Initiators of the February Revolution confessed that they had «desired» quite different result. However the positivist style of mentality aimed at «result» inevitably brings about the same tune: «We wanted the best but events too their regular course». Overcoming of utopist mentality style might be expected only with the change of generations at the political forestage. Failure of evolutionary development caused even greater triumph of utopianism. Not the change of «political regime» but profound changes in culture, way of thinking, tonality of human relations had to occupy the higher priority positions in program of actions. These changes would, in the long run, transform the «political regime». But such program could be advanced only by personalities of another caliber.

The Russian school philosophy of law emphasizes the fact that by virtue of legal norms that by perforce are to be laid down with the «axe-cut precision» people are able to provide for regulation of the social life just at the lowest level where a person agrees to act like an automation-machine. Rights of the «humane in a human being» can be protected only by a more powerful system which, alongside with the law, also includes morality and religion. Therefore the liberal slogan «the supremacy of law» is a cheap politics which mislead people. In Russia the greatest contribution to understanding and recognition of non all-sufficient nature of the legal system was made by P.I.Novgorodtsev and his disciples among whom the best known are I.A.Il'in and B.P.Vysheslavtsev.

Russian culture has always tended to focus on literature. In Russia, classical literature promoted the growth and development of thought. Even in philosophy, the best results were obtained where research was connected with the arts. Thus, if Russia wishes to be a worthy participant in the international philosophical process, she should use her strengths by focussing primarily on study in the humanities.

The author notes that Father Georghi Florovski accepts the authentic loyalty not to the letter but to the spirit of the patristic Tradition as the criterion of philosophical and theological thought’s soundness. Artistic taste, sense of style help a mind to find right direction in the spiritual domain but only the Divinely presence can serve as the criterion of the Truth in this domain. Florovski understands the religious dogma not as some formal logical definition but as a description of the real historical event, i.e., of descent of the Holy Spirit upon participants of the Church.

The original Eurasianism was driven by the pathetic protest against the petty political games of the Russian emigrants. The Eurasians thought that salvation of Russia lied not in new political upheavals but in preservation and multiplication of its spiritual and creative potential. However the Eurasians were seduced by their prompt successes and the prospect of influencing processes inside Russia and soon passed to concoction of immature historiosophic and politological concepts that were intended for broad presentation and not void of propaganda and blatant demagogic content. G. V. Flotrovski’s letters that are published here constitute the evidence of how painful this departure from original tasks proved to be for Eurasianism itself and how this reaction brought about, in the final resort, schism and degradation of Eurasianism.

The publisher resolutely reject some researchers' allegations about rapprochement of the Eurasianism and the Nazis. The Eurasianism which emerged among the Russian emigrants of the first wave was created not by politicians but by the prominent, outstanding representatives of the Russian culture and was absolutely incompatible with the Nazism. The political ideas of the Eurasian movement cannot be understood if they are considered not within their proper culture-centered and religious context. The letters which are published here demonstrate beyond any doubt that all attempts of Meller-Zakomelski who took pains to attract Eurasians to the Nazis' side failed because they were definitely rejected by N.S.Trubezkoi, one of the Eurasianism’s founding father.

“Faith and Reason of Soloviov’s philosophy”, the article by G. Florovski which is published here contains the criticism of V. Soloiov’s religious philosophy. The author who assessed spiritual phenomena with the exceptionally high criteria asserted that Soloviov was a liberal permeated with the utilitarianism of 1860s. As the author insists, liberalism is intolerable in a theologian. The author admitted unquestionable merits of Soloviov including Soloviov’s success in making religious themes worthy of discussion, in arousing religious sentiments and in rehabilitating Christianity from accusations of political and social reaction. The author emphasized that the further development of the Russian philosophy was possible not along Soloviov’s lines but along the lines that would mean overcoming Soloviov’s positions.

The Eurasian idea which emerged as a reaction of the Russian national conscience to upheaval of 1917 in Russia involved in its orbit prominent figures of the Russian culture and aristocracy who emigrated from Russia. The proponents of the Eurasian idea were distinguished by a clear understanding of the fact that the power of Russia was determined by its culture while a habit to pay attention to external achievements of civilization (in an attempt to catch up with the West) would lead to a gross undervaluation. That, in its turn, made Russians doomed to the blind imitation of foreign samples and models. All that would bring about the degradation of culture. The proponents of the Eurasian idea saw the Russian culture creators' irresponsibility, their predisposition to imitation, their inability to evaluate the Russian originality properly as the principal cause of the Russian revolution. The Eurasians did not accept changes of the political order or fundamental ideas if these changes were not accompanied and even caused by cultural changes.