Thomas Hoehne

The dissertation follows the birth and development of the Russian philosophy of history throughout the 19th century, starting with the reception of F. W. J. Schelling’s philosophy. The first chapter traces the early dissemination of Schelling’s philosophy in Russia, focusing on the decisive role played by the Moscow Society of wisdom-lovers in the 20s and on two of its main members, the writer V. F. Odoevskij and the poet D. V. Venevitinov, to whom the first conceptual outline of what was to become the Slavophile philosophy of history can be attributed. It is precisely to the main ideologue of Slavophilia, I. V. Kireevskij, that the second chapter is dedicated, in which is affirmed that, on the basis of the distinction operated by Schelling between negative and positive philosophy and interpreted by Kireevskij as a confession of inadequacy of the entire western cultural tradition, the main thinker of Slavophilia establishes a new philosophy of history which structures, in dialectical relation with the European culture, the Russian philosophical self-awareness itself. The third chapter, dedicated to P. J. Čaadaev, proposes an interpretation of the historical conception expressed by the philosopher in the Apology of a Madman based on the theological concept of kenosis (Phil 2:6-8), through which he reads the opening to Europe inaugurated by Peter the Great, emphasising the confessional and extroverted structure of his philosophy of history. In the fourth chapter, in addition to the analysis of the political writings of the poet F. I. Tjutčev, the thesis is put forward that the final couplet of one of his poems is the setting in verse of one of the most famous passages of Schelling’s Philosophical Inquiries into the Essence of Human Freedom, which would demonstrate the poet’s direct knowledge of the work. It is also highlighted how the fundamental essay dedicated by the philosopher V. S. Solovʼëv on Tjutčev’s poetry is influenced by an interpretative lens that can be traced back to the same themes as the aforementioned Philosophical Investigations. It is precisely with Solovʼëv that the work closes: the fifth and final chapter is dedicated to his complex metaphysical construction, his kenotic theology of history and proposal for the reconciliation of the Churches and his last literary work of apocalyptic and confessional nature. In Solovʼëv’s work Russia’s claim to universality – which is an essential component of all the views analyzed in this work – will find its justification in the kenotic act of self-emptying, so that the dialectic between these two poles, which constitutes the Russian philosophy of history discussed here, reaches its synthesis into the conviction according to which Russia can only achieve the claimed universality through the kenotic path of self-emptying, as the “mad” Čaadaev had predicted and according to the kenotic philosophy of the late Schelling.