The “Symbolic Worldview” of V. Solovyov and the Issue of the Development of the Historical Process: An Interpretation by F.A. Stepun (1884–1965)

Abstract

This article presents F.A. Stepun’s interpretation of the views of the outstanding Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov (1853–1900) concerning the issue of the direction of historical development, as an integral part of Solovyov’s philosophy of unitotality. It must be observed that this part of Stepun’s creative output has not yet been sufficiently studied. In fact, Stepun’s interpretation of Solovyov’s views in the context of religious symbolism facilitates a deeper understanding of Solovyov’s conception as well as the comprehension of the theoretical sources of the historical and religious constructions of Stepun himself. This study emphasizes the importance of Solovyov’s work and personality for Russia’s Silver Age culture, including his religious and philosophical trajectory, to which Stepun himself belonged. The interest of scholars in Solovyov’s work is also documented, with a particular focus on the contribution the Russian émigré community gave to its study: these authors, in fact, managed to preserve during emigration the best traditions of Russian culture, in general, and of Russian religious and philosophical thought, in particular. The core of a number of theoretical statements of Solovyov’s historiosophy will be also provided, along with Stepun’s interpretation of them. Moreover, the special nature of the “methodological pluralism”, which is peculiar to Stepun’s approach to research, will be analyzed as well as the importance for him of religious symbolism’s method in the study of Solovyov’s views on the historical process. Finally, the great meaning of Solovyov’s doctrine of God-manhood for Stepun’s work will be explored. The main theoretical statements of this doctrine turned out to be compatible with his ideas on the ontology of history, on its structure, and on its anthropological nature. It will be also emphasized the perception of the historicity and “singularity” of Christ, which is peculiar for Solovyov, and subsequently for Stepun, being it the key for Christianity, in general, and for Christian historicism, in particular. The conclusion deals with the significant influence of Solovyov’s ideas on Stepun’s historical and philosophical studies, as well as with the importance of the problems that concern the study of the intellectual history of Russia.