Vladimir S. Soloviev and the politics of human rights.
Journal of Church and State: 01-JAN-99 Author: Wozniuk, Vladimir
Soloviev once wrote that, "I not only believe in all that is supernatural, but properly speaking, it is only in this that I believe."(56) The philosopher-theologian's steadfast adherence to the Nicene Creed as his confession of faith in the face of what he viewed as its increasing abandonment by those calling themselves Christians is important in obtaining a coherent picture of his writing on contemporary Russian affairs, Increasingly jaded by what he saw as a corrupt church distorting Christianity and justifying the repression of ethnic minorities, Soloviev at one point condemned the prevalent "ecclesial dogmatism, false spiritualism and individualism" in Russia, even suggesting that uniting "with contemporary unbelievers in a struggle against contemporary Christians" might be preferable to seeking Christian unity.(57)
Soloviev even augured a "great Divine fate" in store for Russia, consisting of inevitable judgment in the form of retribution against Orthodoxy and tsarism coming from the East. In his well-known poem "Panmongolism," Soloviev the prophet-poet claimed that the second Rome (Byzantium) had fallen because "Prince, priest and Emperor" had "disavowed" the Messiah, and now "flatterers of Russia" were repeating to her "... over and over, You are the Third Rome!" If Russia would not renounce her unjust imperial past, a terrible price would be exacted: "And the Third Rome lies in the dust, Yet now there will be no Fourth."(58)
III. POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS RECONCILIATION AT THE END OF HISTORY Still, Soloviev retained faith that true religious and political morality would be regenerated in human community at the "end of history." The eschatalogical dimension of Soloviev's thought did not become fully visible until 1900 and the last part of his final project, Three Conversations on War, Progress and the End of Universal History ..., which he provocatively entitled "A Brief Tale about the Antichrist."(59) This political-religious allegory is not only closely linked to his earlier darkly-foreboding poem "Panmongolism," the opening lines of which appear as an epigraph to the story, but also to several essays published two to three years earlier, and in which a number of the tale's contemporary inspirations and sources can be discerned.
Soloviev had become interested in the problems of a planned ecumenical congress scheduled to convene at the end of the century in Paris, which subsequently became the topic of an essay titled "The Second Congress of Religion."(60) Long before it would convene, Soloviev explained that the issue of "truth and error" in dogma presented an insurmountable barrier for many would-be participants, most notably Russians. Perhaps more than coincidentally, overcoming just such problems of ecumenical disagreements would emerge as one of the central themes in the tale's drama of the reconciliation of the three main branches of Christianity--Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism--and its suggestion that the churches would be reconciled to Judaism as well. Certain other elements of "A Brief Tale ..." appear to be derived from the pages of the Russian press and the annals of the Chief Procurator of the Holy Synod, which recorded and expressed serious concerns about various bizarre manifestations of millenarian anxieties that had surfaced in Russia's provinces.
Such concerns also became the subject of Soloviev's article, "The Spiritual Condition of the Russian People," which examined the mood of suspicion in certain remote regions of Russia regarding the census being conducted at the time, perceived by some as a harbinger of the coming Antichrist, the beginning of "sorrows and trials" forecast in the Revelation of St. John.(61) Unique among Soloviev's endeavors, "A Brief Tale about the Antichrist" operates on many different levels and has yielded a variety of not-inconsistent interpretations. The story has been viewed as representing part of Soloviev's "veiled controversy with Tolstoy," his final salvo, as it were, in an intense debate over spiritual matters which had gone on for years.(62)
The issue, of course, was Tolstoy's "new religion," which Soloviev understood to be but a variant of ancient heresies such as Arianism and Monophysitism. The story is also generally considered to be his final legacy to an unbelieving world; in it he offered his own perspectives on biblical prophecy in answer to millenarian expectations. He was obviously inspired by previous Antichrist themes, most notably Dostoevsky's legend of the Grand Inquisitor, which constitutes a key section of the novel Brothers Karamazov, and which has long been regarded by many as an important contribution to the timeless debates of normative political philosophy.(63)
Soloviev's tale should also be understood as the culmination of his efforts to refute Nietzschean will-to-power ethics directly from a biblical perspective, while at the same time outlining the inevitable consequences of human egoism outside the framework of the Divine will.(64) To Soloviev the Kantian idealist philosopher, the "acceleration of the historical process" and human progress were sure "symptoms" of the proximity of the end times,(65) in response to which he adapted the familiar Dostoevskian theme of the rise of an immoral and lawless "superman" who imposes his will upon others. But Soloviev's superman (who remains nameless) appears only at the end of history and takes on an overtly political persona. This subject had been of growing interest to Soloviev since at least 1897, when the first of several essays appeared reviewing Nietzsche and his influence in Russia.(66)
In this tale, a European "man of the future" experiences a psychotic break before he surrenders his will to a Mephistophelean spirit to become the Antichrist, who embarks on a career of intrigue that soon leads to his ascension to world political and religious leadership.(67) This characterization of a political superman who arrives in the last days to teach humanity a new morality and religion clearly harks back to Soloviev's withering denunciation of "Nietzscheanism" and those in Russia who sought to emulate Nietzsche's superman, which in his view was the product of an insane mind.(68) The tale also resonates with Soloviev's earlier warnings concerning the dangers of nationalism, the predatory politics of colonialism, and the classical European balance of power system. Soloviev's criticism of Russia's "anti-Christian" nationalism appeared late in his life in increasingly ominous tones, which can be seen prominently, for example, in a historical essay titled "Retribution."(69)
In this essay, he explained the Spanish Empire's collapse during the Spanish-American War as a direct result of its long history of repression, warning in a thinly-veiled analogy that the Russian Empire too would eventually have to face similar consequences for its continued abrogations of human rights perpetrated in the name of the Divine will.(70) European realpolitik and conflicting nationalist agendas of the day suggested an approaching confrontation of some kind, and Soloviev had long prophesied that the consequences of imitating the European powers' "politics of interest" would inevitably result in what he referred to as "cannibalism."(71) Soloviev depicted with remarkable prescience in this allegory the growth of powerful international organizations, European political unification into a "United States of Europe," and the expansion of Japanese power and influence. Extrapolating from Russia's enfeebled great power status, Soloviev concluded that the rise of Japan would lead to a confrontation and result in an explosive judgment upon Russia, prefiguring by several years the devastating Japanese blow dealt to the Russian imperial fleet at the battle of Tsushima strait in the Pacific (1905).
The story tells of a future Sino-Japanese conquest of Europe, which is virtually enslaved for fifty years before a revolt against Asian control leads up to the last stage of the historical process. The European Antichrist appears at the end of this age to unite apostate church and state at a Congress of world religions in Jerusalem by promising "prosperity" for all in exchange for subservient allegiance. However, an ecumenical remnant rejects this new world order, experiences the wrath of the Antichrist, and retreats into the desert outside the Holy City, where the truly faithful are reconciled and miraculous events produce the denouement of the world historical process at Armageddon, with Judaism playing a key role. While it might be tempting to see the idealist philosopher undertaking a pessimistic eschatological leap in this story--giving up hope for a more just political order in the here-and-now--it should be emphasized that Soloviev consistently and staunchly professed a faith that embodied an uncompromising eschatological dimension. And no one knew better than Soloviev himself the extent of the physical infirmities that had plagued him for some time; it might therefore also be suggested that he foresaw this to be his last work, and accordingly tried to make more proximate for others that which appeared to him to be an eventual certainty attested by the "signs of the times"--the end of rapacious and "cannibalistic" European politics after an extended time of troubles.
In conclusion, the allegory of"A Brief Tale ..." should be viewed as Soloviev's last public statement on the possibility of ethnic and religious reconciliation and the achievement of full, equitable rights for all. Rather than interpreting Soloviev's final work as exhibiting a late-in-life apocalyptic pessimism that does not square with the rest of the idealist philosopher-theologian's endeavors, one may understand this allegory as reflecting the light of optimism inherent in Judeo-Christian eschatology regarding the possibility of moral regeneration through reconciliation, which could only, however, become fully realized in political community at the "end of history."