Abstract
Sergei Bulgakov (1871−1944) grew up in a time of rapid economic progress and increasingly despotic state authority in Russia. His adult life coincides with the Russian Silver Age (1890−1920), a period of tumultuous cultural and political development. Bulgakov’s Sophiology, which is the study of the Wisdom of God, is a reaction to the time he lived in and to the exigencies of his contemporary world, culture, and science. As the integration of sociology, philosophy, and theology, Sophiology had to provide an answer and an alternative to the fragmentation, disintegration, and differentiation of life spheres in the increasingly modern societies of Russia and the Western countries. Although a topical theory, Sophiology is also concerned with the future. In fact, in this chapter I argue that Bulgakov developed his Sophiology to save the future of creation order by studying the relation of Sophia to the world as created order (what Palamas called the divine energies), which I call his sociological Sophiology, and the relation of Sophia to the Trinity (i.e., the order of creation itself—what Palamas called the divine essence), which I call his theological Sophiology. Both are complementary and essentially one, since Sophia is the object of both Sophiologies—but they use different perspectives.
This chapter is the result of my participation in the conference “The Future of Creation Order ” at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in 2011. It is also incorporated as a chapter in my PhD dissertation on Sergei Bulgakov and his Sophiology (publication and defense expected at Radboud University in 2018).
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.
Such designations of Sophia as God’s Wisdom , Love , Providence, etc., are capitalized here because Bulgakov capitalizes them in the original texts, although this is unusual in Russian.
- 2.
In its attempt to gain positive knowledge of this border and “between” of transcendence and immanence , Sophiology is cataphatic. It is thus opposed to traditional apophatic Orthodox philosophy and theology, which deny the possibility of positive knowledge of God, who is considered to be absolutely transcendent to human thought. According to apophatic theology, it is only possible to say what God is not. On apophasis as a characteristic of Orthodox spirituality , see, e.g., Van den Bercken (2011, 87−89, 125).
- 3.
- 4.
First published in 1917, Svet nevechernii (Unfading Light) has only recently been translated into English by Thomas Allan Smith (Bulgakov 2012). As I used the available translations and original Russian editions of Bulgakov’s works from the start of my PhD research in 2005, I had no access to and did not use Smith’s translation. All translations from Svet nevechernii are my own, unless indicated otherwise. I refer to one of the most recent Russian editions: Bulgakov (1999).
- 5.
Although Sophia is a common female name and Sophia is often endowed with a feminine nature in Russian Sophiology (and is sometimes viewed as the Eternal Feminine), I refer to Sophia as “it” to stress its nature as a principle. I capitalize the words Sophia and Sophiology but lowercase such adjective forms as sophiological and sophianic.
- 6.
- 7.
Florenskii takes this notion explicitly from Kant , but he aims to develop an alternative to the Kantian interpretation. See also Louth (2015, 33). Florenskii (1882−1937) became a priest in 1911 and published his sophiological theological treatise The Pillar and Ground of the Truth in 1914. In the sixth letter, or in chapter 7, on contradiction, Florenskii gives a definition of antinomy as “a proposition which, being true, jointly contains thesis and antithesis” (Florenskii 1997, 113).
- 8.
See Zen’kovskii (2011, 841, 845), who also refers to this period of Sophiology as cosmological. The Russian Silver Age is the revival of the Golden Age of Alexander Pushkin and his followers in the areas of culture, religion, and arts before the communist revolution of 1917. The Soviet Union expelled most of the representatives of the Silver Age in 1922/1923, who became active in Western Europe; for example, in Germany , Czechoslovakia, and France. Bulgakov became a teacher and dean of the St. Serge Theological Institute in Paris, participated in the ecumenical movement before World War II, and was an important theologian for the Russian Orthodox Church in exile.
- 9.
In considering this basic philosophical question, Bulgakov clearly places himself in the tradition of Kantian transcendental idealism .
- 10.
- 11.
On the planned unity of the two volumes of his first Sophiology , see also Evtuhov’s introduction in Bulgakov (2000, 11) and the preface to Philosophy of Economy (Bulgakov 2000, 38; 2009, 35; see also 1999, 306), in which Bulgakov announces his intentions of publishing a second volume on the philosophy of economy.
- 12.
According to Arjakovsky (2006, 59ff.), Bulgakov wrote in fact three trilogies, as The Bride of the Lamb consists of three books/parts.
- 13.
- 14.
Most researchers limit themselves to one of Bulgakov’s sophiological perspectives—predominantly to his theology, which was translated more completely into English. In contrast, my study focuses on Bulgakov’s social-theoretical and religious-philosophical perspectives that are part of cosmological Sophiology . Only a few researchers have used writings from both cosmological and theological perspectives; for instance , Regula Zwahlen (2010) and Natalia Vaganova (2011).
- 15.
See also Zwahlen (2012, 186−187).
- 16.
In Bulgakov (2000, 18), Evtuhov emphasizes in her introduction the dual meaning of khoziaistvo as “economy” and “household .” This distinction, which comes close to German Wirt and Wirtschaft, is lost in the English translation of “economy.”
- 17.
Georgii Palamas’ distinction between the essence (or being) of God and his energies is important in Hesychast, an important Eastern Orthodox monastic movement, and in what Agamben calls “Trinitarian and economic theology ” (Agamben 2011, 12).
- 18.
According to Uffelmann (2006, 490), Philosophy of Economy represents “eher eine Erkenntnislehre mit kollektivem Subjekt … als eine Wirtschaftstheorie” (a theory of knowledge with a collective subject … rather than an economic theory).
- 19.
This comes remarkably close to Michael Oakeshott’s distinction between the conditional (science ) and unconditional (philosophy) search for knowledge: “Thus, a theorist is not provoked to this enterprise by his recognition of identities as compositions of characteristics … but by what in such identities he does not yet understand; namely, their conditionality…. A platform of conditional understanding is constituted by its conditions which, from different points of view, may be recognized as assumptions or as postulates ” (Oakeshott 1990, 9).
- 20.
This is the first appearance of Sophia in Bulgakov’s publications, but not its first appearance in Russian religious philosophy: Vladimir Solov’ëv (1853−1900) introduced Sophia to the Russian public, although most explicitly in his poetry, and not his philosophical publications. Bulgakov was one of his self-proclaimed heirs. Other Russian Sophiologists are Nikolai Berdiaev (1874−1948) and Pavel Florenskii (1882−1937), who refused emigration from the Soviet Union. Symbolist poets Viacheslav Ivanov (1866−1949) and Alexander Blok (1880−1921) were also heirs of Solov’ëv and “knights” of Sophia in the Russian Silver Age . See Cioran (1977).
- 21.
For Weber , too, science does not provide the tools to make existential decisions: every individual has to decide autonomously between God and devil, or which value to adhere to in other life spheres . See Buijs (1998, 20).
- 22.
Transcendental is a category of the Kantian philosophy of knowledge. Transcendent is a theological category of things that are trans-mundane (not of this world). Bulgakov in a sense conflates these terms in the functions of Sophia . See also Van Kessel (2014, 82).
- 23.
According to Khoruzhii (in Florenskii 2014, 215), Florenskii, Solov’ëv, and Bulgakov are religious materialists.
- 24.
See Zwahlen (2012, 189) on Bulgakov’s meontology and its implications for his theory of the person .
- 25.
Both Solov’ëv and Bulgakov distinguish two Sophias and compare this distinction with Plato ’s (or Socrates’) distinction between heavenly (ouranos) and popular (pandemos) Aphrodite.
- 26.
Bulgakov uses both chelovekobozhie and chelovekobozhestvo for “divine humanity,” even within one text . Coates (2013, 305) notices a shift in Bulgakov’s use from chelovekobozhie to chelovekobozhestvo, but does not explain this shift.
- 27.
Bulgakov’s concept of freedom is very similar to the Augustinian concept of the good will as oriented towards God. Bulgakov rejected, however, the Augustinian notion of the total destruction of human freedom after the fall, and its complete dependence on divine grace . See also Tataryn (2000, 66−97).
- 28.
The khlysty were members of a religious sect that came up in the late seventeenth−early eighteenth century in Russia and claimed the possibility of direct communion with the Holy Spirit and of its incarnation in the most righteous of people.
- 29.
Bulgakov (1999, 5) explicitly called the chelovekobog (man-god) khlyst-chelovekobog, which indicates his negative attitude towards both khlyst and chelovekobog.
- 30.
- 31.
Bulgakov referred to this monism and immanentism as khlystovstvo, typifying it according to its religious appearance in the sect of khlysty.
- 32.
- 33.
In his note, Bulgakov explains kafolichnost’ (from the Greek word katholikos) as Greek for “universality ,” which is translated in the Nicean Creed into Russian as sobornost’. Evtuhov renders it as “the conciliar principle” in Bulgakov (2000, 24).
- 34.
Narodnost’ is, like sobornost’, untranslatable. Its closest translation is the German Volkstümlichkeit, which is closer in meaning to “ethnicity” or “national spirit” than to “nationality,” which is the most common English translation.
- 35.
Monism is Bulgakov’s term for every thought system that searches for one explanatory cause that is necessarily “of this world.” He rejects monism , but he also rejects its opposite, i.e., dualism. He names his alternative mono-dualism (see Zander 1948, 1:192).
- 36.
Bulgakov (1999, 48) quotes Nicolas of Cusa : “credere est cum ascensione cogitare.”
- 37.
Bulgakov refers here to Plato ’s Phaedrus.
- 38.
Lik (Anlitz/countenance) is related to litso (face/person ), but also to lichina (mask; also caterpillar ). See also Florenskii (2014, 26ff.).
- 39.
As Gerrit Glas observed in one of his comments on a previous draft of this paper, this notion of Sophia , in its connection with the idea of border that separates as well as connects, differs from Dooyeweerd’s idea of law (or creation order ) as the boundary between God (Origin) and the cosmos. Superficially, however, they share quite a few commonalities. Consider, for instance, how God is viewed as one, and the world as existing in manifold ways, and how the independence of the world is rejected—the world does not exist as such, but is a reference to and an expression of God’s power. According to Glas, one possible explanation is that, for Bulgakov, every form of differentiation has a connection with evil (differentiation happened only after the fall), whereas for Dooyeweerd, it is the telos of the cosmos to differentiate further and further (insofar as this process is guided by faith). In my understanding, however, there is no connection in Sophiology between evil and differentiation or inner-worldly activity. Bulgakov stresses the various gifts from God to his creation, the importance of human activity in the world, and the task of humanity to be co-creator.
- 40.
The transformation of being (essence) to energy (possibility/activity) is central in Palamite and Hesychast theology.
- 41.
Economy is thus clearly connected to oikos , as Agamben (2011, 17) confirms.
- 42.
Bulgakov admired Anna Schmidt as a mystic. After her death in 1905, he obtained her manuscripts and published Third Testament and her correspondence with Solov’ëv together with Florenskii in 1914. See also Gollerbakh (2000, 206ff.).
- 43.
As Lossky (1952, 338) confirms , “the ideal of personality is for Merezhkovsky, as for Soloviev and Berdyaev, an androgyn, a man-woman.”
- 44.
Bulgakov treats this subject in a polemical way, probably to stress his own more “orthodox” interpretation of marriage and sexual relations.
- 45.
Bulgakov mainly used chelovechestvo for “humanity” in the genetic sense. Chelovechnost’ is used to indicate “humanity” in the moral sense.
- 46.
As Gerrit Glas has rightly commented, Bulgakov spoke earlier of the fall as a “trans-historic” event. The nature of this “before the fall” and “after the fall” is not temporal, but existential for Bulgakov.
- 47.
Bulgakov sees secularization as a weakening of the religious bond that binds power and subjects together. This is just one understanding of secularization —Taylor (2007, 20) gives three clearly distinguished basic meanings of secularization: (1) secularized public spaces, (2) decline of belief and practice, and (3) new conditions of belief . See also Casanova (1994, 211).
- 48.
References
Agamben, Giorgio. 2011. The Kingdom and the Glory. For a Theological Genealogy of Economy and Government. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Arjakovsky, Antoine. 2006. Essai sur le père Serge Boulgakov (1871−1944): Philosophe et théologien chrétien. Plans-sur-Bex: Parole et Silence.
Buijs, Govert. 1998. Tussen God en duivel. Totalitarisme, politiek en transcendentie bij Eric Voegelin. Amsterdam: Boom.
Bulgakov, Sergei. 1993. Sophia, the Wisdom of God. An Outline of Sophiology. Hudson: Lindisfarne Press.
———. 1997. Dva grada. Issledovanie o prirode obshchestvennykh idealov [Two cities. A research into the nature of social ideals], ed. V.V. Sapov. Saint Petersburg: RKhGI. First published in 1911.
———. 1999. Pervoobraz i obraz [Proto-image and image]. Tom 1, Svet nevechernij sozertsaniia i umozreniia [Vol. 1, Unfading Light. Observations and Reflections]. Moscow: Iskusstvo; Saint Petersburg: Inapress. Originally published in 1917 as Svet nevechernij sozertsaniia i umozreniia (Moscow: Put’).
———. 2000. Philosophy of Economy. The World as Household. Trans. Catherine Evtuhov. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Originally published in 1912 as Filosofiia khoziaistva. Chast’ pervaia Mir kak khoziaistvo (Moscow: Put’).
———. 2009. Filosofiia khoziaistva, ed. O. Platonov. Moscow: Institut russkoi tsivilizatsii.
———. 2010. Na piru bogov: Pro i contra; Sovremennye dialogi [On the feast of the gods: Pro and contra; Contemporary dialogues]. In Intelligentsiia i Religiia, by Sergei Bulgakov. Saint Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Oleg Abyshko, Satis’. First published in 1918.
———. 2012. Unfading Light. Contemplations and Speculations, translated and with a foreword by Thomas A. Smith. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Casanova, José. 1994. Public Religions in the Modern World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cioran, Samuel. 1977. Vladimir Solov’ev and the Knighthood of the Divine Sophia. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
Coates, Ruth. 2013. Feuerbach, Kant, Dostoevskii: The Evolution of “Heroism” and “Asceticism” in Bulgakov’s Work to 1909. In Landmarks Revisited: The Vekhi Symposium 100 Years On, ed. Robin Aizlewood and Ruth Coates, 287–307. Boston: Academic Studies Press.
Desmond, William. 1995. Being and the Between. Albany: State University of New York Press.
———. 2001. Ethics and the Between. Albany: State University of New York Press.
———. 2008. God and the Between. Oxford: Blackwell.
Florenskii, Pavel. 1997. The Pillar and Ground of the Truth: An Essay in Orthodox Theodicy in Twelve Letters. Trans. Boris Jakim. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Originally published in 1914 as Stolp i utverzhdenie Istiny (Moscow: Put’).
———. 2014. Ikonostas. Saint Petersburg: Azbuka-Attikus. First published in 1972.
Gollerbakh, Evgenii. 2000. K nezrimomu gradu: Religiozno-filosofskaia gruppa “Put’” (1910−1919) v poiskakh novoi russkoi identichnosti [Toward the invisible city: The religious-philosophical group “Put’” (1910−1919) in search of a new Russian identity]. Seriia Issledovaniia po istorii russkoi mysli [Series of researches into the history of Russian thought], ed. M.A. Kolerov. Saint Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo ‘Aleteiia’.
Kuvakin, Valery A., ed. 1994. A History of Russian Philosophy: From the Tenth Through the Twentieth Centuries. 2 vols. Buffalo: Prometheus Books.
Lossky, Nicolai O. 1952. History of Russian Philosophy. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
Louth, Andrew. 2015. Modern Orthodox Thinkers: From the Philokalia to the Present Day. London: SPCK.
Oakeshott, William. 1990. On Human Conduct. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Solov’ëv, Vladimir. 1991. Smysl liubvi [The Meaning of Love]. In Smysl liubvi: Izbrannye proizvedeniia [The Meaning of Love: Selected Works], ed. N.I. Tsimbaeva, 125−182. Moscow: Sovremennik. First published in 1892−1894.
———. 1995. Lectures on Divine Humanity (1878−1881), ed. Boris Jakim. Hudson: Lindisfarne Press.
Tataryn, Myroslaw I. 2000. Augustine and Russian Orthodoxy: Russian Orthodox Theologians and Augustine of Hippo: A Twentieth Century Dialogue. Lanham/New York/Oxford: International Scholars Publications.
Taylor, Charles. 2007. A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Uffelmann, Dirk. 2006. Oikonomia – ikonomija/ėkonomija/ėkonomika. Die doppelte Geschichte des Ökonomiebegriffs in Rußland zwischen Wirtschaftstheorie und orthodoxem Kirchenrecht und einige literarisch-kulturelle Weiterungen. In Russische Begriffsgeschichte der Neuzeit. Beiträge zu einem Forschungsdesiderat, Bausteine zur slavischen Philologie und Kulturgeschichte 50, ed. Peter Thiergen, 477–515. Cologne/Weimar/Vienna: Böhlau.
Vaganova, Natalia A. 2011. Sofiologiia protoiereia Sergiia Bulgakova [The Sophiology of Father Sergeii Bulgakov]. Moscow: Izd-vo PSTGU.
Van den Bercken, Wil. 2011. Christian Fiction and Religious Realism in the Novels of Dostoevsky. London/New York/Delhi: Anthem Press.
Van Kessel, Josephien H.J. 2012. Bulgakov’s Sophiology: Towards an Orthodox Economic-Theological Engagement with the Modern World. Studies in East European Thought 64: 251–267.
———. 2014. Das Verhältnis von Wissenschaft und Politik bei Sergij Bulgakov. Zum siebenten Kapitel von Sergij Bulgakovs Philosophie der Wertschaft. In Sergij Bulgakovs Philosophie der Wirtschaft im interdisziplinären Gespräch, ed. Barbara Hallensleben and Regula M. Zwahlen, 78–88. Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Zander, Lev. 1948. Bog i Mir. Mirosozertsanie ottsa Sergiia Bulgakova [God and World. The Worldview of Father Sergius Bulgakov]. 2 vols. Paris: YMCA Press.
Zen’kovskii, Vasilii. 2011. Istoriia russkoi filosofii [History of Russian philosophy]. Moscow: Akademicheskii Proekt.
Zwahlen, Regula. 2010. Das revolutionäre Ebenbild Gottes. Anthropologien der Menschenwürde bei Nikolaj A. Berdjaev und Sergej N. Bulgakov.Syneidos. Deutsch-russische Studien zur Philosophie und Ideengeschichte 5. Vienna/Berlin: Lit Verlag.
———. 2012. Different Concepts of Personality: Nikolaj Berdjaev and Sergej Bulgakov. Studies in East European Thought 64: 183–204.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van Kessel, J. (2017). Sergei Bulgakov’s Sophiology as the Integration of Sociology, Philosophy, and Theology. In: Glas, G., de Ridder, J. (eds) The Future of Creation Order. New Approaches to the Scientific Study of Religion , vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70881-2_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70881-2_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-70880-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-70881-2
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)