Orange Is the Color of the Day Pictorial History of the American Airborne Forces in the Inva... Book

I can't quite describe the sensations I felt when reading this. The text is particularly inscrutable and esoteric, and while you're reading it you can't help but to feel like you are witnessing something momentous.

It is important to understand a few things about Solovyov before reading the book. Among these: that he was deeply moved throughout his life by a series of mystical experiences; he was a friend of Dostoevsky's (and, allegedly, inspiration for Alyosha and Ivan Karamazov in the Brothers Karamazov); he deeply disliked Tolstoy, who forms the basis for the Prince in the story.

Solovyov poses a number of questions and answers very few of them. Is the Prince in fact the Anti-Christ? What is the proper way to resist evil? How does the Christian pacifism espoused by the Prince relate to Solovyov's friendship to Dostoevsky (whose Grand Inquisitor exemplifies what Solovyov excoriates)? What is the role of repentance (in the second conversation, Solovyov tells us to sin without repenting)? What are the eschatological implications of Christ's failure to reform Judas?

I could try to summarize the text, but I have found no better summary of it than Ashtar Command's review on Amazon, which I will paste here:


"War, Progress and the End of History" is a small book in dialogue format, written by Russian mystic, philosopher and sage Vladimir Solovyov. It's most known for a section called "A Short Story of the Anti-Christ". The book was originally published in 1900.

This edition has a foreword by the well-known writer and dissident Czeslaw Milosz and an afterword by Stephan Hoeller, a Gnostic "bishop" well-known in his own circles. Neither really explains the meaning or context of Solovyov's book. The reader is therefore left pretty much on his own, for good or for worse.

"War, Progress and the End of History" is written in the form of three conversations, held at the French Riviera. The main protagonists are the Prince, the Politician, the General and Mr. Z. There is also a Lady, but she says nothing of importance. The Prince is obviously modelled on Leo Tolstoy, whose Christian pacifism Solovyov opposed. Mr. Z is Solovyov's alter ego. The exact roles of the Politician and the General are more unclear. The Politician is "liberal" by late 19th century standards (actually, he is a kind of "liberal" imperialist and purveyor of balance-of-power Realpolitik), while the General is an ultra-conservative Christian who fancies himself a crusader. During the third conversation, Mr. Z reads "A Short Story of the Anti-Christ", supposedly a document written by a learned Orthodox monk named Pansophius. Since Solovyov is mostly known for his veneration of Sophia, Pansophius is clearly another mouthpiece for the author. Perhaps it's also a subtle form of self-irony - unless I'm mistaken, "Pansophius" means "The All-Wise".

The standard interpretation of "War, Progress and the End of History" is that Solovyov had given up on reforming society, instead awaiting the arrival of the Anti-Christ and his eventual defeat by God. However, this interpretation doesn't seem to capture all the nuances of the three conversations, since Solovyov points out in an introduction that he agrees with both the General and the Politician, as far as it goes. This doesn't make us much wiser, since these characters frequently contradict each other. There is also a contradiction between the Politician's faith in "progress", Mr. Z's statement that progress is a symptom showing that the end of the world is near, and Pansophius' short story, which rather indicates that the 20th century will be marked by wars and revolutions, not peaceful progress. Indeed, the "progress" in the short story is inaugurated by the Anti-Christ!

One thing that *is* clear is Solovyov's belief that metaphysical evil exists and is a real force to be reckoned with and opposed. His alter ego's main opponent during the conversations is the Prince, who calls for non-resistance to evil, while interpreting the Bible in a purely symbolic manner (no resurrection, no second advent, etc). Solovyov considered non-resistance to evil to be absurd, pointing out that Jesus never managed to regenerate the heart of Judas and the Sanhedrin. Judging by context, Christian pacifists pointed to the Good Thief crucified with Jesus as proof that everyone could be regenerated. In response, Solovyov points out that (of course) there were *two* thieves crucified alongside Jesus. The other one - the truly wicked one - was unrepentant to the end. *How* evil should be resisted is a tactical matter, and this makes it possible for Solovyov to agree both with the warrior-prone General, the wily Politician or the meek Jesus (and, presumably, the less meek Jesus in the last chapters of Revelation). Unfortunately, this is a commonplace and thus ads little depth to the conversations. Of course evil can be resisted in different ways, but so what? Surely Jesus said more than this!

Solovyov makes the argument that moral and societal good isn't enough. Death is the ultimate evil, and as long as death isn't conquered, life is ultimately meaningless despite moral and societal good. Mr. Z accuses the Prince of being inconsistent in his rejection of the resurrection - if good really is the primary force in the universe (which the Prince claims), then the resurrection must be true as well, since this is the only way in which evil can be finally overcome and goodness reign supreme. Unfortunately, Solovyov argues for his position ex cathedra, apparently considering it obvious. It is far from obvious, however: if the soul is immortal, why bother with a resurrection? Why should death be seen as "evil" in the metaphysical sense, if we all live morally upright lives in a perfect society? These questions are never touched upon in the dialogues, but Pansophius' musings on the Anti-Christ shows that Solovyov probably didn't believe in progress in the first place.

While "A Short Story of the Anti-Christ" has become famous, its description of the Anti-Christ is the usual one: a counterfeit Christ who proclaims himself emperor, seduces the churches, launches a syncretistic world religion, brings peace and prosperity only to reveal himself as a demon-worshipper, etc. I think the real importance of the story is Solovyov's irenic ecumenism. Although Russian Orthodox, Solovyov was all in favour of talks with the Catholic Church, and Catholics occasionally claim that he converted to Catholicism, something his Orthodox admirers hotly deny. In the short story, three small groups of Christians withstand the seductions of the Anti-Christ. They are led by Pope Peter, Elder John and Ernest Pauli, obvious symbols for Catholicism (which claims apostolic succession from St. Peter), Orthodoxy (which places special emphasis on the Gospel of John) and Protestantism (which claims the mantle of Paul). Eventually, the three groups form a united Church in the wilderness, led by...Pope Peter. The Russian nationalists, Slavophiles and Black-Hundreds can't have been amused...