I am dabbling, and I mean dabbling, in Bulgakov. While I am transfixed by Corbin's writing and its 'eastern' bent it seems to me in many ways that he is trying to find a substitute for the Incarnation. While it seems that Bulgakov did not intend for Sophia to replace the Incarnation, as Corbin's metaphysics does, it does, if I understand Lossky, give a sense of 'substance' to God's essence making the hypostases of the Son and Spirit 'draw' not from the Father's ousia as Source but making all three of the hypostases drawing on a singular Source which, at first glance, seems to make this 'outside' or 'other' than the ousia of the Father.
I may be reading that all wrong but wanted to put that down in writing to help clarify what it is I am reading.
If Sophia is the bridge between God and Man, what place the Spirit?
And then I find this in the comments section of my favorite theological blog, Eclectic Orthodoxy:
The figure of Sophia, admittedly, arouses more than a little suspicion among even Solovyov’s more indulgent Christian readers, and some would prefer to write her off as a figment of the young Solovyov’s dreamier moods, or as a sentimental souvenir of his youthful dalliance with the Gnostics. To his less indulgent readers, she is something rather more sinister. And indeed it is difficult to know what exactly to make of the two visions of Sophia that Solovyov had in 1875–the first in the British Museum, the second in the Egyptian desert–or the earlier vision he had at the age of nine.
But it is important to note that, in Solovyov’s developed reflections upon this figure (and in those of his successor “Sophiologists,” Pavel Florensky and Sergei Bulgakov), she was most definitely not an occult, or pagan, or Gnostic goddess, nor was she a fugitive from some Chaldean mystery cult, nor was she a speculative perversion of the Christian doctrine of God. She was not a fourth hypostasis in the Godhead, nor a fallen fragment of God, nor a literal world-soul, nor an eternal hypostasis who became incarnate as the Mother of God, nor most certainly the “feminine aspect of deity.”
Solovyov possessed too refined a mind to fall prey to the lure of cultic mythologies or childish anthropomorphisms, despite his interest in Gnosticism (or at least in its special pathos); and all such characterizations of the figure of Sophia are the result of misreadings (though, one must grant, misreadings partly occasioned by the young Solovyov’s penchant for poetic hyperbole).
And then I find this in the comments section of my favorite theological blog, Eclectic Orthodoxy:
The figure of Sophia, admittedly, arouses more than a little suspicion among even Solovyov’s more indulgent Christian readers, and some would prefer to write her off as a figment of the young Solovyov’s dreamier moods, or as a sentimental souvenir of his youthful dalliance with the Gnostics. To his less indulgent readers, she is something rather more sinister. And indeed it is difficult to know what exactly to make of the two visions of Sophia that Solovyov had in 1875–the first in the British Museum, the second in the Egyptian desert–or the earlier vision he had at the age of nine.
But it is important to note that, in Solovyov’s developed reflections upon this figure (and in those of his successor “Sophiologists,” Pavel Florensky and Sergei Bulgakov), she was most definitely not an occult, or pagan, or Gnostic goddess, nor was she a fugitive from some Chaldean mystery cult, nor was she a speculative perversion of the Christian doctrine of God. She was not a fourth hypostasis in the Godhead, nor a fallen fragment of God, nor a literal world-soul, nor an eternal hypostasis who became incarnate as the Mother of God, nor most certainly the “feminine aspect of deity.”
Solovyov possessed too refined a mind to fall prey to the lure of cultic mythologies or childish anthropomorphisms, despite his interest in Gnosticism (or at least in its special pathos); and all such characterizations of the figure of Sophia are the result of misreadings (though, one must grant, misreadings partly occasioned by the young Solovyov’s penchant for poetic hyperbole).
3 comments:
I appreciated your remarks on the Ecletic Orthodoxy blog and, having an interest in Corbin and related matters, found your blog and saw the following.
For Solovyov Sophia is not: "an occult, or pagan, or Gnostic goddess, nor was she a fugitive from some Chaldean mystery cult, nor was she a speculative perversion of the Christian doctrine of God. She was not a fourth hypostasis in the Godhead, nor a fallen fragment of God, nor a literal world-soul, nor an eternal hypostasis who became incarnate as the Mother of God, nor most certainly the “feminine aspect of deity.”
Then who or what is she?
Thanks for the comment. My notifications for comment moderation aren't coming through. I have the same question for you and truthfully have gone no further with the figure of Sophia. I'm sure I will encounter her again in my wanderings.
If you've got ideas I'd love to hear them.
I'm currently immersed in reading McGuckin on Cyril in particular and, more broadly, Meyendorff and Behr on the trajectory of Christ in Eastern thought. I'm certainly, at this point, 'Cyrillian' in my grasp of the Subject.
Good to hear from you. At the moment I'm reading Henry Corbin's famous study of Ibn Arabi "Alone With the Alone". I've previously read his work on Suhrawardi. The Ibn Arabi study deals with Sophia and reminds us of Dante's Beatrice.
When I've finished the book I'll get back to you with my thoughts on Sophia.
Post a Comment