?
Перипетии византизма в русской мысли середины XIX – начала XX вв. Часть 1: А.И. Герцен, А.С. Хомяков, И.В. Киреевский, Т.И. Филиппов
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. I show that the impetus for the formation of this concept was in the essays by Alexander Herzen, where “byzantism” was loaded with negative connotations. I am starting 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. I show that in fact the Byzantine-centric line within the Slavophile circle was carried out by Ivan Kireevsky, and it was his point, which, as I believe, Annenkov had attributed to Khomyakov. While, as I show, Byzantinocentrism is characteristic of the only one among various lines in Kireevsky’s attention to Byzantium. In this context, I distinguish three versions of Kireevsky’s historiosophy. 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 drawn 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. I show that the two last views on Byzantium were reflected in the controversy about the Greek-Bulgarian question of that time. Within the framework of it, the Byzantinocentric view, considering the Byzantine civilization as the wholeness, as I believe, under the influence of Kireevsky, was lead 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.