Blockchain Papers

Małgorzata Dancewicz-Pawlik

The article discusses certain aspects of blockchain-based art, including the ecology and economy of non-fungible tokens (NFTs), applying projects curated by Ruangrupa for documenta 15, such as Jalar, Dayra, Cheesecoin, and BeeCoin, created within the lumbung Economy. In light of earlier investigations into the ecology of NFTs, the main areas of concern now are the ways in which information about the environmental effects of NFTs presents itself, the monopolization of particular technological mechanisms, the perpetuation of cultural biases, and, from this angle, the belief of artists in the potential for change brought about by the new technology. Given the economic and ecological implications arising from the blockchain projects discussed in this article, I propose to use the notion of ecosophy defined by Félix Guattari as an approach for lumbung Economy interpretation.

Aliki Semertzi

When did an ecological sensibility arise in the Hague Academy courses? What legal instruments did their authors propose for its regulation, and how did such proposals reflect different strands of international legal thought? How did the rise of this ecological sensibility become interwoven with the economy and increasingly regulated through market-based mechanisms instead of more dirigiste, public interventions? It is with these questions that I approached the voluminous archive of the Hague Academy. I searched for courses that conveyed an ecological sensibility in their title, manifested in title words like ‘environment’, ‘climate’, ‘biodiversity’, ‘pollution’ and ‘resources’. I did so based on the presumption that such title words signal the respective author’s ecological focus. Consequently, I chose to leave aside the ‘general courses’ with their more panoramic outlook. With a bit of tweaking, I selected 14 courses for review, spread across the 100 years of the Academy’s existence, which I then divided into six historical periods. I attributed a theme to each period, as I saw such a theme emerging from the courses themselves, when their authors appeared to be in conversation with each other, using the same legal vocabulary, concepts and frameworks. Conversely, I saw historical breaks, and I arranged the courses accordingly when the legal language and the authors’ preoccupations shifted. The subsequent sections set out the result of these endeavours through a close engagement with its lecturers. In the late 1920s, an ecological sensibility, strictly speaking, hardly existed in international law. Yet there were concerns over the ‘conservation of the riches of the sea’ – riches understood as comprising fish, fur seals and whales. As Philip Jessup stressed in the first paragraph of his course, conservation was the ‘remedy to the excesses of exploitation’.1 What conservation meant was rational exploitation – rational as based on the latest scientific findings. Conservation measures (for example, maximum allowable catch per fish species, open and closed seasons, prohibition of certain fishing gear) were informed by the science of biology on the rates of fish reproduction and by that of oceanography, which mapped the migration routes of whales around the globe. The late 1920s was a time when marine sciences were burgeoning, and numerous international congresses were held on geography, hydrography and applied marine zoology – all enthusiastically recounted in Jessup’s course. As for the international law on the ‘conservation/exploitation problem’, for Jessup it was on a cusp. There was the ‘history’ of the 1882 and 1887 (Hague) North Sea Conventions, regulating fisheries and liquor traffic and granting ships of states parties police powers to search and visit private fishing vessels on the high seas.2 There were two ‘historical arbitrations’ that pointed to the future: (i) the 1893 Bering Sea Fur Seals arbitration, which foregrounded the conservation of fur seals as a marine species3 and (ii) the 1910 North Atlantic Coast Fisheries case,4 which delegated the regulation of conservation of highly profitable fisheries to a US-Canada mixed commission of scientific fishing experts.5 Regarding the work of the League of Nations (LoN) on conservation, Jessup was rather sceptical about its codification initiatives; he favoured the collaboration between the LoN’s Economic Committee and the Permanent Council for the International Exploration of the Sea (ICES), whose scientific experts recommended conservation measures based on data provided by the fishing industry. For Jessup, the conservation/exploitation problem was not a matter calling for the establishment of general common rules.6 Rather, satisfactory solutions would have to be found in tailored institutional arrangements with the participation of interested parties, like the LoN/ICES cooperation scheme or the several US-Canada mixed fishery commissions. Ecological sensibilities in the 1950s and 1960s, much like in the 1920s, remained primarily focused on the conservation of (marine) resources. What emerged was the intense competition between ‘old states’ and ‘newcomers’ – emerging from the early stages of decolonization or rising competitors like Japan. This competition was coupled with strong claims for the revision of international law, expressed in new legal concepts such as ‘special interests’ of coastal states, ‘fishery zones’ or the ‘benefit to mankind’. André Gros was concerned with the alarmingly growing number of coastal states that unilaterally enacted conservation legislation and declared it applicable in marine zones extending beyond territorial waters and well into the high seas – conservation legislation that was often coupled with granting preferential fishing rights to the coastal states’ nationals. For Gros, conservation meant organization: ‘[C]oopération international encadrée [… afin d’] endiguer la marée des législations nationales’ and to integrate in a single treaty the earlier (‘fragmentaires’) bilateral and regional fishery agreements.7 For Gros, at stake was the classical role of law to ensure free and equal access to marine resources by elaborating general rules applicable to all states. Gros saw this classical role under strain, especially when the constant invocation (‘en désespoir de cause’) of the term ‘special’ by coastal states (the ‘nouveau venus’, the ‘riverains revendicateurs’) led to strong claims for preferential treatment.8 To him, the 1958 Geneva Convention seemed a promising regulatory step forward by providing a common framework of general rules and by tying all competing claims and counterclaims to the ‘effective guarantee’ of a binding dispute settlement mechanism.9 Shigeru Oda counter-remarked to Gros’ hopes that, ‘for the past ten years, this Convention has been all but neglected in practice’ because it just ‘did not attempt to offer any solution to the real issue’ – namely, the ‘distribution and allocation’ of limited fishery resources.10 For Oda, conservation simply marked the need to regulate when ‘demand exceeds supply’.11 Earlier theories of the inexhaustibility of marine resources – upon which the freedom of fishing in the high seas was based – had proved to be wrong, and conservation now required appropriate criteria for the fair and equitable distribution of limited resources, informed by some form of economic thinking. In his course, Oda identified three alternative distributional schemes, all admittedly non-ideal: (i) free competition, access and exploitation under the ‘time-honored principle of the freedom of the high seas’; (ii) theories of international management as in a 1967 report by the United Nations (UN) Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), which would empower an international body to issue licences for high seas fishing and to collect rentals in return; (iii) schemes of ‘arbitrary distribution’ such as the ‘abstention formula’ in the 1952 USA-Canada-Japan North Pacific Fisheries Convention that required Japan as a ‘newcomer’ to abstain from fishing and to respect earlier bilateral conservation arrangements between the USA and Canada.12 For Oda, precisely the same dilemmas would arise when discussing the exploration of the mineral resources of the deep seabed. The new concept of the ‘benefit to mankind’ pointed to an ‘international control system’ – as opposed to the traditional ‘laisser-faire system’ for high seas fisheries of free exploitation without restriction except for the control of the flag state – but left unresolved how exploitation licences should be allocated.13 Eventually, Oda’s course was much more incisive in his analysis of the stakes involved in conservation than Gros’ course. It stressed that the 1950s–1960s concern with competition and revision was not a matter of doctrinal intricacies. Instead, each of the regulatory schemes had very real distributional effects, as reflected, for example, in the bargaining that preceded the recognition of new fishery zones in exchange for a narrow territorial sea. In the 1970s and 1980s, ecological sensibilities extended from fish conservation to the whole earth. The ‘environment’ emerged as a new concept, supplementing traditional earlier understandings focused on development and the exploitation of natural resources. These are dialectical decades, and the four courses selected for this period make up two dialectical pairs: the first on the environment and the second on natural resources. Richard Bilder’s and José Sette-Camara’s courses illustrate the dialectics of international modes of regulation of the environment. Bilder notes the ‘recent surge in ecological awareness’ that led to the new concept of international environmental law. However ‘amorphous’ and ‘undefined’ it was, it marks a new way of thinking about the environment as a ‘unique class of international problems, requiring distinct approaches and collaborative methods of solutions’.14 His course teems with factual examples: the US-Mexico Colorado river salinity dispute, the Finnish arsenic dumping incident in the South Atlantic Ocean, in and the Bilder the environmental in each problem that he divided by the approaches to their regulation to environmental from of from over of time of and be or traditional legal like be or For the environment for the and the of international a set of of dispute environmental factual dispute solutions and Jessup, Bilder to be the promising of regulation, providing a for of problem environmental and the of a and informed by and on a very different legal than legal rules and dispute In his course, notes the of environmental In to the legal regulation of the environment for be in with traditional international law. concepts like the in the International and the of and the concept of the as in the of the of As for the concept of this had to be approached through a of state and international law in to out there is a of international law such and he that the traditional legal of state are the of the whole of international measures In this instruments of legal regulation in than the International or the de International The for Economic and principle have become in but the that led to its in the on the that this is a principle of economy to the distribution of economic of measures and not a legal principle of Eventually, Sette-Camara’s course with Gros’ course in that regulatory instruments not coupled with an ‘effective for – such for the to environmental – are in the of Bilder had of and their from the traditional rules and in of The courses by and are by the the by the of the the on the of a International Economic and the legal of the over natural For these about a in the legal of natural resources, which now had to be from This from classical international law that resources by the out of and for the of states as of In the classical the access of to under was provided by the of the principle of as a of treaty and of the principle of open access in the concept of the freedom of the high The by that international law to become more concerned with the of resources and to reflect on how to in arrangements that would a fair and just distribution competing (i) and access to natural resources in and (ii) access to and by which was for the exploitation of their natural resources. competing claims were the of a international legal was now in international legal equitable in the law of the International of – in the of the – new of ‘international public to as in the treaty for or on the deep for ‘international public – Oda’s about the concept of to – did not a fair and just distribution of resources, that as well and an economic Instead, saw that provided a much of that be to legal arrangements of In this two proposals of distribution informed by he to the principle as the for of such a development for natural resources that into and in the in for the or of and informed by the schemes, like in with he a of extending approaches in and arrangements for a of resources be and to resources regulated under (for example, Economic then to a of access for based on equitable such as the of an the of a for resources or the of the for the of the 1970s about natural resources – and the of distribution and development – simply to the that this was a time of and under the very of international law The 1970s the dialectics of preferential and of open access was sceptical of the of classical rules to and of how and equitable were by for an and Instead, he found in a much more of of how international law access to and distribution of by did not that a had with to the classical international law of resources on the of Rather, the territorial principle was – not – by the in had the international law and the over natural as like that the competing claims for access to resources were Permanent was not for economic some form of was required to the and Eventually, to up alternative of how such be and he as (i) between states with that provided for schemes, and like the on and fisheries or (ii) the between private under international and law (for example, the mineral of the of or the law of the the has its and by commissions. As for the regulation of international and the of based on natural or through arrangements between and were found in the Convention between the Economic and the and Pacific of states the a scheme to from ecological concerns did not in and of The ‘environment’ emerged as to and were of environmental their for When how the increasingly regulated through economic and Oda pointed out that conservation simply meant that a had to be regulated it was proved to be to criteria for and and to accordingly legal arrangements for the of limited resources. In this this of courses the of regulatory in the informed by strands of the as well as regulation and In the the dialectics of the 1970s and Ecological sensibilities in the Hague Academy courses are now of as the ‘environment’ and are regulated through economic of the of which the two courses of this period two distinct the international legal courses about environmental and over and dispute that the of international legal has from a to a a to the treaty an of that the of the treaty and whose be by any without of or international from to a that the of the with the of and economy in the very of his course, international economic law and international environmental law as of the same not very but and that the environment but be regulated through the and this that it is that for environmental this was a of the of the 1970s and in of the of the Convention on the of the Sea whose on the deep had to be by the to into and economic a growing on In this meant that for economic environmental had a to To when regulatory were to the of the Convention on were not to be provided by by the on and a of the of of by the a and providing to by or by the Convention for the a of a framework by an that and so as to with the scientific and economic in environmental In with that legal instruments for the regulation of the environment were from and rules and the of economic based on the that the be to to instruments in their and the of his course, a step and more on how the between and economy international law in that has had an on the general of international it has the of an international which applied to but that were in a or but on the of environmental problems, such as the treaty for the and It was this new concept that the of international legal of and that were more than and that a role to the or of each treaty these would of and and and for the of this of on the general of international law the of a of international legal that be to the earlier courses by Jessup and Bilder and their of as the more promising to regulate the conservation of resources and the environment. like his course by the of to the of and in international law in notes how legal instruments for the regulation of the environment to a by the up of treaty tailored to each environmental problem (for example, of the marine by and How to a treaty and its institutional and had to be of and two (i) the on and which the for a of to (for example, by state parties, data and an emerging of access to environmental by and to and (ii) instruments to of a (for example, and through the more traditional mechanisms of state and dispute his course primarily how much international environmental law had to a of treaty and schemes, like the the of the the the International for and course a much – to on international economic law – on the between and and that legal instruments for environmental regulation are coupled with a of economic and at from this the of the on natural resources have been in two The first concerns the of ‘resources’. The Convention on to to and resources, as well as to resources and notes that the the states of resources with a to access to resources access to resources or The second to how the earlier now is applied to environmental of the International is the first to a institutional that and the management of to not for but the of and Eventually, for the Convention on and the International to a environmental that the environment in a it to access to resources, of In the new to be by and the by the in the with their on and As is common in courses some historical on the from the dialectical of the to the between and economy that emerged in the how ecological sensibilities in international law, of doctrinal that had the courses by Bilder and into historical the dilemmas that had concerned and and the role of international law in regulating access to resources and their and course like a of international environmental law, the of historical state and general of the (for example, environmental with rights law, dispute and dispute settlement the of the the International for the of the Sea and the North analysis is an attempt to reflect on the of the new modes of legal regulation that are tailored to environmental than an of such modes the traditional of international law that on states, rules and international In legal with Gros and the of as a in to a of course new concepts and have the of law often for because legal that, and have become in the of resources. that the was in a of of environmental as to economic The concept of development this and in environmental that its are and of For this of thinking not a to the traditional of law. As that is a a of the of is not the is a with from the legal and the not the course is very from Bilder’s – or from Jessup’s – of the international as precisely the of new modes of regulation and it to from the of the to and to the search for and solutions to these and environmental certain doctrinal concerns with especially the has the of of international because of its development of treaty per environmental Yet he that the of and in regulating the environment through a of of and the of private and in environmental It is that a new of which on rather than using As the and the the of as a form of This legal to the three of his course resources and as a single all three the of to the – which he to as a legal problem – of how to ensure a just and fair this environmental are to schemes in of and be as For – a of the that with Oda, which was then up in a more exchange between and – the traditional of resources based on and was that beyond fish or deep some form of international As and the economy were so were resources under because of because were on the or the several or because their – such for the role of as there was the in the an ‘international for with the of the and the International the of ecological regulation with market-based economic instruments opposed to regulatory instruments under earlier for him, this the regulatory to leave the problem of access and distribution to with admittedly to the from course – and is a – is that, there are competing calling for the and and the through economic or through the of by schemes for and or In the more Hague Academy the dilemmas and of in Rather, is in the three courses of the period of the early is that in its different new of thinking about the between and the up the that has international law – a that would with the international legal in the courses of Gros, and on the of as a to illustrate the stakes how in law, through the is an of often by In environmental treaty that and and but In the with its there is a of as of way to of by such a would be to that of international legal that and as the on of international The the of and the to experts to problems, rather than with legal as it this should the of especially in the role of the international in the courses of Jessup and Bilder – namely, to and for In this of is to in – in a course that be as a of – that, in of of and on rules for with is a for in and of course as its that has the of international As very title course the of and in the international how the was in mechanisms and is of as a for and the to the through of through such as the historical for by or the to by course, like is an attempt to the new and to a new to reflect on the as a of and a and between law, law, and instruments and in the that there are of in the it is precisely this and that has provided for and and in international law more This is very different from more traditional understandings of international law and modes of regulation of the as the the for an of is by a a However – or – the language of this course have to of the authors of the more traditional courses in this review, it be that the is a and its of the have become of at which the are just and and distribution of the of market-based mechanisms (for example, through the and historical for and course on international law of is of a more traditional in and to course. on the treaty that to and their and for dispute settlement and the of a traditional of international law the of the new concept of on how international law natural resources and on how about instead of modes of legal of access and to the as to the legal of schemes, and the of the which the of the – namely, the and equitable of the out of the of four in which international law has the of from (i) an strictly as in Jessup’s early course on the conservation of fish conservation was at a fishing to (ii) the as in the Convention or in the on This was by (iii) the as in the for form of is respect of its to and the which the of and and the fair and equitable of this economic with the of to it marks a to the of international law to set a between the different and the of the economic of which has led to a of the and of and the of the Ecological were in Jessup’s early course of and interwoven with the economy and economic thinking. As Hague Academy have pointed out over the years – and – has proved to be a for new modes of regulation that have traditional understandings of international law. such has meant regulating the through economic – and I this has – such economic instruments were of a and of concerns about and for example, in the courses of and or in the by and The are a of revision and about It is that this to the ‘general of and be as an to about international law as a more and

Damien Delorme

No abstract is available for this record.

Joshua Heath

What do Immanuel Kant and Pablo Picasso have in common? What sounds like the beginning of a bad academic joke was a serious question for the Russian philosopher-theologian Sergii Bulgakov (1871-1944). For the affinities between the twentieth-century artist and the eighteenth-century philosopher were, for him, substantial. Indeed, readers of Bulgakov’s The Tragedy of Philosophy—recently published in translation by Angelico Press—might consider the description of Kant as a ‘cubist’ and of his philosophy as a ‘cubism’, one of the book’s more outlandish and perplexing claims. Nor is it a claim that Bulgakov makes only once. In Tragedy, Kant’s epistemology is described as ‘subjective-cubistic’,11 Sergii Bulgakov, Tragedy of Philosophy, trans. Stephen Churchyard (New York: Angelico Press, 2020), 32, note 10. in response to Kant’s conviction that the unity of perceptions does not arise from objects themselves, but is instead imparted by the understanding to experience.22 Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, B 134. Later in the same work, Bulgakov simply inserts the exclamation ‘cubism!’ into a citation from Kant’s own text on the unifying role of the understanding. These are the only two instances in Tragedy where Kant’s alleged cubism is asserted. They are marginal and gnomic assertions, and give an indication of the perplexities that await the intrepid reader. But they nonetheless gesture toward the abiding concern of this work. For Kant’s ‘cubism’ has to do with his approach to unity, and particularly his view of the understanding as imparting unity to experience, rather than the unity of things being received by the understanding from the perceived objects themselves. Bulgakov has more to say on Kant’s ‘cubism’ elsewhere. The characterisation of Kant as a cubist pre-dates the extended discussion of the latter’s philosophy in Tragedy by a few years, first appearing in a 1914 article on the works of Pablo Picasso, published under the title ‘The Corpse of Beauty’.33 ‘Trup krasoty’ [The Corpse of Beauty], in Sergii Bulgakov, Sochineniia v dvukh tomakh, vol. 2, ed. I. B. Rodnianskaia (Moscow: Nauka, 1993), 527-45. Here Bulgakov claims that the parallel between Kant and Picasso has been noted elsewhere, and he is likely referring to another 1914 article on Picasso, this time by Nikolai Berdiaev.44 Rodnianskaia is the source of this connection. Cf. her notes in Sochineniia, vol. 2, 719. As for Bulgakov, what is at stake for Berdiaev in defining a ‘cubist’ philosophy is its approach to unity, and particularly the unity that both Bulgakov and Berdiaev claim for the world independently of reason. Berdiaev understands a cubist philosophy as one which sunders the unity of the world: ‘cubism is possible in philosophy also. Thus the critical genealogy ends in its latter stages with the slicing up and scattering of being’.55 Nikolai Berdiaev, ‘Pikasso’, first published in Sofiia 3 (1914). Available at http://www.picasso-pablo.ru/library/berdyaev-picasso.html (in Russian). (Accessed 28 September 2020). Bulgakov will describe cubism in similar—albeit more graphic—terms, as a decomposition of organic, living unity. ‘Putrefaction, the smell of rotting flesh and of the disintegrating physical plane are perfectly palpable’ when viewing Picasso’s portraits, whilst in cubism as a whole ‘everything, even living things become matter, become composite, and Bulgakov, The artist and the philosopher in of the living unity of things and in of the of the a to the of a and a of the of into an of But is one more is to the in the of Picasso, the artist is in with the by the artist an with the artist in a particularly with the of the world the artist is to that of the flesh which is the of the What Bulgakov to is that artist and are by a of the the unity of For the of the the of to the and the artist the that is in matter, the of in its this that is what it is to is but Sergii Bulgakov, The trans. B. to the unity of this world is to its unity with the world of what Bulgakov The of Picasso in a of his living as Thus they the of rotting the between the and the artist is the and the philosopher to They two of two to of the from the of this for in it is not from but from not in the of experience, but with the in and Sergii Bulgakov, and to The trans. and the philosopher to from the world and to it unity on it from The Bulgakov in Tragedy, to a world of of his own as Bulgakov, Tragedy, The the world from and is to a of its unity. In this the is in Tragedy as of a that the of not an into they are not to are in and are by to the of the of the and the philosopher is in two The first the that the the is the this not a in For the in from the to the is by a to the Indeed, is not the by the philosopher a of the to from the is the of the in the of a will have it the philosopher in it an for the and and The of trans. and (New York: is the of The of philosopher and in been Bulgakov by as a to the for do not independently in the world and the the philosopher with the are not and of the of the They of is to Bulgakov, the philosopher and the in to the latter with the artist as a with the of the this the of the that a of the flesh in its and which only the of the flesh but its that the of the which is in an and of Bulgakov, the of the and the artist with the a that a of the unity of the world with and with the is a of the and an of Bulgakov at the that Picasso’s work, which the of the unity of the a to and of the of the the of Picasso one the of that the with the of Picasso and in but in his in will of the of this Cf. The of Pablo Picasso (New York: Press, But what Bulgakov by this is that Picasso does not that the and unity of the is a of its being a as as physical an the of the to the of the The and is that the unity of the which to Bulgakov is the of Bulgakov, Tragedy, is with the of a from and this is the of Bulgakov’s of the of the whole a The of is a in for to of the it of Bulgakov this in Tragedy by that are when that is with of that independently of that is up of of the is of the is a more of the of are in as of with to the that are in the to that in to of the of for Bulgakov, the of Cf. for discussion of the of in his The Press, are outlandish and marginal Kant’s cubism to the of Bulgakov’s The Tragedy of The perceived of philosophy is that is of its philosopher but he into the but his in the of the and he and into Bulgakov, Tragedy, As have the of this in the to the world from when in is In response to this Bulgakov in Tragedy to what a of is the title of a by on Bulgakov in and on this in will an epistemology that from the of a of that of epistemology and For as the of the the in which is on the in which the of the unity of the world is a of to the the of the philosopher is a of of a of that Bulgakov will describe as in with to at in Tragedy, with to to is a and to which is described as Thus to in is from a of a that the of to the as Bulgakov’s of into the of is in with Kant’s critical Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, have to do with is a and one that to that even have the it will not to on with is the he at his For he does by the by in its What of What the of in this in with Kant’s the to have both and Kant will that the of a appearing to in not for the in Bulgakov will that the to which and are possible for the objects of and the that the for is that they with to a that and are and does not to an it that to the things that is that the unity of things is the unity of for Bulgakov, that the unity of things is For the of as is the of as and of the of the in the and of The of Tragedy is the of and a that has its in the of that the world is As a first in that it is that in its with unity, Tragedy is a of its Bulgakov that the of his was of they for a understanding of a The Russian for the of Sergii Bulgakov, in that in its with unity, Tragedy the view by that of Russian philosophy is that it to the and of as a in of 2, Russian with is in the of a that Tragedy, with the The latter is the translation of whilst a a a Cf. in ed. and trans. by and the of being of that is in the of is an unity, but to the of the world and the of with the with are the in what is as These are described as two they in and The is and at the beginning and of a that in the and to the of Russian and with to the the of philosophy and the for a and approach that and unity. In this was in the of an which on the of the of the the In this was in the of which that the is a of a that only living into that organic, unity. the and of this on unity are in the of a on the of Russian that in Bulgakov’s have in philosophy of unity, as and on in the of and the that is to In in the of his being as a the only a between the and the being only as the of an to its on ed. and trans. by Press, in the is to of as to an this is a one with the of the in of the of the of the is to for The of its own the of the as the the for the this is of and an of to its to the of the that which to its The between this and the that the of is the that the of is to this it from the of as the not it not the But in that not In the of as is a of as does the of as to the characterisation of being as and are of the first of of the the the in in and unity. In this first the is in that in the the the the the is in the where of the of as a to the that is the of being do not the unity to the same this unity is to in will as in the of the for in the of the of will is not from the in an unity with The to the of as and as as the first the the what is for the two is that being is being as the with in have for and with of Thus the by the by is and the as to the between of as the as and as But with this it that the of as is from the of as For to and this only a of the the is In the of is by the of But this is the of understanding of the that Bulgakov will in his more For Bulgakov’s of of the from the of and the of in the of in Bulgakov will that one that the of as a for the of the to with to the of is to the of the the of both a and a Thus with to the the of in as and on in Bulgakov, ed. (Moscow: Bulgakov will this in The the of the it in that in its first of to does not the but is by the of the as Bulgakov’s extended of the of as is in on For an of this Bulgakov’s the of this of from the of in Tragedy, this is not as as in Cf. the discussion of the of the the in this Indeed, Bulgakov’s Tragedy of is in an extended of this by Bulgakov will a to The a for what Bulgakov, Tragedy, of the not only as a but as a and for in the as of and to in for of in is and the it is not a the of the of the is living of the Indeed, the of on this of the and is in of as when Bulgakov the as question to which the is the description of the as that which the what is this Tragedy this in a that not only of but Bulgakov’s own of the of in his of the For in Tragedy, this is to a that is even for In both and Bulgakov’s Philosophy, the of the as a as an is in when he that the of is to of the of is not to of is for as by its is to say that being has an that what in its its and this that in and the of on are and for The is that the the of being to for of as for and The is not a of an it a a The same is of the and the as they are in Bulgakov’s of the Bulgakov as in Tragedy that the the is the ‘The is in a the of the is the of of and of the in Sergii Bulgakov, ed. I. B. and vol. 2, as as are described in the same as to in a In the an to the Bulgakov is being ‘The But the and the These are into with the as an it as the and the The for and both and toward a a and it a they the of being that is with and this is is a The of the is not but is with the being one for this the being of the in like the for this is Bulgakov, Tragedy, that this is is in in the of the being of the in and for in the of the this is translation is from Sergii Bulgakov, in Sochineniia v dvukh tomakh, vol. ed. (Moscow: Nauka, 1993), What of this is that a like is is an of on the of the of as a of the as its Tragedy, Bulgakov in The of the that the of the is the of the the the of and a Bulgakov, of the In Tragedy whilst the that the world in is the is more on the of the in the they give and the they the world source of in is not in but in the Bulgakov, Tragedy, into in a of a Bulgakov a in the of the For what he is to and world a of in Philosophy, Bulgakov was at to the unity of and as the latter the this unity is nonetheless The world a of with its own of the of they nonetheless to the own Indeed, is a in which the in that of an For the of in the of in which the is first of in which is the the and its with this its to that this of the the of that the whole of the of Bulgakov, of the The to which the unity of and world is in The of the being is by this the between the by which the world and themselves, between the of the world and the of In Tragedy, the and of is not that independently of the it only and with the that the a that that the of the world and the of the one Here Bulgakov’s an of epistemology and and that it a of as being the For which like is as in of a more of the is from the of the that this the of into In The of the the was Kant, the to the between a and its But the of In Tragedy, the is what is the is the in the Bulgakov, Tragedy, the of that is in its is to the the The the in the which to in the world is in the the that makes But what does this the is as of the it is say more the of the is in Tragedy in of and of the is a to of this an understanding of the as by of an that is in the on an to of but a of 10. The with a of are not to with to Bulgakov’s in Tragedy, not it to the of an with the But Bulgakov has more to say in Tragedy, where the is to a a rather than a as to to the as a unity, the Bulgakov that this is not only in Kant’s in the of the but in Kant’s which makes a for is only possible on the of in its as and is a gesture the is the of the as a unity is by and in of the is a of and The is not an but a is a for the to a but not an this of is not own but from to that to a the only of is this from the which as is What is in the in the unity that one makes of the is the unity that the makes does not with as is an of and a of the of toward and the world will by and the that is an of an of the of of the world will from to a a to in the and to to a does not his her own but it to The unity of the world as as only from and as the of in a of and are affinities at this with another of Bulgakov’s the of and of the has as its of what Bulgakov is is the of by is what makes Bulgakov’s of and epistemology a For is in the of the is the world as only by are in rather than by this is not an of of it is a which has as its not only the of the unity of the world with and with the but of with one another as to a a As an of the the whole its unity with the a unity which is the of the the of the the world as the living of the as his in the Bulgakov, and What The Tragedy of the of its with the of a of as from the to the of in the For is the for that to which are and which is with a for will a translation of Sergii Bulgakov’s is a in to and and of citation and this the of in for and in of the latter in Tragedy is Bulgakov’s of two for what in is simply by is the that to to the in a and is a and that is to the These are as and a that is and it a that Bulgakov is the work. are the with which translation from Russian into and translation to for where it is and to the its the that the translation in is a toward and of are not and are of are not and it is are to a of of the first and the Churchyard has Bulgakov from the and of and living and in its But is in a in the Russian not that the translation to from the and of and instead to the of living and the which is on the same Bulgakov that is not a But what Churchyard has as in and the translation to is not not being These like the of is But more on the of are with more on the of whole of to a of of Bulgakov’s which are on to the and which are in than of The to the Russian with the and is the of the that has only for both the and the The is a into the of the in and with one is is a that has its in the in and was by the with the of for her on Russian that the discussion of the in is from the Russian where and are in the same as is for the the of is that the same of is in of Bulgakov, as in The of of the one are as as one of Bulgakov’s at the of Tragedy into as an is and to Indeed, what of and is to does the of it makes is not the to one in not the to one and it is the of the the of the and in and trans. The of that Bulgakov is when is and simply when in as ‘The that to and the that he to the to the to approach as that a into the this is a of Bulgakov, Tragedy, a in which even and one another with a Bulgakov his readers as an in the into a of of that with which own In the same to is that the translation of as a a and to from the of and a it and into and and The of the is that the has to more a than Bulgakov, has in the of the The that the of rather than is a makes it the more perplexing that it is not and in the Indeed, it is that the it to the only by as and Stephen the of a in Tragedy, a as have a and from it is when a a text for what it does not of the is to the into the of in the that are in the is the with a like as have was to the and twentieth-century Russian which the of and to a is at in Bulgakov’s and of the of in Tragedy and the of the whole work. simply it with the and discussion of this that readers will of Bulgakov, in at the of is his and a the of Russian this is are to what Bulgakov is to The of the is a and a it is to the of Bulgakov, Tragedy, The of the is a and a is to the of the more in the the it is that the in which Bulgakov is is not between of but rather between the of The Bulgakov is is that the which and in a to with the a which is from the published is this of Bulgakov’s of a to which the as the first the the as the the and the as the the The translation this instead a between of that does not in the by a as a by the in the even the of the Russian that between the possible of one of the of the is and only in to a Sochineniia v dvukh tomakh, vol. it is that the translation the the of this into is The that not become the the of are from the the of a to is the of as to is a for is perfectly and to that simply does not for a is than a which it is possible for to and the an the in is the Bulgakov, Tragedy, the of to is with the of a the is a for But a of Bulgakov to both between more Tragedy and even the For Bulgakov that the of the is that of which it is possible for to on the of the The is when this is to another in the where Bulgakov that the does not being in the world of at the same it is not a for not to it Thus the an to not a it is to say that Bulgakov this on the of it simply the that Bulgakov in Tragedy that the is and is not that it does and does not that which is and is and as to is a for it does not at But a is more than a to in the an the in is nonetheless to the The is a is in the by an extended with the two by than the Churchyard has instead the as referring to the of the But this is not for is in is a a of the of the to is an abiding of Bulgakov’s philosophy and being up with his to the of the the on the one and his to an of the of the that does not into on the The of which in Tragedy is a in that of For it to in this that readers Bulgakov on one of the in his to the to The discussion has Bulgakov’s understanding of the in what they of like of They the of the has been as the of the with to and as of are by the to which is an of in which the an of as is from the of the its is to the of the it is in instead a unity that is by for the Bulgakov, Tragedy, Indeed, the translation of this is with a of that are in the in In the is by the as a with it being is this But the makes both that is not the of and that is not with and are in the is that the the is not the is in the it is the of for the whilst is in the it is the of a that a to of is that the of in the was and in and the epistemology of the is of its which has that the understanding of in the is the epistemology of the in and its which has from to and and of in an of Bulgakov’s The is and to the are not to as the discussion they are not as as they for from the text that the as as from in the work, that Bulgakov makes a of rather than and have Bulgakov makes in Tragedy that the of the is not that of a in a that the of a to the by Churchyard in the But it is not that of translation and in this For in the of the latter two are into Bulgakov’s text that are not in the and that concern of the claims. in the of the first which the of the of a a claim is simply as the translation a between of that does not in the of with the to a the text in the a of at and a of understanding at on the of the Indeed, the more instances of one the at in the text of a translation in an like to to the of the Bulgakov, Tragedy, rather than to have it into the In the of in the translation the of as an rather than a in to in that with have the translation as is a a translation is what The Tragedy of In his of the of Bulgakov the of in Tragedy, an description of philosophy as a of the of is an of which the a of translation into of the that was to the Sergii Bulgakov, in v is translation of and are not to the of But is and not its and that the of approach the of that approach the a unity of is it is with in the the The translation from to is by a more in translation from the into the and the for a translation does not with the a translation of own in the of which in is is for only in and one a translation from one to Sergii Bulgakov, The of trans. B. the is a translation in time of the of in the that the of the For the world to the of is for it to a translation of the of in the of of as of of as and this is what is by Bulgakov’s the the of with the translation by The of and of the of the are of the in time that the But are the of the as of the of and of the like that of Sergii of for is the of the world to and it is the of in this world have into the one to Sergii Bulgakov, For the the is that in to it into to from the source of the of Bulgakov of his to one nonetheless in his a is at not the of the and to him, is at to in the of the things of that was