The Sinuosity of “Byzantism” in Russian Thought of the Middle 19th and the Early 20th Centuries. Part 1

Alexander Herzen, Alexey Khomyakov, Ivan Kireevsky, Terty Filippov

Abstract

The paper traces the formation and development of the image of Byzantium and the concept “byzantism” in the Russian journalistic literature of the mid-second half of the 19th century. It is shown that the impetus for the formation of this concept was in the essays by Alexander Herzen, where “byzantism” was loaded with negative connotations. The article starts from Pavel Annenkov's scheme, which suggests that Alexei Khomyakov, a thinker equal to Herzen but of the opposite charge, was, in contrast to Herzen, an admirer of Byzantium. It is argued that Ivan Kireevsky carried out the Byzantine-centric line within the Slavophile circle, and it was his point, which, as I believe, Annenkov had attributed to Khomyakov. While, as it is shown in the article, Byzantinocentrism is characteristic of the only one among various lines in Kireevsky's attention to Byzantium. In this context, three versions of Kireevsky's historiosophy are distinguished. Its context is the historiosophical scheme of François Guizot. Following this scheme, the early Kireevsky still did not pay attention to Byzantium; later, using the same scheme, but changing his optics, Kireevsky drew a Byzantine-centric picture; however, soon he, under the influence of Khomyakov, changed his mind and started to perceive Byzantium as a bipolar civilization with light and dark sides. It is shown that the two last views on Byzantium were reflected in the controversy about the Greek-Bulgarian question of that time. Within its framework, the Byzantinocentric view, considering the Byzantine civilization as the wholeness, as I believe, under the influence of Kireevsky, was led by Terty Filippov, a defender of the Greeks within the Greek-Bulgarian dispute. Another view, suggesting the bipolarity of the Byzantium, was stated by Khomyakov, whose stance within the dispute was opposite to Filippov's one. At the same time, in Khomyakov's interpretation, this view incorporated an anticlerical component, which was not typical for Kireevsky's interpretation of the bipolar view of Byzantium.