by the still insoluble question of the union of the churches, whilst disregarding those more immediate interests of the present to which Bělinskii was devoted. "Mea culpa," exclaims Solov'ev, "mea maxima culpa!"
During this same year, Solov'ev penned an extremely cordial commemorative essay on Černyševskii which could not be published until after the writer's death. Extolling Černyševskii's character, he showed that the government had committed a crime against "this wise and just man." Solov'ev had hoped to write more fully about Černyševskii.
Coming last of all to the Antichrist, we find that in this work the change in Solov'ev's views on the philosophy of history is most conspicuous. Not merely has he abandoned the idea of Russia's mission, but he would seem to have held less favourable views of Catholicism now than of yore. His description of the pope, his reference to the Catholic magian, and finally the flight of the pope (who flees to St. Petersburg to escape the emperor, secures there a friendly reception, but is cautioned against carrying on propaganda in Russia)—all these details would seem to confirm the impression that Solov'ev had grown out of tune with Catholicism and the papacy.
Let me reiterate, in conclusion, that his fierce onslaught on Tolstoi was in truth directed against the rebel within himself. Antichrist displays the inner cleavage of Solov'ev's personal experience. On the one hand he is forced to concede that Kant was right, and under the influence of Kantian thought he wrote his Ethics, a second edition of this work, very carefully revised, having been published in the same year as Antichrist. Here, following Kant, the whole outlook on the universe is based upon morality. On the other hand, Solov'ev could not completely free himself from the opinions of his church and of the slavophils. Being unable to dispense with the mystical element in religion, he could not break with the church and church tradition as Tolstoi had done. "Not only do I believe in everything supernatural, but, to speak accurately, I believe in nothing else." These words, written in 1887 in the Letter to Strahov, give terse expression to Solov'ev's religious sentiments as contrasted with those of Tolstoi. They explain why Solov'ev inclined to the ideas of Dostoevskii, and why he could never wholly agree with Tolstoi. Solov'ev's faith demanded miracle. Belief in the resurrection of Christ was for Solov'ev the most important doctrine of all, for Solov'ev dreaded death, which he interpreted
