You are on page 1of 12

Butler University

Digital Commons @ Butler University


Scholarship and Professional Work - LAS College of Liberal Arts & Sciences
1-1-2000
Solov'v and Schelling's Philosophy of Revelation
Paul Valliere
Butler University, pvallier@butler.edu
Follow this and additional works at: htp://digitalcommons.butler.edu/facsch_papers
Part of the Religion Commons
Tis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences at Digital Commons @ Butler University. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Scholarship and Professional Work - LAS by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Butler University. For more
information, please contact fgaede@butler.edu.
Recommended Citation
"Solov'v and Schelling's Philosophy of Revelation," Vladimir Solov'v: Reconciler and Polemicist, ed. Wil van den Bercken, Manon de
Courten and Evert van der Zweerde (Leuven, Paris, Sterling, Virginia: Peeters, 2000), pp. 119-129.
SOLOV'EV AND SCHELLING'S PHILOSOPHY OF REVELATION
Paul VALLIERE
The connection between Solov'ev's philosophy of religion and
Schelling's has long been recognized but is difficult to clarify for two
reasons. The first is Solov'{i.v's nonchalance about citing sources. The
paucity of direct references to Schelling in the work of a philosopher
who has been called 'the last and most outstanding Russian
Sdlellingian' is quite astonishing. I The second reason is the ambiva-
lence toward Schelling in Russian religious philosophy. At an early
point it became commonplace to associate Schelling with 'pantheism', a
tendency perceived as dangerous on both theological and humanistic
grounds: theologically because of the contradiction to creatio ex nihilo,
humanistically because of the threat to human freedom posed by world-
process detemlinism. Solov'ev's philosophical heirs, eager to save the
master from these pitfalls, sought to distance him from Schelling even
at. they conceded his debt to the great idealist. Evgenij Trubeckoj,
wbose massive study of 1913 charted the course of Solov'ev studies for
years to come, distinguished between 'the sunlight of the genuine
Absolute' in Solov'ev and the 'clouds' that obscured it, namely, the
'pantheistic tendencies of Russian-Schellingian gnosticism' and the
forms of CtenZia Bogocelovetestve [Lectures on
Gpdmanhood]'.2 More radical critics, such as Lev Sestov, rejected most
Qf Solov'ev's mature thought as fatally compromised by pantheism and
affinned the Solov'evian legacy only on the basis of an apocalypticist
aru.f fideist reading of Tri razgovora.
3
Sergej Bulgakov was something
I In Krizis zapadnoj filosofii Solov'ev discusses Schelling, but only the Jdenlilal-
.lftIJilosophie, and that merely as a transitional phase of the idealist movement that ends
ith Hegel. There are only two references to Schelling, both perfunctory, in Solov'ev's
early sophiological sketches (1876), and none at all in Krilika orvleee/1/1ykh nacal or
trenija 0 Bogoceloveeeslve. The characterization of Solov'ev as the 'last and most out-
sbnding Russian Schellingian' is Arsenij Gulyga's in Selling, 'Zit/1' zameCalel'nykh
/)lldej (Moskva, 1984), p. 302.
1 Kn. Evgenij TJUbeckoj, Mirosozercanie VI. S. Solov'eva, 2 vols. (Moskva, 1913),
pp.392-97.
J 'Speculation and Apocalypse: The Religious Philosophy of Vladimir Solovyov', in
Speculalion a"d Revela/ion, trans. by Bernard Martin (Athens, Chicago, London, 1982).
I
120 P. VALLIERE
of an exception to the rule. In Filosofijo khozjajstvo (1912) he worked
out a culturology which may be called Neo-Schellingian tout court. In
Svet neveeerl1lj (1917), on the other hand, he showed sensitivity to anti-
Schellingian polemics by taking a more guarded approach.
4
Of course there was more than one Schelling, at least as far as the
convenient fictions of history of philosophy are concerned. In his doc-
toral defence of Kritika otvleeennykh nacal, Solov'ev distinguished
between 'the speculative pantheism of the first Schellingian system
(Identitiitsphilosophie) and the theosophical constructions of the second
Schellingian system (the so-called positive philosophy)'. He acknowl-
edged the 'affinity of his views' with the second system, 'in which
[Schelling] had already freed himself from the false pantheism of his
earlier theories'.5 Bulgakov, too, considered Philosophie der Offen-
barung to be Schelling's 'most accomplished and fully articulated sys-
tem', although he did not believe that Schelling had distanced himself
suffIciently from pantheist rationalism even in that late work
6
Yet the
'two-Schelling hypothesis' clarifies little besides the determination to
combat 'pantheism'. To grasp Solov'ev's link to Schelling in substantive
terms one must examine the overall structure of his thought.
The issue of Solov'ev's debt to Schelling is critical for situating
Solov'ev in the history of modern religious thought. Schelling's 'philos-
ophy of revelation' has been a major force in theology and religious phi-
losophy although its significance has been underestimated, just as
Schelling's contribution to philosophy in general has been undelValued.
Andrew Bowie writes suggestively of these relationships in his discus-
sion of Schelling's rejection of the ontological proof:
If one takes the ontological proof of God as the classic example of the
metaphysics of presence (which is the basic point of Schelling's critique>,
then it is evident that the rejection of that proof leads to two possibililie5.
The first is a different approach to theology, of the kind evident in the
that Schelling tries to constluct a philosophy of revelation rather than a
rational theology. This attempt still lives on in theology of the kind devel
oped by Rosenzweig. Paul Tillich and others. The second possibility is that
4 Unlike Solov'ev, Bulgakov documented his reading in the sources. The text of vet
neveeemij makes it clear thal tbis work was guided in part by a careful reading of
Schelling's Philosophie del' O/jenbarllng. See the well-annotated edition by V.V. Sapov
and K.M. Dolgov in the series 'Mysliteli XX veka' (Moskva. 1994).
j Letter to A.A, Kireev (18B I), Pis'mo Vladimira Sel'geevica Salay'eva, ed.
E.L. Radlov, 3 vots. (Sankt-Peterburg, 1908-1911), vol. 2, p. 100, quoted in DelltscM
Gesamlausgabe del' Werke von Wladimir Solow;ew. vol. I, ed. Wilhelm Lettenbauer
(Miinchen, 1978), p. 759.
b Slier nevei"erruj, ed. Sapov and Dolgov, p. 129.
PHILOSOPHY OF RI
theology itself becomes undermined
takes on the forms wc .have already I<
Besides Tillich and Rosenzweig one cc
Buber. whose dialogical principle relies
dialectic of spirit and nature than has
question at hand is whether Soiov'ev's
as well. To answer in the affirmative
should be studied not just in its own teT
thought alone, but in relation to the w
Orthodo thinkers just mentioned; in (
gious philosophy should be seen as pan
discourse in modern times.
What is philosophy of revdation? 1
:y Bowi in the passage cited, as alai
religion as a whole, although strictly sp
of the project. Schelling's 'positive ph
tive ontology (the three 'potencies' of t
of myt ology', and only then to phil
ehelli g means philosophical elucidal
judaism and Christianity. Whether
beyond itself to an idealist religion of
which I shall rerum.
The -point of philosophy of revelatio
ween traditional dogmatic theology
offering a new way of conceptualiz
Dc1" wahre Gatt ist der lebendige; lebl
lehendig isf del' Golf, der aus eiget
An,d res von sich in seinem unvorde
deltl Sein. in dem er a se isf. Gatt oh/
Mil lichkeit .ieder Bewegung berOl/be
aus Gott emanieren (schlechter
VO! ussetzung cines freien
SclJ6pfung sei unbegreiflich! (Schalel
helling's ontology, or Potenzen.lehre
llated here that God has the power to I
Within bis own being. The crux of this
7 Andn:w Bowie, Schelling and Modern Eut
and York, 1993), p. 165.
F.W,J. Schelling, Philosophie del' O/je",
with inlro. by Manfred Frank (Frankfurt am M,
'. VALLIERE
Filosofija khozjajstva (19 I 2) he worked
called Neo-Schellingian tout court. In
lther hand, he showed sensitivity to anti-
a more guarded approach.
4
lan one Schelling, at least as far as the
)f philosophy are concerned. In his doc-
cennykh nacal, Solov'ev distinguishe
heism of the first Schellingian system
theosophical constructions of the second
lIed positive philosophy)'. He acknowl-
vs' with the second system, 'in which
limself from the false pantheism of his
)0, considered Philosophie del' Offen-
accomplished and fully articulated sys-
ve that Schelling had distanced himself
Inalism even in that late work.
6
Yet the
ities little besides the detennination tQ
)lov'ev's link to Schelling in substantive
structure of his thought.
It to Schelling is critical for situating
"11 religious thought. Schelling's 'philos-
lajor force in theology and religious phi-
nce has been underestimated, just as
,sophy in general has been undervalued.
ely of these relationships in his discus-
he ontological proof:
roof of God as the classic example of the
h is the basic point of Schelling's critiquet
tion of that proof leads to two possibilities,
1 to theology, of the kind evident in the fact
a philosophy of revelation rather than a
still lives on in theology of the kind devel-
ch and others. The second possibility is that
:nted his reading in the sources. The text of .'lyel
rk was guided in part by a careful reading of
See the well-annotated edition by V,V. Sapov
i XX veka' (Moskva, 1994).
Pis'I1",a Vladimira Sergeevica Sololl'eva, ed.
1908-19IJ), vol. 2, p. 100, quoted in Deutsche
',i,. Solowjew, vol. 1, ed. Wilhelm Lettenbauer

PHILOSOPHY OF REVELATION
theology itself becomes undermined and the rejection of self-presence
takes on the forms we have already looked at in Derrida and Heidegger.
7
Besides Tillich and Rosenzweig one could name others, notably Martin
B'u1'er, whose dialogical principle relies more heavily on the Schellingian
di;.dectic of spirit and nature than has generally been recognized. The
question at hand is whether Solov'ev's name should be added to this list
as well. To answer in the affirmative means that Solov'ev's thought
should be studied not just in its own terms, nor in the context of Russian
thought alone, but in relation to the work of the non-Russian and non-
Ophodox thinkers just mentioned; in other words, that Solov' ev' s reli-
gious philosophy should be seen as part of a larger project of theological
discourse in modem times.
What is philosophy of revelation? The phrase is sometimes used, as
by Bowie in the passage cited, as a label for Schelling's philosophy of
religion as a whole, although strictly speaking it refers to only one phase
of the project. Schelling's 'positive philosophy' begins with a specula-
t)ve ontoi!ogy (the three 'potencies' of being), moves next to 'philosophy
Of mythology', and only then to philosophy of revelation, by which
SChelling means philosophical elucidation of the theological content of
Judaism and Christianity. Whether philosophy of revelation points
beyond itself to an idealist religion of the future is a debatable question
to which I shall return.
The point of philosophy of revelation is to overcome the polarization
between traditional dogmatic theology and modem critical anti-theology
by offering a new way of conceptualizing the reality of God:
Der wahre Gott iSl der lebendige; lebendjg ist, was tiber sein Sein verfugt;
lebendig isl der Gall, der aus eigener MachI aus sich herausgehl.oein
Anderes \Ion sich In seinem unyordenklichen Sein wird, yerschieden von
dem Sein, in dem er a se lSI. Gort oll/ze dlese MachI denken, heissl ihn der
Moglichkeil jeder Bewegung berauhen. Dann mtissten (nach Spinoza) die
Dinge aus Gatt emanieren (schlechter Pantheismus); oder man musste mit
Voraussetzung eines freien intelligenten Welturhebers versichem: Die
Schopfung sei unbegrejflich I (Schaler Theismus.)8
Schelling's ontology, or Potenzenlehre, is an elaborate gloss on the idea
stated here that God has the power to posit something other than himself
within his own being. The crux of this conceptuality is the transition -
7 Andrew Bowie, Schelling and Modern European Philosoplzy: An fllfroduCliol1 (Lon-
don and New York, 1993), p. 165.
i FW.J. Schelting, Pililosophie del' Offenbarung 1841142, Paulus-Nachschrifl, ed.
with intra, by Manfred Frank (Frankfurt am Main, 1977), p, 170.
121
122 P. VALLIERE PHILOSOPHY OF REV
the word is too mild for what could be called a theogonic catastrophe -
from the first to the second potency or degree in the life of God. The
unfathomable, radically indeterminate ground of being, pure possibility
[das an-sich-Seiende, dos sein Konnende], admits the necessity of deter-
minate being by positing pure actuality [das ausser-sich-Seiende, das set"
Miissende] over against itself. The third potency is the power to over-
come the alienation between the first and the second, the harmonization
of being in a symphonic whole [das bei-sich-Seiende, das sein Sollende].
As Schelling construes it, the history of religion reflects the dynamics
of the potencies. The active principle is always the second, the principle
of concreteness or determinate being; but the fonns of its activity vary
according to the point which has been reached in the revelatory process.
lO
Mythological religion is the product of the second potency while still in
the shadow of the first; it is the religion of irrational nature struggling for
liberation. Revealed religion is this liberation, the self-clarification of the
second potency as free personal being, historically realized in Jewish,
Islamic and Christian monotheism. In Judaism and Islam, however, the
personal God is known in a one-sided, self-enclosed mode, whereas in
Christianity the God-concept points beyond itself to the third potency, the
Spirit-to-come which reconciles and integrates all the forces of being.
The Potenzenlehre finds the widest possible application in the
Schellingian tradition, where it serves as a template for organizing
almost any subject matter in theological tenns. The pervasiveness of this
scheme in the wide-ranging theology of Paul Tillich, for example, has
been convincingly demonstrated. The drama of estrangement and recon-
ciliation at the core ofTilJich's Systematic Theology as wcll as the famil-
iar Tillichian triads of love, power and justice, and of heteronomy,
autonomy and theonomy, can be traced back to Schelling's potencies.
1I
9 For a detailed outline of Schelling'S ontology in English see Edward Allen Be.ocb,
The POlencies of God(s): Schelling's Philosophy of Ml'Ihology (Albany, New York,
1994). pp. 111-46.
10 On the second potency, or Word of God, as the active element throughout the
lory of religion see Paul Tillieh. The ConSlmClion of lhe HislOJ'y of Religion II
Schelling '.I Posilive Philosophy: lIs Presuppositions and Principles, trans. with intro. and
notes by Vielor Nuovo (Lewisburg. London, 1974), p. 103; and Philosophie der 0 If
bamng, Part 2, Schellings Wake, ed. by Manfred Sehroler, vol. 6 (Mtinchen.
p.480.
II See 'Trauslator's Introduction' in Tillieh, The Construction of Ihe HisIOJY of Reli,
gion in Schelling '.I Positive Philosophy: lis Presuppositions and Principles, pp. 11-3 ;
and Jerome Arthur Slone, 'Tillich and Schelling's LaLer Philosophy', Kairos alld Logo'
Studies in the Rools and lmplicolions of Tillieh 's Theology, ed. by John 1. Carey (Mercer
UniversiLy Press, (984), pp. 3-35.
A good deal of evidence can be mars,
religious philosophy presents an analog<
lished work, The Mythological Process
written during his year at Moscow Theol
a philosophy of mythology along Schell
man has observed:
the fundamental themes which will be f
phy already appear [in this work]: a sin
pie, is here the basis of the history of
'hristian idea of the divine incarnation
the latter by the Spirit here receives
under the transparent symbolism of mase
12
m.
The Schellingian potencies appear in the
Incarnation I Spirit.
Solov'ev's earliest sophiological writ
although Solov'ev mentions Schelling I
pages and never cites a work by SchelliI
La Russie et l'Eg/ise Universelie is cor
mogonic and historical processes descril
grati of aU extradivine existence', whic
process of unlversal history' and 'the
feet woman, or'divmized nature, the per
the perfect society of God with human b
tion of divine Wisdom' .1
4
This triple inca
it in Christian tenns, recapitulates Schelli
of religion: mythology (divinized nature
(Church).
M ul'skij's observations on the Sche
epistemology in Kritika otvlecennykh /I
ScheJJing, Solov'ev construed the produc
ogy with artistic creativity. The knowle<
the unconditional reality of things, disc<
ideas of things through an act of imagi
Il ximc Herman, Vie 1'1 (puvre de Vladimir
also the discussion of 'The Mythological Process
IOn, I'll Religious Philosophy of Vladimir Solo\
York, 1988), pp. 102- lO5.
/) Sec La Sophia el les aulres ecrUs fran-fais, e

14 Vll1dimir Soloviev, La RussiI' 1'[ I'Eglise Un
P. VALUERE
ould be called a theogonic catastrophe -
>tency or degree in the life of God. 'The
minate ground of being, pure possibility
f(onnende) , admits the necessity of deter-
:tuality [das ausser-sich-Seiende, dos se;n
The third potency is the power to o v e r ~
e frrst and the second, the harmonization
[dos bei-sich-Seiende, dos sein Sollende].9
~ history of religion reflects the dynamics
nciple is aJ ways the second, the principle
being; but the forms of its activity vary
; been reached i.n the revelatory process.
JO
lduct of the second potency while still in
religion of irrational nature struggling for
:lUs liberation, the self-clarification of thi
iI being, historically realized in Jewii\h.
sm. In Judaism and Islam, however, the
Ie-sided, self-enclosed mode, whereas in
ints beyond itself to the third potency, the
and integrates all the forces of being.
Ie widest possible application in the
it serves as a template for organizing
ological temlS. The pervasiveness of this
:ology of Paul Tillich, for example, has
l. The drama of estrangement and recon-
lystemotic Theology as well as the famil-
lower and justice, and of heteronomy,
e traced back to Schelling's potencies}!
(s ontology in English see Edward Allen Beach,
Philosophy of My/hology (Albany. New York,
of God, as the active element throughotll the his.
Ie ConSlruclion of /he His/ory of Religion i"
supposirions and Principles. trans. with intra. and
ndon, 1974). p. L03; and Philosophie der Offen.
by Manfred Schroter, vol. 6 (Mlinchen, 1928),
Tillich, The Cons/ruclion of the His/ory oj'Reli-
': lis Presupposiliom and PrincipII's, pp. 11-32;
'chelling's Later Philosophy', Kairos and Logos:
'Tillich's Theology, ed. by John 1. Carey (Mercer
PHILOSOPHY OF REVELATION
A good deal of evidence can be marshalled to show that Solov'ev's
religious philosophy presents an analogous case. Solov'ev's frrst pub-
lished work, The Mythological Process in Ancient Paganism (1873),
written during his year at Moscow Theological Academy, is a sketch of
a philosophy of mythology along Schellingian lines. As Maxime Her-
man has observed:
the fundamental themes which will be found in aU of Soloy'ev's philoso-
phy already appear [in this work]: a single principle, the religious princi-
ple, is mere the basis of the history of human beings and the world; the
Christian idea of the divine incarnation in matter and of the penetration of
the latter by the Spirit here receives its first general but real expression
under the transparent symbolism of masculine-feminine, Spirit-matter dual-
ism.
t1
The Schellingian potencies appear i.n the sequence (Absolute) Principle /
Incarnation / Spirit.
Solov'ev's earliest sophiological writings follow the same scheme,
although Solov'ev mentions Schelling by name only twice in eighty
pages and never cites a work by Schelling. IJ The mature sophiology of
La Russie el I'Eglise Universelle is comparable. The aim of the cos-
mogonic and historical processes described there is 'the universal inte-
gration of all extradivine existence', which is accomplished through 'the
prt>cecss of universal history' and 'the triple fruit which it bears: the per-
f1 woman, or divinized nature, the perfect man or the God-man, and
the perfect society of God with human beings - the defmitive incarna-
tion of divine Wisdom'. 14 This triple incarnation, while Solov' ev glosses
it in Christian temls, recapitulates Schelling's construction of the history
of religion: mythology (divinized nature), revelation (God-man), Spirit
(Church).
Mocul'skij's observations on the Schellingian 'echoes' of Solov'ev's
epistemology in Kritika otvleeennykh nacol are a propos here. Like
SChelling, Solov'ev construed the production of knowledge on the anal-
ogy with artistic creativity. The knowledge seeker begins with faith in
tire unconditional reality of things, discovers the determinate fOffilS or
ideas of things through an acL of imagination and puts flesh on these
12 Maxime Herman, Vie 1'/ Cl?Ul're de Vladimir Soloviev (Fribomg. 1995), p. 24. See
~ the discussion of 'The Mythological Process in Ancient Paganism' in Jonathan Slll-
Inn. The Religious Philosophy of Vladimir Solovyov: Towards a Reassessment (New
Ymk, 1988), pp. 102-105.
13 See La Sophia el les au Ires ecri/s fraru;ais. ed. Fran<;:ois Rouleau (Lausanne, 1978),
pp.3-80.
I. Vladimir Soloviev, La Russie et I'Eg/ise U"ivel'selle, 4lh ed. (Paris, 1922), p. 259.
123
124 P. VALLIERE
forms through creative activity The three-fold scheme of uncondi-
tional being,determinate being, andreconciliation throughcreativespirit
appearsonceagain. Mocul' skij goesonto allegethatSolov'ev preserves
human freedom more effectively than Schelling, because Solov'evcon-
fines the scheme to epistemology rather than extending it to the cos-
mogonicarena, where the humanpersonis in dangerofbeingswallowed
up by the world-process. Whether this distinction is fair to Schelling
neednotdetain us here.
16
Mocul'skij inadvertently reveals another similarity betweenSolov'ev
andSchellingin his discussionofSolov'ev'stheory ofideas. Mocul'skij
construes Solov'ev's theory as an inverted Platonism:
In Plato the appearance ofthe object produces the recollection ofits idea
sleepingin the human soul; in Solov'ev it is the other way around; the idea
living in the soul makes possible the perceptionofthe object. In [Plato} the
movement is from below to above, de realibus ad realiora, while in
[Solov'ev] the movement is from above to below,de realioribus ad realil1l.
The human being responds to the condescension of the idea through
own creative activity. Thus, the process ofcognition in Solov'ev is shown
to be adivine-human process.
17
Solov'ev's view as described by Mocul'skij could be characterizedas a
'kenotic' theory of ideas. This, in tum, connects Solov'ev to Schelling
because the latter was a major source of the kenosis-theology which
cameto playasignificantrole in nineteenthandtwentieth-centuryEuro-
pean theology, including Russian Orthodox theology. In the lheogonic
process as described in Philosophie del' O.ffenbarung, the second
potency- the Idea, the Son- sets itselfofffrom the first byassuming
whatSchellingcalls the 'servitude' ofdetenninate being, the 'necessity'
oflogicalfonns. Schelling lends this theory biblicalauthority throughan
exegesis ofPhilippians 2: 6_8
l8
Ctenija 0 Bogocelovecestve is clearly dependent on Philosophie der
Of{enbarung. The literary genre is the same (ctenija, Vorlesungen). The
term 'revelation' is used in the specifically Schellingian sense to mean
15 K. Mocu('skij, Vladimir Solov';;v: iiizn' i ufenie (Paris, 1951), pp. 114-115.
16 Sutton probably speaks for most scholars of Ihe subject when he notes
Mocul'skij) that the problemoffreedom and world-process 'deeplyconcerned' Schelling,
and that Russian thinkers such as Solov'ev and Berdjaev simply followed him in tllis
respect. See The Religiolls Philosophy of Vladimir Solovyov, p. 68.
17 Vladimir Solov'iil;: tim' i ucenie, p. 116. Mocul'skij follows Von Usnadse,
Wladimir Solowiew, seine ErkennlniSlheorie and Melaphysif.: (Halle, 1909).
18 See 'ExegetischerBeweis flir einen aussergolllichen Logos-Christus', Philnsoplrw
der O.rfenhamng 184/142, ed. Frank.pp. 259-63; cf. Philosophie der O/fenbarang, Part.1.
Lecture 25. Schellings Werke, ed. Schrbter, vol. 6, pp. 422-42.
PHILOSOPHY OFRE'
that which remains as the ground ofreli
sicat proofs ofGod have fallen away.19
lion is as expected: mythologicalreligiol
by the vindication offreedom, first thro
Buddhi m and other Indian religions, th
tion' mediated by Platonism and biblica
tianity, the religion ofbogocelovecestvG
itself is a version of the Schell in
God,asopposed to abstractdivinity,mu
self. The notion ofthe eternal humanit:
telol' Cestvo is about, supplies this alteri
One.ofthecritical issues in Schellingi
cern. the ofthe WOrld-process.
revelation ofthe third potency? The
stat\!: of Christian revelation in ScheUi
Thomas F. O'Meara puts it: 'IfChristi
ogy.is notidealismthe future ofChristi
i1y settled, for thefollowing reason:
the final stage ofthe theogonic process
cosmic resolution, is not described at
Iwrung1. .. Whatis missing is an idealist
correspondto Ihe first part ofthepositiv
primal Being leading into the philosoph
teal imagination seems to have been sp
ments which excited his curiosity- Sa
ology- Schelling deprived his linear
Itis illuminating to apply O'Meara's01::
Would it be true to say that 'idealism
Solov'ev? Theconceptofbogoceloveee
to such an end, not just in the early Sc
19 Ctellija 0 Bogocelovei'eslve, Sobranie soCi,
and .L. Radlov, 2d ed. (Sankt-Peterburg, 19J
p. _5.
Cren!ia 0 Bogoceloveeesrve, pp. 40-41.
II FrederickC. Copleston pointsout the Sche
a' und Absolute' in God in Philosophy in Russ
(Noire Dame, Indiana, 1986), pp. 223-4, citing
Thl< phraseology fjr.llfsecond Absoluteis Coplest.
001 positing, [poloienie] or 'aspect' (vid) ofthe
Zl!. ThomasF. 0' Meara, "'Christianityis the F
ophy of Religion, 1826-1854', Meaning, Truth,
Dame& London, 1982). pp. 230-31.
P. v ALLlERE
ty.IS The three-fold scheme of uncondi-
:, andreconciliation through creativespirit
j goes on to allegethatSolov'evpreserve
~ y than Schelling, becauseSolov'ev con-
logy rather than extending it to the cos-
anperson is indangerofbeingswallowed
ether this distinction is fair to Schelling
leals another similarity between Solov'ev
ofSolov'tv'stheory ofideas. Mocul'skij
an inverted Platonism:
Ie object produces the recollection ofits idea
nSolov' ev it is the otherwayaround: thej,
ible theperception ofthe object In [plato] the
o above, de realihus ad realiora, while in
'rom above to below,de realioribus adrealfa.
to the condescension of the idea through hi
:he process ofcognition in Solov'ev is shown
,',17
)y Mocul'skij could becharacterized as a
, in tum, connects Solov'ev to Schelling
Ir source of the kenosis-theology which
in nineteenth and twentieth-centuryEuro-
ian Orthodox theology. In the theogonic
losophie del' Offenbarung, the second
- sets itselfofffrom the first by assuming
ude' ofdeterminate being, the 'necessity'
s this theory biblicalauthority throughan
is clearly dependent on Philosophie del'
; is the same (ctenija, Vorfesungen), The
:specifically Schellingian sense to mean
I: fiw'i IIcenie (Paris, 1951), pp. 114-115.
,st scholars of the subject when he notes (
n and WOrld-process 'deeplyconcemed' Schelling,
lov'ev and Berdjaev simply followed him in .his
ofVladimir Solov)'ov. p. 68.
'nie, p. 116. Mocurskij follows Von Usnadse,
!eorie undMetaphysik (Halle, 1909).
nen aussergbttlichen Logos-Chrislus', Philo.wphle
J. 259-63: cf. Philosophiedel'Offenbarllng,Par12.
(iter, vol. 6, pp. 422-42.
PHfLOSOPHY OF REVELATION
that which remains as the ground ofreligious knowledge after the clas-
sical proofs ofGod have fallen away,I9 The scheme ofreligious evolu-
tion is as expected: mythologicalreligion ('naturalrevelation') followed
by the vindication offreedom, first through the'negati ve revelation' of
Buddhism and other Indian religions, then through the 'positive revela-
tion' mediated by Platonism and biblical religion culminating in Chris-
tianity, the religion ofbogocefovecestvo [Godmanhood].2o Bogocelove-
cestvo itself is a version of the Schellingian proposition that the living
GOd, as opposedto abstractdivinilY, mustcontainotherness within him-
sell', The notion ofthe eternal humanity ofGod, which is what bogo-
UJovecestvo is about, supplies this alterity.21
OneofthecriticalissuesinSchellingianphilosophyofrevelationcon-
cerns the destiny ofthe world-process, What can be expected from the
revelation ofthe third potency? The question is importantfor fixing the
status ofChristian revelation in Schelling's philosophy ofreligion. As
Thomas F. O'Meara puts it: 'If Christianity was the future of mythol-
~ y is not idealism thefuture ofChristianity?'Thisquestion is not eas-
ily settled, for the following reason:
the fmal stage ofthe theogonic process, the activity of the third potency in
cosmic resolution, is not described at length [in Philosophie der 0lfel1-
hanlllg]...What is missing is an idealistontologyofresolution which would
correspondto thefirst part ofthepositivephilosophy, thelectureson theone
primal Being leadinginto the philosophy ofreligion. Schelling's philosoph-
ical imagination seems to have been spent. Distracted by two material seg-
ments whichexcited his curiosity- Saranology and an ecumenical ecclesi-
ology- Schelling deprived his linear process ofa worthyconclusion.
22
Itis illuminating 10 apply O'Meara's observations to Solov'ev'soeuvre.
Would it be true to say that 'idealism is the future ofChristianity' for
Solov'ev? Theconceptofbogoceloveeesrvooften appears to be directed
to such an end, not just in the early Solov'ev, but in his late works as
19 C/enija 0 BogO('eloveeestve, Sobranie sorineni} V.S. S%v'eva, ed. S.M. Solov'ev
and E.L. Radlov, 2d ed. (Sankt-Peterburg, 1911-14; reprint, Bmxelles, 1966), vol. 3,
p,35.
20 Ctenija 0 Bogocelovdestve, pp. 40-41.
21 Frederick C. Copleston points oU( theSchellingian source ofSolov'ev'sconcept of
a'secondAbsolute' in God in Philosophyin Russia: From Herzen to LeninandBerdyael'
(Noire Dame, Indiana, 19&6), pp. 223-4, citing Ctenija 0 BogoceloveCestve, pp. 83-84.
The phraseology first/second Absolute is Copleston's; Solov'ev speaksofafirst and sec-
ond 'positing' [polozenie] or 'aspect' [vid] ofthe divine, op. cit., pp. 85-86.
21 Thomas F. O'Meara, "'Christianity is the Future ofPaganism": Schelling'sPhilos-
ophy of Religion. 1826-1854'. Meaning, Truth, a1l11 God, ed. Leroy S. Rouner (NOlIe
Dame & London, 1982), pp. 230-31.
8
125
j
I
126 P. VALLIERE
well. In Tri razgovora, for example, Mr. Z. is introduced as the protag-
onist of an 'unconditional-religious' point of view, transcending the
'conventional-religious' and 'cultured-progressive' views ofthe General
and the Statesman.
23
It is tempting to construe the trio ofinterlocutorsin
tenns ofthe three-fold schemaofthe philosophy ofrevelation: the irra-
tional absolute (the General's piety), the irreducibly human (the States-
man's humanitarianism) and the reconciliation prophesied by Mr. Z.
.(idealist religion), the last fulfilling Schelling's dream of'vollkommene
Verschmelzungdes Christentumsmitderallgemeinen Wissenschaftund
Erkenntnis'.24
Yet the case is not so neat. In his assessment ofthe denouementof
Schelling'sPhilosophie del' Offenbarung, O'Mearaseems to assumethat
Schelling would have done well to steer clear ofsuch 'distractions'
ecumenism and [he problem of evil. If an absolute idealist syntheSis
were the aim of philosophy of revelation, O'Meara's criticism woul;d
probably be just. But is this the aim? Or, on the contrary, is it possible
to imagine an outcome to which Schelling's interests in ecumenismand
the problem ofevil would not be seen as irrelevant?
The same question may be asked about Solov'ev's career. After
Ctenija 0 Bogoceloveeestve Solov'evcould be said to haveallowedhim-
selfto be 'distracted' by theocratic and ecumenical concerns. But were
theseconcernsdistractions, orwerethey acontinuationofthe philosophy
ofrevelation by anotherpath, namely thepath ofactual religious life? If,
as philosophy ofrevelation holds, the living God is revealed throughthe
history ofreligion, does the philosopherofrevelation not have to gethis
hands into the stuffofreligion in practice, not just in theory, in orderto
accomplish his task? Ifso, onecan read Solov'ev'sprophetic activismqf
the 1880s as nothing less than a second philosophy of revelation. What
the second added to the first was precisely seriousness about the claims
of historic religion embodied in scriptures, dogmas and churches. The
necessarily fragmentary character of philosophy of revelation in this
mode turns out to be a virtue in that it reflects the unfinished characteraf
the historical-revelatory process. A philosophy ofrevelation that was tOQ
detenninate about the third 'potency' would in fact undennine itself.
M
2J Tri razgavoru, Subran.ie satineni} V. S. Salav'iva. ed. Solov'ev and Radlov,vol. 10,
p.87.
2d Philoropme de,. Offenbarung 1841/42,ed. Frank. p. 321.
25 Anolher way ofputting it is to say that faith does not wither away as philosophy
ofrevelation advances but remains indispensable to lhe end. As Walicki has noted, an
ambivalence about faith in philosophy of revelation was noted early in lhe Russian
PHILOSOPHY OFREVI
In lov' ev the issueofclosurecomes
iswell known, the assessment ofthis WOI
Itudies.
26
For the purposes ofthis paper
between Tri razgovora and the oonclusi
der Offenbarung. Both works end with '
phrase) and ecumenist prophecy. The
menism are close enough to suggest a d
Solov'ev. The ecumenist vision at the (
barung is based on the theory of the tl
According to Schelling, the Universal
churches ofPeter, Paul and John - chu
world-hIstorical oikonomia of revelatior
end. Peter's is the church of stability,
Paul's is the church offreedom, movem
is the urch ofthe future, ofreconcilia
.28 Obviously the Polenzenleh
but there is a practical dimension to it ,
scheme tojustify the ecumenicalproject
cism and Protcstantism. a project ofWOl
he ;eved was destined to be accompli
tant idealist working in Roman Cathol
sonal and professional reasons for
ecumenical ideal. A spiritually tinged
factor:
In Deutschland werden sich die Schick:
das deutsche Volk is! anerkannt als das
esfUr das wahrheilsliebendste. das der\\
reception ofSchelling.. Although the Slavophiles
l!led philosophy of revelation for contining
llIIionaJism. Thedilemma. as he saw it, was lhm a
religiousfaith. whereas Western Christianity was
Schelling was aware oflhis, and had attempted t{
rationalism, it was "lamenlable task to invent a
His/or)' uj Ru.uian Thought fram (he Enlighlenm
Rusi -k:1l (Stanford, California, 1979), p. 103.
16 5ludilh Deutsch Kornblatt, .Soloviev 0
Storyor beAntichrist"'.in Russian Religious Th,
Richnrtl r-. Gustafson (Madison, Wisconsin, 1996
17 flhilosophie del' Otfenbarun.g 1841/42, ed
Offenburullg, Part 2, Lectures 36-37, Scheilings 11
l! 'GeistderMenschheit' in the Paulus-Nach5
&he lil1c:r version: see Philosaphie dO' O.lfenbm
Schellhrgs Werke, ed. Schroter. vol. 6, p. 719.
P. VALLIERE
imple, Mr. Z. is introduced as the protag-
ligious' point of view, transcending thp
:ultured-progressive' views of the General
ting to construe the trio of interlocutors in
. of the philosophy of revelation: the irra-
piety), the irreducibly human (the States-
the reconciliation prophesied by Mr. Z.
tlling Schelling's dream of 'vollkommene
ms mit der allgemeinen Wissenschaft und
In his assessment of the denouement of
(enbarung, O'Meara seems to assume that
to steer clear of such 'distractions' as
of evil. If an absolute idealist synthesis
,f revelation, O'Meara's criticism would
e aim? Or, on the contrary, is it possible
h Schelling's interests in ecumenism and
be seen as irrelevant?
asked about Solov'ev's career. After
ov'ev could be said to have allowed him-
ratic and ecumenical concerns. But were
vere they a continuation of the philosophy
amely the path of actual religious life? If,
js, the living God is revealed through the
losopher of revelation not have to get his
in practice, not just in theory, in order to
can read Solov'ev's prophetic activism of
a second philosophy of revelation. What
as precisely seriousness about the claims
n scriptures, dogmas and churches. The
:ter of philosophy of revelation in this
that it reflects the unfinished character of
. A philosophy of revelation that was too
ltency' would in fact undermine
;v. s. Solov'eva. ed. Solov'ev and Radlov, vol. 10,
fJ/42, ed. Frank, p. 321.
ay that faith does not wither away as philosophy
jispensable to the end. As Walicki has noted, I\n
y of revelation was noted early in the Russian
PHILOSOPHY OF REVELATION
In Solov'ev the issue of closure comes to a head in Tri razgovora. As
is well known, the assessment of this work is a vexed issue in Solov'ev
stlldies.
26
For the purposes of this paper it suffices to note the parallels
between Tri razgovora and the conclusion of Schelling's Philosophie
del' Offenbarung. Both works end with 'satanology' (to use O'Meara's
phrase) and ecumenist prophecy. The paralJels with respect to ecu-
menism are close enough to suggest a direct influence of Schelling on
Solov'ev. The ecumenist vision at the end of Philosophie del' Offen-
barung is based on the theory of the tri-apostolicity of the church.
27
According to Schelling, the Universal Church is composed of the
churches of Peter, Paul and John - churches which are distinct in the
world-historical oikonomia of revelation but destined for unity in the
end. Peter's is the church of stability, antiquity, continuity, the Real.
Paul's is the church of freedom, movement, criticism, the Ideal. John's
is the church of the future, of reconciliation and unity, of 'the spirit of
humanity'.28 Obviously the Potenzenlehre underlies this ecclesiology,
but there is a practical dimension to it as well. Schelling designed the
scheme to justify the ecumenical project of reconciling Roman Catholi-
cism and Protestantism, a project of world-historical importance which
he believed was destined to be accomplished in Germany. As a Protes-
tant idealist working in Roman Catholic Bavaria, Schelling had per-
sonal and professional reasons for being drawn to this rendition of the
ecumenical ideal. A spiritually tinged German patriotism was also a
factor:
In Deutschland werden sich die Schicksale des Christenturns entscheiden;
das deutsche Yolk ist anerkannt als das universellste; lange Zeit auch galt
es fur das wahrheits!iebendste, das der Wahrheit alles, selbst seine politische
rcceptLon of Schelling. 'Ahhough the Slavophiles approved of Schelling, Ki.reevsJcy criti-
cized the philosophy of revelation for confiniug itself to a merely negative critique of
rationalism. The dilemma, as he saw it. was Ihat a new, positive philosophy required true
religious faith, whereas Western Christianity was itself infecled by ratioualism. Although
Schelli"ng was aware of this, and had attempted to cleanse ChristiauilY of the deposits of
rationalism, it was "lamentable task to invent a faith for oneself".' Andrzej Walicki, A
History of Russian Thought .from the Enlightenment to Marxism, traus. Hilda Andrews-
Rusiecka (Stanford, California, 1979), p. 103.
26 See Judith Deutsch Komblatt, 'Soloviev on Salvation: The Story of the "Short
Story of the Antichrist"", in Russian Religious Thought, ed. Judith Dentsch Kornblatl and
Richard F. Gustafson (Madison, Wisconsin, J996). pp. 68-87.
17 Philosophje der OffenbarLIng 184//42, ed. Frank, pp. 314-25; Phi[o.wphie del'
Orfenbarung, Part 2, Lectures 36-37, Schellings Werke. ed. Schr6ter, 6: 686-726.
2R 'Geist der Menschheit' in the Paulus-Na<:hschrift becomes 'Geist der Wahrheit in
lk later version: see Phi/osophie der O[fenbolul1g 1841142. ed. Frank, p. 322, and
Werkl', ed. Schroter, vol. 6, p. 7l9.
127
128 P. VALLIERE
Bedeutung zum Opfer gebraeht hat. 1m deutsehen Reieh hatten die alte
Kirehe und das neue Bekenntnis neben einander mit gleiehen politisehen
Reehten existierL Eine spatere Veranderung hat sie nieht bloB im Ganzen,
sondem auch in jedem einzelnen Tei! Deutschlands mit vollig gleiehen
Reehten nebeneinander gestellt. Dies ist nieht umsonst gesehehen, sondem
an sieh selbst das Vorzeichen einer neuen, hoheren Entwicklung
29
The Orthodox Church has no place in Schelling's scheme. He mentions
it only long enough to deny Orthodoxy any independent testimony to
bring to the altar of the Universal Church.
3o
The effect of this is to leave
the Johannine church without a link to history or the present-day world,
to construe it as pure futurity. Solov'ev's version of Schelling's scheme:
rectifies this problem by identifying Orthodoxy as the bearer of the
Johannine principle, although the prophetic, future-oriented vocation
of Orthodoxy is affinned at the same time. That is to say, Solov'ell
has ideal, not empirical Orthodoxy in mind in 'Kratkaja povest' ob
antikhriste'. In Solov'ev as in Schelling, however, the church of the
future is realized through the Johannine principle. In 'Kratkaja povest"
it is starets loann who initiates the reunion of the churches in the Judean
desert. Solov'ev's vision of the fratemization and co-rule of Christians
and Jews in the end-time following the fall of Antichrist also follows
Schelling. Schelling maintained that the apostle John, unlike Peter and
Paul, pastored (in Ephesus) a mixed Jewish and Gentile church, a token
of the Universal Church of the future umit the Jewish and Christian ele-
ments of the church are reconciled.
31
Solov'ev's rendition of Schelling's scheme in Tri razgovora steers it
away from purely idealist religion, an outcome that could not be
accepted by the bearers of historic Christianity or judaism. Among
Solov'ev's heirs, too. one sees an effort to steer clear of such result.
This is especially clear in Bulgakov, who remained a Solov'evian ide-
alist to the end of his days but devoted his energies in the last tWQ
decades of his life to dogmatic theology. Bulgakov's dogmatics should
be appreciated not just as an interest resulting from his ordination to the
priesthood, but as the natural continuation of a philosophy of revela-
tion. A philosophy of revelation that left no place for dogmatics, in
effect subordinating dogmatics to idealism, would be unsatisfactory
because it would steer positive philosophy back in the direction of
29 Sche.llings Wake. ed. Schroler, vol. 6, p. 712; cf. Philosophie del' Ofl"enbarung
1841142, p. 320.
)0 See Sr:he.llings Werke, ed. Schriiler, vol. 6, pp. 708-9.
31 Schellings Werke. ed. Schroler. vol. 6. pp. 719-20.
PHILOSOPHY or REI
Hegelian intellectualism and so destroy i
sophie as well as poetic truth in Solov'cv
in his philosophy of revelation to three
anny of unassimilated Jews.
P. v ALLlERE
racht hat. 1m deutschen Reich hatten die alte
Ultnis neben einander mit gleichen politischen
ere Veranderung hal sie nicht bloG im Ganzen,
lzelnen Teil Deutschlands mit vollig gleichen
tellt. Dies ist nicht umsonsl geschehen, sondem
en einer neuen, hOheren Entwicklung.
29
place in Schelling's scheme. He mentions
Orthodoxy any independent testimony to
Church.
3D
The effect of this is to leave
a link to history or the present-day world,
. Solov'ev's version of Schelling's scheme
Orthodoxy as the bearer of the
h the prophetic, future-oriented vocation
the same time. That is to say, Solov'ev
hodoxy in mind in 'Kratkaja povest' ob
in Schelling, however, the church of the
Johannine principle. In 'Kratkaja povest"
; the reunion of the churches in the Judean
le fraternization and co-rule of Christians
lowing the fall of Antichrist also folio
that the apostle John, unlike Peter and
mixed Jewish and Gentile church, a token
future until the Jewish and Christian ele-
;iledY
elling's scheme in Trj razgovora steers it
eligion, an outcome that could not be
listoric Christianity or Judaism. Among
:s an effort to steer clear of such result.
gakov, who remained a Solov'evian ide-
mt devoted his energies in the last two
: theology. Bulgakov's dogmatics should
terest resulting from his ordination to the
continuation of a philosophy of revela-
ion that left no place for dogmatics, in
s to idealism, would be unsatisfactory
Ie philosophy back in the direction of
vol. 6, p. 712: cf. Philosophie del' Ojfenbarung
er, vol. 6, pp. 708-9.
01. 6, pp. 719-20.
PHfi..oSOPHY OF REVELAnON
Hegelian intellectualism and so destroy it. In other words, there is philo-
sophic as well as poetic truth in Solov'ev's decision to give {he last word
in his philosophy of revelation to three churchmen in the desert and an
IItnY of unassimiJated Jews.
129

You might also like