From a Russian mystic with love

This is a translation of Vladimir Solovyov's "The Meaning of Love", with an introduction by Owen Barfield. Solovyov was a prominent 19th century Russian philosopher, perhaps most known for his "Short Story of the Anti-Christ". Working within the Christian tradition, he was nevertheless inspired by "occult" sources, which may explain why Barfield (a lifelong student of Rudolf Steiner) found him interesting.

Despite being short, "The Meaning of Love" is difficult to summarize in a review, containing many interesting ideas and speculations. The main idea is that love between man and woman (including sexual love) is a reflection of the Divine, and in some sense points forward to union with God and the restoration of true humanity, which Solovyov pictures as androgynic. For this reason, Solovyov rejects homosexual unions, since they aren't complementary and hence can't restore the androgyne. Solovyov further argues that only rapturous, ecstatic love can overcome egoism, both in the lover and the beloved, since only such love makes it possible for us to feel that our individuality (and that of another) has absolute and infinite worth. Since our empirical, earthly selves obviously cannot have such worth, all by themselves, love points towards a perfect human archetype, which can only exist in God.

Solovyov rejects a purely biological, evolutionary explanation of love (in the above sense of the term). Most living organisms procreate without love, some don't even have sexual reproduction. Humans usually also procreate without love. Even stable families are possible without love. Yet, love in the highest degree undoubtedly exists among humans. Where does it come from? Its sources must be spiritual. Thus, the Russian sage rejects the biologistic notion (common even among religious believers) that the only function of sex is the begetting of children.

But why is sex needed at all? Why not have a purely spiritual, "Platonic" love? Solovyov believes that sexual love is higher since it's directed towards both the body and soul of the beloved. Humans aren't pure spirits, and the goal is the resurrection of the whole human, including the physical aspect. Thus, Solovyov connects his positive view of the sexual aspect of love with a distinctly Christian anthropology. He further argues that even spiritual love, when it's directed to a personal conception of the divine, seems distinctly "sexual". His examples are the Song of Songs and Revelation, but he could also have mentioned Bernhard of Clairvaux or Bernini's famous sculpture of Theresa of Avila. An interesting take on a tradition usually regarded as semi-celibate or fully celibate!

Sometimes, "The Meaning of Love" is difficult to comprehend. Thus, Solovyov connects love between two partners with love towards the entire community, nation or humanity. However, such love surely lacks the erotic aspect of love between spouses. There is also a tension between emphasizing the individuality of humans, and the perfect unity of the Divine, the ultimate goal even of humans. Solovyov somehow wants to synthesize individual freedom and a more "organic" collectivity (a bit like Steiner), but it's not clear from this particular text how this can be achieved concretely. At times, the author sounds patriarchal, depicting women as "passive", while at other times, the Divine Feminine (Sophia) is the *active* mover behind or within God. It's almost as if Solovyov wants to reconcile potentially radical notions (androgyny, a female aspect of the Divine, sex without procreation) with the everyday realities of conservative, 19th century Russia.

Neither Solovyov himself nor Barfield says anything about Solovyov's sources, but as already indicated, some kind of "Tantric", "heretical" source is a prime suspect. (See Arthur Versluis' study "The Secret History of Western Sexual Mysticism" for some real or purported examples of such "heresies" in a Western context.) Solovyov's view of the cosmos as slowly evolving towards perfection is reminiscent of Theosophy (which existed during Solovyov's lifetime - his brother Vsevolod was briefly a member of Blavatsky's society) or Anthroposophy (which was created by Steiner only after Solovyov's death). Here, too, there might be earlier sources in the background, perhaps Goethe and the Romantics? (For a more comprehensive introduction to Solovyov's ideas, see his "Lectures on Divine Humanity".) Solovyov may also have been inspired, although perhaps in a more roundabout or negative way, by his contemporary Nikolai Fyodorov and his curious ideas about overcoming death through technology and hence also through "evolution" (see George Young's study "The Russian Cosmists").

"The Meaning of Love", though written in a deceptively easy style, is really a hard read, unless you have been exposed to this kind of ideas before. Ultimately, of course, it's difficult to "prove" (or disprove) Vladimir Solovyov's speculations by empirical research or formal logic. They can only be lived. Barfield hopes that at least *somebody* reading the work will experience a "Beatrician moment" and act accordingly.

Somehow, I find that hard to believe. But then, cosmic evolution is a slow process... ;-)