ado, Tolstoi's thoughts of suicide are transformed into an attempt at suicide on the part of the dissatisfied superman. His life is saved in miraculous fashion by the devil, who then instils into the superman a man-controlling energy.
This hatred blinded Solov'ev and weakened his artistic faculty. His apocalypse does not for a moment bear comparison with its Johannine exemplar. Solov'ev's writing is didactic, rhetorical, and overladen. In points of detail the quality of his analysis is here and there extremely questionable, as when he tells us that the election of the emperor is undertaken at the desire of the freemasons, who are made to appear the real leaders of European politics. Moreover, the positive element, the description of the Christian leaders, is lacking in strength. The Fichtean and Schellingian formula of the Johannine church of the future is realised in an unduly professorial manner.
Many other objections could doubtless be raised to the historico-philosophical criticism embodied in the work. Above all does it seem questionable to me whether in the figure of antichrist, Solov'ev has rightly characterised the dangers of the present day. I am confirmed in this doubt when I read the preface to the reissue in book form. Solov'ev here refers to the importance of Islam and panislamism, a matter discussed by him in a further but unpublished prophetical work. He speaks of the possibility that the end of the world may be deferred for another two or three centuries, whereas elsewhere he gives us to understand that the end may be expected in the immediate future Surely a prophet should be a little less vague about dates!
If we are to regard this polemic against Tolstoi as a literary monument of the revival of prophecy, it must be admitted that the venture is somewhat ineffective. The rules which Solov'ev himself formulated for the recognition of the true prophet are not fulfilled—though we may doubt whether in these rules Solov'ev was entirely successful in defining the concept of the modern prophet. In Solov'ev's writings, the figures of the Old Testament prophets blend with the figure of Socrates (this does not accord very well with his Platonism), and above all he recognises Dostoevskii as a divinely sent seer. But in addition to Dostoevskii, the leading Russian imaginative thinkers are hailed as prophets.
Characteristic of Solov'ev is the opposition to Tolstoi.
,
