Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov three conversations about war, progress and the end of world history. Vladimir Solovyov - three conversations about war, progress and the end of world history

Introduction

In 1900, Vladimir Solovyov published the philosophical work Three Conversations on War, Progress and the End of the World.

General, Politician, Mister Z and Lady discuss topical issues that have accumulated in Russian society. The “conversations” are accompanied by a short story in which the monk Pansofius tells about the coming arrival of the Antichrist. All these characters are the fruit of the imagination of Vladimir Solovyov.

The philosopher in an accessible form sets out his vision of the world. This work is rich material for reflection on the future structure of human society.

1. The concept of Vladimir Solovyov

In the preliminary speech, Solovyov writes about "good and evil historical forces." This idea, in my opinion, is nothing but the mythologization of society. In fact, there are neither good nor evil forces in life, just as there are none in the animal and plant kingdoms. Life is divided into spheres of influence of the state, classes, estates, great personalities. Each of these social units has its own ideas about good and evil, and each claims to be the universal truth. If you look at the life of people from a bird's eye view, it will seem like an anthill, a biological mass that exists for no one knows why! Therefore, it makes no sense to consider society from a moral point of view. Everything in life is simple: the strong defeat the weak.

Solovyov rejects "new religions" with their "imaginary Kingdom of Heaven" and "imaginary Gospel". It is impossible not to see that this kind of opposition between true and false religion is conditional, it has no logical basis, but is dictated by the requirements of Orthodoxy that is dominant in Russia.

In the first conversation, the General says: "War is a sacred thing." It's right. However, it seems to me that war is in fact a holy cause, and not only for one Russian people, but for all peoples defending the interests of their country. No nation has privileges!

Mr. Z reasonably objected to the general. His idea is that sometimes war is not "primarily evil" and peace is not "primarily good." Again, it should be noted that at the end of the 20th century, outright "murder" gives way to a new type of war - ideological and informational, the consequences of which are no less, if not more terrible for the people who were defeated in the war.

Solovyov's idea of "pan-Mongolism" turns out to be largely prophetic: in the 20th century, the peoples of Asia, Africa, and Latin America come to the forefront of politics, Japan and China loudly declare themselves. The latter is turning into a superpower in the 21st century.

In the second conversation, the question of war is again raised. The politician interprets the war as a necessary "historical means". This idea is applicable to the past and partially to the present, because it is directly related to states that are still on the path of self-affirmation. In our time, war is being transformed into a “peaceful” means of enslaving weak peoples by a powerful state. For example, if the United States takes a course towards the dismemberment of a huge Russia, then they will do it in the same “without blood” as they destroyed the USSR.

Politician's thoughts about Russia's foreign policy are not without foundation. If Russia cooperates with Europe, then the Mongols (read: Japanese, Chinese) will not risk attacking it. This is what happens in the 20th century. So it will be in the 21st century. If the West and China unite against Russia, a sad fate awaits her.

Further, the Politician speaks of "one humanity" under the auspices of Europe. The first part of this thought is rational, the second is doubtful. Indeed, unifying processes are taking place in the 20th century: in the world of socialism and capitalism, in the Non-Aligned Movement, in the League of Arab States, within the United States with its globalization, in a united Europe. However, the opposite process is also evident: Western civilization is actively populated by Asian, African, and Latin American peoples. To this it must be added that in the 21st century, US hegemony will inevitably weaken.

In the third conversation, Mr. Z assures that "progress is a symptom of the end." The foreboding of future tragic events gives rise to thoughts about the End of the World, has a real basis: the 20th century turns out to be the century of the collapse of the empire, world wars and revolutions, in our 21st century humanity is threatened with an ecological catastrophe. Nevertheless, we believe in a favorable outcome of events. We hope that people will begin to live intelligently. In addition, it is necessary to then explore other planets.

Mister Z is convinced that the "Antichrist" will appear under the guise of a respectable Christian. But he will be exposed and overthrown. Mister Z has no doubts about the ultimate victory of life over death, good over evil. And this will happen through the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To reject this Christian doctrine is, to say the least, reckless. After all, it is possible that scientists will discover the law of immortality, and the Christian dream will turn out to be a reality. Already now a person can be endowed with extraordinary abilities, but whether the “superman” will be the “Antichrist” or the Christ is another question!

It's interesting that Mr. Z thought about a new earth "lovingly betrothed to a new Heaven" - isn't this a foreshadowing of people settling on other planets?

In the story about the “Antichrist” attached to the Three Conversations, we find a number of Solovyov’s prophecies that come true in the 20th-21st centuries. They are:

1. The 20th century will be the last century of destructive wars;
2. In the 20th century, "pan-Mongolism" will declare itself;
3. In the 20th century, the militarization of Japan and China will take place;
4. In the 20th century, a world war will break out (which, however, is unleashed not by China, but by Germany).
5. The 20th century will be marked by active interaction between the West and the East.
6. The United States of Europe will emerge in the 20th century;
7. The 20th century will be marked by an unprecedented rise in culture, science and technology;
8. At the same time, naive materialism and naive faith in God will sink into the past.

Monk Pansophius predicts events that are waiting to be realized in the following centuries. He foresees the emergence of an outstanding personality capable of leading the world government: it will be an intelligent, flexible politician, spiritualist and philanthropist, who considers himself a second Christ, in whose person people will see the “great, incomparable, only” leader. He will proclaim himself the guarantor of "eternal universal peace." However, the hour will come when the true believers will recognize the false goodness of the "Antichrist" and overthrow him from the throne of power. With the help of heavenly forces, the unification of all Christian denominations and Jews will be accomplished. Thus, through the mouth of Pansophia, Vladimir Solovyov expresses the idea of a universal church (the word "pansophia" means universal wisdom, which once again points to the secular tendencies in Vladimir Solovyov's religious worldview). Who knows in what form the synthesis of divine wisdom and human wisdom would have taken place in the views of the philosopher, had he lived for another two decades?

2. Ruler of the world.

How does the future ruler of the world appear from today's height?

The ruler of the world will emerge from among the people. This will allow him to become a universal personality with an all-encompassing outlook on life.

By his deeds and accomplishments, the ruler of the world will predetermine the course of history and make a significant contribution to the social life of people.

The ruler of the world will come to power through a multi-part and carefully calibrated electoral system. Random people are completely excluded, neither money, nor family ties, nor powerful politicians can help him take a high post.

The ruler of the world must have a comprehensive and penetrating mind in order to solve the most difficult problems facing humanity. He must be able to take into account the interests of various states, civilizations and cultures, be able to manage a universal society, monitor climate change, send people on space expeditions, establish contacts with representatives of other civilizations, and finally solve the problem of extending human life.

It is doubtful that the worldview of the ruler of the world will play a significant role in his social activities: he can be a believer or an atheist, a Christian or a Jew, belong to the white, yellow or black race. Another thing is more important: he needs to be a planetary-minded person!

The best features of the ruler of the world include will and determination at the moment of external (extraterrestrial) and internal danger. He realizes that the fate of mankind is in his hands, and therefore he shows firmness and perseverance in achieving his goals.

The ruler of the world is not given to be a reformer. It consolidates the experience of many generations of people. He is cautious and reserved about innovations. However, he is moving forward, improving society. Thus, the ruler of the world is a conservative-minded renovationist.

As the head of a conservative-liberal society, the ruler of the world will ensure the harmonious balance and natural interdependence of old and new laws.

How to lead the peoples of the world? Both difficult and simple! It is necessary to make sure that every nation is happy and proud of its contribution to the universal culture!

The ruler of the world will enjoy the exclusive confidence of peoples and politicians.

The long stay in power of the ruler of the world will ensure the effectiveness of his laws and regulations for decades and centuries.

The ruler of the world will not seek popularity among people either by good deeds or by success in public work. He does not need admirers, associates, followers, he needs respect and a worthy assessment of his work. It will be a matter of honor for him to be sent into space on one of the human colonies. He is sympathetic to civic duty, remembering how at one time Ancient Rome sent consuls to manage numerous provinces.

Endowed with an outstanding intellect, the ruler of the world will undoubtedly have the highest moral and spiritual culture. Therefore, there is no reason to expect the coming of the "Antichrist" or Christ, the Tempter or Savior of mankind!

What is important is not that in every person there are the beginnings of both good and evil, but which of the two has overcome in whom. Evil really exists, and it is expressed not in the mere absence of good, but in positive resistance and preponderance of the lower qualities over the higher in all areas of being. D In order to fulfill the will of God and achieve the Kingdom of God, apart from conscience and mind, something else is needed -inspiration of good, or the direct and positive action of the very good principle on us and in us.Real culture demands that all fighting between people and between nations be completely abolished.About Christmas in churches it is sung: "Peace on earth, goodwill towards men." This means that there will be peace on earth only when there is good will among people. It is necessary not to pray to God, but to act in God's way. Sin alone is mortal - despondency, because despair is born from it, and despair is, in fact, not a sin, but spiritual death itself.

Quotes from the book Vladimir Solovyov -
Three conversations about war, progress and the end of world history,
with the inclusion of a short story about the Antichrist

FOREWORD

Is evil just a natural defect, an imperfection that disappears by itself with the growth of good, or is it a real force that owns our world through temptations, so that in order to successfully fight against it, you need to have a fulcrum in a different order of being?

Many years ago I read the news of a new religion that had arisen somewhere in the eastern provinces. This religion, whose followers were called vertidyrniki or hole-molders, consisted in the fact that, having drilled a hole of medium size in some dark corner in the wall of the hut, these people put their lips to it and insistently repeated many times: “My hut, my hole, save me!". Never before, it seems, has the subject of worship reached such an extreme degree of simplification.

The real aim of the polemic here is not to refute an imaginary religion, but to expose the real deception.

No Russian censorship requires you to declare such convictions that you do not have, to pretend to believe in what you do not believe in, to love and honor what you despise and hate.

If I consider the cessation of the war in general to be impossible before the final catastrophe, then in the closest rapprochement and peaceful cooperation of all Christian peoples and states I see not only a possible, but a necessary and morally obligatory way of salvation for the Christian world from being swallowed up by its lower elements.

_______
About the book:

The first publication entitled "Under the palm trees. Three conversations about peaceful and military affairs" "in the journal" Books of the Week ". 1899. No 10. S. 5--37; No 11. S. 126--159; 1900. No 1 pp. 150--187.

In 1900, while the author was still alive, the first separate edition was published under a new title, with a preface first published in the Rossiya newspaper under the heading "On fake good", and with minor corrections compared to the original text: "Three Conversations about war, progress and the end of world history, with the inclusion of a short story about the Antichrist and with applications.

"Three conversations" - the last book of Vl. Solovyov, but it would be reckless to consider it as a kind of testament, as a hopeless result of all his work. This is contradicted by the pathos of the remarkable book Justification of the Good, the second, significantly supplemented edition of which was published in 1899, and by Solovyov’s entire social and journalistic activity, which he did not stop until the last days of his life and which was imbued with the ideas of freedom, morality, faith and debt, those ideas that must triumph over the forces of evil in earthly life. Undoubtedly, the last years of the philosopher were full of tragic forebodings, about which, for example, he wrote to V. L. Velichko on July 3, 1897: a traveler approaching the sea feels the sea air before he sees the sea." But, I think, "Three Conversations" should not be subjected to a broad interpretation, one must always remember their polemical sharpness (primarily against Tolstoyism) and not lose sight of Solovyov's own testimony: "I wrote this in order to finally express my view on the church question" . In "Three Conversations" there is a lot from Solovyov's historiosophy and eschatology, but even more - from social and political problems traditional for him. In places, "Three Conversations" resembles a journalistic commentary on newspaper reports. It can be added to what has been said that Solovyov's public reading of The Tale of the Antichrist in the spring of 1900 aroused the ridicule of the St. Petersburg public.

The writer began work on Antichrist in the spring of 1896, perhaps under the influence of the fierce controversy that his article The Meaning of War (1895) aroused in the Russian press, which then formed the eighteenth chapter of Justification of the Good. Most critics took it (quite wrongly) as an apology for the war. Solovyov predicted an armed struggle between Europe and "Mongolian Asia", which "will, of course, be the last, but all the more terrible, a truly world war, and it is not indifferent to the fate of mankind which side will remain victorious in it." True, he added, there is no unconditional, externally gravitating necessity in this struggle: "The matter is still in our hands ... Against Europe, internally united and truly Christian, Asia would have neither the justification for the struggle, nor the conditions for victory." It is clear that in these statements it is easy to see the germ of some pages from the Three Conversations.

Work on the works of Plato suggested to Solovyov a rare form of work in Russian literature - the classic Platonic dialogue, when the interlocutors, for all the difference in their views, equally participate in identifying the main ideas of the author. It is obvious that Mr. Z expresses judgments closest to Solovyov's. The prototype of the Policy may have been S. Yu. Witte, the then Minister of Finance, with whom Solovyov was on good terms. The prince is the spokesman for Tolstoy's views. Monk Pansofiy, who composed "A Brief Tale of the Antichrist", the poet Vl. Solovyov , whose poetic epigraph precedes the story. The "Three Conversations" were finished in the spring - autumn of 1899, in the winter of 1900 the "Tale of the Antichrist" was written.

---
From Wikipedia:

Three conversations about war, progress and the end of world history is a philosophical essay by Vladimir Solovyov, written in the spring of 1900, a few months before his death. This essay is considered as a "testament" and even a prediction. At the same time, G.V. Florovsky notices in this book Solovyov's departure from his former ideas (including the go-go theocracy).

The first conversation concerns the topic of war. Solovyov, although he recognizes evil in war, since war involves murder, nevertheless he believes that war can be just. As an example, he tells the story of the General about retribution against the bashi-bazouks for the destruction of an Armenian village. Another story concerns Vladimir Monomakh, who smashed the Polovtsy, preventing their devastating raids on peaceful Slavic villages.

The second conversation is devoted to the topic of progress which is seen in the desire for international peace, getting rid of bloodthirsty savagery in favor of civilization (“peaceful politics is a symptom of progress”). Solovyov mentions the progress in the Turkish Empire, and also talks about the transfer of the center of world history to the Far East. Solovyov was a supporter of the peaceful development of Asia by Russia together with England, as well as solidarity with other European nations. The rejection of Europe throws Russia into the arms of Asia.

The third conversation concerns the Antichrist. Analyzing the manifestations of progress, Solovyov notices that death and evil still persist in the world. Evil manifests itself not only at the individual or social level, but also at the physical level. And salvation from this evil is possible only with the help of higher powers, namely the resurrection. Without a true resurrection, goodness is such only in appearance, but not in essence.

Then Solovyov moves on to the story of the Antichrist, in the epigraph to which he mentions the term pan-Mongolism. Pan-Mongolism means the idea of consolidating the "peoples of East Asia" against Europe within the framework of a renewed Japanese-Chinese Middle Empire. Solovyov predicts that such an empire will drive the British out of Burma and the French out of Indo-China and invade Russian Central Asia and further into European Russia, Germany and France. However, the new Mongol yoke ends with an all-European uprising. However, in liberated Europe, the Antichrist will be found - "the great ascetic, spiritualist and philanthropist", as well as a vegetarian. With the support of the Freemasons, this man in the 21st century will become the president of the "United States of Europe", which will be transformed into a "world monarchy". Antichrist will be assisted by the Catholic Bishop Apollonius, although the papacy itself will already be expelled from Rome. The capital of the Antichrist's empire will be Jerusalem, where a "temple for the unity of all cults" will appear. During the general Christian council, two righteous people will die: the Catholic Pope Peter (who served as the Archbishop of Mogilev) and the Orthodox elder John. The end of the power of the Antichrist was put by the uprising of the Jews, and the final destruction of his armies was caused by a volcanic eruption in the Dead Sea region.

Vladimir Solovyov

Three Conversations on War, Progress and the End of World History

With the inclusion of a short story about the Antichrist and with applications

Dedicated to departed friends of early years

Nikolai Mikhailovich Lopatin and Alexander Alexandrovich Sokolov

FOREWORD

Whether there is a evil only natural flaw, imperfection disappearing by itself with the growth of goodness, or is it a real force, through temptations owning our world, so that in order to successfully fight it, you need to have a foothold in a different order of being? This vital question can be clearly investigated and solved only in a whole metaphysical system. Having begun to work on this for those who are able and inclined to speculation, I, however, felt how important the question of evil is for everyone. About two years ago, a special change in the mood of the soul, about which there is no need to expand here, aroused in me a strong and persistent desire to shed light in a clear and generally accessible way on those main aspects in the question of evil, which should affect everyone. For a long time I did not find a convenient form for the fulfillment of my plan. But in the spring of 1899, abroad, the first conversation on this subject took shape and was written in a few days, and then, upon returning to Russia, two other dialogues were also written. Thus this verbal form appeared of itself as the simplest expression for what I wanted to say. This form of casual secular conversation already clearly indicates that there is no need to look for either scientific-philosophical research or religious preaching. My task here is a quick apologetic and polemical one: I wanted, as far as I could, to clearly expose the vital aspects of Christian truth connected with the question of evil, which are covered with fog from different sides, especially in recent times.

Many years ago I read the news of a new religion that had arisen somewhere in the eastern provinces. This religion, whose followers were called vertidyrniki or hole grinders, consisted in the fact that, having drilled a hole of medium size in some dark corner in the wall of the hut, these people put their lips to it and insistently repeated many times: "My hut, my hole, save me!" Never before, it seems, has the subject of worship reached such an extreme degree of simplification. But if the deification of an ordinary peasant hut and a simple hole made by human hands in its wall is an obvious delusion, then I must say that this was a true delusion: these people went wildly crazy, but did not mislead anyone; about the hut they said this: hut, and the place drilled into her wall was rightly called hole.

But the religion of the hole-mowers soon experienced "evolution" and underwent a "transformation." And in its new form, it retained the former weakness of religious thought and the narrowness of philosophical interests, the former squat realism, but lost its former truthfulness: its hut has now received the name "the kingdom of God on the ground", and the hole began to be called the "new gospel", and, what is worse, the difference between this imaginary gospel and the real one, the difference is exactly the same as between a hole drilled in a log and a living and whole tree - this essential difference the new evangelists did their best to keep silent and speak.

Of course, I am not asserting a direct historical or "genetic" connection between the original sect of hole-molders and the preaching of an imaginary kingdom of God and an imaginary gospel. This is not important for my simple intention: to clearly show the essential identity of the two "teachings" - with the moral difference that I noted. And the identity here is in the pure negativity and emptiness of both "worldviews". Although the “intelligent” perforators do not call themselves perforators, but Christians and call their preaching the gospel, but Christianity without Christ is the gospel, that is good news without that good, which would be worth proclaiming, precisely without a real resurrection into the fullness of blessed life, there is the same empty place, like an ordinary hole drilled in a peasant's hut. All this might not have been talked about if a fake Christian flag had not been hoisted over the rationalistic hole, seducing and confusing many of these little ones. When people who think and quietly affirm that Christ obsolete, outdated or that it did not exist at all, that this is a myth invented by the Apostle Paul, at the same time they stubbornly continue to call themselves “true Christians” and cover up the preaching of their empty place with altered gospel words, here indifference and condescending neglect are no longer in place: due to infection moral atmosphere, through systematic lies, public conscience loudly demands that a bad deed be called by its true name. The real purpose of the debate here is not a refutation of an imaginary religion, but the discovery of a real deception.

This deception has no excuse. Between me, as the author of three works forbidden by spiritual censorship, and these publishers of many foreign books, pamphlets and leaflets, there can be no serious question of external obstacles to complete frankness on these subjects. The restrictions on religious freedom that we still have are one of the greatest heartaches for me, because I see and feel how harmful and burdensome all these external restrictions are, not only for those who are subjected to them, but mainly for the Christian cause in Russia, and consequently, for the Russian people, and consequently, for the Russian states.

But no external situation can prevent a convinced and conscientious person from expressing his conviction to the end. You can’t do this at home - you can do it abroad, and who more than preachers of an imaginary gospel use this opportunity when it comes to applied politics and religion? And on the main, fundamental issue, in order to refrain from insincerity and falsehood, you don’t even need to go abroad, because no Russian censorship requires you to declare such convictions that you don’t have, to pretend to believe in what you don’t believe in, to love and honor what you despise and hate. In order to behave conscientiously in relation to a well-known historical Person and His cause, only one thing was required from the preachers of emptiness in Russia: to keep silent about this Person, to “ignore” Him. But what an oddity! These people do not want to enjoy the freedom of silence at home on this subject, nor the freedom of speech abroad. Both here and there they prefer to adjoin Christ's gospel outwardly; both here and there they do not want either directly - by a decisive word, or indirectly - by eloquent silence - to truthfully show their real attitude towards the Founder of Christianity, namely that He is completely alien to them, is not needed for anything and is only a hindrance for them.

From their point of view, what they preach by itself understandable, desirable and salutary for everyone. Their "truth" rests on itself, and if a well-known historical person agrees with it, so much the better for him, but this still cannot give him the meaning of the highest authority for them, especially when the same person said and did a lot of things, that for them there is both "temptation" and "madness."

If, even due to human weakness, these people feel an irresistible need to base their convictions, in addition to their own "reason", on some historical authority, then why should they not look in history another more suitable for them? Yes, and there is such a long time ready - the founder of the widespread Buddhist religion. After all, he really preached what they needed: non-resistance, dispassion, non-doing, sobriety, etc., and he even succeeded without martyrdom"make a brilliant career" for their religion - the sacred books of Buddhists really proclaim emptiness and for their complete agreement with a new sermon on the same subject, only a detailed simplification would be required; on the contrary, the Holy Scriptures of the Jews and Christians are filled and thoroughly imbued with positive spiritual content, denying both the ancient and the new emptiness, and in order to tie its sermon to some gospel or prophetic saying, it is necessary to break the connection of this saying with the whole book by all falsehoods, and with the immediate context, while the Buddhist suttas they give in solid masses suitable teachings and legends, and there is nothing in these books in essence or in spirit contrary to the new sermon. By replacing the “rabbi of Galilee” for her with a hermit from the Shakya family, imaginary Christians would not lose anything real, but would gain something very important - at least in my opinion - the opportunity to be conscientious and to some extent consistent in error. But they don't want to...

Three conversations are carried out at a foreign resort "Five Russians”: Prince, General, Politician, Lady and Mr. Z. And, it seems, the plot is clear. The prince is an adherent of the teachings of Leo Tolstoy; other characters oppose him: the General - from the point of view of everyday Christianity, the Politician - from the point of view of liberal Europeanism, Mr. Z - from a religious point of view, the Lady participates in the conversation as a carrier of a sincere, emotional position. Solovyov himself writes about this in the Preface, and in detail. So for the reader the meaning of the book appears as a critique of Tolstoyism.

The conversation unfolds vividly and drags on for three days. Although it is unlikely that anyone will dare to make a feature film based on "Three Conversations" - there is too little "drive", a purely conversational plot. In the first conversation we are talking about Tolstoy's theory of non-resistance. The Prince's thesis boils down to the fact that murder is always evil, and therefore it is absolutely unacceptable for a Christian. The argument revolves around the situation “before the eyes of a moralist, a bandit rapes a child; how to be? Mr Z concludes:

Mr. [-n] Z. Why, in your opinion, reason and conscience tell me only about myself and about the villain, and the whole point, in your opinion, is that I somehow do not touch him with my finger. Well, in truth, there is also a third person here, and, it seems, the most important thing, a victim of evil violence, requiring my help. You always forget her, but conscience speaks about her, and about her first of all, and the will of God here is that I save this victim, sparing the villain as much as possible;

And the general tells an amazing case from his practice, when, in his opinion, the murder "from six clean, immaculate steel tools, with the most virtuous, beneficial buckshot" was the best thing in his life.

In the third dialogue, Solovyov focuses on the most important thing - the denial of the Divinity of Christ and His resurrection. And the disputants begin to suspect that the rejection of these things leads to the Antichrist. The prince, trying to hide his irritation, leaves, and:

(When the prince moved away from the conversation) general (laughing, noticed). The cat knows whose meat it ate!

D a m a. How do you think that our prince is the Antichrist?

General Well, not personally, not him personally: a sandpiper is far from Peter's day! And yet on that line. As John the Theologian also says in Scripture: you heard, kids, that the Antichrist will come, and now there are many Antichrists. So out of these many, out of many...

Upon his return, the prince tries to justify himself, but Z proves with inexorable logic that this is real anti-Christianity. Here everyone decides that it would be good to see the actual Antichrist. And then Mr. Z brings the manuscript of a certain monk Pansofius and reads it out - this is the famous "Short Tale of the Antichrist", during the reading of which the prince escapes again.

Such is the plot, and, speaking of Three Conversations, one usually concludes that Solovyov's powerful dialectic is victorious - Tolstoyism has been smashed to smithereens. No doubt it is. However, we have not yet reached the main content of the book.

The book turns out to be a box with a double bottom. Behind the criticism of Tolstoyism hides the true content - Solovyov's parting with his former idols and the most cherished ideas.

First of all, this is parting with "pink Christianity". The collapse of all projects forced Solovyov to think about the power of evil. This dialogue is typical:

“Mr. Z. So you think that it is only necessary for good people to become even kinder themselves, so that the evil ones lose their malice until they finally become good too?

D a m a. I think so.

Mr. Z. Well, do you know of any cases where the kindness of a good person made an evil person good, or at least less evil?

D a m a. No, to tell the truth, I have not seen or heard such cases ... "

This is what Solovyov himself believed until recently, and this naive belief lay at the foundation of his vast edifice of Christian progress. And suddenly it turns out that the foundation of this building is built on sand.

This is parting with the "theocracy". Previously, Soloviev preached this idea literally in all his significant writings. Even in Justification of the Good, he writes about it, though not with the same fervor. But in the "Three Conversations" about this silence. Moreover, the kingdom that the Antichrist is building is suspiciously reminiscent of Solovyov's theocracy, only without Christ. As for church unity, in his Apocalypse, "The Tale of the Antichrist", not even unification, but simply reconciliation of the Churches takes place only after the death of the Antichrist.

Philocathism has also been abandoned - all the main Churches are participating in the struggle against the Antichrist. And, perhaps, the main role here belongs to Orthodoxy - Elder John was the first to understand who was in front of him, and warned everyone with the exclamation “ Kids, Antichrist!". And a close merger with the state is carried out precisely by the Antichrist church, under the authority of the magician Apollonius.

Solovyov also says goodbye to progress, both worldly and Christian. And here we need to dwell on the meaning of the Second Conversation. The point is that the Second Conversation is completely superfluous for debunking Tolstoyism. The prince practically does not participate there, and the conversation itself does not touch on moral problems typical of Tolstoyism. But from the point of view of self-debunking, this conversation is absolutely necessary. Here Solovyov draws a line under his Europeanism. It is not for nothing that the Western-oriented Vestnik Evropy, in which Solovyov published all his last major works, refused to publish Three Conversations (!). The Politician soloist in this conversation is a parody of the Westerners, who by the beginning of the 20th century had become liberals and preachers of civilized progress. It seems that Solovyov's passage in the preface "but I recognize the relative truth behind the first two (the politician and the general - N.S.)" cannot be taken at face value. Solovyov turned out to be a politician so unimpressive that this image must be recognized as the case when artistic truth defeated the original plan. All the verbose chatter of Politics is aptly summed up by the Lady:

“You wanted to say that times have changed, that before there was God and war, and now instead of God, culture and peace.”

And Mr. Z easily debunks it:

“Mr [-n] Z. In any case, it is indisputable that the plus grows, the minus also grows, and as a result something close to zero is obtained. It's about diseases. Well, as for death, it seems that, apart from zero, there was nothing in cultural progress.

Politics. Does cultural progress set itself such tasks as the destruction of death?

Mr. [- n ] Z. I know that he doesn’t put it, but that’s why you can’t put him very highly himself ”.

Note that the Politician voices another very important parting for Solovyov - with illusions about the feasibility of Christianity in politics and in society in general. The politician is a realist. It does not require the fulfillment of commandments in international relations, and the present Solovyov takes this side in Politics, although he understands that this is not Christianity, as if inclining with the gospel: “ the sons of this age are more perceptive than the sons of light in their kind"(Luke 16:8).

But it should be especially noted that neither pan-unity nor God-manhood was subjected to total denial. Although they have undergone some revision. More precisely, all-unity ceased to be perceived by Solovyov as being realized in history. Or in other words: Solovyov's ideas about metahistory changed: the end point, the goal of history was not the triumph of unity, but the eschatological transition of the world to a new state, about which Solovyov did not have time to say anything. And the iridescent God-manhood was suddenly enriched with the possibility of "devil-manhood", the embodiment of which the philosopher saw in the Antichrist.

And Sofia? At the end of the "Tale of the Antichrist" appears in the sky " a woman clothed with the sun, and on her head a crown of twelve stars"- exactly according to the Revelation of St. John (Rev. 12:1). But Solovyov could not help but know that in the Orthodox tradition this image is firmly associated with the Mother of God. Is there a parting with the painfully obsessive Sophia and an appeal to the bright and meek image of the Mother of God? Who knows…

We will continue talking about the "Three Conversations".

Nikolai Somin

Dedicated to departed friends of early years

Nikolai Mikhailovich Lopatin and Alexander Alexandrovich Sokolov

FOREWORD

The vapidity of the dogma of the new "religion" and its logical contradictions are too striking, and from this side I had only (in the third conversation) to present a short but complete list of provisions that obviously destroy each other and hardly seduce anyone outside of such an inveterate type. , like mine prince. But if I could open someone's eyes to the other side of the matter and let another deceived, but living soul feel the whole moral falsity of this deadly teaching in its totality, the polemical goal of this book would be reached.

However, I am deeply convinced that the word of denunciation of unrighteousness, fully agreed upon, if it did not produce a good effect on anyone right now, nevertheless, there is, in addition to the subjective fulfillment of a moral duty for the speaker, also a spiritually tangible sanitary measure. in the life of the whole society, essentially useful to it both in the present and for the future.

With the polemical task of these dialogues, I have a positive one: to present the question of the struggle against evil and the meaning of history from three different points of view, of which one, religious and everyday, belonging to the past, appears especially in the first conversation, in speeches. general; another, culturally progressive, dominating at the present time, expresses and defends politician especially in the second conversation, and the third, unconditionally religious, which has yet to show its decisive importance in the future, is indicated in the third conversation in the arguments of Mr. Z and in the story of Father Pansofius. Although I myself definitively stand on the last point of view, I recognize the relative truth behind the first two, and therefore I could convey opposite reasoning and statements with equal impartiality. politics and general. The highest unconditional truth does not exclude or deny the preliminary conditions of its manifestation, but justifies, comprehends and sanctifies them. If, from a certain point of view, world history is the world judgment of God - die Weltgeschichte ist das Weltgericht, then after all, the concept of such a judgment includes a long and complicated litigation(process) between good and evil historical forces, and this litigation for a final decision with equal necessity presupposes an intense struggle for existence between these forces, and their greatest internal, therefore, peaceful development in a common cultural environment. That's why general, and politician before the light of higher truth, both are right, and I quite sincerely took the point of view of both. Undoubtedly, only the very beginning of evil and lies is wrong, and not such methods of dealing with it as the sword of a warrior or the pen of a diplomat: these guns should be judged according to their actual expediency in the given conditions, and each time that of them is better, the application of which is more appropriate, that is, more successful, serves the good. And St. Alexy, Metropolitan, when he peacefully presided over the Russian princes in the Horde, and St. Sergius, when he blessed the weapons of Dmitry Donskoy against the same Horde, were equally servants of the same good - many-part and diverse.

* * *

These "talks" about evil, about the military and peaceful struggle against it, should have ended with a definite indication of the last, extreme manifestation of evil in history, the presentation of its brief triumph and decisive fall. Initially, this subject was presented by me in the same colloquial form as all the previous one, and with the same admixture of a joke. But friendly criticism convinced me that this way of presenting here is doubly inconvenient: firstly, because the breaks and introductory remarks required by the dialogue interfere with the excited interest of the story, and secondly, because the worldly, and especially joking, tone of the conversation does not correspond to the religious meaning of the subject. Finding this fair, I changed the wording of the third conversation, inserting into it a continuous reading of the "brief story about the Antichrist" from the manuscript of the deceased monk. This story (preliminarily read by me in public) caused both in society and in the press a lot of bewilderment and reinterpretation, the main reason for which is very simple: our insufficient acquaintance with the testimony of the Word of God and the church tradition about the Antichrist.

The inner meaning of the Antichrist as a religious impostor, "stealing", and not a spiritual feat gaining the dignity of the Son of God, his connection with the false prophet-thaumaturge, who deceives people with real and false miracles, the dark and specially sinful origin of the Antichrist himself, by the action of an evil force acquiring his external position world monarch, the general course and end of his activity, together with some particular features characteristic of him and his false prophet, for example, “bringing fire from heaven”, the killing of two witnesses of Christ, exposing their bodies in the streets of Jerusalem, etc., – all this is found in the Word of God and in ancient tradition. For the connection of events, as well as for the clarity of the story, details were required, either based on historical considerations or prompted. imagination. To traits of the latter kind—what are the semi-spiritual, semi-magic tricks of the world magician with underground voices, with fireworks, etc.—I, of course, did not attach serious importance and, it seems, I had the right to expect from the “critics” their same attitude to this subject. As for another, very important thing - the characteristics of the three personified confessions at the ecumenical council - it could be noticed and appreciated only by those who are not alien to church history and life.

The nature of the false prophet given in Revelation and his purpose directly indicated there - to fool people in favor of the Antichrist - require that all sorts of witchcraft and conjurer tricks be attributed to him. properties. It is authentically known, dass sein Hauptwerk ein Feuerwerk sein wird: “And he does great signs, so that the fire makes it descend from heaven to earth before the face of men” (Rev. 13:13). The magical and mechanical technique of this work cannot be known to us in advance, and we can only be sure that in two or three centuries it will go very far from the present, and what exactly with such progress will be possible for such a miracle worker - I do not presume about this. judge. Some specific features and details of my story are allowed only in the sense of visual explanations of essential and reliable relationships, so as not to leave them as bare schemes.

In everything I say about Pan-Mongolism and the Asiatic invasion of Europe, one should also distinguish between the essential and the details. But even the most important fact here does not, of course, have that unconditional certainty that belongs to the future appearance and fate of the Antichrist and his false prophet. In the history of Mongolian-European relations, nothing is taken directly from Holy Scripture, although much has enough points of support here. In general, this story is a series of evidence-based considerations of probability. Personally, I think that this probability is close to certainty, and it seems to me not only, but also to other, more important persons ... For the coherence of the narrative, I had to give these considerations about the upcoming Mongolian thunderstorm various details, for which I, of course, do not stand and with which tried not to abuse it. It was important for me to more realistically define the forthcoming terrible clash of the two worlds - and thereby clearly explain the urgent need for peace and sincere friendship between the European nations.

If the end of the war generally I consider it impossible before the final catastrophe, then in the closest rapprochement and peaceful cooperation of all Christian peoples and states, I see not only a possible, but a necessary and morally obligatory way of salvation for the Christian world from being swallowed up by its lower elements.

In order not to lengthen and complicate my story, I left out another prediction from the text of the conversations, about which I will say a few words here. It seems to me that the success of pan-Mongolism will be facilitated in advance by the stubborn and exhausting struggle that some European states will have to endure against the awakened Islam in Western Asia, North and Central Africa. A greater role than is usually thought is played here by the secret and tireless activity of the religious-political brotherhood. Senussi, which has the same guiding importance for modern Muslim movements as the Tibetan Brotherhood has in the movements of the Buddhist world Kelanov in Hlass with its Indian, Chinese and Japanese ramifications. I am far from unconditional hostility to Buddhism, and even more so to Islam, but averting one's eyes from the current and future state of affairs is too many hunters without me.

The historical forces that reign over the mass of humanity have yet to collide and mix before a new head will grow on this self-rending beast - the world-unifying power of the Antichrist, who "will speak loud and lofty words" and will throw a brilliant veil of goodness and truth over the mystery of the extreme. iniquity at the time of its final manifestation, in order, according to the word of Scripture, to seduce even the elect, if possible, to a great apostasy. To show in advance this deceptive mask, under which the evil abyss hides, was my highest plan when I wrote this book.

* * *

To the three conversations I added a number of short articles published in 1897 and 1898. (in the newspaper "Rus"). Some of these articles are among the most successful I have ever written. In terms of their content, they complement and explain the main ideas of the three conversations.

In conclusion, I must express my heartfelt gratitude to P. Salomon, who corrected and supplemented my ideas about the topography of modern Jerusalem, to N. A. Velyaminov, who told me about the Bashi-Bazu "kitchen" he saw in 1877, and to M. M. Bibikov, who carefully analyzed the story of the general in the first conversation and pointing out errors in terms of military equipment, which I have now corrected.

Various shortcomings in this corrected presentation are sensitive enough for me, but I did not find it possible to postpone the printing of this book for an indefinite and unsecured period. If time is given to me for new labors, then also for the improvement of the former. But no - I have made an indication of the forthcoming historical outcome of the moral struggle in fairly clear, albeit brief, terms, and I am now releasing this small work with a noble sense of fulfilled moral duty ...

Bright Sunday 1900

* * *

In the garden of one of those villas that, crowded at the foot of the Alps, look into the azure depths of the Mediterranean Sea, five Russians accidentally met this spring: an old military general;"the husband of the council", taking a break from theoretical and practical studies of state affairs - I will call him politician; young prince, moralist and populist, publishing various more or less good pamphlets on moral and social questions; lady middle-aged, curious about everything human, and another gentleman of indeterminate age and social status - let's call him Mr. Z. I was silently present at their conversations; some seemed interesting to me, and at the same time, from fresh memory, I wrote them down. The first conversation began in my absence about some newspaper article or pamphlet about that literary campaign against war and military service, which, in the footsteps of Count. Tolstoy is now being conducted by Baroness Suttner and Mr. Stead. The “politician”, when asked by a lady what he thought about this movement, called it well-intentioned and useful; the general suddenly became angry at this and began to viciously mock those three writers, calling them true pillars of state wisdom, a guiding constellation in the political sky, and even three whales of the Russian land, to which the politician remarked: well, and others fish there will be. For some reason, this led to the admiration of Mr. Z, who, according to him, made both opponents unanimously confess that they really consider a whale to be a fish, and even supposedly give a common definition of what a fish is, namely: an animal belonging partly to the maritime department, partly to the department of water messages. I think, however, that it was Mr. Z himself who invented it. Be that as it may, I did not succeed in reconstructing the beginning of the conversation properly. I did not dare to compose from my head on the model of Plato and his imitators and began my recording with those words of the general that I heard, approaching the conversation.

The beginning of this work was published by me in the first three chapters of theoretical philosophy (“Problems of Philosophy and Psychology”, 1897, 1898 and 1899).

By the way. They continue to attribute to me hostile and accusatory writings against the founder of neo-Buddhism, the late H. P. Blavatsky. In view of this, I consider it necessary to state that I never met her, did not engage in any research and denunciations of her personality and the phenomena produced by her, and never printed anything about it (as regards the Theosophical Society and its teachings, see my note in Dictionary of Vengerov and a review of the book by Blavatsky "Key to the secret doctrine" in "Russian Review").