VLADIMIR SOLOV'EV ON SPIRITUAL NATIONHOOD, RUSSIA AND THE JEWS
by Judith Deutsch Kornblatt
Despite the very Christian, indeed trinitarian nature of his religious philosophy, Vladimir Solov'ev (1853-1900) was known to call himself a Jew."  Because he believed that "to despise Judaism is folly, to quarrel with Jews is useless, it would be better to understand Judaism, although that may be more difficult," the great Christian theologian and philosopher of late nineteenth-century Russia learned to read Hebrew Scriptures, studied Talmud with a partner in the traditional yeshiva manner, and became an expert on Jewish mysticism.  By no means a blind Judeophile, he was nonetheless fascinated by the Jews throughout his adult life.  According to his friend, Sergei Trubetskoi, Solov'ev invoked the Jews even on his deathbed: "At one point, he said to my wife: 'Do not let me fall asleep, force me to pray for the Jewish people. I must pray for them,' and began to recite a Hebrew psalm in a loud voice." 
One historian understands Solov'ev's constant support of the Jews as a product of his sincere Christianity: "For Soloviev, the Christian attitude towards Jews was already fixed by Christ and his disciples in the first century A.D., and there is no need for any further development."  Solov'ev's Talmud instructor, Faivel' Gets, attributed Solov'ev's interest in the Jews not only to his Christian belief but also to the philosopher's understanding of the world as a whole: "Solov'ev's relationship to the Jewish question, in my opinion, was conditioned by his entire religious-philosophical world view, by his entire spiritual-ethical being."  Although the level of Solov'ev's interest in the Jews may have remained constant, we can nonetheless discern the development of interest in different aspects of Judaism and the Jewish people, shedding light, in turn, on his developing "spiritual-ethical being." In fact, in the statements above both Glouberman and Gets rely too heavily on Solov'ev's (albeit central) essay Jewry and the Christian Question, from 1884, and ignore other places where the Jews play a somewhat different role in his philosophical system. 
A proper analysis of Solov'ev's understanding of the Jews demands that we place it in the context of his entire oeuvre. Such a contextual study will show that Solov'ev's interest in the Jews goes well beyond the "Jewish question" and anti-Semitism. It in fact corresponded to his most central philosophical categories, variously expressed as reconciliation, integration, or interactive, organic wholeness (tsel'nost'), the meaning of which he worked out in his early ontological and epistemological formulations. He believed the Jews to be both spiritually and nationally integral (tsel'nyi) in their understanding of and relationship with God, in their national "personality," and in the institutions that arose because of that character.
The present study will show that Solov'ev moved from an interest in Judaism (iudeistvo), including questions of doctrine and the historical significance of the Israelites' understanding of God, to an interest in the "national character" of ancient and contemporary Jewry (evreistvo), ultimately arriving at an understanding of the Jews in terms of the active relationship between Judaism (their "spirituality") and Jewry (their "nationhood"). Thus, the Jews integrated two major strains in Solov'ev's philosophy: bogochelovechestvo —or the interaction of humanity and the divine—and theocracy (teokratiia)—the ideal structure of human society, subsuming Solov'ev's ideas on the Universal Church.  As a people both choosing and chosen by God, the Jews furthermore served Solov'ev as a model for Russia. Although he rejected self-proclaimed "patriotic" messianism when used to exclude or dominate others, whether on the part of the historical Jews or modern Russian nationalists, he continued to assert both Jewry's and Russia's potential for true "spiritual nationhood." 
Solov'ev's introduction to Judaism came through his interest in mysticism, which was fuelled by readings in Eastern and Western esoteric traditions at the Moscow Theological Academy in 1874 and the British Museum in 1875, and even more by his personal search for a language with which to articulate his own mystical visions. As Solov'ev argued in his early work, The Philosophical Principles of Integral Knowledge (1877), mysticism is the highest level of the highest sphere of human reality. Both his master's thesis and his doctoral dissertation critique Western modes of thought (labeled, variously, positivist, idealist or abstract) and present an alternative epistemology, drawing on the early Slavophiles' identification of integral (tsel'noe) knowledge, on faith integrated with reason.
Solov'ev first refers to Jewish mysticism, or Kabbalah, in defining the "absolute first principle" (absoliutnoe pervonachalo) or "that which absolutely is" (absoliutnosushchee):
Solov'ev includes a footnote to explain this paradoxical statement: "This positive nothing, or the En-Sof of the Kabbalists, is the exact opposite of Hegel's negative nothing, or pure being (chistoe bytie), which is derived from simple abstraction or deprivation of all positive determinations" (1:348-49, emphasis added).
Shortly thereafter, Solov'ev again refers to En-Sof which in Hebrew literally means "there is no end," this time as one pole of the absolute, which he defines as "the very absolute as such, or positive nothing (En-Sof) (1:350). This pole (polius, or, in a typical Solov'evian paradox, center [tsentr]) of the absolute is "the principle of unconditional unity or 'unityness' (edinichnost') as such, the principle of freedom from all forms, from all manifestations, and, consequently, from all being (bytie)'' (1:350). Such an absolute unity cannot truly exist, however, without manifesting itself as its opposite: multiplicity. The second pole, therefore, is the principle of the multiplicity of forms, the "stuff" of the absolute (sushchnost' ili prima materia absoliutnogo). It seems here that Solov'ev has limited En-Sof to a single side of the absolute, but he asserts that the ability to posit its opposite, the fact that positive nothing has the potential for being (bytie), reinforces, rather than diminishes, the power of the absolute. "Thus, it eternally finds its opposite in itself, so that only through a relationship to this opposite can it assert itself, so that it is perfectly reciprocal" (3:351). En-Sof, in other words, is eternal unity of self, integrally reconciled with its potential for eternal multiplicity.  As a term for "that which absolutely is," En-Sof helps Solov'ev define reality as an eternal, reciprocal relationship between the one and the many.
When Solov'ev returns to En-Sof in The Philosophical Principles of Integral Knowledge, he makes it yet more complex, for he uses it to label the "first principle" of the Trinity: "We reserve the name 'EnSof (positive nothing) for the first proper principle of the first center; we could not better express the proper character of the second principle than with the name 'Word' or 'Logos'; finally, the third principle we will call the 'Holy Spirit'" (1:358). Here we see that Solov'ev's use of the Jewish kabbalistic term is central to an expression of what he understood, at least in the first decade of his career, to be the "really real." With no explicit recognition that En-Sof might have a different meaning within a specifically Jewish context, Solov'ev appropriates this term from mystical Judaism to explain the universal structure of both ontological and theological reality.  En-Sof simplifies his task by providing a single term for a complex of contradictory ideas: nothing that is, a oneness that is infinitely multiple, an absolute essence utterly other yet fully immanent in life. Most importantly, the Hebrew word signals recognition, here perhaps only latent, that a Jewish term, precisely because it incorporates contradictions (that is, positive nothing), can best describe reality.
Beginning in January 1878, only two months after the last installment of The Philosophical Principles of Integral Knowledge, Solov'ev read his Lectures on Bogochelovechestvo before a packed audience in St. Petersburg. In these twelve lectures, we can recognize the origin of a lifelong search for terms to identify a third principle that reconciles the contradictions of reality by transforming them into an organic and integrated whole. Sophia, beauty, light, Eros, and, strangely, the Jews all take their turn at explaining what Solov'ev saw as bogochelovechestvo, a dynamic process of reconciliation between creation and Creator, leading to "spiritualized matter" and "embodied spirit." As he later wrote about the beauty of diamonds, borrowing traditional christological vocabulary: "In this unmerged, yet undivided union of matter and light, both preserve their nature, yet neither are visible in their separateness. What is visible is pure light-bearing matter and incarnated light: enlightened coal and petrified rainbow." 
There is no room here to investigate fully Solov'ev's many, and sometimes contradictory references to the Jews in Lectures on Bogochelovechestvo. What is clear, however, is Solov'ev's continued interest in the "absolute" of Judaism, here called more directly "God," and in the Israelites' relationship to that God. Unlike the gods of Indian Buddhism (where the divine principle is determined only "negatively"), or the gods of Greek Idealism (where it is determined only "objectively"), Solov'ev argues that Judaism provides a ''living God'' (3:70), a "divine principle in itself" that is "an actual reality for itself" that declares the "ideal all or the unconditional ideal" to be the unconditional principle itself, and not just "the property or content of the unconditional principle" (3:71). By contrasting "abstract" Idealism and "negative" Buddhism with the God of the Jews, Solov'ev begins to argue that Judaism is not just one of several historical stages, but a true reconciler, a "third element," that gives life to the divine principle. Through the God of Israel, the objective becomes subjective, the negative becomes personal (3:74).
Solov'ev claims that the God of Hebrew Scriptures is a true person or living lichnost' because of Its paradoxical reconciliation of contradictions:
Like the "positive nothing" of Kabbalah, the God of Hebrew Scriptures thus reconciles unity with multiplicity.
Solov'ev's ideas here on the "positive revelation" of the "personal God" are only loosely tied to a national group.
He moves to a look at the actual Jewish people only later in the Lectures, with his analysis of the Old Testament prophets. As he prepared his lectures in the late 1870s, Solov'ev clearly did not yet know the difference between Hebrew Scriptures (TaNaKh)—in which the books of the prophets immediately follow the first five books of Moses—and the Old Testament, in which the books are organized so that the prophets come at the very end, forming a bridge to the New Testament. Because of his understanding of the structure of the Bible, he could see the Jewish prophets as a connecting link between the Old and the New. As a consequence of their "expansion of the religious principle," claims Solov'ev, the prophets also expanded the national Judaic (iudeiskoe) consciousness; all-human (obshchechelovecheskoe) consciousness replaced national egoism (3:79). The prophets, and not only their God, thus embodied, or reconciled within themselves, a crucial contradiction for Solov'ev:
Thus, the prophets were able to understand the God of the Jews as both a subjective "I" and an objective ideal, leading the Jewish people as a whole toward an integral, fully reconciled understanding of reality; the law turns into love, and the Jewish people, freed from "national exclusivity and egoism," exhibit both "true patriotism" and "true universalism" (3:80). Solov'ev never fully explains this paradox of Jewish particularism and universalism. Yet, as we will see, he reiterates the paradox repeatedly in his discussions both of the chosenness of Abraham, and of the potential for any uniquely personal, but nonetheless universal nation.
Could Russia be such a nation? In a lecture delivered in March 1881, following the assassination of Alexander II, Solov'ev called on the new tsar to spare the murderers in light of the "Christian ideal of forgiveness," thus launching his career in what he called "Christian politics," through which he developed his ideas on theocracy. 
He resigned his official teaching positions after the controversial lecture and moved away from his former conservative colleagues, devoting much of his time to journalism, largely in the Russian liberal press and abroad. Solov'ev's entrance into liberal journalism in the 1880s corresponded to a turn from the questions of epistemology and ontology discussed in his works of the 1870s toward an interest in social activism. He sought explanations of the structure of contemporary society, and elaborated his solution to its problems: the union of Eastern and Western Christianity following the dictates of "Christian politics." Such a union would lead to the establishment of a "Universal Church" and, ultimately, a united theocratic polity, devoid of isolating and hateful nationalism, but enriched by a plurality of peoples.
We should not see this interest in politics as a change in philosophical conviction, however, since his vision of the structure of reality as described in his seemingly more esoteric works of the 1870s derives from a belief in the active nature of that reality and our ethical interaction with it. If religion is the principle that unites heaven and earth, as he stated in Lectures on Bogochelovechestvo (3:3, 12), it is always a social religion, a process that involves humanity in active development of bogochelovechestvo. We in fact already saw some of this movement in the Lectures of the late 1870s, as he moved from an initial discussion of Judaism to a growing interest in Jewry and the Jews, particularly the prophets and the apostles, and their historical, human institutions.
Conservatives accused the "new" Solov'ev of Westernizing tendencies, to the point of conversion to Catholicism. As Solov'ev makes abundantly clear in a number of forums, however, his interest in and, sometimes, praise of the West was not a rejection of Russia and Eastern Orthodoxy, but a vision of the reconciliation of East and West, as a model for the reconciliation of all. The Jews, now as Jewry (evreistvo) more than Judaism (iudeistvo) it turns out, play a vital role for Solov'ev in this process of reconciliation.
Solov'ev expressed his understanding of the schism between the Eastern and Western Churches in a series of articles collected as The Great Debate and Christian Politics (1883). Despite their inclusion in the threefold problematics of contemporary society identified in the introduction to the collection (the "Polish question," the "Eastern question," and the "Jewish question," 4:13), the Jews are curiously absent from the articles themselves, even from his discussion of the immediately pre-Christian world, where they belonged in Lectures on Bogochelovechestvo. Solov'ev withheld discussion of the "Jewish question" until 1884, when he inverts the traditional formulation and refers, instead, to Jews in terms of the Christian question.
Jewry and the Christian Question is not only a central work for any discussion of Solov'ev and the Jews, as has been noted; it is also crucial for a discussion of Solov'ev and Christianity, Solov'ev and Russia, and of Solov'ev and reality as a whole. Solov'ev begins this work explicitly on the Jews by accusing his fellow Christians, and especially Russian Christians, of anti-Semitic behavior. He thus frames this work on the Jews in social and political, rather than theological or doctrinal, terms, as he had done in his work of the 1870s. Even if we were to assert that Christian laws are good and Jewish ones are not, he writes, so much the worse is anti-Semitic behavior, for "if it is bad to be true to a bad law, then it is much worse to be untrue to a good law, to a commandment that is unconditionally perfect" (4:135).
Solov'ev openly states his premise: the Christians and the Jews are essentially one, united "on the real soil of spiritual and natural kinship and of positive religious interests."  Moreover, if we acknowledge that Christ is God, then we must acknowledge the Jews (iudei) to be a people who gave birth to God (4:141). It behooves us, writes Solov'ev, to better understand the Jews; only in that way can Russians be better Christians. "We are distanced from the Jews because we are not yet fully Christian, and they are distanced from us because they are not yet fully Jews. The fullness [or fulfillment, polnota] of Christianity embraces itself and Judaism, and the fullness of Judaism is Christianity" (4:139).
In all likelihood, neither the majority of Russians nor of Jews welcomed Solov'ev's views: the Russians because Solov'ev accuses them of un-Christian behavior (4:136); the Jews because Solov'ev insists on placing them within the process of bogochelovechestvo and the building of a decidedly Christian Universal Church. Indeed, like other sympathetic observers of Jewry of his time, Solov'ev ideally sought total conversion.  His outlook remained ever Russian and Orthodox; Solov'ev's unique understanding of the Jews confirmed his own, essentially Christian view of the world. We must recognize at this point that Solov'ev's writings on the Jews are significant less for proof of Judeophilia or -phobia, to which they have often been limited, and more for what they reveal about the whole of his philosophical stance.
Jewry and the Christian Question is divided into three parts, in order to ask three questions: Why was Christ a Jew? Why did the majority of Jews not recognize their savior? and Why was the strongest segment of the Jewish population moved to Russia and Poland and established on the border of the Greek-Slavic (Orthodox) and the Latin-Slavic (Catholic) worlds? (4:141). In answer, Solov'ev does not question that the Jews are God's chosen people. The Bible asserts that they are chosen, Christ was born among them, and there must be an explanation for this, to be found in their national character. Why would God choose them? As is typical of his triadic thinking, Solov'ev finds the Jewish character to be composed of three elements: a deep religiosity; an extreme development of its own national, familial, and personal Ego (in the form of samochuvstvie, samosoznanie and samodeiatel'nost'); and an extreme materialism (4:142). Although these traits seem contradictory—How can one be spiritual and materialist at the same time? How can one fully love God and oneself at the same time?—the very fact of paradox allows the possibility of reconciliation so important for Solov'ev's metaphysics since Lectures on Bogochelovechestvo. As opposed to the one-sided character of Buddhism (an overwhelming feeling of divine unity at the expense of human individuality) and of Humanism on the other extreme (an unbalanced development of the human principle at the expense of the divine), "in Judaism all this lives together, in no way destroying the integrity of the national character" (4:143). It is no coincidence that Solov'ev uses the same term for the integrity of the Jewish character (tsel'nost') as he had for the type of knowledge he deems is necessary for comprehension of reality in The Philosophical Principles of Integral [tsel'noe] Knowledge.
In what sense are the Jews integral? They are neither divided among themselves, nor fused into a monolithic whole; they neither deny a personal God, nor attempt to lose themselves in One. It is not a Jewish principle, Solov'ev tells us, to merge with God, to disappear into Its unity; the goal of religious life, rather, is "personal interaction between the divine and the human I." Here Solov'ev emphasizes a very Jewish interpretation of Judaism's defining principle: the concept of covenant (Hebrew: brit). God chose the Jews because the Jews chose God: "God-That-Is made Israel Its nation because Israel made God-That-Is its own." Solov'ev recognizes that a covenant requires two partners; it must be a mutual agreement (soiuznyi dogovor). Most significantly: "The phenomenon is unique in all of world history, for the religion of no other people accepted this form of union or covenant between God and humanity, as between two beings although not of equal strength, nonetheless morally akin'' (4:144).
A strong God chooses a strong partner, a partner with whom It can wrestle.  Thus the Jewish God is a personal God, and chooses a partner with an equally sure sense of personhood; "God-Who-Is-Holy unites with a person who seeks holiness and who is capable of an active moral holy deed" (4:145). As for the Jews' materialism, this too is holy, claims Solov'ev, for through it the Jewish people manifest the ideal of holy corporeality (sviataia telesnost').  The sacred matter Solov'ev here describes is in fact the reconciling ideal of bogochelovechestvo: the iaterpenetration of divine and human, the incarnation of the spirit together with transfiguration of the flesh.
To answer his first question, Solov'ev thus asserts:
How could a people whom God felt was so right go so wrong and not accept Christ? asks Solov'ev in the second part. The problem does not lie in the national character per se, he suggests, but only in the balance of its three parts. The Jews' national sense of self (natsional'noe samochuvstvie), originally so attractive to God, turned into national egoism (natsional'nyi egoizm); because of an overabundant belief in themselves, they missed the truth of the Bogochelovek (4:151). Jews share a goal with Christians ("The final goal for Christians and Jews is one and the same: universal theocracy, the realization of divine law in the human world, the incarnation of the divine in the earthly" [4:156; see also 4:160]), but, historically, they missed the path to that goal: the cross (4:156-57).
Solov'ev blames the Jews' failure to take up the cross on two related points: an imbalance in the triadic national character, so that sense of self becomes egoism; and a resultant reliance on the form of worship over its essence:
Thus, an imbalance in the character of Jewry (evreistvo) led to a misunderstanding of Judaism (iudeistvo), a doctrine, as he had defined, which reconciles self-renunciation (that is, complete devotion to God), with a fully developed sense of self. Because in this work Solov'ev is increasingly interested in Jewry, and despite this foray into doctrinal issues of Judaism and Christianity, he makes a somewhat slippery transition to a discussion of a different sort of balance, that between the three administrative organs required of a "righteous society," which he later calls theocracy (4:160). Three organs must govern society in cooperation: "The priest directs (napravliaet), the tsar administers (upravliaet), and the prophet corrects (ispravliaet)." 
According to Solov'ev, the three have always existed in Jewish society, but not always in equal proportions; the "Judaic (Old Testament) theocracy" possessed priest (since the time of Aaron) and tsar (from the time of Saul), but the first two were overshadowed by the last: prophet (4:161-62). Thus, historically, the Jewish contribution to the "history and future of theocracy," as he will call it in a work of 1885-87, is largely through its prophetic spirit. Solov'ev does not explain how he has moved from a discussion of the integral nature of the triadic Jewish national character to an assertion of one of its "spirits," nor how the "prophetic spirit" is related to the Jews' acceptance or nonacceptance of Christ. Instead, he now associates the Jewish people (evreistvo) solely with the principle of prophecy, and thus answers his third question regarding their migration to the border of the Greek-Slavic (Russian Orthodox) and the Latin-Slavic (Polish Catholic) worlds: "Into the midst of these two religious nations [Orthodox Russia and Catholic Poland], each having its own special theocratic idea [tsar and priest, respectively], history has thrust a third religious people that also possesses its own form of theocratic presentation [prophet]: the people of Israel (narod izrail'skii)" (4:172).
In framing the issue in these geopolitical terms, Solov'ev claims that anti-Semitism, the alleged topic of Jewry and the Christian Question, is not a question of conflicting national characters, nor of incompatible theological models (that is, covenant and cross), but a result of the schism within Christianity. Reconciliation of East and West, by means of the Jews as the third principle, will then obviate the entire "Jewish question," just as Solov'ev had claimed it would obviate the Polish and Islamic questions in The Great Debate and Christian Politics.
The modern Jewish people therefore serve as a reconciling link between the two opposing Christian/Slavic nations, lending to the latter's respective priestly and kingly principles their own principle of prophecy. Indeed, they are more than a link, for, as the third, reconciling principle, they actively create a new reality, transforming one-sided tsar and one-sided priest into an integral theocracy. In addition, these contemporary Jews, like their biblical ancestors, by their very materialism practice the principle of "holy corporeality," a vital aspect of bogochelovechestvo.
In the several years following Jewry and the Christian Question, Solov'ev wrote two more important works based on his Judaic studies, one on the Talmud and the other on the Torah. At the same time, Solov'ev was writing the essays on Russia collected in the two volumes of The National Question in Russia. As we will see, his research into Judaism's written documents infused these essays, in which he discusses the "chosenness" of Russia by means of a comparison to the chosenness of Israel.
In 1885, Solov'ev published "The Talmud and Recent Polemical Literature on It in Austria and Germany." Anti-Semitism in Central Europe took perhaps a more dangerous path than did the popular anti-Semitism of Russia and Poland, although the latter erupted in violent pogroms, and the former remained purely "intellectual." Nineteenth-century Germany was the center of the new Bible criticism, in which linguistic and historical "proof" of the nondivine origins of much of the Old Testament often turned to anti-Semitic polemics against the Jews. Some of the same scholars turned their attention to the Talmud, and in it found proof of fanatic Jewish exclusivity, immorality and injunctions to hate non-Jews. At best, the Talmud was seen as a retreat from and perversion of the Mosaic laws. Because its supposed proofs were erudite and academic, this German anti-Semitism achieved a certain legitimacy among intellectuals. In his review of some of this work, however, Solov'ev attempted to use the scholars' weapons against them. As in Jewry and the Christian Question, Solov'ev calls on enemies of the Jews to abide by their own precepts and to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," identified by the author as "the highest rule of Judeo-Christian morality (iudeisko-khristianskaia moral'). 
Solov'ev repeats several times that the Talmud was the literary expression of the Jews' special religious-national character (religiozno-natsional' noe obosoblenie) after the destruction of the Temple (77 CE.) and their loss of political independence (6:4, 11). In this statement we can find the crux of Solov'ev's mature definition of the Jews; they are both a religious and a national people, even when deprived of land and political power. The Torah and the Talmud, documents which declare the spiritual doctrine of Judaism, guarantee that unique religious-national identity of Jewry.
Solov'ev quotes from the Talmud to prove that, far from requiring hatred of non-Jews, the most important post-Biblical Jewish document always gives credit to and demands respect for non-Jews.  In fact, Solov'ev places too much emphasis on the ethical teachings of the Talmud (and glosses over those problematic passages that do indeed suggest a kind of militant exclusivity), but he does perceptively identify a guiding principle: the important practical role of humans, imperfect as we may be, in carrying out the word of God (6:15). The Talmud, he tells us, brings all details of personal and social life into religious law (6:16); we might say that the Talmud reconciles Judaism with Jewry in the sense Solov'ev has used the terms. Solov'ev does see a problem, however: the rabbis of the Talmud relied too heavily on the formalism of law, so that law (Solov'ev uses both Russian and Hebrew: formal'nye uzakoneniial halakhah) came to outbalance grace (milost'/chesed) and truth (pravda/emet). As was the case in answering the question of why the majority of Jews did not accept the Messiah, about whom they themselves, prophesied, the problem here is not in principle, but in balance. As we will shortly see, just as the neo-Slavophiles or "pseudo-Christians" came to glorify form over essence (cf. 5:394), so Jews at the time of Christ lost sight of their organic union of spirit and flesh, of religion and history, of humanity and nation, to which the Talmud in fact gives witness (6:16). But this imbalance in no way negates the inherent truth of the Jewish law.
This truth, Solov'ev repeatedly asserts, is a truth of unity despite diversity (6:16). Most significantly, the union is an organic reconciliation of opposing principles; Jews, he reminds us, are paradoxically accused of nationalism and cosmopolitanism. But, "the fact is that the very national idea of the Jews has a notable degree of universal significance" (6:17-18). The Jews represent a "religious-national unity" (religiozno-natsional'noe edinstvo, 6:19), as well as form the "axle of universal history," "the trunk to the branches" of other religions and peoples (6:19, 18), Here again is the crux of Solov'ev's understanding of the Jews: spiritual and material, as is bogochelovechestvo; national and universal, as are the theocratic ideal and the Universal Church.
Anti-Semitism as defined in this essay is largely a case of the Christians accusing Jews of their own sins, and Solov'ev accuses Russian Christians in particular of hypocrisy (6:24). As opposed to the spiritual wholeness of the Jewish nation (religiozno-natsional'noe edinstvo), Russians suffer from religious-national separatism (religiozno-natsional' noe obosoblenie, 6:24). To convince Jews of Christian rightness before God, Christians would have to practice what they preach, for the Jews are a practical people; they do not separate theory from practice, or service of God from love of man (6:30). The greatest rejection of the Gospels, as always throughout the 1880s for Solov'ev, was the schism between the Churches. Mistaken Jewish exclusivity as expressed in the early Christian, talmudic period has not yet lost its meaning: "It stands to this day as a living reproach to the Christian" (6:32). "The calamity for us is not in the excessive working of the Talmud, but in the insufficient working of the Gospels" (6:32). Thus, by turning against his fellow Christians that with which they condemn the Jews, Solov'ev deflates their anti-Semitism. He praises Jewish practical activity, social consciousness and, above all, "religious-national" identity, insofar as it is a unity of multiplicity and a reconciliation of matter and spirit, humanity and God. 
It is in the second major work to result from his study of Jewish texts in the 1880s that Solov'ev begins to explore the question of chosenness, toward which the present study— and Solov'ev's own writings on Russia—lead. Through a detailed commentary on Hebrew Scriptures, in The History and Future of Theocracy: An Investigation of the World-Wide Historic Path to True Life (1885-87), Solov'ev traces the development of theocracy, elaborating on his earlier identification of the Jews with active religiosity and claiming that, under King Solomon, they were the only nation to experience the true balance of priest, tsar and prophet that will be known again in the future theocracy. He uses the model of the Jews to buttress many of his central arguments: humanity is intimately connected to both the spiritual and the material worlds (4:339, 342); man was created so as to stand "face to face" with God (4:340); humanity, made in the image and likeness of God, is good, so that the Fall was a fall in deed, not in essence (4:347, 348, 357).
Referring to God's choice of Abraham, Solov'ev states, "One is chosen not to the shame of the rest, but rather for their blessing. One is chosen from the midst of all, but for the sake of all" (4:360). Thus Abraham's chosenness was not a case of arbitrary exclusivity, but a necessary outgrowth of his "ability to become the head of the theocratic fate of humanity" "Here is the foundation of chosenness, here is the principle of theocracy—a divine-human (bogochelovecheskoe) principle—the free interaction between Creator and creation" (4:363). With the Bible as authority, Solov'ev asserts that Judaism was the first and necessary origin of bogochelovechestvo. At its start, and still at the heart of bogochelovechestvo, lies the question of individual versus universal selfhood, of Abraham chosen as one, but one for all. The assertion of this paradox of the reconciliation of self and universe, with the Jews as model, repeats throughout (cf. 4:385, 391).
Solov'ev returns to the metaphor of the Jews as a worthy "wrestling partner" with God in his description of Abraham's grandson, Jacob, later renamed Israel. If Abraham provides Solov'ev with a metaphor for the one and the many, Jacob provides him with a model for the God-like self-motivated activity of the human being (samodeiatel'nost' chelovecheskogo sushchestva, 4:396). Abraham was singular and whole, national and universal, the principle behind teokratiia; Jacob was active, and thus represented the human agency involved in the process of bogochelovechestvo. Central to this image is Jacob's ladder, described in a dream of the future patriarch.  As Solov'ev's interpretation stresses, the angels in Jacob's dream ascend and descend the ladder; both the end and the beginning are important for the movement: "The ladder of human perfection is established on earth, and only its head reaches heaven. Established on earth means that earth is not opposed to heaven, but rather its base" (4:403).
Again stressing the mutual interaction of spiritual God and material humanity Solov'ev explicates another central biblical image, and an image crucial to the formation of the Jewish people: the burning bush. "Divinity is fire, but fire that preserves instead of consumes the creation with which it unites" (4:427). In this section Solov'ev returns verbatim to eight pages from Jewry and the Christian Question where he wrote of the Jewish national character and, in particular, the Jews' seemingly contradictory "holy corporeality" (4:432-41). The image of spiritual fire of a light from God that does not destroy matter but transfigures it, giving it eternal life without removing it from created life, is a particularly apt image not only for the Jews but for bogochelovechestvo as well. Here again a Jewish text, and the understanding of that text as an expression of the Jewish character, serves Solov'ev as a model for his ideal. 
The History and Future of Theocracy further discusses the development of the "national theocracy" under Solomon, and the balance of priest, tsar and prophet as described in Jewry and The Christian Question (4:506, 510, 548). Although he claims that the Jewish theocracy was by essence national, Solov'ev repeats that "it did not have that exclusive and relentlessly hostile character toward all non-Jews that is always attributed to it" (4:498). Thus he again justifies the chosenness of the Jews and their role in the development of a universal theocracy. As for theocracy itself, Solov'ev claims that the three elements were already present in the early days of Moses' leadership. It is at this point that Solov'ev gives his clearest definition of the roles of the three theocratic elements in society and the ways in which theocracy relates to bogochelovechestvo:
Of particular importance here is the ascription of reconciling or synthetic activity to the third element of prophecy, that is, to that which he associates principally with the Jews. Here he stresses that "prophecy is together the root and the crown of theocratic organization; in one sense it is the first and unconditional power, and in another, only the third is conditioned by the two other powers," so that, "in a certain sense, the prophet is the highest of the three theocratic powers" (4:504, 549). The interaction of the three principles is still of utmost importance, so that, according to Solov'ev, the "highest culminating point in the development of the Jewish national theocracy" was the moment when David the King ordered Zadok the Priest and Nathan the Prophet together to consecrate Solomon.  This moment marked the transformation from a national to a universal theocracy (4:549, 550), but it is a transformation that reconciles rather than opposes the national and the universal, the particular and the whole; as they reconcile Priesthood and Kingdom through Prophecy for an ideal (if temporary) theocratic whole, the Jews remain the Jews, with their unique "spiritual-national character."
Solov'ev intended The History and Future of Theocracy as the first part of an uncompleted trilogy; instead, much of the material for the later parts made its way into the idiosyncratic Russia and the Universal Church (1889). The year before he published a type of preface to it, "The Russian Idea," which he originally had delivered as a lecture in a Paris salon.  In this latter work Solov'ev directly compares the calling (prizvanie) of Russia to that of the Jews. From a brief review of Jewish history, Solov'ev moves to a review of Russian history and Russia's role in the history of theocracy. As in The History and Future of Theocracy, the Universal Church will derive its legitimacy from the balanced authority of priest, tsar and prophet, and, as in Jewry and the Christian Question, Russia must contribute its kingly principle, but only after admitting its willingness to subordinate that principle to the Universal Church (11:117). In this way, "The Russian Idea" can serve as a summary of much of Solov'ev's previous work on theocracy and the Universal Church.
The short essay does not work as well, however, as the intended preface to Russia and the Universal Church, a work in which Solov'ev seems to move back from the politics and social philosophy of the 1880s to the ontology and theology that had preoccupied him in the previous decade. Although he still writes of the three elements of priest, tsar and prophet in the Universal Church, these no longer represent institutions or social classes, but "unions":
Even when he writes of politics, he uses the christological vocabulary of the Council of Chalcedon: "A tight union, an organic unity of two powers indivisible and unmerged (v nerazdel'nosti i nesliiannosti), that is the necessary condition for true social progress" (11:169). Several pages earlier, Solov'ev had told us that "the true central dogma of Christianity is the internal and full unity of the divine and human—indivisible and unmerged (v nerazdel'nosti i nesliiannosti, 11:162). Solov 'ev had attributed this same concept to the Jews in History and Future of Theocracy (4:470).
Solov'ev again reviews the history of Christianity and, specifically, the history of the Russian Orthodox Church, to determine at which stage of the development of the Universal Church Russia now finds itself. As established in The History and Future of Theocracy, the Jewish people play a crucial role in that development. Here, in fact, Solov'ev grants not only that the Jewish national theocracy was the singular origin and model for universal theocracy but also that two corners of the three-cornered Church stand in the Old Testament: Abraham represents primary theocracy and Jacob represents national theocracy. It is Simon Peter (like Jesus, born Jewish) who represents universal theocracy (11:229).
Solov'ev continues in Russia and the Universal Church with theological, cosmological and metaphysical explanations of the structure of reality, often using the language of erotic love and developing his ideas on Sophia that he had begun the previous decade in Lectures on Bogochelovechestvo, here sometimes calling her the "body of God."  Because of the added emphasis on the body, Solov'ev looks not only to the Hebrew Bible but also, and again, to Jewish mysticism. The androgynous, multifaceted unity of the Kabbalah's Adam Kadmon provided Solov'ev with a model for God, reality and the true Church. In Kabbalah, the ten sefirot or hypostases, beyond whose head stands En-Sof, interact as humans, or as parts of the human body, and are acted upon by mortal men and women. Here, for Solov'ev, was a vocabulary for his vision of an organic interrelationship between the divine and the human, undivided yet unmerged, for a oneness that is many, for a "no-thing" that is.
Ten years after his most intense interest in the Jews, now in the 1890s, Solov'ev returns to the question of nationalism, for which the Jews had already helped explain the potential relationship between universalism and particularism. In a section of The Justification of the Good (1894-98), Solov'ev engages in one of his favorite practices: a review of human history, focussing on the "undivided, but unmerged" relationship of the individual to the whole, both on the level of a person (lichnost') and of a people (narodnost') (8:317). The Jews, he claims, were the only people at the time of Jesus with a sense of nationhood, and this nationhood was not in essence exclusive. Although the majority of the Jews could not accept the messianic universalism that was an expression of their own true national identity (istinnoe natsional'noe samosoznanie evreev), Christ and the Gospels do not repudiate, but rather embrace the Jews' national identity. "Individuality for a human in this reborn state, like nationality and all other particularities and differences, ceases to be a boundary, and becomes the basis of a positive union with collective all-humanity (sobiratel' noe vsechelovechestvo), which fulfills it, or with the Church (in its true essence) " (8:316). Here again, in the final decade of his life, Solov'ev justifies Jewish national identity by seeing it as an integral reconciler.
At this point, it seems appropriate to take a step back to mention a work by Solov'ev in which the Jews are decidedly absent, for the absence is significant in terms of Solov'ev's use of the Jews in the 1880s-90s, as we will see, as a model for Russia. After the outbreak of the war with Turkey in 1877, infused with the panslavism of his then still conservative associates, Solov'ev delivered a talk later published as "Three Powers."  The three powers, each represented by a national character and representing three differing principles, are not Buddhist India, classical Greece or the Jewish nation, as we would expect from the historical survey in Solov'ev's contemporaneous work on Lectures on Bogochelovechestvo, but the Eastern Islamic world, Catholic and Protestant Western Europe, and Russia. Not the Jews, but the Russians in this essay are the third principle that reconciles individuality and universality, affects a relationship between humanity and God, and sets the scene for the next historical and spiritual stage in bogochelovechestvo, and what he will later call theocracy.
In "Three Powers," Solov'ev uses the Islamic East as the embodiment of the first of "three root powers that have governed human development." Islam, which, unlike Judaism, is consistently condemned by Solov'ev in all of his writings, "strives to subordinate humanity in all spheres and at all levels of life to one supreme principle; in its exclusive unity, it strives to merge and meld all diverse separate forms. . . . One lord and a dead mass of slaves—this is the ultimate realization of this power" (1:227). In fact, both the first two powers have a "negative, exclusive character: the first excludes the free multiplicity of individual forms and personal elements, free movement, progress—the second. Western Europe, just as negatively relates to unity, to the general supreme principle of life, it tears apart the solidarity of the whole" (1:228). In "Three Powers," Solov'ev declares Russia the "reconciling" nation in both a geopolitical and a metaphysical sense, thus implicitly associating it with his work on the Jews in the next decade.
Returning to the 1880s, we see that Solov'ev retrieves his interest in Russia's historical and spiritual role in the essays collected in the two issues of The National Question in Russia, written, as we have stated, concurrently with his principal works on the Jews. In these essays, while never rejecting the epistemological and metaphysical concept of tsel'nost' that he learned from the early Slavophiles, he clearly distinguishes his own views on nationhood (natsional'nost' or narodnost') from any Slavophile tendencies to praise blindly the Russian state and the Russian people (cf. 5:219, 394). He condemns even early Slavophilism in that it already contained the germs of the later reactionary, xenophobic, anti-Semitic Russian nationalism (natsionalizm) of the so-called neo-Slavophiles (including Danilevskii, referred to in the epigraph to this article).  Solov'ev writes of the "transformation of the messianic ideal of the old Slavophiles into that zoomorphic idol served by today's nationalists" (5:394).
The problem hinges on the tension between particularism and universalism, on Russia's understanding of its value in and of itself, and its value as part—perhaps potentially the best part—of all nations. Russia must be both "undivided from" and "unmerged with" the world of human nations. The Jews, we have seen in Solov'ev's essays, at their best are both particular and universal. At their worst they fall back on the formalism of their laws and misunderstand their role in the process of bogochelovechestvo (cf. 4:157-58). According to Solov'ev, Slavophilism, too, allowed for an exclusive concentration on form, and thus helped its later adherents to equate holiness with external, formal observance, to ignore the cross (particularly in their anti-Semitism), and thus to split particular Russia from the universal whole.
In one of the essays of The National Question in Russia, "Morality and Politics: Russia's Historical Responsibilities" (1883) Solov'ev uses the Jews at the time of Christ as a negative example to clarify the difference between positive nationhood and nationalism. "In the name of patriotism," he writes, the Jews "demanded that they place their own exclusive interest and the meaning of their own people higher than anything else" (5:12). But this negative patriotism need not be the only option for expression of national "personality":
Through his distinction between nationhood and nationalism, Solov'ev attempts to show how a people like the Jews, or the Russians, can have and develop a strong national identity at the same time as they reconcile that identity with universal ideals. The first stage of reconciliation for Solov'ev is self-renunciation, or what he calls the way of the cross in Jewry and the Christian Question. He thus praises two moments in Russian history usually condemned by the Slavophiles as examples of Russia's renunciation of its egoism and its movement along the path toward universalism: the calling of the Varangians and the reforms of Peter (cf. 5:30ff, 161ff). On another level, he uses the analogy of the human body: "Different nationhoods (narodnosti) are different organs in the whole body of humanity" (5:13). He can thus assert a paradox; you must give yourself to the whole in order to be an independent part. A lung is not a true living lung unless it is part of the human body, and a people is not a true people unless is part of the whole organism of humanity. Similarly, to be supernational, (sverkhnarodnoe) does not mean to be un-national (beznarodnoe) (5:13). Integral, super-national humanity is made up of many nations, each with its own national identity, national responsibilities, and national destiny. This destiny is what Solov'ev calls a cultural calling (kul'turnoe prizvanie), something that is a duty, not a privilege (5:10).
Solov'ev develops his argument against contemporary Russian "patriots" who view Russia's cultural calling as a privilege and thus falsely assert its separateness from the body of humanity: "The politics of interest . . . is a pagan activity, and, taking that stand, Christian nations return to paganism. The assertion of one's own exclusive mission, idolizing one's own nationhood is the point of view of ancient Judaism, and, by accepting that point of view, Christian nations fall back into Old Testamental Judaism" (5:16).
It seems contradictory that the Jews serve as both a negative and positive model for Solov'ev. There is in fact no contradiction if we reaffirm that, no matter how much independent interest Judaism might have held for Solov'ev, the Jews provided him with a model for "chosen" Russia, with its potential to be a "spiritual-national" people. Solov'ev explains how the Jews, as an historical nation, fell into national egoism. But this false nationalism did not forever erase the Jews' nationhood, their personality (lichnost') or national character. That personality, he explains in Jewry and. the Christian Question, is comprised of their seemingly contradictory, but in truth interacting or integral, spirituality and materialism, and it is this combination that makes them a "holy" nation, chosen by God as Its partner and as the birth-nation of the Messiah.
In "About Nationhood and Russia's National Affairs" (1884), Solov'ev turned his attention directly to Russia's national character.  He asserts that nationhood (narodnost') is "a living force, both natural and historical, which itself must serve the highest idea, and by that service give meaning to and justify its own existence" (5:25). This active nationhood, or personality of a people, can and should be combined with the "religious idea," so that, "by the internal combination (but not merging) of the religious idea and nationhood, both are the winners.  Nationhood stops being a simple ethnographic and historic fact and receives the highest significance and sanctification. And the religious idea reveals itself in all its distinctiveness, bedecked and incarnated in nationhood. It acquires in nationhood a living historical power for its realization in the world" (5:26).
The Jews achieved this special balance of assertion and renunciation of self, allowing the "religious idea" to which they offered themselves to be incarnated in the world at several crucial moments: when Abraham established a covenant with God, when Jacob became Israel, when Solomon was crowned king by priest and prophet, so that, finally, they were "represented by a chosen group of their sons," the apostles, that is, those chosen from among the chosen (5:44). At these times, iudeistvo and evreistvo were fully integrated.
Thus, what Solov'ev is suggesting for the Russians is something he believes he has already discovered among the Jews: a way to be an individual nation, with a distinct national personality (evreiskii narod), and yet to participate, and to participate centrally, in the universal, spiritual development of bogochelovechestvo, as the seemingly contradictory "spiritual-national" iudeiskii narod. His praise of the Jews is still a Christian's praise—their highest achievement was in Christ—but he affirms the unique status of the Jewish people and he sets it up as a model for Russia. To be effective, he tells us, the model must be actively followed, "Holy Rus' demands holy action" (5:55). Let Russians declare themselves "chosen," Solov'ev writes, but only if they realize that chosenness obligates (5:393-94). Russia must actively renounce nationalism in order to retain and grow within its nationhood. It can then become what it truly is: the reconciler of East and West, the cornerstone of the Universal Church, the seat of the future theocracy, and an active model of bogochelovechestvo.
As Solov'ev writes near the beginning of The National Question in Russia: "And here lies the task of Russia—to show that she is not only the representative of the East, that she is truly the third Rome, not excluding the first two, but reconciling herself with both" (5:22). Russia is the third, reconciling principle. Thus, having established a relationship between Russia and the Jewish people in terms of negative nationalism as well as positive nationhood, he declares them both to be spiritual-national people. He demands at once an active embrace of self-renunciation and self-affirmation, and, in the final analysis, reveals what is at stake for him in his interest and praise of the Jews: the true meaning of Russia itself.
It would be unfair to end this analysis of Solov'ev on the Jews with the impression that the "true meaning" of Russia was determined once and for all, or with the notion that the philosopher convinced Russian anti-Semites of the "true meaning" of Jewry and Judaism. Like theocracy in the Davidic kingdom, the impact of Solov'ev's rich understanding of the Jews was short-lived indeed. It is true that, while popular anti-Semitism increased significantly around the turn of the century, educated Jews began to find themselves accepted into intellectual and artistic circles, as well as the subject of those circles' conversations. Some discussion about the "Jewish question" remained negative, especially among far-right nationalists in the period surrounding the Beilis trial, but a significant portion of the Russian intelligentsia voiced support of the traditionally hated Jews. This period of judeophilia culminated in the publication in 1914 of The Shield (Shchit), edited by the well-known writers Maksim Gor'kii, Leonid Andreev and Fedor Sologub. Three editions in as many years testify to the volume's popularity.
Nonetheless, as one scholar states, "the new-found positive attitudes toward Judaism were composed of a superficial and maudlin pity."  Virtually none of the contributors to The Shield (besides, of course, Solov'ev, who is represented posthumously by a speech from 1890, "On Nationalism"), takes up the advice cited at the beginning of this article: "To despise Judaism is folly, to quarrel with Jews is useless, it would be better to understand Judaism, although that may be more difficult."
Even more important, the Jews occupy no central role in the philosophical systems of any of the thinkers in the generation following Solov'ev—the last generation before the disruptive Soviet years. Several of the "heirs" of Solov'ev were themselves born Jewish (Shestov, Frank, Gershenzon), but they did not investigate their own Judaism as a way of understanding the structure of the world in the same way that Solov'ev did. Other important thinkers, including Berdiaev and Bulgakov, wrote major essays decrying anti-semitism during the rise of Nazism, but in those cases the Jews were more an object of discussion than the subject of their most central beliefs. Indeed, some thinkers, like Berdiaev, used Solov'ev's sometimes paradoxical ideas for a glorification of Russia in a way that Solov'ev might have found closer to dangerous messianic nationalism than spiritual nationhood. Only now, in the post-Soviet era, is there a small movement to reclaim the depths of Solov'ev's understanding of the Jews. 
This is not to say that Solov'ev had no impact on the age that followed his death in 1900, and particularly on the understanding of the meaning of Russia by his heirs. His influence was immense and is still to be adequately explored. What it does mean is that his optimism about divine-human interaction and the potential for integral, spiritual wholeness contrasts sharply with the aesthetic apocalypticism on one hand, and the social liberalism on the other of the intelligentsia that went on to witness the wars and revolutions of the next century. Perhaps a portion of the optimism (present even when combined with some disappointment in his last few years) was born of historical naivete, but much of it grew legitimately from his sophisticated, if unique interpretation of Jewish mysticism, traditional Judaism, and historical and contemporary Jewry.
Research for this article was generously supported by the National Endowment for the Humanities, a nonprofit federal agency, and by the Joint Committee on Soviet Studies of the American Council of Learned Societies and the Social Science Research Council.
1. Nikolai O. Lossky, History of Russian Philosophy (New York, 1951), 121, writes: "Alluding to his own passionate desire not only theoretically to discover divine truth, but also to contribute to its incarnation on earth, Soloviev often called himself a Jew."
2. V.S. Solov'ev, Sobranie sochinenii Vladimira Sergeevicha Solov'eva, 2d ed., 10 vols. (1911-14; reprinted, with two additional volumes, Brussels, 1966-70), 4:141. Unless otherwise stated, all citations to Solov'ev will be from this edition and indicated by volume and page number in in-text parenthetical notes. See also F. B. Gets, "Ob otnoshenii VI. S. Solov'eva k evreiskomu voprosu," Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii 56 (1901): 165-68; and, on mysticism, Solov'ev, Sobranie sochinenii 1-:339-43.
3. Paul Berline, "Russian Religious Philosophers and the Jews (Soloviev, Berdyaev, Bulgakov, Struve, Rozanov and Fedotov)," Jewish Social Studies 9 (1947): 272; Walter G. Moss, "Vladimir Soloviev and the Jews in Russia," Russian Review 29 (April 2970): 186.
4. Sergei Trubetskoi, "Smert' V. Solov'eva. 31 iiulia 1900 g.," Vestnik Evropy, 1900, no. 9. Reprinted in (and cited from) B. Averin and D. Bazanova, eds., Kniga o Vladimire Solov'eve (Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel', 1991), 294. See also K. Mochul'skii, Vladimir Solov'ev: Zhizn' i uchenie, 2d ed. (Paris, 1951), 268.
5. Emanuel Glouberman, "Feodor Dostoevsky, Vladimir Soloviev, Vasilii Rozanov and Lev Shestov on Jewish and Old Testament Themes" (Ph.D. diss.. University of Michigan, 1974), 51.
6. Gets, "Ob otnoshenii VI. S. Solov'eva," 163.
7. Published as Evreistvo i khristianskii vopros.
8. Bogochelovechestvo is usually translated as Godmanhood, although the English is an inadequate translation on several levels. Solov'ev refers to a process of divine interaction in which all humanity (indeed, all creation) participates, in fact adding significant humanistic content to the Greek theanthropia or theanthropotes, which were broadly used in patristic writings simply as a christological term ("Christness" or "Christ-nature"). Bogochelovechestvo does not simply equate and conjoin Godhood and humanity, but implies a creative tension leading to, but not synonymous with, theosis. In Russian, the combination of Bog and chelovek (God and man, or human [theandros or theandropos]), as well as the abstracting suffix (stvo) are by no means as awkward as they are in English. To suggest the full range of meaning of the compound, abstract noun, I will retain the original for the rest of this study. I thank Professor Paul Valliere for important information on this term. He prefers the translation: "Humanity of God."
9. Solov'ev used the term bogochelovechestvo throughout the three decades of his career, but avoided direct discussion of theocracy after the 1880s. Despite disillusionment with Western liberalism as well as Russian nationalism as roads toward a just, spiritual society, however, he did not, as most commentators have asserted, turn away from his optimistic attitude toward the potential for truth and goodness within human institutions. For a discussion of this issue in his last great work see my "Solov'ev on Salvation: The Story of the 'Short Story of the Antichrist,'" in Russian Religious Thought, ed. Judith Deutsch Kornblatt and Richard Gustafson (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1996), 68-87. In addition to its role in the formulation of bogochelovechestvo and theocracy, Judaism also plays a role in Solov'ev's important concept of Sophia, as I have discussed in ''Solov'ev's Androgynous Sophia and the Jewish Kabbalah," Slavic Review 50 (Fall 1991): 486-96.
10. See, for example, "Messianizm," Sobranie sochinenii 12.600.
11. This definition corresponds quite closely to the kabbalistic understanding of En-Sof (variously transliterated En/Ein/Ain-Sof/Soph), As Gershom Scholem explains in Kabbalah (New York, 1974), "Ein-Sof is the absolute perfection in which there are no distinctions and no differentiations" yet out of which come the multiple emanations of the Sefirot, or divine hypostases (p. 89). In contrast to Neoplatonism, these emanations are not stages of creation, and not a falling-away from the "cause-of-all-causes," but rather manifestations of the Godhead itself. Thus, "the hidden God in the aspect of Ein-Sof and the God manifested in the emanation of Sefirot are one and the same, viewed from two different angles (ibid., 98).
12. Solov'ev's later references to Kabbalah are more sophisticated. See Book 3, Chapter 5, of his Rossiia i vselenskaia tserkov' (published in 1889 as La Russie et l'Église Universelle; translated into Russian in Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 11); and, especially, his preface to David Gintsburg, "Kabbala, misticheskaia fiiosofiia evreev," Voprosy filosofii i psikhohgii, 33 (1896), reprinted in Solov'ev, Sobranie sochinenii 12:332-34; and his article on "Kabbala" for the Brokgauz-Efron encyclopedia (reprinted in Sobranie sochinenii 10:339-43). Interestingly, Solov'ev rarely mentions the Christian Cabala, although the European scholars of mysticism whom he cites in the encyclopedia article rely on it heavily.
13. Solov'ev, Sobranie sochinenii 6:40-41. The expression "unmerged, yet undivided" refers to the natures of Christ. The relationship of the two natures of Christ was confirmed at the christological councils in response to the heresies of Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, and Monophelitism—Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man; His two natures are at once separate and one; undivided and yet unmerged. For further discussion of the so-called Definition of Chalcedon see Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church (1963; reprint ed. Harmondsworth. Eng., 1993), 34.
14. The lecture in which the proposal was made was not published in either the first or second editions of Solov'ev's collected works. For the text as reconstructed by an unknown student see V. S. Solov'ev, Sochineniia v dvukh tomakh (Moscow: Pravda, 1989 [supplement to Voprosy filosofii], 1:39-42. For a cogent account of the importance of the lecture to Solov'ev^s career see Gregory Arthur Gaut, "A Christian Westernizer: Vladimir Solovyov and Russian Conservative Nationalism" (Ph.D. diss.. University of Minnesota, 1992); and idem, "Christian Politics: Vladimir Solovyov's Social Gospel Theory," Modern Greek Studies Yearbook 10/11 (1994/95): 653-74.
15. Solov'ev Sobranie sochinenii 4:139. Solov'ev here cites the words of Bishop Nikanor, published in the issues of Pravoslavnoe obozrenie that preceded the publication of Jewry and the Christian Question in that same journal. Nikanor wrote about the unity of the Old and New Testaments: "We, Christians and braehtes are brothers not only in flesh, but in spirit, and, conversely, not only in spirit, but in flesh." See Nikanor, Bishop of Kherson and Odessa, "Pouchenie preosviashchennago Nikanora, episkopa khersonskago i odesskago, pn osviashchenii tserkvi Odesskago kommercheskago uchiUshcha, v chetvertok shestoi nedeh velikago posta," Pravoslavnoe obozrenie 2 (May-June 1884): 4.
16. That Solov'ev ultimately desired that the Jews be Christian is confirmed in his praise of I. D. Rabinovich, a nineteenth-century "Jew for Jesus," whom Solov'ev compares to the apostles of the first century (see Solov'ev, Sobranie sochinenii 9:422-23, and 4:207-21).
17. Ibid., 4:145. Although not stated, this reference is clearly to Genesis 32:24-30, when Jacob wrestles with a messenger of God and prevails, at which time his name is changed to Israel, or He-Who-Wrestles-with-God.
18. Ibid., 149. Solov'ev does not fail to mention the age-old libel of the Jews' money lust, but he inverts the criticism by asserting that this is a trait that unites the Jews with, rather than distinguishes them from, contemporary Christians. The only difference between Christian and Jewish attitudes toward money, according to Solov'ev in a clear provocation of his readers, is that Christian Europe serves money, while the Jews make money serve both themselves and their God (ibid., 137).
19. Ibid., 161. Unfortunately, Solov'ev's play on the root - prav - (truth; right) is impossible to translate.
20. Solov'ev, Sobranie sochinenii 6:11. Later in the essay, Solov'ev finds the origin of this maxim in the Talmud, although it is in fact from Leviticus 19:18 ("You shall love your neighbor as yourself").
21. Ibid., 11-15. Solov'ev finds the requirement of Israel to respect non-Jews in the Bible as well. See The History and Future of Theocracy (ibid., 4:495-96).
22. Solov'ev repeated many of his attacks against detractors of Judaic texts with more biting satire in 1891 and 1896. See "'Evrei, ikh verouchenie i nravouchenie': Issledovanie S. Ia. Diminskogo" (ibid., 6:374-80); and "Kogda zhili evreiskie proroki?" (ibid., 7:180- 200).
23. Genesis 28:12-16.
24. Divine light is also an important model in Neoplatonism and enters into Orthodox theology through the writings of the early Greek Fathers. For a discussion of light as a means of union with God in Orthodoxy see Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Crestwood, NY, 1976), 217-35. That Solov'ev finds the source in Hebrew Scriptures rather than patristics is, of course, significant in his development of the Jews as a model.
25. Kings 1:32-34.
26. Solov'ev, "L'Idée russe/Russkaia ideia" in Sobranie sochinenii 11:89-118. For more on this lecture, as well as a defense of its ideas against those who accused Solov'ev of betraying Russia and Russian Orthodoxy, see Sergei Trubetskoi, "V zashchitu 'Russkoi idei' Vladimira Solov'eva: Neopublikovannoe pis'mo V redaktsiiu 'Moskovskikh vedomostei'," Novaia Evropa, 1994, no. 4:57-64.
27. In Russia and the Universal Church, Solov'ev introduces many of the metaphors and themes that will preoccupy him later in the 1890s, especially those of the body and erotic love. Although not the first to notice that the Latin version of "Eros"—"Amor"—is the reverse of "Roma," Solov'ev uses the coincidence to imply that the arrival of the Bogochelovek in the midst of the Roman Empire radically transformed, but did not eliminate, the previously pagan "body." Actually, Solov'ev claims, the "body politic" of the people of Israel, whose history both preceded and succeeded Rome, is the transition point (Sobranie sochinenii 11:242).
28. Ibid., 1:227-39.
29. Solov'ev uses narodnost' and natsional' nost' synonymously. He explains their difference from natsionalizm by the analogy, "narodnost':natsionalizm::lichnost':egoizm" (see ibid., 5:352).
30. Published as "O narodnosti i narodnykh delakh Rossii," in the same year as Jewry and the Christian Question.
31. Note, again, the christological vocabulary.
32. Glouberman, "Feodor Dostoevsky, Vladimir Soloviev," 10. See also Mikhail Agurskii and Margadta Shklovskaia, Iz literaturnogo naslediia: Gor'kii i evreiskii vopros (Jerusalem, 1986), 6.
33. See, for example, Z. A. Krakhmal'nikova, ed., Russkaia ideia i evrei: Sbornik statei (Moscow: Nauka, 1994).