Page:The Spirit of Russia by T G Masaryk, volume 2.pdf/288

262 ethical trend (dwelling upon the sentiment of love or upon the need for a change of will).

As regards Solov'ev, it may be asked whether his mysticism was predominantly Russian, Orthodox (Byzantine), Catholic, or Protestant. This much is certain, that Solov'ev had immersed himself in the thought of various eastern and western mystics, aucient and modern, thus training himself mystically. His experience had included a knowledge of the monastic and folk mysticism widely diffused in Russia. Competent persons allude to meditation, contemplation, ecstatic union with God, absorption in the mysteries of ceremonial (mystagogy), as especially characteristic of the Orthodox church, and tell us that this applies above all to Russian mystics. Noteworthy in this connection are the hesychasts (quietists) of Athos. The west inclines to stress the ethical aspect, so that western mysticism operates above all upon the will, which is sometimes weakened, but sometimes strengthened (Loyola). Among Roman Catholics, mysticism was less common than in the oriental churches; and it was still less common in the Lutheran and Protestant churches (though there were Lutheran quietists). The eighteenth-century enlightenment was hostile to mysticism. With romanticism was associated a partial approval of mysticism, but on the whole we may say that the modern age is unfavourable to mysticism.

Solov'ev's mysticism, therefore, appears in the following light.

In the first place, we must point out that Solov'ev desired to escape from subjectivism and scepticism by way of mystical or religious cognition. It is questionable whether mystical contemplation, as he describes it, does really do away with subjectivism to the extent that Solov'ev contends. Does a presumably direct contemplation, uniting subject with object, suffice? Are not belief, imagination, and the creative act of imagination, likewise subjective? Beyond question, against Solov'ev's mystical cognition we may adduce the same arguments that he himself adduced against Descartes' cogito ergo sum; we may talk of errors, illusions, pathological states, as invalidating his theory no less than that of Descartes.

Moreover, in what respect is Solov'ev's mystical cognition religious? All that Solov'ev describes is the cognition of objects; every external object is similarly apprehended by the subject in a "mystical or religious" manner. This universal