semblance to Jesus than to the god of Spinoza. Of Jesus, the great adversary of the scribes and Pharisees, there remains little for Solov'ev. In the end, therefore, theology gains the victory over Solov'ev's philosophy; Kant is not transcended, but sacrificed; a utopian philosophy and theocracy are built up, incompetent to lead either theoretically or practically to any desired goal. The absolute all and all-in-one, and its unfolding in the world process, shrinks to the ideal of a papistical church universal; the religion of universalised humanity can offer us in the end nothing more than the vague content of an ecclesiastico-political imperialism ;_ religion, in place of a belief in Jesus, gives us a belief in signs and wonders; a morbid and multiform mysticism is elevated to the position of intimate essence of religion.
Yet the very weaknesses of his philosophy of religion and of his religious outlook, secured for Solov'ev numerous and enthusiastic disciples. These disciples and Solov'ev himself were signs of the times, indications of an incomplete transition from the past. As so often happens, the master's weaknesses were more conspicuous in the pupils. Solov'ev found it difficult to tolerate quite a number of his followers, and engaged in controversy with some of them.
Solov'ev's significance for the development of Russian philosophy was very great.
I have already pointed out that Solov'ev had had a thorough philosophical training. I mean that Solov'ev had studied ancient and modern philosophy thoroughly, and as a specialist. His real significance, however, lay in this, that he was the first Russian to study the Kantian criticism in all its bearings; he was the first Russian who thought the whole question over anew for himself; and he was the first who attempted to transcend the Kantian criticism by a criticism of his own. Solov'ev learned from many sources, and adopted philosophical details from many different writers, but from Kant he derived his epistemological criticism. A number of philosophers of academic status had discussed Kant before Solov'ev; Solov'ev himself heard much of Kant from Jurkevič; but Jurkevič's study of Kant was not fundamental. Solov'ev, as a grateful pupil, was embarrassed by this without realising it—or at any rate, when speaking of Jurkevič, he failed to allude to the matter.
Solov'ev fully realised that the Kantian criticism marked
