Taras Zakydalsky, The Theory of Man in the Philosophy of Skovoroda, 1965.

CHAPTER III: MAN'S ONTOLOGICAL STRUCTURE

In Skovoroda's philosophy man occupies a special place in many ways. In the world of creatures he alone is a microcosm, a world to himself. It is not difficult to surmise the reasons for positing man as another world. This concept of man is traditional in Greek and Christian philosophy, and it is based on the attributes of rational thought and freedom in man. Of all creatures only man has the capacity to know and love the truth. By these attributes man also resembles God. Often Skovoroda speaks of the Christ in man. Although he does not identify reason or mind in man as man's essence, he is overwhelmed by its mystery and power. Thought is the creative activity of God by which God calls everything into existence, and therefore thought has a value higher than creaturely being itself. A spark of this divine power was given to man. Though his thought is of a less potent form, since it cannot create out of nothingness, man becomes through it the master of all creation:
Thought is like air. Air is not seen among the elements, but it is harder than earth, more powerful than water; it breaks trees, overturns buildings, drives waves and ships before it.1
By possessing thought and freedom man is closer to God than any other creature, but he is also confronted with a danger to which other creatures are not exposed. He can [56] choose God deliberately and thus become one with him in a way impossible to other creatures, but he can also turn away from God and thus alienate himself from him as no other creature can. All creatures except man are governed strictly by God and adhere necessarily to the divine plan or God's idea inherent in them. Their activities must conform to God's intentions for them.
Man is the tool of God, a tool that freely submits himself to the action and love of God.… All creatures are coarse instruments and organs of the highest Being: only man is his noblest tool with the advantage of freedom, and consequently he is both valued and responsible for the use he makes of this right.2

      Only man is given the dangerous privilege of determining for himself what he will love and seek in life; that is, what he will be. Man's decisions are real and weighty with consequences. On them depends the quality of his existence, the fulfilment of his nature or its frustration, his happiness or misery. By his decision to love and obey God, man veritably creates himself a second time, his first creation being God's decision, not his. He may create of himself an animal or a god. Skovoroda's emphasis upon the act of self-definition has an existentialist ring. It comes as no surprise, however, if we recall that Skovoroda's philosophy grew out of his own lived experience and personal problems. In moral seriousness and attention to man's temporal existence, Skovoroda closely resembles present existentialist thinkers.

      Because of his resemblance to God, man is not only a universe unto itself, but also the end and justification [57] for the existence of the other two universes -- the macrocosm and the Bible. The macrocosm exists for the purpose of sustaining the adventure of human life in which God intends man to achieve both union with Him and happiness. The universe is like a stage on which man is assigned a role by his director, God. Man improvises a comedy as God looks on and sees to it that each actor is provided with all the necessary accouterments for his role. The secret of success lies in following the director's directives. The other microcosm, the Bible, is another world3 that exists for man. It is God's revelation to man dressed in symbolic form. It contains in miniature all the symbols of God that the macrocosm contains, and in both the symbols have the same function -- that of leading man's thoughts to God. Yet, because of the ambiguous character of the symbol, which hides as much as it reveals, man cannot interpret the symbols in both worlds correctly unless he has first discovered the truth about his own nature. To the wise reader both worlds are a source of truth and delight. To the unwise they are sources of error and perdition. All creation, great and small is man-centered, and justly so, for unlike any other world man is God-centered.

      The anthropological orientation of Skovoroda's whole philosophy can be attributed to the fact that it was so closely related to his personal life. His philosophy is a record of his own search for meaning and purpose to his existence and for guidance in actions. Since his philosophical [58] enterprise was not purely speculative, and was not carried out in a quiet study isolated from the concerns of living, it was directed precisely at those problems which human existence, not theory, raises. His primary desire was to answer the question of man's ultimate destiny and to indicate a course to a truly happy life. To accomplish this Skovoroda had to go beyond ethics to the theory of man, and beyond man to metaphysics. But at all stages of his thinking, he aims steadfastly at one goal -- the happy human life. It is little wonder then, that he seeks to highlight those aspects or reality which have some bearing on the questions man asks about himself. He dwells on those aspects of God, the world and the Bible that will help man to discover him­self. But to discover oneself means for Skovoroda not merely to know what one is but also how one ought to live. It is to learn what constitutes a truly happy life for man. Thus, his philosophy might be characterized as an anthropological pragmatism, had he not stressed the highest respect for truth and the primacy of truth over utility. For Skovoroda truth is not defined by utility, but on the contrary utility is defined by truth. True knowledge or wisdom is of the highest value for right practice precisely because it aims not at practice, but at reality as it is. For this reason his ethical and anthropological orientation does not detract from his metaphysics or his epistemology.

     Since man is a creature, he shares with all other creatures a basic ontological structure. Man, however, is [59] unique among creatures, and consequently his ontological structure must in itself be unique. This uniqueness complicates man's structure. Another level of opposing principles is added to man. The dualism of body and idea is found in man as in all creatures, but in addition a dichotomy at the level of idea is developed. First, I shall discuss the body-idea dualism.

1. The Body

      Man's body like all bodies or matter is mere "earth," "shadow," "nothingness," "appearance," the "face" of the real, an "idol," a "mask," and "dust."4 As these images stress the body is an ephemeral, mortal, external manifestation of something hidden and unobservable. The body has no existence and no meaning in itself, but only in relation to what it reveals and conceals beneath it. The reality that gives existence and determination to the body is the "true body," God's idea of body, or the invisible "spiritual body." This is "God's finger" in us, the "head and the primary foundation and eternal plan of the body."5 This plan is eternal and unchanging while its external expression is unceasingly undergoing alteration, appears at birth and disappears at death.

     In all non-human creatures the divine idea of body is the complete inner cause of existence and activity. At that level the form of the creature is identical with the idea of its body because all the functions of the creature are bodily. [60] This is true of both animate and inanimate beings. In man, however, there is a complication because another category of activities is subjectively observable. These are the psychic operations of thought and volition. Skovoroda does not discuss them nor attempt to differentiate them from the psychic life of animals. We may take it for granted, as he probably did, that there is a vast difference between the two, and that the difference lies in the rational nature and hence self-determining power of man's psychic life.

     In relation to the external body, thought is the master and director, the mover of the body, which in itself is blind and passive. The body is the "tail," which only follows the "head"6 and can do nothing by itself.

The whole eternal body does not do anything nor act in anything itself. But it is the slave of our thoughts. Thought, its mistress, is in uninterrupted agitation day and night.7
If the body is mere instrument and the thoughts are master, then it is truer to identify the real man with his thoughts than with his bodily appearance or action. "If one is sick in the heart, if one is not healthy in thought, then precisely the man himself suffers."8 This does not mean however, that man is essentially a thinking substance. For Skovoroda even the spiritual essence of man contains a reference to the body because it embraces the eternal idea of body. It is important to notice, however, that because thought is the master of the body, the body in itself cannot be either evil or good. Virtue and vice, good and evil in any sense, belong properly to the governing power, not the [61] instrument:
What benefit is there for you in cutting off your external leg since it does not lead you into the trench but you yourself lead it?… How is your eternal eye guilty? It is you who open it.9
The body, like a symbol, may be  the source of perdition, for it makes error and bad choice possible, but still does not make the choice, nor does it make error inevitable. For this reason error must be attributed solely to the agent making the judgment, that is, to thought.

      An interesting question to raise before leaving this discussion of the body is that of the purpose of the body. Why does man have an external body? This question. involves ultimately the problem of the purpose of all creation. To ask for the purpose of man's body is to ask why does man appear in time, why does he appear in this visible world. But if the world appears as a whole to serve the ends of man's existence, then the purpose of man's appearing in time will also be the ultimate purpose of the existence of the material world. The problem of the purpose of the body is raised at one point in Skovoroda's dialogues, in an indirect way at least. The question arises why not detach or cut off oneself from one's body? There is a suggestion of suicide in this question. Unfortunately, Skovoroda's answer is very sketchy, though consistent with his metaphysical conceptions. He answers that since we cannot separate ourselves from the body, since we are attached to our body by necessity, this attachment is good and useful and we should not try to undo it.10 The argument that our association with [62] body is good rests on the premise that it is necessary and this argument is in harmony with Skovoroda's basic metaphysical principle that what is necessary is useful and what is not useful is unnecessary. The sense in which the body is necessary is not clear. Certainly, man can detach himself from it by destroying his body. What Skovoroda probably means is that the body was given to man, it was not chosen by him and is his by some higher necessity than his will -- a necessity that acts always in our interest.11 But what light does this answer cast on the purpose of man's body? None at all. It merely states that somehow the body and the temporal existence of man have some use and are of some value. If we recall the doctrine of the necessary co­existence of the world with God, we may be able to construct an intelligible answer to this question. The end of the whole universe, including man, lies in serving as a manifestation of God. This manifestation is necessary and coeternal with God. But man is the highest part of this manifestation. He is that part for which all the other partial manifestations of God exist. He is, as we shall see, the most perfect and fullest manifestation of God. The temporal existence of the human race, then, must be coeternal with God. One final and extremely important point: if the end of man's existence is to make God manifest, then man's fulfilment and happiness lies in this life. To be happy is to bear witness to God. Unlike the Christian tradition, Skovoroda does not see the purpose of life in attaining one's salvation and eternal [63] happiness. All creatures are eternal by the very fact that they are created by God. They have no need to win eternal happiness because at death they return to God necessarily. There is neither hell nor punishment in the after-life. Creatures do have a need for fulfilment and happiness in their temporal existence and this need can be satisfied by being the free (in case of man) instruments of God. This doctrine of the purpose of man's temporal existence finds confirmation in Skovoroda's metaphysics and will find further substantiation in his ethics.

2. "The Heart"

     Just as the phenomenon of the body has its ontological basis in the idea of body, so also the phenomenal psychic life of man must have its root in some deeper reality. This ultimate ontological principle of our thoughts Skovoroda calls the heart:

The true man is the heart in man. Deep is that heart and knowable only by God. It is the bottomless abyss of our thought; to say it simply, the soul, that is, the true being, the existing truth, the very essence (as they say) of our seed and power, of which our whole life consists and without which we are a dead shadow.12
Here in a capsule is Skovoroda's whole doctrine of man's heart. The heart, first, is not open to introspection, in the ordinary sense. It cannot be known as our psychic phenomena are known, by simple self-reflection. The heart can be known fully only by God. Man can have some insight into his heart, but only by faith, not introspection. Secondly, the heart embraces all reality, since its thoughts [64] range freely through all reality, to all objects and are not prevented from penetrating to the most obscure secrets of reality. Thirdly, the heart is that principle which sustains the whole human composite in existence, the body as well as the psyche. This means that the heart contains as part of its structure the eternal idea of the body:
The heart is the root. In it lives your very leg and the external dust is its boot.… Not only the leg but also the arms, eyes, ears, and tongue and the whole circle of your dummy-like limbs is nothing else but the clothes. The true parts themselves are hidden in the heart.13
And just as it is the source of all being in man, the heart is also the source of all activities, activities of thought as well as bodily activities, since these are governed by thought. It not only determines the character of these activities, it is also the force and the power that makes all motion possible. "The flesh is nothing, the spirit is life-creating."14 Since the heart is not only the source of the being of each man, but also the source of all manifesta­tions be they actions, bodily characteristics, or thoughts, it is often called the "true" or "exact" man. "Everyone is that whose heart is in him."15

      The heart for Skovoroda undoubtedly includes the faculties of reason and will. At times he distinguishes these faculties, especially in his discussions of the ethical life, but he includes no ontological study of them in his works. The heart as the source of thoughts and desires or volitions may be identified with reason and will respectively, but it is obviously much more than a  faculty. It is the [65] fundamental principle of being in man, that which accounts both for his true nature and his existence.

      Now, if the heart determines our thoughts and desires, then by analyzing these or more precisely their objects we may gain a general and vague notion of our heart. For Skovoroda the principle that like is known by like, "the head by the head and force is known by force"16 plays an important role at this point. This principle enables him to deduce from the nature of the objects of our attention the nature of our heart. The objects we may love and desire or attend to are of two categories. They may be spiritual objects, the internal truth or God's ideas in things or they may be material objects or the external appearances. The heart is divided in the same way as its objects, into the inner and the outer heart. Thus, we discover a new level of contraries, a deeper dualism of the very heart: "if there is a body above the body, then there is a head above the head and a new heart above the old heart."17 This dualism is absent from sub-human creatures. Since these creatures cannot be aware of nor desire other than sensible objects, there can be no dichotomy in their heart or essence. Their heart is centered exclusively upon the needs and activities of the body, and therefore they lack choice, decision, and freedom. They are like automata activated by the present program that God inserts into them as their essence. The distinction between man and animal will become clear only after I have discussed fully the nature of the outer and the [66] inner hearts.

3. "The Outer Heart"

      The outer heart is the source of those thoughts, desires, and acts that are directed at the goods of the outer body. These goods include not only gross bodily necessities such as food, clothing, and shelter, but also aesthetic delights such as we find in music, perfumes, painting, and ornaments. These goods are all shadows for they are ephemeral, and the heart that concerns itself them is similar to them: "You are only a shadow, emptiness, and nothingness with a heart similar to your body.… Nothingness is loved by nothingness."18 We have seen that the body is necessary and therefore useful and good in some way. Now, since the outer heart provides for the body, attends to its welfare and thus supports its existence, the outer heart must also be good and useful. Like the body it may become a source of evil and perversion of man's true nature if it usurps the place of the true heart and establishes its monopoly over all of man's thoughts and desires. If kept in its place, as a subordinate principle, the outer heart is useful and helpful to man.

      The ontological status of the outer heart must be distinguished from that of the ideal body. The divine idea of body in man is the source and ontological foundation of the outer body.  This idea belongs to a more fundamental level of the heart than the outer heart. The outer heart must not be taken as an ontological principle, but rather as a faculty [67] of the heart, a faculty of thought and volition occupied with the good of the temporal body. The outer heart itself is not self-sustaining, but is founded on a deeper principle -- the inner heart. Being directed at the outer body, this heart is temporal. Unlike the ideal body, this outer heart is born and dies with the outer body. As long as the body exists, however, this heart cannot be eliminated, and it remains throughout life a threat to the higher principle in man. It must be constantly reminded of its subordinate position, otherwise it will eclipse the inner heart. Thoughts and concern over the body will displace all thoughts about man's true nature and the eternal truth. Thus, throughout life "these two hearts in each man are eternally at war."19  We now turn to the inner heart,  whose rightful place in our attention is threatened by the outer heart.

4. "The Inner Heart"

     I have already referred to the heart in Skovoroda's thought as the fundamental ontological principle in man, the source of his being and of all his activities among which thinking is of primary importance. The discussion on the principle of the outer heart makes it clear that all the properties and functions attributed first to the heart must now be transferred to the inner heart. The inner heart, which is also called the true man in man, Christ in man, or God in man, is the basic ontological principle in man, the principle that sustains and defines the whole structure of man and all his actions. The outer body and the outer heart [68] are its shadows. Clearly, the inner heart is the eternal divine idea of man in man. Like any other creature man receives his being from God and is therefore totally dependent upon him:

You are the shadow of your true man. You are the chasuble, he is the body. You are the appearance and he is the truth in you. You are nothing and he is the being in you. You are mud and he is your beauty, image, and plan, but not your image and not your beauty since he is not your doing,20 but is in you and sustains you, oh, dust and nothingness!21
The divine idea of man in each man is not only his better half, his true and immortal self. It is not only the divine element in him, for this is true of all creatures. All creatures are sustained by the divine idea in them. The divine idol in man, besides having its source in God, is divine in a second sense. It is the image of God himself, or rather of God's Son, the second person of the Trinity. This is the most adequate and fullest manifestation of God in any creature. The power of thought and the freedom of self-determination make man the creature closest to God, the most adequate manifestation of God. "He gave us his very highest Wisdom which is his natural portrait and stamp"22 For this season, Skovoroda often speaks or the inner man as the one Christ in all of us, although it would be more accurate to say that the inner man is Christ's image, and an individuated image at that, in each of us. I shall have to deal [69] with this problem in greater detail.

     "This is the true man, equal to his eternal Father in being and power, one in all of us and wholly in each one."23 Though there is an additional basis for speaking of Christ or God as being in man, since Christ is the ideal and true man, we must interpret this expression not literally, but as we have interpreted God's presence in all creatures; namely, as the presence of ideas in creatures. God is in man as idea, the fullest and most perfect idea of Himself, but nevertheless an idea. We must not accept a pantheistic interpretation of Christ's being in every man. We have seen that Skovoroda likes to distinguish and then equate or identify things, as if his former distinctions were invalid. This is his monistic tendency. Difficulties of interpretation arise from the fact that he rarely stops to consider how what he has distinguished is to be united. He simply identifies God and his thoughts without any explanation:

Open your eyes of faith and you shall see in yourself also God's power, God's right hand, God's law, God's speech, God's word, his  kingdom, and the secret invisible authority of God, and by knowing the Son, you will come to know the Father.24
Here we see the identification God's "word" and "speech," which clearly refer to God's ideas, with God the Son. This is a traditional Christian doctrine. For the sake of clarity and consistency, we must distinguish, I think, the logos, the image of God that is the second person of the Trinity, from the image of God, or rather the image of the Logos, that is in each man. The fact that Skovoroda himself does not attempt to systematize and harmonize his distinctions with his identifications [70] does not absolve us of this duty We cannot dismiss either his dualistic or his monistic doctrines, but by means of distinctions we must preserve and harmonize both.

      Probably, the clearest and most forceful statement of Christ-centered monism is this one:

Stand if you please on a level surface and order a hundred mirrors to be placed around you. At once you will see that your single bodily dummy has power over a hundred appearances that are dependent only on it. And immediately when the mirrors are removed the copies suddenly hide themselves in their original, like branches in their seed. In the same way our bodily dummy is itself only a shadow of the true man. This creature like an ape imitates in apparent action the invisible and present power and divinity of that man to whom our dummies are like mirrored shadows, appearing from time to time and disappearing while God's truth stands immovably through eternity.25
This statement means literally that in all our decisions, thoughts, and actions it is really Christ who acts, that individuality is illusory and belongs only to the level of secondary apparent reality and therefore that personal immortality is impossible. This is an interpretation that cannot accept without rejecting most of Skovoroda's metaphysics and all of his epistemology and ethics. If Christ is literally in each one of us and we are merely bodily manifestations of Him, then Skovoroda's concern over death and personal immortality is impossible to understand. If Christ is the source of our thought and we are only shadows, then how can there be ignorance of our own nature, how can there be self-discovery in faith, how can there be decision, self-surrender to God's will, and acceptance of our divinely appointed vocation? If our individuality is to be identified [71]  with our body and our essence is Christ then we are completely passive, powerless. The active principle in us is Christ and He alone is responsible for every act. How can there be evil, then? Only if our essence is truly individual and our own without ceasing to be derivative and ontologically dependent on God, can there be error and evil, responsibility for these, and also personal immortality. Then the source of our thoughts and acts lies in us and is our own. If Christ were literally our essence, the thought of "I" would be impossible to explain, for the body, the individuating principle in such a case, is completely unproductive.

     If we accept the interpretation that the inner man in each individual is a divine idea of a particular man, then the above passage can still be accepted as valuable and as a contribution to our knowledge of man in Skovoroda's terms. The relation of the substantial material body to its reflected image in the mirror expresses the analogous relation of God to man. The latter is to the first in terms of being like an accident to a substance, or a thought to a mind. The same analogy is repeated in the idea-body relation.  While describing derivative being as thought-like, we must guard from falling into a purely Platonic interpretation of Skovoroda. The divine ideas are not static, lifeless forms. They are spirits, sources of energy and creativity. Nor should we associate Skovoroda too closely with Berkeley. The being of the body is not to be identified with percipi. Man's spirit or inner man is thought-like only  in relation  [72] to the being of God, and the body is thought-like only in relation to the inner man. The quality of being thought­like, if I may put it so crudely, is an expression of ontological dependence and has nothing to do with epistemology. To show that the inner heart is a particular essence belonging exclusively to each individual as his and only his onto­logical foundation and at the same time to explicate in greater detail the nature of the inner heart, I now turn to a discussion of two basic doctrines in Skovoroda -- the doctrine of personal vocation and the doctrine of immortality.

      The doctrine of personal vocation will be discussed at length under the heading of ethics. Here I wish only to point out the ontological foundations of this doctrine. According to the doctrine of personal vocation, each man has a divine calling in life, a particular purpose determined for him by God, his Creator, in the very act of creation. This calling is marked on the individual's inner heart. It cannot be attributed to his outer body for the body has no creative or directive power. Skovoroda often explicitly states that it is the inner heart that defines a man's vocation:

"The kingdom of God is within you." It does not deceive and will lead you by a better path … to that for which you were born … than the advice of others or your own tendencies.26
The source of one's true inclinations and desires and motion is one's true nature or "the blessed spirit in man." Thus, the true man or the inner heart must be individuated, though it bears a close resemblance to God the Son, just as a mirror [73] image closely resembles its object, and also to the hearts of other men just as individual members of a species resemble each other.

      The doctrine of personal immortality is another confirmation of the proposition that the inner heart is individual. This doctrine, though not developed at length, is essential to Skovoroda's thought, in which preoccupation with death is of major importance. It would be completely at variance with the spirit of his philosophy to attribute immortality only to Christ and not to every human and even non-human individual. Kovalinskii states that Skovoroda thought death to be an awakening to a richer, fuller life in which all pains, fears, and pleasures of temporal existence disappear. Just as the child in the womb is unable to conceive of the future life awaiting it,  so also are we unable to say anything of our after-life except that it will be of a higher quality than this one. To Skovoroda death is nothing more than the cancellation of our appearing, the shedding of our outer body and our outer heart. Thus, it  is a freeing of the inner man from an encumbrance imposed on him by God, for some good purpose to be sure, but nevertheless an encumbrance. "Death will give us the possibility to be invisible. Why do flee so from death? It will hide us. When it makes us invisible, then we shall he able to exist truly."27

      This must surely mean that the inner man in us is individual as well as immortal. On this score Zenkovsky's remark that the true man in every one of us is "the guarantee of our [74] individuality, but it is not to be separated from the 'heavenly man,' from the Lord,"28 since it is his image, states my case with precision and brevity.

5. Conclusion

      The ontological structure of man may be summarized as follows: man is a composite being consisting of a principle of externality, the material body, which is perishable, changing, and passive, and an inner core, the heart, which is the ontological foundation of the body, its director and its power of motion. The heart is divided into the inner and the outer. The inner heart is God's idea of man. It is the image of Christ. This is the ultimate principle of being and operation in man. It is the spring of rational thought and love. The ideal body, which gives being to the outer body, is a part of the inner heart. The external heart can be called a faculty of the inner heart, a faculty concerned with the well being of the body. Only the inner heart is immortal. At death the body and the outer heart disappear, while the inner heart continues in being in an invisible and purified state.

     It is sometimes difficult to distinguish Skovoroda's metaphysics and doctrine of man as I have presented them from pantheistic doctrines. His emphasis on the ontological dependence of man and all creatures on God, and on the manifesting function of creatures in relation to God is very monistic. I think that this monism must be distinguished, however, from a monism that identifies God and nature or that [75] holds God to be totally immanent in nature. Skovoroda 's insistence on dualism, on distinguishing God from creatures and the inner principle of things from their outer appearance, balances has monistic tendency and makes his meta­physics panentheistic rather than pantheistic. Here man is dependent on God, yet is autonomous and self-activating. He can even reject God. At death the individual does not lose his identity and is not absorbed into an undifferentiated Supreme Being.

     Probably one of the reasons why it is so easy to fall into the error of calling Skovoroda a pantheist is the paucity of detail in his exposition of his metaphysical doctrines on nature of reality and the nature of man. It is evident from this analysis of man that Skovoroda's interest lies not in speculative metaphysics. In dealing with man's nature he makes only a few simple distinctions. There is no discussion of the various faculties in man, on the precise structure of the soul and its relation to the body, on the unity of the composite. What he does discuss is what is absolutely essential and what must be understood in order that his ethics be intelligible and  persuasive.  The amount of metaphysical theory that he introduces is the bare minimum that is necessary for man in order that he comprehend his own nature and the situation in which finds himself. Anything less would be inadequate for true wisdom and a truly human life. Anything more would be superfluous and confusing rather than enlightening. This is a metaphysics that is [76] comprehensible to all men of sound mind, not only to philosophers. He tries to avoid those vain fine points that are characteristic of that "inefficacious faith that is called speculative"29 and which leads only to schisms and superstitions. [77]

NEXT

CHAPTER III: FOOTNOTES

1. I, 248.

2. M. I. Kovalinskii, "Zhizn' Grigoriya Skovorody" (The Life of Gregory Skovoroda), Tvory, II, p. 512.

3. I, 384.

4. I, 33, 29, 138, 39.

5. I, 45.

6. I, 33.

7. I, 34.

8. I, 262.

9. I, 138.

10. I, 133.

11. I, 138.

12. I, 49–50.

13. I, 137.

14. I, 29.

15. I, 28.

16. I, 41.

17. I, 42.

18. I, 52.

19. I, 439.

20. The idea is in the creature but is not fully the creature's own possession because the idea is God's, not the creature's, creation.

21. I, 37.

22. I, 18. [78]

23. I, 72.

24. I, 60.

25. I, 194. Also pp. 72, 89.

26. I, 324.

27. II, 88.

28. A History of Russian Philosophy, trans. G. L. Kline (New York: Columbia University Press; London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1953), I, p. 63.

29. I, 20.  [79]

NEXT