George Florovsky’s critique of the Russian eligious-philosophical renaissance: an attempt at evaluation

Teresa Obolevitch

doi:10.15633/lie.3767

Abstract

In the present paper I present a project of Neopatristic synthesis by prominent Russian thinker Fr. George Florovsky, as well as the main reasons for which he criticised the existing style and direction of development of Russian thought in the form of religious-philosophical renaissance, or “the Silver Age.” By engaging in polemics with Florovsky’s approach, I advance four remarks. First, Florovsky himself was under the influence of the Russian religious-philosophical renaissance. Second, it was not Florovsky who initiated the Patristic studies in Russia, since they had been conducted from the 18th century. Third, the Neopatristic synthesis and the “Silver Age” philosophy could have been perceived as complementary projects rather than contrary in their tenor. Fourth, Florovsky left his own postulate uncompleted. In the concluding part of the paper I compare Florovsky’s and Zenkovsky’s approaches, arguing in favour of the latter thinker.

Highlights

It is on this account that the author of Ways of Russian Theology proposed turning towards the legacy of the Church Fathers, which had been forgotten and neglected in Russia, and creating a Neopatristic synthesis
Be noted that when Florovsky writes about the Patristic line in Russia having been severed, he does not mean a lack of translations or research papers on the Church Fathers so much as a different style of theology and philosophy in the Silver Age, to wit excessive rationalism, disregarding the mystical aspect, in other words – pursuing theology a parte homini, and not a parte Dei, which is contrary to the definition
“Florovsky rarely, if at all, speaks of the operation of a synthesis with sufficient methodological precision.”38 What is more, regardless of their polemical character, his works devoted to Russian thought ( Ways of Russian Theology), played a crucial role in the development and reception of the Silver Age philosophy, while Florovsky’s opus vitae, i.e. Neopatristics, languished in the designing stage

Summary

Evaluation of the religious-philosophical situation

Florovsky presents his attitude to the Russian religious-philosophical renaissance in essays treating of the work of its “father” – Vladimir Solovyov (1853–1900) and other Russian thinkers of the Silver Age, such as Pavel Florensky (1882–1937) and Sergius Bulgakov (1871–1944). Florovsky writes as follows: The Orthodox theologian up to now has been too dependent on western support for his personal efforts His primary sources are received from western hands, and he reads the fathers and the acts of the ecumenical councils in western, often not very accurate editions. The unilateral, solely speculative formation of the Russian philosophico-theological thought of the Silver Age, which omits the ascetic and mystic aspect, results - according to Florovsky’s diagnosis in it being deprived of the prospect of its further fruitful development It is on this account that the author of Ways of Russian Theology proposed turning towards the legacy of the Church Fathers, which had been forgotten and neglected in Russia, and creating a Neopatristic synthesis

Critical remarks

The status of philosophy

Conclusion