GnosticElementsin the Cosmogony

of Vladimir Soloviev
Maria Carlson

Prayerof the Revelationof the Great Mystery

In the nameo( the Fatherand of the Sonand of the Holy Spirit
Ain-Soph,Jah,Soph-Jah
In the name of the Unutterable,Awesome,and All-powerful, I
call upon gods,demons[daimonsl,men,and all living creatures.
Cather into one the rays of your power, block the path of the
sourceof your own desires,and becomepartakersof my prayer,
that we may capture the pure Dove of Zion and acquire the
pricelesspearl of Ophir, that the rosesmay unite with the lilies
in the valley of Sharon.O most holy Divine Sophia,essential
image of the beauty and sweetnessof the transcendentCod, the
bright body of Eternity,the Soul of worlds and the one Queenof
all souls,by the inexpressibleprofundity and graceof thy first
Sonand beloved,JesusChrist, I implore theerdescendinto the
prison of the soul, fill our darknesswith thy radiance,melt away
the fettersthat bind our spirit with the fire of thy love, grant us
light and freedom,appearto us in visible and substantialform,
incarnatethyself in us and in the world, restoringthe fullnessof
the Ages,so that the deep may be confinedand that God may
be all in all.
-Vladimir Solov'ev"Album I IMS]," 1875t

Vladimir Solovievwrote the "SophiaPrayer"in Londonin 1875,where

he had been sent by the administration of Moscow University specifically "to study the monumentsof Indian, gnostic,and medieval philosophy at the British Museum" (SergeiSolov'ev 1'13).The Sophia Prayer
is only one of severaltextual clues that provide justification for Dmitry
Merezhkovsky'sobservationin 1908that "Vladimir Soloviev is a gnostic, possibly the last great gnostic of all Christianity" (Merezhkovskii
49

5{)

sokrviev

133).Mcrc.zlrkovskvnrcant k) implv bv ltis comn]ent not that Sokrvicv

hlcl bocornca hcrctic irr the eyes ()f the C)rthocloxC-hurchbv cmbr.rcing
..rmystical, hc.reticaldoctrine.,but tltat hc c.tmf to rclrgir'n by mt-ditati(m, intuition and spiritual cognition rathc.r th.rn by either faith or
lr,illed and pragmatic action (Merezhkovskii 132).A nrodern reader of
Sokrvicv nright add that bchincl Mt'rezhkovsky's observation stood a
highly spccific, Neoplatonic worldview sharc.dby both Soloviev trncl
Mt'rczhkt>vsky,as wt'll as by other representativesof the Cod-see.king
intc'lligentsiaof tlre Russian religious renaissance.
Merezhkovskv's comment r.rnSoloviev does net imply that Soloviev
ic.lentified,adoptecl, and mechanically applied a spe.cificallygnostic
doctrine in his work, although he was without question familiar with
thc theologicalancl historical contours of that doctrine and found certain
aspcctsof it congenial to his own thought. Vlaclimir Soloviev,howe'ver,
was by no means the first intellectual to be'seducedby the poetry of the
gnostic cosmogony, by the concept of the primacy of Sophia Wisdom
over the Creation, or by the psychic power of gnostic imagery ancl
mvthology (rvhich can be very powerful indeecl).Being a pr<f,oundly
creativeman, Soloviev was creative in his appreciation of gnostic concepts, particularly of the gnostic Sophia.
Solovie'v's work contains a c'rtain base of assumptions and uses
terminology so highly evocative of the Bnostrctr.rdition that thc.latter's
influr.ncecannot be lightly dismisst'd. An examination of this traditiorl
can only serve to clarify St>loviev'schoicc'of terminology and to focus certdin conccpts ntorc prc'cisely,although it is brxttlessto look for
compklc coincidence betwr.cn Soloviev's sophiology ancl that of the'
various streams of Christian gnosticism. For the sake of limiting this
potentially boundltss discussion of gnostic influences on S<>loviev's
thought, I would like to address broadly one theme: the influence of
gnostic cosmogony (i.e., the hypothesis of creation and evolution) on
Solovic'v's thought. The material presented on thc'following pagcs is
by no means exhaustive; it serves only to initiat' the discussion of
Soloviev's gnostic tendenciesby pointing out certain curious parallels
between the besFknown gnostic speculation, thc Valentinian gntrsis,
.rnd Soloviev's own sophiology. Tlre ramifications of the' discussion,
however, are manifold, for the seed of gnostic sophiology, nurtured
bv Solovicv, would bear fruit in the theology of Sergei Bulgakov and
other contemporary sophblogists, nont of whom are entirely fre'e'of
this hereticaldoctrine.
Manv contemporary discussionsof gnosticism (outside professional
religious/ ph ilosophicaI contexts)reduce.it to mere panthcistic dualism
or to a simplistic cosmic struggle between Light and Darkness,Good

Carrori: Crostic Elonentsit Solopiet'sCosmogotty

51

and Evil,or betweenSpirit and Matter Gnosticismis in facta far more

complexand sophisticated
phenomenon,its arcanetextspresentinga
varietyof both Christianand non-Christianformulationsand dealing
with many subjectsin additionto the origin of thingsand the natureof
God. A highly developedChristiangnosisfrequentlyappearsto have
much in commonwith traditionalChristianity,and Christiangnostics
enthusiastically
claimedjesusChristas their own. Jesus,afterall, wrote
down no doctrinehimself;the Scriptureswere written by otherswho
lost,suggestthegnostics,the realmeaningof his message.2
Beinghighly
syncretistic,
Itowever,gnosticismfreelyaddedludaic, Buddhist,Egyptian, and Persianelementsto fhe Christian mystery.The differences
among the various systemsof gnosis,such as Manicheanism,Mandeanism,and Barbelo-gnosticism,
or Ophiticand Basilidean
gnosticism
(not to mentionlater incarnations,
suchas the Bogomilor Albigensian
doctrinesof the Middle Ages or the modern The'osophists),
can be
considerable,
and tracingtheir specificinfluenceis no simpletask.
Tracinggnostic influenceis further complicatedby the dearth of concretetextsand reliablesources.
Until thediscoveryof theNag Hammadi
"library" in Egypt in 1945,originalsourceswere relativelyfew.Only a
handful of purportedly gnosticmanuscriptsor contemporaryworks
aboutgnosticismexistedat the turn of the century.Theseincludedthe
Coptic fragmentsof the PistisSop/rin(discoveredin the late eighteenth
centuryand held in the BritishMuseum,whereSolovievprobablysaw
them), Tlc TirroBookso/,ler (also called Tirc Bookof theCraatMysttrious
Lo3os),parts of the CorprrsHtrmelicutn,the'Odc'sof Solomon,and the
"Hyrnn of thePearl,"to mentionthebestknown.Mostof thc information
on gnosticismavailableto Solovievwould still have come from the
works of the early heresiologists
Irenaeus,Tertullian,Hippolytus,and
Clementof Alexandria.TheseFathersof the Churclrwrote extensively
on the gnostics,and severalof them (notably lrenaeus)had studied
theValentinianspeculationin greatdetail,citingextensivelyfrom nowlost sources.Additional Snosticthemesand elementsare found in the
writings of thc'mysticaltheologians
mostadmiredby Soloviev:Origen,
Saint Maximus the Confessor,and Dionysiusthe Pseudo-Areopagite
(whoseworksincorporatedor discussed
variousNeoplatonicand gnostic elementsand who placedspecialemphasison thedoctrineof lieosis,
or thedeificationof man).Soloviev,who studiedat theMoscowSpiritual
Academyas well as at Moscow University,would havebeenfamiliar
with this body of literature.
Solovievwas also well versedin the literatureof mysticism(oriental Buddhism,HebrewKabbalah,and variousoccidentalstreams)and
theology(patristicand modern).His knowle'dgeclearlyextendedto

52

Soloviev

the literatureof Neoplatonism.In the BritishMuseum Solovievadditionally read the Renaissance

"theosophists,"such as Jakob Boehme
(1573-1624\,and very likely was familiar with Boehme'sdisciplesJohn
Pordage(1607-1681),
and Gottfried
JohannGeorgGichtel(163811710),
Arnold (1666-1714'1,
author of Geheimnisse
dergtittlichm Sophia(Leipzig,
1700).Finally,Vladimir Solovievhad read the works of his brother
Vsevolod'seccentricacquaintance,
Mme. HelenaPetrovnaBlavatsky
(1831-1891),
founder of the TheosophicalSocietvand creativearchitectof a compellingmodern gnosticgospel.Her first major work, The
SecrttDoctrine(1888),claimed to be iust such a "synthesisof science,
religion,and philosophy"asSoloviev's"grandsynthesis"or "universal
religion," which was to reorient all of human knowledge and redefine
metaphysics
basedon a modernreadingof secretancientmodels.This
striving to re-cognizeand reunite the various elements of a lost tradition fragmentedby the ravagesof modem positivismand pragmatism, to discoverthe singleand harmoniousmetaphysicalTruth that
underliesall materialcomplexity,is a basicfeatureof gnosticsysrems,
past and present; this same syncretic impulse is everywhere present
in Soloviev
Thus Soloviev'sown philosophicalthought,which appearsto be as
eclecticand syncretisticas gnosticismitselt was openedearly in his life
to the entire tradition of metaphysicalspeculation(he was a young and
impressionabletwenty-two when he went to London to work in the
British Museum).The mature Merezhkovsky,no casualheretichimself,
must haveeasilyrecognizedthe gnosticrootsofthecosmogonySoloviev
originally considered and then repeatedly refined, divesting it of its
moresensationalmythologicalelementsandadding contentsfrom other
systems.Neither did Soloviev's younger contemporaries,the second
generationof symbolists(the "philosophers"), view Soloviev'seclectic
mix of gnostic, idealist, and mystic thought with esotericChristianity
as at all inconsistent.
Andrei Belyi,oneof Vladimir Soloviev'smostdevoted admirers,brightly observedthat, after all, "Christian metaphysics
is the result of the intersectinginfluencesof hermeticism,gnosticism,
and philosophyof the Neoplatonists"(Belyi620).
With the limited exceptionof SamuelD. Cioran (17-20)and Paul
M. Allen, explicatorsof Soloviev have avoided detailed discussionof
gnostic elements in his philosophical writings. Many commentators
perceivedcertaingnosticaspectsin his worldview, but speedily labeled
them "Neoplatonic"(possiblyto avoid rough theologicalterrain or
unwelcomeecclesiastical
attention).In somecasestheverroneouslvmistook Soloviev'selaborations
of Christiangnosticterminologyand conceptualizationfor an esotericChristianparadigm.This would partially

Cenr-rcru:
CnoslicElementsin Solouiea's
Cosmogony

53

explain why Soloviev has not more often beendiscussedby secondary

literature within a gnostic context, although his contemporariescertainly recognizedthat dimensionof his work.
A secondand more compelling reasonfor the avoidanceof the discussionof Soloviev'sgnosticdimensionwould be that the Churchitself
discouraged the explicit exploration of anyone,s gnostic tendencies,
let alone Soloviev's,who was reveredby many membersof the Godseekingintelligentsiaas the greatestof all RussianOrthodox metaphysicians.Gnosticism had been declared a heresy almost from the
first days of Christianity, and the first six centuries of the Christian
era witnessedattackson the doctrine by dedicated heresiologistsand
respectedFathersof the Church. In turn-of-the-centuryRussia.the Orthodox Church continuedto persecutehereticalsects,especiallythe
k/rlysfy,
whosedoctrinehad a considerable
gnosticdimension.Thus the
less-markedterm "theosophy" (lower-casef) or ,,Christiantheosophy,,
was not infrequently used as a euphemism for gnostic tendenciei; tire
term was certainly applied to Soloviev more than once.
Various historical, intellectual, and spiritual parallels between the
time of the gnostics(most broadly the first century B.c.through the first
six centuriesA.D.)and the fr-de-siCclewere not lost on contemporaries.
They viewedboth periodsas timesof "crisisof cultureand consciousness," times that saw a confrontation between Eastern and Wesrern
cultures, times when new faiths were evolving out of old and discredited mysteryreligions.Gnosticismwas a histo;icallyearlierexpressron
of a similar human senseof existentialism,spiritual emptiness,and
alienation from a decadent world that we associatewitli the end of
the nineteenthcentury.That Soloviev and his generation(reiectingthe
prevailingscientificpositivismanddecadence
ofthe period,copingwith
theweakeningof traditionalreligion,andseekinganew religiousworldview) should be interestedin and conversantwith gnosticismis not at
all surprising.During their lifetimeSoloviev'scontemporaries
not only
saw the publicationof many studiesof gnosticismand the enthusiastic
activity of archaeologistsand historians of comparative religions, but
also witnessed the creation of entire systemsof modern gnosis, both
pagan and Christian. Here one might mention that the neo-Buddhist
Theosophy of Mme. Blavatsky,mentioned above, and the ,,Chrisnan
Theosophy" (upper-caseT) of Dr. Rudolf Steiner(1861-1925),are both
modern gnostic doctrinesi Dr. Steinerwould later speak in his lectures
of Solovievas a mediator betweenEastand Westani a true clairvoyant
who anticipated Steiner's own vision of the coming of the Christ in
the etheric world, while WesternAnthroposophistsriould write books
aboutSoloviev(Allen 341-43).3

54

Soloviev

How shouldwe understandgnosticism,then,for the purposeof this

Cnosticismis a religious-philosophical
discussion?
systemthat holds
that the conceptof,krrozu/edge
is superior to the conceptoffaitft (the foundation of traditional religion). Gnosticismis thus a religious pllilosopfty.
but not a religion;as such,it would havea certainappealto thinkersof
mysticinclinationswho were raisedin a historicallypositivisticage,as
was Soloviev.The knowledge that gnosticismclaims to haveor to seek,
moreover,is a total and systematicknowledge, including within itself
all the naturaland speculativesciences,
cosmology,history anthropology,mythology,philosophy,and theology/theogony.Gnosticismis both
highly syncreticand synthetic,for all its unfamiliarand esotericdetail.
But the Gnosis,being "knowledgeof God," is not to be identifiedwith
mere ratiotnl cognitior,sinceGod is Unknowable and lneffable;rather,
gnosticsclaim, their system is a highex more intuitive form of spiritual
cognition,a rtisionol trllh, or revelation,revealedto the elite few who are
spirituallysophisticated
enoughto receiveit.
The basicpremiseof gnosticthought is that the Godheadis utterly
and aliento the materialworld in which mankinddwells.
transcendent
Theundefinedand undefinableGodheaddwellsbevondall time.space.
in an Abyssof Profundity,whose"light is darkness
and understanding,
to mortal eyes,becauseof the superabundanceof its brilliancy" (Mead
of the monks of Mount Athos, the "Light of
311;this is also the photismos
Tabor" of the Hesychasts,the mystic or divine Light, the Invisible Fire,
etc.).Yet for all its "beyondness"and incomprehensibility,the Godhead
is the ultimate sourceof All, including the pneumatic,spiritual self in
man. The gnosisteachesthat the origin of the human pneumaticself
is divine and that the materialworld that holds the Dneumaticself
prisoneris demonic.It is importantto notethat in gnostk systems,evil,
matter,and the demonic are defined relatively,by their distancefrom
the Goodnessand Spiritualityof the Godhead.Evil and matterare less
perftct,hencemore demonic, only becausethey are further in distance
from the complete perfectionof the Godhead.The point of existenceis
to release,through special knowledge (i.e.,gnosis),the pneumatic self
from the fetters of matter and to return it to its natural home in the
realmof the light of pure Spirit.Thus all gnosticthought is dualistic;
it is premised on the perceizted
but illusionaryoppositions of Light and
Darkness,Divine and Demonic,Spiritualand Material,noumenaland
phenomenal.Gnosticismbeginshere,but it does not end here.
In all cases,gnosticdoctrinesare emanationist,
eschatological,
and
soteriological.The redemption of spirit from mattet of light from darkness,and the restorationof a precosmicslatts 4aoare, in fact, lie central
principleof thegnosis.Theworld existsbecause
divinesubstance,
spirit,

Canrsoru;
GnosficElementsitr Solotieu'sCosrnogony

55

removed itself sufficiently from the Godhead to fall into matter The
story of the redemption of this divine substanceis human history The
difference among gnostic systems lies precisely in their speculations
about the nature of the precosmicfall of Spirit (divine element) into
Matter and the preciseagent and manner of redemption,but not in the
fact of the fall itself.
The best known of the gnostic cosmogoniesthat describethe precosmic fall of Spirit into Matter is that of Valentinus, in which the
key protagonistsin the precosmicfall and the subsequentredemption
are the Sophia, the Christos, and Jesus.Valentinus (2d cent., ca. a.o.
140), the most influential of the gnostic theologians,based his system on Ophitic texts (with some Platonic and Pythagoreanmatter).
That Soloviev was well acquainted with the Valentinian speculation
is clear not only from his article "Gnosticism" for lhe Brokgauz-Efron
(Entsiklopedicheskii
"Gnostitsizm,"
slouar'Brokgauza-Efrona;
Encyclopedia
in Solov'ev l0:32$-28),but also from a secondarticle in the samework,
"Valentinusand theValentinians"("Valentini Valentiniane,"in Solov'ev
10:28.1-90).
Valentinus was, according to Soloviev "the most famous
of the gnostic philosophers and one of the most brilliant thinkers of
all time," the creatorof a "rigorous, consistent,and poetically original
system" ("Valentin," l0:285,288).Defining gnosticismas a philosophy,
Solovievtermed it a "theosophical"systemwhosepurposewas to unite
"the divine principle and the world, absoluteand relative being, the infinite and the finite" ("Gnostitsizm," 324).The articlesrevealSoloviev's
detailedknowledgeof gnosticism;they should,however,be approached
cautiously by the reader During the late nineteenth century while
wasbeing published,Soloviev'sarticles
the Brokgauz-Et'ron
Encyclopedia
would havebeenstrictly overseenby theChurch censorship(dukhounaia
lsenzrra;Church censorshipwas lifted only in 1905).Sincegnosticism
was a heresy,Soloviev'sencyclopediaentrieswould have had to reflect
the Church's position; indeed Soloviev'sarticle "Gnosticism" conforms
in the approved manner.
strictly to Irenaeus'Aduersusomneshaereses
The Valentinian speculation representsthe mainstream of Snostic
thoughu it received the greatestattention from the patristic heresiologistsand was the best-knownand most accessibletradition beforethe
later discoveriesof Nag Hammadi (1945).One of the more important
implications of the Valentinian speculation for mystic thought is its
assumption that matter is derived from an original spiritual source.
Since matter is viewed negatively,this implies a divine "failure" on
somelevel;it alsoimplies that this failure,beingdivine in origin, canand
was a devaluedand
willbe redeemed.Materiality,for the Valentinians,
derivative spirituality, lessperfect and more "evil" for being the more

)t,

Srrloviev

distant from the'sourceof all perfection;matter remained,however,

an essentiallyspiritual (if devalued)conditiorr.lmmenselycomple.x,
the Valentiniancosmogonysupportingthis itlea is given in simplified
form below
At thebeginningof Valentinus'gnosticuniversc,
standsthe All-Unity
(Gk.henkaipan;Soloviev's
Vsudinstuo).lthasalsobecncalledthe pure
Light, the Unknowable,the Ineffable,the Unutterable,Bythos(,royss
of Profundity),the Divine Principle,the AbsoluteOne,antl many other
names.This Principle,in order to make Itself known, autonomously
emanates,
producinga seriesof pairs,or syzygies,in a descending
order
of dignity; theseare the Aeons,also calleclEternities,of the ple,roma.
The first emanation,or Aeon,is the feminineSilence(sometimes
called
EnnoialThoughtl,or Grace).The syzygyof the Abyssand the Silence
engendersthe masculineNous (Mind, Intelligence)and the'femrnrne
Aletheia(Truth);they in turn emanatethe Logos(Word)anciZoi (Life),
and the, in turn, produce Anthropos (Man) and Ecclesia(Church).
ThisOgdoad(thesum of the first eightemanations)
engenderstwentytwo further syzygies(the Decadand the Dodecad),the,last being the
feminine Aeon,/Eternity Sophia(Wisdom;henceSoloviev'sreference'
to
Sophiaas the "bright body of Eternity"in the Sophial,rayer).
Thetotalityof thirty Aeonsconstitutethe Fullnessof AbsoluteBeing:
thenonmaterial,
nonspatial,
andnontemporalPerfection
of thepleroma.
The fullnessof the Pleromais consoliclatr-'d
and encompassed
by the
Powerof Limit (,horos;
sometimescalledthe Crossand associate,d
with
the Christos).Beyondthe Pleromais the Shadow(Darkness)and the
Void; it will eventuallybecomeCosmos,the realm of matter,space,
and time.
Of all the Aeons, only Nous has been granted the possibilityof
understanding
theOne,but allof theotherAeonswonderabouttheOne
and wish to know It. Most curiousof all was Sophia,who was farthest
from the IneffableOne and who existedat the very edgeof the Fullness
and Perfection
of the Pleroma.In her desireand passionhr comprehend
the One that cannotbe comprehended,
she gives way to her c.ltsireto
imitatethe One and emanateswithout syzygy (i.e.,without a consort,
as the One did). Sheproducesonly "formlessness"
(the Abortion)and
thereby"falls" (sins)into the CosmicDarkness.{
Concernedaboutthe repercussions
of Sophia's fall into the darkness
beyond the Pleroma,the Power of Limit returnsthe FallenSophiato
the Fullnessof the Pleroma,but pushesthc' "fornrlessness"
sh.. has
producedout of the Pleroma.The One now enranatestwo additional
Aeons,the Christosand the Holy Spirit (theComforter).Tht, Christos
ensuresthat the Pleromawill remainuntroubkd by explainingthe,One

Canr-sorrr:
GrroslicElemtntsitr SolouietisCosmogorl

5T

to lhe Aeons(thisexplanationis the Gnosis).ChristosalsotemPorarily

asa lowerSophia,and
leavesthe Pleromato "enform" the formlessness
then returnsinto his perfectpleromicstate.All of the Aeons together
then producethe unpaired Aeon Jesus,the "Common Fruit" of the
l)leroma(the "fruit of the cross"),who will have an important role
to play in the redemptionof the enformedoffspringof Sophia.Thus
occursthe precosmic"Fall" of the Aeon Sophiathat initiateshuman
history.
of her divine'origin by ChrisThe'lowerSophiais grantedawarcness
tos.Shelongsto returnto the light of the Pleroma,but sheis unableto
of tlreVoid,shesuffers,and
the Limit. Alonc in the Darkne'ss
Denetrate
Ler sufferingsbecomestatesof being,becomingeventuallypsychicand
the tt/ixd nnttrio ol the world in which man lives.
materialsubstance.
Thus in somevariantsthe materialworld was createdfrom the Grief,
by the lower Sophiain
and lgnoranceexperienced
Feat Bewilderment,
the Void, while her "Turning BackToward the Life-Civer" Produced
.187+8).5
the psychicworld, standingbetweenmatterand spirit 0onas
In other variantsLarrghter,the "luminous substance,"is added to the
passionsthatcreatethe"materialworld.6Certainlya lowerSophiawith a
senseof humorwould haveappealedto Solovievwho waswell-known
for lrissatiricand humorouspoemsand playson lofty subjects.
asthiscosmogonymayseemto themodernreadetSoloviev
Eccentric
presenteda nearly identicalcosmogonyin an interestingmanuscriPt,
written in Frenchin early 1876,while he was in Cairo and Sorrento.
Tlre manuscript,which Solovievoriginally describedas "a work of
content" and
mystical,theosophical-philosophical-theurgical-political
finally titled "Sophie,"was not publishedin his lifetime;provocatively,
universelle,"
Soloviev'soriginaltitle for it was "Principesde la re-ligion
implying that in mysticalgnosticismhe perceivedsomefundamental
.;
religiousdoctrinethat underliesall others(SergeiSolov'ev'|,19,129ff
Pis'nu 2:23,27).Although Solovievhimself chosenot to publish this
interestingconglomerationof dialoguebetweenthe Philosopherand
Sophiaand philosophicalessays(with marginalautomaticand mediumistic writings),he subsequentlyrefinedmany of its ideasand Presented them in his major work, Lr Rrrssicrt l'llglisr Uniurselle (1889
in French;1911,trans. to Russianby G. A. Rachinskii;see Rossiiai
VsalorskaiaTstrkot' 71: 143-348)."Sophie" and "La Sophia; principes
de la doctrineuniverselle"werefinally publishedin 1978in the French
original.Theseseeminglyunusualworks were not really unusualfor
Soloviev,who continuedthroughouthis life to combinePhilosoPhical
speculation(derivativeand ori8inal)with satire,parody,Poetry and
literaryprose(seeKornblatt,this volume).

58

soi,vrev

In "Sophie"Solovievdescribedthe creationof the world in a clearlv

gnosticmannet consistently
equatingSophiawith the rebelliousAeon
and then with the World Soul (Sophia,sprimary role in the world of
Darkness):
Byitself,theSoulis feminine,
anditsblissandpowc,r
liein itssubmission
to thc
activemaleforceoftheDivineNous.Liberating
in herself
blinddesire,
affirming
herself
in herautonomous
selfness
theSoulleaves
lsnmosl'1,
herstateof passrvrry
and potentialityand entcrsan activestate,sheherselfbecomes
Spirii,but the
Spiritof Evil-sheis no longerSoul,butsp,ntr./s,
thesprritof darkncss
andevil.
"TheSoulisSatan,
hereis wisdom."In herfall,theSoulgivesbirthtoSaian,
the
blindcosmicspirit,
andto theDemiourgos,
anintellitentforce,but negativeand
external,
thsourceof purelyexternalforms,order,andrelation.And thecosmic
process
begins,Dell!momnitmcontraom,ia.(Sergei
Solov,ev13g;seebelowfor
clarification
of useof theword "Soul,,)
InSoloviev,asin the Valentiniangnosis,the ensuingstrugglebetween
the Demiourgosand Satanthen createstime and space,while the fragmenting Soul becomesthe world's material substratum.The remainder
of So-loviev'smanuscript goeson to describethe Valentinianparadigm
of telluriccreationin considerable
detail.Solovievlaterclearedout many
of themoresensational
aspects
of thisValentinianparadigm,but left the
discussionof the World Souland the Sophia,the particularredemptrve
role of Divine Logos,and other aspectsof his theory intact in both the
Ltctureson Godnnnhootl(Chtcniiao bogochelouechastua)
and ln Rrrssieet
I'EgliseUniaersettc.
Theunpublished"Sophie"is a very roughdraft and thus,whilejejune
.
in many ways, is more than a little revealingofSoloviev,searly direction.
That he consideredhis early attempt an important text is clear from
his original(and most unsuitable,given contemporarycircumstances)
intention to defend it as a doctoral dissertation(SergeiSolov,ev149);it
would never have beenaccepted
Despiteher "sin," the gnosticSophiaremainsa perfectemanationof
,
the All-Unity and a bearerof Divine Light. Becaus;of this particularly
interesting
complication(sheisbothsinnerandsinless),
Valentiniancosmology "found it necessary,in view of the wide span of the conditions
representedby the female aspectof God (Sophiai,to differentiate this
aspectinto an upper and a lower Sophia,,(Jonasl27).Thus Valentinian
Gnosticism postulatesan Agia Sophia,the Holy Wisdom of God that
remains in the glory and perfection of the pleroma, and her antitype,
the Sophia Prouneikos,Wisdom the Whore, the ,,formless,,entity wiro,
in being pushed out of the Light of the pleroma and into the Daik.,ess
of the Void beyond,thrustsa sparkof Divine Light into the Darkness.T

Crrnr-sor.r:
GrroslicElementsin Solooiett's
Cosmogony

59

The fall into Darkness,Matter, and Evil of the lower Sophia, the
SophiaProuneikos,
or Achamoth,was the very eventthat necessitated
the creationof the world and of man for one very important purpose:to
facilitatethe eventualredemption of the fallen Light from the Darkness
(the restorationof the compieteSophia to the Pleroma).Darknessand
matterare definedasevil n;t absol;tely,but relatively(for the physical
world is the world of relativity); their distancefrom the perfection of
the Pleroma means that they are less perfect, hence relatively more
evil. Because
of this stateof events,the world and the universeexist,
but within them alsoexist the meansof returningthe divine spark to
the Godhead.
Once fallen into the realm of Matter and Darkness,the lower Sophia
becamenostalgicfor her divine form and existence.In order to facilitate
her return to the Light, she gave birth to the Demiourgos,who then
createdthe earth and a human raceto inhabit it.8 Sophiasplintered her
divine Light and placed one spark of it into the soul of each human
being, thereby herself becoming the Anima Mundi, the Soul of the
World. In the world, then, the lower Sophia lost the original state of
All-Unity and dwelt in a stateof multiplicity and fragmentation(the
basicfeatureof matter in mysticalsystems).Shelost all but intuitive
memory of her divine nature, although from time to time a reflection
of her divine nature would penetratethe world to remind both the
World Soul and the human souls of their greatmission.The World Soul,
the lower Sophia, or Sophia Prouneikos,becameutterly sensual and
was eventuallyassimilatedto the variousforms of the GreatGoddess
and the Tellus Mater of oriental and ancient religions (Jonas176).This
Sophia was "enclosed in human flesh and migrated for centuries as
from vessel to vessel into different female bodies. And since all the
Powerscontendedfor her possession,strife and warfare raged among
the nationswhereversheappeared"(Jonas107,quoting lrenaeus)
In this interestingmythology we seethe sourceof the Russiansymbolists' belief that Sophia could and would actually be incarnatedin a
particular woman,asBelyi, Blok,and SergeiSolovievbelievedshemight
be incarnatedin Liubov' Dmitrievna Blok or as the admittedly eccentric
Anna Nikolaevna Schmidt believedshe might be incarnatedin herself
(seeShmidt). Such a view also explains why it was not contradictory
for Aleksandr Blok to searchfor her in cabaretsand whorehousesand
among sectariansas well as in drawing rooms and churches.Sophia is
the Eternal Feminine,found in its divine aspectin Agia Sophia,and in
its demonic,dark aspectin the World Soul,the seductivewhore marked
by the spark of divinity, Sophia Prouneikos.Soloviev's terminology
reflectsth gnostic paradigm, for he clearly made this samedistinction

60

Solrrvicv

betwcen tu'o Sophias,naming the'two aspectsSophia (Wisdom of Corj)

and World Soul: "As the world, which this soul attempts t() creatc, is
tragnrc'nted,dividtd,;rrrcl held together onlv by purely exte,rnalme,ans;
as this worlcl is the antithesisand the opposite of divine,univcrsality; so
the'soulof the world itself is the antithesisor the antitypt. of the,esse,ntial
Wisclom of God. This soul of the world is a cre.rturt iti,rrr I .rnd the first
of all creatures,lhe nnlcrin yriua and the true srlbstrnlrllrr
of Our creatcd
worlcl," he wrote as latL'as 18t|9 (Solov'ev, RossrrrrI Vsc/orskninltcrxol
11:295).This is purc' gnosticism.
According to the gnostics,it was the goal of world hiskrry to redeem
Sophia. She'had opene.da gateway between the Pleroma, the World of
Light, Spirit, and Goodness, and the World of Darkness, Matter, and
Evil. She had crosseclthe boundary and left thc periphery of the perfect
Pleroma open to infiltration by the Powers of Darkness. The Iower
Sophia, the World ftrul, and through her, the Spiritual Light imprisoned
in Darknessand Matter, would be redeenredbv the descentinto Matter
of the Christos (a form related to the Ae()n iogos; Soloviev's Drvrne
Logos).Thert' the Christos worrld rrnite r.r.iththe soul ()l th(, m.ln Jeslrs;
in "human garnrents" (material form) he wotrld undergo a passionand
be cnrcified (symbolizing the reje'ctionof Matte r for Spirit). ln the gnostic
paracligm,the Ae'on [-ogos-Christosunited rvith the mortal Jesusat the
latter's baptism; in tlris wav Jesusbecame the Christ. Soloviev pointed
out in a notebook cntry from 1875that "Thc restoratiLrnof Chrrit, as an
individrral man = the union of the.Divine Loqos with the individual soul
of Jesus" (Sc'rgt'iSolov'ev 120).The voluntiry descr,nttrf the Christos
and his seemirrg self-sacrificebring the liberating gnosis to mankind,
making redc.mptionpossible.This gnosis is Wisctrm; men who ,,know,,
(orosliki) searchafter it.
Through his voluntary descent,the Christos effects the,redemptiolr
of the Sophia; he becomes hc'r consort (syzrTgos)
on the marriage bed of
the Cross (Limit, Boundary). Ultimately, the Christos reascendi inb tht,
Fullnessof the l)leroma, leading the Iower Sophia witlr him as Iris Bride.
This event is to occur at the end of History, and signals the completion
of the redemption of Divine Light from Demonic Darkne,ss,the final
rt'demption of Spirit from Matter This act u,ould unite the divine and
thc'human and would lead to a new heaven and new earth inhabite,cl
by a divine humanity (Solovie.v'sbo,goclr
tlLtptchcsttto,
toward which it is
the purpose of mankind to strive). Sinceman was createdoriginally as
a repository for the spiritual fragments of the World Soul, the marriagc,
of tlre lower Sophia with the Christos signifies the reestablishmentof
the original, precosmicstatus quo ancl symbolizes the syzygy of human
spirit and d ivinity (asthe divine spark, placed in man by the fallen World

irt Sololicrr'-s
C,rnr-sol.r;
GrroslicElanrcttls
Coslro,qoly

61

Soul,is reunitedwith its original sourcein the Codhead).Thus is the

Sophiathe "bridge" by which man comes(returns)to God.
TheGnosticLogos-Christos
suffersnot for theoriginalsinof mankind
(for there is none.),"but for the precosmicguilt of the Sophia,whose
original fall required the making of the world arrd of man so that
the Christoswould have a platform to which he could descendand
a stageon which he could act out the clramaof mankind's/Sophia's
redemption.His conringbrings a gnosisby meansof which man (if
sufficiently"awakened")can identify the spark of Divir.reLight that
residesin him, purify himself of earthly,mate'rialdross,and restore
the Light within to the All-Unity by completelyide'ntifyingwith the
spiritualactof theChristos(i.e.,descentinto mattet passion,crucifixion,
syzygywith the Sophia,and returnto theGodhead).The comingof the
Christoswas thus thecentraleventof humanhistory;the restorationof
the
thedivine sparkin man to its originalsourcein theAll-Unity became'
verybasisof theilrlalio Cfiristiandtheonly purposeof humanexistence.
The.successfulcompletionof this processof redemptionis by no
or automatic(althoughsomegnosticspeculations
meanspredetermined
assumeit must and will happen).The descentof the Christosinto
th realmof mattet understoodas an individual,inner spiritualevent
taking place in each human heart, meansthat the Christosis now
The
subjectto the illusionsand temptationsof material existence.ro
Christ Feelingmay not be strongenough to enablethe individual to
overcomethebondageof matterand awakento histruc'spiritualnature;
he may perish,trappedin thewebof theWorld lusion.rrThisis the risk
that every mysticfaces:the courageto descendinto the abyssdoesnot
guaranteethe strengthto escapefrom iU the possibilityof annihilation
in matteris ever-present.
Soloviev,towardtheend
or eternalentrapment
of his life, felt this dangerand at timesdespairedof man'severhaving
the strength to achievea stateof Divine Humanity (hogrtclrclttptchastuo).
ln this way Soloviev'spersonalcosmogonyderivedt()a greatextent
from thistraditionalgnosticparadigm.He continuedto view thecosmic
process,the creationof the world, and the redemptionof the world in
termsof the precosmicfall of Sophia(in her gnosticvariantas the dark
from herheavenly
Achamoth),herseparation
anddemonicnnirlnrrrrrlrli,
bridegroom(Nous),herroleastheSoulof theWorldin thecreationof the
materialworld, her nostalgiafor her heavenlystate,her creationof the
Church on earth,her eventualredemptionby the Bridegroom(Logosand clearly
Christos).In Solovie'v'slater works, the more sensational
"mythological"gnosticelementsdisappeatsomereplacedby moretraditionalChristianvocabulary(althoughnot alwaysby traditionalChristian meanings),some by patristictheologicalvocabularyas Richard

62

Soloviev

Gustafson'schapterin this volume makesclear.But certainessential

aspects()f the gnosticcosmogonyremain.
An examinationof gnosticcosmogonyelucidateswhy Solovievwas
able to call his Sophia by many names: Agia Sophia; the World Soul
(Anima Mundi); ihe Bride of the Lamb,Christos;the New Jerusalem;
the UniversalChurch;the Wisdomof God,an Etemity(asaeonicemanation);and the CreativePrinciple, the primamateriaof creation(for the
world is ueatedfrom the body of Sophiafor one reasononly: to facilitate
the redemptionof divine light trappedin matterthroughher fall),etc.
Soloviev'sSophiais rot (assomecritics, like Vasily Zenkovsky [47-48],
haveclaimed)fragmentary inconsistent,and ambiguous.Sheis entirely
consistent
within theframeworkofa particularand veryancientgnostic
pattern with which Solovievwas clearly familiar.
The profoundly moving and poetic Sophia Prayer,cited at the start
of this essay,more than any dry didactic discourse,revealsthe depth of
Soloviev'sdebt to gnosticideas.The poem beginswith an invoiation
of the "Unutterable," IneffableOne. It refers to ,,the pricelesspearl of
Ophir" (thePearlof GreatPrice,a well-knowngnosticmetaphorfor the
soul [Jonas12F29]). It namesthe Rose,symbol of the perfectionof the
Pleroma;the "Rose of Sharon" is Ecclesia,the Church, while the Lily
of the Valleyrepresents
the Advent of Christ (Cooper98, l4l-42). The
Divine Sophia is "the bright body of Eternity" (Eternity being another
namefor Aeon; seeabove);sheis the "Soul of worlds and the one eueen
of all souls" as the animamundi and the primdmrt?rid.Shereaueststhat
her beloved,.fesusChrist (Christos-Logos),descendinto the ;,prison of
the soul" (the gnosticscalled the human body the "tomb" or the ,,prison
houseof the soul") and "fill our darknesswith thy radiance,'(descend
into materialrealitywith divine light),and "melt away the fettersthat
bind our spirit" (bring the gnosis that liberatesthe spirit from matter),
"incarnatethyselfin us and in the world, restoringthe fullnessof the
Agc's"(the perfectionof the Aeons,the Pleroma),"so that the deep {the
Void, the Cosmoslmay be confinedand that God may be all in all.,,
When the readerlearnsthe vocabulary,the gnostic power of the Sophia
Prayerbecomesclear.
Gnosticism,
althoughhereticalin the view of traditionalChristianity,
has exerciseda tremendously seductive power over many thinkers
within the Orthodox tradition; moreovet the gnostic heresy seems
to be a "natural" heresyfor OrthodoxChristianity.The mysticaltheology of the EasternChurch was flexible enough to accommodate
what would becomethe sophiology of SergeiBulgakovand other postSolovievianthinkers.But from the point of view of the traditional
Orthodox church, Father Ceorges Florovsky was correct to point at

Caxr-rcr:GnoslicElementsitt Soloaiea's
Cosmogony

63

Soloviev as a "pernicious influence" in his Waysof RussianTheology

(Puti russkogo
bogoslouiia
469).
Certain aspectsof gnosticism certainly affected Soloviev and his
literary heirs.Gnosticismis also presentin the various occult doctrines,
notably Theosophyand Anihroposophy,which attractedconvertsfrom
among the Russianintelligentsiaduring the early twentieth century
(most of whom were, not surprisingly, fervent Solovievians;seeCarlson). The vocabulary and symbology of gnosticism continued to be
profoundly appealing to poets of all times and places,including the
Russiansymbolists.While most readersare acquaintedwith the Sophia
paradigm as expressedby the "Beautiful Lady" (PrekrasnaiaDama)
and "The Stranger" (Neznakomka) poems of Aleksandr Blok (18801921),the young,impressionable,
and mysticallyinclinedAndrei Belyl
(BorisBugaev,188G-1934)
took more from Soloviev'stotal system.This
is especiallyclearin his FirstSymphony,whoseheroineis a Sophiafigure
who givesthegnostic"Call ofEternity"; his short story "Adam" actually
narratesthe story of the precosmicfall into matter as an anecdote;and
in the novel SiluerDoae,the Logos-hero,Petr Darialsky, finds himself
literally trappedin matter as in a spiderweb(the veil of Maya),then
hears "The Call," and returns to his true home in eternity by dying to
materialexistence.
Although the younger symbolistsemphasizedSoloviev'sconceptof
Sophia as primary others recognized in Soloviev's system of metaphysics the primacy of the Christ idea and the secondary role of the
SophiaastheHeraldof HisComingorthe BridgebetweenmanandGod.
For Soloviev as for the Christian Gnostics,Christ was not a founder,
not a teacher;Christ was the very contentof Christianity. The life of
the true Christian, if he desiresto participate in that content, must be
lived in imitalioChrrsfi.Soloviev'sSophia,a figure whom many modern
commentatorserroneouslyendow with a primacy it does not possess
in his system,is only a link, a mediating principle between the human
and divine;Sophiais but the means
of uniting man with Christ.
More recently,gnosticismhas attractedthe attentionof analytical
psychologists.Elaine Pagels has pointed out in her book TIre Grostic Gospelsthat "the gnostic movement shared certain affinities with
contemporary methods of exploring the self through psychotherapeutic techniques.Both gnosticism and psychotherapy value, above all,
knowledge-the self-knowledgewhich is insight" (124).Other scholars of gnosticism,notably Hans Jonas,have also noticed the "parallel
vocabularies"of gnosticismand depth psychology,as both seekwords
to describethe indescribableand to expresscomplex psychiccontents.
C. G. Jung wrote extensivelyabout gnosticismand "deciphered"its

64

Solovrev

svmbology, translating it into the vocabulary of de.pth psychology, rn

numerous essitys(see,for example, the anthokrgy T/rr Crarslir./rlrg;also
ud Alchuty and ,4rol). Gnostic thought re,ptatedly
Jung's PsrTclrolrr,g-y
returns to enthrall human cOrrsciousncss,
as it cloeskrday in the manifold
syncreticsystL'msof New Age mvsticism.
This essayhas left many subjects(about which gnosticism had something to say) unexplort'd. Tlre'seinclude Soloviev's urrderstandins of
the nature of divine and human love, syzygy, and abstract erotrcrsm;
morality and etlrics;tlre nature of evil; the role of asceticism.The essav
has focused instead c,n the contributing role played by gnostic cosmogony and the gnostic Sophia concept in the evolution of Solovitv,s
understanding of man's divine and human essences,
of the nature ot srn
and redemption, and of the Sophia's particular role as bridge between
the Codhead and humanity.l2 Soloviev's fundamental notion of divine
humanity (bogoc/telo?trficstrro)
may, ultimately,be understood only rvhen
its gnostic as well as its traditional Christian context is fullv explored.
Soloviev was an essentiallyeclectic{t'ven syncretic) thinker,.tnd he
found in the gnostic Sophia and her poetic genesis a rich v<rabulary
and imagery for spiritual events ancl experie'rrcts.Tlris gnostic vocabulary and imagery he combined creatively with those ()f other religious,
mystical and philosophicalsystems that attractc'dhim and his contemporaries of the i5r-dc-sriclc(including Kabbalah, the thought of Botlrme
and Sweclenborg,mystical Orthodo\ theologv, and tven, t)ccasionally,
occultism, among others); the result was a svstem unique to Vladimir
Soloviev.Thus Soloviev'ssyncrc.ticsophiology may fruitfully be viewcd
in the context of a se.archfor a ltorlcrrrgrrosis,a search for nen, forms of
meaningful spiritr.ralknowledge, which, argtrably,thc Russianrcligious
renalssancewas.

Notes
l. Translation
minc;the l.aussian
originalis givt,nin StrgeiSolov,tvi ilJ-19.
SergeiSolovievincluderlthis matcrialin the sixth ancllicvcntheditionsof his
uncle'sSfi,ttoll)(,rcrirn;
it canbc found in Vlac.linrir
Solor,,tvl2:l{tt-49.
2. Ctxceptsand vocabularyarc p.rrticularlytroubling.Irrzlilclsrrs/rolrcsrs,
lrcnacuswrites,"Certainlyth('y lthL'Valentiniansl
conftsswith tlrtir toIlques
thc onc JesusChrist,but in thcir minds (s.,,tu',rlri)
they dividc him,, (citr,dill
Ittrdolph154-55).Kurt Rudolphpointsout that,indeccl,for thc gnosticsChrist
is.lcsus
Christ,theearthlvmanifestation
of thcChristos;Christis a highcrbcrng,
an Aeon,who dwells in the Fullnessof the Pleroma;and finally,Christ is lht
"PerfectFruit" of the Pleroma,who bcconrcsthc consortof thc falltrrSophia.
This scarcely
conformsto the trnditionalClrristianconcoptof th!,Christ.

Censor: Gnostic Elementsin Solouieu'sCosmogony

65

3. RudolfStcinerevenwrotethe introductionto the firstCermaneditionof

Soloviev emphasizingSoloviev'srole asme'diatorbetweenEasternand Western
spirituality. SecSolov'ev, Ausge!)iihlte
Wtrke.
4. That the one fallen Aeon,or Eternity,is feminineis interesting.Perhapsit
reflectsAristotelianbeliefin a hierarchyofphysical perfectionin which the male
human being was the acme.The female,as a step away from male perfection,
was a step toward imperfectionand deformity.Sucha view seemsto be present
in the gnosticparadigmof the emanatingAeons,with the last,"sinning"Aeon
being the feminineSophia.The namesof the Aeons,or Eternities(Christos,Holy
Spirit,DivineLogos,Nous,Sophia,Achamoth,etc.),differslightlyin thevarious
renderings,but their functions remain essentiallythe same.
5. The Valentinian speculation preservesthe antique Greek view of the
double soul, sometimescalled the psyclr.and the pnelnra.The former is a body
soul, which endows life and consciousness,
then perisheswith the body; the
latter is the imperishablespiritual soul.
6. The conceptsof parody,grotesque,and the satiricarecentralto Soloviev's
own work, as well as to the writints of the second-generation
symbolists.
Cnosticlaughter(the laughterof the gnosticChristosat the momentof cmcifixion,laughteras creativesubstance)
is certainlyan importantelementin
the works not only of Soloviev,but also of Andrei Belyi, SergeiSoloviev,and
Aleksandr Blok.
7. In some gnostic variants, Agia Sophia and Sophia Prouneikosare replacedby Sophiaand her femaleoffspring, Achamoth.Sophiathen remarnsrn
the perfectionof the Pleroma,but Achamothmust live h'ith her mothcr'sstn tn
the Darkness.
8. The gnostics thus viewed the Go<l of thc Old Testame'ntas the evil
Demiour6;os,the Creator who would keep the World Soul and mankind enslavedeternallyin matterThey vicwedthe "fall" of Adam and Evcasa happy
('vent,brought about by the wise serpent.Only by tastingof thL'fruit of the Tree
of Goodand Evil couldAdam and Eveunderstandtheirdivineoriginand begin
the work that was to restorethe Divine Lisht.
9. ln a gnosticcosmogony,
thereis n,-,human "fall," only the fall ()f the
S(rphiafrom the Pleroma into the Cosmic Void. The serpent in the Garden of
Edenis the heroof the gnosticparadigm,not the villain.In the gnosticCenesis,
"Cod" is the materialDemiourgoswho placesthe divine sparkof the World
Soul into Adam and Eve,and then attemptsto hide from them their divine
origin in the Pleromaand to trap them fore'verin matter.The serpent(symbol
of Wisdom),by encouragingthem to tasteof the Tree'ofthe Knowledgeof
Cood and Evil (Spiritand Matter),ensuresthat the humanracewill eventually
becomeawareof the trap of mattet recognizeits spiritual home,acceptthe
gnosis, and hearing The Call, return to the C()dhead (see PagelsAtlam 65fL;
lonas 93-94).
10. The Valentinianspeculationdid not intend for its initiatesto takethe
Sophia story literally. The story functions as an allegorical paradigm for
the redemptionof the human spirit, pining in ignoranceuntil iedeemedby

66

Soloviev

the knowledge (gnosis)of the Christ. This macrocosmicdrama has its counterpart in the microcosmictribulations of the human heart.
ll. This is one of the many pointsat which gnosticism,Theosophy,
Buddhism (all important at the fin-d..sii',cle),
and other occult d(rctrinesintersect.
Theosophyand Buddhism both posit Maya, the cosmicSpider who spins the
web of World Illusion which must be overcome.The imageappearsin a number
ofsymbolist works, notably Andrei Belyi'sSercbanyi gohr;b',
where the enrrapping web literally sends its viscousstrands into the hero's breast.The web of
World Illusion holds its victim trapped in matter and occludesthe highet ',real"
reality that standsbehind illusion.
12. The understandingof theosisconspicuouslyhighlights the difference
between traditional fthodoxy and gnosticism.Stated in extreme terms, the
gnostic is God, albeit a fratmented and imprisoned God; his earthly task is to
discover this fact, to reiectand overcomethe material world that keeps him
prisonerin his physicalbody and in nature(which are evil, having beencreated
by an evil demiourgos),and to return to the unknowableCod head.Most gnostic
doctrineshave no conceptof graceor resurrection,let alone resurrectionin thc
despisedflesh.The gnosticpath is a return, not a trial or a quest.ln Orthodoxy,
on the other hand, man is made in the image of God, but he is ,ot Cod. Man
dwells in nature, which is good, for it was createdby Cod; man acquiresthe
Holy Spirit only throughdivine graceand "dwells in" God, as God dwells in
him. Man partakesof divine nature,joins with the divine energyof God, but is
not himselfdivine.

Clrrsoru: Gnoslic Elementsitr Solouiea'sCovnogony

67

New York: University Books,1960.

Mead,C. R. S. F-ragntenls
of a Faith Fotgotfen.
Rpt.of orig. l92l ed.
soclrinenii,
Merezhkovskii,Dmitrii. "Nemoi prorok." Polnoes(,bfttnie
ed. l. L Sytin.
24 vols.Moscow:l. D. Sytin,1914.l5:122-35.
Pagels,Elaine.Addrn,Ew, and thc Serpeil. New York: Vintagc, 1988.
Pagels,EIaine.TfieGnosficCospels.
New York: Random House,1979.
Rudolph, Kurt. Gnosis:The Natureand History of Cnosticistn.Trans. R. McL.
Wilson, P W. Coxon,and K. H. Kuhn. SanFrancisco:Harper and Row 119851.
Shmidt, Anna Nikolaevna. Iz rukopisciAnny Nikolanny Shntidt.Budushchnosti.
Trctii Z uet.lz dneunikt.Pis'mai pr. S pis'mamik nei V1. Soloa'eua.
Ed. S. BulSakovIMoscowl:Put', 19]6.
(wliutsiia VladimiraSolou'ara.Brussels:
Solov'ev,Sergei.Zhizn' i t?.rorchesknia
Zhiz ' s Bogom,7gn
Solov'ev Vladimir [Solowjew, Wladimir]. AusgewiihlteW.,rke.4 vols. Trans.
Harry K<ihler(Harriet von Vacano).Stuttgart:Der kommend,eTa9,1922.
Solov'ev,Vladimir Pis'ma.Ed. E. L. Radlov 4 vols. St. Petersburg:"Obshchestvennaiapol'2a," 1908.Reprintedwith appendix,Brussels:Zhizn' s Bogom,
1970.
sochinenii.
Ed S.M. Solov'evand E. L. Radlov 2d ed.
Soltrv'ev,Vladimir. Sobranie
1911-14.Repntedwith2additional
10vols.St.Petersburg:
Prosveshchenie,
volume's,Brussels:Zhizn' s Bogom,1966-1970.
Solov'ev,Vladimir "La Sophia"et lesautrcslcrits frincais.,Ed FrangoisRouleau.
Lausanne:
La Cit6,1978.

Works Cited
Allen, Paul M. Vladitir Sokr{Ifi':R,rssiidrMystic. Blauvelt, N.Yr Steinerbooks,
1978.
Belyi, Andrei IBoris Bugaevl.Sinruolium:
trgn stafei.Moscow: Musaget,19'10.
Carlson, Maria. "No RcligrorrHigher Than Trulh": A Historv ol theTheosophica!
Mowmentin Russia1875-'1922.
PrincetonrPrincetonUniversitv Press,1993.
Cioran, Samuel D. Vladimir Solw'a, atrd lhc KnighthooLl
ol thc Ditirc Sophia.
Waterloo,Onta o: Wilfrid taurier Universitv Press,1977.
Cooper,J. C. Arr lllustralcdEncycloperlia
of TradirioualSynrhols.
London: Thames
& Hudson,1978.
Florovsky,Georges.Ptti lusskogobogoslouirir.
Paris:IYMCA Press],1937.
ol thcAlicn Codand tlc Beginnings
Jonas,Hans.TireGrostic Religiot:Thc Mcssage
ol Christinnity.2drev ed. Boston:BeaconPress,1963.
intothePhenomenology
oltlreSef.Trans.R.F C.
Jung,CarlGustav A ion: Researches
Hull. 2d ed. Vol. IX,2 of the CollectedWork. Bollingen Series20. princeton:
PrincetonUniversity Press,1959.
Jung, Carl Custav. Tre Gnosticlung. Ed. Robert A Segal.Princebn: Princeton
University Press,1992.
and Alchemy.Trans.R. F C. Hull. Vol. Xll of the
fung, Carl Custav Ps.yctology
CollecletllNorks.Bollingen Sries20. Princeton:Princeton University Press,
1968.

Russian Religious Thought

Editedby ludithDeutsch
The Univdsiry of Wirmsin
Madism, Wirmsin

Kotnblntt r Richa
Prcss

F. Gustafson

53715

CHAPTER02:
Gnostic Elements in the Cosmogony of Vadinn
by Matia C tson(pp.49 67)

Soloviev