HISTORYOFRUSSIANPHILOSOPHYHISTORYOFRUSSIANPHILOSOPHYbyN. O.LOSSKYProfessor of Philo,fJophyRussian Orthodox Seminary of Neu: YorkFormerlyProfessor of PhilosophyUniversity of St. PetersburgLondonGeorgeAllen andUnwin LtdRUSKINBOUSEMUSEUMSTREETCONTENTSCHAPTERPAGEI. RussianPhilosophyin the EighteenthCenturyandintheFirst Part oftheNineteenth Century 9II. Slavophils 151. I. Kireyevsky 152. A. Khomiakov 298. K. Aksakov-Y. Samarin 41III. Westernizers 471. P. Chaadaev 472. N. Stankevich 513. V.Belinsky 5S4. A. Hertsen 56IV. Russian Materialists in the Sixties-Nihilism 591. M. Bakunin '592. N. Chernyshevsky 603. D. Pisarev 624. I. Sechenov 6 ~v. Russian Positivists 651. P. Lavrov-G.Virubov-E. deRoberty 652. N. Mihailovsky 668. K. Kavelin-M. Troitsky-N. Kareyev-N. Korkunov 68VI. Degenerationof Slavophilism 7 ~1. N. Danilevsky 7C2. N. Strakhov-K. Leontiev7 ~VII. Precursors of Vladimir Soloviev 7 ~1. P. Yurkevich-V. Kudriavtsev7 ~2. N. Fedorov7 ~VIII. Vladimir S. Soloviev 81IX. Epistemology, Logic and Metaphysics intheLastQuarterof the NineteenthCentury .Ig4I. B. Chicherin IS42. N. Debolsky 1 4 ~3. P. Bakunin 14,44. M. Karinsky 1455. N. Grot 149x. PrincesS. andE. Trubetskoy 15051;815816016116S

166f"'16XI.XII.XIII.XIV.XV.XVI.XVII.XVIII.XIX.XX.XXI.XXII.XXIII.XXIV.xxv.XXVI.XXVII.CON1'ENTSTheRussianPersonalists. I. A. Kozlov2. L. Lopatin3. N. Bugayev-P. Astafiev-E. BobrovTheRussianNeo-Kantians1. A. Vvedensky2. I. LapshinThe ChangingMentalityofRussianIntellectualsintheBeginning ofthe Twentieth Century 171Father Pavel Florensky 176FatherSergzus BuIgakov 192N. Berdyaev TheIntuitivists 2511. N. Lossky 2512. s. Frank 2663. A. Losev 2924. D. Boldyrev-S. Levitsky 2965. V. Kozhevnikov 297L. Karsavin 299StudiesinLogic Transcendental-Logical Idealism inRussia and ItsCritic,V. Ern I. Representatives of Transcendental-Logical Idealism3182. Shestov'sIrrationalism 3253.v. Ern 326Scientist-Philosophers 829Jurist-Philosophers 333Philosophical Ideasof Poet-Symbolists 835I. Andrei Belyi 3352. V. Ivanov-N. Minsky 3. D. Merezhovsky 8374. V. Rozanov Dialectical Materialisminthe U.S.S.R. 345I. Hegel'sDialectical Method 8452. Dialectical Materialism The Influence ofE. Mach and R. Avenarius onMarxists 378Recent DevelopmentsinRussianPhilosophy 381I. S. Alexeyev(Askoldov) 3812. V. Szylkarski 3833. L. Kobilinsky 3844. B. Vysheslavtsev 8855. I. Ilyin 3876. FatherVassili Zenkovsky 3897. FatherGeorgeFlorovsky 3918. V. Lossky Characteristic Features of RussianPhilosophy 402Index 411ACKNOWLEDGMENTSIn theseuncertaintimesit is no easy taskt' Itis not surprisingthereforethatveryoften dialecticalmaterialistsput those termssidebyside andspeakof "identityor in-separability"(e.g., Engels, 24) "identityor unity."M. Leonovwhopub-lishedhis Studyof DialecticalMaterialismin1948 nolongerspeaks ofthe identity ofopposites but only oftheir unity (285, 287).Itismuchtothe credit of dialectical materialists that they strivetoget rid ofthepoverty-stricken mechanistic theory and todojustice tothewealthof the individual content of events, as for instanceLenindoesin the quotation cited abovefromhisarticle on "Karl Marx:' Butdialecticity which necessarily implies complexity, and materialism whichleadstonarrow one-sidedness are as impossibletomixas oil and water.Thefear to lose their holdonmaterialismcompels Marxists toclingtomaterialistictheorieswhichinevitablyimpoverishtheworld. I willpoint out the followingof them: the worldmust be interpretedas amonistic system(Byhovsky, 32 f.): all reality must be conceived as spatialandtemporal; the contents ofconsciousness are tobeinterpreted inthespirit of sensualism, i.e., reducedtosensations; consciousness must beregardedaspassive (consciousnessisdeterminedbyexistence, andnot2S. Berdyacv, The General Lineoj Soviet Philosophy and Militant Atheism, 16,ParisY.M.C.A. 1932. ~24. "The~ u c s t i o n of Dialectics,"22.DIALECTICALMATERIALISMvice versa); determinismiscompulsory, the doctrineof free will mustbe rejected. .Thesematerialistic preconceptionslead eithertoone-sidedtheoriesor to inconsistencies:(1) Dialectical materialists preach monism, while truth is to befound in the synthesis ofmonism andpluralism: thefundamental prin-ciples and the meaning of existence are a unity, and its qualitativecontentsaplurality. Theirattempts toadmit acreativeevolutionpro-ducingqualitativelydifferent gradesof beingisincompatiblewiththetheory thattheultimaterealityis matter.(2) Thetemporal process presupposes a combinationof temporalandnontemporal elements; thespatial processpresupposesacombina-tion of spatial and nonspatial elements; in other words, one-sidedrealismwhichadmitsonlyspatial andtemporal beingisanerror; thetruth about the world is tobefoundinideal realism.(3) While virtually admitting the wealth and diversity of theworld,dialectical Marxistswant toreducethewholecontent ofexperiencetosense data (sensualism); in truth, however, experience combinessensuousandnonsensuous data. But dialectical materialists are afraideventomentionthe non-sensuous aspect of theworld: recognitionofthenon-sensuousis connected withtherecognitionofthe spiritual, andthey fearthe spiritual as the devil fearsholy water.(4) Engelsandthemoderndialectical materialists S,ly that Hegel'sdialecticwasabstract andidealistic, andthat theyreplaceit byacon-creteone, since theyhave sensuous realityinview(seee.g., Deborin,XXVII f.). Asamatter of fact, sense datasuchascolors, sounds, etc.,takenasparticular "here andnow"realities, .apart fromtheirintercon-nectionwitha11 theotherrichandcomplexcontent of theworld, areas poor and abstract as the discursive notions, e.g., as mathematicalideas. Dialectical materialists are aware of two extremes only. whicharebothabstractions: discursivegeneral notionsontheonehand, andparticular sensedata ontheother, they donotseethedepthsofmentalandspiritual being, for inspeakingof it theygenerallyhave inmindnot thewholewealthof thementalandthespiritual lifebutonly onecomparativelyunimportant function of it, namely, abstract thinking.They havenot theremotest ideaof trueconcretenesswhichisthe full-ness of spiritual andmental creativeness, of the emotional experienceof personal andcosmicvalues, of voluntarypurposiveparticipationinthelife of theworld, andofembodyingall thesefunctions in physicallife. Hegel whowasinfact not anidealist but anideal-realist, thoughhefailedtogive adequateexpressionto t h i ~ aspect of his philosophy,was infinitelynearerthetruththandialectical materialists.S74 DIALECTICALMATERIALISMINTHEU.S.S.R.(5) The paucityand one-sidedness of dialectical materialismareparticularly apparentinthetreatment of thehistorical processes whichare the most complexof all. Aswe have seen. its adherents verballyadmit that"manifestations of social lifethataremoreremotefromtheeconomicbasisthanothermanifestationsof itdependuponthelatter,but affect them intheir turn. Onthebasisofagiven method of produc-tion andof economic relations corresponding to it there grows upapowerful systemof interactingandinterconnectedrelations andideas.A materialistic interpretation ofhistoryis by no means favorabletoaridschernatism" (Byhovsky, 106). In fact, however, we find in all theirwritings a boring, arid, and at the same time superficial and futileschernatism. Themost variousandprofoundspiritual tendencies thathave an abiding significance are explained by the influence of "thefeudal system," of "the bourgeois society," of "the landedgentry," ofthe"development of commercial capital,"andsoon.Agoodinstanceof thiswayof thinkingistheuse Poznermakesofthetheoriesof psychoanalysis: "Thepettinessof theGermanbourgeoi-sie, its cowardiceandincapacityfor adecisivestrugglewithfeudalism,have led to a fine floweringof literatureandphilosophybywhichitseemed to compensate itself for what it had failed to attain in thepolitical domain" (16). Apparently, it is sufficient to be cowardly inorder to createa fine literatureandphilosophy-as thougha negativecondition could account for creative achievements requiringcomplexpositiveabilities.Materialistic philosophyis soobviouslyinvalidandsuperficial thatthe stubbornness andfantastical intolerancewithwhichtherepresenta-tiveRussianBolsheviks upholdanddefendit canonlybeexplainedbysome deep psychological motives andenthralling passions. The chiefof those motives is that materialismis more closelyanddirectlycon-nected with atheismthan any other theory; it is most suitable fordestroying all Christian religious feelings and ideas and is thereforeparticularly attractivetotheBolsheviks whofuriouslyhate Christianity.Christianity preaches loveand considerationforother people evenwhenstruggling with them; it fosters respect for tradition, for the oldergeneration, for authority, anda healthyconservatismwhichisnot op-posedtoprogress butavoidsviolent destructionof thepast. Bolshevismischaracterizedbyqualitieswhicharethedirect oppositeof theChris-tian culture. It preaches hatred for the past. This connectionof theBolshevist mentalitywiththepast rather thanwiththefuture ismadeadmirably clear by Berdyaev. The Bolsheviks live by hatred for theformer society-not of its .unsatisfactory institutions"but of its actualrepresentatives-e-the bourgeois, the gentlemen, the priest, the idealistDIALECTICALMATERIALISM375philosopher. Hatred of actual individual people is a satanic feeling;Scheler justly remarks that it is accompanied by sorrow at observing theother person'sgoodqualities andmalicious joy at his defects. Such afeelingisnever inspiredbynoblemotives. Withtherevolutionariesitis based upon personal injuries deeply buried in the subconscious:social and family wrongs, wounded self-love, pride, vanity, love ofpower. Those motives of conduct find clear expressioninthe Bolshe-viks: theycarryout thedestructionof the oldwithout anycompunc-tion by the most cruel means and with utter contempt for humanpersonality; the new social order by which they intend to benefithumanityisintroducedbythemagainst thewill of the"beneficiaries"in the proud conviction thatthey know best whatis goodfor people. Intheir conductthey areguided bythe convictionthat"allthingsareper-missible" for attainingtheir aim. Materialismandatheismis just thephilosophythatgivesthemthesanctiontheywant.Dialecticalmaterialismismoreconvenient for theBolsheviksthanthe mechanistic. Being entirely centered upon social and economicproblems they want to be independent of natural science in theirdomain (see e.g., Ryazanov, XI f.). The conviction based upon theprinciplesof dialecticsthat all levelsof beingarechangeableis agoodweaponfor therevolutionarydestructionof the actual stateof things(Pozner, '30). Thefreedomtoviolatethelawofcontradictionis particu-larlyuseful. However absurdtheresultsof theSoviet mismanagementmight be, however muchtheir policymight be opposed to their ownideals, theyonlyhave to call the contradiction "vital," and their ac-tivitiesarejustified. Thus, e.g., theBolsheviksarebreakingupRussiainto anumber ofautonomousnationalrepublics, artificiallycultivatingthelanguageandliteratureof tribes not in theleast inclinedto inde-pendent national development (apparently, this policyisbasedontheidea divide et impera!). Stalin said a propos ofthisin one of his speechesthat it is necessary for national cultures to develop in order to bemerged"intoone commonculture with one common language." Ac-cordingtoMarxismthestateis alwaysaformofexploitationof societyandshouldbe totallyabolished; Stalinsays of it "thegreatest develop-ment of thepower of thestateasa preparationof conditions for thedisappearanceof thepower of thestate-suchis the Marxist formula...this contradictionis vital and entirelyreflects the Marxist dialectic"(see Pozner, 50).It is not truththat Bolsheviksseekin philosophy, but onlyacon-venient weapon for attaining their revolutionary aims. This is why,following Lenin, theysingpraises of "partyloyalties" inphilosophy."Fromthe beginning to the end Marxand Engels were 'partial' in376 DIALECTICALMATERIALISMINTHEU.S.S.R.philosophy; in each and every'new' tendencythey wereable todiscoverdeviations from materialism and an unwarranted indulgence in idealismandfideism" (293). Under theinfluenceof partyloyaltiesindependentobservation and inquiry become atrophied and the only thing thatdevelops is interest in defending petrified dogmas at all costs. Themeansof defensegrowmoreandmorenaive: thereis either appeal toauthority, or abuse, denunciation, threats. Luppol in his bookOn TwoFrontsdirectedagainst "menshevizingidealism" and"mechanisticma-terialism"calls thesedeviationsfromMarxism"sabotage"whichoughttobeliquidatedanddescribestheirsupportersas"secret wreckers"(9).We knowthat Bolsheviksliquidate"wreckers"byshootingor concen-trationcamps. Tornsteinisevenmorebitter: she says inher book(4)that to ignore Leninismwhich is the highest stage of dialectical ma-terialism is "planned sabotage."ThestyleofBolshevik writingsis strikinglyoffensive. Itisnot un-comnlon to find in themsuch revolting metaphors as that used byLenin "a hundred thousand readers of Haeckel meant a hundredthousandexpectorations intothe face of Mach's andAvenarius'sphi-losophy" (306).Butevenmoredisgustingthanmaliceissneakingservilitylargelycharacteristicof Soviet writers, anxietynot to lagbehind"thegeneralline of theparty"andtotestifytheirorthodoxybyeverythingtheysay.Thusinthe whole social structure of the U.S.S.R. and in all Soviettheories the foremost place is given to the communal as against thepersonal individualbeing. And soPozner, repeating Lenin'swords thatsensationis the imageof thecorrespondingexternal event, goesontosay "dialectical materialism goesfurther; it teachesthatsensationsarisenot simply as apassive result ofthe actionofexternal objects upon oursenseorgans, butas theresult of theactiveinfluenceof thesocialmanuponnatureandofhisreactiontohis environment"(47). Onewouldhavetosupposethat the yellowcolorof thesandcanbeperceivednotbyanindividual man, but onlybya member of agangof workmendiggingapond.Theaboveexpositionandanalysisof dialectical materialismgivesus theright to drawthefollowingconclusion. Truematerialism, i.e.,thedoctrinethat the ultimaterealityconsists of impenetrableparticlesof matter movingthrough space, andthatmentalevents arethepassiveproductofmatter inmotion, isapoor theoryincapableof furtherde-velopment. Dialectical materialismin speakingof matter or natureasthe primary reality richly endows it withqualities andfaculties, but hasnorightwhatever tocallit matter. Itassumes theguiseof materialismpartlyowingto its terminology, partlythroughinconsistentlyholding.,DIALECTICALM.\TERIALISM 577ontocertainfragmentarydogmas of genuinematerialism, andpartlythrough vagueness andconfusion ofthought.In theU.S.S.R. dialecticalmaterialismis a party philosophy concerned not with the quest fortruth, but with the practical needs of the revolution. Solongas theU.S.S.R. is ruledbyapower thatsuppressesall freeinquiry, dialecticalmaterialismcannot develop as a philosophy. Unhampered thinkingwouldsoon transformdialectical materialismintosome complex sys-tem of ideal realism.Chapter25THEINFLUENCE OF E. MACHANDR. AVENARIUS ONMARXISTSThe French and English form of positivism-the theories ofAugusteComte, J. S. Mill andSpencer-werewidelyprevalent inRus-sia in thesecondhalfof thenineteenthcentury but towardtheendofit andthe beginningof the twentieth there developed atendency toseek newandmoresubtleforms of it. Thiswas thecase, for instance,with V.V. Lesevitch.Vladimir Victorovich Lesevitch (1837-1905) received his highereducation at thePetersburg School of EngineeringandtheAcademyofthe General Staff. For his political activities he was exiled first toSiberia andthen Kazan, Poltava andTver (1879-1888). In his youthLesevitch wasafollowerof Comteasinterpreted byLittre and Vyrubovbut later he adopted the theory of empirio-criticism. R. Avenarius'sKritik der reinenErjahrung(Critiqueof pureexperience) becameforhimthepatternof scientificphilosophy.!The influenceof Mach and Avenarius wasparticularly prevalent atthebeginningof the twentieth centuryamongRussian Marxists. Forthe most part they adhered to dialecticalmaterialism. But someof themhada gift for philosophyand a good training in the subject. Theyunderstoodhowuntenablewas thetheoryof knowledgeexpoundedbyEngelsunder thenameof the theoryof reflection. Theygaveupma-terialismandbegantoseek for Marxismanepistemological basiscon-sistent withtherecent developments inphilosophy. Bogdanovinpar...tieularhasgivenmuchattentiontothesubject.AlexandrAlexandrovichBogdanov(his real namewas Malinovsky,1873-1928) graduatedinmedicine. When he tookup philosophy, hecameunder the influence of MachandAvenarius andworked out atheory whichhecalled empiriomonism. Accordingtoit, knowledgeisa1. Lesevitch's writings include A Critical Inquiry Into the Fundamental Prin-ciples of Positivist Philosophy, 1877; Letters on Scientific Philosophy, 1878; WhatIs Scientific.fhilosophy11891; Collected Works, 2vols., Petrograd1915.378THEINFLUENCEOF MACHANDAVENARIUS 579social adaptation, aimedat givingasexact aspossibleadescriptionofexperience under the conditions of the greatest possible economy ofthought. Bogdanovclaimsthat his theorydiffersfromempirio-criticismby its monistic character: the psychical is the individually organizedexperience, andthe physical the socially organizedexperience. Thusthepsychical andthephysical aresimplythedifferentlyorganizedele-ments ofoneexperience. Thatwhichhassocial significanceforagivenepochisregardedastrue. Since 1913Bogdanovtookupthesubjectof"techtology": hegives thatnametothegeneral scienceof organization,andit isdealt withinhis book Universal Organizational Science. Allthe problems which confront mankindare problems of organization.Manmust transformthe world intoan organized whole. Philosophymust bediscardedandreplacedbytechtology. Thedifference between"I" and "thou" exists only in so far as there exists a conflict of in-terests. Whencomplete universal harmony is reached, the conceptionoftheHI" will disappear.POther writers who came under the influence of Mach and Ave-nariuswere A. Lunacharsky(1873-1933), Bazarov, P.. Yushkevich, I. A.Berman (born 1868), S. A.. Suvorov (1869-1918), N. Valentinov (born1879).Vladimir Alexandrovich Bazarov (his real name is Rudnev) wasbornin1874; like Bogdanovhe is arelativist inepistemology. InthebookEssays onthe Philosophyof Marxismhe criticizesdialectical rna-terialism; in Sketches of a RealisticWorldConception' (1904)heattacksidealism as it is presented in Almanach's Problems of Idealism(1902)..In1906 Bazarov, Lunacharsky and Yushkevich together with some ad-herents of dialectical materialism published a symposium LiteraryDisintegration} containing acritiqueof RussianandWestern-Europeanphilosophical and literary worksincompatible withMarxism.. aPavel SolomonovitchYushkevich (born 1873) calls his theoryern-pirio-symbolism. Heregards the data of sensuous experience andalsoconceptional theories assymbols. Inadditionto thehumanreasonheadmits the existence of a supreme reason, the Logos, the bearer ofhighest empiric-symbols or lawsofnature.s2. Besides techtologv, Bogdanov's works include The Basic Principles of theHistorical Viewof Nature, 18Y9; KnotuledgeFront the Historical Point 01View, 1901:Empiriomonisni, 3 vols., 1905-6; The Aduentures 01 a School of Philosophy, 1908;ThePhilosophyof LivingExperience, 1922.~ . Bazarov, Essayson thePhilosophof Collectivism, 1909; On TwoFronts, 1910:011 theWay to Socialism(acollectionof articles), 1919.A. Lunacharsky, ReligionandSocialism, 1903.4. Yushkevich's works: Materialism and Critical Realism, 1908; New Currents,1910; TheWorldConceptionandWorldConceptions, 1912.THEINFLUENCEOFMACHANDAVENARIUSTheMarxists whofellunder theinfluence ofMachand AvenariusweresharplyattackedbyLenin(underthe assumednameV. Ilyin) inhis bookMaterialismand Empiric-Criticism(Moscow 1909). Allschoolsof thought that reject materialismare pronouncedbyhimtobereac-tionary.Chapter26RECENTDEVELOPMENTSINRUSSIANPHILOSOPHY1. S. ALEXEYEV(ASKOLDOV)SergeyAlexeyevichAlexeyev(pennarne, Askoldov, 1870-1945) wasthe son of the philosopher A. A. Kozlov. He could not inherit hisfather'snamefor thefollowingreason. Kozlovasayoungmanwasanardent "Populist" and married apeasant. He soon parted fromher, buthis wife would not divorce him. When he fell in love with MaryaAlexandrovna Chelishchev, agirlof noblebirth andaculturedfamily,andformedastablemarriagealliancewithher, his childrencouldnotlegallybearhis name, andhis son'ssurnamehadto be Alexeyev, i.e.,sonof Alexis.AftergraduatingintheFacultyof Scienceat the PetersburgUni-versity, Alexeyevtook apostintheDepartmentof CustomsandExciseas an expert in chemistry hoping that hecould devoteall hissparetimetophilosophy. It appeared, however, thatconscientiousworkathis jobleft him little time and energy for philosophy.Accordingly, at the age offortyAlexeyevdecided, likehis father, to take upacademicwork. In1914hewroteabookThought andRealityfor whichhe obtainedthedegree of M.A. in philosophy at the Moscow University. After theBolshevik revolution he had of coursetoabandonthe hope ofprofessor-ship.: In 1921 Alexeyev founded a secret religious and philosophicalsocietyknownas S. A. Askoldov's but in 1926it was renamed"TheBrotherhood ofSt. Seraphim ofSarov."In1928the Soviet Governmentarrested all the members ofthe Brotherhood and Alexeyev was exiledtotheZyrianRegion(Kama Basin) where he livedin very tryingcondi-tions. In 1935he was allowed to move to Novgorod. In 1941whenNovgorod was occupied by the Germani Alexeyev found himself onthis sideofthe "iron curtain" and wrote afewarticles against Marxism.In1944 hereceived apremium forhisbookTheCritique of DialecticalMaterialism. Duringthelast yearsof his life Alexeyevsufferedfroma581!82 RECENTDEVELOPMENTSIN RUSSIANPHILOSOPHYsevereformof angina, whichhe borewithgreat fortitude. HediedatPotsdam.'Alexeyev(Askoldov) was a highlygiftedphilosopher but circum-stances did not givehima chancefullytoexpresshis ideasinprint. Hischief works are the following: The Fundamental Problems ojtheTheoryof Knowledge and Ontology, 1900; "In Defense of the Miraculous,"Voprosy Filosofii i psikhologii, V, 1903; "On Love For GodandForOne's Neighbor," ibid., 1,1907; A. A. Kozlou, 1912; Thought and Reality,1914; Consciousness As aWhole, 1918; '''Time,'' M y ~ l , III, 1922; "Spizitand Matter,"inthesymposium NoviyeVehi, No.2, Prague1945.s. A. Alexeyev, likehis father A. A. Kozlov, isa representativeofpersonalism, closely approaching Leibniz's monadology. In his bookThought andReality he argues against Lossky's absolute intuitivism,but to a certain extent he himself is an intuitivist, for although heregardssensequalitiesassubjective, he admits thepresenceof atrans-subjective element inperception. Theintuitive part ofperception, how-ever, is according to him"too insignificant in relation to the wholecontent of perception" andis only "a kindof scantyframeworkclothedbythe act ofapperception withavariegatedandmulticolored garment,numerically different for everypercipient" (chap. X).Inhisarticleon"Time"Alexeyevdistinguishes betweenontologi-cal, psychological andphysical time. Hesaysthat physical time, withwhich the modern theory of relativity is concerned, is obtained bymeasurement in connection with movement inspace. It is a relative time,considerednot subspecie mundi, but onlysub specie mensionis (83).Ontological time is cognizedby thought apart fromconnection withmovement inspace; inthat timethereexistsa"now"univalent for allworld systems (84).Alexeyev's conception of overcoming time is as follows. In ourtime newcontents ofbeing crowd out the old ones, andthey die. Theremay, however, be a higher temporal orderinwhichthe past does notfadeaway, but retains its vitalityalongsideof theever-increasingnewcontents.Intherealmof beingwheretimeisof sucha typetithestingof death is taken out" (94).Alexeyev's article "InDefense of the Miraculous" is particularlyvaluable in our daywhenamongtheProtestantstherearepersons evenamong the clergy who, under the influence of pseudoscientific ideas,denythepossibilityof miracles. According' to Alexeyev's defini tion"amiracleisanevent happeningwithinthedomainof objectivehumanexperience, but conditioned by the powers of higher spiritual beings andI. Informationabout Alexeyev's life andactivity after 1922, when I was exiledfromU . S . S , ~ , has been givenmeby ProfessorI. M. Andreyevsky.v. SZYLKARSKInot followingfromthelaws of material nature"(440). Hedivides theobjections against the miraculous intothree categories-epistemological,metaphysical andethical, andshows that they are invalid. Particularimportanceattaches tohisargument that theindividual self isoneofthe causesofevents andthattheactivities of the selfhavethe characterof individualcausality andnot ofauniformlaw.On the ground of his metaphysics, closelyakintoLeibniz'stheories,Alexeyev admittedreincarnation. At the end of his lifehewroteabookOn Reincarnation. Before his death he said in a letter to ProfessorAndreyevsky: "As I prayed to Father John of Kronstadt and to St.Seraphim, I felt that I must burnmy bookonreincarnation. I may beright in theory, but theywouldhaverejectedmywork. AndI cannotpraytothemwithout first destroyingthat whichtheywouldhavecon-demnedinthe senseofsaying 'don't!' pronouncing it 'notwanted.' I'veburnt it today!"2. V. SZYLKARSKIVladimirSemyonovichSzylkarski (born 1882) wasProfessor at theYuryev(Dorpat) University; after the Bolshevikrevolution, wasprofes-sorat theKovnoUniversityinLithuaniaandat present at theUniver-sityof Bonn.Szylkarski's chief worksareTheTypological Methodinthe HistoryofPhilosophy, 1916; The Problem of Being, 1917; Solouieo's Philosophicder All-Einheit, 1932; TeichrniillersphilosophischerEntwicklungsgang,1939; AdolfDyroU, 1947.In his bookTheTypological MethodintheHistoryof PhilosophySzylkarski considers the typical philosophical conceptions as stages intheself-knowledgeof ouractive"self." Herecognizes four suchstages:naive realism, concernedwithmaterial objects of the external world;sensualism, dealing withsensations; intellectualism, concernedwiththeactivity of thought and leading to abstract idealismas, e.g., in thephilosophyof Hegel; concreteidealismwhichisconcretespiritualism.Those stages express the movement of philosophic thought fromtheperipherytothecenter, fromobjectsof theexternal worldtothesub-stantival humanself. A philosophythat puts the substantival self atthe basisofitsinterpretationoftheworldispersonalism.Dmitri Ivanovich Tschizewski (Ch\Zhevski), born 1895, emigratedafterthe Bolshevik. revolution, andfor anumberofyearswasprofessorat Halle. He has written many books andarticles on the history ofphilosophyof theSlavpeoples. Hischiefworksare: Philosophyin theUkraine, 1926; Formalism inEthics (Works of the RussianPopular Uni-884 RECENTDEVELOPMENTSINRUSSIANPHILOSOPHYversity in Prague, I, 1929); The Problem 01 the Double in the symposiumonDostoevsky editedbyA. Behm, I, Prague1929; ThePhilosophy 01Skouoroda, 1934; Hegel in Russia, Paris 1939;alsoin GermaninthesymposiumHegel bei denSlaven, editedbyChizhevski, Reichenberg,1934.In hisarticle on FormalisminEthics Chizhevski expounds an origi-nal planofdevelopingethics inthespiritofconcreteideal realism. Inhis studyof Dostoevsky's creativeworkChizhevski has madevaluablesuggestions on the problemof "the double" explaining this strangephenomenonbythe moraldecayofpersonality.~ . L. KOBILINSKYLev LvovitchKobilinsky(1874-1947) whowrote under the nameof Kobilinsky-Ellis, left Russia in 1911. The instructive story of hisemigrationistoldinAndreyBely'sMemoirs. HebecameadiscipleofRudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy, As he listened to hislectures, hebegantowonder whether Steiner worshippedthepowers oflight or of darkness. Oneday, while waitingfor the lecture to begin,Kobilinskyaskedthe Germanladies, followers of Steiner, whether heserved Christ orBeelzebub, and theyanswered "Wir sind ein Luciierian-isches Volh" ('we are a Lucilerian people"). Then Kobilinsky re-nouncedanthroposophy, becameaCatholicandsettledinSwitzerlandat Locarno-Monti. 1knowabout Kobilinsky's attitude toSteiner fromhis letterstome.Kobilinsky-Ellis'schief works are: MonarchiaSancti Petri, Christ-liche Weisheitl1929; ] ukowski.Kobilinsky's Christian world conception is not always in accordwithtraditional Christianity; thus, hemaintains tllat thepluralityofselves isaconsequenceofsin; abeliever inreincarnation, heexpressedhisview oneday to his father confessor, a Capuchin monk, The Capuchinreplied: "Almighty God can send a man's soul tobe born on earth threehundred timesif it is necessary."Kobilinsky wanted toacquaint Western Europe with the lofty spiritof Russian literature; he publishedinGermana bookonZhukovskyand wrote along monograph onPushkin whichhehad not hadtimetopublish. Inthis monographKobilinskyconvincinglyproves, byanalyz-ingsuch poetical works as Mozart and Salieri, Boris Godunou, TheAvaricious Knight, etc., that Pushkin was a realist, but he depictedreality in the light of theDivine truth.B. VYSHESLAVTSEV4. B. VYSHESLAVTSEVBoris Petrovich Vysheslavtsev was born in1879. He wasprofessor ofphilosophyof lawat the Universityof Moscow. After leavingRussiahe workedinthe Russiansectionof the Y.M.C.A. Press inParis. Atpresent heis living inSwitzerland.Vysheslavtsev'schief worksareFichte'sEthics, 1914; TheHeart 01Manin the Indian andChristian. Mysticism, Y.M.C.A.Press, Paris1929;,The Ethics of Transfigured Eros, Y.M.C.A. Press, Paris1932.The small butvery valuablebookTheHeart ofManis concernedwith aproblem that occupies aprominentplace inmodernphilosophy.The German philosopherMax Scheler inhis book Der FormalismusinderEthikunddiematerielleWertethikworkedout a theoryof "emo-tional intuitivism"accordingtowhichfeelingisanintentionalmentalact directeduponobjective values and bringingthemintothesubject'sconsciousness. Scheler's theory drewmany philosophers' attention toPascal'sconceptionof the"logicof theheart" different fromthelogicof the intellect. In the Russian philosophy that problemhad beenraised long before: recall, for instance, Yurkevich's philosophy andSoloviev's article about it. D.Chizhcvsky inhisHistoryof theUkrainianPhilosophy points out that one of the characteristics of Ukrainianthought isits preoccupationwiththephilosophyof the heart, andde-votesawholechaptertothesubject.Vysheslavtsev states the problemin all its implications. In ac-cordancewiththe teachingsof ChristianandHindumysticshe meansbytheheart not merelythefacultyof feeling, butsomethingfar moresignificant, namely the ontological, .superrational principle whichforms the personality's real selfhood. Indianmysticisminterprets thatprincipIeastheidenticalbasisofalllivingcreatures, whileChristianityinsists that individual selves are a pluralityfromthefirst. Thisis theexplanation, Vysheslavtsevthinks, of the difference betweenChristianloveandBuddhist "compassionwithout love."Transcending the divisionbetweensoul andbodythemetaphysicalprinciplefinds realizationintheheart whichisboththesourceof loveandof creative freedomandthe most important bodily organ. Thisleads Vysheslavtsev toseethe meaning ofthe Catholic cult ofthe SacredHeart. Hedefendsit fromthechargeof materialismmadeagainst it by"falsespiritualism,"thoughhepointsout that theparticularsettingofthatcultmakesit unacceptabletotheOrthodoxreligiousfeeling.Inconclusion Vysheslavtsev examines the antinomy of the heartwhichisbothan infalliblejudgeandthe sourceof evil as well as ofS86 RECENTDEVELOPMENTSINR.USSIANPHILOSOPHYgood; hefinds thesolutionof theantinomy intheconcept of freedomasthe essenceof theself.In his book The Ethics of the Transfigured Eros Vysheslavtsevshows, byquotinganumberof passagesfromtheGospel andfrom- St.Paul'sEpistlesthatChristianityi.I meant tobe areligionthat replacesslaverytothelawbythefreedomof grace, andtheethics of lawbytheethics of sublimation, of the transfigured Eros. Lawcannot be thehighest guide in life, forit is merely an abstract norm forbidding crimes,anegativenormdevoidof creativepower. Theworst ofit isthat theimperativecharacterof lawandof theconscious effort of will isthatitprovokesthespiritof resistancewhichrises fromthedepthsofsubcon-sciousinstincts andstrivings, inaccordancewiththeloi del'eDort con-verti discovered by the Nancy school (Coue, Baudouin), Christianitypointsout another path: it directs man's spiritual powers towardtheAbsolute, toward God and theKingdom ofGod asthefullnessofbeing,as absolute beautyandperfectionwhich calls forth our love andin-creasesthepower offree creativeness. Thatpowerfinds a right solutionin each concrete case ofmoral conflict. Itisthe path of the sublimationof thesoul throughEros for the Logos (86). Thehighest andholiestvalues appeartothe Christian mind not intheformofabstract lawbutas concrete livingimages of the actual Person of the God-man JesusChrist andof His saintswhom Helovesandfinds "loveable."Imagina-tiontransforms the instincts byintroducingbeautiful images intothedark realmof the subconscious and arousing love for them; it thusleadstotheir embodiment, totIlemagicalcreationofanewreality(75-82).Bythe beautyof tile Divine image, imagination sublimates Erosinwhich distinct stages may be distinguished: Eros may be physical,mental, spiritual, angelic anddivine. The doctrine of Dionysius theAreopagiteandSt. MaximtheConfessorabout Erosleading upto theAbsoluteandtodeificationbygraceis, Vysheslavtsevthinks, theChris..tiantheory ofthe sublimation ofthe soul.Incontradistinctionto the Nancyschool, Vysheslavtsevmaintainsthat sublimation is reached not through the activity of imaginationalone, but throughthepower offreewill. Itis notimagination but freewill whichdecides whether manistoenterthepathof the sublimationortheprofanation of Eros(153). Having madethechoice, thewill callsin thehelpof imaginationsoas to overcome inanindirect way theresistanceofthefleshandthestillmoredangeroussatanicresistanceofproud self-well (143). Hereas elsewhere man rulesovernaturebyobey-ingit (134). Thefreedomof the personalitystrivingfor perfection ispreserved.'>ecauseGodwants us todoHiswill not as slaves, but "asI.ILYIN 387friendsandsons" (180): grace cannot besimplygiven, it must alsobefreelytakenbyman(147). .Vysheslavtsev'sdoctrine ofsublimationis oftheutmost value. Theterriblediscoveries madebyFreudandhis school mayprove fatal toman unless ways are pointedout for transfiguring the lowinstinctslurking inthe realm of thesubconscious. Particular importance attachesto his arguments that thispurpose canonly be attained through connect-ingourimaginationandwill withtheconcretegoodnessof theAbso-lute, the living personality oftheGod-man andthe saints. Vysheslavtsevshowsthat thetraining ofimagination, feeling andwillinthespirit ofChristianity istheonly way ofattainingthe fullnessofperfect life. Hesucceeds infindingnewargumentstoprovethat Christianitycan onlyservethispurposeif it isinterpretedastrulythereligionof loveandfreedom, as thegood news ofthe kingdom of grace, and not distorted bylegalism or fanaticalintolerance.5. I. ILYINIvan Alexandrovich Ilyin wasborn in1882. He wasprofessor ofthephilosophyof law intheMoscow University, was exiledfromRussia bytheSoviet Government in 1922 andisnowlivingin Switzerland. Hischief works are: The Philosophyof Hegel as aConcreteTeaching AboutGod and Alan, 2 vols., 1918; Of ResistancetoEvil by Force, Berlin 1925;The Religious Meaning of Philosophy, Paris1925; Of Perfect Art, Riga;ThePathof Spiritual Renewal, Paris1937.Russian philosophers have a distinct tendency toward concreteideal realism. It isthereforenot accidental that theyshouldhave pro-duced works about Fichte and Hegel pointing out theconcrete characterofthosethinkers' teachings. Vysheslavtsevstudiedthe concrete ethicsofFichtein thelast periodof his creativedevelopment, andIlyinprovedthe falsity of the prevalent conceptionof Hegel's philosophyasa sys-temof abstract panlogism. He has demonstrated that the idea is forHegel a concrete principle, i.e., what Lossky calls a concretely idealentity; further, he has shown that Hegel's concretespeculationisin..tuitiondirecteduponconcretelyideal being. Themeaningof philoso-phyconsists for Ilyininthe knowledgeof Godandthedivinebasisofthe world,namely, inthestudy oftruth, goodnessand beauty as havingtheir sourceinGod. Ilyinexplainsthe decadenceofmodern artbythelackof religionamongthe peopleof thepresent day, andhopes thatthere will again come a period of religious revival, when art will flourishanew.Ilyin'sinquiryintoResistingEvil by ForceisavaluaJllepieceofsal RECENTDEVELOPMENTSINRUSSIANPHILOSOPHYwork. He sharply criticizes init Tolstoy's doctrine of nonresistance.Jlyinsaysthat Tolstoycalls all recourse to force in the struggle withevil "violence" andregards it as anattempt "sacrilegiously" to usurpGod's will byinvadinganother person's inner lifewhich isinGod'shands. Ilyin thinks that Tolstoy's doctrine contains the followingabsurdity: "When a villain injures an honest man or demoralizes achild, that, apparently, isGod'swill; butwhenanhonest mantries 'tohinderthe villain, thatis notGod'swill."Ilyinbeginstheconstructivepart of his bookbypointing outthatnot everyapplicationof force shouldbedescribedas "violence," for itisanopprobrioustermandprejudges the issue. Thename"violence"shouldonlybe giventoarbitrary, unreasonablecompulsionprecedingfromanevil mindor directedtowardevil (29 f.). Inorder to preventtheirremediableconsequencesof ablunder or ofanevil passionamanwhostrives after thegoodmust inthe first instance seek mental andspiritual meanstoovercomeevil bygood. Bnt if hehasnosuchmeansat his disposal, he isboundto use mental or physical compulsionandprevention. "It isright to pushawayfromthebrinkof a precipiceanabsent-mindedwayfarer; to snatch the bottle. of poison froman ern-bitteredsuicide; tostrikeat theright moment thehandof a politicalassassinaimingathisvictim; toknockdownanincendiaryin thenickof time; to drive out of a church shameless desecrators; to make anarmed attack against a crowd of soldiers raping a child" (54). "Re..sistancetoevil byforce andbytheswordis permissiblenot whenit ispossible, but when it is necessary because there are no other meansavailable;" inthat caseit is not only aman's right but hisdutytoenterthatpath(195 f.)eventhough itmayleadtothemalefactor'sdeath.Does thisimplythat the endjustifiesthemeans?No, ce.rtainlynot.Theevil of physical compulsionor preventiondoes not becomegoodbecauseit isusedastheonlymeansinourpowerfor attainingagoodend. In suchcases, says Ilyin, thewayofforceandof thesword "isbothobligatory andunrighteous"(197). "Onlythebestofmencancarry outthisunrighteousnesswithout beinginfectedbyit, canfind andobservetheproper limits in it, canremember that it iswrongandspirituallydangerous, anddiscover personal andsocial antidotes for it. Bycom-parison, withtherulersof thestatehappyarethemonks, thescholars,theartists andthinkers: it is giventothemtodo cleanworkwithcleanhands. Theymust not, however, judge or condemn the soldiers andpoliticians, butbegrateful tothemandpraythat theymaybecleansedfrom their sin and made wise: their own hands are cleanfor doing cleanwork. onlybecauseotherpeoplehadcleanhandsfor doingdirtywork"(209). UIfth-e principle of state compulsion and prevention were ex-VASSILI ZENKOVSK.\' S89pressed by the figureof a warrior) and the principle of religious purifica-tion. prayer andrighteousnessbythefigure ofa monk-the solution oftheproblemwouldconsistinrecognizingtheirnecessity toeachother".Thepossibilityof situations that inevitablyleadto thecontradic-tion between a good purpose and imperfect means is man's moraltragedy, as Ilyin and other thinkers sharing hisview express it.6. FATHERVASSILI ZENKOVSKYVassili VassilyevichZenkovskywas bornin1881. Hewas lecturerattheKievUniversity. Since1925 he hasbeenprofessorof philosophyandpsychologyat theOrthodoxTheological Academy inParis, andin1942 was ordained priest.Zenkovsky's chief works are: TheProblemof Psychical Causality,1914; TheHierarchical Structureof theSoul) intheScientific works ofthe Russian Popular University in Prague, II, 1929; "Die religioseErfahrung,"inDerRussischeGedanke, II, 1930; "TheOvercomingofPlatonismand the Problemof Sophia in the Created World," Put,XXIV, 1930; "0 theImageofGodinMan,"inthe symposiumOrtho-dox Thought, II, Paris 1930; Questions of Education in the Light ofChristianAnthropology) Y.M.C.A. Press, Paris 1934; "TheProblemoftheCosmosinChristianity,"in the symposiumTheLivingTradition,TheFundamental Principles of Christian Cosmology; TheHistory QlRussianPhilosophy)2vols,After athoroughinvestigationof theproblemof psychiccausalityZenkovskyconcludes that suchcausalityisafact, andturnsit togoodaccount in his further works. In his article on religious experienceZenkovskymeans byexperiencecontents of consciousness that can bedescribedas "given," that are conditionedby theinteractionbetweenthe subject and the object, and are related to an object. He arguesagainst Durkheirn, Freudandotherswhoattempt to explainreligiousexperiences as derivative from other experiences. Thus, Diirkheimdeducesthemfromtheexperiencesofsocial tics, but thoseexperiencesalreadycontainareligious element. Itmust beadmittedthat thereareto befoundin consciousness religious datawhichare not derivative andcan onlybe explainedby the interaction between the subject and atranssubjectiveprinciple. Astothenatureof that principle, itis givenin mystical experience as a conceptually inexpressible, all .. embracingall, whichleads manyreligious minds to interpret it in a pantheisticspirit. Humanitydoes not, however, stopat that formof religiousex- sorne neoolehavealso theexperienceof communionwitha890 llECENTDEVELOPMENTSINR.USSIANPHILOSOPHYhigner principle as a personal or superpersonal Being which makes itselfknowntous throughtheWordandthe Revelationas aSupercosmictranscendental principle. True, there aremany revelations andtosomeextenttheycontradictone another, but thisdoesnot provethat revela-tionissubjective-anymore thantheexistenceof hallucinations andillusionscompelsus toregardall sense perceptionas false. Zenkovskygetsover the contradictionbetweenthepantheistic andthetheisticre-ligious experience by interpreting the pantheistic experience as thevision of theSophian created aspect ofthe world, mistaken for the visionof GodHimself. Hedoes not whollyreject Troeltsch'sconceptionof aspecial religious a priori, but pointsout that it cannot be developedwithinasystemof immanent philosophy: transcendental functionsdonot generate the contents of experience andcan only be realized inconnection with data which pointtoatranssubjective source.Zenkovsky maintainsthat thesoul has ahierarchicalstructureandthat the highestelement in itis"theheart," understoodinaccordancewithChristian anthropology-as the lite of feeling that establishes aspiritualbond with God andthedivineIoundauonsot uieworld.In dealing withtheproblems ot Christian cosmologyFatherVassiliargues against a-cosmism, pantheismand atheistic naturalism. '1'hosemistakentheories can onlybe avoided, hesays, it we haveacorrectCall-ception01 thecreation ot theworldbyGod. FollowingFatherSergiusBuigakov, though considerably mouitymg his doctrine, Zenkovsky worksoutatheoryot theDivineSophia andthecreated Sophia.DivineSophia, tile \Visdomof God, is the totalityof ideas about the world,as God's cOllceptl0n 01the world; ideas that lie at tilebasis ot cosmicprocesses are thecreatedSophia. TheideasinGodarerelatedtotheideasintheworldas"primaryimages" to"images:'Toavoidconfusion, Father Vassili gives the nanle of "ideas" to primaryimagesonly, andcalls images"Iogoses;' he hasinmindtheStoicandthe Patristicdoctrineof thespermaticlogos. (f'undamental Problems,65 f.)WorldSoulcontainsthelogoses intheirunity. Theconceptionof the World Soul has been discredited intheeyes of manyof theFathers oftheChurch by its connection with pantheism, In truth,how..ever.. it canbeworked outapartfrompantheism andbeusedfor over-coming mechanistic naturalism(60 f.).Acosmism and occasionalism canonly bedisprovedifwe recognizethe existence of active, though created substance in the world (73).Father Vassili distinguishestwokindsof activity: the empirical andthesubstantial causal correlations(causaeadfieri andcausae adesse of thescholastics)", Empirical causalitymanifests itself in the transitionfromFATHERGEORGEFLOROVSKYone event toanother, andsubstantial causalityembraces aparucularentity's whole cycleofbeing (66).Thedoctrineof thecreationof theworldbyGodcompelsus, inFather Vassih'sopinion, toadmit that time is in God, since theideathat time begins in the world "leads us to inquire about the timewhich wasbefore the beginning of thepresent time"(69).The tendency of certain theologians to interpret all activity asproceeding fromGod andtoexplaineverything goodinmansolely bytheactionof Godinhimleads, Father Vassili says, to a-cosmismandoccasionalism. Thosefallacies canbe avoidedbyrecognizingtheexist-enceof active createdsubstances andthe active nature of the Divineimagein man.Zenkovsky'sinquiry intotheproblemsof Christiancosmologyisofgreat value, but it isimpossibleto agreewithhimthat theideaof thebeginningof theworldandof timeinit compels us to recognize theexistence of time in Godbefore thecreationof the world, Theword"beginning" does not always mean the appearance of process A aftertheprocessB; it mayalsomeanthefirst momentsof theprocessA.7. FATHERGEORGEFLOROVSKYGeorgeVassilievichFlorovskywas bornin 1893. HegraduatedintheFacultyof Arts at the Universityof Odessaanddidpost-graduateworkinphilosophy underProfessorN. Langewithaviewtobecomingauniversitylecturer. HeleftRussiaafter theBolshevikrevolutionandin1925 wasappointedprofessor of Patristics at theOrthodox Theologi-cal Academy in Paris; since 1947 he occupies the chair of dogmatictheologyandpatrologyintheOrthodoxTheological AcademyinNewYork. Hewasordainedpriest in 1932. FatherFlorovskyisactiveinthemodernecumenical movement.Father George's chief works are as follows: Human and DivineWisdom, 1922; "The Foundations of Logical Relativism," UchoniyaZapiski, I, Prague; TheDeathontheCross, Paris 1930; "CreatureandCreatedness," PravoslavnayaMysl, I, Paris 1930; "EvolutionundEpi-genesis," Der Russische Gedanke, 1930; The Eastern Fathers of theFourth to Eighth Centuries, Paris; The Ways of Russian Theology,Y.M.e.A. Press, Paris1937; "The Problems ofChristianReunion,"Put,1933;TheEasternTraditioninChristianity, Hewett Lectures, 1949.Florovsky's relativismdiffers profoundlyfromthat of Protagoras:he simplymeansbyit thathumanknowledgeisformal andunfinishedanditsprogressisin indefinitum.Father George is the most Orthodox of modern Russian theologians:S92 I RECENTDEVELOPMENTSINRUSSIANPHILOSOPHYheis~ n x i o u s strictly toadhere totheHoly Writ and patristic tradition.Herejects the doctrine of God as pan-unity: in creating the world, Godcreates arealitythat is different fromHirn. Heis definitelyopposedtotheSophiology ofFather Pavel Florensky andFather SergiusBulgakovandthinks that liturgic texts andOrthodoxiconographydo not con-firmtheirtheories.Thecreationof manasafreeagentis akenosisof the DivinewillduetoGod's lovefor the creature. Man's soul andbodyaretwoaspectsof onesingle living entity. In consequence of sinthe connection betweensoul andbody becomes unstable;man becomes mortal,anddeathis notsimplythe separationof the soul fromthebody, butthedeathofmanhimself, since"the soul without thebody is a phantom. Man's death be-comes acosmiccatastrophe, for inthedyingmannatureloses its im-mortal centeranditselfasit were dies in man" (Deathon theCross,157). Victory over death is achieved by Christ. When in accordancewithHis humannatureHediedonthecross, His soul andbodywereparted, butHis Divinity remainedinseparablebothfromHissoul andHisbody, saysFatherGeorgeontheauthorityof St. JohnDamascene.ConsequentlyHisbodywasnot subject tocorruptionafter deathandwas resuscitatedbyHim. Hisdescent intohell means thedescent notintothenethermost pit, but intoHades (sheol), the abodeof theOldTestament saints; it signifies "breaking thefettersofdeath."ThankstoChrist whoreestablishes the unity of the soul and body, our deathtooisno longer death, but "falling asleep" as St. John Chrysostom says.FatherGeorgeemphasizesthehistorical characterof theChristian,as opposed to the Greek, conceptionof the world andascribes greatvalue to it:For the Greekseverythingtemporal belongs to the lowerrealm of being; there is nocreativeness intime, but only cycles, periodi-cal repetitions ofall thepast. On the Christian viewtimeis not acircle,butalinethat hasabeginning, end, andaim. Thehistorical process isuniquein timeandconsists of creativeacts that determine thefate ofthehumanpersonality. FatherGeorgedeniesreincarnationandmain-tainsthat universal resurrectionisnot universal salvation; onelife onearthis sufficient for mantomakehis choiceandtomanifesteitherastrivingtowardthegoodora stubbornness of will that deserves con..demnation andeternal torments.Father George confirms all his important theological statementsby references totheEastern Fathers and says that hispurpose is tomakea "neopatristicsynthesis." In his articles "The Problems of ChristianReunion" heargues against "the theory of church ramifications." He saysthat there are Uno branches with equal rights" but admits that "the sickbranches do .not dry off at once"(IS I.). Speaking ofthe Roman ChurchFATHERGEORGEFLOROVSKYhe says that in it "there is no sufficiently firmand clear expression ofthefeelingthat even afterascending into heaven Christ really and directly,though invisibly, abides in the earthly historical Church and governsit.Hencetheneedandthe possibilityof theideaof the Vicar of Christwhoina sense replaces Himinhistory" (II ). For Christianreunion"actual work. in commonis more importantthanthedirect approachtothe question of reunion. In this respect collaboration in theologicalstudies andexchange ofknowledgeis indubitablyareal act of unioninso faras it is anexpressionof solidarityinstriving for Christiantruth"(14).Father Georgehas donegreat service to thedevelopment of Rus-siantheologybyhisremarkableworkThe Ways01 Russian Theology.At the beginningof his bookhe asks the interestingand significantquestionas to thereasonfor "thelateandbelatedawakeningof theRussian thought?"-a surprising fact, for the Russians are a giftedpeople. TIle Russian ikons, for instance, "testify to the depth, com-plexity and subtletyof theancient Russianspiritualexperienceandtothe creative power of the Russian spirit." To answer that questionFather George inquires into the religious life of the Russian peoplethroughout theirhistoryaswell asintotheirtheology. liedepictsthatlife as an arduous struggle, first, with external, and afterwards, inmoderntimes, withinternal obstacles. Inthe first chapter"TheCrisisof Russian Byzantism" he gives a vivid account ~ f the conflict "be-tweenthe twotruths," that of IosiVolokolamskyandof Nil Sorsky,Equally stirring is his presentation of such momentsinthespiritual lifeof the nation as "The Meeting withthe West"in the sixteenth century,of "the contradictions of the seventeenth century,"thetwo wrongs-s-theOldBelievers, and the reforms of Nikon, the influence of Peter theGreat's reformsupon .thelifeof thechurch, andthesignificanceof themasonicmovement in the eighteenthcentury. His description of theeventsinthe Russianreligious life fromthe timeof Alexander Ion-wards throws much light on the present position: he deals with tilehalf-century long struggle for the translation of the Scriptures intoRussianfromtheSlavonic, the activityof the Metropolitans Philaretof Moscow, Philaretof KievandPhilaret of Chernigov, theSlavophils,nihilism, theworksof the"historical school" inthesecondhalfof thenineteenthcentury, theactivityof K. P. Pobedonostsev, theProcuratorof the HolySynod, the teachings of Vladimir Soloviev, the religiousand philosophical works ofhisnumerous successors, the argument aboutdogmaticdevelopment, andfinally the treatment of religious subjectsintheworksof the"decadent" and"symbolist"poetsat the beginningof thetwentiethcentury.394tRECENTDEVELOPMENTSINRUSSIANPHILOSOPHYFatherGeorgequotessomeremarkablefactsrelatingto theyouthof Pisarev, Dobrolyubovandother outstandingpersons, showingthattheRussian intellectuals, even when theyCODle torejectthe Church andtile historical religion are, forthe most part, deeply religious bytempera..ment. In their passionatesearchfor newways leadingtothefullnessof truthRussianpeopleoftenfindthemselvesat theedgeof anabyss;thus, e.g., Merezhkovsky began to fear that he was falling into the"heresy ofAstartism, which means not the holy union between the spiritand the flesh, but their sacrilegious confusion and pollution of thespirit by theflesh."Father Georgegives muchinformationabout valuableworks thatwere never published or longdelayedowing to the immoderate-vigi-lance of the State and the Synod. For instance, "a brilliant book byProfessor 1\1. D. Muretovagainst Renanwasstoppedbythecensor, fortheauthorbegan by giving an exposition of thefalsedoctrinewhich heproceededtocriticize, andthat was not consideredawise thingto do.Thepublic wentonreadingRenanin secret, andMuretov'sattackonhimwas delayedbysome fifteen years. Thus the impression was pro-ducedthat prohibitions weredue to the inabilityfor self-defense. Be..sides, only too often attempts were madetodefendthat which could notbe defended, andthis underminedconfidence. People lost heart whenthe duties of an envigilator were substitutedfor the vocation of theteacher"(421).Father George's bookcontains many pointedandclever remarksabout prominent people, events and tendencies of the religious life.Onecannot always agreewiththem: oftentheyare toosevere, for in-stancewhentheauthoraccusesmanyof thepersonswhomhe criticizesof havingnosense of themeaningof historyor of the realityof theChurch. But his judgments are alwaysinteresting and attract the reader'sattention. Thebookhasanextensivebibliographyoccupyingfifty-fourpages.At theendof his bookFatherGeorgeasks why thehistoryoftheRussianculture has so many breaks init, so manyinstances of rejectingtheoldandpassionately embracingthenew, somanydisappointmentsand lacerations. Amongother things, he points to the Russian"uni-versal responsiveness" asa "fatal andambiguous gift."Tooimpressivea mindproducesa"syncretion"insteadofthelongedforsynthesis. Heaccuses the Russiannational character of instability and inconstancyinlove, of the tendency "tolanguishon fateful crossroads" withoutventuringtomake a responsible choice. Divided love, he says, oftenbringstheRussiansoul tothetragedyofdemoniacpossession. Thewayout of the\e calamitiesis tobefoundin spiritual discipline, and, for theV. LOSSKY 395-------o--al thought in particular, inthe return to the styleand themethodsof theFathers. Hedoes not byanymeanssuggest neglectingtheWestern thought. Onthecontrary,hisadviceistoutilize "the cen-turiesoldexperience of the Catholic West/' thegreatsystemsof "highscholastics," the experience of Catholic mystics and the theologicalexperienceof modernCatholicismbecause"theology is inits essenceaCatholic task." Anewera has recentlybegun in the history of theChristian world, says Father George; itis characterized bytheenormousrange of godless rebellion and struggle against God. One oftheways tocombat it, toheal people'smindsfrompossessionbyevil forces liesinthe development of theology, thetaskof which istoworkout an in-tegral systemof Christianthought.Father George's book is a valuable contributiontothe study of thehistoryofRussianculture. Thequestionshe asks init concerningthepeculiarities oftheRussianreligiouslifeandits development, andhisanswers to themmayalso be helpful for the understandingof otherdomainsof Russianculture.8. V. LOSSKYVladimir Nicolaevich Lossky, the son of the philosopher N. o.Lossky, wasborn in1903. He studied at the Faculty ofArts of the Petro-gradUniversity, continued hisstudiesinPragueandfinallygraduatedat the Sorbonne in Paris where he specialized in medieval philosophy.His chief works are Essai sur latheologiemystique de l'Eglised'Orient, Aubier, Paris1944; Meister Eckehardt (inthepress). The workon themystical theology oftheEasternChurch is ofthetype of a "neoparristic synthesis," to use Father George Florovsky'sterm. Lossky confirms all themain contentions of his bookby referencestopatristic writings.Theology andmysticism, hesays, arecloselyinter..connected in the' traditionof the Eastern Church" The aimof thattheology is not theoretical but practical: it leadstothat whichis aboveknowledge, "to theunion withGod, i.e., to deification, the1)0]0"; oftheGreekFathers" (7).Themainportionofthebookconsists inshowingthat apophatictheologyinterpenetratesall the fundamental doctrinesof the EasternFathers. He dwells at length upon the mysticismofpseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and the doctrine of St. Gregory Palamaabout the Divine"energies." Theapophatictheologyof DionysiustheAreopagite differs profoundly from lhat of Plotinus. According toPlotinus, Godis unknowablebecauseHe issimple; hence he regardsecstasy as /LtA.(t)(1t; (simplification, 29) inwhich the original ontologi-cal unitvof the humansoul andGodismademanifest; a ~ o r d j n g to~ 9 6 RECENTDEVELOPMENTSINRUSSIANPHILOSOPHYDionysius, GodisunknowablebecauseHe isontologicallysuperior tothe world, andunionwithGodis deification; i.e., a newstateneverbefore attained bythenatural man(36).Cataphatictheologydoesnotessentiallydiffer fromtheapophatic."Itmayevenbe saidthat theyareoneandthesamepathtroddenintwodifferent directions: Godcomesdowntous inHisenergieswhichmanifestHimtous, andweascendtoHimthroughaseriesof unions,while He remains unknowable in His own nature. Even the highesttheophany, theperfect manifestationof Godin theworldthroughtheincarnationof theWord, retains for us its apophatic character" (37).God's unknowability does not leadtoagnosticism; it demands"contem-plativetheologyleadingthespirit to realities whichare abovereason.That iswhyChurchdogmasoftenappear to thehumanreasonintheformofantinomies." This is particularly true ofthe Trinitariandogma(40 f.), Plotinushas adoctrineof theTrinity(theOne, theSpirit andtheWorldSoul), andevenuses theexpression"tobe consubstantial."But Plotinus's Trinity is a descending hierarchy of three principles,while the Christian doctrineofthe Holy Trinityis the contemplation ofthe unity and the difference ofthe ThreePersonsthat areco-equal.The\Vestern theologians indealingwith theTrinitariandogmausuallystart withtheconceptionof the Divinenaturepassingfromitto the conceptionof theThree Persons, while the Greeks proceedinthereverseorder, fromthe ThreePersonstoasinglenature; but thereis no questionofthe superiority or priority ofnatureover personality orviceversa. The caseis differentwiththeWestern doctrineof theproces-sionof the HolySpirit fromtheFather andtheSon(Filioque), whichledtotheschismbetweentheWesternandthe Easternchurches. TheGreeksdetect inthisformulaatendencytoput intheforeground"theunityof natureat theexpenseof thereal difference betweenthe Per-sons: therelations of procession, not directlyconnectingboththeSonandtheHoly Spirit withonesingle source, theFather, becomea systemofrelationsinone nature and provetobelogically posterior tonature."TheHoly Spiritisfor theWesterntheologians "thebondbetweentheFather and the Son." Nature "becomes in the Trinitya principle ofunity differentiatedbyrelations. Relations, insteadof beingthecharac..teristicsof thePersons, areidentifiedwiththem." St. ThomasAquinassays "a person's name signifies relation"(56 L). Teachingswhichputthenature of Godin the foreground "put the universal above the indi-vidual"(61); this- leads toimpersonal apophaticmysticism, e.g., MasterEckehart's doctrineofGotth eit ( f ) ~ ~ ) . "Ininsisting uponthe monarchyoftheFather as thesole sourceandprincipleof theunityof theThreev. LOSSKY ~ 9 7Persons, the Eastern theologians were defending, as they thought, amoreconcrete and personalconceptionof theTrinity."It maybeaskedwhether accordingtosucha triadology the con-ception of the Person is higher than that' of the Divine Nature. V.Losskythinksthis is thefallacyof Father Sergius Bulgakov's sophiology,for accordingtohimtheDivinenatureis themanifestationof all theThreePersons of the Holy Trinity. The Eastern Fathers donot fallintoeither extreme: they maintainthat intheHoly Trinity nature andper-sonality are apophatically equivalent. Their conception ofthe monarchyof theFatherisnot subordinationism. Thedifferenceisreflectedevenin the doctrine of beatitude: for the West, bliss is contemplation oftheDivineNature, and for theEast it is participation intileDivinelifeof the Holy Trinity (61--64).V. Lossky devotes special attentionto the doctrine of the Divine"energies,"whichwasworkedoutindetail byS1. GregoryPalama, butwas foreshadowed by Athenagoras, St. Basil, St. Gregory the Divine,Dionysius and51. JohnDamascene. Goddwells"inthelight whichnomancanapproachunto," but inHis "energies" Hecomes outwards,manifestsandgives Himself. "TheDivinegracethat givesdeification,"saysSt. GregoryPalama, "is not God's nature, but His energy;" it is"the raysof Divinity"whichpenetratetheworld, "theuncreatedlight"or"grace": Godis notlimited inHisenergies: Heiswhollypresentineachrayof His Divinity; this manifestation of Himis "thegloryofGod" (72).....UnionwithGodinHis energies, i.e., by means of grace,allowsus toparticipateinthenatureof God, butournaturedoesnottherefore become God's nature." Indeification the creature "remainscreature, whilebecoming Godthroughgrace"(84).Western theologians deny the distinction between God's natureandenergies, but admit otherdistinctionssuchas thecreatedlight ofgrace, thecreatedsupernatural giftsandsoon. "TheEasterntheologyrecognizesnosupernatural order betweenGodandthecreatedworld,added onto thecreatureasanewcreation." Thedifferencelies in thefact that theWesternconceptionofgracecontainstheideaof causality-graceisunderstoodas theeffect of a Divine cause, 'but for Easterntheology graceistheradiationof theDivinenature, i.e., of "energies":it is"thepresenceof the eternal anduncreated light" in the createdworld, "thereal omnipresenceof Godinall things, greater than Hiscausal presence" (85 f.). Intheworldnatureandgrace "aremutuallyinterpenetrated, one exists withinthe other"(121).The "nothing" to which we must descend in thinking of thecreationof theworldbyGodis, accordingtoV. Lossky, as muchof amysteryastheDivineNothingtowhichwemust ascendinsapophatic'98 kECENTDEVELOPMENTSINR.USSIAN PHILOSOPHYtheology(88).Thecreationof theworldbyGodisanact of creatingabsolutelynewbeing, notcontainedinGod'snature. "CreationistheworkofGod'swill andnotofHis nature"(89). Theideasinaccord-ance with which the world is created are not withinthe na-ture of God: inthe words of Dionysius they are not inthe DivineNature(asFatherSergiusBulgakovteaches) but "inthat whichcomesafternature,"intheDivineenergies. Containing withinthemthewillof God, ideas are dynamic: they are ideas-volitions external to thecreatureandpredeterminingthedifferent stagesof thecreature's par-ticipationin the Divine energies. Theworld is "ahierarchy of realanalogies" called to deification through "synergy;" i.e., through freeco-operationof thecreatedwill withthe Divineideas-volitions (92 L).Easterntheologyisalways soteriological. Bent ontheproblemofunion with God, it doesnot enter into alliance withphilosophyasdoesscholasticism(99). Manisbynatureconnectedwiththe whole world.If Adamhadbeenguidedbythe love of GodandhadwhollygivenhimselftoGod, hewould have united thewholeworld and led it uptoGod, whileGodin HisturnwouldhavegivenHimself toman, whowouldthenhave receivedthroughgrace all that Godhas by nature(St. Maxim). But Adamfailedinhis cosmictaskandit wastakenoverbythe SonofGod, theGod-man, theSecond Adam. Easternthoughtisalwaysconcerned withtheworldasawhole. "Thisfindsexpressionintheology, inliturgic poetry, iniconography, andperhapsmostof all intheworksof theEasternChurchasceticteachers of thespiritual life"(105). Thewholeof theworld'shistoryisregardedas"thehistoryofthe Church which is the mystical basis ofthe world"(106 L),Thewordsof Genesis that in creatingmanGod"breathed" intohim the breath of life should not be taken to mean that the spirit of manis a particle ofthe Deity.That would imply that man is "God burdenedbyabody"or"acombinationof Godandanimal;" thentheoriginofevil wouldbe incomprehensibleand"GodHimselfwouldhavesinnedinAdam:' Thewords of theBibleshouldbe interpretedasmeaningthat "the spirit ofmanisintimatelyconnectedwiththegraceof God"(112 f.),InmanasinGod distinctionmust bedrawnbetweennatureandpersonality. Natureis thesameinall men. AdambeforetheFall wasauniversal man, but owingtotheFall human nature wasbroken up anddividedbetweenmanyindividuals(115 f.). Eachpersonalityisunique,andisundefinableandunknowableinits perfectionas the image ofGod, accordingtoSt. Gregoryof Nissa. "Personalityis not a part ofthe whole, it contains the whole" (102); it is capable of beingfreefromitsnatureandof subordinatingit to itself. Becauseof thev. LOSSKYFall man loseshis truefreedom- andacts inaccordance withhisnaturalqualities or his "character;" he becomes less personal, a "mixtureofpersonality andnature."Thismixtureis calledintheasceticliteratureof the East "selfhood." The reinstatement of personality is achievedthroughtherenunciationof selfhood, throughafree sacrificeof one'sindividual will. Inceasingtoexist for itself, thepersonality"expandsinfinitelyandis enrichedby all that belongs to all." It becomes theperfect image of Godand acquires Divine likeness; i.e., becomes "acreatedgod" or "god by grace." This deification is attained throughthe co-operationof two wills-thewill of the HolySpirit bestowinggrace, andthewill of manreceiving the grace(122).Sin, nature anddeathmust be conqueredif deification is to beattained. Those three obstacles have beenovercome by the God-manJesusChrist, the NewAdamwhounitedtogether thecreatedandtheuncreatedbeing. HisbodyistheChurchinwhichtwoaspectsmust bedistinguished-thechristological andthepneumatological, theorganicand the personal (181). In its christological aspect the Church is atheo-andric organism"with two natures, two wills, t\VO activities, in-separableandyet distinct fromeachother." Thereforeinthe historyofdogma all christological heresies arerepeatedinecclesiology (183).TheworkofChrist is directeduponhumannaturethewholeof whichis unified in His Person. The pneumatological aspect of the Churchconsistsin thefact that theHolySpirit endowseverypersonalitywiththefullnessofdivinity inaccordancewithitsuniqueindividual charac-ter(162 f.). Theonenessof humannatureis connectedwiththePersonof Christ, the multiplicity of human persons-with the grace of theHoly Spirit (180). Theworkof Christ andtheworkof theHolySpiritareinseparablefromeachother. The"catholicity' of theChurchcon-sistsinthe harmony or, toa certain extent, intheidentity, ofunity andmultiplicity: thefullnessof thewholeis not thesumof theparts, sinceeachpart possessesthesamefullness as thewhole. TheHolyTrinityistheideal of this catholicity, "thecanonof all canons of theChurch"(173f.). The Churchwithits sacraments is the objective conditionofour unionwithGod, andthesubjectiveconditionsdependuponour..selves.Christ is theheadof the Churchinthesamesense in which thehusbandis theheadof the singlebody of thetwopartnersinmarriage:theChurchisHisWife, andtheheart of theChurchis theMother ofGod. St. GregoryPalamasaysthat in theVirginMary"Godunitedallthe partial aspects of beauty distributed, among other creatures andmadeher thecommonadornment of thekingdomof all beings, visibleandinvisible. Throughhermenandangelsobtaingrace" (J89ff.).400 RECENTDEVELOPMENTSINRUSSIANPHILOSOPHYDeificationmust beginonearth by our fitting ourselves for theeternallife, and however much wemaysucceed inthis, we cannot makeamerit ofit. "The conception ofmerit is foreigntothe Eastern Churchtradition"(194). In ordertobeginthespiritual lifewemust direct ourwill towardGod, renouncetheworld, andattaina harmonybetweenreasonand heart. "Without reasonthe heart is blind, without theheartwhichisthe centerof all activityreasonisimpotent:' Reasonablecon-sciousness, "vocation,"isthenecessaryconditionof ascetic life(198 f.),Thesoul cannot behealedunlessmanturnshis will toGodwithperfect faith inprayer, which is "a personal meetingwithGod" andtrains us inthe love of God(204). At first prayer finds expressionif'words but at the higher stages, when the will is fully given to Gor'spiritual prayer takes placewithout words: it iscontemplation, "absiluterest andpeace, participationin theenergies of the HolySpirit"says St. IsaactheSyrian. Prayer must becomecontinuous. Theasceticsof the Eastern Church have worked out thepractice of inner orspiritualprayerknownas itauX,406Fourier, Charles, 60, 70, 158Francis of Assisi, 337Frank, S. L., 14, 29, 128, 172, 173, 174,192, 193, 227, 230, 233, 247, 266-292,296,299,302,317,319,403,404Freud, Sigmund, 331, 387, 389Cabrilovich, L. E., 325Gabry, R., 58Gagarin, P. I., 75Gagarin, Prince, 50Calich, A. I., 13Gershenson. M. 0., 45, 49, 336Giobertl, 326, 328(;ippius, Zinaida, 172. 340Goethe,J.'V., 42, 51, 56, 57Cogol, N. V" 31, 55, 169, 240Gogotsky, S. S., 134Colubinsky, N. 10Granovsky, T., 24, 51, 52, 134Gratiaux, A.. 41Grcdeskul, N. A" 174Gregory VII, 154Gregorythe Divine, 397Gregoryof Nyssa, 398Gregory Palamas, 395, 397, 399, 400Griboyedov, A. S., 53Grot, N. Y., 149, 160Curvich, A. C., 331Curvich, G. D., 141, 318, 320, 821, !221334, .08Guyon, I!, 22,INDEX Haag, Luise, 56Haeckel, Ernest, 360, 376Hanka, 31Hartmann, Eduard,158, 205lIaydn, F. J., 150Hegel, Georg W. F., 13, 16, 22, 23, 32,42, 46. 51, 52, 53, 51, 56, 57, 59. 60, 61,68. 72, 73. R2, 96. 134. 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 141, 144, I.rj4, 159, 163.I19R, 205, 288, 289, 292, 317, 333,334, 345, 346,' 34R, 3!jO,367, 371, 372,3i3, 3R3, 387. 407116. 264, 280, 382, 383Lem n. Viani mir, 57. 348, 3t9, 352,35;', 3.=i6, 359, 3()O. 3tH, 363, 365, 366,369, 372. 375, 376, 380leonardoda Vinci, 176, 177,337Leonov, A., 372Leout icy, K. NOJ 16, 72. 118, 234, 247Lei mo ntov, M., 51,119.214Leroux, P..54, 60, 158P. F., 64Lesevitr h, V. V., 378Levitsky, S. A., 296, 297, 403Li askovsky, V., 29Litrrc, F.lnile, 66, 378Lobachevsky, N. I., 316L(H ke, John, 11, 151Lomonosov, M.D., 424t4INDEXLop '\ M., 129, 158, 160-161,171, !26Lorancey, sILosev, A. F., 292-295, 403, 404Losskv, N. 0., 12. 14, 26,29, 52, 52, 107,140, 158, 162, 166, 180, 251-266, 267, 295, 296,297, !18,319, 323, 330, sn.g70, 371, 395, 403, 404Lossky, V. N., 227, 231, 395-401, 406Lukyanov, S., 81, 109, 178Lunarharskv, A., 879Luppol, I., # !48, Macarius the Great, 182Mach, Ernst, 175, 35e, 376, 378, SSOMakarius, Bishop, 26Makary, Rev., 17Maklakov, V. A., 172, Malebranche. Nicolas, 274Marat, P.55Marshall, John5., 251Martynov,85Marx, Karl, 59, 197, 198, ?44, 245J1M7,351, 354, !62J Masaryk, T. G., 225Maximus the Confessor, 10, 15, !86, S98Mendeleyev, D.142Menzel, Wolfgang,Merezhkovsky, D. S., 29, 172, 335,341, 594Metalnikov, s. I., Michelet, K. L.16Mihailovsky, N. K., 66-68, 404, 405Mihalchev, Miliukov, P. N., 45, 174JohnStuart, 65, 82, 146, 147, 148,149, 150, 151, Miller, Orest, 118Minsky, N. l\f., 172, MiroIyubov, SS7Mitzkevitch (Mickiewicz), 119Mochulsky, G.,Mogila, Pyotr, 10Moleschott, Jakob, 63, :i59Molinos, Miguel de, I Montague, WilliamP., 296Montesquieu, 11Morgan, Lloyd, 3.65, Mozart, W. A., 150Muckermann, F., 94Miiller, Max, 46Muretov, M. D., !94Mussorgsky, M. P., 150, 169Nadezhdin, N. rs, 48, 51Natorp, Paul, !18Neander,!INekrassov, 84Nesmelov, 40!NettIau, 60Newman, Cardinal,Newton, Isaac, 57Nichola..I, 16, 17, 45, 48, 5!, 54, 56NicholasII, Nicholasof Cusa, 204, 268, 270, 274, 299Nietzsche, Friedrich, 325, 337Nikiforov, L. P., 87Nikon, S93Nil Sorsky, !9!Nilus theSinaite, 400Novalia, F., 121Novgorodtsev, P. I., 14, 29, 1!2, 172, 247,S-'S, 334Novikov, M. M., 551-3!2Novikov, N. I. 11Odoevsky, V., Prince, 16,50Ogaryov, N. P., 51Ognyov, A., 296, 40!Oken, L., 16Origen, 13, 129Osipov, N. E., 186, Ossipovsky, 163Osten-Saken,Ostromirov, 75Ostwald. W., 149Duo, Rudolf, 248Palmer, William, !5Parnphilius, 1sParacelsus, 326Parrnenides, 159Pascal, Blaise, 22, 27, 49Pasternak, 76Paul I, IIPavlov (Dosev), T., 370-571Pavlov, I. P., 64Pavlov,G.,15, 51Pavlov-Silvansky, 59Peter theGreat, 10, 40, 4!, 115, 337. 39SPeterson, N., 76Petrashevsky, M. B., 70Petrazhitsky, L., 554Petrunkevitch, I. I., 174Philaret (Metropolitan of Chernigov),

Philaret (Metropolitan of Kiev), Philaret (Metropolitan of Moscow), 393Philaret (hermit), 24PhilipII, 54Philo judaeus, 10Philopon. 292INDEX 115Picasso, r'ablo, 184PicadeMirandola, 51Pierling, Paul, 88. 152Pisarev, D. I.,59, 62-6!, 82. 170, !94Pius IX, 55, 116Plato, 20, 74, 87, 112, 119, 185, 185, 188.189, 204, 211, 27!, 292, 294. 518,407Platen, Metropolitan, 74Plehanov, G. V., M8, S60, 565, 566Plotinus. 189, 204. 205. 275, 294, 522,595, 596, 407Plotkin, L. A., 65Plutarch, 185Pobedonostsev, K. P., S9!Pogodin, M. P. 16, n,42. 45Pokrovsky, I . !54Popov, P., 296Pordage, 15Povarnin, S. 1., !lISPozner, !60, 561. S62,S6!J, 568, 574,

Proclus, 292, 295Protagoras, !91Proudhon, P.]., 56,60Pushkin, A. S., 50, 119, 169, 584Quenet, 48Rachky. M., Canon, 89Radishchev, A. N., 11-)2Radlov, E. L., 87, 90, 145, 163, 405Redkin, P. T., Rehmke, J., Renan, Ernest, !94Rickert, H., 253, !71Rimsky-Korsakov, N., 150, 169, 170Rodin, Auguste, IS.Rornanov, E. K., 82,89,94Rosenberg. O. 0., 284Rosmini, 326, !28Rousseau, J. J., 11Rozanov, V. V., 122, 124, 125, 172, 557,

Rubinstein, Anton, 151R uckert, Friedrich. 70Ruge, A., 59Russell, Bertrand, 68Ruysbruck, 15Ryazanov, D. 548, 55., S75Safarik, 51Saint-Martin. 10. 11saint..Simon, ClaudeHenri. 50, 54, 56, 60Samarin. D. Y., 46samaTin,Y. F., 39,42, .5,46,. 69, 85Savalsky,V., 518Savich, 64Scheler, M., 28, S85Schelling, Friedrich W.,15. 16, 28,si. 48, 51, 82, 127, 155, 161. 165. 189.277. g71, 407Schleiermacher, Friedrich Daniel, 19. 20Schiller, Friedrich, 42, 51, 56Schmidt, Wilhelm, 46Schopenhauer, Arthur. 82, 128. 151. 158,205, Schubert, Franz, 51Schuppe, Schwarz, I. G., IIScriabin, N., 169Sechenov, I., 59,68Seraphim, Archbishop, 227SeraphimofSarov, g85Sergi us of Radonezh, 101, 407Sergius, Metropolitan, 172, 2g2Setnitsky, N. A., 78Setschkareff, V.,Sezeman, V., 818, !24Shahovskoy, D., 49Shakespeare, W., 51,Shestov, L., 238, Shevyrev, N., 16, 45Shirinskv-Shihrnatov, PlatonA., 171Shpet (Spet), G. G.,58, Simeon the NewTheologian, 400Simplicius, 292Skobtsova, E., 41Skovoroda, Gregory, 10, gS4Smetana, B., 170Smolitsch, I., 29Soloviev, S. M. (historian), 42, 81Soloviev, S. M. (nephewof Vladimir S.Soloviev), 91 'Soloviev, Vladimir S., 14, 26, 29,41,71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 80-1 140,141, 148, 149. 151, 154, 155.157, 161, 164, 171, 175, 176. 178, 18!.187, 189, 192, 206, 21g, 2,247, 277. 298, 302, 821, !!J8,403, 404, 405,406Spektorsky, E. V., 14, 29, 247,Spencer, Herbert, 46, 65, 67, 146, 1.7,148, 149, 150, 151, 878Spengler, Oswald, 70, 117Speransky, M. M., 12-1SSpinoza, 22, 74, 82, 176, 2!O, !56St. Alban, 407St. Augustine, 154. 27.St. Basil, S97St. Bonaventura, 274INDEXSt. Cyril, "Apostleof theSlavs," 189, 190St. Cyril of Jerusalem, 3151. Methodius, 1St. Paul, 38, 157, 272, 386Stalin, J." 375Srankcvich, N. V., 24, 41, 42, 51-53, 54,59Starvnkevich, K., Stasslulevich. M. M., 87, 91, 118. Sl( hedrm, E., 124Steiner, Rudolf. Steklov, Y. ?\f.. 60, 62St cp un, F. A.,sts. 323-324Stet n, \Villiam. 254Stovunin, Marie, 342Strakhov,.. 70, 72, 121. 342St rcmooukhov, D., 86, 89, 93, 95, 131Strossmavcr, Bishop of Zagreb, 84, 88Struve, P. B.. I i2, 173, 192, 278Suk, J., 1iOSuvorov, S. A., 379Sweden borg, Emanuel, 184S\ nesi13Szylkai ski, V. S., 93, g8ST'aulcr, J.,13Tavernier. 87, 94Teir hmuller, G., 158. 'Tcrriavtsev, 337'Thomas Aquinas, 204, 396'Thomasa Kern pis, 10, 13'Tilhomirov, L., ]24-'Tiutchev, F.J..116, 117, 2721olstoy, Leo N., 75, 76, 169, 203, 249,325, 33], 336. 337. 339, 340, 388, 405"'oJliilOY, Nicholas, Rev., 85, 87Tornsrein, 376Torqucrnada, 141TowianC\ki, 116Troe-lisrh, Ernst, 390T'roir skv,fi9T'rubctskov, E. N .. 14, 29, 84, 85, 88, 90,91. 93, 94, 95, 129, 130, 150-157,172.247, 403,404.406Truberskoy, Peter, 86T'rubctskoy. S. N., 14, 29, 86, 1.50-1!)4.155. ) fi9. 172. 247. 326, g7L 404D. I., see ChizhevskyTserrelev, D., 92Tugan-Baranovsky, M. I., 174, 192Tukalevsky, V., IITurgenev, A. I., 50Turgenev, I. S., 62, 169Uexkiill, V. I., 92Uvarov, S. S., 45Valcnt inov. N., 379Vai nava. 85Vassilyev, A., 315Vasvilvev, N. A., 315-317Vcliaminov, 92Vellansky, D. 1\[', 13Vcncvit'inov, D., 16Vengerov, S. A., 44Vcrnadvkv, G. V'J11, 173, 330Vcrnadskv, V. I., 332Vi rubov, 'G. N., os. 378Vladhlavlev, M. I., 163\'ogLK., 63, 359Volraii e, 10, 22Vvedenskv, A. I., ]43, 146, 149, 163-166,168, 171, 3I.f') , 317Vvr-lgorskv, 18Vysheslavtsev, B. P., 14, 29, 247, Weininger. Otto, 338Werder, K., 52'V\'il1