Institute of Sociology
of the Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology
of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Malinov A.V. HE CAN AND MUST DO MORE GOOD: VS. SOLOVYEV AND THE PETERSBURG SLAVOPHILES. SOLOVEVSKIE ISSLEDOVANIYA, 2017, 2 (54), pp. 110128.



Malinov A.V. HE CAN AND MUST DO MORE GOOD: VS. SOLOVYEV AND THE PETERSBURG SLAVOPHILES. SOLOVEVSKIE ISSLEDOVANIYA, 2017, 2 (54), pp. 110128.
ISSN 2076-9210
: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=29817855

Posted on site: 04.12.17

/ " : , , ". URL: http://www.philhist.spbu.ru/images/books/SI_254-2017.pdf ( 04.12.2017)


Abstract

The article presents the opinions on VS. Solovyov o f St. Petersburg University professors: historian Konstantin Nikolayevich Bestuzhev-Ryumin (1829-1897), slavist Vladimir Ivanovich Lamansky (1833-1914), literary historian and folklorist Orest Fedorovich Miller (1833-1889). K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, VI. Lamanskii and O.F. Miller were not only convinced, but active Slavophiles, thus expanding the understanding o f the attitude o f the Slavophiles to VS. Solovyov. The main direction o f the Slavophiles criticism was noted, it is centred on theocratic utopia by VS. Solovyov, his call for unity with the Roman Catholic Church. This criticism is examined in detail on the example o f the article by O.F. Miller The Church and Byzantium, which was a response to the article by VS. Solovyov The Slavic Question. Sense and reasons o f disagreement o f the St. Petersburg Slavophiles with VS. Solovyov are revealed, they saw schematism and abstractive intellectualizing in his philosophy. It is stated that K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, VI. Lamansky and OF. Miller were followers o f that liberal direction in Slavophilism, which was represented by the Moscow association o f the 1840s-1850s. and whose main ideas, they believed, were realized in the liberal reforms o f Emperor Alexander II. However, their philosophical interests did not go beyond the historiosophical constructions in the spirit o f A.S. Khomyakova and N. Ya. Danilevsky, as well as their own cabinet sessions. The philosophy o f VS. Solovyov did not fit into the usual range o f ideas for them, which provoked rejection and criticism on their part.