A.I. Herzen in the G.V. Florovsky Interpretations and the Concept of the History of Russian Philosophy in “The Ways Of Russian Theology”

Abstract

А.I. Herzen (1812–1870) was dedicated to two major works by the outstanding historian of Russian thought and theologian G.V. Florovsky (1893–1979): his thesis, defended in Prague in 1923, and prepared for 1928 on its basis, having undergone significant revision and addition, the book. At first glance, Herzen's choice as a subject of special investigation looks like a random intellectual biography of Florovsky. However, whatever determines the original choice of subject matter — the circumstances of the place and time available in the conditions of emigration by literature, etc. It has become an instrument of reflection on the central problems of the history of Russian philosophy, and the concept, built within the framework of the dissertation and substantially refined and developed in the book, became the “working scaffold” of “The Way of Russian Theology”, Florovsky's main book, written in 1930–1936. In this article, we seek to show that the history of Russian philosophy is understood by Florovsky in the 1920s, and partly in the 1930s, as the first assimilation of romantic philosophy, and then the discovery of dead ends in the latter. Romanticism is understood by Florovsky as a protest against “logical providentialism”, a chilliastic view that seeks to interpret history as a logical deployment of the original meaning. Correspondingly, romanticism manifests itself, including the framework of individual intellectual biography, as an “individualistic” revolt, defending personal meaning and meaning, and, by the latter's irrational (passionate) foundations, in the assertion of “irrationalism”, which turns out to be compatible with “naturalism”, comprehending history as a “natural process”, a way of removing the opposite of “nature” and “culture” within the framework of the romantic preference of the former. The transition here is the notion of “fate”, understood as “rock” (as interpreted in the 19th century). Herzen is understood by Florovsky as a key figure in this intellectual movement, which goes all the way to the end, thanks to his intellectual honesty and fearlessness before inconvenient conclusions. In this way, he reveals the “deadlocks of romanticism”, one solution to which K.N. Leontiev seems to be making a decisive choice in favor of “aestheticism” (and, consequently, the meaninglessness and unjustifiability of history from the point of view of faith), while F.M. Dostoevsky either, in the early versions of Florovsky's interpretation, goes beyond the “deadlocks of romanticism” or, in the later versions, finds a way to overcome them.