Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:52:24.327Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SLAVOPHILE RELIGIOUS THOUGHT AND THE DILEMMA OF RUSSIAN MODERNITY, 1830–1860*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2010

PATRICK LALLY MICHELSON
PATRICK LALLY MICHELSON*
Affiliation:
Center for Russia, East Europe, and Central Asia, University of Wisconsin E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Russian public opinion in the first half of the nineteenth century was buffeted by a complex of cultural, psychological, and historiosophical dilemmas that destabilized many conventions about Russia's place in universal history. This article examines one response to these dilemmas: the Slavophile reconfiguration of Eastern Christianity as a modern religion of theocentric freedom and moral progress. Drawing upon methods of contextual analysis, the article challenges the usual scholarly treatment of Slavophile religious thought as a vehicle to address extrahistorical concerns by placing the writings of A. S. Khomiakov and I. V. Kireevskii in the discursive and ideological framework in which they originated and operated. As such, the article considers the atheistic revolution in consciousness advocated by Russian Hegelians, the Schellingian proposition that human freedom and moral advancement were dependent upon the living God, P. Ia. Chaadaev's contention that a people's religious orientation determined its historical potential, and the Slavophile appropriation of Russia's dominant confession to resolve the problem of having attained historical consciousness in an age of historical stasis.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Intellectual History , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , August 2010 , pp. 239 - 267
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Samarin, Iu. F., “Predislovie k pervomu izdaniiu,” in A. S. Khomiakov, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii Alekseia Stepanovicha Khomiakova, 8 vols. (Moscow, 1900–11), 2: i–xxxvi (hereafter PSS Khomiakova)Google Scholar; Annenkov, Pavel, The Extraordinary Decade: Literary Memoirs, ed. Mendel, Arthur P., trans. Titunik, Irwin R. (Ann Arbor, MI, 1968), 94 ffGoogle Scholar.

2 For some notable exceptions, see Gershenzon, M. O., Istoricheskie zapiski (o russkom obshchestve) (Moscow, 1910), 3–40Google Scholar; Müller, Eberhard, Russischer Intellekt in europäischer Krise. Ivan Kireevskij (1806–1856) (Köln-Graz, 1966), 397–413Google Scholar; Engelstein, Laura, Slavophile Empire: Imperial Russia's Illiberal Path (Ithaca, NY, 2009)Google Scholar, chaps. 4–5 (I am grateful to Professor Engelstein for sharing uncorrected proofs of her book before its publication date).

3 On the “mythology of prolepsis” see Skinner, Quentin, “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas,” History and Theory 8/1 (1969), 22–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Horujy, Sergei, “Slavophiles, Westernizers, and the Birth of Russian Philosophical Humanism,” trans. Michelson, Patrick, in Hamburg, G. M. and Poole, Randall, eds., A History of Russian Philosophy, 1830–1930: Faith, Reason, and the Defense of Human Dignity (Cambridge, 2010), 27–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Jakim, Boris and Bird, Robert, eds. and trans., On Spiritual Unity: A Slavophile Reader (Hudson, NY, 1998), 8Google Scholar.

6 Riasanovsky, Nicholas, “Khomiakov on Sobornost',” Collected Writings, 1947–1994 (Los Angeles, 1993), 59–71Google Scholar; Greenfeld, Liah, Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity (Cambridge, MA, 1992), 266–7Google Scholar. This narrative likely originated with Miliukov, Pavel, “Razlozhenie slavianofil'stva (Danilevskii, Leont'ev, Vl. Solov'ev),” Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii 4/3 (1893), 46–96Google Scholar.

7 Walicki, Andrzej, The Slavophile Controversy: History of a Conservative Utopia in Nineteenth-Century Russian Thought, trans. Andrews-Rusiecka, Hilda (South Bend, IN, 1989), 1–9, 132–4, 188–200, 453–5Google Scholar; Gleason, Abbott, European and Muscovite: Ivan Kireevsky and the Origins of Slavophilism (Cambridge, MA, 1972), x, 4–5, 151–2, 292–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Hughes, Michael, “State and Society in the Political Thought of the Moscow Slavophiles,” Studies in East European Thought 52 (2000), 159–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, “‘Independent Gentlemen’: The Social Position of the Moscow Slavophiles and Its Impact on Their Political Thought,” Slavonic and East European Review 71/1 (1993), 66–88; Tsimbaev, Nikolai, Istoriosofiia na razvalinakh imperii (Moscow, 2007), 256–346Google Scholar.

9 Rabow-Edling, Susanna, Slavophile Thought and the Politics of Cultural Nationalism (Albany, NY, 2006)Google Scholar.

10 Engelstein, Slavophile Empire, 10, passim. For a study in comparative theology see Valliere, Paul, “The Modernity of Khomiakov,” in Tsurikov, Vladimir, ed., A. S. Khomiakov: Poet, Philosopher, Theologian (Jordanville, NY, 2004), 129–44Google Scholar. It is important to note that the term ‘modernity’ can be deployed in multiple, even disparate, ways, and its application is often hampered by all sorts of problems of taxonomy emanating from its normative claims and Eurocentric historicism. Cooper, Frederick, Colonialism in Question: Theory, Knowledge, History (Berkeley, CA, 2005)Google Scholar, chap. 5 (this work was suggested to me by one of the anonymous referees.)

11 Kotsonis, Yanni, “Introduction: A Modern Paradox—Subject and Citizen in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Russia,” in Hoffmann, David and Kotsonis, Yanni, eds., Russian Modernity: Politics, Knowledge, Practices (New York, 2000), 1–2, 13 n. 2Google Scholar.

12 Nathaniel Knight, “Ethnicity, Nationality, and the Masses: Narodnost' and Modernity in Imperial Russia,” in Hoffmann and Kotsonis, Russian Modernity, 41–2, 52–4.

13 I borrow this terminology from Dunn, John, Political Obligation in Its Historical Context: Essays in Political Theory (Cambridge, 1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 For concise statements on the interaction between zakonomernost' and lichnost' see McDonald, David, “Introduction,” in Leopold Haimson, Russia's Revolutionary Experience, 1905–1917: Two Essays (New York, 2005), ix–xGoogle Scholar; Hellbeck, Jochen, “Introduction” and “Russian Autobiographical Practice,” in Hellbeck and Heller, Klaus, eds., Autobiographical Practices in Russia—Autobiographische Praktiken in Russland (Göttingen, 2004), 13–14, 280–85Google Scholar.

15 Most of the following biographical information comes from Peter Christoff, An Introduction to Nineteenth-Century Russian Slavophilism, vols. 1 and 2 (The Hague, 1961–72).

16 Koyré, Alexandre, La philosophie et le problème national en Russie au début du XIXe siècle (Paris, 1929)Google Scholar.

17 This is how one opponent of the Slavophiles described “their theory.” Chicherin, B. N., Vospominaniia. Moskva sorokovykh godov (Moscow, 1929), 223–4Google Scholar.

18 For anecdotal accounts of this group see ibid., 236–78; Solov'ev, S. M., Moi zapiski dlia detei moikh, a esli mozhno, i dlia drugikh (Petrograd, 1915), 98–108Google Scholar.

19 Zorin, Andrei, Kormia dvuglavogo orla. Literatura i gosudarstvennaia ideologiia v Rossii v poslednei treti XVIII–pervoi treti XIX veka (Moscow, 2001), 352 ffGoogle Scholar.

20 Gertsen, A. I., Sobranie sochinenii v tridtsati tomakh, 30 vols. (Moscow, 1954–66), 9: 157 (hereafter SS)Google Scholar; idem, SS, 10: 190.

21 Kireevskii's letters in Polnoe sobranie sochinenii I. V. Kireevskogo v dvukh tomakh, ed. M. O. Gershenzon, 2 vols. (Moscow, 1911), 1: 23–43 (hereafter PSS Kireevskogo).

22 Archimandrite Luke (Murianka), “Aleksei Khomiakov: A Study of the Interplay of Piety and Theology,” in Tsurikov, Khomiakov, 21–37.

23 Kireevskii, “O kharaktere prosveshcheniia Evropy i o ego otnoshenii k prosveshcheniiu Rossii (Pis'mo k gr. E. E. Komarovskomu)” and “O neobkhodimosti i vozmozhnosti novykh nachal dlia filosofii,” PSS Kireevskogo, 1: 174–222, 223–64.

24 Müller, Eberhard, “Das Tagebuch Ivan Vasil'evič Kireevskijs, 1852–1854,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 14/2 (1966), 167–94Google Scholar.

25 Engelstein, Slavophile Empire, 164.

26 Koshelev, A. I., Zapiski Aleksandra Ivanovicha Kosheleva (Berlin, 1884), 76–8Google Scholar; Gertsen, SS, 9: 133.

27 On the concept of theonomy as it is employed in this article see Zen'kovskii, V. V., “Avtonomiia i teonomiia,” Put' 3 (1926), 46–64Google Scholar.

28 Taylor, Charles, A Secular Age (Cambridge, MA, 2007)Google Scholar; Gillespie, Michael, The Theological Origins of Modernity (Chicago, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Sorkin, David, The Religious Enlightenment: Protestants, Jews, and Catholics from London to Vienna (Princeton, NJ, 2008)Google Scholar; Pocock, J. G. A., “Historiography and Enlightenment: A View of Their History,” Modern Intellectual History 5/1 (2008), 83–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Beiser, Frederick, “Berlin and the German Counter-Enlightenment,” in Mali, Joseph and Wokler, Robert, eds., Isaiah Berlin's Counter-Enlightenment (Philadelphia, 2003), 105–16Google Scholar.

30 Sorkin, Religious Enlightenment, 3, 20–21.

31 Dickey, Laurence, “Constant on Religion: ‘Theism Descends from Heaven to Earth,’” in Rosenblatt, Helena, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Constant (Cambridge, 2009), 313–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hodgson, Peter, “Hegel's Philosophy of Religion,” in Beiser, Frederick, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Hegel and Nineteenth-Century Philosophy (Cambridge, 2008), 230–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Beiser, Frederick, The Romantic Imperative: The Concept of Early German Romanticism (Cambridge, MA, 2003), chap. 10Google Scholar.

32 For Kireevskii, the political intent in removing secular authority from matters of faith was to infuse autocratic governance with Christian principles. Such a transformation, he believed, would produce two results. It would establish a more harmonious relationship between ruler and ruled in that the tsar and his government would once again express popular religious values, and it would put a check on the prerogatives of state without having to place constitutional limits on the sovereign's authority. See Kireevskii's letters to Koshelev in Koliupanov, N. P., Biografiia Aleksandra Ivanovicha Kosheleva, vol. 2 (Moscow, 1892), Appendix 8, 94, 98–9Google Scholar.

33 Bigler, Robert, The Politics of German Protestantism: The Rise of the Protestant Church Elite in Prussia, 1815–1848 (Berkeley, CA, 1972), 136 ff.Google Scholar; Bourquin, Maurice, Histoire de la Sainte Alliance (Geneva, 1954), chap. 8Google Scholar.

34 Toews, John, Hegelianism: The Path toward Dialectical Humanism (Cambridge, 1980), chaps. 8–10Google Scholar; Jones, Gareth Stedman, “Introduction,” in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (New York, 2002), 74–98Google Scholar.

35 Dickey, Laurence, “Hegel on Philosophy and Religion,” in Beiser, Frederick, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Hegel (Cambridge, 1993), 301–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Toews, Hegelianism, chaps. 2–3.

36 Martin, Alexander, Romantics, Reformers, Reactionaries: Russian Conservative Thought and Politics in the Reign of Alexander I (DeKalb, IL, 1997)Google Scholar; Wortman, Richard, Scenarios of Power: Myth and Ceremony in Russian Monarchy, vol. 1 (Princeton, NJ, 1995), chap. 8Google Scholar.

37 McDonald, David, “Domestic Conjunctures, the Russian State, and the World Outside, 1700–2006,” in Legvold, Robert, ed., Russian Foreign Policy in the Twenty-First Century and the Shadow of the Past (New York, 2007), 156 ff.Google Scholar; Whittaker, Cynthia Hyla, Russian Monarchy: Eighteenth-Century Rulers and Writers in Political Dialogue (DeKalb, IL, 2003), chap. 5Google Scholar.

38 Martin, Romantics, chap. 5.

39 Zorin, Kormia dvuglavogo orla, 339–44, 362–3.

40 For the complete French-language letters, several of which will be discussed below, see McNally, Raymond T., ed. and trans., “Chaadaev's Philosophical Letters and His Apologia of a Madman,” Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte 11 (1966), 34–117 (hereafter cited as Chaadaev, “Letters,” to indicate authorship)Google Scholar. The first letter was initially published in a Russian-language translation in the journal Teleskop, a facsimile of which can be found in Chaadaev, P. Ia., Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i izbrannye pis'ma, vol. 1, ed. Kamenskii, Z. A (Moscow, 1991), 641–76Google Scholar.

41 The contention that Russia lagged behind Europe, of course, pre-dates the Nicholaevan era. See, for example, N. M. Karamzin, Istoriia Gosudarstva Rossiiskogo, vol. 5 (St Petersburg, 1892; first published 1818), 226–8.

42 Lobkowicz, Nicholas, Theory and Practice: History of a Concept from Aristotle to Marx (South Bend, IN, 1967), 154–5Google Scholar.

43 Stankevich, N. V., “Opyt o filosofii Gegelia. (Perevod),” in idem, Stikhotvoreniia. Tragediia. Proza, ed. Stankevich, Aleksei (Moscow, 1890), 183–238Google Scholar; Gertsen, SS, 9: 18–23. The phrase “young Russia” belongs to M. O. Gershenzon, Istoriia molodoi Rossii (Moscow and Petrograd, 1923).

44 Malia, Martin, Alexander Herzen and the Birth of Russian Socialism (New York, 1965), chap. 10Google Scholar; Siljak, Ana, “Between East and West: Hegel and the Origins of the Russian Dilemma,” Journal of the History of Ideas 62/2 (2001), 335–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Randolph, John, The House in the Garden: The Bakunin Family and the Romance of Russian Idealism (Ithaca, NY, 2007), chap. 10Google Scholar.

45 Here I have in mind the works of Griboedov, Pushkin, Lermontov, and Gogol'. For contemporary criticism see Kireevskii, PSS Kireevskogo, 2: 58–61; Bakunin, M. A., “Gimnazicheskie rechi Gegelia. Predislovie perevodchika,” Moskovskii nabliudatel' 16 (1838), 5–21Google Scholar; Polevoi, N. A., “Neskol'ko slov o sovremennoi russkoi literature,” Literaturnaia kritika. Stat'i i retsenzii, 1824–1842 (Leningrad, 1990), 326–35Google Scholar; Belinskii, V. G., Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 13 vols. (Moscow, 1953–9), 4: 193–270 (hereafter PSS)Google Scholar.

46 Annenkov, The Extraordinary Decade, 20, 27–8 (I have slightly amended Titunik's translation based on Annenkov, P. V., Literaturnye vospominaniia, ed. Eikhenbaum, B. M. (Leningrad, 1928))Google Scholar.

47 Stankevich, “Moia metafizika,” in idem, Stikhotvoreniia. Tragediia. Proza, 149–55, esp. 152 (although the word razumenie is more commonly translated as ‘understanding’, Stankevich used razumenie as an appositive to and synonym for Razum (‘Reason’) throughout his essay). See also Stankevich's letters to Bakunin in Perepiska Nikolaia Vladimirovicha Stankevicha. 1830–1840, ed. Aleksei Stankevich (Moscow, 1914), 592, 650–52; Bakunin's letters to Aleksandra and Natalia Beyer in Bakunin, Sobranie sochinenii i pisem, 1828–1876, vol. 2 (Moscow, 1934), passim; Belinskii, PSS, 3: 325–56, 385–419. Stankevich's and Bakunin's initial readings of Hegel favorably interpreted Christianity as a rational religion of love that was in the process of realizing and purifying itself over time.

48 Annenkov, The Extraordinary Decade, 90, 220 (I once again have slightly altered Titunik's translation); Gertsen, SS, 9: 151; Belinskii, PSS, 6: 582; 8: 272, 276.

49 Kornilov, Aleksandr, Kurs istorii Rossii XIX veka, vol. 2 (Moscow, 1912), 91 ffGoogle Scholar.

50 Toews, Hegelianism, 1–3. Jakowenko, Boris, Geschichte des Hegelianismus in Russland (Prague, 1938), chap. 3Google Scholar, charts this alteration in Russian Hegelianism.

51 Gertsen, SS, 22: 38, 307; 9: 19, 27; Belinskii, PSS, 11: 484–5. Cf. Liebich, André, Between Ideology and Utopia: The Politics and Philosophy of August Cieszkowski (Boston, 1979), 59, 337 n. 114CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Malia, Herzen, 225 ff.

53 Ammer, Vera, Gottmenschentum und Menschgottum: Zur Auseinandersetzung von Christentum und Atheismus im russischen Denken (Munich, 1988), 89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 Gertsen, SS, 9: 24; V. P. Botkin's letter to Belinskii in Belinskii, Pis'ma, vol. 2, ed. E. A. Liatskii (St Petersburg, 1914), 418.

55 Gertsen, SS, 8: 114.

56 Ibid., 9: 158; Annenkov, The Extraordinary Decade, 58–9; Belinskii, PSS, 6: 93.

57 Gertsen, SS, 9: 23.

58 Belinskii, “Letter to N. V. Gogol,” in idem, Selected Philosophical Works (Moscow, 1948), 503–12.

59 Egorov, B. F., “Ocherki po istorii russkoi kul'tury XIX veka,” in Koshelev, A. D. and Egorov, B. F., eds., Iz istorii russkoi kul'tury, vol. 5 (Moscow, 1996), 171–84Google Scholar; Kamenskii, Z. A., Russkaia filosofiia nachala XIX veka i Shelling (Moscow, 1980)Google Scholar; Malia, Herzen, chap. 5. Herzen, Bakunin, and Belinskii went through Schellingian phases before their turn to Hegel and Left Hegelianism.

60 Kireevskii, “Deviatnadtsatyi vek,” PSS Kireevskogo, 1: 92–3; idem, “Rech' Shellinga,” PSS Kireevskogo, 2: 92–103; idem, “Obozrenie sovremennogo sostoianiia literatury,” PSS Kireevskogo, 1: 127 ff.; idem, “O neobkhodimosti,” 257 ff.

61 Koshelev, Zapiski, 12–13; Z. A. Kamenskii, Moskovskii kruzhok liubomudrov (Moscow, 1980).

62 Odoevskii, Prince V. F., “Aforizmy iz razlichnykh pisatelei, po chasti sovremennogo germanskogo liubomudriia,” Mnemozina 2 (1824), 83–4Google Scholar. Cf. π. π. [Pavlov, M. G.], “O sposobakh issledovaniia prirody,” Mnemozina 4 (1825), 20 ffGoogle Scholar.

63 Abrams, M. H., Natural Supernaturalism: Tradition and Revolution in Romantic Literature (New York, 1973), chap. 4Google Scholar; Toews, Hegelianism, 32–7. The remainder of this section is informed by Seigel, Jerrold, The Idea of the Self: Thought and Experience in Western Europe since the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge, 2005), 382–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pinkard, Terry, German Philosophy, 1760–1860: The Legacy of Idealism (Cambridge, 2002), 172–98, 317–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Breckman, Warren, Marx, The Young Hegelians, and the Origins of Radical Social Theory: Dethroning the Self (Cambridge, 1999), 54–62Google Scholar; Marx, Werner, The Philosophy of F. W. J. Schelling: History, System, and Freedom, trans. Nenon, Thomas (Bloomington, IN, 1984)Google Scholar.

64 von Bubnoff, Nicolai, “Begleitwort,” in idem, ed., Russische religionsphilosophen Dokumente (Heidelberg, 1956), 10Google Scholar; Setschkareff, Wsewolod, Schellings Einfluß in der russischen Literatur der 20-er und 30-er Jahre des XIX. Jahrhunderts (Leipzig, 1939), 1Google Scholar.

65 Schelling, Sämmtliche Werke, 14 vols., ed. K. F. A. Schelling (Stuttgart and Augsburg, 1856–61), vol. 7, Philosophische Untersuchungen über das Wesen der menschlichen Freiheit: 358; Kireevskii, “Rech' Shellinga,” 92–4, 100.

66 Schelling, Philosophische Untersuchungen, 346.

67 The phrase “melancholy monotony” belongs to Schelling. See Fackenheim, Emil, The God Within: Kant, Schelling, and Historicity, ed. Burbridge, John (Toronto, 1996), 104CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68 Schelling, Sämmtliche Werke, vol. 1, System der gesamten Philosophie und der Naturphilosophie inbesondere: 562.

69 Pinkard, German Philosophy, 325.

70 Schelling, Philosophische Untersuchungen, 352.

71 Voegelin, Eric, The Collected Works of Eric Voegelin, vol. 25, ed. Gebhardt, Jürgen and Hollweck, Thomas (Columbia, MO, 1999), 193–242Google Scholar.

72 Schelling, Philosophische Untersuchungen, 346–7; idem, Sämmtliche Werke, vol. 3, System des transzendentalen Idealismus: 582; Kireevskii, “Rech' Shellinga,” 95–6.

73 Gagarin, Jean, ed., Oeuvres choisies de Pierre Tchadaïef (Paris, 1862), 203–6Google Scholar.

74 Gertsen, “Ot izdatelei,” Poliarnaia zvezda (1861), 141. On the centrality of Chaadaev's letters to Russian intellectual and cultural history see, most recently, Gurvich-Lishchiner, S. D., P. Ia. Chaadaev v russkoi kul'ture dvukh vekov (St Petersburg, 2006)Google Scholar.

75 For notable exceptions see Miliukov, Pavel, Glavnye techeniia russkoi istoricheskoi mysli, vol. 1 (Moscow, 1898), 380–82Google Scholar; Ivanov-Razumnik, Istoriia russkoi obshchestvennoi mysli. Individualizm i meshchanstvo v russkoi literature i zhizni XIX v., vol. 1 (St Petersburg, 1911), 328–31; Gershenzon, M. O., P. Ia. Chaadaev. Zhizn' i myshlenie (St Petersburg, 1908), 76–82Google Scholar.

76 Chaadaev, “Letters,” 38, 40–41.

77 Koyré, Alexandre, Etudes sur l'histoire de la pensée philosophique en Russie (Paris, 1950), 54–89Google Scholar; Quénet, Charles, Tchaadaev et les lettres philosophiques: Contribution a l'étude de mouvement des idées en Russie (Paris, 1931), 180–87Google Scholar. I borrow, and slightly amend, the “two-world theory” from Arendt, Hannah, The Life of the Mind, vol. 1 (New York, 1978), 23–6Google Scholar.

78 Chaadaev, “Letters,” 35.

79 Chaadaev, “Letters,” 82.

80 Chaadaev, “Letters,” 80, 84.

81 Chaadaev, “Letters,” 42, 83–4.

82 Chaadaev, “Letters,” 77.

83 Chaadaev's views in this regard were not entirely consistent. In Apologie d'un Fou (1837), Chaadaev made Peter I, not religious concepts and their actualization, the agent of historical change in Russia.

84 Chaadaev, “Letters,” 43–4, 77–8.

85 Chaadaev, “Letters,” 43–4, 84.

86 Chaadaev, “Letters,” 44.

87 Jones, W. Gareth, “The Spirit of the Nakaz: Catherine II's Literary Debt to Montesquieu,” Slavonic and East European Review 76/4 (1998), 658–71Google Scholar; Vucinich, Alexander, Science in Russian Culture: A History to 1860 (Stanford, CA, 1963)Google Scholar; Shchipanov, I. Ia., ed., Russkie prosvetiteli (ot Radishcheva do dekabristov). Sobranie proizvedenii v dvukh tomakh (Moscow, 1966)Google Scholar.

88 See the commentary in Khomiakov, Sochineniia v dvukh tomakh, vol. 1, ed. E. V. Kharitonov (Moscow, 1994), 535–41. Excerpts from Semiramida, which began circulating among friends around 1840, were first published in Khomiakov, “Otryvok iz Zapisok o Vsemirnoi Istorii,” Russkaia beseda 20 (1860), 107–79. Khomiakov's initial response to Chaadaev's letter occurred in late 1836. In that essay, which was excised from Moscow Observer on the general orders of Count Uvarov, Khomiakov defended Orthodoxy as an indigenous source of Russian “enlightenment.” See Tempest, Richard, “Neizdannaia stat'ia A. S. Khomiakova,” Simvol 16 (1986), 121–34Google Scholar.

89 Khomiakov, PSS Khomiakova, 3 (1871): 188–96.

90 Khomiakov, PSS Khomiakova, 3 (1871): 22, 148 ff., passim.

91 The Russian terms belong to Khomiakov. See “Otryvok iz Zapisok,” 112–13; and Blagova, Tat'iana, Rodonachal'niki slavianofil'stva: A. S. Khomiakov i I. V. Kireevskii (Moscow, 1995), 53, 59–60Google Scholar. Cf. Kerimov, V. I., “Filosofiia istorii A. S. Khomiakova. (Po stranitsam odnoi poluzabytoi raboty),” Voprosy filosofii 3 (1988), 98Google Scholar; V. A. Koshelev, “Paradoksy Khomiakova,” in Khomiakov, Sochineniia, 10–11.

92 Kireevskii, “O kharaktere prosveshcheniia,” 202.

93 Kireevskii, “V otvet A. S. Khomiakovu,” PSS Kireevskogo, 1: 114 ff.; Müller, Russischer Intellekt, 318–28; Alyoshin, Albert, “The Slavophile Lexicon of Personality,” Studies in East European Thought 61/2–3 (2009), 77–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kerimov, “Filosofiia istorii,” 96–100; Blagova, Rodonachal'niki, 67–8, 77; Christoff, Slavophilism, 1: chap. 6.

94 Kireevskii “Otryvki,” PSS Kireevskogo, 1: 270–72.

95 Aksakov, I. S., Sochineniia I. S. Aksakova, vol. 4 (Moscow, 1886), 107Google Scholar.

96 Kireevskii's letter to Koshelev in Koliupanov, Biografiia, Appendix 8, 84.

97 Samarin, Iu. F., “Ot redaktsii,” Russkaia beseda 20 (1860), 105Google Scholar; Khomiakov, PSS Khomiakova, 3 (1871): 315–20.

98 Khomiakov, “David,” Stikhotvoreniia (Moscow, 1910), 132–3; Samarin, “Ot redaktsii,” 105; Koshelev, “Paradoksy Khomiakova,” 12.

99 Khomiakov, “Vtoroe pis'mo o filosofii k Iu. F. Samarinu,” PSS Khomiakova, 1 (1861): 321–48.

100 Kireevskii, “O kharaktere prosveshcheniia,” 178, 186; Khomiakov, “Opyt katikhizicheskogo izlozheniia ucheniia o tserkvi,” PSS Khomiakova, 2 (1900): 10, 12; Khomiakoff, L'église latine et le protestantisme au point de vue de l'église d'Orient (Lausanne and Vevey, 1872), 185–6.

101 Kireevskii, “O neobkhodimosti,” 240, 247, 248.

102 Kireevskii, “O neobkhodimosti,” 250, 257.

103 Khomiakov, “Opyt katikhizicheskogo izlozheniia,” 11–12, 18; idem, L'église latine, 265–6.

104 Kireevskii, “O neobkhodimosti,” 261; idem, “Otryvki,” 274–5.

105 Khomiakoff, L'église latine, 269–70.

106 Kireevskii, “O neobkhodimosti,” 231; idem, “Otryvki,” 281.

107 Khomiakoff, L'église latine, 259–60.

108 Khomiakov, “Opyt katikhizicheskogo izlozheniia,” 10–12, 22; idem, L'église latine, 265–6, 299; Kireevskii, “Otryvki,” 277.

109 Khomiakov, “Opyt katikhizicheskogo izlozheniia,” 6–7, 17, 20; idem, L'église latine, 269–71.

110 Khomiakov, “Opyt katikhizicheskogo izlozheniia,” 4, 13; idem, L'église latine, 39–40, 44–5, 58–9; Kireevskii, “Otryvki,” 279.

111 Khomiakov, “Opyt katikhizicheskogo izlozheniia,” 18; idem, L'église latine, 302.

112 Khomiakoff, L'église latine, 265.

113 Aksakov, K. S., “Zapiska o vnutrennom sostoiianii Rossii,” in Sharapov, S. F., ed., Teoriia gosudarstva u slavianofilov. Sbornik statei (St Petersburg, 1898), 40 ffGoogle Scholar.

114 Kireevskii, “V otvet,” 119–20; Khomiakov, “Opyt katikhizicheskogo izlozheniia,” 18; Samarin, “Predislovie,” iii–viii, xxxi–xxxiv; Christoff, Slavophilism, 2: 301; Blagova, Rodonachal'niki slavianofil'stva, 71–2.

115 Samarin, “Predislovie,” iii–iv.

116 Kireevskii's letter to Koshelev in Koliupanov, Biografiia, Appendix 8, 85.

117 Papkov, A. A., Tserkovno-obshchestvennye voprosy v epokhu Tsaria-Osvoboditelia (St Petersburg, 1902), 1–12Google Scholar.

118 For an early appreciation of this aspect of Slavophilism and its long-term implications for Russian public opinion see Leopold Haimson, “The Parties and the State: The Evolution of Political Attitudes,” in Cherniavsky, Michael, ed., The Structure of Russian History: Interpretive Essays (New York, 1970), 309–40, esp. 313Google Scholar.

119 Here I have in mind certain formulations by F. M. Dostoevskii, A. D. Gradovskii, V. S. Solov'ev, Metropolitan Antonii (Khrapovitskii), M. A. Stakhovich, M. O. Gershenzon, S. N. Bulgakov, and D. N. Shipov. For a lesser known but equally provocative appropriation of Slavophile religious thought see Lebedev, M., Vzaimnoe otnoshenie tserkvi i gosudarstva po vozzreniiam slavianofilov. Opyt opravdaniia sistemy otdeleniia tserkvi ot gosudarstva (Kazan', 1908)Google Scholar.

120 Vitte, S. Iu., Vospominaniia, vol. 2 (Moscow, 1960), 361–6Google Scholar.