No More Learning

? HANDBOUND AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS
? V
AND THE END OF HISTORY
WAR, PROGRESS,
? AND THE END OF HISTORY Including a Short Story ofthe Anti-Christ
WAR, PROGRESS,
I
THREE DISCUSSIONS BY
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
* Translated from the Russian by
ALEXANDER BAKSHY
With a Biographical Notice by DR. HAGBERG WRIGHT
.
'
,
KonT&. V
^nibetsitg of EonUon ^ress PUBLISHED FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON PRESS, LTD. BY HODDER & STOUGHTON, WARWICK SQUARE, LONDON, B. C.
:
1915
,
;;
? IX S13I3
? CONTENTS.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE vii TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE xiii AUTHOR'S PREFACE xix FIRST DISCUSSION i
SECOND DISCUSSION
51
THIRD DISCUSSION 121
A SHORT STORY OF THE ANTI-CHRIST .
178
PACK
? BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE.
BY the early death of Vladimir Soloviev in 1900 Russia lost her most original and essentially
Slavonicthinker. Adeepsyjrnpathywithmysticism,
united to the of power
fearlessly probing consciousness,] gave him eminence not only among
the philosophers of Russia, but of Europe.
Born in 1853, Soloviev entered upon life in an
atmosphere charged with the elements of change. The emancipation of the serfs opened an era of
political experiments, and the ordeal of the Crimean War braced and stimulated the national spirit. It
was a time of high aspirations struggling against an undercurrent of philosophic doubt, which exercised
an abiding influence upon the sensitive and inquir- ing mind of Soloviev.
Hewashappyinhisparentage; hisfather,Serge Soloviev, being a historian of high reputation, and his mother a woman of character and mental attain- ments. She belonged to a noble family of Little Russia, and numbered among her ancestors a great- uncle who had won consideration as a philosophic writer; from this source possibly Soloviev derived the bent of his intellect.
human
*'
- i
? viii SOLOVIEV
The period of his education in a school at Moscow was marked by a series of brilliant successes, and at its conclusion he was presented iwith the rare distinction of a gold medal. His university career was no less remarkable.
The faculty of Natural Sciences soon proving
less congenial than the study of history and phil- osophy, he devoted himself to the latter, and passed
his candidate's examination (practically equivalent
to our B. A. ) in 1873.
The tendency of Soloviev's mind now became
apparent. Attheageoftwentyheabandonedhis secular studies and entered upon a twelve months' course in the theological college of Moscow. After a year chiefly devoted to the consideration of re-
ligious questions, he went up to the University of St. Petersburg and took out his degree of M. A. , for which he wrote the thesis : The Crisis in
Western Philosophy. " Very shortly afterwards he was appointed assistant professor (Prival-docent) in the University of Moscow, a position which he did not hold for long, being of a character to which freedom of action was essential.
Two subsequent years were spent in foreign travel, when he visited England. Upon his return he was
appointed a member of the committee of popular education.
His activity as a lecturer dates from that appoint- ment, and for the next four or five years Soloviev
was engaged in lecturing on various philosophical
? BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE ix
and literary topics, such as "the Science of Re-
ligion" and "the Literary Movement of the Nine-
" teenth Century. " His most notable work, The
Criticism of Abstract Ideas," and his memorable address in condemnation of capital punishment both
belong to this period.
In 1882, however, Soloviev relinquished the
burden of a public career and gave up lecturing in order to devote himself wholly to literature and
science. His restless and moody disposition,
aggravated by habits of personal negligence and asceticism, made fixity of all kinds irksome, and he became a wanderer, residing sometimes in Moscow, sometimes in St. Petersburg, roaming from one
country estate to another seeking by change of scene and companionship to keep despondency at bay.
MonasticismappealedstronglytoSoloviev. The physical aspects of human existence aroused his contempt and aversion, and material comforts and pleasures were at all times matters of indifference to him. For months together he would lead the life of a recluse, cutting himself off entirely from the outside world. At such times he spent whole nights in writing and meditation, depriving himself ofsleepandnourishment. Unhappily,hisbodywas not slow to retaliate and assert its right to considera- tion. The greatest of Russian philosophers died
on the thirty-first of July, 1900, at the premature age of forty-seven.
? x SOLOVIEV
The full scope of Soloviev's philosophy cannot be traced within the limits of a prefatory note, but his life-work may be summed up in his own words as "a free inquiry into the foundations of human
knowledge, life, and activity. " At the same time, a close study of his writings reveals him as an
* T idealist, a theologian, and a mystic. j His ideal was the Christian one of love and self-denial, of uni-
versal brotherhood as against Slavophilism. Of patriotism in the narrow sense he became the violent
opponent, attacking the Slavophil writer, Danilev-
sky, with impassioned 'eloquence, though, on the
other hand, he felt unable to accept the doctrine of /. ---"
;i
<^
v [Tolstoy,whichpreachesthenon-resistanceofevilj
f- Toj-efutethatdoctrine,andemphasisetheimminence of the struggle which he foresaw between East and
"
West, Soloviev wrote the
which were published in 1899 and 190x3. This work is now for the first time brought to the attention of
the English reading public. It forms an excellent ^'example of the author's irony and humour, of his
dialectic and power of self-expression.
Soloviev was the author of many volumes dealing
with the Christian religion, the best known being "The Religious Foundations of Life" (1884). " The History and Future of Theocracy," and " The
f ^Dogmatic Development of the Church" (1886), in which he discusses the differences dividing the Greek
Sand Roman Catholic Churches and the necessity
their union.
jfor
Three Discussions,"
? BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE xi
"
His philosophical works include a Materialism" (1894), a "History of Ethics"
(1896-8), and "The Justification of Good" (1897), which is one of his finest achievements.
Soloviev was also the author of poems, which breathe the true Slav spirit and are remarkable for their self-revelations. In them, more than in any other of his writings, we gain an insight into the character and feelings of a man whose life, in the
" wordsofPrinceTrubetzkoy,was fullofyearning
to justify his faith, to justify the good in which he believed; thelifeofawrestlereverseekingtoover- come the dark forces of evil heaving in his breast. " The cause of religion was dearer to him than the arid domain of pure logic. He avows his task to be "to justify the faith of our fathers, carrying it upward to a new plane of intellectual consciousness,
and making manifest (the oneness of that ancient 4f fj. -^-* ^"1
faith with eternal and universal truthjwhen it has been set free from the chains of dogma and temporal
P"**- '"** Soloviev was a true patriot. He loved his fellow- countrymen and he welcomed any personal sacrifice for the general good. He realised that education
wasthepeasants'firstandgreatestneed. Though a nationalist, he had a broad and tolerant mind,
and championed the cause of religious freedom in a striking series of articles (1893 and 1894). His crowning merit lies in this, that, at a time when
indifference to religion and spiritual thought per-
pride. '^"
History of
? xii SOLOVIEV
vaded the ranks of education and culture, he re-
"
opened the windows to eternal things. "
The name of Soloviev may not be a household word in so wide a sense as the name of Tolstoy, but he holds a higher place as a thinker among the intellectual classes of Russia.
C. HAGBERG WRIGHT.
? TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE
WE are living in a time when half the world is plunged in the bellicose element and the normal life of mankind has imbibed war as its natural com- ponent, which like a fluid has filled it to its farthest
boundaries, penetrating everywhere, bringing its
hydraulic pressure on every member of the human
community, crushing and sweeping away the weak
and unstable, and strengthening and consolidating those endowed with a more robust constitution
when, in a word, war has become a matter of every-
day life and, in common with everyday occurrences, has restricted our attention to the events of to-day
and the possible developments of to-morrow. At such a time a peculiar significance attaches to the
voice of a philosopher who, by the power of his mighty spirit, is able to probe into the destinies of mankind farther than has been granted to others, and to whom a new and startling aspect of the purpose and meaning of human life has been revealed.
In a characteristically Russian manner, Vladimir Soloviev refuses to confine himself to the immediate
bearings and aspects of the war-problem, but fear- lessly subjects it to examination sub specie
? xiv SOLOVIEV
aeternitatis. For him war is only a part of the
more general question of fighting evil, and it is his original conception of evil which is the guiding
principle in his analysis. It is impossible to go into the metaphysical theories of Soloviev here. A
few explanations are, however, necessary, lest the reader, puzzled by the quaint and seemingly un-
substantiated prophecies of future developments, should regard them as the product of an irre-
sponsible mind given to fancies and hallucinations.
'"
The Three Discussions is not a creation of an
inexperienced young man, whose youth could, per-
"
haps, be held responsible for its
fantastic char-
acter. " On the contrary, it is the crowning achieve-
ment, of the philosopher's life, embodying his last
and final conclusions on the evolution and future of mankind.
Through all the works of Soloviev there runs one
cardinal thought : the idea of the evolution of the
world which has made humanity a factor in the life
of Deity itself, has imbued it with God's spirit in
"
the form of
for a final union with God "the all-unity" by
overcoming that power which, though emanating from God, has severed itself from Him, has created
the material world, and has been the cause of existing evil. The realisation of this process in the
life of humanity, the ever-growing unity with God, was pictured by Soloviev differently at different
periods of his life. There was a period when he
God-human-ness" and has destined it
? TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE xv
believed that such a unity would be possible in this
world, and that it would be accomplished by a transformation of the present-day states into a world
theocracy.
In this transformation a mission of
special importance was assigned to Russia, who was believed to nourish within herself the idea of uni-
versal salvation. Soloviev was not alone in these
hopes of God's Kingdom on Earth, and of the mission of Russia in their realisation. He shared
them and, moreover, practically worked them out in close co-operation with his friend, Dostoievsky, who, for his own part, gave expression to them in
"The Brothers Karamazov. " But towards the close of his life, Soloviev began
to see things differently. No longer could he believe in the realisation of God's Kingdom in this
world. Only by a complete victory over the world that is sunk in evil, only by a general resurrection
of all living beings could the unity with the "All- One"beachieved. Andthisendwillbeattained, not through the union of the State and the Church, led and headed by the spiritual power of Russia, as he previously believed, but by means of the union of true Christians of all persuasions, righting against those who regard this world as the only
Kingdom of God.
This idea forms the basis of his
his famous
novel,
Story of the Anti-Christ," and it will be observed that in his
picture of the reign of the Anti-Christ he actually turns the weapons against himself and his former
"
? xvi SOLOVIEV
aspirations of God's Kingdom on Earth. But fear-
less as this renunciation is, it is not presented
"
altogether fairly in the Three Discussions. " Here
'Leo Tolstoy has been made the scapegoat of the
philosopher's indignation. Apart from the truth of
Soloviev's conception of evil and the Anti-Christ,
which, of course, can be disputed on more grounds
than one, the fact that Tolstoy, with his preaching
<j)f non-resistance and moral perfection, is singled
dmt as a forerunner of the Anti-Christ, shows all
the signs of a bias, sincere and involuntary, no doubt,
but nevertheless hardly justified in fact; particularly so in the light of Soloviev's own- opinion that iHe
element of Anti-Christ has been present in all the
- historical forms of Christianity, and, we may add,
--f was not entirely absent from even his own system. *. . j- j
This inconsistency, however, detracts very little from the value and significance of Soloviev's
In whatever form a man's own intuition may assimilate the external world, [whatever meta-
MA, physical conceptions may be built up on the basis of such intuitionTJone cannot help recognising that in Soloviev's philosophy an original and singularly profound aspect of the world finds an extremely lucid,consistent,andexhaustivepresentation. The essential feature of Soloviev, as of all the Russian thinkers and, one would like to say, of all the spiritual life of Russia, is the earnestness, the burning spirit with which truth is sought and the aims of life are conceived and pursued. It is for
teaching.
? TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE xvii
this reason that a mere rational comprehension can
never suffice for a full and true appreciation of a
Russian thinker. To experience his truth one has
to descend below the mechanism of his ideas to
the abysses ofrTiis spirit^where the eternal thirst for knowledge moulds itself into his individual
perception of the world. Unfortunately, not every-
body is capable of doing so, and just at present
there is to be perceived a dangerous tendency to
"
superficialise," if one may say so, the hitherto
much ignored spiritual life of Russia, in the attempt to present it to the eyes of the British public : since
the essential condition of appreciation is a personal
experience, and the agony and vicissitudes of
spiritual development seem to be little familiar to
the greater number of would-be interpreters of the
Russian soul. Yet it is this depth and earnestness
that distinguish Russia as a nation. If any mission
be at all assigned to her in the future destinies of
Western Europe, it is not to deliver any particular
message, but rather to stimulate and set aflame the
slumbering spirit of the cultured world. "Ex
oriente lux" the Slavophiles used to say "Ex
"
would, perhaps, be more in conformity ALEXANDER BAKSHY.
oriente ignis
with the ardent spirit of Russia.
"
Whilst translating the Three Discussions," I
have been fortunate enough to secure the assistance b
? xviii SOLOVIEV
of a number of English friends, to whom I wish to record my great indebtedness. In particular, my thanks are due to Mr. Robert Finch, who has care- fully edited my manuscript; and to Mr. G. H. Green, who has helped me in the work of reading the proofs, and has also rendered Count Alexis Tol-
stoy's verses into English metre, preserving, as far as possible, the grotesque character of the Russian
original.
A. B.
? AUTHOR'S PREFACE.
Is evil only a natural defect, an imperfection dis- appearing of itself with the growth of good, or is it a real power, possessing our world by means of
temptations, so that for fighting it successfully assistance must be found in another sphere of being ?
This vital question can be fully examined and
solved only in a complete system of metaphysics.
I began carrying out this task for those who are
1
capable of contemplation, but I soon feltfhow im-
portant the problem of evil is for everybody Some two years ago a change in the tenor of my
spiritual life, which there is no need to dwell upon just now, created in me a strong and firm desire to illumine in some clear and easy way the main aspects of the problem of evil, which must concern everybody. For a long time I was unable to find a suitablemediumforcarryingoutmyplan. Inthe
spring of 1899, however, during my stay abroad, I
spontaneously composed and wrote in a few days the first discussion on this subject, and on returning
to Russia wrote the two others. In this way I dis- covered the literary form which this work assumes,
1 The introduction to this work was published by me in the first three chapters of my "Theoretical Philosophy. "
? -
xx SOLOVIEV
and which provided me with the simplest medium for the expression of the thoughts I was desirous of
communicating. This form of drawing-room dis- cussion is a sufficient proof in itself that neither a
scientifico-philosophical examination nor an ortho-
dox sermon should be looked for in this work.
object in it was rather apologetic and polemic : I
endeavoured, as far as I could, to set out clearly and
prominently (the vital aspects of Christian truth, in
/so far as it is connected with the question of evil,
and to the with which seems disperse fog everybody
L-Jt, to have been trying lately to enwrap it/3
Many years ago I happened to read about a new religion that was founded in the eastern provinces
of Russia. The religion, the followers of which called themselves "Hole-drillers," or "Hole-
worshippers," was very simple; a middle-sized hole was drilled in a wall in some dark corner of a house,
and the men put their mouths to it and repeated
"Jji
" do save me " My house, my hole, !
earnestly :
Never before, I believe, has the object of worship been reduced to such a degree of simplicity. It
must be admitted, however, that though the worship
of an ordinary peasant's house, and of a simple hole made by human hands in its wall, was a palpable error, it was a truthful error; those men were abso-
lutely mad, but they did not deceive anybody; the house they worshipped they called a house, and the hole drilled in the wall they reasonably termed
merely a hole.
My
? . ,^4
AUTHOR'S PREFACE xxi
But the religion of the hole-worshippers soon underwent a process of "evolution," and was sub-
jected to "transformation. " It still retained in its new form its former weakness of religious thought and its narrow character of philosophic interests, its former terre-a-terre realism, but it completely lost itspasttruthfulness. The"house"nowwastermed " the Kingdom of God on Earth," and the " hole "
"
received the name of
distinction between the sham gospel and the true one (and this is the most distressing fact about it), a distinction which is exactly similar to that exist- ing between a hole drilled in a beam, and complete living tree this essential distinction was either
neglected or confused by the new evangelists.
Of course, I do not assert a direct historical or
""
genetic connection between the original sect of
hole-worshippers and the teaching of the sham KingdomofGodandtheshamGospel. Neitheris
it important for my object, which is only to show ""
clearlytheessentialidentityofthetwo teachings with that moral distinction which has been stated
above. [The identity here lies in the purely negative $ " x^
and void character of both doctrmes. 'jj It is true,
""
the educated hole-worshippers do nojt call them-
the new Gospel," whilst the
* \ selves by this name, but go under the name of kH\
\ (Christians, and their teaching is also passed as the Gospel,! -but Christianity without ChristJ and the Gospel, i. e. , the ''message of good," without the only good worth announcing, viz. , without the real
~3*~
*
? $' r
,/
resurrection to the fulness of blessed life these are as much a hollow space as is the ordinary hole drilledinapeasant'shouse. Therewouldnotbe any need to speak about this at all were it not for the
fact that over the rationalist hole the Christian flag "
isflown,temptingandconfusingmanyofthe little ones. " Whenthepeoplewhobelieveandcautiously declare that Christ has become obsolete and has been superseded, or that He never existed at all, and that His life is a myth invented by Paul, at the same time persistently call themselves "true Christians"
/"and screen their teaching of hollow space by distorted
quotations from the Gospeljit is well-nigh time to put aside our indifference to, and our condescending
contempt for, their opinions. l-The moral atmosphere*- is contaminated with systematic falsehoods, \so the
public conscience loudly demands that the evil work should be branded by its real name. The true object of polemics would in this case be not the
1 confuting of sham religion but the showing up of the \ actual fraud.
This fraud has no excuse. Between me, as the author of three books, banned by the ecclesi- astic censorship on the one side, and these pub- lishers of numerous foreign books, pamphlets, and
leaflets on the other side, the question of external obstacles for an unreserved frankness in these matters does not seriously arise. The restraints of
religious freedom, existing in our country, cause the greatest pain to my heart, for I see and feel to what
xxii SOLOVIEV
? AUTHOR'S PREFACE xxiii
a great extent these external restrictions bring harm to and impose burdens not only on those whom they
directly hit, but mainly on the cause of Christianity in Russia, consequently on the Russian nation, con- sequently, again, on the Russian State.
No external situation can prevent a man who is
honestly convinced in his opinions, stating them fully. If it is impossible to do so at home, one can do it abroad, and no one has availed himself of this opportunity to a greater extent than the teachers of the sham Gospel have done when the matters con-
cerned have been the -practical questions of politics and religion. Whilst as regards the main, the essential question there is no need even to go abroad in order to refrain from insincerity and artifice : the Russian censorship never demands that anybody should pronounce opinions that he does not hold, to simulate a faith in things he does not believe in, or to love and revere what he despises and hates. To maintain an honest attitude towards the known his- torical Person and His Work, the preachers of
hollowness had only one thing to do in Russia : ""
they should merely have ignored Him. But here is the strange fact : in this matter these men
refuse to avail themselves either of the freedom of silence which they enjoy at home or of the freedom ofspeechwhichtheyenjoyabroad. Bothhereand there they prefer to show their allegiance to the Gospel of Christ; both here and there they decline to reveal honestly their real attitude to the Founder
? xxiv SOLOVIEV
of Christianity either by a resolute word or by an eloquent silence, i. e. , to show that He is entirely alien to them, is for no object required and is only a
hindrance in their way.
From their point of view the things they preach
are of themselves clear, desirable and salutary for ""
everybody. Their truth is self-supporting, and if a certain historical person happens to agree with
it, so much is it the better for him, though this fact does not endow him with any special authority in their eyes, particularly when it is remembered that this person had said and done many things which for
these people are nothing but a "temptation" and
" madness. "
Even supposing that these moralists in their very
human weakness feel an irresistible desire to sus- ""
tain their beliefs as well as their own reason
by some historical authority, why, I ask, do they not look in history for another who shall be a more suit- able representative ? There has for a long time been one waiting for such recognition the founder of
the widely-popular religion of Buddhism. He did really preach what they required : non-resistance, impossibility, inactivity, sobriety, etc. , and succeeded
"
even without a martyrdom to
make a brilliant
career" for his religion. The sacred books of the
Buddhists do really proclaim hollowness, and to
make them fully agree with the new teaching of the same matter they would require only a little sim-
plificationindetail. Onthecontrary,theScriptures
? AUTHOR'S PREFACE xxv
of the Jews and Christians are filled and permeated
throughout by a positive spiritual message which denies both ancient and modern emptiness, so that
to be able to fasten the teaching of this latter to any of the statements taken from the Gospel or the Pro-
phets it is necessary, by hook or by crook, to tear
away such a statement from its natural connection
withthewholeofthebookandthecontext. Whereas, ""
ontheotherhand,theBuddhist suttee
whole masses of suitable parables and legends, and there is nothing in those books inimical in spirit to
the new teaching.
By substituting the hermit of the Sacciah tribe for
"
the rabbifromGalilee,"theshamChristianswould
have lost nothing of importance, but would win something very valuable indeed, at least in my eyes
they would win the possibility of being, even
while erring, honestly thinking and to an extent consistent. Buttheydonotwantthis. . . .
^ The hollowness of the teaching of the new religion and its logical contradictions are too apparent, and in this matter I have been satisfied to give (in the
Third Discussion) only a brief, though complete,
statement of their pronouncements, obviously con-
tradictory in themselves and hardly capable of
tempting anybody outside the hopeless class of people typified by my Prince. Should I succeed in
opening anybody's eyes to the other side of the
question and making any deceived but living soul feel all the moral falsity of this death-spreading
supplies
? xxvi SOLOVTEV
teaching taken in all its entirety, the polemical object of this book would be fully achieved.
I am firmly convinced, however, that the exposure of an untruth made without reservation, should it
even fail to produce any beneficent effect, still remains, apart from the fulfilment of duty it in- volves for its author, a measure of spiritual sanita- tion in the life of society, [and brings useful results both in the present and in the futurej t^pttbl c
Bound up with the polemical object of these
dialogues I also pursue a positive aim : to present the question of the struggle against evil and of the
meaning of history from three different standpoints. One of these is based on a religious conception of
the everyday life, which is characteristic of past
times, and is given much prominence in the First Discussion in the speeches of the General. The
other, representing the ideas of culture and progress as prevailing in our time, is expressed and defended
by the Politician, particularly in the Second Discus- sion. Lastly, the third standpoint, which is abso- lutely religious and which will yet show its decisive value in the future, is indicated in the Third Dis- cussion in the speeches of Mr. Z. and in the story
by Father Pansophius. Personally, I unreservedly
accept the last point of view. But I fully recognise the relative truth contained in the two others, and
for this reason could with equal fairness express the opposing arguments and statements of the Politician and the General. The higher absolute
? AUTHOR'S PREFACE xxvii
truth does not exclude or deny the preliminary con-
ditions of its realisation, but justifies, appreciates,
andsanctifiesthem. Iffromacertainpointofview
the world's history is God's judgment of the world
die Weltgeschichte ist das Weltgericht-^tiiis in-
volves a long and complicated contest or litigation between the good and the evil historical forces, and
this contest, to come to a final solution, must needs involve both a determined struggle for existence between those forces, and their greater inner, there-
fore peaceful, development in the common forms
truth, and I could with complete sincerity place myself in the position of the one or the other. It
is [only the power oL evil itself that is absolutely wrong,] but not such means of fighting it as the sword of the soldier or the pen of the diplomat. These\weapons must be appraised at their actual usefulness in the given circumstances^ and that must be considered the better of the two whose use is more effective in upholding the cause of good.
The tendency of Soloviev's mind now became
apparent. Attheageoftwentyheabandonedhis secular studies and entered upon a twelve months' course in the theological college of Moscow. After a year chiefly devoted to the consideration of re-
ligious questions, he went up to the University of St. Petersburg and took out his degree of M. A. , for which he wrote the thesis : The Crisis in
Western Philosophy. " Very shortly afterwards he was appointed assistant professor (Prival-docent) in the University of Moscow, a position which he did not hold for long, being of a character to which freedom of action was essential.
Two subsequent years were spent in foreign travel, when he visited England. Upon his return he was
appointed a member of the committee of popular education.
His activity as a lecturer dates from that appoint- ment, and for the next four or five years Soloviev
was engaged in lecturing on various philosophical
? BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE ix
and literary topics, such as "the Science of Re-
ligion" and "the Literary Movement of the Nine-
" teenth Century. " His most notable work, The
Criticism of Abstract Ideas," and his memorable address in condemnation of capital punishment both
belong to this period.
In 1882, however, Soloviev relinquished the
burden of a public career and gave up lecturing in order to devote himself wholly to literature and
science. His restless and moody disposition,
aggravated by habits of personal negligence and asceticism, made fixity of all kinds irksome, and he became a wanderer, residing sometimes in Moscow, sometimes in St. Petersburg, roaming from one
country estate to another seeking by change of scene and companionship to keep despondency at bay.
MonasticismappealedstronglytoSoloviev. The physical aspects of human existence aroused his contempt and aversion, and material comforts and pleasures were at all times matters of indifference to him. For months together he would lead the life of a recluse, cutting himself off entirely from the outside world. At such times he spent whole nights in writing and meditation, depriving himself ofsleepandnourishment. Unhappily,hisbodywas not slow to retaliate and assert its right to considera- tion. The greatest of Russian philosophers died
on the thirty-first of July, 1900, at the premature age of forty-seven.
? x SOLOVIEV
The full scope of Soloviev's philosophy cannot be traced within the limits of a prefatory note, but his life-work may be summed up in his own words as "a free inquiry into the foundations of human
knowledge, life, and activity. " At the same time, a close study of his writings reveals him as an
* T idealist, a theologian, and a mystic. j His ideal was the Christian one of love and self-denial, of uni-
versal brotherhood as against Slavophilism. Of patriotism in the narrow sense he became the violent
opponent, attacking the Slavophil writer, Danilev-
sky, with impassioned 'eloquence, though, on the
other hand, he felt unable to accept the doctrine of /. ---"
;i
<^
v [Tolstoy,whichpreachesthenon-resistanceofevilj
f- Toj-efutethatdoctrine,andemphasisetheimminence of the struggle which he foresaw between East and
"
West, Soloviev wrote the
which were published in 1899 and 190x3. This work is now for the first time brought to the attention of
the English reading public. It forms an excellent ^'example of the author's irony and humour, of his
dialectic and power of self-expression.
Soloviev was the author of many volumes dealing
with the Christian religion, the best known being "The Religious Foundations of Life" (1884). " The History and Future of Theocracy," and " The
f ^Dogmatic Development of the Church" (1886), in which he discusses the differences dividing the Greek
Sand Roman Catholic Churches and the necessity
their union.
jfor
Three Discussions,"
? BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE xi
"
His philosophical works include a Materialism" (1894), a "History of Ethics"
(1896-8), and "The Justification of Good" (1897), which is one of his finest achievements.
Soloviev was also the author of poems, which breathe the true Slav spirit and are remarkable for their self-revelations. In them, more than in any other of his writings, we gain an insight into the character and feelings of a man whose life, in the
" wordsofPrinceTrubetzkoy,was fullofyearning
to justify his faith, to justify the good in which he believed; thelifeofawrestlereverseekingtoover- come the dark forces of evil heaving in his breast. " The cause of religion was dearer to him than the arid domain of pure logic. He avows his task to be "to justify the faith of our fathers, carrying it upward to a new plane of intellectual consciousness,
and making manifest (the oneness of that ancient 4f fj. -^-* ^"1
faith with eternal and universal truthjwhen it has been set free from the chains of dogma and temporal
P"**- '"** Soloviev was a true patriot. He loved his fellow- countrymen and he welcomed any personal sacrifice for the general good. He realised that education
wasthepeasants'firstandgreatestneed. Though a nationalist, he had a broad and tolerant mind,
and championed the cause of religious freedom in a striking series of articles (1893 and 1894). His crowning merit lies in this, that, at a time when
indifference to religion and spiritual thought per-
pride. '^"
History of
? xii SOLOVIEV
vaded the ranks of education and culture, he re-
"
opened the windows to eternal things. "
The name of Soloviev may not be a household word in so wide a sense as the name of Tolstoy, but he holds a higher place as a thinker among the intellectual classes of Russia.
C. HAGBERG WRIGHT.
? TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE
WE are living in a time when half the world is plunged in the bellicose element and the normal life of mankind has imbibed war as its natural com- ponent, which like a fluid has filled it to its farthest
boundaries, penetrating everywhere, bringing its
hydraulic pressure on every member of the human
community, crushing and sweeping away the weak
and unstable, and strengthening and consolidating those endowed with a more robust constitution
when, in a word, war has become a matter of every-
day life and, in common with everyday occurrences, has restricted our attention to the events of to-day
and the possible developments of to-morrow. At such a time a peculiar significance attaches to the
voice of a philosopher who, by the power of his mighty spirit, is able to probe into the destinies of mankind farther than has been granted to others, and to whom a new and startling aspect of the purpose and meaning of human life has been revealed.
In a characteristically Russian manner, Vladimir Soloviev refuses to confine himself to the immediate
bearings and aspects of the war-problem, but fear- lessly subjects it to examination sub specie
? xiv SOLOVIEV
aeternitatis. For him war is only a part of the
more general question of fighting evil, and it is his original conception of evil which is the guiding
principle in his analysis. It is impossible to go into the metaphysical theories of Soloviev here. A
few explanations are, however, necessary, lest the reader, puzzled by the quaint and seemingly un-
substantiated prophecies of future developments, should regard them as the product of an irre-
sponsible mind given to fancies and hallucinations.
'"
The Three Discussions is not a creation of an
inexperienced young man, whose youth could, per-
"
haps, be held responsible for its
fantastic char-
acter. " On the contrary, it is the crowning achieve-
ment, of the philosopher's life, embodying his last
and final conclusions on the evolution and future of mankind.
Through all the works of Soloviev there runs one
cardinal thought : the idea of the evolution of the
world which has made humanity a factor in the life
of Deity itself, has imbued it with God's spirit in
"
the form of
for a final union with God "the all-unity" by
overcoming that power which, though emanating from God, has severed itself from Him, has created
the material world, and has been the cause of existing evil. The realisation of this process in the
life of humanity, the ever-growing unity with God, was pictured by Soloviev differently at different
periods of his life. There was a period when he
God-human-ness" and has destined it
? TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE xv
believed that such a unity would be possible in this
world, and that it would be accomplished by a transformation of the present-day states into a world
theocracy.
In this transformation a mission of
special importance was assigned to Russia, who was believed to nourish within herself the idea of uni-
versal salvation. Soloviev was not alone in these
hopes of God's Kingdom on Earth, and of the mission of Russia in their realisation. He shared
them and, moreover, practically worked them out in close co-operation with his friend, Dostoievsky, who, for his own part, gave expression to them in
"The Brothers Karamazov. " But towards the close of his life, Soloviev began
to see things differently. No longer could he believe in the realisation of God's Kingdom in this
world. Only by a complete victory over the world that is sunk in evil, only by a general resurrection
of all living beings could the unity with the "All- One"beachieved. Andthisendwillbeattained, not through the union of the State and the Church, led and headed by the spiritual power of Russia, as he previously believed, but by means of the union of true Christians of all persuasions, righting against those who regard this world as the only
Kingdom of God.
This idea forms the basis of his
his famous
novel,
Story of the Anti-Christ," and it will be observed that in his
picture of the reign of the Anti-Christ he actually turns the weapons against himself and his former
"
? xvi SOLOVIEV
aspirations of God's Kingdom on Earth. But fear-
less as this renunciation is, it is not presented
"
altogether fairly in the Three Discussions. " Here
'Leo Tolstoy has been made the scapegoat of the
philosopher's indignation. Apart from the truth of
Soloviev's conception of evil and the Anti-Christ,
which, of course, can be disputed on more grounds
than one, the fact that Tolstoy, with his preaching
<j)f non-resistance and moral perfection, is singled
dmt as a forerunner of the Anti-Christ, shows all
the signs of a bias, sincere and involuntary, no doubt,
but nevertheless hardly justified in fact; particularly so in the light of Soloviev's own- opinion that iHe
element of Anti-Christ has been present in all the
- historical forms of Christianity, and, we may add,
--f was not entirely absent from even his own system. *. . j- j
This inconsistency, however, detracts very little from the value and significance of Soloviev's
In whatever form a man's own intuition may assimilate the external world, [whatever meta-
MA, physical conceptions may be built up on the basis of such intuitionTJone cannot help recognising that in Soloviev's philosophy an original and singularly profound aspect of the world finds an extremely lucid,consistent,andexhaustivepresentation. The essential feature of Soloviev, as of all the Russian thinkers and, one would like to say, of all the spiritual life of Russia, is the earnestness, the burning spirit with which truth is sought and the aims of life are conceived and pursued. It is for
teaching.
? TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE xvii
this reason that a mere rational comprehension can
never suffice for a full and true appreciation of a
Russian thinker. To experience his truth one has
to descend below the mechanism of his ideas to
the abysses ofrTiis spirit^where the eternal thirst for knowledge moulds itself into his individual
perception of the world. Unfortunately, not every-
body is capable of doing so, and just at present
there is to be perceived a dangerous tendency to
"
superficialise," if one may say so, the hitherto
much ignored spiritual life of Russia, in the attempt to present it to the eyes of the British public : since
the essential condition of appreciation is a personal
experience, and the agony and vicissitudes of
spiritual development seem to be little familiar to
the greater number of would-be interpreters of the
Russian soul. Yet it is this depth and earnestness
that distinguish Russia as a nation. If any mission
be at all assigned to her in the future destinies of
Western Europe, it is not to deliver any particular
message, but rather to stimulate and set aflame the
slumbering spirit of the cultured world. "Ex
oriente lux" the Slavophiles used to say "Ex
"
would, perhaps, be more in conformity ALEXANDER BAKSHY.
oriente ignis
with the ardent spirit of Russia.
"
Whilst translating the Three Discussions," I
have been fortunate enough to secure the assistance b
? xviii SOLOVIEV
of a number of English friends, to whom I wish to record my great indebtedness. In particular, my thanks are due to Mr. Robert Finch, who has care- fully edited my manuscript; and to Mr. G. H. Green, who has helped me in the work of reading the proofs, and has also rendered Count Alexis Tol-
stoy's verses into English metre, preserving, as far as possible, the grotesque character of the Russian
original.
A. B.
? AUTHOR'S PREFACE.
Is evil only a natural defect, an imperfection dis- appearing of itself with the growth of good, or is it a real power, possessing our world by means of
temptations, so that for fighting it successfully assistance must be found in another sphere of being ?
This vital question can be fully examined and
solved only in a complete system of metaphysics.
I began carrying out this task for those who are
1
capable of contemplation, but I soon feltfhow im-
portant the problem of evil is for everybody Some two years ago a change in the tenor of my
spiritual life, which there is no need to dwell upon just now, created in me a strong and firm desire to illumine in some clear and easy way the main aspects of the problem of evil, which must concern everybody. For a long time I was unable to find a suitablemediumforcarryingoutmyplan. Inthe
spring of 1899, however, during my stay abroad, I
spontaneously composed and wrote in a few days the first discussion on this subject, and on returning
to Russia wrote the two others. In this way I dis- covered the literary form which this work assumes,
1 The introduction to this work was published by me in the first three chapters of my "Theoretical Philosophy. "
? -
xx SOLOVIEV
and which provided me with the simplest medium for the expression of the thoughts I was desirous of
communicating. This form of drawing-room dis- cussion is a sufficient proof in itself that neither a
scientifico-philosophical examination nor an ortho-
dox sermon should be looked for in this work.
object in it was rather apologetic and polemic : I
endeavoured, as far as I could, to set out clearly and
prominently (the vital aspects of Christian truth, in
/so far as it is connected with the question of evil,
and to the with which seems disperse fog everybody
L-Jt, to have been trying lately to enwrap it/3
Many years ago I happened to read about a new religion that was founded in the eastern provinces
of Russia. The religion, the followers of which called themselves "Hole-drillers," or "Hole-
worshippers," was very simple; a middle-sized hole was drilled in a wall in some dark corner of a house,
and the men put their mouths to it and repeated
"Jji
" do save me " My house, my hole, !
earnestly :
Never before, I believe, has the object of worship been reduced to such a degree of simplicity. It
must be admitted, however, that though the worship
of an ordinary peasant's house, and of a simple hole made by human hands in its wall, was a palpable error, it was a truthful error; those men were abso-
lutely mad, but they did not deceive anybody; the house they worshipped they called a house, and the hole drilled in the wall they reasonably termed
merely a hole.
My
? . ,^4
AUTHOR'S PREFACE xxi
But the religion of the hole-worshippers soon underwent a process of "evolution," and was sub-
jected to "transformation. " It still retained in its new form its former weakness of religious thought and its narrow character of philosophic interests, its former terre-a-terre realism, but it completely lost itspasttruthfulness. The"house"nowwastermed " the Kingdom of God on Earth," and the " hole "
"
received the name of
distinction between the sham gospel and the true one (and this is the most distressing fact about it), a distinction which is exactly similar to that exist- ing between a hole drilled in a beam, and complete living tree this essential distinction was either
neglected or confused by the new evangelists.
Of course, I do not assert a direct historical or
""
genetic connection between the original sect of
hole-worshippers and the teaching of the sham KingdomofGodandtheshamGospel. Neitheris
it important for my object, which is only to show ""
clearlytheessentialidentityofthetwo teachings with that moral distinction which has been stated
above. [The identity here lies in the purely negative $ " x^
and void character of both doctrmes. 'jj It is true,
""
the educated hole-worshippers do nojt call them-
the new Gospel," whilst the
* \ selves by this name, but go under the name of kH\
\ (Christians, and their teaching is also passed as the Gospel,! -but Christianity without ChristJ and the Gospel, i. e. , the ''message of good," without the only good worth announcing, viz. , without the real
~3*~
*
? $' r
,/
resurrection to the fulness of blessed life these are as much a hollow space as is the ordinary hole drilledinapeasant'shouse. Therewouldnotbe any need to speak about this at all were it not for the
fact that over the rationalist hole the Christian flag "
isflown,temptingandconfusingmanyofthe little ones. " Whenthepeoplewhobelieveandcautiously declare that Christ has become obsolete and has been superseded, or that He never existed at all, and that His life is a myth invented by Paul, at the same time persistently call themselves "true Christians"
/"and screen their teaching of hollow space by distorted
quotations from the Gospeljit is well-nigh time to put aside our indifference to, and our condescending
contempt for, their opinions. l-The moral atmosphere*- is contaminated with systematic falsehoods, \so the
public conscience loudly demands that the evil work should be branded by its real name. The true object of polemics would in this case be not the
1 confuting of sham religion but the showing up of the \ actual fraud.
This fraud has no excuse. Between me, as the author of three books, banned by the ecclesi- astic censorship on the one side, and these pub- lishers of numerous foreign books, pamphlets, and
leaflets on the other side, the question of external obstacles for an unreserved frankness in these matters does not seriously arise. The restraints of
religious freedom, existing in our country, cause the greatest pain to my heart, for I see and feel to what
xxii SOLOVIEV
? AUTHOR'S PREFACE xxiii
a great extent these external restrictions bring harm to and impose burdens not only on those whom they
directly hit, but mainly on the cause of Christianity in Russia, consequently on the Russian nation, con- sequently, again, on the Russian State.
No external situation can prevent a man who is
honestly convinced in his opinions, stating them fully. If it is impossible to do so at home, one can do it abroad, and no one has availed himself of this opportunity to a greater extent than the teachers of the sham Gospel have done when the matters con-
cerned have been the -practical questions of politics and religion. Whilst as regards the main, the essential question there is no need even to go abroad in order to refrain from insincerity and artifice : the Russian censorship never demands that anybody should pronounce opinions that he does not hold, to simulate a faith in things he does not believe in, or to love and revere what he despises and hates. To maintain an honest attitude towards the known his- torical Person and His Work, the preachers of
hollowness had only one thing to do in Russia : ""
they should merely have ignored Him. But here is the strange fact : in this matter these men
refuse to avail themselves either of the freedom of silence which they enjoy at home or of the freedom ofspeechwhichtheyenjoyabroad. Bothhereand there they prefer to show their allegiance to the Gospel of Christ; both here and there they decline to reveal honestly their real attitude to the Founder
? xxiv SOLOVIEV
of Christianity either by a resolute word or by an eloquent silence, i. e. , to show that He is entirely alien to them, is for no object required and is only a
hindrance in their way.
From their point of view the things they preach
are of themselves clear, desirable and salutary for ""
everybody. Their truth is self-supporting, and if a certain historical person happens to agree with
it, so much is it the better for him, though this fact does not endow him with any special authority in their eyes, particularly when it is remembered that this person had said and done many things which for
these people are nothing but a "temptation" and
" madness. "
Even supposing that these moralists in their very
human weakness feel an irresistible desire to sus- ""
tain their beliefs as well as their own reason
by some historical authority, why, I ask, do they not look in history for another who shall be a more suit- able representative ? There has for a long time been one waiting for such recognition the founder of
the widely-popular religion of Buddhism. He did really preach what they required : non-resistance, impossibility, inactivity, sobriety, etc. , and succeeded
"
even without a martyrdom to
make a brilliant
career" for his religion. The sacred books of the
Buddhists do really proclaim hollowness, and to
make them fully agree with the new teaching of the same matter they would require only a little sim-
plificationindetail. Onthecontrary,theScriptures
? AUTHOR'S PREFACE xxv
of the Jews and Christians are filled and permeated
throughout by a positive spiritual message which denies both ancient and modern emptiness, so that
to be able to fasten the teaching of this latter to any of the statements taken from the Gospel or the Pro-
phets it is necessary, by hook or by crook, to tear
away such a statement from its natural connection
withthewholeofthebookandthecontext. Whereas, ""
ontheotherhand,theBuddhist suttee
whole masses of suitable parables and legends, and there is nothing in those books inimical in spirit to
the new teaching.
By substituting the hermit of the Sacciah tribe for
"
the rabbifromGalilee,"theshamChristianswould
have lost nothing of importance, but would win something very valuable indeed, at least in my eyes
they would win the possibility of being, even
while erring, honestly thinking and to an extent consistent. Buttheydonotwantthis. . . .
^ The hollowness of the teaching of the new religion and its logical contradictions are too apparent, and in this matter I have been satisfied to give (in the
Third Discussion) only a brief, though complete,
statement of their pronouncements, obviously con-
tradictory in themselves and hardly capable of
tempting anybody outside the hopeless class of people typified by my Prince. Should I succeed in
opening anybody's eyes to the other side of the
question and making any deceived but living soul feel all the moral falsity of this death-spreading
supplies
? xxvi SOLOVTEV
teaching taken in all its entirety, the polemical object of this book would be fully achieved.
I am firmly convinced, however, that the exposure of an untruth made without reservation, should it
even fail to produce any beneficent effect, still remains, apart from the fulfilment of duty it in- volves for its author, a measure of spiritual sanita- tion in the life of society, [and brings useful results both in the present and in the futurej t^pttbl c
Bound up with the polemical object of these
dialogues I also pursue a positive aim : to present the question of the struggle against evil and of the
meaning of history from three different standpoints. One of these is based on a religious conception of
the everyday life, which is characteristic of past
times, and is given much prominence in the First Discussion in the speeches of the General. The
other, representing the ideas of culture and progress as prevailing in our time, is expressed and defended
by the Politician, particularly in the Second Discus- sion. Lastly, the third standpoint, which is abso- lutely religious and which will yet show its decisive value in the future, is indicated in the Third Dis- cussion in the speeches of Mr. Z. and in the story
by Father Pansophius. Personally, I unreservedly
accept the last point of view. But I fully recognise the relative truth contained in the two others, and
for this reason could with equal fairness express the opposing arguments and statements of the Politician and the General. The higher absolute
? AUTHOR'S PREFACE xxvii
truth does not exclude or deny the preliminary con-
ditions of its realisation, but justifies, appreciates,
andsanctifiesthem. Iffromacertainpointofview
the world's history is God's judgment of the world
die Weltgeschichte ist das Weltgericht-^tiiis in-
volves a long and complicated contest or litigation between the good and the evil historical forces, and
this contest, to come to a final solution, must needs involve both a determined struggle for existence between those forces, and their greater inner, there-
fore peaceful, development in the common forms
truth, and I could with complete sincerity place myself in the position of the one or the other. It
is [only the power oL evil itself that is absolutely wrong,] but not such means of fighting it as the sword of the soldier or the pen of the diplomat. These\weapons must be appraised at their actual usefulness in the given circumstances^ and that must be considered the better of the two whose use is more effective in upholding the cause of good. St.
Alexis the metropolitan, when peacefully pleading for the Russian princes at the Tartar Horde, and
St. Sergius when blessing the arms of Dmitrius of the Don against the same Horde both equally served one and the same cause of good that finds its expression in many various forms and fashions.
For this reason the General and the
of culture.
Politician are both right in the light of the Higher
J
? xxviii SOLOVIEV
'
(jextremest manifestation of evil in historyj the picture
These discussions about evil and the militant and the peaceful methods of combating it, had to be concluded with a definite statement of the last, the
of its short-lived
At first I treated this subject in the form of a dia- logue, as I had treated the other parts, and with a
. //similar sprinkling of the jocular element-/ But friendly criticisms convinced me that this method
of exposition was doubly unsuitable : firstly, because
the interruptions and interpolations required by the form of dialogue tended to weaken the interest in
thestory; and,secondly,becausethecolloquialand particularly the jocular character of conversation did
not accord with the religious importance of the
subject. I recognised the justice of these criticisms and accordingly altered the form of the Third Dis-
cussion, introducing in it the reading from a MS.
left by a monk after his death, of an independent ^shortstoryoftheAnti-Christ. " Thisstory,which earlier formed the subject of a public lecture, created a good deal of bewilderment and confused comment on the platform and in the Press, the main reason
for which appears to be very simple : the prevailing insufficient knowledge of the references to Anti-
Christ contained in the Scriptures and in Church tradition. These give indications of all the main features of Anti-Christ such as the inner significance
f [_of Anti-Christ as a religious impostor, who obtains
"
the title of the Son of God by stealing" it, and not
triumphjjand
its final destruction-/
? AUTHOR'S PREFACE xxix
* byspiritualself-sacrifice; hisconnectionwithafalse
prophet, wizard, who seduces people by means of / real and false miracles; the obscure and peculiarly / sinful origin of Anti-Christ himself, who secures his external position of a monarch of the world by
. "
the help of evil powers ; lastly, the general develop- ment and the end of his activity. Other particulars, characteristic of Anti-Christ and his false prophet, may also be found in the same sources. We have
there, for instance, bringing down fire from
Heaven ' ' _witnesses. j)f. Christ, , J murjd^nn^_the_afo
exposure of their bodies in the streets of Jerusalem, \ andmanyothers. * Toconnecttheeventswitheach other and to make the story more speaking several details had to be introduced, partly based on his-*^
torical conjectures, and partly^ created by imagine-^ tion. On the details of the latter kind, such as the
/
semi-psychic, semi-conjuring tricks of the great magician with subterranean voices, fireworks, etc. ,
I placed, it hardly needs saying, very little import- ance, and I think was justified in expecting a similar
"
critics. " As theotherandextremelyessentialpoint thecharac- teristics of the three impersonated confessions in the oecumenical council, this could be noticed and
fully appreciated only by those of my critics who were acquainted with the history and life of the
churches.
CThe character of the false prophet given in the
Revelation and his mission, as clearly indicated
attitude on the of part my
-
regards
? xxx SOLOVIEV
therein, to mystify people for the benefit of Anti- Christ, made it necessary for me to attribute to him different prodigies of the kind that is peculiar to
magicians and conjurers. / It is known for certainty,
"
dass zein hauptwerk ein Feuerwerk sein wird :
he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men. "
At present we cannot, of ' course, know magic and mechanical technique of these prodigies, but we may be sure that in two or three centuries it will advance very far from what it is now, and what will be made possible by such progressforamagicianlikeours isnotformeto say. I have admitted to my story certain definite features and details only as concrete illustrations to
the essential and fully-established relations, so that they would not be left mere bare schemes. The essential and the details should also be clearly dis-
tinguished in all that I say about Pan-Mongolism and the Asiatic invasion of Europe. But, of course,
the main fact itself has not in this case the absolute certainty which characterises the future coming and the fate of Anti-Christ and his false prophet.
rNothing has been taken direct from the Scriptures
in describing the development of the Mongolo- European relations, though a great deal of it can be based on Scriptural statements.