What do you think?
Rate this book
Light Which Does Not Fade: Contemplations and Speculations
Ce grand théologien orthodoxe fut aussi grand philosophe et ce livre nous révèle sa prise de position originale dans la pensée des XIXe et XXe siècles.
430 pages, Hardcover
Published August 1, 1971
27 people are currently reading
166 people want to read
About the author
Sergius Bulgakov
54 books61 followersSergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov (/bʊlˈɡɑːkəf/;[1] Russian: Серге́й Никола́евич Булга́ков; 28 July [O.S. 16 July] 1871 – 13 July 1944) was a Russian Orthodox Christian theologian, philosopher, and economist.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
January 1, 2022
Let me point out, first of all, that this is a book of contemplations and speculations. Sergius Bulgakov is not claiming his theological system is (or should be) dogma. Instead, he is saying something like what Origen says in “On First Principles”, which is that while the Church has its dogma and its traditions, it does not always have a connected body of doctrine. This leaves room for someone like Origen or Bulgakov to begin with the fundamental and foundational principles and develop from them certain logical conclusions. In other words, contemplations and speculations.
Bulgakov succeeds in his task. This does not mean he is correct in his conclusions, but rather that his speculations have opened a path for doctrinal development. For this, Bulgakov is to be commended. It is remarkable the depths he plumbs and the details he derives, and how relevant he remains for our time. After all, it has been over 100 years since this book was first published, yet it almost feels contemporary. In part, this is an aftereffect of the Russian revolution. Bulgakov found himself on the right side of history, only several decades too early.
The book begins with divine nothingness, explores the cosmos, and finally humanity. The third section on humanity discusses human history, and focuses on specific elements such as time, economy, art, power, and society. I find these chapters to be of enormous importance. For example, the chapter on Art and Theurgy should be required reading for the artist, and for anyone who desires to understand the meaning and purpose of art. For someone interested in government and politics, the chapter on Power and Theocracy is important. And so on, and so on.
There are issues with this book. For one thing, it is so very Russian, and there are certain parts of the book where Bulgakov assumes the reader’s familiarity with 19th-century developments in Russian history, philosophy, and art. There are other parts of the book that assume a certain familiarity with German idealism, which was a philosophical movement begun by Immanuel Kant. I find the reader can safely skip those sections, as they tend to illustrate rather than advance Bulgakov’s thought. The one area where this becomes difficult is with Bulgakov’s sophiology, which is central to his scheme, and yet is wildly incomprehensible without a great deal of background information. (I have personally purchased two books that claim to explicate Bulgakov’s theology and sophiology; after reading them, I hope to get much more out of Bulgakov.
Modern readers may be taken aback by Bulgakov’s frequent use of stereotypical male and female characteristics. I was forced to read these as metaphors and archetypes, not statements of the differences between men and women. Bulgakov’s description of human nature makes it clear that there is only one human nature, and men and women participate in it alike. You may not agree and think him a misogynist. However, if you only read people who have a fully modern take on sexual identity, you suffer from scholarly amnesia.
Another issue has to do with the writing style. This text uses a lot of I am unclear antecedents; in some cases, the antecedent is two or more sentences away. I am not familiar with Russian, so I don’t know if this is common, but the translator should have written the text to make Bulgakov’s meaning clear. There are other sentences in which the syntax is so convoluted as to be nearly incomprehensible. Once again, I suspect this to be a translator error, as much of Bulgakov is so very clear.
As an example, take this sentence: “Not far from this is the path to a completely false self-consciousness, that it is not Beauty which creates art by summoning its servants to its altar, but that art itself creates beauty, which is why the artist is a god who builds a rainbow world of dream and fairy tale in his own image and likeness.” I had to read and reread this sentence in its context to make sense of it. I think the sentence is poorly punctuated and reads better like this. “Not far from this is the path to a completely false self-consciousness: that it is not Beauty which creates art by summoning its servants to its altar, but that art itself creates beauty — which is why the artist is a god who builds a rainbow world of dream and fairy tale in his own image and likeness.” It also helps to understand that beauty is one of the transcendentals or properties of being, known to the medieval as “truth, beauty, and goodness”. Thus, Bulgakov is saying that the artist does not create beauty, but beauty is rather a transcendental good that the artist strives for but is never fully able to achieve. The artist does not create beauty, and the artist who is misguided enough to think themselves a creator is instead creating a self-portrait out of rainbows, dreams, and fairy tales.
A further issue is the author's use of the term "the eternal Jew". This term referenced a legend of a man who, while Jesus was being taken to the crucifixion, taunted Jesus and was cursed to wander the earth until Christ's return. The term was appropriated by Nazi propaganda a couple of decades after this book was written and is now considered antisemitic. The translator should have chosen the alternate term "the wandering Jew", a term that means the same thing but without the Nazi connection.
The book ends with Bulgakov’s full-throated defense and explication of Christian universalism. To understand the conclusion, you have to have read what comes before; having done so, what Bulgakov writes makes perfect sense. Agree or disagree, it is still a tour de force.
Bulgakov succeeds in his task. This does not mean he is correct in his conclusions, but rather that his speculations have opened a path for doctrinal development. For this, Bulgakov is to be commended. It is remarkable the depths he plumbs and the details he derives, and how relevant he remains for our time. After all, it has been over 100 years since this book was first published, yet it almost feels contemporary. In part, this is an aftereffect of the Russian revolution. Bulgakov found himself on the right side of history, only several decades too early.
The book begins with divine nothingness, explores the cosmos, and finally humanity. The third section on humanity discusses human history, and focuses on specific elements such as time, economy, art, power, and society. I find these chapters to be of enormous importance. For example, the chapter on Art and Theurgy should be required reading for the artist, and for anyone who desires to understand the meaning and purpose of art. For someone interested in government and politics, the chapter on Power and Theocracy is important. And so on, and so on.
There are issues with this book. For one thing, it is so very Russian, and there are certain parts of the book where Bulgakov assumes the reader’s familiarity with 19th-century developments in Russian history, philosophy, and art. There are other parts of the book that assume a certain familiarity with German idealism, which was a philosophical movement begun by Immanuel Kant. I find the reader can safely skip those sections, as they tend to illustrate rather than advance Bulgakov’s thought. The one area where this becomes difficult is with Bulgakov’s sophiology, which is central to his scheme, and yet is wildly incomprehensible without a great deal of background information. (I have personally purchased two books that claim to explicate Bulgakov’s theology and sophiology; after reading them, I hope to get much more out of Bulgakov.
Modern readers may be taken aback by Bulgakov’s frequent use of stereotypical male and female characteristics. I was forced to read these as metaphors and archetypes, not statements of the differences between men and women. Bulgakov’s description of human nature makes it clear that there is only one human nature, and men and women participate in it alike. You may not agree and think him a misogynist. However, if you only read people who have a fully modern take on sexual identity, you suffer from scholarly amnesia.
Another issue has to do with the writing style. This text uses a lot of I am unclear antecedents; in some cases, the antecedent is two or more sentences away. I am not familiar with Russian, so I don’t know if this is common, but the translator should have written the text to make Bulgakov’s meaning clear. There are other sentences in which the syntax is so convoluted as to be nearly incomprehensible. Once again, I suspect this to be a translator error, as much of Bulgakov is so very clear.
As an example, take this sentence: “Not far from this is the path to a completely false self-consciousness, that it is not Beauty which creates art by summoning its servants to its altar, but that art itself creates beauty, which is why the artist is a god who builds a rainbow world of dream and fairy tale in his own image and likeness.” I had to read and reread this sentence in its context to make sense of it. I think the sentence is poorly punctuated and reads better like this. “Not far from this is the path to a completely false self-consciousness: that it is not Beauty which creates art by summoning its servants to its altar, but that art itself creates beauty — which is why the artist is a god who builds a rainbow world of dream and fairy tale in his own image and likeness.” It also helps to understand that beauty is one of the transcendentals or properties of being, known to the medieval as “truth, beauty, and goodness”. Thus, Bulgakov is saying that the artist does not create beauty, but beauty is rather a transcendental good that the artist strives for but is never fully able to achieve. The artist does not create beauty, and the artist who is misguided enough to think themselves a creator is instead creating a self-portrait out of rainbows, dreams, and fairy tales.
A further issue is the author's use of the term "the eternal Jew". This term referenced a legend of a man who, while Jesus was being taken to the crucifixion, taunted Jesus and was cursed to wander the earth until Christ's return. The term was appropriated by Nazi propaganda a couple of decades after this book was written and is now considered antisemitic. The translator should have chosen the alternate term "the wandering Jew", a term that means the same thing but without the Nazi connection.
The book ends with Bulgakov’s full-throated defense and explication of Christian universalism. To understand the conclusion, you have to have read what comes before; having done so, what Bulgakov writes makes perfect sense. Agree or disagree, it is still a tour de force.
March 18, 2022
Words fail.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews