CC BY
18
25. Solov'ev, VS. Chteniya o Bogochelovechestve [Lectures on Godmanhood], in Solov'ev, VS. Sobranie sochineniy v 10 t., t. 3 [Collection of works in 10 vol., vol. 3], Saint-Petersburg: Knigoizdatel'skoe Tovarishchestvo «Prosveshchenie», 1911-1914, pp. 3-181.
26. Berdyaev, N.A. Vladimir Solov'ev i my [Vladimir Solovyov and we], in Vl. Solov'ev: pro et contra: Lichnost' i tvorchestvo V. Solov'eva v otsenke russkikh mysliteley i issledovateley. Antologiya v 2 kn. [Vl. Solovyov: pro et contra: Personality and creativity Century Solovyov in the evaluation of Russian thinkers and researchers. Anthology in 2 vol.], Saint-Petersburg: RKhGI, 2000, vol. 2, pp. 176-181.
27. Frank, S.L. Dukhovnoe nasledie Vl. Solov'eva [The spiritual heritage of Vl. Solovyov], in Vl. Solov'ev: pro et contra: Lichnost' i tvorchestvo V. Solov'eva v otsenke russkikh mysliteley i issledovateley. Antologiya v 2 kn. [Vl. Solovyov: pro et contra: Personality and creativity Century Solovyov in the evaluation of Russian thinkers and researchers. Anthology in 2 vol.], Saint-Petersburg: RKhGI, 2000, vol. 2, pp. 953-961.
УДК 141(438:47) ББК 87.з(4Пол:2Рос)5
MARIAN MORAWSKI'S ANALYSIS OF THE VIEWS OF VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
EWELINA TOPOLSKA Opole University 89, Ul. Katowicka, Opole, Poland E-mail: [email protected]
The article gives analytical review of the work of Polish thinker, Jesuit, professor of Jagiellonian University Marian Morawski «Vladimir Solovyov» devoted to the Russian philosophThe text by M. Morawski is analized from from the point of view of the Polish thinker's perception of personality and work of V.S. Solovyov and also from the view of the influence of the Russian philosopher's ideas on the Polish thinker. M. Morawski's position and views are considered through the prism of his perception of Solovyov's views on the role of Russia in the World, the role of a person in history, his idea of churches unity. Special attention is paid to the dogmatic and theological problematic of M. Morawski's book, considered by him on the example of such V.S. Solovyov's works as «Dogmatic development of the Church», «History and Future of Theocracy», «Russia and Universal Church», «Russian Idea» etc.
Key words: Morawski and Soloviev account, the universal church, East and West, ecumenism, the «Russian idea», nationalism, universalistic vision of the state, national question, the dogmatic issues, Catholicism, Orthodoxy.
МАРИАН МОРАВСКИЙ О ВЗГЛЯДАХ ВЛАДИМИРА СОЛОВЬЕВА
EWELINA TOPOLSKA Opole University Ul. Katowicka, 89, Opole, Poland E-mail: [email protected]
Предлагается аналитический обзор работы польского мыслителя, иезуита, профессора Ягеллонского Университета Мариана Моравского «Владимир Соловьев», посвященной
российскому философу. Текст М. Моравского анализируется с точки зрения восприятия польским мыслителем личности и творчества В. С. Соловьева, а также с точки зрения влияния идей российского философа на польского мыслителя. Позиция и взгляды М. Моравского трактуются сквозь призму его восприятия взглядов Соловьева на роль России в мире, роль личности в истории, его идеи соединения церквей. Особое внимание уделяется догматической и теологической проблематике, рассматриваемой М. Моравским на примерах таких работ В.С. Соловьева, как «Догматическое развитие Церкви», «История и будущность теократии», «Россия и Вселенская церковь», «Русская идея» и др.
Ключевые слова: Моравский и Соловьев, Вселенская церковь, Восток и Запад, экуменизм, русская идея, национализм, универсалистская концепция государства, национальный вопрос, догматические проблемы, католицизм, православие.
In 1890 Marian Morawski1, a priest, published an article in Przeg^d Powszechny entitled Wlodzimierz Soiowiew [Vladimir Soloviev]2. In the text, the author referred to the principal ideas of Soloviev expressed in the works: Historia i przyszlosС teokracji [History and the Future of Theocracy], Rosja i Kosciol Powszechny [Russia and the Universal Church], as well as to the booklet Rosyjska idea [The Russian Idea] and several minor articles mostly concerned with the religious and national issues.
Morawski's goal was to describe this Russian philosopher and his views on the Universal Church and the place of Russia in the world to the Polish readership. It should be emphasized that these topics were the most popular issues among the Polish critics of Soloviev3. From the beginning of his text, Morawski made it clear that the work of Soloviev was very influential among the Cracovian intellectuals. This state of affairs is witnessed by all the articles devoted to Soloviev and his ideas published in Przeglad Powszechny4.
Morawski was impressed by Soloviev's analysis of the situation of the Catholic Church and interpretation of various national issues, including the relationship between Poland and Russia, and by his unique ability for "synthetic observations and views" [3, p. 193], which was absent, according to Morawski, among other thinkers.
After acquainting himself with the works of Soloviev, Morawski was convinced that these are the product of a great mind and have the potential of revolutionizing the way of thinking about society, state and the Church. Despite the fact that the
1 Marian Morawski (1845-1901) was a Jesuit and a professor at the Jagiellonian University.
2 The text was published in three parts. The first part appeared in January 1890 [see 1, pp. 305-327], whereas the two subsequent parts were published in following issue of the journal [see 2, pp. 21-39, 230-246]. However, when discussing the text, we refer to its slightly modified version that appeared in 2007. It was included in Soloviev's book entitled Zaslubiny Wschodu z Zachodem (The Marriage of East and West) [See 3].
3 Soloviev answered to the objections of count Stanislaw Tarnowski, a professor at Jagiellonian University, in the short text entitled Lettre a la Redaction du „Przeglad Polski" [A Letter to the Editorial Staff of "Przeglad Polski"]. Arguably this is the only article written by the philosopher as a reply to the objections raised by a Polish thinker [See 4, pp. 179-189]. This translation was published together with the original text written in French.
4 See: Tarnowski, S. Glos sumienia z Rosyi, „Przeglad Polski" 1988/1989, vol. 91, pp. 32-58 [5]. Tarnowski, S. Wyklad idei i powom,ania Rosji, „Przeglad Polski" 1989/1990, vol. 94, pp. 1-45 [6].
role of an individual is often underestimated - according to Morawski - it should be recognized that the individuals rejecting the current state of affairs can greatly, whether positively or negatively, influence the reality, as is confirmed by history. In fact, what is important here is that the ideas of exceptional individuals, through various channels influencing ever broader circles, in time become a "a commonplace doctrine, a custom and a clich?" [3, p. 178]. Morawski argued that "even the smallest disturbance can be sufficient to put words into action - be it a rebellion of commoners or the actions of a mighty ruler that change the idea and its logic into reality" [3, p. 178]. It is also possible that the doctrine will not exert much influence on the political system or -more broadly - on socio-political or international relations, but its very introduction into the various social classes could be itself a source of great transformations5 [see 3, p. 178]. This view on the role of an individual in the history enables one to understand what great stir the ideas of the Russian philosopher had caused - ideas so good known to the Polish thinker from the history of its own homeland. Moreover, many thinkers, not only of Russian provenience, were so greatly influenced by Soloviev's ideas that it made them change the previously held beliefs.
It is worth noting that presently the influence of Soloviev's thought is evident mostly in relation to the question of ecumenism6. As one historian of the Church, Balanos from Athens, pointedly remarked, "if we do believe that the division between Churches is, in my opinion, an unavoidable misfortune, then the fact that the Churches shall remain ignorant about others, is to be regarded the greatest
5 According to Morawski, the list of exceptional individuals included Alexei Chomiakov, Ivan Aksakov but also Adam Mickiewicz, Zygmunt Krasmski and August Cieszkowski. Morawski stated that all those had greatly influenced Soloviev's ideas. Moreover, he claims these had one thing in common - they all opposed any distortions of Christ's teaching taking place in their times. Thus, using the ideas they had forged, these individuals tried to influence society in an attempt to convince its members that they are moving away from the true Christianity. Yet, according to Morawski, despite the inspiration of the Russian thinker by the ideas put forward by those thinkers, Soloviev's concepts are do differ, particularly as he was able to remain neutral in terms of the East-West divide. Also, Soloviev's understanding of the issues concerning Christianity were clear and deep [See 3, p. 178].
6 The term "ecumenism" is derived from the Greek word "oikoumene"which originally denoted the inhabited world or the universe. For example, N. Gordienko defines it as an "Idea of unity of all Christians aimed at the solving of the problems that divide them" [7, p. 396]. It is worth noting that this idea gained its greatest popularity at the turn of the twentieth century. It was then that the Christian believers discussed the possibility of regaining of the once lost unity. For example, it was at the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) where the questions of opening of the Catholic Church to other denominations were discussed. It has been rightly pointed out that today it is hard to say how far those questions were resolved and evaluate the situation. However, the very fact that such a radical change and modernization of the Catholic Church was even considered at a time, as witnessed by the opening to other Christian denominations, is already a clear step forward. It is also worth noting that the reform of the Catholic Church initiated by the Second Vatican Council changed the image of the Catholic Church to such an extent that the distinction between "pre-conciliar" and "post-conciliar" Church was often in use. It ought to be mentioned that the proponents of returning to the Unity of Church initiated an ecumenical movement, which has been, to various degrees functioning in many countries to this day.
disaster of all. For this ignorance prevents mutual understanding and cooperation; moreover - it makes it impossible. Yet it is precisely this cooperation that is the most important factor in liberating mankind from the great moral crisis it is suffering now. Let us know each other better so as to better understand and respect each other, and despite all the differences to consider each other Christians that share common goal and common ideals"7 [8, p. 5]. The author makes us realize an all-important fact - once highlighted also by Soloviev - that many misunderstandings among Christians are a consequence of with the ignorance of the claims and beliefs of the other side. In other words, the question so problematic as the differences between the Churches should be considered, above all, with a distance to one's own beliefs that often are a permanent feature of our worldview. It is worth emphasizing, as noticed by Morawski, that despite some voices to the contrary, Soloviev was aware of such problems and tried to argue that mutual understanding is one of the most important aspects of the discourse between both sides, the aspect that is so often forgotten by Christians. Hence, a given party does not have to demonstrate its alleged superiority over the other party but instead the party should be tolerant and respectful of the views of others. A common language, helping to unite the feuding parties, is only possible when mankind ascends to such heights.
However, certain Polish thinkers, the mentioned count Stanislaw Tarnowski8 in particular, as well as some Russian contemporaries of Soloviev did not fully understand this. The most controversial issues proved to be the Soloviev's approach to national problems, his vision of Christianity and his attitude toward that religion. However, as we will see, Morawski, contrary to Tarnowski, was not so critical about Soloviev's position.
According to Soloviev, Christianity, as a supranational religion, should not be treated by the Christian nations (by that in the first place he meant Russia) as the national religion, since this approach is inconsistent with the very nature of religion. His position was clear and supported by thorough studies of the Christian thought, including, above all, the history of the Church. He stated that "orthodox faith, whether Russian or Greek, is after all a national religion, but Christianism cannot be anything other than a universal religion" [3, p. 181]. Perhaps this was the basis of his conclusion that all Christian nations should be united under the leadership of Russia, which -for historical and geographical reasons - is particularly predisposed to accomplish that historical mission.
7 This statement was introduced by the Polish publisher as a motto to P. Evdokimov's book.
8 Count Stanislaw Tarnowski (1890-1917) - a historian of literature and a journalist. He was a professor and the rector (twice) of Jagiellonian University. An opponent of modernism, Tarnowski considered the patriotic and moral aspects to be the most important criteria in literature. A prime example of such attitude is found in his Glos sumienia z Rosyi [The Voice of Conscience from Russia]. He also wrote the following monographs: PisarzepolityczniXVIw. [Political Writers of the Sixteenth Century], Jan Kochanowski, ZygmuntKrasiriski, Matejko. He is the author of multivolume Historia literatury polskiej [The History of Polish Literature]. Moreover, he was the founder and editor of the journal „Przeglad Polski" Tarnowski expressed his opinion on Soloviev's views in „Przeglad Powszechny" [See 5, pp. 32-58]; [See 6, pp. 1-45].
Morawski, noticed however that the „principal" role in Soloviev's system is not, as some interpreters claimed, played by this idea of special place of Russia but by the idea of uniting Russia with Catholic Church, with other ideas being only the means to that greater goal [see 3, p. 183]. The realization of this idea, emphasized Morawski, had become Soloviev's personal mission, which is evident in his works. The fullest expression of it can be found in his Rosja i Kosciot Powszechny. The book was published outside of Russia to avoid censorship problems. Soloviev claimed there that the long-standing conflict between East and West was, in fact, the conflict between individual Catholic and Orthodox clergymen. The conflict was dominated by personal beliefs held by individuals, not by theological issues. In his work, Soloviev was trying to show that these opinions - concerning mainly the dogmas of faith - held by clergymen and Russian thinkers are groundless.
Thus, it is not surprising that this work sparked many controversies in various intellectual circles both in Russia and abroad. Soloviev, dealing with such a sensitive matter as the doctrinal issues, aroused the indignation among not only orthodox, but also catholic circles. The Orthodox charged him with heresy, because they saw him as a proponent of Catholicism, while Catholics criticized him (as is evident also in the discussed text) that in his interpretation of dogmas he goes far beyond the accepted canons of Christian teaching as he tried to prove the dogmas rationally which, in turn, is unacceptable from theological perspective, since the dogmas of faith are considered inherently unknowable (apophatism).
Let us emphasize once again that Soloviev, through insightful analysis of the first centuries of Church's history, reached the conclusion that the controversy between East and West is groundless, as the problems discussed by the Orthodox and Catholics usually reduced to personal opinions of clergymen and theologians. It is interesting that, with respect to this question, each party charges the other of favouring subjective criteria instead of following the truths of faith. From the point of view of Catholics, the Orthodox Church is the schismatic one, drifting away from the Roman Catholic Church. Whereas, from the Russian point of view the situation is exactly opposite: it is the Catholic Church that drifted away from the Universal, i.e. Orthodox, Church. Thus, the Orthodox Church refuses to accept dogmas established after the seventh council.
In the opinion of Morawski, Soloviev after his analysis of Christian teachings eventually reached the conclusion that the truth "in controversial matters" lays on the side of the Catholic Church [see 3, p. 184]. This mostly involves the three dogmas of faith regarding the questions of: the filioque, the immaculate conception and papal infallibility, all decided by Soloviev in favor of the Catholic Church and justified by him with great clarity and insightfulness, when he argued that all these dogmas are legitimate.
As the Polish thinker rightly noticed, in his Rosja i Koiciol Powszechny, Soloviev appears as an invincible fencer able to prove his points with remarkable insightfulness and clarity. „He discusses the origin of the Holy Spirit - Morawski emphasized - showing deep knowledge of the Scripture and the fathers and is able to convincingly and faultlessly discusses all the theological subtleties of this matter in Russian making his writings beneficial to every theologian, and a pleasure
to read. His arguments showing the primacy of the Holy See are often deep and finely developed" [3, p. 184]. Arguably, Morawski views this as something very positive, as Soloviev being Russian himself "knows Russians thoroughly, (...) knows how to tap into their way of thinking, how to make use of the seemingly insignificant events in the Russian history, how to use their national, eastern sentiments and change them in favor of the truth"9 [3, p. 183]. This way he is able to convince Russians to change their way of thinking about Catholicism by putting their beliefs into question.
To convince ourselves that Morawski is right about Soloviev's argumentation for the infallibility of pope, a single argument he makes. Quoting the Bible, Soloviev argued that Jesus, when speaking about his Church as the reflection of the union between God and man, was looking for a foundation on which to erect this Church. This foundation he found in Simon whom he called Peter - and it was this very act that for Soloviev were an indication of the way chosen by Christ. Yet, his omniscience notwithstanding, Jesus asked: "Who do men say that I the Son of man am?" (Matthew 16:13) - he asked this question first among the common people and then among the apostles but only Simon gave him a decisive answer. This, in turn - according to Soloviev - is a clear indication that only one person can hold this office, since only that person is a "fixed point" as Soloviev puts it "a stable rock, the basis of all interaction between God and man. One man who with the help of God is responsible for everyone - this is the basis for the universal Church" [3, pp. 188-189]. Individual opinions in turn - he emphasized - often differ to a great extent and are mutually incompatible which goes to show that "there is no intersection between the truth and errors; humankind cannot enter into a relation with God by the means of popular vote; Christ's Church cannot be grounded in democracy" [3, p. 189].
Morawski states that Soloviev showed his objectivism and love of truth not only in the case of dogmas of faith. It is often the case that a set of beliefs constituting the worldview of an individual is often unchangeable, for these are "grounded" in national tradition and broadly conceived culture. Yet this is not the case of Soloviev. As is shown by Morawski, Soloviev is definitely beyond all this and transcends the frame of his national affiliation, as is evident in his attitude toward the Catholic Church.
The Russian thinker argued that in terms of the conflict between West and East, the Greek thinkers criticized the Roman Church for its continuous growth violating the truths of faith. Catholic theologians, rejecting these accusations, stated that these are mistaken, since the reformulations of dogmas or rites serve to clarify the primary truths already contained in the Scripture.
9 In this context, it is worth mentioning that just as Soloviev tried to shed light on the issues concerning Catholicism in Russian (and in French), Paul Evdokimov, a twentieth century emigre living in France, popularized the Orthodox teaching in French. He wrote only in French, as he was convinced that "the orthodox faith should not be bound to particular national groups from the East, but it ought to radiate also to the western circles" [See 8, p. 461]. It should also be noted that ecumenism was the common denominator between these two thinkers: both of them - although to a different degrees - attempted to improve relations between the conflicted parties.
Morawski emphasized that, while Christian theologians did constantly use this single argument Soloviev, in the his Rozwoj dogmatyczny Kosciola [The Dogmatic Development of Church]proposed a slightly different, arguably stronger, formulation of this answer. He strongly argued that it is not the Roman Church but the Eastern Church that had changed. For until the eighth century both Churches were in developed on the same level and only just after the split, the Eastern Church ceased to develop, whereas the Roman Church continued following the same path. The supporters of the schism however, often answered that the first seven councils, recognized by the Eastern Church, had settled all the arising problematic issues and that there was no more to be settled. Hence, the subsequent councils were entirely unnecessary, moreover, these distorted the message of God. Soloviev sees this argument as not just weak but also groundless, since, as he puts it, "the deposit of faith was completed not in ninth, but in the first century, when the Apostles were still alive, hence the Church's task of clarifying this deposit and defending it against the ever new falsehoods must continue as long as the Church exists, which requires a continuous introduction of new decrees hence there could not have been anything special about the ninth century and consequently the issues could not have been settled then once and for all" [3, p. 195]. For that reason Soloviev asked: is it the case that since that time there were no distortions of God's thought or no important issues to resolve? This question has an ironic overtone exposing a false vision of reality presented in Russia. To further strengthen his argument, Soloviev points to a historical fact related to the situation of the Old Believers. The dispute between the Old Believers and the tsar in the seventeenth century Russia over the issues related to certain modifications of the letter of Liturgy remains unsettled to this day. Soloviev emphasized that even if the changes introduced by the tsar to the Liturgy were justified and nothing important was thus altered, as was feared by the Old Believers, the church authorities, entirely subordinated to the tsar, could not justified in introducing such changes and that the changes can only be decided upon by a universal council, which is the only body justified to introduce any alterations.
In fact, according to Soloviev, the Orthodox Church has even more problems to address. The question of unambiguously defined procedures in terms of dealing with the religious dissenters (proselytism) on the level of local churches is, according to Soloviev, yet another pressing matter. "The Catholics converting to the orthodox faith - he indicated - are rebaptized by the Constantinopolitan patriarchate, which means a renewal of the old rebaptizer's heresy - as the Russian Church does not baptize those: yet the Constantinople and Russia remain in a spiritual communion (communio in sacris). The Constantinople had excommunicated the Bulgarian Church again and so broke the spiritual relationship with it - Russia had not done this: all this creating a canonical absurdity where the three Churches are and at the same time are not connected by a spiritual unity, which persists to this day" [3, pp. 196-197]. This situation, according to Soloviev, pushes one to ask another question: given such issues, how can new councils - the sole bodies with the authority to resolve these -not be convoked? [see 3, p. 197] For Morawski, all the issues concerning the Catholic Church considered by Soloviev were a clear evidence that the Russian philosopher
leaned towards the solutions put forward within Catholicism. Moreover, in the subsequent part of his essay, when discussing the book Historia i przyszlosc teokracji, Morawski explicitly stated that "there is (...) no doubt that Soloviev accepts Catholicism in its entirety and without reservation" [3, p. 225].
Soloviev's Historia iprzyszlosc teokracji also deals with various theological issues. The way these issues are presented there impressed Morawski the most, as is evident in his words. "[It is] unusual in our times [that] a secular man, not being formally a Catholic, writes an entire volume on religion and Scripture without making any mistakes of theological nature" [3, p. 199].
In this work, Soloviev outlines a general view of the history of mankind, the ending point of which was to be the divine kingdom on earth. And it is precisely that future-oriented vision, appointed by the philosopher to the humankind, that has been most strongly criticized by the Polish thinkers. Tarnowski, for example, stated openly that Soloviev is wrong about the question of special vocation and mission of Russia. He believed that Soloviev's approach to this matter shows a "hint" of nationalism, which he had so strongly condemned [see 5, p. 56].
In that respect, Morawski shared Tarnowski's view. He wrote that "If at some point (...) [Soloviev] succumbs (...) to nationalism, it is not in his judgments about reality but in dreams about the future" [3, pp. 205-206]. The subsequent part of his essay he emphasized however that the Russian philosopher differentiates between nationalism and patriotism, identifying the former with egoism that is grounded in an individual. Moreover, Soloviev by analogy described the situation of nations in a similar vein. That is if nations, analogously to individuals, desire to live in accordance with the Christ's teaching, then the all-destroying egoism has to be rejected. To justify his position, Soloviev invoked the words of Jesus Christ who said: "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself" (Matthew 16:24).
Before Morawski began to discuss the main views of Soloviev he had noticed the fact that almost all social groups in the nineteenth century Russia (be it government circles or the Slavophiles) were involved in spreading the "Russian idea"10, identified with the specific notion of the "Russianness" This idea, according to its proponents,
10 In the contemporary Russia, the notion of a „Russian idea" enjoys a great currency. Many scholars consider this notion ambiguous, sometimes even chronically so, giving rise to various interpretative problems. It has been ascribed various, sometimes extreme, meanings, including nationalistic interpretations. As the Russian scholars M. Maslin and A. Andrieiev put it: "The history of the «Golden Kiev»; the character of medieval Russian consciousness asking about the fate of Russian nation and its place in world history; the rise of the Kiev-Mogilian and Slavo-Greco-Latin Academy, other clerical schools, and later also universities; the fate of the schism; the ideological discussions in times of Peter I and Catherine II; disputes between the Slavophiles and the Occidentalists; December 1825 and February 1861; the phenomenon of Russian philosophical circle; the «exaggerated type» of the seminarian-intellectual; the birth and development of the «Russian socialism»; the specific character of conservatism and liberalism in Russia; the great moral quest of the nineteenth-century Russian literature; the Russian renaissance at the beginning of the twentieth century; the cultural and ethnic characteristics of the Russian nation - are only some (...) of the historical facts and events, pictures and symbols that are contributing to the notion of the »Russian idea«" [See 9, p. 48].
reflected the character of the Russian nation and was the source of its identity. It is a well-known fact that at the beginning of his career, Soloviev was under the influence of the Slavophil doctrine, , in particular by the mentioned "Russian idea". Morawski noticed that it was precisely this idea that for Soloviev was "the most powerful factor influencing the mentality of his nation" [3, p. 205]. Thus, by using this idea he desired to bring the Russian nation closer to Catholicism. Morawski calls the arguments used by Soloviev to justify his position the "psychological proofs" for these "were using the Russian mentality" [3, p. 205]. Furthermore, according to Morawski, it is precisely such ideas that decided about the novelty of Soloviev's approach.
According to Morawski, the "Russian idea" formed in a way the "essence" of the worldview of the Russian intelligentsia. He wrote: "The Russian idea, the mission of Russia - such expressions were invented by the Slavophiles. These resonate well with the Russian soul and travel by the word of mouth just like a war cry. Each person understands it differently and adds to it whatever his rightly or wrongly conceived patriotism dictates; in general, however, the expression describes certain undefined aspiration for limitless material power, absorbing some and routing other neighbors, for a non-Western civilization" [10, p. 214]. It is precisely that account of this idea - he emphasized - that, according to Soloviev, is to be blamed, for it contradicts the Christian thought. According to Morawski, the Russian philosopher when criticizing Russia's intellectual circles for distorting the meaning of the "Russian idea", conceived in terms of narrow nationalism, developed his own account of this idea giving it, in a way a new meaning.
Morawski noticed that Soloviev wrote about the "Russian idea" in two of his works: a short L'Idee Russe and longer Rosja i Kosciolpowszechny, which was aimed at extending and explaining the notions presented in the first one. In the former, Soloviev argues that "the idea of a nation comprises not what the nation thinks about itself in history but what God thinks about it in eternity "X1[15, p. 9]. To justify his position, he claims that just as humankind can be considered one organism, so too - by analogy -this approach can be extended to nations, representing, according to Soloviev, one
It is commonly believed that this notion was first used by Fyodor Dostoyevsky in 1861 to mean "all-mankindness" of the Russian spirit. On the other hand, for Soloviev the „Russian idea" had a different meaning: for him it meant the unification of Churches and the conciliation between East and West., For him, it also connected with universalistic vocation of the Russian empire as expressed in L'Idée russe [See 10, p. 464, footnote 55]. It is also worth noting that this notion has strongly evolved since, departing from these original intuitions. The ongoing debate related to this notion assume a more practical character, since these focus on the problems of national integration in multiethnic Russia. The contest for a "national idea" ("Russian idea") organized in 1996 announced by B. Yeltsin can exemplifies this tendency. Most participants answered that "it is not national patriotism that should be considered the integrating idea in Russia today but rather a patriotism related to the state and the idea of being a citizen and it should take into account all ethnic and cultural diversity of population" [10, p. 468]. A. Walicki observes that "the proposal of replacing the term «russkaya idieya» (i.e. the Russian idea with nationalistic understanding) with the term «rossiyskaya idieya» (i.e. the Russian idea understood as a multinational civil community) [10, p. 468, note 67]. [See also 11, p. 174-178], and ff; [See 12]; [See 13]; [See 14]. 11 Emphasis in original.
single body. In his opinion, before the coming of Jesus Christ, the international relations had been chaotic, while afterwards the situation changed markedly: "the unity of humankind realized itself in one and universal Church" [3, p. 216]. It is from this very moment that the mission and goal of every Christian nation should in effect be that of implementing Christ's teaching given the current social and political situation. Yet before the Russian nation begins to try and accomplish that goal, it has to first behave as a truly Christian nation, that is abandon the ruthless politics of Russification and discard the all-devastating nationalism, which is also present in the Orthodox Church: only then Russia can accomplish its mission, uniting with the universal Church. "Contrition for her own historical sins, meeting the standards of justice, abandoning national egoism, resignation from the politics of Russification and recognition of religious freedoms - this is the only way for Russia to realize its true national idea, which - let us not forget - is not an abstract idea or a blind fate, but, above all, a moral duty. The Russian idea, as is well known, cannot be nothing else than an aspect of the Christian idea and the mission of our nation will present itself clearly to us only when we grasp the true meaning of Christianity" [15, p. 32].
On the other hand, as Morawski points out, Soloviev in his Rosja i Kosciol powszechny "tries to further specify what the providential mission of Russia is and identify what makes her exceptional in God's plan in comparison with other nations" [3, p. 217]. Strictly speaking, Soloviev reached the conclusion that the Russian nation is particularly predestinated among other Christian nations to accomplish the historical mission. He believed that the position of the Russian nation is, in many ways, advantageous in that respect: it is a monarchic nation, Russian people are very religious, and the geographical localization of Russia is of also of great importance. The factors distinguished by the philosopher made him believe that Russia can "provide the universal Church with the political power needed to save and revive Europe and the world" [3, p. 219].
But the Polish thinker did not agree with Soloviev in all matters. "Not all of us, of course - he wrote - will follow Soloviev without reservation here; we will tell him that this time he also seems to slightly fall under the spell of nationalism against which he warns others and views the motives of his conjectures in this beguiling light; he sees «several prophetic events» in the history of Russia, which seem to him to portend such a mission - but he does not notice the events that seem to indicate otherwise; he views the geographical location of Russia as an indicator of her destiny-but he does not pay attention to the fact that several centuries earlier it was Poland that occupied, to even greater extend, such a strategic place between East and West, and that her great kings, for example Bathory or Ladislaus IV also saw this as a justification for making far-reaching and ambitious plans - and yet. how it all ended up! Soloviev emphasizes the religious character of his people, the enormous national strength within - but if his own words were analyzed with the same scrutiny as when Soloviev deals with the claims of the Slavophiles, these would surely lost much of their significance; perhaps, we would also see that the element representing the Russian national strength and religiousness, which the author estimates to comprise of one hundred thousand millions, in reality reduces to a number smaller than, for example, the number of Catholics in France or Austria" [3, pp. 219-220]. Eventually
however, Morawski concluded that he is not going to argue with Soloviev's views, since the latter "explicitly states that he does not take the points he mentions for proofs but rather treats these as indicators of the putative great mission of Russia" [3, p. 220]. Thus, he should not also be accused of yielding to nationalism. For what he was mainly trying to achieve was to make Russians realize that their nation has sinned greatly and in order to avoid punishment, it has to start behaving as is expected of a truly Christian nation.
In Next, Morawski asks what, in Soloviev's view, should this Christian state look like under the guidance of Russia? According to Morawski, since Soloviev is not clear when dealing with this issue, the answer is by no means easy. There is no doubt that Soloviov wants the Christian nations to unite in a single state, at the same time preserving their cultural identity. Up to this point everything is clear to Morawski, the problems start when Soloviev turns to the issue of what kind of political system is best for such universal state, as his explanations become more ambiguous. At some points, one is under impression that Soloviev envisages a state that, similarly to Russia, is based on a kind of monarchy. Yet, he does not explain „what measures can be undertaken to protect such an empire from fast degeneration and antagonism with the spiritual head of Christianity similar to that, which was the fate of the Carolingian empire - the author does not address this issue at all" [3, p. 221].
Yet at other points - Morawski notices - Soloviev's views seem to support no kind of a state in a political sense. There are two quotes that suggest such an interpretation. In the first fragment, Soloviev claims that „a state is an imposed point of equilibrium between singular social forces, operating within a given historical national group. From a moral standpoint, such an forcefully imposed state of affairs can only be considered as a necessary evil. There is a place neither for state nor for politics in the ideal society, the goal of historical developments" [3, p. 221]. In the second fragment, concerning Poland, Soloviev claims that this state „by losing its false unity related to being a separate and self-interested political entity, was the first to exemplify what the ideal future of the whole humankind is to be" [3, p. 222]. Such statements, and especially the latter one, were very controversial among the Polish thinkers. Morawski wrote that without his conviction of Soloviev's sincere intentions, he could have easily interpret such statements as ironic [see 3, p. 223].
According to the Polish thinker, Soloviev's views on the destiny and mission of the Russian nation had shaky foundations. Moreover - in his opinion - Soloviev "presents [these] in too categorical a manner (...) and without any concern for justifying these - as required from beliefs - and, apparently, he does not even realize how for the rest of us, these seem alien and unsupported claims" [3, p. 223]. Thus, according to Morawski, this part of his argumentation is the weakest link in terms of all his views. As Morawski puts it: "in our view, these groundless beliefs and philosophical opinions, interspersing his best thought-out arguments, which is especially evident in some of his most recent publications, serve as little as to reduce the importance and lucidity of the latter" [3, p. 223]. But when it comes to the issue of destination and mission of Russia, the Polish thinker did not critique Soloviev as harshly as some of the Russian and Catholic thinkers. His interpretation was clear
from the very beginning to the end: he believed that Soloviev, when discussing the Russian idea - as it has already been mentioned - had in mind, above all, the unification of Russia and Roman-Catholic Church. From the beginning of his essay, Morawski notices that the Russian philosopher, contrary to other Russian thinkers, clearly saw that the Roman Catholic Church was right, consequently had chosen a different path and abandoned Russia. He wrote that "many come to a belief that Catholicism is true without deducing from it any kind of practical conclusion - for they are not consistent and do not care about the harmony between theory and practice, others still may behave this way because they are insincere to themselves or to others, because they are afraid of the moral discipline as demanded within Catholicism. We do not find anything like it in Soloviev. I do not know a man more sincere then him; one finds no gap between his beliefs and the way he behaves; the life he leads is ascetic" [3, p. 182]. Elsewhere, he also stated that while the Russian philosopher's views on the future of Russia are groundless, he had never maintained, as did many other thinkers - for example the proponents of Pan-Germanism - that "everything must surrender in face of the historical necessity and that any path it takes is as good as any other" [3, p. 223]. Soloviev's ideas have this undeniable advantage of being Christian in character.
According to Morawski, all of the questions that Soloviev dealt with, from those concerning the notion of nation to those of dogmatic nature, were predominantly focused onthe return to the Roman Catholic Church [see 3, pp. 182183, 223]. As we see, Morawski's interpretation differs substantially from that presented in Tarnowski's articles. For the latter was convinced that the Russian philosopher wrongly understood the problems related to the Universal Church: if Russia wanted to convert, she must first repent and rejoin the true universal - that is the Catholic -church. Morawski was convinced however, that what from the very beginning was meant by Soloviev was the conversion of the Orthodox Church to Catholicism, and the nomenclature he used should be considered mere euphemisms. For example, when Soloviev is speaking about the Roman Catholic Church he often refers to it as the "universal Church" or the "Church in the broad meaning of the word";similarly, when speaking about the pope, he uses names such as the "universal shepherd" or the "highest priest" According to Morawski, as his aim was to convince Russians to Catholicism, he purposefully avoided names such as the Catholic Church or the pope out of fear that his publications might not only be ignored but outright condemned in Russia even before their contents would become known to anyone. Clearly, with regard to this issue Morawski also differed from Tarnowski. According to Morawski "there were those who thought that [Soloviev] did not accept Catholicism without reservations, without modifications and that what he has in mind is a kind of transaction between the Orthodox and the Catholic churches" [3, p. 224]. It is possible that Morawski spoke this with Tarnowski in mind.
That the subsequent part of the article states that despite his favorable attitude toward Catholicism, Soloviev did not treat the Orthodox Church as a schismatic one. As Morawski observed however, neither from the point of view of Catholic, nor the Orthodox Church is this, arguably original, position considered wrong. Soloviev remains faithful to both of the churches. Morawski cities Soloviev: "I do not depart (...) from
the Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Church cannot exclude me, as I believe and do everything in accordance to the rightful Orthodox teachings - I am rejecting only its school opinions. On the other hand, nothing is separating me from the Catholic Church either, as I believe in everything it demands; I believe that formality of renouncing of wrong faith is unnecessary when all of my writings and talks I serve as an open confession of the entire Catholic truth and a condemnation of the schismatic faults" [3, p. 227]. Soloviev's original approach to the questions relating the Catholic and Orthodox churches is backed up by a thorough knowledge. Moreover, the Russian thinker referred to the opinions of many Catholic priests, who eventually conceded that he is right. Morawski, talking about this states that "[his] beliefs are truly justified. I also think that Soloviev is convinced this situation will change soon, as he truly believes that Russia's conversion is imminent but is unable to show objectively that this is the case" [3, p. 229]. Moreover, in Morawski's opinion, Soloviev adopts has yet another reason for adopting such a position, namely "if he converted to Catholicism, he would lose not only the access to Russia, but also to the soul of this nation; no one would ever again bother with what he writes" [3, p. 229]. Given all this - as Morawski writes- Soloviev can be considered to be an „Orthodox Catholic"
Concluding his article, Morawski states that, while Soloviev thought the unification of the Catholic and Orthodox churches a matter of the foreseeable future, this approach is not supported by facts. For the history does not know sudden turns that are not unheard of in politics. "The history does not proceed with sudden miracles -he argued - but abides the standard laws of human nature and is governed by «gentle» and «constant» Providence of God, with respect to the independence of man" [3, p. 250]. Given all this, in what way can Soloviev influence Russians by his writings? This question, according to Morawski, lacks a definitive answer. The history of mankind knows nations that, to various degrees, got close to the truth, meaning the return to the universal Church. Yet Russia - as it can be noted by looking at Russian intellectual movements, being in a way the "consciousness of a nation" - did not get any closer to the truth [see 3, p. 251]. Nevertheless, it should not be assumed that Russians will ignore Soloviev and his views altogether. The very fact that such an eminent individual that is sincere in his search for the truth was born from this nation, shows that Russians are not completely sealed off and inwardly focused on their own matters but are able to open up for the truth. Furthermore, Soloviev should be credited for consistency and determination in voicing his views, despite censorship and all the other difficulties along the way. And even if his ideas did not significantly influence the views of other Russian thinkers, the fact that Soloviev's legacy "will motivate any kind of thinking, or analysis on religious matters" [3, p. 252] is a great accomplishment.
Morawski answered the question he had posed in the following manner. Namely he claims that Soloviev "will fail to convert his country as he expects, but he will start - and in fact he has already started this process of its conversion. He will most likely not see a Catholic Russia but the fact that he managed to bring her closer to Catholicism is his undeniable achievement and a source of consolation" [3, p. 252]. We should like to add that the Russian philosopher's position with regard to the universal Church is not conceived as controversial today. Moreover, many Christian thinkers - notably including Catholics - highly value Soloviev's ideas.
One can say that misunderstanding and desire to convert the other side has always been at the root of the tension between the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Soloviev's solution was the following: respect the traditions of both Churches and do not impose personal beliefs on each other. As T. P Terlikowski pointedly observed, according to Soloviev "aiming for unity should (...) be related not to conflict, confrontation, or proving the other side wrong but to a patient search for the truth that sometimes can be hidden not in the letter of a dead definition of the past, but in the living spirit of interpretation and reading of the revealed truth'.' Furthermore, Terlikowski indicated that it was none other than pope John Paul II who followed a path similar to this set out by Soloviev. Terlikowski writes: "The unity (...) stipulated by [John Paul II] was not supposed to mean a synthesis of both, but breathing with both lungs, without - to invoke the Chalcedonian dogma once more - «confusion, change, divide and separately». Every other attempt of unification, without saving the difference, has been, which is evident from the history of Christianity, counterproductive: drawing Christians away from each other and destroying their own identity" [16, p. 9]. While it seems that today both sides have made a move forward in terms of ecumenism, the unwillingness to find a common denominator and attempts to convert one Church by the other - precisely the object of critique on the side of Soloviev - are still present. It is evident, for example, in the document published by the Eastern (Orthodox) Church, entitled Podstawowe zasady relacji Rosyjskiego Kosci&ta Prawoslawnego wobec innych wyznan chrzeicijanskich [Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church toward the Other Christian Confessions]12. Thus, if we still observe the deepening of the conflict between Catholic and Orthodox churches, it is worth returning to the ecumenical projects for they remind us of the fundamental truth that all Christians stand as one community, believing in the Christological teaching, which requires of them to love their brethren. It is precisely in this aspect that Soloviev's ideas have not lost their importance, and calling Soloviev the „father of ecumenism" seems to be, by all means, well justified.
References
1. Morawski, M. Wlodzimierz Solowiew, in Przeglad Powszechny, 1890, vol. XXV, pp. 305-327.
2. Morawski, M. Wlodzimierz Solowiew, in Przeglad Powszechny, 1890, vol. XXVI, pp. 21-39; 230-246.
3. Morawski, M. Wiodzimierz Solowjow, in W Solowjow, Zaslubiny Wschodu z Zachodem. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo FRONDA, 2007, pp. 175-253.
4. Solowjow, W Lettre a la Rédaction du «Przeglad Polski», in Przeglad Powszechny, 1889, vol. 92, pp. 179-189.
5. Tarnowski, S. Glos sumienia z Rosyi, in Przeglad Polski, 1988/1989, vol. 91, pp. 32-58.
6. Tarnowski, S. Wyklad idei i powolania Rosji, in Przeglad Polski, 1989/1990, vol. 94, pp. 1-45.
7. RipgaeHKO, H. [Gordienko N.] Ekumenizm, in A. Lazari. Idee w Rosji. Leksykon rosyjsko-polsko-angielski, vol. 2. Lodz: Wydawnictwo Ibidem, 1999, pp. 396-398.
12 See: [17].
8. Evdokimov, P Prawoslawie. Warszawa: Instytut Wydawniczy PAX, 1986, pp. 4-8.
9. Kiejzik, L. «Rosyjska idea» i dylematy teokratycznego okresu tworczosci Wlodzimierza Solowjowa, in W Solowjow. Rosyjska idea. Zielona Gora: Oficyna Wydawnicza Uniwersytetu Zielonogorskiego, 2004, pp. 43-55.
10. Walicki, A. W kregu konserwatywnej utopii. Struktura i przemiany rosyjskiego slowianofilstwa. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 2002, pp. 5-480.
11. Faryno, J. Idea - idea rosyjska - ideowy, in A. Lazari. Idee w Rosji. Leksykon rosyjsko-polsko-angielski, vol. 3. Lodz: Wydawnictwo Ibidem, 2000, pp. 174-178.
12. Niekonienko, WS. Idea rosyjska i rosyjska filozofia, in Archiwum Historii Filozofii i Mysli Spolecznej, 1998, no. 43, pp. 139-147.
13. Rydzewski, W Syndrom «rosyjskiej idei», in Archiwum Historii Filozofii i Mysli Spolecznej, 1998, no. 43, pp. 113-120.
14. Walicki, A. O inteligencji, liberalizmach i o Rosji. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Universitas, 2007, p. 9.
15. Solowjow, W. Rosyjska idea. Zielona Gora: Oficyna Wydawnicza Uniwersytetu Zielonogorskiego, 2004, pp. 7-42.
16. Terlikowski, T.P Prorok Trudnej jednosci, in W Solowjow. Wielki spor i chrzescijanska polityka 1883. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo FRONDA, 2007, pp. 5-20.
17. Bercken, V Zaklocone relacje miedzy rosyjskim Kosciolem prawoslawnym a Kosciolem rzymskokatolickim. Available at: http://www.kul.pl/files/409/public/RT53-54z7/07-VanDerBercken.pdf (04.08.2010).
SUMMARY
In Poland, the interest in Russian philosophy begins in the second half of ninetieth century with the appearance of the first philosophical system whose author was Vladimir Soloviev. The main thinkers who were deeply touched by and greatly interested in the views of the Russian philosopher were: the historian and publicist count Stanis^aw Tarnowski, the Jesuit and professor of the Jagiellonian University Marian Morawski, as well as the philosopher and historian of ideas Marian Zdziechowski.
This paper will discuss the text of one of the mentioned thinkers - priest Marian Morawski. This text was published in 1890 in the Cracovian journal Przeglqd Powszechny under the title Wlodzimierz Solowiew [Vladimir Soloviev]. In the text, the Polish thinker referred to the principal ideas of Soloviev expressed in the works: Historia iprzyszloSC teokracji [History and the Future of Theocracy], Rosja i KoSciol Powszechny [Russia and the Universal Church], as well as to the booklet Rosyjska idea [The Russian Idea] and several minor articles concerned mostly with religious and national issues.
Morawski shortly described the person of Vladimir Soloviev and the great impression exerted on him by the ideas of the Russian philosopher. In Morawski's view, the role of the individual in the historical and social reality is enormous, because the individuals rejecting the current state of affairs can greatly, whether positively or negatively, influence the reality, as is confirmed by history. In fact, what is important here is that the ideas of exceptional individuals, through various channels influencing ever broader circles, in time become "a commonplace doctrine, a custom and a cliché'. According to the Polish thinker, Soloviev played exactly such a role.
Moreover, this paper discusses Morawski's reconstruction of the Russian thinker's views on the Universal Church and the place of Russia in the world. Morawski noticed
that the „principal" role in Soloviev's system is played by the idea of uniting Russia with Catholic Church. That is why he begins his analysis with Soloviev's book Rosja i Kosciol Powszechny, where this idea, in his opinion, finds its fullest expression. As Morawski indicates, Soloviev was convinced that the long-standing conflict between East and West was, in fact, the conflict between individual Catholic and Orthodox clergymen. The conflict was dominated by personal beliefs held by individuals, not by theological issues. And this, in turn, suggests, according to Morawski, that Soloviev was trying to show that these opinions - concerning mainly the dogmas of faith -held by clergymen and Russian thinkers are groundless.
In further part, this paper will present the dogmatic issues, mainly the dogma of papal infallibility, which interested Morawski the most. The argumentation employed by Soloviev proved, according to Morawski, that the Russian philosopher is able to be objective on the matters of religion and that he is a man sincerely devoted to the search for truth. He wrote that it seems obvious that a set of beliefs constituting the worldview of an individual is often unchangeable, for these are "grounded" in national tradition and broadly conceived culture. Yet this is not the case of Soloviev. As is shown by Morawski, Soloviev is definitely beyond all this and transcends the frame of his national affiliation, as is evident in his attitude toward the Catholic Church.
Beside the dogmatic issues, the paper will present the broadly understood theological issues considered by Soloviev mainly in the book entitled Rozwoj dogmatyczny Kosciola [The Dogmatic Development of the Church]. The topics discussed in this book concern also various controversial dogmatic questions, but Morawski indicates some other theological problems which, in Soloviev's view, required solution.
Further, the "Russian idea" is considered. Soloviev discussed this idea, above all, in two of his works: a short L'ld ee Russe and longer Rosja i Kosciol powszechny. In these works, Soloviev presented the vision of the mission of Russia and Universal Church. Morawski, however, did not agree with this vision. That is why in his text the Polish thinker argued against Soloviev indicating questions that, in Morawski's opinion, were the subject of the greatest controversies. One of them was the political question related to the universalistic vision of the state - vision associated by Soloviev synthetically with the mission of Russia. As Morawski explained: "Not all of us, of course, will follow Soloviev without reservation here; we will tell him that this time he also seems to slightly fall under the spell of nationalism against which he warns others and views the motives of his conjectures in this beguiling light; he sees »several prophetic events« in the history of Russia, which seem to him to portend such a mission - but he does not notice the events that seem to indicate otherwise; he views the geographical location of Russia as an indicator of her destiny - but he does not pay attention to the fact that several centuries earlier it was Poland that occupied, to even greater extent, such a strategic place between East and West, and that its great kings, for example Bathory or Ladislaus IV, also saw this as a justification for making far-reaching and ambitious plans - and yet. how it all ended up!" Moreover, this paper discusses also several other issues investigated by Soloviev in his works.
РЕФЕРАТ
Интерес к российской философии в Польше возникает, когда в России появляется первая философская система, которую создал Владимир Соловьёв. Это произошло во второй половине XIX века. Главными польскими мыслителями, которых живо заинтересовали взгляды российского философа, были историк и публицист граф Станислав Тарновский, иезуит, профессор Ягеллонского Университета Мариан Моравский и философ, историк идей Марьян Здзеховский.
Рассматривается текст одного из вышеупомянутых мыслителей, а именно священника Мариана Моравского. Этот текст был опубликован в 1890 году в краковском журнале «Przeglqd Powszechny» под заголовком «Владимир Соловьёв». Польский мыслитель рассматривает главные соловьёвские идеи, выраженные российским философом в сочинениях «История и будущность теократии», «Россия и Вселенская церковь», в короткой брошюре «Русская идея» и некоторых других статьях, объединённых, прежде всего, религиозной и национальной проблематикой.
В статье Моравский дает краткую характеристику личности и творчества Владимира Соловьёва, а также пишет об огромной роли личности в социально-исторической жизни народа, о влиянии идей философа на историческую реальность. De facto в этом отношении существенно, что концепции, предложенные выдающимися личностями, доходя различными путями до широкой аудитории, со временем становятся общеизвестными и общепринятыми. Именно такой личностью, по мнению польского исследователя, являлся Соловьёв.
Кроме того, рассмотрено восприятие Моравским взглядов российского мыслителя на роль России в мире. Согласно Моравскому, главной идеей философии Соловьёва является идея объединения России с Католической церковью. Именно поэтому он начинает свой анализ с книги Соловьёва «Россия и Вселенская церковь», в которой эта идея, по его мнению, выражена наиболее полно.
Моравский обращает внимание на то, что спор, который шёл на протяжении столетий между Востоком и Западом, был по существу спором между отдельными представителями католического и православного духовенства. В этом споре преобладали личные взгляды конкретных людей, а не теологические вопросы. Согласно Моравскому, Соловьёв в своём произведении доказывал необоснованность соответствующих мнений российских священников и мыслителей, связанных главным образом с догматами веры.
При рассмотрении догматической проблематики, прежде всего, речь идёт о догмате о непогрешимости папы, который в наибольшей степени привлёк внимание Моравского. Аргументация, которой пользовался Соловьёв, демонстрировала, по мнению польского мыслителя, объективность его подхода к религиозным вопросам и искренность поиска правды. Моравский пишет об истоках мировоззрения Соловьева, которые находятся в народной традиции и культуре в широком понимании этого слова. Однако, как показывает Моравский, Соловьев определённо выше этого, он выходит за границы своей нацио-
налной принадлежности, о чём свидетельствует его отношение к Католической церкви.
Обращается внимание на широко понимаемую теологическую проблематику, которая рассматривается Моравским на примере работы Соловьёва «Догматическое развитие Церкви». Кроме спорных вопросов относительно церковных догматов Моравский указывает и на иные проблемы теологического характера, представленные в данной работе Соловьёва и, по мнению Соловьёва, требующие решения.
«Русская идея» Соловьёва, сформулированная философом в работах «L'Idée Russe» и «Россия и Вселенская церковь», не нашла поддержки Моравского в силу различия в видении вопроса о миссии России и Вселенской церкви. Польский мыслитель полемизирует с Соловёвым, обращая внимание на наиболее спорные, по его мнению, моменты. Одним из них является политический вопрос, связанный с универсалистским пониманием государства и особой миссией России у Соловьёва. Своё несогласие с Соловьёвым Моравский выразил следующим образом: «Конечно, не каждый из нас тут позволит Соловьёву вести себя за руку; скажем ему, что на этот раз он сам, похоже, немного поддался тому очарованию национализма, перед которым предостерегает других, и в этом обманчивом свете видит мотивы своих допущений; замечает он "несколько случаев пророческих" в истории России, которые, как ему кажется, предсказывают такую миссию - а не замечает множества случаев в той же истории, которые, похоже, имеют противоположное значение; гадает на географическом положении России - а не обращает внимания, что пару столетий назад Польша ещё удачнее занимала такое центральное положение между Востоком и Западом и что её великие короли, такие как Баторий и Владислав IV на этом основании строили подобные, возвышенные и широкие планы - а однако... чем эти планы кончились!». Помимо обозначенных выше вопросов рассматриваются и некоторые другие, которые нашли отражение в трудах В.С. Соловьёва.
