Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T15:29:52.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ‘Sophiological’ Origins of Vladimir Lossky's Apophaticism1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 July 2013

Brandon Gallaher
Brandon Gallaher*
Affiliation:
Regent's Park College, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 2LB, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Vladimir Lossky (1903–58) and Sergii Bulgakov (1871–1944) are normally taken as polar opposites in modern Orthodox theology. Lossky's theology is portrayed as being based on a close exegesis of the Greek Fathers with an emphasis on theosis, the Trinity and the apophatic way of mystical union with God. Bulgakov's ‘sophiology’, in contrast, if it is remembered at all, is said to be a theology which wished to ‘go beyond the Fathers’, was based on German Idealism and the quasi-pantheist and gnostic idea of ‘sophia’ which is a form of the ‘Eternal Feminine’ of Romanticism. In short, Lossky's theological approach is what people normally think of when they speak of Orthodox theology: a form of ‘neo-patristic synthesis’ (Georges Florovsky). Bulgakov's theological approach is said to be typical of the exotic dead end of the inter-war émigré ‘Paris School’ (Alexander Schmemann) or ‘Russian Religious Renaissance’ (Nicolas Zernov). Lossky, we are reminded, was instrumental in the 1935 condemnation, by Metropolitan Sergii Stragorodskii of the Moscow Patriarchate, of Bulgakov's theology as ‘alien’ to the Orthodox Christian faith. Counter to this widely held ‘standard narrative’ of contemporary Orthodox theology, the article argues that the origins of Vladimir Lossky's apophaticism, which he characterised as ‘antinomic theology’, are found within the theological methodology of the sophiology of Sergii Bulgakov: ‘antinomism’. By antinomism is understood that with any theological truth one has two equally necessary affirmations (thesis and antithesis) which are nevertheless logically contradictory. In the face of their conflict, we are forced to hold both thesis and antithesis together through faith. A detailed discussion of Lossky's apophaticism is followed by its comparison to Bulgakov's ‘sophiological antinomism’. Lossky at first appears to be masking the influence of Bulgakov and even goes so far as to read his own form of theological antinomism into the Fathers. Nevertheless, he may well have been consciously appropriating the ‘positive intuitions’ of Bulgakov's thought in order to ‘Orthodoxise’ a thinker he believed was in error but still regarded as the greatest Orthodox theologian of the twentieth century. Despite major differences between the two thinkers (e.g. differing understandings of reason, the use of philosophy and the uncreated/created distinction), it is suggested that Lossky and Bulgakov have more in common than normally is believed to be the case. A critical knowledge of Bulgakov's sophiology is said to be the ‘skeleton key’ for modern Orthodox theology which can help unlock its past, present and future.

Keywords

antinomyapophaticismBulgakovLosskyOrthodoxysophiology
Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 66 , Issue 3 , August 2013 , pp. 278 - 298
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

A version of this study was first given at the AAR at a session of the Eastern Orthodox Studies Group in Nov. 2012. I am indebted to the critical comments and suggestions of the participants. In particular I want to thank Matthew Baker, Seraphim Danckaert, Paul Gavrilyuk, Jane Heath, Julia Konstantinovsky, Paul Ladouceur, Andrew Louth, Aristotle Papanikolaou and Met. Kallistos Ware for their help with aspects of this study.

References

2 ‘Neo-Patristic Synthesis or Post-Patristic Theology: Can Orthodox Theology be Contextual?’ Volos Academy for Theological Studies (Volos, Greece), 3–6 June 2010, <http://orthodoxie.typepad.com/ficher/synthse_volos.pdf> (accessed March 2013) and Demacopoulos, George and Papanikolaou, Aristotle (eds), Orthodox Constructions of the West (New York: Fordham University Press, 2013) (based on a 2010 conference at Fordham)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 See Paul L. Gavrilyuk, ‘The Orthodox Renaissance’, First Things (Dec. 2012), pp. 33–7.

4 Zernov, Nicolas, The Russian Religious Renaissance of the Twentieth Century (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1963)Google Scholar.

5 See Gallaher, Brandon, ‘“Waiting for the Barbarians”: Identity and Polemicism in the Neo-Patristic Synthesis of Georges Florovsky’, Modern Theology 27/4 (Oct. 2011), pp. 659–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and (substantially revised and expanded) ‘A Re-envisioning of Neo-Patristic Synthesis? Orthodox Identity and Polemicism in Fr Georges Florovsky and the Future of Orthodox Theology’ (trans. and ed. Nikolaos Asproulis and trans. Lambros Psomas and Evaggelos Bartzis), Theologia, 84/1 (January–March 2013), forthcoming June 2013 (in Greek).

6 Rowan Williams, ‘The Theology of Vladimir Nikolaievich Lossky’, D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford, 1975. Found at <http://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:15b86a5d-21f4-44a3-95bb-b8543d326658> (last accessed: 20 May 2013).

7 Ibid., p. 286.

8 See Papanikolaou, Aristotle, Being with God: Trinity, Apophaticism, and Divine–Human Communion (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 2006)Google Scholar.

9 Papanikolaou, , ‘Eastern Orthodox Theology’, in Meister, Chad and Beilby, James (eds), The Routledge Companion to Modern Christian Thought (London: Routledge, 2013), pp. 538–48 at p. 544Google Scholar.

10 Lossky, Vladimir, A l'image et à la ressemblance de Dieu [ = IRD], ed. Rumšas, Saulius (Paris: Cerf, 2006), pp. 109, 118Google Scholar; In the Image and Likeness of God [ = ILG], trans. and ed. John H. Erickson and Thomas E. Bird (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1974), pp. 111, 120.

11 Barnes, Michel René, ‘De Régnon Reconsidered’, Augustinian Studies 26/2 (1995), pp. 51–79 at p. 58CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘Augustine in Contemporary Trinitarian Theology’, Theological Studies 56/2 (June 1995), pp. 237–50 at p. 246, n. 39. Earlier see de Halleux, André, ‘Personnalisme ou essentialisme trinitaire chez les Pères cappadociens? Une mauvaise controverse’, Revue théologique de Louvain, 17/2 (1986), pp. 129–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and 17/3 (1986), pp. 265–92 (notes).

12 Barnes, ‘De Régnon’, p. 51.

13 Ibid., p. 73, n. 73, where Bp Vasili Krivocheine is suggested as the one responsible for spreading the paradigm in Britain (with the alternative of Prestige).

14 E.g. de Régnon, Théodore, Études de théologie positive sur la sainte Trinité, 4 vols bound as 3 (Paris: Victor Retaux, 1892–8), vol. 1, p. 433Google Scholar, cited at Lossky, Essai sur la théologie mystique de L’Église d'Orient [ = TM], ed. Saulius Rumšas (Paris: Cerf, 2009), p. 57; The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, trans. by Members of the Fellowship of Sts Alban and Sergius [ = MT] (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1991; reprint of 1957 edn), pp. 57–8.

15 Essai sur la théologie mystique de L’Église d'Orient (Paris: Aubier, 1945) and The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (London: James Clarke, 1957).

16 Barnes, ‘De Régnon’, p. 58.

17 Here see Lossky, , Sept jours sur les routes de France, Juin 1940, ed. Lossky, Nicolas (Paris: Cerf, 1998)Google Scholar; Seven Days on the Road of France, June 1940, ed. Nicholas Lossky and trans. Michael Donley (Yonkers, NY: SVS Press, 2012); and the nuanced Clément, Olivier, Orient-Occident: Deux passeurs, Vladimir Lossky et Paul Evdokimov (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1985), pp. 17–104Google Scholar.

18 See Lossky, TM, p. 55 (MT, p. 56) and IRD, pp. 67–93 (ILG, pp. 71–96).

19 Lossky did however take an interest in the text's visual presentation. He violently protested to Donald Allchin concerning the publisher putting Russian ‘onion dome’ churches on the dust-jacket which he felt made the book appear to be in the same vein as ‘des romans sur Raspoutine ou autres “sujets russes”’ when, in fact, Orthodoxy, ‘malgré ses implications historiques, n'est pas du folk-lore russe’ (‘Letter to A. M. Allchin from Vladimir Lossky, 19 September 1957’, Allchin Papers, Gladstone's Library, Hawarden, Wales).

20 Evgeny Lampert, a Russian disciple of Bulgakov who advocated Anglican-Orthodox intercommunion (so no neo-Palamite), was also possibly a translator and certainly corrected the proofs.

21 This is based on private conversations with Met. Kallistos Ware who prepared the index from the proofs but was not a translator.

22 TM, p. 49 (MT, p. 50) and see TM, p. 56 (MT, p. 57)]; See Papanikolaou, , The Mystical as Political: Democracy and Non-Radical Orthodoxy (Notre Dame, IN: NDUP, 2012), pp. 102–3Google Scholar, and responding to Barnes see Being with God, p. 181, n. 101.

23 IRD, p. 45 (ILG, p. 51).

24 TM, pp. 27ff. (MT, pp. 29ff.).

25 TM, p. 31 (MT, p. 33).

26 TM, pp. 61 and see 40 (MT, pp. 62 and see 42). Compare Florovsky's argument against Origen with his polemical reference to a ‘fourth hypostasis’ (which Bulgakov was accused of upholding): Florovsky, , ‘Appendix: The Idea of Creation in Christian Philosophy’, Eastern Churches Quarterly 8/2 (1949), pp. 53–77 at p. 65Google Scholar, and Meyendorff, John, ‘Creation in the History of Orthodox Theology’, St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly ( = SVTQ) 27/1 (1983), pp. 27–37Google Scholar.

27 Lossky was part of the Moscow Patriarchate, which was the rival jurisdiction to Bulgakov's Parisian based Patriarchal Exarchate of Russian Parishes under Constantinople (under Met. Evlogii Georgievskii (1868–1946)). Lossky's epistolary reports (as the vice-president of the Moscow loyalist Paris-based Brotherhood of St Photios) concerning Bulgakov's theology (set out formally in Spor o Sofii: ‘Dokladnaia Zapiska’ prot. S. Bulgakova i smysl ukaza Moskovskoj Patriarkhii (Paris: Brotherhood of St Photius, 1936)) served as the background to Met. Sergii's ukaz. A third rival jurisdiction, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (or ‘in Exile’), a month later in Oct. 1935 would accuse Bulgakov (explicitly) of ‘heresy’. Bulgakov was officially investigated by a commission of his own jurisdiction which split, producing majority and minority reports (with the more critical minority report signed by Florovsky). He was finally cleared of the more serious charge of heresy by an episcopal conference of his own church in Nov. 1937 but, in its report, he was heavily criticised for serious doctrinal flaws in his sophiology. For the Moscow ukaz see Eneeva, N. T., Spor o sofiologii v russkom zarubezh'e 1920–1930 godov (Moscow: Institut vseobshchei istorii RAN, 2001), pp. 112–25Google Scholar, and O Sofii Premudrosti Bozhiei: Ukaz Moskovskoi Patriarkhii i dokladnye Zapiski prot. Sergiia Bulgakova Mitropolitu Evlogiiu (Paris: YMCA, 1935), pp. 5–19 (with Bulgakov's response: pp. 20–53). For a summary see Dobbie-Bateman, A. F., ‘Concerning Sophia, The Divine Wisdom’, The Christian East 16/1–2 (Jan.–July 1936), pp. 48–59Google Scholar. For discussion see Geffert, Bryn, ‘The Charges of Heresy Against Sergii Bulgakov: The Majority and Minority Reports of Evlogii's Commission and the Final Report of the Bishops’ Conference’, SVTQ 49/1–2 (2005), pp. 47–66Google Scholar; Arjakovsky, Antoine, La génération des penseurs religieux de l’émigration Russe: La Revue ‘La Voie’ (Put’), 1925–1940 (Kiev and Paris: L'Esprit et la Lettre, 2002), pp. 433ff.Google Scholar; Klimoff, Alexei, ‘Georges Florovsky and the Sophiological Controversy’, SVTQ 49/1–2 (2005), pp. 67–100Google Scholar, and Gallaher, ‘A Re-envisioning of Neo-Patristic Synthesis?’.

28 Lossky, Spor o Sofii, p. 14.

29 See TM, pp. 23–4 (MT, p. 26) where this is the method of Aquinas.

30 See Spor o Sofii, pp. 21–3.

31 TM, p. 40 (MT, p. 42).

32 IRD, p. 45 (ILG, p. 51).

33 TM, p. 74 (MT, p. 77).

34 IRD, p. 64 (ILG, p. 68).

35 IRD, pp. 45–6 (ILG, pp. 51–2).

36 IRD, p. 46 (ILG, p. 52).

37 IRD, p. 20 (ILG, p. 26).

38 IRD, p. 46 (ILG, p. 52), and TM, p. 40 (MT, p. 42).

39 IRD, p. 22 (ILG, p. 28).

40 IRD, pp. 82, 85 (ILG, pp. 85, 89).

41 TM, p. 75 (MT, p. 78).

42 IRD, p. 64 (ILG, p. 68).

43 TM, p. 45 (MT, p. 46).

44 IRD, p. 18 and see p. 112 (ILG, pp. 24 and see p. 114).

45 TM, pp. 31, 38 (MT, pp. 33, 40).

46 IRM, pp. 25, 57 (ILG, pp. 31, 62).

47 E.g. TM, pp. 84, 239 (MT, pp. 87, 240) and (with the antinomy safeguarded) see TM, p. 46 (MT, p. 52).

48 TM, p. 40 (MT, p. 42) and compare Bulgakov, Sergii, ‘Dogmat i dogmatica’, in Zhivoe Predanie: Pravoslavie v sovremennosti (Paris: YMCA, 1937), pp. 9–24Google Scholar (Pravoslavnaia mysl’, vol. 3). ‘Dogma and Dogmatic Theology’, trans. Peter Bouteneff, Tradition Alive, ed. Michael Plekon (Lanham, MD: Sheed & Ward, 2003), pp. 67–80.

49 See Florovsky, , ‘Offenbarung, Philosophie, und Theologie’, Zwischen den Zeiten 9/6 (Dec. 1931), pp. 463–80Google Scholar at p. 475 (given at Barth's seminar in Bonn); ‘Revelation, Philosophy and Theology’, The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, vol. 3, Creation and Redemption, gen. ed. Richard Haugh (Belmont, MA: Nordlands Pub. Co., 1976), pp. 21–40 at p. 35. (A new translation of this piece will appear in The Patristic Witness of Georges Florovsky: Essential Writings, ed. Brandon Gallaher and Paul Ladouceur (forthcoming 2014 from T&T Clark)). For commentary see Baker, Matthew, ‘“Theology Reasons”– in History: Neo-Patristic Synthesis and the Renewal of Theological Rationality’, Theologia 81/4 (Oct.–Dec. 2010), pp. 81–118Google Scholar.

50 See Gallaher, ‘Waiting for the Barbarians’, pp. 670ff.

51 IRD, p. 46 (ILG, p. 52).

52 TM, p. 56 (MT, p. 57).

53 IRD, p. 46 (ILG, p. 52).

54 TM, p. 29 (MT, p. 31).

55 See Gallaher, , ‘Graced Creatureliness: Ontological Tension in the Uncreated/Created Distinction in the Sophiologies of Solov'ev, Bulgakov and Milbank’, Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 47/1–2 (2006), pp. 163–90 at pp. 172ffGoogle Scholar. and pp. 181–2, and Gallaher, , ‘Antinomism, Trinity and the Challenge of Solov’ëvan Pantheism in the Theology of Sergij Bulgakov’, Studies in East European Thought 64/3–4 (2012), pp. 205–25 at pp. 215ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 TM, p. 85 (MT, p. 88).

57 TM, p. 62 (MT, p. 64) and IRD, pp. 76, 82–3 (ILG, pp. 80, 86). Here one is reminded (besides the usual patristic sources) of Schelling's idea (taken from Spinoza) of the free God's Unvordenklichkeit des Seins (unprethinkability of Being), for which see Lawrence, Joseph P., ‘Spinoza through Schelling: Appropriation through Critique’, Idealistic Studies 33/2–3 (2003), pp. 175–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 TM, p. 24 (MT, p. 26).

59 TM, p. 237 (MT, p. 238), and see IRD, pp. 95ff. (ILG, pp. 97ff.).

60 TM, p. 37 (MT, p. 39).

61 E.g. IRD, p. 64 (ILG, p. 68).

62 Gregory Palamas, Capita physica, theologica, moralia, et pratica, 150, 121, PG 150.1205A–B, cited at IRD, p. 45 (ILG, p. 51).

63 Vision de Dieu (Neuchatel: Éditions Delachaux & Niestlé, 1962), p. 130; The Vision of God, trans. Asheleigh Moorhouse (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1973), p. 156, citing Palamas, Theophanes, PG 150.932D; Chrestou, Panayiotis K., Gregoriou tou Palama syngrammata, 5 vols (Thessaloniki: Ekdotikos Oikos Kyromanos, 1994), vol. 2, ll. 11–12Google Scholar, p. 238. And see TM, p. 67 (MT, p. 69).

64 Sakharov, Sofronii, Perepiska s Protoiereem Georgiem Florovskim (Moscow: Sviato-Ioanno-Predtechenskii Monast'ir’/Sviato-Troitskaia Sergieva Lavra, 2008), pp. 76–82 at p. 78Google Scholar (thanks to Matthew Baker for this reference).

65 Bulgakov, Svet Nevechernii: Sozertsaniia i Umozreniia [ = SN] (1917), in Bulgakov, Sergii, Pervoobraz i Obraz: Sochineniia v Dvukh Tomakh, vol. 1 (Moscow and St Petersburg: Iskusstvo/Inapress, 1999), p. 124Google Scholar; Unfading Light: Contemplations and Speculations [ = UL], ed. and trans. Thomas Allan Smith (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012), p. 133.

66 See Gallaher, ‘Antinomism’, pp. 205–25, and part I of Freedom and Necessity in Modern Trinitarian Theology (forthcoming 2014 from Oxford University Press). I am drawing on the latter work in what follows.

67 Critique of Pure Reason, trans. Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood (Cambridge: CUP, 1998), A339/B397, p. 409, A582/B610, p. 559, A619/B647, p. 577, A644–5/B672–3, p. 591, and A702–3/B730–1, p. 622.

68 Ibid., A405–567/B432–595, pp. 459–550.

69 See Spor o Sofii, pp. 13–14, and TM, p. 64 (MT, p. 65).

70 Florensky, Pavel, Stolp i utverzhdenie istiny: Opyt pravoslavnoi teoditsei v dvenadtsati pis'makh (Moscow: Put’, 1914; repr. Lepta, 2002), pp. 147ff., 153Google Scholar; The Pillar and Ground of the Truth, trans. Boris Jakim (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), pp. 109ff., 114.

71 Florensky, Stolp, pp. 156–7 (Pillar, p. 116).

72 Florensky, Stolp, p. 158 (Pillar, p. 117).

73 Florensky, Stolp, pp. 164–5 (Pillar, pp. 121–3).

74 Bulgakov, SN, p. 99 (UL, pp. 103–4).

75 Sophia, The Wisdom of God: An Outline of Sophiology, trans. Patrick Thompson, O. Fielding Clarke, and Xenia Braikevitch (Hudson, NY: Lindisfarne Press, 1993 [1937]), p. 77, n. 18.

76 SN, p. 100 (UL, p. 104).

77 SN, p. 141 and see p. 104 (UL, p. 153 and see p. 110).

78 See ‘Dogmat i dogmatica’, pp. 9–24.

79 See Jonathan Seiling, ‘From Antinomy to Sophiology: Modern Russian Religious Consciousness and Sergei Bulgakov's Critical Appropriation of German Idealism’, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, 2008. On Solov'ev's sophiology see Smith, Oliver, Vladimir Soloviev and the Spiritualization of Matter (Brighton, MA: Academic Studies Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Gallaher, , ‘The Christological Focus of Vladimir Solov'ev's Sophiology’, Modern Theology 25/4 (Oct. 2009), pp. 617–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

80 Bulgakov, SN, p. 102 (UL, p. 107).

81 Ikona i Ikonopochitanie: Dogmaticheskii ocherk (1931), in Sergii Bulgakov, vol. 2, pp. 241–310 at p. 260; ‘The Icon and its Veneration (A Dogmatic Essay)’, in Icons and the Name of God, ed. and trans. Boris Jakim (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012), pp. 1–114 at p. 29.

82 See Uteshitel’ (Paris: YMCA, 1936), pp. 406ff.; The Comforter, abridged trans. and ed. Boris Jakim (Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004), pp. 359ff. Also see Sophia, The Wisdom of God, pp. 38ff.

83 Ikona, p. 264 (Icons, p. 35).

84 See TM, pp. 23–4 (MT, p. 26).

85 Bulgakov considered himself a ‘neo-hesychast’ and a ‘palamite’ and said sophiology was simply a development of Palamism. He was engaging directly with Palamas (as well as many other fathers especially Maximus) from at least 1910 onwards but generally he simply adapts patristic thought as needed for his theology and does not, unlike Florovsky and Lossky, develop his theology by exegeting the fathers. For Palamas see van Rossum, Joost, ‘Palamisme et Sophiologie’, Contacts, Revue française d'orthodoxie, 222 (2008), pp. 133–45Google Scholar, and Roman Zaviyskyy, ‘Shaping Modern Russian Orthodox Trinitarian Theology: A Critical Study of Sergii Bulgakov with Reference to Vladimir Lossky and Georgii Florovsky’, D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford, 2011, esp. chs 2–4, and for Maximus see Seiling, From Antinomy to Sophiology, ch. 5.

86 Lossky, , Agnets Bozhii [ = AB] (Paris: YMCA Press, 1933), p. 333Google Scholar; The Lamb of God [ = LG], trans. and abridged by Boris Jakim (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), p. 302; and see SN, pp. 192ff. (UL, pp. 214ff.) (the Palamite language in this text is pervasive).

87 Ikona, p. 264 (Icons, p. 35).

88 See Gallaher, ‘Graced Creatureliness’, pp. 172ff.

89 Nevesta Agntsa (Paris: YMCA Press, 1945), p. 70; The Bride of the Lamb, trans. and abridged by Boris Jakim (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), p. 60; and compare AB, p. 148 (LG, p. 126).

90 Nevesta Agntsa, p. 51 (Bride of the Lamb, p. 43); and see Nevesta Agntsa, p. 128 (Bride of the Lamb, p. 117), AB, pp. 146–7 (LG, pp. 124–5), and Sophia, The Wisdom of God, p. 148.

91 Here see Gallaher, ‘Antinomism’, pp. 218ff.

92 Ikona, p. 264 (Icons, pp. 35–6).

93 Olivier Clément, ‘Notice biographique’, in Lossky, Sept jours, pp. 85–8 at p. 86; Clément, ‘Biographical Note’, Lossky, Seven Days, pp. 101–7 at p. 103 (in neither French nor English is Clément indicated as the author), which is an unacknowledged reprint of Clément, ‘Notice biographique’, in Orient-Occident: Deux passeurs, pp. 94–9 at p. 96.

94 Clément, Olivier, ‘Vladimir Lossky, un Théologien de la Personne et du Saint-Esprit’, Messager de l'Exarchat du Patriarche Russe en Europe Occidentale Revue, 30–1 (April–Sept. 1959), pp. 137–206 at p. 205Google Scholar, and (slightly expanded) Orient-Occident: Deux passeurs, pp. 92ff.

95 Nicholas Lossky, ‘New Preface Vladimir Lossky's The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church’, in Seven Days, pp. 109–22 at pp. 117–18.

96 Seven Days, p. 117, but Lossky is related to have likewise lauded Florovsky. See ‘Transcripts of Lectures of Lossky, 13/12/56’, p. 10, as cited in Rowan Williams, ‘Theology of Vladimir Nikolaievich Lossky’, p. 281 (though this comment is not found in the published version of these lectures).

97 Papanikolaou, ‘Eastern Orthodox Theology’, p. 541 (an observation he credits to Matthew Baker).