Вестник Православного Свято-Тихоновского гуманитарного университета: Серия I. Богословие, философия (Dec 2021)
It is impossible not to “trust” Frank... Semyon Frank and George Florovsky
Abstract
The article examines the life and creative connections of two prominent Russian thinkers of the 20th century, S. L. Frank and Revd. Georgy Florovsky. It fi rst looks the biographical aspects of their relationship and then analyses Revd. Georgy’s perception of Frank’s philosophy. There are several texts by Florovsky about Frank, dating from before 1950, i.e. during the philosopher’s lifetime. After Revd. Georgy’s participation in the Collection of the Memory, Frank entered even more into the orbit of Florovsky’s creative interests. The two thinkers communicated and valued each other, although one cannot speak of their close friendship. Frank’s name appears only rarely in Florovsky’s writings, although he wrote two reviews of Frank’s books, a preface to the American edition of Reality and Man. Florovsky also discussed his teaching in his other works, and corresponded extensively with his widow after Frank’s death. Despite appealing to diff erent traditions, both Frank and Florovsky emphasised the incomprehensibility of the divine essence, so this article also examines apophatic motifs in their work. Both philosophers noted the antinomian character of theology. While noting the importance of apophatic theology, they did not deny the importance of cataphatic theology. Florovsky appealed to the patristic doctrine of the distinction between the incomprehensible divine essence and the divine energies present in the created world. Frank, in turn, distinguished between the “unknowable in itself” and the “unknowable for us.” Both thinkers philosophised in the context of theology. Nevertheless, Florovsky, while admiring Frank’s “metaphysics of faith”, reproached him for his attachment to the Platonic tradition which in the Russian philosophy found its expression in the conception of unity that goes back to Soloviev. The conclusion is that Florovsky’s and Frank’s thought, while not strictly related or congenial, had some points of intersection.
Keywords
