Abstract
This chapter starts with an overview of the contentious issue of the demarcation of Solov’ëv’s intellectual development into distinct periods. For the purposes of this study, there are three, the second of which spans most of the 1880s in which Solov’ëv involved himself principally in religious and nationality issues. He intellectually distanced himself gradually during these years from his previous allies within the Slavophile movement, and in doing so he found cautious new ones within the “liberal” camp. Whereas Solov’ëv wrote no distinctively philosophical pieces during these years, his literary contributions revolved around moral themes and his view of the role of the Russian nation in his philosophy of history.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Nikol’skij 1902a: 424f.
- 2.
Radlov 1913: 19.
- 3.
Trubeckoj 1995: 87. Smith, while recognizing Trubeckoj’s periodization and that “many” scholars have upheld it, nevertheless offers his own idiosyncratic and purely arbitrary tripartite scheme. See Smith 2011: 7. Pribytkova objects to Trubeckoj’s characterization of this “first” period as preparatory, writing that it was in fact Solov’ëv’s “main” period of activity. “Solov’ëv’s philosophical system gets its finished formulation and all further development of his thought took place within the same ‘circle of ideas.’” Pribytkova 2010: 62.
- 4.
Trubeckoj 1995: 405.
- 5.
Pis’ma, vol. 3: 34.
- 6.
See Solov’ëv 2011: 259–61.
- 7.
Solov’ëv 1881: 2.
- 8.
Confusion apparently still abounds regarding the dating of the three “speeches.” One investigator erroneously has the first speech taking place on 1 February 1882 and gives incorrect information on the other two “speeches” as well. See Mikosiba 2004: 32.
- 9.
Solovyov 2000: 237.
- 10.
Solov’ëv’s address apparently had its intended effect at least on some. In 1891, N. Ja. Grot echoed Solov’ëv’s view, writing “Such a seeker of God’s spark in all people, even among the bad and the criminal, was our Russian thinker Dostoevsky.” Grot 1891: v.
- 11.
Solovyov 2000: 228.
- 12.
Soloviev 1881: 18 and 27. This essay marks Solov’ëv’s debut in the journal Rus’.
- 13.
SS, vol. 3: 275. Solov’ëv’s piece also appeared as a supplement to a collection of essays entitled The Religious Foundations of Life (Religioznyja osnovy zhizni) published in 1884. See Solov’ëv 1884b: 147–191.
- 14.
One can easily be led astray in conceiving Solov’ëv as a religious liberal from a quick reading of his polemic with Vasilij V. Rozanov. Solov’ëv and Rozanov were on good terms prior to 1894. However, Rozanov in January 1894 published an article “Freedom and Faith” (“Svoboda i vera”) that supported religious intolerance , drawing a sharp rebuke from Solov’ëv. “I take religious tolerance, or freedom of religion, as having the same importance and being needed in modern Russian life as much as 40 years ago there was a need for the liberation of the peasants.” SS, vol. 6: 429. Rozanov responded, and Solov’ëv, in turn, replied. Whether Rozanov, who outlived Solov’ëv, took this exchange personally is unclear. What does seem clear is that Solov’ëv did not regard their differences as preventing them from having a warm personal relationship.
- 15.
SS, vol. 3: 204. Cf. Soloviev 2003: 17.
- 16.
SS, vol. 4: 77. This quotation is from the essay “The Papacy and Papism,” which also formed Chapter 6 of Solov’ëv’s anthology of essays The Great Dispute and Christian Politics (Velikij spor i khristianskaja politika).
- 17.
A general consensus appears to be that Ivan Aksakov was “an influential but hardly original thinker.” Walicki 1979: 113. Aksakov’s rabid nationalism and anti-Semitism in his later years must also be considered a wedge driving him and Solov’ëv apart. For this aspect of Aksakov’s thought, see Pipes 2005: 132–135.
- 18.
Atjakshev 2012: 49.
- 19.
Aksakov 1886: 221.
- 20.
Aksakov 1886: 237.
- 21.
Khomjakov 1900: 283. The Slavophile conception of “truth” can hardly be taken seriously. Its extreme ambiguity is only too evident, thus forestalling any unequivocal judgment concerning it. What does “love” have to do with determining the veracity of such an arithmetical proposition as 7 + 5 = 12? What does “love” have to do with the truth-value of the empirically established claim that liquid water boils at 100° C? Since Khomjakov could hardly have been ignorant of simple arithmetic, he surely had some other narrowly focused conception of truth that he failed to disclose but that excludes the examples just given.
- 22.
Walicki, in writing that “Solov’ëv finally broke with the Slavophiles in 1883 when he stopped publishing in Ivan Aksakov’s journal Rus’ and instead … became a contributor to the liberal and Westernizing European Messenger (Vestnik Evropy),” thereby gives the impression that the change was virtually immediate and final. Walicki 1989: 570. This was not the case. Solov’ëv still managed to publish in Rus’ several pieces as late as 1885.
- 23.
Walicki writes, “Aksakov himself was so irritated by Solov’ëv’s deliberate anti-nationalism that he attacked him in a very sharp polemical article.” Walicki 1989: 570 f. Certainly, Aksakov thought that Solov’ëv was now preaching an anti-nationalism, but, as we see, that is not how Solov’ëv viewed the matter.
- 24.
SS, vol. 5: 42.
- 25.
Solov’ëv’s intention from the start was to collect a series of essays that were first to appear in Rus’. See his undated letter to Aksakov. Pis’ma, vol. 4: 16.
- 26.
- 27.
Gustav Shpet in his 1917 essay “Wisdom or Reason?” took up and developed this theme in a phenomenological context. See Shpet 2019: 212–265.
- 28.
SS, vol. 4: 21.
- 29.
SS, vol. 4: 30.
- 30.
- 31.
SS, vol. 4: 112.
- 32.
Solov’ëv stated this evaluation of Protestantism already in an article entitled “On the Ecclesiastical Question Concerning the Old Catholics” in the summer of 1883. See SS, vol. 4: 128; Soloviev 2008: 38.
- 33.
Pis’ma, vol. 2: 106.
- 34.
Solov’ëv 1883: 30–45.
- 35.
Ern 1911a: 209. Given the subsequent repeated re-publication of the essay under other titles, the mistake, most likely, would have been overlooked for quite some time.
- 36.
Solov’ëv, S[ergej] 1997: 211; Solovyov 2000: 279. What was so clear to Sergey Solovyov was, for whatever reason, not so clear to many others. Solov’ëv’s early biographer S. M. Luk’janov in 1915 first held that the composition date of 1872 was correct but that Solov’ëv simply held off publishing it until 1883. In a later chapter of his biography written in 1916, Luk’janov corrected himself, writing “It is known that Solov’ëv used the content of this article for a lecture he gave at St. Petersburg University on 25 February 1882. It is certainly unlikely that he took a draft prepared 10 years earlier for his lecture. Moreover, both the content as well as the manner of the article’s exposition differ quite significantly from the early work of Solov’ëv, such as his ‘Mythological Process in Ancient Paganism’.” Luk’janov 1916: 94 f. and 354 f. Later, Aleksej Losev, the dean of Soviet scholars of ancient philosophy, entered the fray, equivocating for the early compositional date of “The Living Sense.” Although he recognized the 1872 date as disputed, Losev added that if it were genuine, then “this small article not only paints Solov’ëv as the author of a thought-out and complete philosophical system, to which he, in essence, fundamentally added nothing new for the rest of his life, but is even distinguished with a precise, clear and beautiful philosophical style.” Losev 2000: 136–137. It is precisely in light of these qualities that Losev should have recognized that an early date for “The Living Sense” is impossible. Finally, throwing caution and common sense to the wind, V. Ju. Kulikov, in his prefatory remarks on a reprinting of “The Living Sense” writes that Ern already “established” that it was written 2 years earlier than the Crisis of Western Philosophy. Kulikov 1991: 51. For the text of Solov’ëv’s final lecture at St. Petersburg University that Luk’janov mentioned, see Solov’ëv 1900. For more and additional information militating against an early date for “The Living Sense,” see Kozyrev 1997: 27–28.
- 37.
“Evil is a universal fact. For all natural life begins with struggle and rage, continues in suffering and slavery and ends in death and decay. SS, vol. 3: 351; Solov’ëv 1884b: 64.
- 38.
SS, vol. 3: 355; Solov’ëv 1884b: 68.
- 39.
Although writing specifically about the positions in the Critique of Abstract Philosophy, Trubeckoj said, “Solov’ëv did not succeed in drawing a precise line between his system and his pantheistic doctrines. There is a point in his doctrines where it suddenly disappears.” Trubeckoj 1995: vol. 1, 300.
- 40.
Valliere 2000: 119. Valliere recognizes this in the context of Solov’ëv’s heirs’ desire to disassociate him from Schelling while also conceding his debt to the German philosopher.
- 41.
SS, vol. 3: 367; Solov’ëv 1884b: 83.
- 42.
Nikol’skij wrote of The Religious Foundations that it was “a direct supplement to the Lectures on Divine Humanity. The difference being only that in the Lectures Solov’ëv looked at Christian dogmas from their metaphysical side, whereas in The Religious Foundations he looked at them with respect to their moral application to life.” Nikol’skij 1902b: 10.
- 43.
Pis’ma, vol. 4: 22. The letter was addressed to Aksakov.
- 44.
- 45.
Pribytkova holds that it was under the influence of Dante that we find in Solov’ëv’s writings the image of a “great, holy, and eternal Rome,” symbolically representing the Christian justification of law and the state. Pribytkova 2010: 71.
- 46.
SS, vol. 3: 302; Solov’ëv 1884b: iii.
- 47.
SS, vol. 3: 305; Solov’ëv 1884b: 1.
- 48.
Kant 1996a: 238 (Ak 5:122).
- 49.
Solov’ëv wrote, “The law of human reason and the voice of conscience … do not give us the strength to fulfill moral truth and make us worthy of immortality.” SS, vol. 3: 305–6; Solov’ëv 1884b: 2.
- 50.
Kant has many comments on conscience, not all of which are perfectly consistent with each other. In his Metaphysics of Morals, he wrote at one point, “the human being thinks of conscience as warning him (praemonens) before he makes his decision.” Kant 1996a: 561 (Ak 6: 440). Thus, conscience, according to Kant, merely tells us what not to do. Both Solov’ëv and Kant here are in agreement.
- 51.
SS, vol. 3: 315; Solov’ëv 1884b: 13.
- 52.
To be accurate, Solov’ëv did not speak of acting rationally, but out of a “moral aspiration.” Nevertheless, I believe he had reason alone in mind here, since he had not yet introduced revealed moral law.
- 53.
Kant 1996b: 76 (Ak 6:28).
- 54.
SS, vol. 3: 406; Soloviev 2000: 24.
- 55.
In an undated letter but one that the editors of his letters ascribe to 1883, Solov’ëv tells Aksakov, “The preface I would write would in essence be more about the soul than about Hellenbach. If you do not object, I would consider it useful to publish this preface at the same time as the book in some journal with the designation that it is a preface. Pis’ma, vol. 2: 278.
- 56.
The Russian translation, Individualizm v svete biologii i sovremennoj filosofii, appeared in 1884 with Solov’ëv’s preface. A relatively short review appeared in the February 1884 edition of Vestnik Evropy, where the date of the book’s appearance is incorrectly given as 1874. S[lonimskij] 1884: 848.
- 57.
SS, vol. 3: 284.
- 58.
SS, vol. 3: 287.
- 59.
SS, vol. 3: 290.
- 60.
SS, vol. 3: 294.
- 61.
What he meant here is, arguably, made clearer in a letter to Strakhov of 12 April 1887. In it, he wrote that there are higher truths than scientific ones and that he could accept the latter only if they accord with religious ones: “You hold that a fact’s validity depends on its conformity with the mechanical system of the world. But I can accept this system only insofar as it harmonizes with higher religio-metaphysical truths. … I not only believe in everything supernatural, but, properly speaking, I believe only in this.” Pis’ma, vol. 1: 32–33. That is, facts are discrete and as such are not a matter of “belief.” What connects facts to each other is a system, which is metaphysical or “supernatural,” and, thus, a matter of belief.
- 62.
SS, vol. 5: 153.
- 63.
SS, vol. 5: 3–5.
- 64.
Soloviev 2008: 66; SS, vol. 4: 160.
- 65.
Walicki 1989: 504.
- 66.
- 67.
- 68.
- 69.
Danilevskij concluded his article, writing “I must say that the sincerity and courage with which Solov’ëv has decided to express his opinion is truly worthy of respect and gratitude.” Danilevskij 1885: 134.
- 70.
Sergey Solovyov wrote that this article was his uncle’s “debut in Vestnik Evropy and the opening of a campaign against the Slavophiles, whose chief representative at the time was Nikolay Strakhov.” Solovyov 2000: 320; Solov’ëv, S[ergej] 1997: 237. As for Solov’ëv’s wish to publish in Vestnik Evropy, rather than elsewhere, he stated his reason in a letter of 12 January 1888 to the journal’s editor Mikhail Stasjulevich: “Regarding issues concerning Russian political and social life, I feel (these last years) to be most in solidarity with the direction of Vestnik Evropy, and I do not see why ideological differences in the super-human sphere would have to prevent us from working together given the identity of our immediate goals.” Solov’ëv 1923: 34.
- 71.
SS, vol. 5: 94.
- 72.
Pis’ma, vol. 3: 158.
- 73.
SS, vol. 5: 97–98.
- 74.
Solov’ëv was also quite pessimistic at this time for the future of Russian literature and arts. He saw no hope for a rich flowering of Russian aesthetics with the death of so many great figures, such as Dostoevsky, Gogol and Turgenev. He summed up his feelings, writing “We have as little positive hope for the future in this field as in the field of scientific creativity.” SS, vol. 5: 101.
- 75.
SS, vol. 5: 108.
- 76.
Strakhov 1883: 105.
- 77.
Strakhov 1888: 206.
- 78.
SS, vol. 5: 270–271. The article in question here, “O grekhakh i bolexnjakh” [“On Sins and Diseases”] originally appeared in Vestnik Evropy in January 1889.
- 79.
Losev wrote, “Strakhov died on 26 January 1896, but the once friendly relations with Solov’ëv during these 6 years were never restored.” Losev 2000: 66.
- 80.
In an appendix “Some Explanatory Words Concerning The Great Dispute, in Answer to the Remarks of A. M. Ivancov-Platonov” to one of his books, Solov’ëv referred to Ivancov-Platonov as “my revered teacher.” SS, vol. 4: 634. The original publication of “The Papacy and Papism” in Rus’ was accompanied by 25 critical remarks penned by Ivancov-Platonov, Solov’ëv’s appendix being his reply.
- 81.
- 82.
SS, vol. 9: 414.
- 83.
Kireev came from a distinguished Moscovite family, was well-educated and was considered and thought himself to be a Slavophile. His interests overlapped with those of Solov’ëv, though they came, particularly in the 1880s, with different attitudes. Kireev dismissed the Catholic papacy as a “corrupt tyranny.” See Basil 1991: 338.
- 84.
Pis’ma, vol. 2: 118.
- 85.
SS, vol. 4: 243. Solov’ëv’s nephew Sergey discounted the accuracy of the 1887 dating saying that it was “undoubtedly incorrect.” The entire work had already been sent to the publisher in 1886 and was already published by the date Solov’ëv gave. See Solovyov 2000: 299; Solov’ëv, S[ergej] 1997: 224. Whatever the case, the date given on the title page of the Theocracy is 1887. See Solov’ëv 1887.
- 86.
Sutton provides a clear summary of this that is particularly applicable to the Justification of the Moral Good. Sutton 1988: 88.
- 87.
- 88.
Medovarov 2010: 235.
- 89.
Solov’ëv 1989: 283–285. The letter dates from 1890.
- 90.
Pis’ma, vol. 3: 138 – letter to Father Pierling of 31 January 1887.
- 91.
Pis’ma, vol. 3: 148 – letter to Father Pierling of 20 June 1887.
- 92.
Pis’ma, vol. 1: 179.
- 93.
- 94.
Thus, we can cautiously, in light of the absence of evidence to the contrary, say that still in the late 1880s Solov’ëv held to the purely negative conception of law that he expounded in his Critique of Abstract Principles, a conception, as Valliere remarks, “that law sets boundaries and establishes rules but does not prescribe moral content or ends.” Valliere 2007: 45. Valliere remarks with reason that Solov’ëv’s “artificial disjunction of ‘negative’ law from ‘positive’ morality probably stemmed from a youthful infatuation with Schopenhauer.” Valliere 2007: 46.
- 95.
Soloviev 1889: xxi; Solovyev 1: 12. The reader will note that the English edition is a severely abridged translation from the French.
- 96.
Soloviev 1889: 92.
- 97.
- 98.
- 99.
Solov’ëv 1899: v.
Bibliography
Works by Vladimir S. Solov’ëv in Russian and in English Translation Used in the Present Volume
Solov’ëv, Vladimir. 1881. Pamjat F. M. Dostoevskago. Novoe vremja, 1773: 2, 3 February.
———. 1883. Zhiznennyj smysl khristianstva (filosofskij kommentarij na uchenie o Logose ap. Ioanna Bogoslova). Pravoslavnoe obozrenie, kn. 1: 30–45.
———. 1884a. Nacional’nyj vopros v Rossii, 107pp. Moscow: Universitetskoj tipografija.
———. 1884b. Religioznyja osnovy zhizni, 191pp. Moscow: Universitetskoj tipografija.
———. 1887. Istorija i budushchnost’ teokratii, 396pp. Zagreb: Akcionernaja tipografija.
———. 1899. Predislovie. In Platon 1899: v–xii.
———. 1900. Poslednjaja lekcija Vladimir Sergeevicha Solov’ëva v S.-Peterburgskom Universitete v 1882 godu. Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii, kn. 54: 621–639.
———. 1923. Pis’ma, ed. E.L. Radlov. Petersburg: Vremja. 244pp. Tom IV. Cited in the text as Pis’ma, vol. 4.
———. 1989. Sochinenija v dvukh tomakh, ed. N. V. Kotrelev and E. B. Rashkovskij. Moscow: Izd. Pravda. Volume 2.
———. 2011. Polnoe sobranie sochinenij i pisem. Sochinenija, tom chetvertyj 1878–1882. Moscow: Nauka. Cited in the text cited as PSS, vol. 4.
Soloviev, Vladimir. 1881. On Spiritual Authority in Russia. Soloviev 2008: 17–31.
———. 1889. La Russie et l’ église universelle, 336pp. Paris: Albert Savine.
———. 2000. Politics, Law, and Morality. Trans. Vladimir Wozniuk. New Haven: Yale University Press, 368pp.
———. 2003. The Heart of Reality: Essays on Beauty, Love, and Ethics. Trans. Vladimir Wozniuk. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
———. 2008. Freedom, Faith, and Dogma: Essays by V. S. Soloviev on Christianity and Judaism. Ithaca: State University of New York Press.
Solovyev, Vladimir. 1948. Russia and the Universal Church. Trans. Herbert Rees. London: The Centenary Press. 204pp.
Works Mentioned
Aksakov, I.S. 1886. Protiv nacional’nogo samootrechenija I panteisticheskikh tendencij, vyskazyvavshikhsja v stat’jakh V. S. Solov’va. In Sochinenija I. S. Aksakova, vol. 4, 218–258. Moscow: Tip. M G. Volchanivov.
Atjakshev, M.V. 2012. Polemika I. S. Aksakova s V. S. Solov’ëvym o sootnoshenii nacional’nogo i obshchechelovecheskogo. Vestnik PSTGU, vyp 5(43): 49–56.
Basil, John D. 1991. Alexander Kireev turn-of-the-century Slavophile and the Russian Orthodox Church 1890–1910. Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique 32 (3): 337–347.
Danilevskij, N. Ja. 1885. Vl. Solov’ëv o pravoslavii i katolicizme. Izvestija SPb Slavjanskogo Blagotvoritel’nogo Obshchestva, 2: 53–63; 3: 121–134.
Ern, Vladimir F. 1911a. Bibliografija trudov V. S. Solov’ëva i literatury o nem. In Sbornik 1911: 207–222.
Grot, N[ikolaj]. Ja. 1891. Eshche o zadachikh zhurnala. Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii, kn. 6: i–vi.
Kant, Immanuel. 1996a. Practical Philosophy. Trans. Mary J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 1996b. Religion and Rational Theology. Trans. Allen W. Wood and George DiGiovanni. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Khomjakov, Aleksej S. 1900. Polnoe sobranie sochinenij. Moscow: Universitetskaja tip. Volume 1, 408pp.
Kozyrev, Aleksej P. 1997. Naukouchenie Vladimira Solov’ëva i k istorii neudarshegosja zamysla. In Issledovanija po istorii russkoj mysli. Ezhegodnik 1997, 5–31. St. Petersburg: Izd. “Aletejja”.
Kulikov, V.Ju. 1991. Pervoe proizvedenie Vl. Solov’ëva. Filosofskie nauki 3: 51–52.
Losev, A.F. 2000. Vladimir Solov’ëv i ego vremja. Moscow: Molodaja gvardija.
Luk’janov, S.M. 1916. O Vl. S. Solov’ëv v ego molodye gody. Petrograd: Senatskaja Tip. Kniga pervaja.
Medovarov, M.V. 2010. K istorii vzaimootnoshenij A. A. Kireeva i Vl. S. Solov’ëv. Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo universiteta im. N. I. Lobachevskogo #1: 234–239.
Mikosiba, Miteo. 2004. O pometakh K. Leont’eva na poljakh broshjury Vl. Solov’eva «Tri rechi v pamjat’ Dostoevskogo». Solov’evskie issledovanija. Vypusk 8: 32–55.
Mochul’skij, K[onstantin V]. 1936. Vladimir Solov’ëv: zhizn’ i uchenie. Paris: YMCA Press.
Nikol’skij, Aleksandr. 1902a. Russkij Origen XIX veka Vl. S. Solov’ëv. Vera i razum 10: 407–425.
———. 1902b. Russkij Origen XIX veka Vl. S. Solov’ëv. Vera i razum, 15: 73–111.
———. 1902c. Russkij Origen XIX veka Vl. S. Solov’ëv. Vera i razum, 17: 155–186.
Petrovich, Michael Boro. 1956. The Emergence of Russian Panslavism, 1856–1870. New York: Columbia University.
Pipes, Richard. 2005. Russian Conservativism and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Pribytkova, E.A. 2010. Nesvoevremennyj sovremennik: filosofija prava V. S. Solov’ëva. Moscow: Modest Kolerov.
Radlov, E[rnest] L. 1913. Vladimir Solov’ëv. Zhizn’ i uchenie. St. Petersburg: Izd. “Obrazovanie”. 266pp.
S[lonimskij], L[eonid]. 1884. Review of L. Gellenbakh, Individualizm v svete biologii i sovremennoj filosofii. Vestnik Evropy, February 1884: 848–851.
Shpet, Gustav. 2019. Hermeneutics and Its Problems. Trans. Thomas Nemeth. Cham: Springer.
Smith, Oliver. 2011. Vladimir Soloviev and the Spiritualization of Matter. Boston: Academic Studies Press.
Solov’ëv, S[ergej]. M. 1997. Vladimir Solov’ëv: Zhizn’ i tvorcheskaja evoljucija, 431pp. Moscow: Respublika.
Solovyov, Sergey M. 2000. Vladimir Solovyov: His Life and Creative Evolution. Trans. Aleksey Gibson. Fairfax: Eastern Christian Publications.
Strakhov, [Nikolai N]. 1883. Bor’ba s zapadom v nashej literature. St. Petersburg: Tip. brat. Panteleevykh, kn. 2. 272pp.
Strakhov, N. N. 1888. Nasha kul’tura i vsemirnoe edinstvo. Russkij vestnik, June: 200–256.
Strakhov, N. 1895. Zhizn’ i trudy N. Ja. Danilevskago. In Danilevskij, N. Ja. 1895. Rossija i Evropa. St. Petersburg: Tip. brat. Panteleevykh, IX–XXXI.
Strakhov, Nikolai N. 2013. The Life and Works of N. Ia. Danilevskii. In Danilevskii 2013: xxvii–xliii.
Sutton, Jonathan. 1988. The Religious Philosophy of Vladimir Solovyov. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Trubeckoj, Evgenij N. 1995. Mirosozercanie V. S. Solov’ëv. Moscow: Izd. Medium. Two volumes.
Valliere, Paul. 2000. Solov’ëv and Schelling’s Philosophy of Revelation. In Bercken 2000: 119–129.
———. 2007. Vladimir Soloviev (1853–1900). Commentary. In The Teachings of Modern Orthodox Christianity on Law, Politics, and Human Nature, ed. John Witte Jr. and Frank S. Alexander, 33–75. New York: Columbia University Press.
Walicki, Andrzej. 1979. A History of Russian Thought from the Enlightenment to Marxism. Trans. Hilda Andrews-Rusiecka. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
———. 1989. The Slavophile Controversy. History of a Conservative Utopia in Nineteenth-Century Russian Thought. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nemeth, T. (2019). A Philosophical Interregnum. In: The Later Solov’ëv . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20611-6_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20611-6_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20610-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20611-6
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)