Софиология - [24]

Both St. Athanasius, the generally acknowledged Father of the Orthodox Church, and St. Augustine had a fully explicit sophiology at the heart of their vision. Both see Sophia as the final embodiment of the glorification of human nature in Christ, in His mystical body the Church. This view of Sophia is in agreement with the content of the great Biblical texts of Proverbs 8, 9, Ecclesiastes 24, and The Song of Solomon 7, which all describe Wisdom as a quasi-personal and feminine reality.[112] Nonetheless, the idea of created wisdom never held a prominent place either in Catholicism or in Orthodoxy, The interest in Sophia, namely the quasi-personal Wisdom of God was revived as late as in sixteenth century by the German mystic Jakob Boehme. The pietistic theologian Jacob Arnold transmitted Boehme′s views to German idealist philosophers of nineteenth century, especially to Franz von Baader, and, through his intermediary, above all to Friedrich Schelling. There is no doubt that the revival of Sophiology in Vladimir Solov’ëv proceeds directly from the influence of Schelling.[113]

Solov’ëv agrees with Boehme that upon the final and full attainment of Sophia – an image that also imbues Solov’ëv′s poetry – humanity as a whole will be transformed into "the body of Christ."[114],[115] Although it is impossible to present an unambiguous picture of Solov’ëv′s Sophia in discursive terms[116] her attributes are certainly evident. In Rossia i vselenskaia Terkov, Sophia appears as the archetype of humanity′s social relations. This yet-to-be manifestation of Sophia will spring off the marriage between the world′s masculine principle, its personified logos in Christ, and the feminine principle, i.e. nature inside and outside of man. This marriage′s terrestrial and yet-to-be portrayal is the «Universal Church,» whose design reflects Trinity. The Solov’ëvian notion of All-unity [vseedinstvo] takes Trinity as a cosmic concept. Ideal society, viz. the universal Church – Sophia′s highest incarnation – has a threefold structure. The «Universal Church» is crowned by a «pope» who heads an «assembly of bishops» that has another large «assembly of priests» at the basis.[117] This Church, like every historical Church, performs the ministries of a «priest,» a «king,» and last but not least the one of a «prophet.» The priest′s ministry is based on traditional knowledge of the «mystery,» while the kingly function of the Church is displayed by supporting «Christian politics,» i.e. supporting reforms directed at the Good′s achievement and alteration of existing abuses by the help of «Christian tsars.»[118]

The anthropology of man as a "Godman [bogochelovek]" broadens, for, man is proud to simultaneously be God′s priest and king of the inferior world. Thirdly and prominently, he is a prophet of the future reunion of both,[119] which is the Universal Church Sophia. The question arises what is the indigenous place of prophets because the «prophetic ministry» performed by the Church is also given to everyone within the clerical body as well as to everybody in general irrespective of denominational confession. In this precise sense everybody, be it a Christian or a non-Christian has «exactly the same rights as the pope or the tsar,»[120] a demand that obviously corresponds to secular freedom of speech.

The question arises how Solov’ëv conceived history, or to be more exact, by which means history would arrive at Sophia′s prophetic incarnation? His short and disputed writing Smysl′ llubvl [1892–1894, The Meaning of Love] ends by regretting that during the «second era» nature has not yet been sufficiently spiritualised. Apart from singular «poets,» people did not afford the necessary type of love to «spiritualise nature.»[121]What time span did Solov′ёv have in mind when speaking of this «second era» and what did he mean by spiritualisiung nature? As for the first question, it is impossible to find in Solov’ëv′s work a single definition of history in the same register. He distinguishes a «theology of history» from a «philosophy of history.» As for the first register, there are three periods, viz. from Jesus Christ until the schism (33-1054), from then to Solov’ëv′s lifetime (1054–1880), and from this point of time until the end of history (1880′s-?). In the third period"…all efforts would, or at least should, be concentrated on unifying humanity, starting with the Christian community."[122] As for «philosophical history,» «.he posed that history is made up of three successive phases, undifferentiated unity, separation, and differentiated unity between and within these fields.»[123] Obviously the afore mentioned «second era» that is characterised by a «lack of love to nature» coincides with the second period in the historical and in the theological registers. What type of love did Solov′ev have in mind when he diagnosed a lack of it and how is related to prophecy? Discrediting the Marxian variant of materialism thoroughly[124] the young Solov’ëv introduced the notion of «religious materialism» in