviev's
works. His true ideas thus become intelligible,
and will be seen to be quite free from error.

Whilst he was engaged upon La Russie et I'Eglise
Universelle, Soloviev was planning other works.

222 VLADIMIR SOLO VIE V

From 1888 onwards he contributed articles to the
Univers, a French periodical. On August 4, n,
and 19, 1888, there appeared in it a series of articles
on St. Vladimir and the Christian State, written on
the occasion of the nine hundredth anniversary of
the conversion of Russia. On September 22, 1888,
he wrote protesting eloquently against a letter from
Cracow, that had appeared four days previously
under the heading: Coup d'ceil sur I'Histoire Religi-
euse de la Russie a propos des Articles de M. Soloviev.

These long articles seem to have escaped the
notice of Soloviev' s Russian biographers, but they
well deserve attention. In contrast to the " bureau
cratic " celebration of St. Vladimir's baptism in
988, they strike the note of Christian praise. A
few passages may be quoted from them :—

" Just at the time when the refined Greeks were
rejecting the pearl of God's Kingdom, it was picked
up by Russia, that was still half barbarous. The
pearl was covered with Byzantine dust, which is
piously preserved, even to the present day, by
Russian theologians, by bishops who serve the State,
and by the bureaucratic laymen who govern the
Church ; but the pearl itself is hidden in the hearts of
the Russian people." (Here, again, we have the
distinction of which Soloviev was so fond.) " But
St. Vladimir, before hiding it there, showed it to
his contemporaries in all its purity and beauty, as
a pledge and foreshadowing of our destiny." When
he was converted, " he did not become a Byzantine
or half Christian. ... He accepted Christianity
as a whole, and was filled with the moral and social

SOLOV1EV AS THEOLOGIAN 223

spirit of the Gospel." " If the germ of social and
political Christianity was planted in Russia nine
hundred years ago, why did it not take root ?"
" Because after the time of St. Vladimir, the Eastern
Church resigned her powers to the secular govern
ment," which "was justified in maintaining its
independence of, and asserting its supremacy over,
a spiritual power that represented nothing but a
particular or national Church, cut off from the rest
of Christendom. When it is said that the State
ought to be subordinate to the Church, we must
mean the one, indivisible, universal Church founded
by Christ. The head of the State is the true repre
sentative of the nation as such, and a hierarchy,
that insists upon being national and nothing else,
must, whether it likes it or not, acknowledge the
secular ruler as its absolute sovereign. . . . The
Church in her very nature is not a national institution
and cannot become one without losing her true
raison d'etre. . . . The interests of Christianity
are not directly committed to the national State;
in order to uphold them, the State must subordinate
itself to the international institution that is truly
representative of Christian unity—viz., the Catholic
Church."

'The head of a Christian State should be a
son of the Church, and, if he is to be so effectively,
the Church must possess a power independent of
and superior to that of the State. With the best
will in the world, no secular monarch can be the
son of a Church of whom he is the head, and whom
he governs through his agents." The authority of

224 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

a prince and the lawful independence of his subjects,
national greatness and international alliances for
promoting human progress, can derive nothing but
benefit to themselves from a religious influence
affecting both high and low alike, and appealing
to the conscience of individuals and of nations.

To the same period belongs Soloviev's plan for
publishing in Paris a " review wholly devoted to
furthering Slav interests, and especially to the re
conciliation of the two Churches. This was a
magnificent scheme, worthy of great minds, and
altogether in keeping with the nature and immortal
destiny of Catholicism."*

Nothing came of the design, for the Review would
probably have been prohibited in Russia, and Solo-
vie v preferred to work there, and with great courage,
to which we shall refer again later, he returned to
Moscow. Thenceforth he took pains to temper the
audacity of his utterances, so that the censor had
not much excuse for suppressing his books. For
instance, in 1893 he did not venture to write two
of the articles that Constantin Constantinovitch
Arseniev asked him to contribute to the Grand
Dictionnaire Encyclopedique. In his letter of refusal,
he says: "With regard to Gregory Nazianzen, I
should have to discuss his views on the development

* These words occur in a letter written to Father Pierling
by Mgr. Strossmayer on August 29, 1887. The Bishop
continues: " I shall of course subscribe to this review and
zealously support this laudable undertaking in our country.
... I beg you, dear friend and brother, to communicate
this fact to the worthy man who is selected to edit the
review."

SOLOV1EV AS THEOLOGIAN 225

of dogma, his opinion that it was necessary to keep
silence regarding the divinity of the Holy Ghost,
until the public conscience was prepared to accept
this truth, and lastly his ideas on the episcopal
councils, especially the second, that he considers
the greatest scourge of Christendom. As to Gregory
of Nyssa, I could not conceal the fact that, according
to his teaching, the Holy Ghost proceeds also from
the Son. All this would arouse the censor's opposi
tion and would give P v (probably Pobedonost-

sev) the desired excuse for excluding me from work
on the dictionary, in the same way as I am already
excluded from learned societies."

Soloviev's reserve in his latter works does not
indicate any change in his convictions; he only
modified his tactics. Thenceforth his immediate
object was to restore the true and elementary
principles of Christianity in the hearts of men. If
faith in Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, were
to recover its dominion, if love of His work were to
influence the intellect, soul, and activity of every
Russian, there could be no doubt of their ultimate
religious progress. Unity of love, not a purely
official agreement, would complete the Church
according to the Catholic designs of Jesus Christ
(see p. 212).

This confidence accounts for both the prudence
and the boldness that Soloviev displayed in his
later works. He was bold in demanding the full
application of Christian principles in statements of
dogma, in individual morality and in political and
social legislation. He was prudent in no longer

226 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

proclaiming openly anything about Catholicism,
except such truths as would pass the censor, and
in veiling the rest under allegories more or less
transparent. The censor did not, however, relax
his vigilance, and, although his scrutiny did not
disturb Solo vie v's peace of mind, it awakened in
him occasionally a desire to adopt a bolder line of
action. He was criticized in 1890 for having, in a
paper on Japan, praised the Jesuits and their great
St. Francis Xavier, and this made him return to a
previous project. As early as 1887 he wrote to
Father Martinov, expressing his indignation as a
man, historian, and Christian, at the innumerable
absurd calumnies current in Russia against the
Jesuits. Samarine's book, containing all these
calumnies, had just appeared, but in spite of appear
ances, this was an unsatisfactory work, and Soloviev
felt bound in common honesty to refute these false
statements in the name of Russia. He was well
equipped to undertake this refutation; he had
profusely annotated Samarine's text with marginal
corrections, and he had read widely on the subject.
The priests whom he consulted advised him to
undertake in preference works of more universal
importance, less compromising to himself. They
assured him that they were not alarmed by calumny,
and reminded him that our Lord had called those
blessed, whom men should revile, and persecute,
and speak evil of, untruly, for His sake.

Although he adopted a tone that the censor
tolerated, Soloviev did not alter his views.

SOLO VIE V A S THEOLOGIA N 227

His last work, The Three Conversations, ends with
thirty pages in which his undying wish for reunion
between Rome and Russia is expressed most elo
quently. Even in the time of Antichrist, the hopes
and duties of Christians, honest though separated,
would not change. If union had not then been
effected, it would be realized at that time, even if
God had to raise to life the last Pope, and had to
give the stray sheep another John to lead them to
Peter, before the end of the world.

The great parable, that won for Soloviev the
reputation of a prophet, because in it he foretold
clearly the approaching defeat of Russia by Japan,
sums up the coming conflict between the two
cities, and describes briefly what would probably
have been elaborated in The Future of Theocracy—
viz., an attempt to predict the last clays of history.
The pagan principle, incarnate in Antichrist and
his anti-Pope, seems likely to prevail over all
Christendom; by a false semblance of goodness, it
will seduce vast multitudes of persons, who
aim only at their own advantage, and reveal the
unbelief prevalent everywhere. No apostate loves
God ; his self-love leads him to despise our crucified
Saviour, Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, the Son
of God.

All who have foresworn Christ will gather round
their deified Emperor, and their council, held in
the Imperial Temple, will celebrate the union of
all the various sects. This will be the apotheosis
of the human, as opposed to the divine, and the
orchestra will play the March of United Humanity.

228 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

Amidst this general treachery, the Pope, another
Peter, will be true to Christ, and a little band of
religious and laymen will stand round him, fearlessly
chanting, even in the presence of Antichrist, the
divine promise: Non prcevalebunt, non pravalebunt
portce inferi.

Two other groups, very small in number, will
also offer resistance: John, the Metropolitan,
representing the Orthodox believers, and Pauli, the
professor, in the name of some Protestants, will
approach Peter, and together they will confess
Christ, the Son of God, the Incarnate Word, who
died and rose again for the salvation of the world.

The (Ecumenical Council of hierarchical and lay
Christianity will be infuriated against these three
groups of faithful witnesses, but will be unable
to prevent the Pope from uttering his contradicitur,
and hurling his threefold anathema against Anti
christ, who will, of course, determine to extirpate
these fanatics. He will believe that he has succeeded
in ridding himself of the Vicar of Christ, but divine
intervention will prevent the death of the latter,
and at this last moment, just before the cataclysm
that is destined to overthrow Antichrist, the reunion
of the Churches will be effected.

John, the Metropolitan, the representative of
Orthodoxy, will cry: " My children, the time has
come for our Lord's last prayer on behalf of His
disciples to be fulfilled, that they may be one ; may our
brother Peter therefore be able to feed these few
remaining sheep of our Lord's flock." The repre
sentative of the last Protestant believers will also

SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN 229

in his turn proclaim : Tu es Petrus. ' Thus in soli
tude and darkness the union of the Churches will
be effected. But suddenly a bright light will flash
through the darkness, and a great sign will appear
in heaven; a woman will be seen, clothed with the
sun, and having at her feet the moon, and on her
head a crown of twelve stars. ' Behold our
Labarum, let us go to her,' will be the Pope's
exclamation, and towards this Immaculate Virgin
he will lead the two men, recently united with him,
and all true Christians."

Thus the parable ends, and it was almost the last
thing that Solo vie v wrote. The dialogue in which
it occurs closes with a remark showing that he had
a curious presentiment of his approaching death:
" The author of this history did not finish it. Being
already ill, he said : ' I will write it as soon as I am
better.' But he never recovered, and the end of
his story is buried with him."

A few weeks later Soloviev died suddenly, whilst
on a journey undertaken in order to visit his mother.
He was only forty-seven, but his strength was already
exhausted. We may wonder whether the friends
present at his funeral ever read his great parable;
whether they ever weighed the words with which
the preface to The Three Conversations begins:
" Is my present work my Apologia ?" Did they
notice that in this last work, Soloviev complained
openly of the censorship, although such complaints
were of very rare occurrence with him ?

If they could answer these three points in the
affirmative, they must know that Soloviev to the

230 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

last toiled to develop in Orthodox Russia a less
narrow devotion to the Church, and some day this
Christian spirit will lead to re-union. To the end
he prayed that men of goodwill, and especially his
Russian brethren, might at length agree in recog
nizing, as the true work of Christ, His universal
Church, founded on Peter, and entrusted to his
infallible rule.

Did all Soloviev's friends understand him ? It
is not for us to say, but he himself thought not.*
One of his most devoted friends, Prince Serge
Troubetzkoi, at whose house he died, had to ask
for an explanation of The Three Conversations ;
and the notes that Soloviev wrote for him are
perhaps the last words that he addressed to the
public. |

Soloviev might have said, in the words of the
Ukraine poet, G. S. Skovorod, one of his intimate
friends: "The world has praised me, but it has
never understood me." Even those who knew

* In his panegyric of Soloviev, delivered on January 21,
1901, at the Academy of Science, A. Koni shows that he
appreciated his friend's aims, and says: " A desire for the
reunion of the Churches lived in Soloviev's soul to the end
of his days . . . and this desire lives on in the hearts of
many true believers."

f Golovine, who sympathized with Soloviev, stated in
1910 that towards the end of his life he possibly approxi
mated to the liberal Protestants. As sole proof of this
statement, Golovine quotes a remark made by Soloviev
concerning Harnack's work on the dogmas of Christianity.
He asked: " Which stands nearer to God, the man who,
without believing in Him, keeps His commandments, or
the man whose faith is orthodox, but whose conduct

SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN 231

him best did not perceive the full riches of his
soul and his intense zeal; nor did they appreciate
the Christian ambition underlying his patriotism,
and the hopes for his country that formed part of
his faith.

Although he suffered from his friends' failure
to understand him, he accepted it with humility.
His perpetual self-sacrifice was due to the same
motives as his prudence with regard to the censor ;
at the cost of his own suffering, he hoped to purchase
the right to proclaim to his friends and to the world
at large as much as they could bear of absolute
truth.

Therefore by preserving the influence that his
great qualities gave him, he was able to uplift
many souls and prepare them for further progress.
The grain of wheat, which in loneliness and obscurity
dies under the earth, produces, when winter is over,
a goodly harvest.

It now remains for us to examine more minutely
what this hidden treasure was, and when we study
Solo vie v on the ascetical side of his character, we
shall understand his humility and goodness more
fully.

reveals his contempt for God's law ?" This criticism
would apply to Catholics gather than members of the
Orthodox Church, and the parable of the two brothers, to
which it alludes, contains nothing in support of Protestant
dogma. Somewhat further on in his Souvenirs, Golovine
expresses his regret that Soloviev never admitted " the
fundamental legitimacy of the three apostolic religions."
This regret explains Golovine's previous remark.

CHAPTER XI

SOLOVIEV'S ASCETICISM

SOLOVIEV'S ascetical teaching, like the rest of his
work, bears the impress of his genius, and, on the
other hand, his lofty intellect enhances in a remark
able degree his austere asceticism. The con
scientious loyalty that impelled him to direct all
his actions towards what is good, is a testimony
to his virtues, and renders intelligible his continual
advance from one truth to another. His outward
appearance betrayed his ardent zeal for goodness.
In 1886, when he was thirty-three years of age, a
woman took him for the famous Father John of
Cronstadt, whom the Russians venerated as a
perfect type of sanctity. Eight months later, on
October 12, 1886, Mgr. Strossmayer,. in writing to
Cardinal Vannutelli, then Papal Nuncio at .Vienna,
said: Soloviev anima Candida, pia ac vere sancta est.
Viscount de Vogue said that his soul lighted up
his face, so that it resembled Christ, as depicted
by Slav monks, Christ loving, contemplating, and
suffering. Professor Sikorsky, who used to attend
Soloviev's lectures, delights to recall the personal
influence that he exerted over his students,

232

SOLOVIEV S ASCETICISM 233

"his spiritualized body, and the purity of his
face."

All who remember Soloviev, both Slavs and
Western Europeans, single out his goodness as his
most prominent characteristic. From the pre
ceding chapters it will be clear that this goodness
was free from cowardice and all tendency to com
promise. Let us examine it on its positive side.

Soloviev was a philologist and a poet, a scholar
and an artist, an historian, a philosopher and a
theologian. He was capable of dealing with very
various subjects in a masterly manner, bringing them
into harmony, and arranging them in order, so as
to be subordinate to his idea of the Kingdom of
God in the world. His intellect, great as it was,
did not surpass his goodness of heart. Of course
his thoughts caused great excitement in Russia;
they were those of a precursor, standing alone and
exposed to attacks from two camps. The Liberals
would have welcomed him as a champion of reform,
and have valued highly his knowledge of Western
affairs, if only he could have denied, eliminated, or
at least concealed, his Christian convictions. He
insisted that, without true religion, real progress
was impossible, and therefore all human progress
has its origin and raison d'etre, its perpetual stimulus
and its final end in and through Christianity— and
this Christianity was promised, prepared, first
revealed and then slowly realized, so that it is at
once complete and progressive. Such views were
unpardonable in the opinion of the Liberals, and

234 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

the Slavophile party regarded them with equal
disfavour.

Soloviev's fearless belief ought to have satisfied
these official champions of the faith ; but he refused
to identify Church and country; he would not allow
that the Slavs alone were predestined to salvation ;
he protested against every kind of exclusivism and
denounced all that savoured of the idea: "No
salvation apart from Slavism." This was enough to
bring down anathemas upon him; the "genuine
Russians," though still isolated, already existed,
and they felt bound to abuse Soloviev.

His goodness, however, used to disarm his ad
versaries, and as a rule, whenever they came into
contact with him, it forced them to esteem him and
won their sympathy. He was not much over twenty
when he began to lecture on philosophy, and his
hearers, both in Petrograd and Moscow, without
exception adopted his views on Positivism; Pro
fessor Wedensky says that there was not one left
" unconverted." Professor Koni, in his discourse
before the Academy of Science, states the facts with
greater precision. When Soloviev's lectures on
theandrism were announced at the University of
Petrograd, there was an immense agitation among
the students of all the faculties. " Who," they asked,
" is this insolent fellow who dares to bring religion
into the sanctuary of science, and darkness into the
abode of light ?" A plot was set on foot, and there
was to be such an uproar, that the first lecture
would be the only one of the course. All the students
were invited to attend, and when the appointed

SOLOVIEV'S ASCETICISM 235

day arrived, the faculties of Science, Arts and Law
assembled in full force.

The youthful professor had to face this huge,
noisy audience, which refused to give him the
ordinary welcome. All eyes were fixed on him,
but something in his expression even then inspired
respect, and although some ringleaders tried to
make a disturbance, very few followed them, for
the audience as a whole was fascinated by the
young lecturer, who began to speak of the Christian
ideal, of human greatness and of God's love for
man. His powerful voice, deep and well modulated,
rang out amidst a religious silence, as he did homage
to Christ, speaking of Him as the sole principle
capable of establishing the reign of true brotherly
love, and imploring his hearers to allow them
selves to be rendered divine by Him. Suddenly
applause broke out, and it was unanimous. The
students of all the faculties joined in acclaiming
the man whom they had come to vilify, and thence
forth they thronged to his lectures, eager to give
voice to their admiration. It would be useless to
enlarge upon this incident; those who have any
experience of University life will be able to
appreciate it.

Influence such as this is far more than mere
intellectual prestige. Students are often unwilling,
especially in Russia, to relish any pious exhortations
on the part of a professor, and abstract arguments
alone would never make them accept an unexpected
and austere form of religious philosophy. The
hearts of Slavs, perhaps more than of other men,

236 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

demand something beyond intellectual reasoning,
and we may be sure that the young professor, who
converted Russian students of his own age, was
no ordinary man, but one possessed of unusual
powers of affection and devotion. His goodness
and generosity made him sympathize with all
in distress, and his efforts to relieve poverty often
reduced him to extreme want. Tavernier writes
(Art. Cit., p. 16): " I have often seen him cross the
street, at the risk of being run over (for he was very
short-sighted), in order to give alms to beggars,
whose presence he felt rather than saw. He used
even to run after them to give them gold and silver
coins. His friends scolded him without rousing his
anger, but they did not succeed in curing him, and
his unfailing kindness was notorious both in Petro-
grad and Moscow." His almsgiving was ruining
him, but he would not abandon the custom, and he
even begged money for the poor from his friends,
and taxed his ingenuity to discover fresh resources.
One year when food was particularly costly, he
thought that a dinner every day was perhaps a mere
matter of habit, and that if he himself dined only
every other day, he could enable some poor man to
do the same.

His generosity was so lavish that " he used to
give away the money that he had earned by working
day and night for two or three months. After an
almost incredible amount of work he would be fresh
and keen, and, whilst living on tea and vegetables, he
was engaged simultaneously on the composition of
several poetical works and of articles for reviews."

SOLOVIEV'S ASCETICISM 237

He felt pity for starving bodies, and still more
for souls, that ought to be fed on truth and love
of God— but who was to give them this food ?
This pity for the souls of men inspired all Solo vie v's
literary activity. He knew that all around him
were hearts and minds hungering for the things
of God, and no one seemed to understand their
need. These minds, rebellious against dogma, and
these hearts, submissive to no law, nevertheless
receive innumerable graces from God, although they
are unaware of them. Their perpetual dream and
aspiration is to live and know, to possess and enjoy.
Who will make them understand their own dream ?
Who will tell them: " Your inclinations and am
bitions come from God and are the appeals that in
His goodness He makes from afar. Far from being
condemned by God, they express in an imperfect
manner His designs upon you. Do you wish to
raise yourselves above the level of humanity ?
Christ came down to fill you with this desire to rise,
to inflame your hearts, and to give you an example
and the means of realizing your aspirations. Do you
aim at being gods ? There is nothing bad in this.
It would be a sin to try to put man in God's place,
or to drag God down to man's level, or to idolize
yourselves, whilst you forget God or subordinate
Him to your human nature. But if what you wish
is to be lifted up to God, and united to Him, so
that He may be in you, and you in Him ; if you are

* Soloviev saw clearly the evil that Nietzsche's teaching
was likely to cause in Russia, and alluded to it in several
of his works.

238 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

tempted to despair, because, being eager to share
in the divine nature, you can but catch a glimpse
of it at an infinite distance, then take courage.
The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are calling you
to soar aloft to them ; they are ready to come down
to you and take up their abode in your soul. In
return for your good will, they promise you an
incalculable reward, a mysterious transformation,
invisible at first, but afterwards radiant with glory;
and when you are united with and assimilated to
God, He will make you divine. Such is the faith
of Christianity and the revelation given to the world
by Christ, the Son of God."

Who was to say these things to the Slavs ? They
were starving for the truth, and Soloviev, taking
to himself the words Misercor super turbam, for
the sake of souls entered upon his formidable
struggle with the philosophical and theological
errors current in Russia.

His learned and loyal explanations, and his
discussions, carried on invariably in a kindly spirit,
show that his object in view was to win over the
opponent, whose errors he was refuting, and to save
his soul. He wrote therefore without any bitterness,
party spirit, or narrow exclusivism. On the con
trary he took pains, in dealing with any error, to
distinguish it from the truth that accredited it.
Then he proceeded to add to and elucidate this
truth, taking a comprehensive view of it, for he
knew well that the great enemy of truth is a partial
and one-sided opinion.
He avoided all personal polemics, although

SOLOVIEV'S ASCETICISM 239

occasionally he had to give a direct answer to
certain attacks. When this was necessary, he in
variably displayed the greatest moderation, and
yet once he wished to accuse himself publicly of
having needlessly mentioned some of his critics
by name.

His extreme reserve was not due to cowardice
or fear of attacks ; it proceeded from his respect for
the souls and intentions of men, and it was, more
over, his most successful stratagem. A statement
of truth, clear and convincing, but at the same
time most loyal and charitable, could not fail to be
a most effectual refutation of error. Soloviev's
tactics are most easily traced in his Justification of
Good ; this work, which is one of the most important,
is aimed throughout against the encroachments
of Tolstoism, and yet Tolstoi's name does not occur
once in the whole book.

No one could take offence at one who showed
such quiet calm in argument. He was in no danger
of being misunderstood and he displayed no trace
of jealousy or bitterness.* Soloviev's opponents
were forced to acknowledge that he respected them
and wished to do them good, and most of his readers
are fascinated by the peaceful spirit of his writings.
This spirit, being united with vigour of thought and
style, won for Soloviev respect and admiration, and
gained him many friends. Gradually the attacks
upon him ceased, and his enemies were put to silence,

* Tolstoi did not hesitate to commend his proteges to
Soloviev, who tried in every way to serve Tolstoi and had
hopes of making him see the light.

240 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

and towards the close of his life learned academies
and the salons of the highest aristocracy, political
assemblies and the embassies showered invitations
upon him. He seemed to be on the way towards
enjoying the favour of the Imperial Court and the
applause of the populace, when death overtook him
unexpectedly at the house of his friend Prince
Troubetzko'i, at the age of forty-seven.

On his deathbed he murmured: " The service of
the Lord is hard," and his host, who caught these
words, adds: " The whole of Soloviev's life was an
attempt to justify his faith, and to facilitate the
action of the Good in which he believed. He de
voted himself wholly to his life-work, never pausing
to take breath, never sparing himself, but exhausting
himself by his zeal to fulfil what he regarded as his
mission. His life was that of a combatant, who had
already overcome his own nature and lower in
clinations. This life was assuredly not easy; but
amidst his labours his spirit never flagged, because
he had kept his heart pure and his soul undaunted.
No sense of fear troubled him, and his courage was
the source of his gaiety and happiness, which are
the unmistakable sign and privilege of genuine
Christianity." These words are an honour both to
the writer and to his friend, and they show us to
what heights Soloviev had attained by way of
suffering. His sensitiveness was extreme and his
charity most delicate, so that his refined soul
suffered keenly from things that coarser natures
would hardly have felt. Princess X. X., who,

SOLOVIEV'S ASCETICISM 241

both from her family traditions and as a convert,
had unusual opportunities of knowing Soloviev,
said that he needed affection and kindness. In
stead of these, however, he received for years
nothing but abuse and calumny, and he often suffered
acutely from attacks made upon him; in fact, it is
possible that grief hastened his death, although he
never displayed any anger or indignation. His
soul was sanctified by suffering endured and offered
up for the salvation of his beloved country.

Mgr. Strossmayer, who was intimately acquainted
with Soloviev's aspirations and sorrows, bears
witness to this sanctification. We have already
quoted his letter to Cardinal Vannutelli, Papal
Nuncio at Vienna, in which he speaks of Soloviev
as anima Candida, pia ac vere sancta. At the same
time he announces that several important works
were in course of preparation, and that a pilgrimage
ad limina was in contemplation. He writes:
" Soloviev et ego condiximus ut Romae tempore
sacerdotalis iubilaei summi et gloriosissimi Pontificis
nostri conveniamus, ut pro consiliis et intentionibus
nostris lumen et benedictionem efflagitemus."

When the Bishop carried out his design in 1888,
he wrote to Cardinal Rampolla, commending to him
" Vladimir Soloviev, a man as learned as he is pious,"
and worthy to receive from the Holy Father, at a
private audience, a very special blessing upon his
apostolate in Russia.

In another less formal correspondence, Mgr.
Strossmayer spoke with less reserve, and what
he says of his friend's sufferings will help us to

16

242 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

appreciate more fully Soloviev's moral triumph,
to which Prince Troubetzkoi's words already quoted
bear witness. The old Bishop, writing to Father
Pierling, on March 24, 1890, says: "We must
support and encourage our friend Soloviev all the
more because he has a natural tendency to melan
choly, I might almost say, to despair. Let us love
him, encourage him, and take him to our hearts.
This is what I have done myself as far as my strength
permits. I shall shortly write something in our
papers on his work La Russie et I'Eglise Universelle,
and I shall praise him as he deserves, to encourage
him."

Again, on April 6, 1890, he writes: " Pardon
my bluntness with regard to our good, pious Soloviev.
He is, as you rightly remark, somewhat inclined to
sadness and melancholy. Let us lift him up and
encourage him, for he most thoroughly deserves
it, but let us leave him his innate peculiarities.
He seems to me to be a good instrument in the hands
of Providence. Whilst we preach charity and peace,
and the reunion of the two Churches, let us always
remain in perfect charity and agreement. I am
indeed delighted to find the same spirit in your
estimable letters."

These occasional weaknesses in Soloviev's char
acter did not cause Strossmayer to modify his first
opinion: " Our good Soloviev is an ascetic and truly
holy man." On Christmas Day, 1896, Soloviev,
who was then at Tsarskoe Selo, and very ill, tele
graphed to the Bishop, as he was accustomed to
do on great festivals, to offer him his good wishes.

SOLOVIEV'S ASCETICISM 243

Strossmayer replied by telegram: "Thanks for
congratulations. Your life and health are precious
to the Church and the nation. Live therefore,
we are all praying for you. I bless you with all
my heart, and hope that your health will soon be
completely restored."

Strossmayer was quite sincere, he attached the
greatest importance to his friend's health and life.
Being himself full of hope that better days were in
store for Russians with Catholic aspirations, he
desired Soloviev to witness this golden age. In the
letter already quoted, that he addressed to Cardinal
Vannutelli, he says: " In hisce horrendis calamitati-
bus . . . indubium est animas Candidas et vere pias
divino quodam impulsu ad unitatem tendere. Huius
rei testimonium adnecto . . . quo evidens lit, in
ipsa quoque ecclesia slavica orthodoxa pro unione
promovenda et divinam victimam, aeternum omnis
caritatis, concordiae et unitatis pretium, et pignus,
cottidie offerri, et preces assiduas hoc sancto line
•ad Deum optimum maximum fundi."

In his humility the venerable old man declared
himself unworthy to see the day break, when so
many Masses would obtain unity among Christians,
but others seemed to him worthy to behold its
splendour. He writes:

" Ego ipse ceu peccator vix mereor ut auroram
adminus laetissimae huiusmodi diei conspiciam;
ast Soloviev et principissa Volkonski et alias animse
piae et sanctae merebuntur certe, ut videant, si
non lucem plenam, adminus stellam matutinam
huius laetissimae lucis, quam Pater aeternus in con-

244 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

solationem eorum, qui in pessimis adiunctis non
desperabant, sed vires suas ad unionem inpendebant,
in sua tenet potestate."

The Bishop's hope was not fulfilled, and of the
two friends the younger died first, before the
" morning star " appeared on the horizon.

In his youth Soloviev had written some verses
foretelling the loneliness of his religious life, and his
words proved prophetic; they may be compared
with Newman's " Lead, Kindly Light," written
on his return journey from Sicily.

Solo vie v's poem may be rendered thus: "' In
the dim morning light I advanced with timid step
towards the enchanting, mysterious shores. The
first flush of dawn was driving away the last linger
ing stars; my dreams still fluttered about me, and
my soul, entangled among them, was praying-
praying to unknown gods. In broad daylight I
am walking, lonely as ever, through an unexplored
country. The mist has vanished, and before me
I behold clearly the steep path leading to the still
distant mountain ; how far off is all of which I have
dreamt ! I shall go on till nightfall, walking fear
lessly towards the desired country, where, high up
on the mountain, in the light of new stars and spark
ling flames of triumph, the temple stands resplendent,
the temple promised to and awaiting me."

This promised temple is of course the glory of
the universal Church. Soloviev longed to see it
ever since he had shaken off the gloom that over
shadowed his faith as a child, for thenceforth he
never doubted God, or Divine Providence, or the

SOLOVIEV'S ASCETICISM 245

work of redemption. He had sought new light
regarding God's designs in the world; a mist hid
them for a time, and, worn out by long-continued
anguish of mind, he cried passionately: " My God,
Christ Jesus, show me Thy work on earth, show me
Thy Church . . . where is Thy Church ?"

At length the mist dispersed, and the temple
promised to those who seek was revealed ; it was the
universal Church in the glory of her catholicity.
From that day onward Soloviev was unwearied
in pointing out to his brethren the City of God, set
on a hill. We have already quoted from the preface
of his Justification of Good, in which he says:
" The choice was always difficult between the various
theories on the aim and object of life, and it is still
more difficult in the present state of human know
ledge. Those fortunate persons who have already
discovered for themselves a sure and definite
solution of the problem are bound to convince others
of its truth. When the mind has triumphed over
its own doubts, the heart cannot remain indifferent
to the errors of others." These others for a long
time seemed unable to see or hear what Soloviev
meant. Even the most sympathetic often failed to
understand him, and at the same time the rigorous
censorship forced him to exercise great prudence.
After the solemn professions of faith that he had
necessarily published abroad, his views had to be
expressed with great discretion, if their publication
were not to be altogether forbidden in Russia.

When Soloviev died, he had reason to fear that
no one had followed him to the threshold of the

246 VLADIMIR SOLO VI EV

temple, but his works continued to point the way
thither, and thus light has already shone into the
minds, and love has warmed the hearts of many
people. Russians are now thinking over the Master's
solemn prayer: ut omnes unum sint, and comparing
universalism with Slavism; and as their faith grows,
so do their patriotic ambitions soar to greater
heights. Approach to the holy mountain is no
longer forbidden; even now some are brave enough
to attempt the ascent, and the eyes of multitudes
arc fixed upon them. . . . Who knows what
Pusey might have undertaken, or Newman accom
plished, in a Church with a valid hierarchy ? Who
then can foresee what the influence of the
Russian Newman may effect in the future among
his brethren ?

By way of illustration we may mention two
facts showing, no doubt, the difference of opinion
that prevails in Russia, and also the esteem in which
Soloviev is held. Early in April, 1906, there
appeared at Kiev the first number of a daily paper
called Narod (The People). The editor announced
that his programme was to spread abroad Solo vie v's
ideas concerning universal Christianity. " Like
him, we desire religious society to be international,
and Christianity to control, not only private life,
but also the whole domain of social relations."
The method suggested was crude and questionable,
but the design was admirable : " To judge all subjects,
political and economic, philosophical and religious,
literary and artistic, from the Christian standpoint."
The editors of the paper, S. N. Boulgakov, pro-

SOLOVIEV'S ASCETICISM 247

fessor at the University, and A. S. Voljsky were
Orthodox; they declared that the newspaper,
though published in a provincial town, would not be
local in spirit : " We aim at interesting the whole of
Russia, and in gaining sympathy beyond the
frontiers of neighbouring nations for our publication
and Soloviev's ideas." The censor was on the alert,
and in spite of the feeling of liberty, that even then
was making itself perceptible, the paper was sup
pressed, when only five numbers had appeared.
The Tserkovny Vestnik (Ecclesiastical Messenger)
of April 20, 1906, did not hesitate to say that its
suppression was much to be regretted.

Just at the same time, by a strange coincidence,
the official Commission, that for six years had been
arranging for the convocation of a Universal Council
of all Russia, turned its attention to Soloviev.
M. Souvorov quoted his eminently Christian opinions
on the mystical body of Christ, and on the Church
as the City of God, described by St. Augustine.
These inquiries cast light upon Soloviev's dominant
idea : Our Lord, the Son of God, desired all Christians
to form one body, multi unum corpus, to be united
into one sole Church. ' On this rock,' He said,
' I will build my Church.' Christianity ought to be
known by this sign — its incessant effort to form a
Catholic temple.

Did Soloviev himself ever enter that temple ?
On the tenth anniversary of his death this question
was keenly discussed. We can only say what we
know on the subject.

He had long meditated upon St. Paul's words:

248 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

" I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ,
for my brethren, who are my kinsmen according to
the flesh." Solo vie v, too, could say with perfect
honesty: " I speak the truth in Christ; I lie not,
my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
that I have great sadness and continual sorrow in
my heart " (Rom, ix. 1-3). One day Viscount
de Vogue* overheard the following conversation:
" But what about your own salvation ?" " What
does my own salvation matter ? I must think of
the common welfare of my brethren." Optabam
enim ego ipse anathema esse a Christo pro fratribus
meis (De Vogii6, Sous I' Horizon, p. 22).

Personal fear had no weight with Solo vie v; in
the course of the conversation to which allusion has
just been made, he was warned that he would
certainly be arrested and deported, if he returned
to Russia from Paris. He was even told that orders
had been issued to intern him in a monastery at
Archangel. Vogue" writes: " We urged him to put
off his departure, but he said: ' No, if I want my
ideas to spread, must I not go and bear witness to
them ?' ' He was ever ready to bear witness to
the truth at any cost.

The same opinion of Soloviev is expressed also
by a Russian convert, a man of exalted rank, and
full of courage, a high sense of honour and faith.
Leontius Pavlovitch de Nicolai was born in 1820
and died in 1891. Before his conversion he dis
tinguished himself during the Caucasian War,
when he commanded the Kabardinsky regiment
against Schamyl. As aide-de-camp to Alexander II.,

SOLOVIEV'S ASCETICISM 249

he gained the Emperor's friendship, and then he
sacrificed his whole career, was received into the
Catholic Church, and became a priest and a Car
thusian, in order to follow the truth and cross of
Christ in a life of great austerity. On January 3,
1890, he wrote from the Grande Chartreuse as
follows: " I well understand the reasons why Solo-
viev has practised a kind of reserve, which he imposed
upon himself in the interest of the mission that he
has to accomplish, and that has, no doubt, been
assigned to him by the Most High. For the sake of
his cause, he must cling to the Oriental rite, for if
he adopted the Roman rite, he would cut the ground
from under his feet in Russia, and all his work
would be frustrated. ... I used to hope that he
would take some steps to render his attitude regular
with reference to the Holy See, in order to put an
end to every kind of doubt. I look upon the pre
sentation of his book to the. Holy Father by Mgr.
Strossmayer as a first step in this direction. It
was, I think, a profession of faith, frank and at the
same time diplomatic, considering the delicacy of
his position, and his obligation to have recourse to
many expedients in order to avoid prejudice and
persecution at home and from the whole bureau
cratic tribe, with Pobedonostsev at its head. .

". . . He was well advised to go back to Russia,
and not to listen to the voice of human prudence,
that sought to dissuade him. His bold action must
certainly have pleased the Emperor and all men of
courage, and no doubt increased his prestige. . . .

" It would be a grand thing if he could definitely

25o VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

raise the question of reunion between the Churches.
I have a firm conviction, which is shared by Soloviev,
that Russia would then be called to play a provi
dential part either in the East or the West. . . .

" I maintain, and always shall maintain, that the
salvation and greatness of Russia depend entirely
upon the preservation of a religious spirit among
the masses (for the so-called higher classes are
already corrupt), and this spirit cannot be preserved
except by the Church, which must be such as Christ
desires, in union with the universal Church and her
supreme head. . . . Soloviev understands all this
perfectly, and is hovering aloft, soaring like an eagle.
I offer him true admiration and genuine sympathy.

. . May God bless his work !"

These passages explain why no thought of Latini-
zation ever entered Soloviev's mind; it would have
seemed to him a breach of faith towards his personal
mission, and an act of disobedience to the will of
the Popes, who from the earliest period down to the
present day have always upheld the lawful and
sacred character of the Oriental rites. They even
forbade any change of ritual to be proposed.
Soloviev intended to be a member of the universal
Roman Catholic Church, but not a Latin member,
for in his letter on the union of the Churches he
wrote: " It is the Church of Rome, not the Latin
Church, that is the mater et magistra omnium
Ecclesiarum ; it is the Bishop of Rome, and not the
Western patriarch, who speaks infallibly ex cathedra,
and we ought not to forget that there was a time
when the Bishops of Rome were Greeks."

SOLOVIEV'S ASCETICISM 251

On the other hand, the persecution organized
by the Russian bureaucracy had destroyed all the
branches in Russia, which, though not Latin, were
in visible union with the great Roman trunk, and
they were absolutely prevented from shooting out
again. This intolerance made it impossible for
Soloviev to bring his practice of religion into con
formity with his profession of faith ; and, accordingly,
he urged again and again his entreaties that the
State should guarantee liberty to use the Oriental
rites, in the case of Christian communities not
subject to the Holy Synod. This permission was
partially granted by laws enacted in 1904 and 1905,
but Soloviev had then been dead some years. If
he ever took the decisive step of seeking admission
to the Catholic Church, he must necessarily have
done so secretly.

His friends knew nothing beyond the fact that
this man, so full of faith, so irreproachable in his
life, so good, pious, and austere, had ceased to re
ceive the sacraments of the Orthodox Church. In
1892, during a serious illness, he received them for
the last time from Father Orlov. He never ap
proached them again, and secret instructions were
given to the clergy to refuse communion to him as
a " suspect."

Those who were aware of Soloviev' s enthusiastic
reverence and love for the Holy Eucharist, knew
that there was some painful mystery on the subject,
but were in the dark as to its nature. It was, how
ever, revealed on the tenth anniversary of Soloviev's
death, when the following facts were disclosed,

252 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

Nicolas Tolstoi, a priest ordained in the Estab
lished Church of Russia, but reconciled in 1893 to
the Catholic Church, was continuing his ministry
according to the ancient Slav rite of the East.*
The fact that from time to time this priest was
allowed to stay in Russia, removed the last obstacle
in Soloviev's way, and " he who had long preached
union with Rome among his fellow-countrymen
now preached it also by his example, and made
his complete submission to the Roman Church in
the presence of several witnesses, in the Chapel of
Our Lady of Lourdes at Moscow on February 18,
1896, being the second Sunday in Lent."f

Some Russian periodicals, such as the Tserkov,
the Rousskoie Slovo and the Sovremennoie Slovo,
published particulars rendering this statement more
complete. There was no formal abjuration, for it
was considered unnecessary. Soloviev solemnly
read aloud his profession of faith, and added the
declaration to which we have already referred:
" As a member of the true and venerable Orthodox
Oriental or Greco-Russian Church, which speaks
not through an anticanonical synod, nor through
the agents of the secular power ... I recognize
as the supreme judge in matters of religion . . .
the apostle Peter, who lives still in his successors,

* On November 13, 1910, the Church of San Lorenzo di
Monti in Rome, set apart for Catholics using this rite, was
solemnly dedicated with pontifical Mass. The priest in
charge, Father Verighine, is a Russian, very loyal to the
ancient Slav liturgy.

t Article by Nicolas Tolstoi in the Univers, September 9,
1910,

SOLOVIEV'S ASCETICISM 253

and who did not hear in vain our Lord's words "

(cf. P- 213).

This formula, which Soloviev printed in 1889,
defines precisely what he meant by saying:
belong to the true Orthodox Church; it is in order
to profess our traditional Orthodoxy in all its
fulness, that, without being a Latin, I recognize
Rome as the centre of the whole of Christendom."

The witnesses of this approximation of " the
Russia of the future " to Rome were some members
of Father Tolstoi's family, his servants and a few
well-known inhabitants of Petrograd and Moscow.
On the following day Tolstoi was arrested, but the
authorities connived at his escape, and a few days
afterwards he was in Rome, having gone thither
to offer to the Holy Father the respectful homage
of his new spiritual son. At least Soloviev believed
this to be the reason of his journey, and thought
that Leo XIII. approved of what had taken place.

It is said that several of Soloviev's admirers,
under the influence of his works and example, were
not contented with expanding their own private
religion until it attained to catholicity of faith and
charity, but actually petitioned Rome to give them
Soloviev as their first Bishop. They were over-hasty
in their action. Leo XIII., who raised Newman to
the dignity of Cardinal, would, it is said, have sanc
tioned their choice, but he put off the execution of
this plan to a more favourable moment, and before
that moment arrived, Vladimir Serguievitch Soloviev
had died, being still a layman. He fell ill suddenly
whilst travelling, and as he was at Ouskoie, in a

254 VLADIMIR SOLO VI EV

country house belonging to Prince Troubetzkoi,
the only priest within reach was the Orthodox
village priest, S. A. Bielaiev. In such a case every
Catholic is entitled and almost bound to ask for
absolution and the viaticum, and Soloviev, having
done so, and being purified by this last gift of God,
died and retracted nothing that he had taught.*

Extremists on both sides express very contra
dictory opinions regarding Soloviev' s death, and
both are equally mistaken. Those who talk of a
return to the official Church have no ground for
their joy, nor have those who charge this " Catholic
Bishop " with hypocrisy any reason for their anger.

In February, 1911, a notice of Soloviev appeared
in the Messager Historique, published at Petrograd.
The writer, M. Gnedine, was acquainted with
Vladimir Soloviev and his elder brother Vsevolod
between 1870 and 1880. He used to read his works
aloud to them, and the two brothers listened with
enthusiastic admiration. He met them again in
the publishing offices of the chief Russian periodicals,
but subsequently lost sight of them. He tells us
that one day he was suddenly addressed by Vsevolod,
who said: " I am in great distress. My brother

* N. Kolossof, an Orthodox priest, states that at the end
of 1910 Soloviev's confessor in the Sokolny Hospital made
the following statement: " Soloviev told me that, some
years previously, his last Orthodox confessor had refused
him absolution for a point of dogma, but he did not tell me
what it was." The dying man added that the refusal had
been quite j ustifiable. There is no need to discuss this state
ment; it only shows that Soloviev, though he renounced
his sins, retracted none of his theological conclusions.

SOLOVIEV'S ASCETICISM 255

has openly seceded to Catholicism, in order to re
ceive the Eucharist, that our Church withholds
from him as a punishment." This conversation
was reported fifteen years after the events mentioned,
and only six months after the publication of Tolstoi's
account of them. If it had ended here, we might
think it strange, indiscreet and imprudent, but not
impossible, since the statement was correct. But
what follows seems almost incredible. Vsevolod
Solo vie v is said to have added: " There is something
worse than that. I possess a letter in which my
brother is offered the priesthood; this proposal
emanated from Rome, but Vladimir's answer to it
was: ' I cannot accept less than a Cardinal's hat.' '
The narrator concludes by saying that Vsevolod
hurried away, after remarking seriously: " He will
be a Cardinal. Do not forget my words."

Undoubtedly both Vsevolod and M. Gnedine
were much excited on that day, and their emotion
may serve as an excuse for a story that is altogether
a mixture of memory and imagination. Gnedine's
general tone is by no means favourable to Solo vie v,
and we cannot regard as probable either the alleged
offer from Rome or the answer to it. Those who
know anything of the usual procedure of the pon
tifical Court, and also those who ever came into
contact with Soloviev, will be amused at Vsevolod's
prophecy, and will feel gratitude to Gnedine for
having added: "This prophecy was not fulfilled.
Soloviev was a plain Uniate at the time of his death."

Nicolas Engelhardt made fun of these extremists
in a very gentle way in the Novo'ie Vremia of August

256 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

21 (September 3), 1910. He says that the calumnies
contained in these " yellow pages " and diocesan
Bulletins will not sully the fame of one who has
become more than a Bishop in Russia, since he is
for us " a kind of Pope in the universal domain of
intellect and thought." Profound thinkers, like
Pertsov, could not be astonished if Soloviev, in
the honesty of his soul, brought his practice and his
faith into agreement. Both in action and in
delay, he listened only to the voice of his own
conscience, and no selfish arguments or human
interests could influence him. Every detail in his
conduct was inspired by the one wish to give honour
to God, by bringing souls to Him through Christ.
In his Counterfeits of Christianity he writes: " I am
not founding a philosophical school of my own.
But as I see the spread of deformities hostile to
Christianity, I consider it my duty to reveal, in the
fundamental idea of the Kingdom of God, what ought
to constitute the fulness of human life, individual,
social, and political— that life which Christ has
destined to be perfectly united to the Godhead,
through the agency of the living Church."

In a Russian work begun about the year 1882,
Soloviev shows by what principles he was guided
throughout the rest of his life. The Religious
Foundations, or, according to the third edition,
The Spiritual Foundations of Life, reveals to some
extent the depth of his soul, and a resum6 of this
work will form a suitable conclusion to our study
of Soloviev's character. In it we shall find an answer

SOLOVIEV'S ASCETICISM 257

to various questions that the reader no doubt feels
inclined to ask — viz., With what intentions did he
direct all his activity to the speculative and practical
mastery of integral philosophy ? How did he
succeed in utilizing all his intellectual, moral and
religious resources in such a wonderful manner,
so as to bring them into perfect harmony ? By
what method did he develop himself in such a
remarkable degree ?

The preface begins with a clear statement:
" Reason and conscience show us that our mortal
life is bad and inconsistent." Instead of accepting
pessimism, as his teachers had done, Soloviev,
being then twenty-nine years of age, adds : " Reason
and conscience alike call for an improvement of
this life. To effect this, we must look beyond this
life ; and to the believer faith reveals this lever, that
is superior to life, in religion." Thus the spiritual
life assumes at least faith in God, and a conviction
that " religion ought to regenerate and sanctify
our life and unite it to the divine life. This is
primarily the work of God, but it cannot be accom
plished without our co-operation."

However, even as believers, " we generally live
without God or in opposition to Him, heedless of
other men and slaves of our lower nature. . . .
Now true life requires us to adopt quite a
contrary attitude — we should aim at voluntary
submission to God, at mutual union with others
and at the subjugation of nature. The first of
these aims is realized in prayer, the second in active
charity, and the third by controlling our lower

17

258 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

impulses and passions and so attaining to true
liberty."

Prayer, sympathy with others, and control of the
lower desires are for the individual the three
fundamental elements in our relation to God, our
Lord and Father, the Lord and Father also of our
brethren, and the Ruler and End of all material
creation.

The performance of our duties as individuals
will naturally result in fidelity to the collective
duties laid upon us as members of human society.
" Every thought and every form of philosophy
seeks unity. Now what gives the world, not only
existence, but also true unity is the mighty, living,
and personal power of God. His active unity is
revealed to us in His works, but still more in the
manifestation that unified God's majesty, human
mind and corporal matter in the theandric person of
Christ, in whom the fulness of the Divinity dwells
in bodily form. . . . Without Christ we should
not possess God's truth, and in the same way we
should not know the truth of Christ if He were only
a figure in history. It is not only in the past, but
also in the present, and beyond the ordinary limits
of our human life, that Christ in His living reality
must be presented to us; and it is thus that we
perceive Him in the Church. Those who fancy
that they can dispense with any intermediary, and
obtain personally a full and definite revelation of
Christ, are not npe for this revelation;* and mistake
the phantoms of their own imagination for Christ,
* These two words are underlined by Soloviev.

SOLOVIEV'S ASCETICISM 259

We ought to seek the fulness of Christ, not in our
individual sphere, but in that which is universal —
viz., the Church."

There are, therefore, two parts in this work;
both refer to the relations between man and God;
the former deals with the individual, the latter with
the social relations. The conclusion of the preface
sums them up in a precept, underlined by Soloviev:
" Pray to God, do good to men, restrain your im
pulses; unite yourself inwardly to the theandric
life of Christ; recognize His active presence in the
Church, and make it your aim to bring His Spirit
to bear upon every detail of natural, human life,
in order that thus we may realize the theandric
aim of our Creator, and heaven may be united with
earth."

In the first part, before discussing the nature of
prayer, Soloviev explains why man should believe
in God. His spontaneous craving for immortality
and justice reveal to him a Good proceeding neither
from his individual reason nor from cosmic nature.
He understands, then, that he has no right to live
careless of this Good, and so his obligation to believe
in God becomes plain. Yet this faith, superior to
the assaults of our reason, must at the same time
be given us by this Good, in such a way as not to
violate our liberty.

When we realize our weakness, we feel the
necessity of prayer. Whoever believes in the Good,
knowing that he has nothing good in and by himself,
must needs pray— i.e., he seeks to unite himself
with the essentially Good, and surrenders his own

260 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

will — such spiritual sacrifice being prayer. ' It
is possible not to believe in God, and this is spiritual
death, whereas to believe in oneself as the source of
Good is absolute folly. True wisdom and the
principle of moral perfection consist in believing
in the divine source of all that is good, in believing
in Him who is Good, praying to Him, and surrender
ing to Him our will in all things." Such is the
teaching of the Pater N osier.

One of the most remarkable sections of the first
part is a long and very beautiful discussion of the
Pater N otter, with an analysis of the three temptations
that successively assail a spiritual man, and that he
will overcome only if accustomed to have recourse
to God. We may select from it a few extracts.

The first temptation comes from the body, and
suggests that a spiritual man is superior to right
and wrong, and can no longer be stained with sin.
When this temptation is conquered, it gives place
to another: " After the spiritual man has prevailed
over the temptation of the flesh, that of the spirit
follows. ' You know the truth, and true life has
begun within you. This is not given to all; others
do not know the truth, as you see, and true life
is strange to them. Although truth does not pro
ceed from you (as the first temptation suggested),
it nevertheless is yours. ... To you it has been
granted to receive true life, but not to others. . . .
It must be that you were already better and higher
than they were. And now ' . . ."

This temptation to self-satisfaction and self-love
tends to substitute for an anxiety to be a desire

SOLOVIEV'S ASCETICISM 261

to appear ; it has seduced men of worth and merit,
changing them into founders of sects, heresiarchs,
or promoters of national separatism. A truly
spiritual man, who turns to God in prayer, when
assailed by this temptation, will calmly say : " Truth
is, in and of itself, eternal, infinite, and perfect.
Our mind can never do more than participate in
it. In truth there is no self-seeking. ... If, then,
I look upon truth as my private possession and
make it an excuse for self-satisfaction and for
preferring myself to others, I prove that I am not
yet in the Truth." How could Truth ever dwell
in the proud — Veritas in eo non est — when " it
cannot be recognized except on a basis of humility
and self-denial "?

The third temptation is ambition, which strives
to raise our desires. " Lay claim," it says, " to power,
in order to promote the reign of Good. Men know
nothing of truth, so gain influence that you may
bring them into subjection to God." A spiritual
man will reply: " Yes, I ought to co-operate in the
salvation of the world and in securing its practical
submission to its divine principle. But it is false
to say that, for this reason, I ought to strive to
dominate the world. ... If I truly desire God's
work to be accomplished, in His name and according
to His holy will, I have no right to seek any personal
power, nor should I do anything with a view to
acquiring it. I believe in God, and desire to do
His work, I pray that His Kingdom may come,
and I labour for this end according to the means
given me, and not otherwise; for I know neither

262 VLADIMIR SOLO VI EV

the secrets of His divine economy, nor the ways of
His providence and the designs of His wisdom. I
do not know what His designs are for me, nor for
the world. My duty, therefore, is to promote the
glory of God and the salvation of the world by the
means bestowed upon me, and at the same time
patiently to await their realization according to
God's designs; thus, instead of aggravating the evil
around me, I shall diminish it by my gentleness
and kindness."

In this way the spiritual man resists every
temptation by means of prayer. He perceives
that in God's sight his interior life is only beginning.
He is in God, and God is in him, but not all that is
in him is of God. This truth, that God does not
allow to be obscured for a man of prayer, destroys
all the sophistries of self-love, because self-love is
particularist and therefore opposed to the Good
and Divine.

The practice of mercy and self-sacrifice will com
plete the work of prayer. The Eucharist is a
perfect synthesis of absolute prayer, absolute mercy
and absolute sacrifice.

It is plain, therefore, that religion cannot be
a purely individual matter; it is necessarily social;
and the whole human race collectively is called to
union with God and His will. How can mankind
be guided towards this ideal ?

Men, being unable to attain to this union by their
own efforts, would not even conceive its greatness
without a revelation; but, as it is, they can study
an inimitable model of it in the Incarnate Word, in

SOLOVIEV'S ASCETICISM 263

His theandric work as Mediator, and above all in
His resurrection; but, if they find that Eucharistic
Communion is the most effectual means of develop
ing the divine life in themselves, it is only through
the Church that they can be incorporated into it
The aim of the Church is to sanctify men by bringing
them into union with God. This sanctification
cannot be absolutely perfect and complete in any
of the visible members of the Church ; yet it never
ceases to proceed from Christ and to diffuse itself
over the Church through the most holy and immacu
late Virgin and the invisible Church of the saints.
Being thus sanctified by the Church, who, as a
Church, is not soiled by our sins, we ought to
acquiesce in losing our own souls for her sake, losing
the isolation of our human ego, in order to find those
souls again, enlarged by universal charity and raised
to a superhuman level by union with God. Such
detachment is natural to the simple, but it is more
difficult to a student, although he is the more bound
to practise it because, if he be a man of good will,
he receives more light on the truth. He will not
be surprised to discover progressive elucidations
of human origin attaching to the divine and un
changing dogma, culpable failures in duty on the
part of the divinely appointed hierarchy, and, in
the case of each of the seven sacraments, a whole
group of visible actions added to the essential
rite, in order to render it more comprehensible
to the faithful.

" Orthodoxy " has no right to condemn a Church
on the ground of growth in the manifestation of

264 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV

the hierarchy, the truth and the sacraments. On
the contrary, such growth is commendable, provided
that it serves to throw more light upon the essential
characteristic of the true Church of Christ— viz.,
universality. Without such growth, the Church
would no longer be able to reveal herself, according
to God's will, as the way, in virtue of possessing
a visible hierarchy, the truth, through her unity
of infallibly promulgated dogma, and the life,
through her sacraments, that sanctify all who
receive them with good will. Now this threefold
manifestation is necessary, since the Church, being
founded by Christ in order to unite all mankind
with God, must inevitably be universal or Catholic,
both in time and space.

But this Catholic society that lives in the midst
of national societies and respects them, seems
likely to clash with the narrowness of nationalism
and the self-seeking of individuals. How can the
relations of local societies and their governments
be reconciled with the Church ? This subject is
discussed in the last chapter. " In a Christian
State, the sovereign power exists, but, far from being
a deification of human caprice, it is under a special
obligation to carry out the will of God. A repre
sentative of authority in a Christian State is not
only, like the pagan Caesars, possessed of all the rights
to use it ; he is, above all, bound by all the obligations
arising from a peculiarly Christian attitude towards
the Church— i.e., towards the action of God, on
earth." This truth will regulate the relations of
spiritual men with the civil power.

SOLOVIEV'S ASCETICISM 265

After this long explanation, Soloviev summed up
his views in a magnificent conclusion, in which we
can see what was the directing principle of all his
activity, at least during the last fifteen years of
his life. Its title is The Example of Christ as the
Guide of Conscience, and it begins thus: "The
supreme aim of individual and social morality is
that Christ, in whom dwells the fulness of the
Godhead in bodily form, shall be the model of all
men in all things. Each of us can contribute
towards the realization of this ideal, if we ourselves
reproduce Christ in our personal and social life."

This, therefore, is the practical rule: "Before
making any important decision, let us call up in
our minds the image of Christ, and, concentrating
our thoughts upon it, let us ask: Would He perform
this action ? Or, in other words : Will He approve
of it, nor not ? Will He bless me for this work,
or not ?"

Soloviev adds: " I invite all to adopt this practice,
for it never fails. In every case of doubt, whenever
the possibility of a choice is offered you, remember
Christ; think of Him as living, for He is so really,
and confide to Him all your difficulties. . . . If men
of good will, as individuals, or as members of society,
or as leaders of their fellow-men and of nations,
apply this principle, they will indeed have it in
their power to point out to others the way to God,
in the name of truth."

Soloviev was thirty when he wrote these forcible
lines. Their emphatic character shows that he
had already long been practising what he taught,

266 VLADIMIR SOLO VIE V

and to the end of his life he was careful to live, as
he advised others to live, in the presence and friend
ship of Christ. He sought and found Christ in His
universal Church, and he will still make Him known
to others. As Viscount de Vogue remarked, Solo-
viev's face was enough to make one think of Christ,
his words taught men to love Him, and his example
should rouse many to follow Him.

On December 3, 1900, B. Spassovitch, writing
in the Messager de I' Europe, said: "All his con
temporaries showed indifference to his chief practical
idea, the reunion of the Churches, and no one
followed him. However, if the life of nations is
defined by their religion, the importance of Roman
Catholicism must be admitted. If we divide Europe
into two groups, we shall undoubtedly find that
Catholic Europe stands on a higher moral and
spiritual level than do the anti-Catholic portions.
The conception of the world put forward by a man
like Dante Alighieri tends more directly towards
progress than does that of a man like Biichner;
St. Francis of Assisi ranks before Lassalle, and the
spirit of Joan of Arc cannot be compared with
Louise Michel."

Ten years later, on July 31 (August 13), 1910,
Petersov, writing in the Novo'ie Vremia, drew at
tention to the great change due to Soloviev's
influence: " It seems," he says, " that he was still
writing only yesterday. He was a most ' contempo
rary ' writer, full of the spirit of the age. During
his life he appeared to have nothing to do with
time, but now we hear on all sides of societies,

SOLOVIEV S ASCETICISM 267

committees, and associations bearing the name
Vladimir Soloviev ; attention is now directed to the
questions that absorbed all his energy, the mystical
and religious value of life."

The question of questions is set to us by God,
and He suggests the answer. God, as Soloviev
used to say, gives us Himself through Christ, and
gives us Christ through the Church. How happy
we should be, amid all the distractions and cares
that make up our days, to view all in the light of
eternity, to know God is with us !

I'rinted in England.

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY

V*.

W%

#*W8

$$M

*wj

"fe

WPlP

*K4»'AWfi?/W