BIRIUKOV D.S. 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)
- Details
- Hits: 288
- item->id; ?>
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu4.2021.4.2
Dmitry S. Biriukov
Doctor of Sciences (Philosophy), PhD,
Saint Petersburg State University of Aerospace Instrumentation,
Bolshaya Morskaya St, 67, 190000 Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation;
Leading Researcher,
Institute of Philosophy and Law of the Siberian Branch of the RAS (Novosibirsk),
Nikolaeva St, 8, 630090 Novosibirsk, Russian Federation;
Researcher,
National Research University Higher School of Economics,
Myasnitskaya St, 20, 101000 Moscow, Russian Federation
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3000-0864
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.
Key words: Byzantium, Russia, Ivan Kireyevsky, Alexander Pushkin, Georg V. F. Hegel, Petr Chaadaev, Arist Kunik, Slavophilism, philosophy of history, historiosophy.
Citation. Biriukov D.S. 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). Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 4. Istoriya. Regionovedenie. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya [Science Journal of Volgograd State University. History. Area Studies. International Relations], 2021, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 16-27. (in Russian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu4.2021.4.2.
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) by Biriukov D.S. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
 2_Birukov.pdfURL: https://hfrir.jvolsu.com/index.php/en/component/attachments/download/2577 | 528 Downloads |