Abstract

Introduction. I expose in Ivan Kireyevsky a specific attitude to the Byzantium, which I qualify as byzantinocentric. Methods and materials. I use the historical method. Materials are Russian Historical and Publicistic Literature. Analysis. In the course of research, I identify two opposite lines in terms of perception of the image of Byzantium, manifested in the circle of Kireyevsky. One of these lines may be called anti-Byzantine, while the other Pro-Byzantine. The first line goes back to the anti-Byzantine message inherent for the age of Enlightenment. It found its expression in the “Lectures for the philosophy of history” by Georg Hegel, which became known in Russia soon after its publication. In this study, I point out in Kireyevsky the traces of an implicit polemic with Hegel’s anti-Byzantinism and reveal the context of this polemic in Russian literature. I find such a context in Arist Kunik’s papers. Results. This anti-Byzantine line is clearly seen in Petr Chaadaev, for whom the theme of the relationship of Russian civilization with the Byzantine was sensitive, because Chaadaev considered such a relationship very negatively. This view is the opposite of Kireyevsky’s one, for whom this relationship is also obvious, but Kireyevsky perceives it as happy. Alexander Pushkin – a close acquaintance of both Chaadaev and Kireyevsky (in pre-Slavophil period of the latter) – also recognizes this kinship and, like later Kireyevsky, perceives it as happy and beneficial for Russia (i.e. the both share the Pro-Byzantine line). At the same time, Pushkin’s view assumes freedom and the absence of determinism of Russia by Byzantium, which is inherent to Chaadaev’s position. The difference between Pushkin and Kireyevsky in this respect is that Kireyevsky’s byzantinocentrism includes the idea of a higher spiritual connection between Byzantium and Russia, whereas Pushkin leaves Russia free from Byzantium in this respect as well.

Highlights

  • I expose in Ivan Kireyevsky a specific attitude to the Byzantium, which I qualify as byzantinocentric

  • The first line goes back to the anti-Byzantine message inherent for the age of Enlightenment. It found its expression in the “Lectures for the philosophy of history” by Georg Hegel, which became known in Russia soon after its publication

  • This anti-Byzantine line is clearly seen in Petr Chaadaev, for whom the theme of the relationship of Russian civilization with the Byzantine was sensitive, because Chaadaev considered such a relationship very negatively

Read more

Summary

ИСТОРИЯ ОБЩЕСТВЕННОЙ МЫСЛИ

CERTAIN ATTITUDES TOWARDS BYZANTIUM AS MANIFESTED IN THE RUSSIAN HISTORIOSOPHICAL LITERATURE. OF THE EARLY AND MIDDLE 19th CENTURY (IVAN KIREYEVSKY, PETR CHAADAEV, ALEXANDER PUSHKIN, ARIST KUNIK) 1. Saint Petersburg State University of Aerospace Instrumentation, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation; Institute of Philosophy and Law of the Siberian Branch of the RAS (Novosibirsk), Novosibirsk, Russian Federation; National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russian Federation

Дмитрий Сергеевич Бирюков
СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.