actual China is destined to devour Europe with all her civilisation and all her progress. Europe will succumb to the "yellow peril," from within and from without.
Solov'ev received the impulse to this vision from Finland in 1894, when he was contemplating the Finnish nationalist movement. We learn this from his poem Panmongolism, wherein he sees the yellow peril knocking at the gates of St. Petersburg and of the winter palace. Some years later, he was profoundly impressed by the expedition of the western powers against China. The speech of Emperor William to the soldiers leaving for China aroused his enthusiasm. William seemed to him the successor of the Christian crusaders. Shortly before his death he dedicated to the German emperor his poem The Dragon. The new Siegfried was to save Christendom.
Solov'ev's disciples admire the Three Discussions as a veritable prophecy, but in my opinion this view is exaggerated. In Russia, relationships with Asia arouse keener feelings than among us in the west, and the so-called yellow peril is more strongly felt. As long ago as 1587, I was frequently told of the danger threatening from the east, and was assured that even among the common people a fear of China was widespread. Mihailovskii, giving a description of Solov'ev's vision, refers to numerous other Russian and European prophesies of the yellow peril.
The vision of antichrist seems weak to me, and especially weak do I consider the onslaught on Tolstoi. Antichrist is Tolstoi himself. Tolstoi's Buddhistic doctrine of non-resistance exasperated Solov'ev, for Solov'ev had long been of opinion that "cross and sword are one." Solov'ev had hoped at first that he and Tolstoi would be able to work jointly on behalf of Solov'ev's religious ideal, but personal intercourse between the two men was frequently broken off. As far back as 1884 Solov'ev had confided to common friends his doubts concerning Tolstoi's trustworthiness. At length, in the Three Discussions, Solov'ev definitely formulated his opposition to Tolstoi.
The description of antichrist recalls Dostoevskii's grand inquisitor, and in the figure of antichrist we may likewise discern traces of the Nietzschean superman. In Solov'ev's delineation, Tolstoi appears not merely futile, null, and prone to fallacy, but a deliberate cheat. Solov'ev pursues his opponent with ardent hatred, which finds expression both in the general picture and in certain prominent details. Without further
