Springer: Info/about/policies/terms - JSP

A Short Story about the "übermensch": Vladimir Solov'ëv's Interpretation of and Response to
Nietzsche's "übermensch"
Author(s): Nel Grillaert
Source: Studies in East European Thought, Vol. 55, No. 2, Vladimir Solov'ëv: Russian European
Thinker (Jun., 2003), pp. 157-184
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20099827
Accessed: 12-03-2016 14:27 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Studies in East European Thought.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 132.174.255.116 on Sat, 12 Mar 2016 14:27:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NEL GRILLAERT
A SHORT STORY ABOUT THE ?BERMENSCH: VLADIMIR

SOLOV'?V'S INTERPRETATION OF AND RESPONSE TO
NIETZSCHE'S ?BERMENSCH
ABSTRACT. From the 1890s on, the atheist philosopher F. Nietzsche exer
ted a profound and enduring impact on Russian religious, cultural, and social
reality. The religious philosopher VS. Solov'?v perceived Nietzsche's thought as
an actual threat to Russian religious consciousness and his own anthropological
ideal of Divine Humanity. He was especially preoccupied with the idea of the
?bermensch since some two decades before the Nietzschean ?bermensch was
popularized in Russia, Solov'?v had already developed his own interpretation of
the sverkhchelovek.
KEY WORDS: Antichrist, Bogochelovechestvo, bogoiskateli, Friedrich Nietz

sche, Russian Nicsheanstvo, sverkhchelovek, ?bermensch
During the last decade of the 19th Century and the beginning of the
20th Century - a period often referred to as the Russian 'Silver Age'
- the major representatives of the Russian intelligentsia became
familiar with and indulged in the works and thought of Friedrich
Nietzsche (1844-1900). The reading of the German philosopher
was not a unilateral process of passive absorption, but spurred
Russian intellectuals to actively reconsider their own thought and
reformulate the course of their own philosophy. In his portrayal of
the 'Russian cultural renaissance', the age of the flowering of arts
and philosophy, the religious philosopher Nikolaj Berdjaev refers
to Nietzsche as "the strongest Western influence" on this partic
ular artistic and intellectual climate.1 He sees an equally important,
though typically Russian, inspiration in the figure and thought of
the religious philosopher Vladimir Solov'?v (1853-1900). Consid
ering Nietzsche's pronounced atheistic outlook on the one hand and
Solov'?v's religious viewpoint on the other hand, this juxtaposition
strikes as odd.
One can indeed detect certain correspondences between
Nietzsche's and Solov'?v's reasoning: the conviction that the 19th
%.M Studies in East European Thought 55: 157-184,2003.

W? ? 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
158 NEL GRILLAERT
century positivistic emphasis on science and man as a cognitive

subject has caused the decline of Western philosophy and the search
for new philosophical paradigms, based on the principle of life.2
Yet the philosophical discordances between the atheistic and the
deeply religious thinker cannot be denied and Berdjaev's statement
would most certainly have disturbed Solov'?v, since he considered
the German philosopher to be his direct intellectual opponent.
Nietzsche started his philosophical 'career' two years earlier
(with Die Geburt der Trag?die, 1872) than Solov'?v (with his
Master's Thesis Krizis zapadnoj filosofii, 1874). Both thinkers were
confronted with the legacy of the 19th century European Zeitgeist,
in which materialistic and positivistic tenets gradually supplanted
the belief in God. Both acknowledged that the traditional Christian
doctrine was irreconcilable with modern mentality. Yet whereas the
German philosopher developed an anthropology in which the 'dead
God' is completely cancelled out, the Russian religious thinker -
in spite of an atheistic phase during his adolescence - attempted
to overcome the crisis in religion by reinvigorating the traditional
belief.
Some months before his mental collapse, Nietzsche showed a
growing interest in Russian actuality, but to my knowledge there
is no indication that he knew anything about Solov'?v, who was
at that time the most famous and influential philosopher among
Russian intellectuals.3 Solov'?v on the other hand was well aware
of Nietzsche's life and works, although it is difficult to establish
to what extent he really read the German philosopher, or rather
he knew him only by reputation and secondhand information. For,
when Nietzsche became known among the Russian intelligentsia in
the beginning of the 1890s, his notoriety as the 'atheist mad philos
opher' was often ahead of him and hindered an unbiased reading of
his works.4 Neither in his published works, nor in his letters, does
Solov'?v reveal the sources of his familiarity with Nietzsche. Refer
ences to Zarathustra and the Antichrist prove Solov'?v's knowledge
of Also sprach Zarathustra (1883-1885, the fourth part was not
published until 1892) and Der Antichrist (1888, published in 1895);
yet they might also be retraced to a mere acquaintance with the titles
of the works in question.5 Solov'?v's philosophical stance towards
Nietzsche was possibly determined by his polemics with the Russian
A SHORT STORY ABOUT THE ?BERMENSCH 159
Nietzscheans and conditioned by rumors about Nietzsche's insanity.

In Solov'?v's opinion, the 'aberrations' in Nietzsche's thought were
obviously rooted in his mental state of "psychopathy."6
Already in his first reference to the German philosopher Solov'?v
alludes to his mental condition. In the article 'Pervyj shag k
polozhitel'noj estetike' (A first Step towards a positive Aesthetics,
1894) - a polemic against the adherents of the decadent move
ment in the arts - Nietzsche is described as "a talented writer,"
who "unfortunately turned out to be mentally ill."7 In Solov'?v's
paraphrasing, Nietzsche's advocated "that compassion is a base
feeling, unworthy for a person who respects himself; that morality
only serves for slave natures; that there is no humanity, but only
masters and slaves, semi-gods and semi-cattle, that for the first all
is permitted, while the second are obliged to serve as an instrument
for the first and so on."8
Solov'?v considers these ideas not as new and original as they
are received by the contemporary European public: they are a mere
reanimation of ancient beliefs, dating from the time of the Egyptian
pharaohs and the Assyrian kings. Therefore, he sees at first sight no
real threat in Nietzsche's 're-evaluation' of the traditional human
istic morality. The course of human history has proven that besides
the classes of masters and slaves, reproduced by Nietzsche, a third
class developed itself, a class of "not humble slaves, who ceased
being slaves."9
Yet one can read between the lines that underneath Solov'?v's
serene and confident attitude towards Nietzsche there lies an anxious
premonition concerning the actual nature of the philosopher's body
of thought and that his apparent optimism on the future development
of humankind is filled with doubt and fearful expectations. For he
senses in the figure of Nietzsche - at face value harmless - the herald
of the coming Antichrist, and "this last masked reaction of the ideals
of Dahomey will not last long."10 The figure of the Antichrist seems
to linger as a doom over Solov'?v's optimistic hopes for the future
development of human history. In his later writings the preoccu
pation with the Antichrist will intensify and reach its culmination
in the apocalyptic 'Kratkaja povest' ob Antikhriste' (A short Story
about the Antichrist, 1900). "The ideals of Dahomey," preached by
Nietzsche, are but an anticipation of the coming of the Antichrist.
160 NEL GRILLAERT
In his critique on Nietzsche, Solov'?v is chiefly preoccupied

with the philosopher's idea of the ?bermensch. For long before
Nietzsche's thought and the specific Nietzschean notion of the
?bermensch gained acceptance in Russia, Solov'?v had elaborated
his own concept of the superhuman [sverkhchelovecheskoe]}1 The
confrontation with Nietzsche's ?bermensch, a concept that had
become a popular subject among the Russian intelligentsia from the
1890s on - yet was often misunderstood and decontextualized -,
urged Solov'?v to secure his own denotation of the superhuman. His
dialogue with the Nietzschean ?bermensch is both a critical analysis
of this concept and an attempt to reformulate and reappraise his own
interpretation of the term.
SOLOV'?V'S SVERKHCHELOVEK: TRANSCENDING HUMANKIND
The first references to the ?bermensch in Nietzsche's works

appear from 1882 on, in the preparatory notes to Also sprach
Zarathustra (1883-1885), the only book in Nietzsche's corpus
in which a detailed and coherent account of the ?bermensch is
given.12 Solov'?v, who was not aware of Nietzsche's thought until
the beginning of the 1890s, had already reflected upon and elabo
rated his definition of the superhuman some years before Nietzsche
developed his specific interpretation of the term and long before the
religious philosopher got acquainted with Nietzsche's idea of the
?bermensch.
Solov'?v refers to the superhuman [sverkhchelovecheskoe] as
early as 1877 in the article 'Vera, Razum i Opyt' (Faith, Reason and
Experience).13 In the introduction to this essay - in which Solov'?v
aims to argue that faith cannot be replaced by reason or science -
he quotes David Friedrich Strauss's Der alte und der neue Glaube
(1872) as an example of the then prevailing positivistic attempts to
overcome faith by science.14 In this controversial work, in which
Strauss critically analyzed traditional Christianity and its entrench
ment in the narratives of miracles and myths (the old faith) and
searched - in line with the new belief in Darwinian theories - for
a new legitimization and foundation for humanity in science (the
new faith), the German theologian approached "every superhuman
revelation, every religion" from an a priori negative point of view.

Further in the article Solov'?v claims that with the appearance of
Christ, a "superhuman impulse" entered the world.15 This fragment
reveals that for Solov'?v the superhuman is a religious principle,
directly linked to the figure of Christ. The next reference to the
superhuman appears in the first lecture of the Chtenija o Bogochelo
vechestve (Lectures on Divine Humanity, 1878-1881), in which
Solov'?v unfolds the idea that society and the social order should
rest upon a positive basis. This basis might either be the will of
God, which has an "absolute, supernatural and superhuman char
acter," or the will of the people.16 This implies that for Solov'?v
the idea of the superhuman corresponds to God. In the letter to Tsar
Aleksandr III (April 1881), in which Solov'?v requests the Tsar to
show clemency for Tsar Aleksandr II's murderers, he employs the
term superhuman to denote an extraordinary moral strength.17 By
granting the terrorists mercy, the Tsar would rise to "a superhuman
height" and would by this act "prove the divine significance of the
Tsarist power."18 The notion of the superhuman pops up again in the
third speech in memory of Dostoevskij, delivered on February 19,
1883: here, Solov'?v associates God with the idea of a "superhuman
Good" [sverkhchelovecheskoe Dobro].19 In Istorija i budushchnosf
teokratii (The History and Future of Theocracy, 1885) Solov'?v
treats the concept of the superhuman more extensively. In its present
condition humankind has not yet reached 'true humanity' ; to realize
this ideal of human perfection, humans should transcend their
specific human nature and become one with the Divine. The first
'true human', who incorporated both the human and the divine
nature in one person, was the God-Man [Bogochelovek], i.e. Jesus
Christ: "The God-Man, who is the end and goal of human nature, is
... for us the first-born or the decisive basis of the new superhuman
development form, in which humanity, rising above itself, unites
itself intrinsically with the Divine Being and becomes a part of the
Kingdom of God."20
This quotation reveals the significance of the notion of the
superhuman in Solov'?v's philosophical framework, for the term
refers to the core of his religious philosophy, the idea of Divine
Humanity [Bogochelovechestvo]. In this future-oriented anthropo
logical project Solov'?v's metaphysical optimism on the ultimate
162 NEL GRILLAERT
salvation and elevation of humankind finds its utmost expression.

In line with Byzantine tradition, Solov'?v believes that the initial
godlike nature of human beings has not been completely vanished
since the Fall, but can be restored. The goal of human devel
opment is the collective apotheosis of humankind through God's
glory. This restoration of human likeness with God is initiated by
Christ, the authentic God-Man [Bogochelovek], in whom Logos and
flesh, divine and human nature are reconciled. Through the appear
ance and mediation of Christ - Divinity incarnate - the whole of
humanity can be transfigured and find its ultimate fulfillment in
God. Solov'?v's anthropology of Bogochelovechestvo is a caique
from the Greek theandria, which in patristic sources refers to the
union between God (theos, in Russian Bog) and humans (anthropos,
in Russian chelovek).21 In Solov'?v's interpretation the superhuman
denotes an ideal of human perfectibility, a higher, deified level of
human existence, a concept that is analogous with his anthropology
of Divine Humanity.22
This idea is reformulated in 'Zhiznennaja drama Platona' (Plato's
Life-Drama, 1898): here, Solov'?v postulates that the process of
the deification of humankind is only possible in mutual interac
tion between God and human. Just as Divinity cannot regenerate
the human being without the participation of the human himself,
"it is likewise impossible for the human to create superhumanity
out of himself ... the human can become divine only by the real
power of ... an eternally existing Divine Being."23 The human
cannot become superhuman "solely by force of mind, genius and
moral will," it is necessary that a "genuine, substantive God-Man"
appears.24
Solov'?v's interpretation of the superhuman as a higher, perfec
tionized state of humanity in which the present human condition
is transcended and the human is united with the Divine, harmo
nizes with and emerges from early Christian mysticism and Greek
patristic thought. In the 2nd Century A.D. Montanus introduced
the concept of the superman (hyperanthropos) in Christian thought:
he used the term for designating the Paraclete.25 In the heretical
Montanist movement the concept fulfilled the early Christian hopes
for the elevation of humankind, which was initiated by the coming
of Christ and could only be fully realized through the effusion
of the Holy Spirit onto every human being. The hyperanthropos

denoted the human of the coming era of salvation. After the denunci
ation of Montanism the concept was banned out of the official
church, but survived in Gnosticism. Through gnosis or esoteric
knowledge concerning the essential truth on God and the world,
the Gnostic would reach a higher, superhuman stage of being and
come closer to God. Whereas in the Gnostic tradition superhumanity
was exclusively reserved for the initiated, the Greek theologian
Origen (185-254 A.D.) applied the idea to all Christians and intro
duced it in Christian anthropology: all Christians are 'Sons of God'
and can, through God's glory, be elevated and deified. In the 5th
Century the mystical theologian Pseudo-Dionysios the Areopagite
linked the concept of the superhuman to the controversial question
of Christ's two natures. At the Council of Chalcedon (451) a creed
was accepted which recognized and affirmed both Christ's divine
and human nature. Pseudo-Dionysios was the first to associate the
doctrine of Christ's Divinity and humanity with the idea of the
hyperanthropos: in Christ the essence of human nature is united
with Divinity and in this manner human nature is elevated to the
superhuman.26
While in the following centuries the concept of the super
human was gradually abandoned from official Western Christian
theology, the term was further employed and reflected upon in
Eastern Orthodox Christology, more particularly where it concerned
Christ's divine and human nature. In the Eastern Orthodox tradi
tion the hyperanthropos or superman is thus highly associated with
the figure of Christ, more specifically with Christ's incarnation. As
Divinity incarnate, Christ is no longer mere human, he mediates as it
were between the divine and the human, he is both God and human,
the God-Man (Theanthropos or Bogochelovek).
Solov'?v, raised in the Russian Orthodox tradition and educated
in both philosophy and theology, was aware of the specific religious
interpretation of the superman and its association with the God-Man
Christ.27 His anthropological project of Divine Humanity and the
related idea of superhumanity is a further elaboration of this influ
ential legacy in Russian Orthodox thinking. Hence, for Solov'?v the
idea of the superhuman has a pre-eminently religious dimension:
the term expresses his ideal of a final union between Divinity and
164 NEL GRILLAERT
humanity. The confrontation with Nietzsche's ?bermensch there

fore, which is completely atheistic and is designed to overcome the
death of the old God, must have alarmed the religious philosopher
and stimulated him to disprove this corruption of his own ideal.
NIETZSCHE'S ?BERMENSCH: A CONFRONTING ANTHROPOLOGY
In one of the Voskresnye pis'ma (Sunday Letters), 'Slovesnost'

ili Istina' (Literature or Truth, 1897), Solov'?v for the first time
engages in a polemic with Nietzsche's ?bermensch. Despite his
explicit critique on and disapproval of the atheist's concept, he is
appealed by the initial truthfulness of the ?bermensch'. "Isn't the
unfortunate Nietzsche right, after all, when he maintains that all
the virtue, all the value, of a man is in the fact that he is more
than a man, that he is a transition to some kind of other, higher
beingV2* Solov'?v values in the ?bermensch what he perceives to
be the perfectionist and idealist character of this anthropology. The
authenticity of the concept lies in the urge to transcend the present
human condition and to strive for a higher form of humanity, to
attain human perfection, an idea that is parallel to his own notion
of the superhuman. Yet, Solov'?v's appraisal of what he considers
to be the true side of the ?bermensch is based on a misreading.
In fact, Nietzsche's ?bermensch is discontinuous with the tradi
tional anthropological project of proclaiming an ideal of human
perfectibility to which all humankind should be elevated.
In the third and fourth part of the Prologue to Also sprach
Zarathustra, the protagonist Zarathustra teaches the people on the
market the ?bermensch: "/ teach you the ?bermensch. Man is
something that should be overcome."29 It is made clear straight away
that the appearance of the ?bermensch requires the surpassing of
humanity. The ?bermensch does not - as interpreted by Solov'?v
- represent an ideal human type or a higher condition in the
human process, but is a being beyond the human. In Nietzsche's
anthropology the human being is "a rope, tied between animal and
?bermensch," a "bridge" to the ?bermensch, however not - as in
Solov'?v's anthropological project - a being that finds its continu
ation and reaches its ultimate fulfillment in superhumanity.30 For the
?bermensch to emerge, the human should go under: "what can be

loved in a man is that he is an over-going (?bergang) and an under
going (Untergang)!'31 For Nietzsche, the ?bermensch is not a
transcendent being above humanity, but a being beyond the 'human,
all too human'. In his autobiography Ecce Homo (1888, post
humously published in 1908), Nietzsche counters the interpre
tation of the ?bermensch as an ideal human type: "The word
'?bermensch' as indicating a type of supreme successfulness,
in contrast with 'modern' humans, with 'good' humans, with
Christians and other nihilists ... has been almost everywhere under
stood with full innocence in the sense of those values, whose
opposite has made its appearance in the figure of Zarathustra, that is
to say as an 'idealistic' type of a higher species of humankind, half
'saint', half'genius' .. ,"32
Solov'?v perceives - though mistakenly - in the ?bermensch a
faint reflection of his own idea of the superhuman, i.e. an ideal of
human perfection. In opposition to the authentic superman, however,
who actually lived and acted according to his superhuman nature,
Nietzsche's ?bermensch is merely an abstract idea that only existed
in the fictional character of Zarathustra. Nietzsche - no more than
a "super-philologist" [sverkhfilolog] - has substituted the truthful
understanding of the superman as a religious principle by a literary
persona?3 His ?bermensch is "only a subject of university teaching,
a newly instituted department of the philological faculty."34 He
created a fictitious ?bermensch as a surrogate for the real superman,
the God-Man Christ. In a sarcastic manner Solov'?v aims to under
mine and discredit Nietzsche's anthropology by contrasting the
?bermensch (in the present case Zarathustra) with the real superman
(Jesus Christ). The real superman was, for example, given a simple
name, common in that time and place, whereas Nietzsche could
not name his ?bermensch "Heinrich or Friedrich or Otto," but
decided upon Zarathustra, which "carried the odor of linguistics."
Before the beginning of his public life, Jesus spent forty days in
the desert, while Nietzsche let Zarathustra spend ten years in a
cave.35 In contrast with the artificial and fabricated ?bermensch, the
true superman did not merely exist by words, but performed actual
deeds: He rose from the dead.36 By resurrecting from the dead,
166 NEL GRILLAERT
Christ revealed his divine nature and became one with God. In this
manner, he laid the path to the transfiguration of whole humankind.
In spite of the quasi light-hearted and humorous tone of
Solov'?v's approach, at the end of 'Slovesnost' ili Istina' one can
read between the lines that Nietzsche's ?bermensch distressed the
philosopher more than he was willing to admit; it is insinuated that
the ?bermensch might be a premonition of the coming Antichrist:
"In all his emptiness and artificiality, the superman ... perhaps
represents the prototype of the one who will display, apart from his
brilliant words, both deeds and signs of the times, even if they are
false."37
While Solov'?v approached the ?bermensch in his first article
on the subject with sarcasm and mockery, he displays a milder and
more serious attitude in the second article on Nietzsche's concept,
Tdeja Sverkhcheloveka' (The Idea of a Superman, 1899). The reli
gious philosopher considers Nietzsche's idea of the ?bermensch,
which he frankly calls a "demonology," to be - together with Marx's
economic materialism and Tolstoj's abstract moralism - the most
popular tendency in contemporary thinking. Out of these three
intellectual trends Solov'?v gives preference to the Nietzschean
current, because "the window of Nietzsche's 'superman' opens
out directly onto the immense expanse of all of life's roads."38
Solov'?v reformulates his point made in 'Slovesnost' ili Istina':
Nietzscheanism - in actual fact "an error" - holds in itself an essen
tial truth and can only be judged and disproved on the basis of its
truthfulness.39 What Solov'?v values in Nietzsche's anthropology
is that it urges humans to be critical of and overcome their present
condition. For the past and future progression of humankind could
and can only be realized by the immanent desire to overgrow actual
reality: "Man naturally wants to be better and more than he is in
reality; he is naturally drawn to the idea of a superman."40 Yet,
in Solov'?v's perception, Nietzsche's account of the superhuman
is a distortion of the authentic ideal: the philosopher has erred in
conceiving the ?bermensch against a Darwinist background and in
associating the concept with a more perfected form in biological
evolution. This reading of the ?bermensch from a Darwinist angle
is associated with the general Weltanschauung in the last decades
of the 19th century, in which Darwinian and other evolutionist
theories (Haeckel's and Spencer's among others) dominated both

science and popular mentality. In the Nietzsche-Forschung, however,
there is no univocal answer to Nietzsche's alleged Darwinism in his
elaboration of the ?bermensch. Zarathustra indeed explicates the
?bermensch to the people on the market in evolutionist phrasing:
"You have made your way from worm to man, and much within you
is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now man is more an
ape than any ape."41 Yet the philosopher took at the same time a
manifest anti-Darwinist stance: the ?bermensch does not represent
a new phase in the evolution of the species, but is rather "a fortu
nate accident" [Gl?cksfall] in the history of humankind.42 Highly
aware of the evolutionist theories that had pervaded the contem
porary Zeitgeist, Nietzsche anticipated and countered a Darwinist
reading of the ?bermensch: "Other learned cattle has suspected me
on their account of Darwinism."43
Solov'?v, a former student of natural science (1869-1872), was
well-informed on the evolutionist debate and opposed the alleged
biological dimension of the ?bermensch with his own phylogenetic
thesis. In his opinion, the present human physical form is the
culmination and final goal of biological evolution. In the Animal
Kingdom mental capacities evolve dependently of and proportion
ally to the degree of complexity of the physical form. If, for
example, the form of an oyster was the end of the physical devel
opment of organisms, then the evolution of mental life would have
stopped there. The corporeal form of an oyster could not be suffi
cient for the mental processes of later animals in evolution, let
alone for the specific psyche of man.44 According to Solov'?v, this
systematic correlation between psychic and physical development
came to an end with the appearance of man on the evolutionist scale:
in the specific human physiology corporeal transformation has
reached its ultimate completion. Within the current human organism
man can endlessly refine his inner self. The human type has no need
for physical improvement or modification, the human corpus should
not be transcended and evolve towards some new superhuman form,
"because the human form can infinitely perfect itself - outwardly
and inwardly, remaining all the while the same."45 In his present
physical condition man is capable of fulfilling everything, he is
168 NEL GRILLAERT
"capable of being the form of a perfected All-unity [vseedinstvo]

or divine being [bozhestvo]."46
This human "morphological stability" does not hinder the
intrinsic human aspiration to transcend oneself mentally, to become
superhuman, "because the truth of this aspiration is related not
to any forms of human existence, but only to the capacity of
man functioning in these forms."47 Solov'?v rejects in Nietzsche's
?bermensch what he (mis)reads as the Darwinist idea of biological
transformation into a kind of higher organic being, a superhuman
form of life. In his view, the human organism in its present condi
tion is the ultimate perfection of biological evolution and thereby
no obstacle on the path to the superhuman. The real impediment,
however, for the human to raise himself to the superhuman is "the
phenomenon of death."48 Death is an inevitability in human exist
ence, it is the final destiny of the whole of humankind. Precisely at
this point, the true superman distinguishes himself from mortal man:
"... a 'superman' must be first of all, and particularly, a conqueror of
death - a liberated-liberator of humanity from those essential condi
tions which make death necessary, and consequently, the executor of
those conditions by which it is possible either not to die at all, or,
having died, to rise from the dead to eternal life."49 The authentic
superman transcends the ultimate human restriction: death. For
Solov'?v, the only legitimate ideal of the superman is the Christian
one, in which immortality is attained through resurrection.50 The
first human to have risen from the dead, the "firstborn of the
dead"51 - and consequently the first authentic superman - was Jesus
Christ.52
In contrast to Nietzsche's perception of the ?bermensch, i.e.
a condition that should be attained on an individual basis, the
Solov'?vian ideal of the superhuman concerns the whole of
humanity. In Solov'?v's anthropological project superhumanity is
not merely reserved for Christ, but is the final and universal goal
of human evolution. However distant the objective of a collective
superhumanity - i.e. Divine Humanity - might be, "there is a super
human path over which man has gone, goes, and will go for the
good of all."53 Contemporary humankind should concentrate on
and develop its superhuman potential, "because a full and decisive
victory over death is at its end."54 'Superhumanity' is not merely
reserved for a single individual or at best for an elite, but has

a universalist and collectivist undertone: the whole of humanity
can and should evolve towards superhumanity. As opposed to his
own intellection of superhumanity, Solov'?v considers Nietzsche's
anthropological model to be the ultimate manifestation of individu
alism. A thorough reading of Nietzsche's writings, however,
reveals that the ?bermensch has an unequivocal collectivist and
social dimension. In the Prologue to Also sprach Zarathustra, the
protagonist proclaims that he loves humanity and left his cave
to bring a gift - the ?bermensch - to the people.55 Further on
he declares his love for those who initiate and lay the soil for
the ?bermensch, stressing the significance of the mutual interac
tion between humanity and the ?bermensch.56 By accepting and
affirming life as it is, into the abysmal of eternal recurrence, the
?bermensch provides humankind with the ultimate raison d'?tre
and legitimizes humanity in a decisive manner.
The article Tdeja Sverkhcheloveka' caused a polemic in Mir
Iskusstva (The World of Art), the then leading journal of the
decadents, or in Solov'?v's wording, "our supermen."57 Solov'?v
countered this offense by the 'supermen' in 'Protiv izpolnitel'nogo
lista' (Against the Act of Execution, 1899).58 In his typical sarcastic
style Solov'?v mocks the journal and its editorial staff: as it suits
real supermen, the act of execution was presented to him in a
"super-police," "super-judicial" and "super-logical" way [v sverkh
policejskom, sverkhsudebnom, sverkhlogicheskom porjadke] .59
Here Solov'?v's anxious presentiment concerning the ?bermensch
as the anticipation of the coming Antichrist is once again expressed:
"There is in man and the world something that appears to be secret,
but that more and more reveals its secret. It is frightful how this
something, under various names, orgiasm, pythism, demonism etc.,
pleases those people, they make their god out of it, their religion,
and for their service to this something, which is within their powers,
they consider themselves selected and supermen."60
In an essay on the Russian author Mikhail Lermontov (1814?
1841), Solov'?v continues his polemic with Nietzsche in general,
and with the idea of the ?bermensch in particular ('Lermontov',
1899). Solov'?v perceives in Lermontov, whose poetry became only
fully understandable and actual in the figure and thought of the
170 NEL GRILLAERT
German philosopher, "the direct ancestor" of Nietzscheanism.

Lermontov was by nature endowed with the features of a real
superman: "Lermontov was definitely a genius, i.e. a person, who is
from his birth on similar to the superman, who received capacities
for a great pursuit, who is capable, and hence, obliged to execute
it."62 The author was gifted with a strong personality and a feeling of
sensitivity towards the world surrounding him, which enabled him
to develop visionary qualities. He could see beyond the phenom
enal world and grasp the essence of all being. Yet, in spite of the
great talent he had received for preceding humanity on its way to
superhumanity, Lermontov reneged on fulfilling his duty. Instead
of exerting his superhuman genius to lead humankind forward in
the process to perfection, Lermontov chose to isolate himself from
humankind and to concentrate solely on himself. He understood
the power of his genius as a privilege and not as a commitment
to God and humanity. In Lermontov's troubled psyche, both the
superhuman - that is the divine - and evil principle struggled to gain
the upper hand. Eventually, the evil principle triumphed and incited
the poet to its idealization. The evil principle became Lermontov's
demon.63 Lermontov was corrupted by "the basic evil... the capital
mortal sin," namely pride, which provoked him to consider himself
"higher than common mortals" and to live by the principle that all
is permitted.64 This extremely proud attitude prevented him from
becoming a true superman. For one can become truly superhuman
only by the virtue of humility: "... pride is for the human the first
condition for never becoming a superman, and humility is the first
condition for becoming a superman; therefore one can say, that
genius obliges one to humility, this only means, that the genius is
obliged to become a superman."65
Lermontov did not fulfill this commitment, he did not develop
the genius he received as a divine gift, he did not lead humanity to
genuine superhumanity, as he was called to do.66 Solov'?v's percep
tion of Lermontov as the negative, failed superman personified
precedes and foreshadows his identification of the superman with
the Antichrist in the apocalyptic and prophetic 'Kratkaja povest'
ob Antikhriste' (A short Story about the Antichrist, 1900). This
eschatological tale, added to Solov'?v's last philosophical work Tri
Razgovora (Three Conversations, 1899-1900) and not finished until

some months before his death, was the philosopher's final attempt
to deal with the contemporary Zeitgeist of religious skepticism and
his own foreboding premonitions on the future of humankind. For
by the end of the 1890s, Solov'?v's initial optimism on historical
progress and the future of humankind had been gradually replaced
by a fatalistic anticipation of the coming Antichrist and the final
victory of evil. In this prophetic parable Solov'?v attempted to
restore his belief in the Kingdom of God on earth and to counter
his unbelieving opponents in a decisive manner.67
In this dystopian context, Solov'?v renders a gloomy image of
what might be the political and social state of 21st century Europe.
After half a century of Pan-Mongolian yoke on European soil the
scattered European nations have united themselves to chase away
the Asian occupiers and have founded a coalition of democratic
governments, "the European United States." In this time a remark
able person, whom "many called a superman," appears and gains
both political and spiritual power.68 This 'superman' is eventu
ally chosen to become both the secular and religious leader of all
European nations. The noble and religious emperor brings peace and
material wealth to the world, he is by all nations and religions hailed
as the great benefactor of humanity and the second incarnation of
God in the world. His belief in God and Christian principles is,
however, solely based on rational and pragmatic considerations, his
whole being is only directed towards himself: "he loved only himself
alone."69 Though merely unconsciously, he even prefers himself to
God. His extreme self-love incites him to declare himself the real
Christ, the final Savior, whereas he looks upon the first Christ as
nothing more than his own precursor.70
Christ had reformed humanity by preaching the Moral Good
and living by it, the superman considers himself called to be the
benefactor of humanity, to bring peace and material security to
humankind.71 Convinced that he is the new Messiah, the superman
waits for a divine signal from God. The long-awaited for revelation,
as described in the prophecy of the Second Coming, is, however,
not disclosed by God, but by Satan, who addresses the superman
in the same wording as God used to reveal Christ's divine nature
to the people: "My beloved son, in you is all My benevolence."72
172 NEL GRILLAERT
At this point the superman is transformed into the Antichrist. He

has reached the age of thirty three, the age Christ died at the cross.
Not revealing his true nature and posing as the second Christ, the
superman-Antichrist appears to the people as the "man of the future"
[grjadushchij chelovek].73 This designation parallels Nietzsche's
Mensch der Zukunft, the redeemer of humanity, who will deliver us
from "the will to nothing, from nihilism," who "returns to the earth
its goal and to man its hope, this Antichrist and anti-nihilist, this
conqueror of God and nothing, he should come once."14 During an
'Ecumenical Council', where representatives of all Christian reli
gions are present, the superman demands to be appointed the sole
religious authority for all churches. But the leaders of the three
main churches (Catholicism, Protestantism and Orthodoxy) refuse
and in the end expose the superman as the Antichrist incarnate. In
line with biblical prophecy, Solov'?v describes the ultimate battle
between Christian believers and the Antichrist, between good and
evil, in an apocalyptic way: the Orthodox and Catholic leaders are
murdered by a supernatural power, they later resurrect from the dead
and unite the last true Christians. The Antichrist is in the end killed
by a volcanic eruption near the Dead Sea. With the appearance of the
long-awaited for Christ, the authentic superman, the thousand-year
Christian reign is installed.
What distinguishes the superman-Antichrist from other 'godless'
personae in 19th century Russian literature, is that this character
does not put forward any philosophical reasoning to renounce
God and Christian principles: the only reason why the superman
cannot submit to God and Christ is his self-love. As in the case of
Lermontov, whose pride and self-centeredness impeded him from
developing his superhuman genius, the Antichrist's self-love and
egotism makes it impossible for him to equal the real superman,
Christ.
By appointing both Christ and the Antichrist as 'supermen',
Solov'?v for the first time acknowledges them to be equal
opponents, respectively representing the absolute good and the ulti
mate evil. Both the Christian and the Antichristian or demonical
superman are provided with equal genius and equal qualities. Both
are strong personalities, highly conscious of themselves and the
other, both have a visionary talent that enables them to elevate
humankind to Divine Humanity. They differ, however, in the way

they ultimately use their genius. The Christian superman or Christ
chooses to employ his superhuman capacities for the benefit of
humanity, whereas the demonical superman or the Antichrist alien
ates himself from humanity and uses his genius solely for the
development of the own ego. Christ is the ultimate altruist, he sacri
fices his life for humanity; the Antichrist is egoism incarnate, his
apparent benevolence is nothing more than extreme pride and lust
for power.
Only in this final work, finished some months before his death,
does Solov'?v explicitly associate the superman with the Anti
christ, yet on a fictionalized level, as if not to alarm the reader
with what he perceives to be a real danger for humankind. The
question is, of course, whether the superman in this eschatological
tale refers to Nietzsche's ?bermensch and, consequently, whether
Solov'?v in the end perceives of the ?bermensch as the coming
Antichrist. According to M?ller, Nietzsche and the Antichrist are
in Solov'?v's perception connotatively related, which implies that
where Solov'?v mentions the Antichrist, the atheist philosopher is
clearly present in the background.75 In Losev's opinion, Solov'?v's
premonition of the Antichrist is the inevitable and logical outcome
of thinking through Nietzsche's conception of the ?bermensch:
"the Nietzschean superman, from Solov'?v's point of view, the
Antichrist."76 Wozniuk shares this view: "the story [of the Anti
christ, NG] appears as the culmination of Soloviev's efforts to
refute Nietzsche ... Soloviev adapted the ... Nietzschean theme
of the political incarnation of a superman to this preapocalyptic
end-of-history scenario."77
Solov'?v's apocalyptic portrayal of the Antichrist indeed
appears as the philosopher's ultimate struggle and reckoning with
Nietzsche's ?bermensch. For already in the first reference to
the German philosopher ('Pervyi shag k polozhitel'noi estetike',
1894), Solov'?v implicitly communicates the anxious foreboding
that Nietzsche is in actual fact but the anticipation of the coming
Antichrist.78 In the later writings on Nietzsche, and in partic
ular on the ?bermensch, this association becomes more and more
pronounced, until it, apparently, reaches its culmination in the figure
of the superman-Antichrist. Yet the Antichrist does not only reflect
174 NEL GRILLAERT
Solov'?v's considerations on the ?bermensch, but is also rooted in

his critique on Lev Tolstoj's ethics and on Marxist philosophy.79 The
superman-Antichrist is the personification of all three of the then
prevalent moral theories that Solov'?v considers to be potentially
subversive for Russian religious consciousness.80
CONCLUSION
One can detect a growing anxiety in Solov'?v's understanding of

Nietzsche's ?bermensch. In his earliest reflections on the subject the
religious philosopher explicitly values in the ?bermensch what he -
mistakenly - believes to be the idealist and perfectionist character of
Nietzsche's anthropology. What he considers to be the truthfulness
of the ?bermensch - an ideal of human perfectibility - is precisely
at the core of his own religious interpretation of the superhuman.
By receiving the ?bermensch as a faint and imperfect variant of
the authentic superman Christ, the potential danger of Nietzsche's
concept is ruled out.
Yet by the end of the 1890s the philosopher sees himself
confronted with a rapidly changing social and cultural reality, a
phenomenon he observes both in Europe and his motherland. In
1898 Solov'?v undertakes a journey through Europe, during which
he is alarmed at the imminent peril of European civilization.81 The
Russian homeland, which was supposed to play a Messianic role in
the regeneration of depraved European society, is - in Solov'?v's
perception - contaminated with a similar inclination towards evil.
In fin de si?cle Russia, traditional Christian morality is endangered
by decadent and avant-garde movements, which are to a large
extent inspired by Nietzschean thought. In Solov'?v's perception,
the atheist philosopher becomes the embodiment and culmination of
Western degenerate mentality and lifestyle, whose ideas gradually
penetrate and undermine traditional Russian values. Solov'?v can no
longer conceal his concern for the real ramifications of Nietzsche's
mental legacy in Russian culture and eventually discloses what he
perceives to be the actual nature of Nietzsche's ideas.
In the later references to the ?bermensch (the essay 'Lermontov'
and the prophetic parable 'Kratkaja povest' ob Antikhriste'),
Solov'?v's real premonitions concerning the character and implica

tions of Nietzsche's anthropology are indirectly communicated.
Apparently, Solov'?v in the end senses in the ?bermensch an
imminent threat for his own denotation of the superman, that is the
God-Man Christ. A gradual shift has taken place in the philosopher's
interpretation of Nietzsche's ?bermensch and in his employment of
the term 'superman': the concept is no longer solely reserved for
referring to Christ. Both Christ, as God incarnate, and the Antichrist,
as the embodiment of self-love, are designated as supermen. Hence,
in naming both the God-Man Christ and his adversary the Antichrist
'supermen', Solov'?v perceives of them as equal opponents and in
the end recognizes the actual threat that Nietzsche's ?bermensch
constitutes for his own anthropological project of Divine Humanity.
The ?bermensch is no longer a harmless concept that can be
discredited by a sarcastic approach, but has in Solov'?v's reli
gious mind escalated into the undisguised embodiment of atheistic
peril that might endanger his ideal of the universal deification of
humanity and the ultimate realization of the Kingdom of God on
earth.
A remarkable reminiscence by the symbolist poet Andrej Belyj
(1880-1934) of his last conversation with the philosopher reveals
the extent of Solov'?v's anxious premonitions on Nietzsche's
?bermensch: "I started a conversation with Vladimir Sergeevich
[Solov'?v, NG] on Nietzsche, on the relationship between the
superman and the idea of Divine Humanity. He talked a little
about Nietzsche, but there was a profound seriousness in his
words. He said that Nietzsche's ideas are the only thing that one
should nowadays consider a profound danger that threatens religious
culture. However much I disagreed with him in my opinions on
Nietzsche, his serious attitude towards Nietzsche deeply conciliated
me. I understood that in naming Nietzsche a 'super-philologist',
Vladimir Sergeevich was only a tactic, ignoring the danger that
threatened his hopes."82
Belyj, who attempted to reconcile in his thought and poetry
both the Nietzschean and Solov'?vian legacy, precisely analyzed
and penetrated into the core Solov'?v's actual understanding of
the German philosopher and his idea of the ?bermensch?3 Highly
aware of and perceptive to the potential threat that Nietzsche's
176 NEL GRILLAERT
ideas constituted for Russian religious, cultural and social actu

ality, Solov'?v thought it expedient to camouflage his apocalyptic
presentiments concerning the actual impact of Nietzsche's thought
on Russian consciousness and society by an ironic and light-hearted
response. He understood perfectly well, however, that Nietzsche's
atheistic anthropology, in which any association with the Divine is
abandoned, represented the complete reverse of his own religious
denotation of the superman, which refers to and aims at the ulti
mate union between humanity and Divinity. In the end the religious
philosopher could no longer disguise his anxious foreboding that
Nietzsche's idea of the ?bermensch would eventually displace his
own anthropological ideal of Divine Humanity and bring about a
moral decay in Russian actuality.
Solov'?v's response to Nietzsche is exemplary for the way the
German philosopher was in general received in Europe and Russia
around the turn of the 19th and 20th Century. For the acquaintance
with Nietzsche's ideas was in part biased by his notoriety of the
rigid atheist. Solov'?v, whose thinking was deeply entrenched in
the Russian Orthodox legacy and who observed in contemporary
Russian society the degeneration of Christian values, received
Nietzsche - who had given his last philosophical work the shocking
and prophetic title Der Antichrist (written in 1888, and not published
until 1895) - as the actual opponent of Christianity. His critique
on Nietzsche was a priori determined by the philosopher's reputa
tion. The philosopher's misreading of Nietzsche can, however, in
retrospect be called productive, since it highly influenced the next
generation of Russian religious thinkers - the so-called bogoiskateli
or God-Seekers - and generated a complex and prolific dialogue
with Nietzsche's range of ideas. At the end of the day, Berdjaev's
statement that both Solov'?v and Nietzsche were a source of inspira
tion for the thinkers of the 'Russian renaissance', reveals its true
scope.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author is Research Fellow of the Special Research Fund

of Ghent University (BOF) and would like to thank Benjamin
Biebuyck for comments on earlier versions of this paper.
NOTES
1 Surprisingly, Berdjaev and the other bogoiskateli or God-Seekers received the

atheist philosopher as a religious thinker: "But in Nietzsche was not perceived,
what was chiefly written on him in the West, not his proximity towards a biolog
ical philosophy, not his struggle for an aristocratic race and culture, not the will to
power, but a religious theme. Nietzsche was perceived as a mystic and prophet."
In: Nikolaj Berdjaev, Russkaja Ideja. Osnovnyeproblemy russkoj mysli XIX veka i
nachalaXXveka, Svarog i K, Moskva, 1997, p. 199. All translations in this article
are from the author, except where indicated otherwise.
2 N.V. Motroshilova, "VI. Solov'?v o F. Nicshe. Poisk novykh filosofskikh
paradigm," F. Nicshe i filosofija v Rossii, Izdatel'stvo Russkogo Khristianskogo
Gumanitarnogo Instituta, Sankt-Peterburg, 1999, p. 47.
3 By the end of 1888 Nietzsche engaged in a correspondence with a Russian
admirer, princess Anna Dmitrievna Tenishev. Another source of information was
the correspondence with Georg Brandes, who had plans to give a series of lectures
on Nietzsche in Saint Petersburg in the winter of 1888. See Friedrich Nietzsche,
S?mtliche Briefe, Kritische Studienausgabe s?mtlicher Briefe Nietzsches (KSB)
in 8 B?nden, G. Colli and M. Montinari (eds.), dtv/De Gruyter, Berlin/New York,
1986, Vol. 8, pp. 450f., 470, 513f., 543, 562ff.
4 In January 1889 Nietzsche mentally collapsed in Turin and was taken care for
first by his mother in Naumburg and from 1897 on by his sister in the 'Villa
Silberblick' in Weimar. He spent the last eleven years of his life in a state
of complete mental lethargy and did not produce any work. It is ironical that,
whereas the philosopher remained rather unknown during his 'conscious life', his
reputation of 'the mad philosopher' contributed to his popularity and stimulated a
vast reading of his works.
5 M?ller points out that all of Solov'?v's references to Also sprach Zarathustra
only concern the first ten pages of the book. Solov'?v also alludes to Die Geburt
der Trag?die and the ironical designation of Nietzsche as a "philologist, all too
philologist" shows that Solov'?v also knew at least the title of Menschliches,
Allzumenschliches (1878-1879). In: Ludolf M?ller, "Nietzsche und Solovjev,"
Zeitschrift f?r philosophische Forschung (1947), Bd. I, Heft 4, p. 516.
6 Vladimir Sergeevich Solov'?v, Sobranie Sochinenij Vladimira Sergeevicha
Solov'?va (SS), 2nd edn., Sergei M. Solov'?v and Ernst L. Radlov (eds.),
Prosveshchenie, Sankt-Peterburg, 1911-1914. Reprint with two additional
volumes, Zhizn' s Bogom, Brussels, 1966-1970, IX, pp. 49, 160. Further refer
ences to this work consist of the standard abbreviation SS, a roman numeral
(referring to the volume) and the page number.
7 SS, VII, p. 72.
8 SS, VII, p. 72.
9 SS, VII, p. 73.
10 SS, VII, p. 73. Dahomey - in the area of what is now southern Benin - was a
kingdom in Western Africa that grew rich in the 18th and 19th Century on slave
trade to Europe. It was a war state, not only with the goal to expand, but also to
178 NEL GRILLAERT
take prisoners to sell as slaves. In 1892 French colonists defeated the Dahomeyan
king and established the French colony of Dahomey {The New Encyclopaedia
Britannica, 1995, Vol. 3, p. 848). For Solov'?v Nietzsche's ideas are a revival
of the Dahomeyan practice of oppression and slavery, a fact generally known in
Europe and Russia through French sources.
11 When referring to Nietzsche's concept, I prefer to retain the German
?bermensch. For the English translation of the Russian sverkhchelovek and
the related adjective I opt for superman and superhuman. There is a semantic
difference between the German ?bermensch and the Russian equivalent sverkh
chelovek. The German prefix ?ber both denotes 'above' and 'over, beyond',
consequently the term ?bermensch can either designate a higher stage above
humanity or refer to a state beyond humanness, in which the mere human is
overcome. The Russian prefix sverkh, however, implies an elevation qua quality;
accordingly the word sverkhchelovek signifies an improvement, a perfected state
of the human type.
12 The term is, however, already employed in Nietzsche's earliest writings in
adjectival and adverbial form. In these early fragments the word ?bermenschlich is
still associated with the traditional denotation of a higher sphere above humanity
and refers to a transcendent, godlike being. Cf. Friedrich Nietzsche, S?mtliche
Werke. Kritische Studienausgabe (KSA) in 15 Einzelb?nden, G. Colli and M.
Montinari (eds.), dtv/De Gruyter, Berlin/New York, 19882, Neuausgabe, 1999,
1, pp. 26, 286; 2, p. 113. Further references to Nietzsche's works are indicated by
the abbreviation KSA, and the number of the volume, followed by the page.
13 The article appeared in Grazhdanin (The Citizen), No. 41-44 for 1877.
The text in question is not included in the Sobrante Sochinenij and is rather
unknown in Solov'?v research. It is available as E-text from the World Wide Web:
http://www.krotov.Org/library/s/solov_vl/1877vera.html
14 The first of Nietzsche's Unzeitgem?sse Betrachtungen, 'David Strauss der
Bekenner und der Schriftsteller' (1873), is also a polemical treatise against Strauss
and his work Der alte und der neue Glaube. Strauss, believing to be the proclaimer
of 'a new faith', is in Nietzsche's opinion, no more than a conservative advocate
of traditional German culture.
15 'Vera, Razum i Opyt'.
16 SS,III,p.6.
17 The letter in question was an explanation of and a defense for a public lecture
that Solov'?v had delivered after the assassination of Aleksandr II on March 28,
1881. In this speech, Solov'?v had suggested that the new Tsar, Aleksandr III,
should act according to Christian ethics and grant his father's assassins mercy.
The lecture was however interpreted as an insult to the Tsar and the monarchy
and thereby caused a lot of commotion. As an apology, Solov'?v wrote a letter
to the Tsar to clarify his real motives. The letter was once again misunderstood
by the government officials and at the end Solov'?v voluntarily resigned as a
lecturer in philosophy at the Vysshie Zhenskie Kursy (Higher Education Courses
for Women) in Saint Petersburg. This was the end of his academic career and
from that point on Solov'?v devoted his time exclusively to writing. See: Jonathan
Sutton, The Religious Philosophy of Vladimir Solovyov: Towards a Reassessment,
St. Martin's Press, New York, 1988, p. 22.
18 Deutsche Gesamtausgabe der Werke von Wladimir Solowjew, Erg?nzungs
band: Solowjews Leben in Briefen und Gedichten, Ludolf M?ller und Irmgard
Wille (eds.), Erich Wewel, M?nchen, 1977, p. 74.
19 SS, III, p. 211.
20 SS, IV, p. 604.
21 As Valliere points out, the term theandria and related words rarely occur in the
patristic writings and particularly originate from Origenist and Monophysite tradi
tions. See Paul Valliere, Modern Russian Theology: Bukharev, Soloviev, Bulgakov.
Orthodox Theology in a New Key, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2000, p. 13. For a more detailed account of Solov'?v's
theory of Divine Humanity, I refer to Tatjana Kochetkova, Vladimir Solov'jov's
Theory of Divine Humanity, PhD dissertation presented at the Catholic University
of Nijmegen, 2001; and Sutton, 1988, pp. 70-72.
22 This denotation of the superhuman is in line with the meaning it had in
the German tradition (e.g. Goethe's use of the term), before Nietzsche radically
altered its connotation.
23 SS, IX, p. 234.
24 SS, IX, p. 241.
25 Ernst Benz, "Das Bild des ?bermenschen in der europ?ischen Geistes
geschichte," Der ?bermensch: eine Diskussion, Rhein-Verlag, Z?rich, 1961,
p. 29ff. The Greek word hyperanthropos appears for the first time in one of Lucian
of Samosata's (ca 120-190) Dialogues of the dead, yet without any religious
connotation.
26 Benz, 1961, p. 49.
27 Solov'?v studied natural sciences and philosophy at Moscow University and
theology in Sergiev Posad.
28 SS, X, p. 29. For English quotations from 'Slovesnost' ili Istina' I use the
translation by Vladimir Wozniuk. See Politics, Law, and Morality. Essays by
VS. Soloviev, Vladimir Wozniuk (ed. and trans.), Yale University Press, New
Haven/London, 2000, pp. 87-90.
29 KSA 4, p. 14.
30 KSA 4, p. 16.
31 KSA 4, p. 17. See also "I love him, who lives in order to know, and who
wants to know in order that once the ?bermensch lives. And thus he wants his
own under-going. I love him, who labors and invents, so that he may build the
house for the ?bermensch, and prepare for him earth, animal and plant: for thus
he wants his own under-going" (KSA 4, p. 17).
32 KSA 6, p. 300. See also "The last thing / should promise would be to
'improve' humankind. No new idols are built by me" (KSA 6, p. 258).
33 SS,X,p.29.
34 SS, X, p. 31. Well aware of the fact that his contemporaries did not understand
his books correctly, Nietzsche sarcastically remarks in Ecce Homo: "At some time
180 NEL GRILLAERT
or other institutions will be needed, in which people live and teach as I understand
living and teaching; perhaps even chairs for the interpretation of Zarathustra will
be founded" (KSA 6, p. 298).
35 SS, X, p. 30. Solov'?v seems to have overlooked that Nietzsche, in creating
Zarathustra, intentionally alluded to the Gospel in order to hint at the intended
epochal significance of the work. To show the difference in greatness between
Christ and Zarathustra, Nietzsche deliberately let his character outdo his historical
'predecessor'. Whereas Christ - at the age of thirty - started his public life after
forty days in the desert, Zarathustra at the same age withdrew from public life and
remained ten years in the mountains (KSA 4, p. 11).
36 SS,X,p.31.
37 SS, X, pp. 31-32. Solov'?v alludes to 2 Thessalonians 2:9: "The coming
of the lawless one will be by Satan's working with all kinds of miracles and
signs and false wonders." In: Vladimir Solov'?v, ?bermensch und Antichrist:
?ber das Ende der Weltgeschichte, Ludolf M?ller (ed.), Herder, Freiburg, 1958,
p. 154.
38 SS, IX, p. 267. English translations of Tdeja Sverkhcheloveka' are from
Wozniuk (Solov'?v, 2000, pp. 255-263).
39 SS, IX, p. 267.
40 SS, IX, p. 268.
41 KSA 4, p. 14.
42 See KSA 6, p. 171: "Humankind does not represent a development toward
something better or stronger or higher, in the way that is believed today. 'Progress'
is merely a modern idea, that is, a false idea [...] further development is altogether
not necessarily elevation, improvement, or reinforcement. In another sense there
is a continual success in individual cases in the most various places on earth and
in the most various cultures, which indeed represents a higher type: something
that in relation to humankind as a whole is a kind of ?bermensch. Such fortunate
accidents of great success have always been possible and will perhaps always be
possible. And even whole families, tribes or peoples can in certain circumstances
represent such a lucky striked
43 KSA 6, p. 300.
44 SS, IX, pp. 269-270.
45 SS, IX, p. 270.
46 SS, IX, p. 270. I prefer the translation of vseedinstvo as 'All-unity' to
Wozniuk's translation 'unity-of-all'. With this concept Solov'?v attempted to
overcome the seemingly irreconcilable views on the nature of God's presence
in the world, which stress either the immanence or transcendence of God. By
distinguishing between 'God as he is in Himself and 'God as he is in relation
to the world', Solov'?v succeeds in recognizing both natures in God. See Sutton,
1988, p. 62f.
47 SS, IX, p. 270.
48 SS, IX, p. 271.
49 SS, IX, p. 272.
50 The idea of immortality as a prerequisite for the authentic superman brings

to mind Nikolaj F?dorovich F?dorov's (1828-1903) reflections on the subject.
This rather obscure philosopher believed in "the common task" of humankind:
by means of past and future achievements in science and technology humankind
would eventually be able to attain collective resurrection and realize the objective
of true superhumanity, i.e. the Kingdom of God on earth. Although Solov'?v
was acquainted with F?dorov, who devoted much of his writings to Nietzsche's
?bermensch, there is no hard evidence that his views on Nietzsche were actually
influenced by F?dorov. In: Taras Zakydalsky, "Fedorov's Critique of Nietzsche,
the 'Eternal Tragedian'," Nietzsche in Russia, Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal (ed.),
Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1986, pp. 113-125.
51 Colossians 1:18 (Solov'?v, 2000, p. 318).
52 SS, IX, p. 273.
53 SS, IX, p. 273.
54 SS, IX, p. 273.
55 KSA 4, p. 13.
56 KSA 4, pp. 16-18.
57 SS, IX, p. 288.
58 At the end of Tdeja Sverkhcheloveka' - published in the 9th edition of Mir
Iskusstva for 1899 - Solov'?v had hinted at a "serious conversation" with the
Russian Nietzscheans on the subject of the superman (SS, IX, p. 274). The
symbolist Dmitrij Filosofov mistook a later letter by Solov'?v to the journal
Vestnik Evropy (The Herald of Europe) - in which the philosopher criticized
Merezhkovskij's, Rozanov's and Minskij's 'Nietzschean' reading of Pushkin (SS,
IX, pp. 277-287) - for Solov'?v's proposed attempt to take up a serious conver
sation with the Nietzscheans. In reply Filosofov published the article 'Ser'?znyj
razgovor s nicsheancami (Otvet VI. Solov'?vu)' (A serious Conversation with the
Nietzscheans [Reply to VI. Solov'?v]) in Mir Iskusstva. 'Protiv izpolnitel'nogo
lista' is Solov'?v's defense against Filosofov's allegations.
59 SS, IX, p. 288.
60 SS, IX, p. 292.
61 SS, IX, p. 348.
62 SS, IX, p. 352.
63 In Solov'?v's opinion, Lermontov is swayed by three demons: the demon of
cruelty ("greed for blood"), the demon of obscenity ("dirtiness"), and the most
powerful, the demon of "pride" (SS, IX, pp. 359-363).
64 SS, IX, p. 363.
65 SS, IX, p. 363.
66 SS, IX, p. 366.
67 The tale is to a high degree parallel with Dostoevskij's 'Legend of the Grand
Inquisitor', a comparison acknowledged wherever both thinkers are studied. As
Kostalevsky points out, the Grand-Inquisitor aims to "correct the deed" of Christ,
whereas Solov'?v's protagonist wants to outplace Him. In: Marina Kostalevsky,
Dostoevsky and Soloviev. The Art of Integral Vision, Yale University Press, New
Haven/London, 1997, p. 109.
182 NEL GRILLAERT
68 SS, X, p. 197. English translations are from Wozniuk (Solov'?v, 2000,

pp. 264-289).
69 SS,X,p. 198.
70 SS, X, p. 198.
71 SS, X, p. 199.
72 SS, X, p. 200. See Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11 and Luke 3:22.
73 SS,X, pp. 198,201,203.
74 KSA 5, p. 336. This parallel was noticed by Wozniuk (Solov'?v, 2000, p. 318).
See also KSA 5, p. 126 and KSA 11, p. 210.
75 M?ller, 1947, p. 510.
76 A. Losev, Vladimir Solov'?v i ego vremja, Progress, Moskva, 1990, p. 533.
77 Solov'?v, 2000, p. XXV.
78 SS, VII, p. 73.
79 In Tdeja Sverkhcheloveka' Solov'?v considers Marx's economic materialism,
Tolstoj's abstract moralism and the demonology of the ?bermensch the most
threatening tendencies of his time (SS, IX, p. 267). His critique on Tolstoj was
directed against his rejection of the Resurrection of Christ and the doctrine of 'the
non-resistance to evil'. In: Sutton, 1988, pp. 95-98.
80 See SS, X, p. 222: "For, the fictitious author of my 'story about the Antichrist',
the monk Pansophius, is presented by me as our contemporary ... In what way,
on what basis, and on what occasion should I present a contemporary educated
monk, who has completed a course at the religious academy, like he knew nothing
about Nietzsche, Tolstoj, state socialism and freemasonry." In his intellectual
biography on Solov'?v, the philosopher's nephew Sergej Solov'?v asserts that
the final period in the religious thinker's oeuvre, initiated with Opravdanie dobra
(The Justification of the Good) in 1897, is highly dominated by "the struggle
with Nietzsche and Tolstoj". In S.M. Solov'?v, Zhizn' i tvorcheskaija evoljucija
Vladimira Solov'?va, Zhizn' s Bogom, Brussels, 1977, p. 26.
81 Sutton, 1988, p. 27.
82 Andrej Belyj, "Vladimir Solov'?v. Iz vospominanij," Kniga o VI. Solov'?ve,
Soveckij Pisatel', Moskva, 1991, pp. 281-282.
83 The poet's oeuvre and thought is a fine example of how Nietzsche's athe
istic thought was combined with Solov'?v's religious philosophy in the period of
the Silver Age. Cfr. "How to reconcile [...] in my soul the struggling Solov'?v
and Nietzsche?" In: Andrej Belyj, Pochemu ja stal simvolistom i pochemu ja ne
perestal im byf vo vsekh fazakh moego idejnogo i khudozhestvennogo razvitija,
Ardis/Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1982, p. 30.
A SHORT STORY ABOUT THE ?BERMENSCH 1 83
REFERENCES
Belyj, A., Pochemu ja stal simvolistom i pochemu ja ne perestal im byt' vo

vsekh fazakh moego idejnogo i khudozhestvennogo razvitija, Ardis/Ann Arbor,
Michigan, 1982.
Belyj, A., "Vladimir Solov'?v. Iz vospominanij," Kniga o VI. Solov'?ve, Soveckij
Pisatel', Moskva, 1991, pp. 277-282.
Benz, E., "Das Bild des ?bermenschen in der europ?ischen Geistesgeschichte,"
Der ?bermensch: eine Diskussion, Rhein-Verlag, Z?rich, 1961, pp. 23-161.
Berdjaev, N.A., Russkaja Ideja. Osnovnye problemy russkoj mysli XIX veka i
nachala XX veka, Svarog i K), Moskva, 1997.
Kochetkova, T.I., Vladimir Solov'jov's Theory of Divine Humanity, PhD disserta
tion presented at the University of Nijmegen, 2001.
Kostalevsky, M., Dostoevsky and Soloviev. The Art of Integral Vision, Yale
University Press), New Haven/London, 1997.
Losev, A.F., Vladimir Solov'?v i ego vremja, Progress, Moskva, 1990.
Motroshilova, N.V., "VI. Solov'?v o F. Nicshe. Poisk novykh filosofskikh
paradigm," F Nicshe i filosofija v Rossii, Izdatel'stvo Russkogo Khristianskogo
Gumanitarnogo Institu?a, Sankt-Peterburg, 1999, pp. 46-57.
M?ller, L., "Nietzsche und Solovjev," Zeitschrift f?r philosophische Forschung
(1947), Bd. I, Heft 4, pp. 499-520.
Nietzsche, F., S?mtliche Werke. Kritische Studienausgabe (KSA) in 15 Einzel
b?nden, G. Colli and M. Montinari (eds.), dtv/De Gruyter, Berlin/New York,
19882; Neuausgabe, 1999.
Nietzsche, F., S?mtliche Briefe. Kritische Studienausgabe s?mtlicher Briefe
Nietzsches (KSB) in 8 B?nden, G. Colli and M. Montinari (eds.), dtv/De
Gruyter, Berlin/New York, 1986.
Solov'?v, S.M., Zhizn' i tvorcheskaja evoljucija Vladimira Solov'?va, Zhizn' s
Bogom, Brussels, 1977.
Solov'?v, VS., Sobranie Sochinenij Vladimira Sergeevicha Solov'?va (SS), 2nd
edn., Sergei M. Solov'?v and Ernst L. Radlov, Prosveshchenie, Sankt-Peterburg,
1911-1914. Reprint with two additional volumes, Zhizn' s Bogom, Brussels,
1966-1970.
Solov'?v, VS., ?bermensch und Antichrist: ?ber das Ende der Weltgeschichte, L.
M?ller (ed.), Herder, Freiburg, 1958.
Solov'?v, VS., Deutsche Gesamtausgabe der Werke von Wladimir Solowjew,
Erg?nzungsband: Solowjews Leben in Briefen und Gedichten, L. M?ller and
I. Wille (eds.), Erich Wewel, M?nchen, 1977.
Solov'?v, VS., Politics, Law, and Morality. Essays by VS. Soloviev, V Wozniuk
(ed.), Yale University Press, New Haven/London, 2000.
Solov'?v, VS., "Vera, Razum i Opyt" (E-text), available from http://www.
krotov.org/library/s/solov_vl/1877vera.html
Sutton, J., The Religious Philosophy of Vladimir Solovyov: Towards a Reassess
ment, St. Martin's Press, New York, 1988.
184 NEL GRILLAERT
Valliere, P., Modern Russian Theology: Bukharev, Soloviev, Bulgakov. Orthodox

Theology in a New Key, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand
Rapids, Michigan, 2000.
Zakydalsky, T.D., "Fedorov's Critique of Nietzsche, the 'Eternal Tragedian',"
in: B.G. Rosenthal (ed.), Nietzsche in Russia, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, 1986, pp. 113-125.
German Department (Literature)/Slavic and East-European Studies

Ghent University
Blandijnberg 2
B-9000 Gent
Belgium
E-mail: nel grillaert @ rug. ac. be

Springer: Info/about/policies/terms - JSP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Springer: Info/about/policies/terms - JSP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Short Story about the "übermensch": Vladimir Solov'ëv's Interpretation of and Response to

A SHORT STORY ABOUT THE ?BERMENSCH: VLADIMIR

KEY WORDS: Antichrist, Bogochelovechestvo, bogoiskateli, Friedrich Nietz

%.M Studies in East European Thought 55: 157-184,2003.

century positivistic emphasis on science and man as a cognitive

Nietzscheans and conditioned by rumors about Nietzsche's insanity.

In his critique on Nietzsche, Solov'?v is chiefly preoccupied

SOLOV'?V'S SVERKHCHELOVEK: TRANSCENDING HUMANKIND

The first references to the ?bermensch in Nietzsche's works

revelation, every religion" from an a priori negative point of view.

salvation and elevation of humankind finds its utmost expression.

of the Holy Spirit onto every human being. The hyperanthropos

humanity. The confrontation with Nietzsche's ?bermensch there

NIETZSCHE'S ?BERMENSCH: A CONFRONTING ANTHROPOLOGY

In one of the Voskresnye pis'ma (Sunday Letters), 'Slovesnost'

?bermensch to emerge, the human should go under: "what can be

theories (Haeckel's and Spencer's among others) dominated both

"capable of being the form of a perfected All-unity [vseedinstvo]

reserved for a single individual or at best for an elite, but has

German philosopher, "the direct ancestor" of Nietzscheanism.

Razgovora (Three Conversations, 1899-1900) and not finished until

At this point the superman is transformed into the Antichrist. He

humankind to Divine Humanity. They differ, however, in the way

Solov'?v's considerations on the ?bermensch, but is also rooted in

One can detect a growing anxiety in Solov'?v's understanding of

Solov'?v's real premonitions concerning the character and implica

ideas constituted for Russian religious, cultural and social actu

The author is Research Fellow of the Special Research Fund

1 Surprisingly, Berdjaev and the other bogoiskateli or God-Seekers received the

50 The idea of immortality as a prerequisite for the authentic superman brings

68 SS, X, p. 197. English translations are from Wozniuk (Solov'?v, 2000,

Belyj, A., Pochemu ja stal simvolistom i pochemu ja ne perestal im byt' vo

Valliere, P., Modern Russian Theology: Bukharev, Soloviev, Bulgakov. Orthodox

German Department (Literature)/Slavic and East-European Studies

You might also like