1 Cf.Hrvatska svjedočanstva o Rusiji, Badalić, Josip, ed. (Zagreb, 1945);Google Scholar Strémooukhoff, D., Vladimir Soloviev et son oeuvre messianique (Paris, 1935), p. 192 Google Scholar (“Une vieille tradition croate de sympathies slaves et d'efforts pour reunir les Eglises”); Prelog, Milan,“Rusko-Jugoslovenski odnosi u proSlosti,” in Ruski Arhiv, VII (1930), 9–27 Google Scholar.

2 The Jesuit Antun Kanižlić (1699–1777) wrote a theological treatise, Kamen pravi smutnje velike (The True Source of the Great Trouble) (Osijek, 1780), in which he insisted that the Slavic nations were not guilty of the Schism, but that only the Greeks were; for the Slavs the Schism is the greatest curse (Stari pisci hrvatski, Vol. 26, 1940, p. 36). A century before Kanižlić, as we shall see later, Križanić wrote in the same spirit and almost in the same words. The Franciscan Andrija Kačić;-Miošić (1704-60), in his celebrated Razgovor ugodni naroda slovinskoga (Pleasant Discourse of the Slavic People) (Venice, 1756), spoke about the Bulgarian and Serbian nations with the same pride and tenderness with which he spoke about his own Croatian; it is no surprise that his book (often called“The Book of Poems”) became equally popular among Orthodox and Catholics (cf. Kadić, Ante,“The Importance of Kačić-Miošić,” in The Slavic and East European Journal, XVI [1958], 109-14).Google Scholar

3 Though one should disregard his bombastic Introduction, the best selection of Rački's writings is to be found in Viktor Novak's, Franjo Rački u govorima i raspravama (Rački as Reflected in His Speeches and Articles) (Zagreb, 1925).

4 On January 25, 1959, the Pope announced his intention to convene an Ecumenical Council at Rome, the theme of which was to be Unity. The Encyclical Letter of John XXIII on Christian Unity is entitled“Ad Petri Cathedram,” and is dated June 29, 1959 (cf. National Catholic Almanac, 1960, pp. 163-78).

5 He then published his magister’s thesis on The Crisis of Western Philosophy. Its main contention was that the synthesis between faith and reason, without which no further progress was possible, would be achieved, not by Europe but by the Christian East (cf. N., Zernov, Three Russian Prophets [London, 1944], p. 120).Google Scholar

6 About Bishop Strossmayer many books and studies have been written. The general view of Strossmayer’s active life can be found in Tade Smičiklas, Nacrt života i rada biskupa J. J. Strossmayera (Zagreb, 1906). Strossmayer’s opposition to the proclamation of the papal infallibility, as reflected in his speeches during the Vatican Council (1869–70), can be evidenced from Andrija Spiletak’s Biskup J. J. Strossmayer u vatikanskom saboru (Zagreb, 1929) (based on the bishop’s manuscript) or from Janko Oberški, Strossmayerovi govori na vatikanskom koncilu (Zagreb, 1929) (copied from the Vatican stenographic notes). Strossmayer was impulsive and reacted immediately to the news and to the people ( Šišić, cf. F., in J. J. Strossmayer: Dokumenti i korespondencija [Zagreb, 1933], I, vii Google Scholar). That is the reason why, though there was an absolute unity in his life and teaching, certain of his statements could be interpreted differently. Strossmayer has remained until today a very controversial figure; while some of his countrymen are ready to swear by his name, others consider him one of the most damaging Croatian politicians (the latter are regularly the followers of the pan-Croatic ideas of Ante Starčeviဗ). His admirers’ (Msgr. Spiletak, Ivan Esih, Professor Pasarić) point of view can be found in Obzor, Spomen-knjiga, 1860-1935, pp. 234–39. Though written from his own perspective and in his particular manner, the article on Strossmayer by Ivo Bogdan in Hrvatska Revija (1955), pp. 227–64, is interesting. The relation between Soloviev and Strossmayer has already been treated before either in books dealing with Soloviev or in particular studies, such as Svetozar Ritig’s “De relationibus Solovievii ad Croatas,” Acta II Conventus Velehradensis (Praha, 1910), Russian tr., Moscow, 1911; Pogodin, A. L., “VI. Soloviev i episkop Strossmayer,” in Russkaja Mysl’, Vols. 9–12 (1922–24);Google Scholar Grivec, Fr., Vladimir Sergejevic Solovjevič (Zagreb, 1918)Google Scholar, and in other of Grivec’s articles. Their analysis was based on the letters exchanged between Soloviev and Strossmayer (published by E. L. Radlov, Pisma V. S. Solovieva, 4 vols., 1908–1911, 1923). The novelty of my contribution consists also in the fact that since that time the letters exchanged between Strossmayer and Rački have been published; in these letters one finds an enormous amount of information about Soloviev. They were edited, with excellent annotations, by one of the most prominent Croatian historians, Šišić, Ferdo, Korespondencija Rački Strossmayer, Vol. I–IV (Zagreb, 1928-31.)Google Scholar This first-class source of information, in which two friends reveal their most secret thoughts, has seldom been mentioned by foreign scholars. Streémooukhoff is an exception (about him and his book cf. Hrvatska Revija [1938], pp. 428–31); also Florovskij, F. G., in Puti russkago bogoslovija (Paris, 1937), p. 556 Google Scholar, cites in his bibliography a few passages in which Strossmayer criticized Rome because of its indifference toward Soloviev's irenic movement.

7 Korespondencija Rački-Strossmayer (henceforth cited as Korespondencija), ed. F. Šišić, II (1929), 112.

8 Korespondencija, II, 141.

9 Korespondencija, II, 49-64. Ferdo Šišić considers this draft the most clairvoyant document ever written by Strossmayer. In it could be sensed not only his strong pan-Slavic feelings, but also his hopes and fears concerning the future; as in a prophetic vision, he foresaw the inevitable collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, exactly as it happened fifty years later (op. cit., p. v).

10 Korespondencija, II, 380–82 (in German).

11 “Mi smo, koji o slozi radimo, najmanje diavoli, koji jedino o tomu radimo da pravoslavlje utamanimo,” writes Strossmayer to Rački (August 7, 1881; Korespondencija, II, 400); toward the end of the same month the bishop indignantly stated: “Što se tih preludih i prezlobnih okružnica pravoslavnih vladika tiče, meni bi uopće draže bilo da se u polemiku sa glupaci ne upušćam… ” (Korespondencija, II, 405). At the beginning of February, 1882, he wrote an“Odgovor pravoslavnim vladikama” (Korespondencija, IV, 461–513). Rački was also bitterly disappointed and wrote to the bishop (May 14, 1882): “U tih dakle okolnostih ona šaka ljudi, koja shvaća uzvišenost ideje o crkvenom jedinstvu, jest bez vojske i nemoćna; stoga mora se potegnuti u svoj uži djelokrug, a ideju, za koju naš narod nije dorastao,… ostaviti Providnosti” (Korespondencija III [Zagreb, 1930], 20).

12 Korespondencija, III, 60.

13 Močulskii, K., Vladimir Soloviev, žizn i učenie (YMCA Press) (Paris, 1936), pp. 134-43;Google Scholar D. Strémooukhoff, VI. Soloviev, pp. 135-37.

14 Tomić was dismissed in 1882 from his teaching position because of his Russophilism; thereupon he went to Russia where he spent a longer period; cf. Josip Badalić, Hrvatska svjedočanstva o Rusiji, pp. 13–14.

15 Korespondencija, III, 92.

16 “Vrlo važna stvar da nas u Rimu razumiju,” writes Strossmayer (Korespondencija, III, 101).

17 Strémooukhoff, Soloviev, p. 136; on Pobedonostsev see Robert F. Byrnes,“Pobedonostsev's Conception of the Good Society: An Analysis of his Thought after 1880,” The Review of Politics, XIII (1951), 169-90.

18 Strémooukhoff, Soloviev, p. 136.

19 Cf. Močulskii, Soloviev, pp. 149–50, who bases his conclusions on J. Fudel's study,“K. Leontiev i VI. Soloviev,” which was published in Russkaja Mysl', 1917.

20 Korespondencija, III, 131–32.

21 “Na svaki način trebalo bi da mu se odzovemo… To je od prevelike važnosti” (Korespondencija, III, 133).

22 Thus writes Mirsky, D. S. about Strossmayer, A History of Russian Literature, Whitfield, F., ed. (New York, 1958), p. 364.Google Scholar Already before, A. L. Pogodin (in his article,“VI. Soloviev i episkop Strossmayer,” published in Russkaja Mysl', 1922ȓ24, Vols. 9–12) argued that Soloviev became a victim of Strossmayer's machinations (cf. Strémooukhoff, p. 192, n. 16).

23 It is interesting to note what d'Herbigny, Msgr., in his controversial book Vladimir Soloviev, a Russian Newman (London, 1918, p. 173)Google Scholar, says about Strossmayer:“The bishop worked with an ardour that was occasionally excessive, but always loyal.

24 Cf. Močulskii, Soloviev, especially pp. 149-56; Strémooukhoff, Soloviev, pp. 121–37.

25 Michael B. Petrovich,“Juraj Križanić: A Precursor of Pan-Slavism,” American Slavic and East European Review (1947), Nos. 18–19, pp. 75–92. A detailed and penetrating work about Križanić was written by his compatriot and coreligionist Vatroslav Jagić, život i rad Jurja Križanića (Zagreb, 1917).

26 Cf. Kliuchevskii, V. O., A History of Russia (tr. by Hogarth, C.), III (New York, 1913), 255-65.Google Scholar

27 Cited by Petrovich, p. 89.

28 VI. Soloviev, Sobranie sochinenii, 2nd ed., IV, 191-92.

29 Cited by Petrovich, p. 88. I

30 Now entirely included in Badaltć's, J. Hrvatska svjedoćanstva o Rusiji (Zagreb, 1945), pp. 61-284.Google Scholar

31 Raćki writes to Strossmayer from Moscow (September 12, 1884) these extremely characteristic words:“Ruski državnici počinili su dosta pogrješaka, počinit će ih i u buduće, ali taj će ih veliki narod ispraviti. U toj ogromnosti sitne mane i zablude iščzavaju. ” (Korespondencija III, 142) .

32 “To vam je čbvjek po osvjedočenju katolik” (Korespondencija, III, 143).

33 Ibid.

34 “Rusko-slavenski narod velika zadaća čeka da Crkvu zapadnu od onih okova, koji ju još sada sa državama spajaju, oslobodi i da ju universalnom svom biću i zadaći bliie prikuć… Uljesti u jedinstvo da sebi i narodu slovinskomu uopće u tomu svetom jedinstvu prvo mjesto i prvi ugled i upliv osiguraju.” (Korespondencija, III, 145).

35 Rački:“Slavenom katoličMm su Ciril i Metod dragi što su znali jedinstvo Crkve s potrebama slavenskoga naroda u sklad doves t i… Prvo Sto bi Sveta Stolica imala i učiniti bilo bi to da katočkim Slavenom, koji to zahtijevaju, dozvoli slavensku liturgiju. Strossmayer: “Rim nas očevidno ni malo ne shvaća… Ja sam želio da se u Rimu na J Svetoj rimskoj Stolici i oko nje stvori čvrsta tradicija, koja za tim ide da se Slavjanstvo u crkvi združi i ujedini. Za badava. Ne dokučuju nas u Rimu… Rački: “Ako sada, kada su se vlasti sročile proti Slavenstva, nema Sveta Stolica odvažnosti stupid na njegovu korist u crkvenih pitanjih, onda, kada bude Slavenstvo pobjedonosno ili protivnici ne budu mu mogli uskratiti što želi, bit će odvažnost Svete Stolice suvišna” (Korespondencija, III, 154, 156, 172, 175, 176–77).

36 Their campaign was so outrageous that even the Pope did not dare to withstand it; he wrote (June, 1885) to Strossmayer that he regretted the way the Slavs were treated (“žali što s nami Slavjani biva”) but for the moment he could not help (“ali nam zasad još pomoći ne može, nego mene ‘animira’ da i nadalje stvar svete Crkve i naroda svoga J muževno branim”). (Korespondencija, III, 181).

37 “Posve je nenaravno i znak skrajne blesavosti da novine ruske tolikoga glasa prežvakavaju bljuvotke, koje židi i Srbi, koji ne vide dalje od nosa, sa najsmradnijih dubrišta kupe i Hrvatom katolikom u lice bacaju.” (Korespondencija, III, 183).

38 Korespondencija, III, 205.

39 K. Močulskij, Soloviev, p. 164.

40 Pisma Solovieva, I, 180. E. Trubeckoi, Mirozercanie VI. Solovieva, I, 437; K. Močulskij, Soloviev, p. 165; Strémooukhoff, Soloviev, p. 193; d'Herbigny, Soloviev, p. 173.

41 Korespondencija, III, 202.

42 Močulskij, Soloviev, p. 165.

43 Korespondencija, IV, 448 (Appendix).

44 Korespondencija, III, 212.

45 Korespondencija, III, 214.

46 “Ja se š njim često sastajem i u svih važnih pitanjih jednoga smo mijenja” (Korespondencija, III, 215).

47 “Solovjev je divan, svet i providencijalan m u l Ja sam se u njega zaljubio” (Korespondencija, III, 217).

48 “Močulskij, Soloviev, 168.

49 Korespondencija, III, 222.

50 This long letter, kept in the archives of the Djakovo bishopric, No. 878, was published by Strémooukhoff, Soloviev, in the Appendix, pp. 315-21.

51 “Ego hocce ad providentiam divinam refero, quae vult ut gravissimum illud damnum, quod christianae fidei et ecclesiae Graecorum et Latinorum culpa intulit, Slavorum pietate, virtute, religiositate et initiatione reparetur” (p. 317). This statement should be compared with Križanić's words:“If the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope quarrel, if they pull out each other's beards to gain supremacy, we are not obliged to enter into their quarrel for supremacy or to take up the cause of those who create dissension. On the contrary, we are obliged to make peace between the Greeks and Romans” (cf. Petrovich, , in the American Slavic and East European Review [1947], p. 88).Google Scholar

52 “Pošto vi jedini izmedju svih naših naroda imate svoga vlastitoga domaćeg vladara te vrSite sve državne i crkvene poslove svojim vlastitim jezikom,” said Križanić, in 1647, to a Russian diplomat (cf. Viktor Novak, Antologija jugoslovenske misli, p. 17).

53 Katolički list, 14 Oct. 1886, No. 41, 321–23.

54 It is interesting to note that Soloviev discussed his draft with his Croatian friends who made some suggestions to him; sometimes these Croats disagreed among themselves. We know that Kosta Vojnović tried to persuade Soloviev that he should include a few words about the possible Russo-Polish reconciliation; Rački was opposed because, according to him, the Poles were simply impossible. He said that if ever the Russians did join the Church, the Poles would perhaps become schismatics (“S Poljaci, dok su takvi, nema pomirbe. Ako bi se Rusija sjedinila, oni bi se tada možebit razjedinili”). Korespondencija, III, 222.

55 Strossmayer called Soloviev, in the accompanying letter to the Nonce:“Anima Candida, pia ac vere sancta” (Močulskij, p. 169).

56 Pisma Solovieva, I, 183.

57 In this eight-page statement the dominant idea is the following: “As there never have been any Ecumenical Councils in the East, since the separation of the Churches…, our schism exists for us only de facto, and by no means de jure, Adhuc sub judice lis est. What reveals even more plainly the uncertain position of our Church with reference to Catholicism, is that some individuals declare publicly that they believe the ‘new’ Catholic dogmas to be the legitimate development of Orthodox doctrine, and so they can remain in perfect communion with the Eastern Church. I can bear witness to this fact from my own personal experience.” (Pisma Solovieva, I, 183-90).

58 Katolički list,“Na obranu,” I I Nov. 1886, No. 45, 352-54.

59 Katolički list,“Kratak odgovor,” 16 Dec. 1886, No. 50, 401-02. In the following issue of Katolički list (23 Dec, No. 51, 408-09) Professor Franki wrote about the orthodoxy of the orthodox church (“ pravoslavlju pravoslavne crkve”).

60 About this controversy cf. Korespondencija, III, 243, n. 4, and Strémooukhoff, Soloviev, pp. 195-98, 327-28. The polemics between Franki and Marković continued for many years.

61 “Les idées de Strossmayer s'amalgament à celles de Soloviev,” writes Strémooukhoff, who discusses this problem on pages 191-98.

62 Pisma Solovieva, III, 189.

63 Ibid.

64 Korespondencija, III, 228, 226-27.

65 Korespondencija, III, 225.

66 D'Herbigny, Soloviev, p. 189.

67 Močulskij (p. 170) says that Soloviev was desperate because of the number of mistakes in printing to be found in his Teokratia.

68 “Ali imam nadu da Jos' jedan put u Hrvatsku dodem i pravim Hrvatom postanjem” (Strémooukhoff, Soloviev, p. 312).

69 Korespondencija, III, 338.

70 “Ali će tako uvijek dotle ostati, dok crkva rimska proti naravi i opredjeljenju svomu ostane isključvo talijanska crkva” (Korespondencija, III, 340).

71 “Jedamput će i velika i slavna Rusija sa zahvalnošću priznati da joj je siromašna i sapušćena Hrvatska veliku uslugu učnila upravo u onaj ဝas kad je u najzdvojnijemu svomu položaju iamila,” ibid.

72 “Ako se igda Slavjanstvo sa Rimom izmiri, bit će to po zakonu božije Providnosti tako da će crkva istočna, od mrtvila svoga oslobodena, postati radenija i plodovitija, a crkva zapadna, oslobodena od talijanstva, postati općenitija i u istinu katolička” (Koresponden-cija, III, 341).

73 “A vrai dire je préférerais volontiers revoir en Croatie les célébrités croates vivantes au lieu de recueillir en Sibérie les souvenirs des Croates trépassés” (Strémooukhoff, p. 313).

74 Strossmayer wrote to Pierling about Soloviev:“C'est un homme ascete et vraiment saint. Son idée mere est qu’il n’y a pas un vrai schisme en Russie, mais seulement un grand malentendu”; cf. d’Herbigny, Soloviev, pp. 184–85.

75 Cf. Soloviev’s letter to Strossmayer (February 2, 1887) :“On tache de me rendre impossible toute activity publiqu en Russie par la suppression absolue de tous mes écrits” (Strémooukhoff, p. 312).

76 Korespondencija, III, 353.

77 “Ja mu svjetujem da iz Pariza dode u Rim za vrijeme našega hodočašća. Ja bih ga tada Svetomu Ocu predstavio. Ne znam hoće li se odlučiti” (Korespondencija, III, 356).

78 “Stvar slavjansku ovd ni malo ne razumiju.… O svemu ovomu valja pred narodom šutjeti da narod ne zdvaja… Ne možete, moj mili brate, misliti kako misko stoje prelati rimski, koji Kurijom vladaju. Koliba bi nužda bila da se crkva rimska po naravi i vječitomu opredjeljenju svomu universalizira. Ovako potalijančena crkva rimska ni iz daleka ne odgovare božijoj svojoj destinacij i. .. Ako zasad Soloviev nije iSao u Rim, dobro je učinio” (Korespondencija, III, pp. 363-65).

79 Strémooukhoff, Soloviev, pp. 305–06.

80 “II craignaît d'y voir désapprouver son projet de réunion des Eglises,” wrote his disciple and friend E. Trubeckoi (cited by Strémooukhoff, Soloviev, p. 207).

81 Močulskij writes:“We know that he lived in Paris, but whether he went to Rome remains a secret (ostaetsa tainoi),” Soloviev, p. 169. Nicolas Zernov in his book Three Russian Prophets says:“It is possible that he arranged for Soloviev a private audience with the Pope in 1888, but so far no document has been published confirming this fact” (p. 126). This sentence contains another error by saying that Strossmayer possibly arranged a private audience with the Pope for Soloviev. We know for certain, from the Strossmayer correspondence, that the bishop did everything in order that Soloviev could be received by the Pope (“ja sam sve za njega učnio da bude dobro primljen,” Korespondencija, III, 365). Prince Trubeckoi published Strossmayer’s letter to the secretary o£ state (Vatican) begging him that the Pope receive Soloviev well and confirm him in his saintly intentions (Strémooukhoff, p. 207). The problem is different from what Zernov suspects: though everything was prepared for his reception, Soloviev did not go to Rome. S. L. Frank in the preface to A Solovyov Anthology writes accurately that Strossmayer arranged for Soloviev to have an audience with the Pope, but he also adds:“There are no biographical data to show that Solovyov ever went to Rome or had the audience” (p. 18).

82 The connection between Princess Wittgenstein and the Croatian bishop is described in a study by Vladimir Košćak,“Carolyne Wittgenstein u pismima ” Strosmmayeru, J. J., in Hrvatsko Kolo (Zagreb, 1953), pp. 167-74.Google Scholar

83 Princess de Sayn-Wittgenstein, Souvenirs (1825-1907) (Paris, 1907), p. 181.

84 Korespondencija, IV (Zagreb, 1931), p. 2.

85 Cf. Močulskij, Soloviev, p. 183.

86 “Ne svida mi se ton, koji je odviše razdražen. Predbacuje Rusiji grijehe koje su drugi veliki narodi počinili još u većoj mjeri… Rusija medu vuci imala bi ovca bitil I onako je prekrotka” (Korespondencija, IV, 3-4).

87 “Vy menja možet byt' naidete sliškom evropeicem, a ja vas sliškom slavjanofilom,” in Strémooukhoff, p. 306.

88 Korespondencija, IV, 5-6.

89 “Disgradevole sorpresa” (Korespondencija, IV, p. 7).

90 Korespondencija, IV, 21. F. šišić rightly believes that thanks to Cardinal Rampolla and to Pope Leo XIII all the Austro-Hungarian machinations against Strossmayer! remained unsuccessful (c£. preface to the fourth volume of Rački-Strossmayer correspondence, p. v).

91 Močulskij (p. 182) considers that this article was the most dreadful thing Soloviev ever wrote about the Russian church.

92 “Kada bi ja onako pisao o Austro-Ugarskoj, ne bih se smio u nju vratiti” (Korespondencija, IV, 54).

93 Korespondencija, IV, 57.

94 Korespondencija, IV, 19. Soloviev’s letter is published by Strénooukhoff, pp. 306-07.

95 Russia and the Universal Church, pp. 209-10.

96 Strémooukhoff, Soloviev, pp. 309, 306.

97 pisma Solovieva, III, 121.

98 Korespondencija, IV, 48, 54.

99 “Ti ljudi su u Rimu isključvo Latini, pak zato često put odlučuju u stvari koje ne razumiju”(Korespondencija, IV, 103).

100 Russia and the Universal Church, pp. 32-34.

101 Op. cit., pp. 34-35.

102 Op. cit., p. 35.

103 Korespondencija, IV, 57; Močulskij, Soloviev, p. 183.

104 Rački:“Plemenita duša, ali ga valja susprezati;” Strossmayer:“Svet čovjek. Ja sam ga mirio” (Korespondencija, IV, 56-57).

105 D'Herbigny, Soloviev, p. 242; Močulskij, Soloviev, p. 184.

106 Korespondencija, IV, 83, 106.

107 Strémooukhoff, Soloviev, p. 322.

108 Op. cit., p. 314.

109 D'Herbigny, an ardent admirer of Soloviev, is forced to admit that the third part of Soloviev's book (“The Trinitarian Principle and its Social Application”) might well cause surprise. He comments: “This surprise would have disappeared had Soloviev taken pains to express himself more fully” (Soloviev, pp. 205, 220). It seems that this explanation is rather “pia desiderata” (wishful thinking), because Soloviev knew in advance that he would displease his Catholic friends by the third part of his book; he considered it a basic part of his teaching and refused to submit it to Rome for approval. Cf. Zernov, Three Russian Prophets, p. 128.

110 Pisma Solovieva, I, 193.

111 Korespondencija, IV, 415 17.

112 Cf. Viktor Novak, Franjo Rački, pp. XVIII–XIX.