International Scientific Conference Cyril and Methodius: Byzantium and the World of the Slavs Thessaloniki 2015 ΠΡΑΚΤΙΚΑ ΔΙΕΘΝΟΥΣ ΕΠΙΣΤΗΜΟΝΙΚΟΥ ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΟΥ «ΚΥΡΙΛΛΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΜΕΘΟΔΙΟΣ. ΤΟ ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΟ ΚΑΙ Ο ΚΟΣΜΟΣ ΤΩΝ ΣΛΑΒΩΝ» ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΗ, 2015 Διεύθυνση- Συντονισμός Συνεδρίου: Αντώνιος-Αιμίλιος Ταχιάος Γραμματεία Συνεδρίου: Αυτοτελές Τμήμα Δημοσίων και Διεθνών Σχέσεων Δήμου Θεσσαλονίκης Επιμέλεια-Οργάνωση Συνεδρίου: Αντώνιος-Αιμίλιος Ταχιάος, Έλλη Βουζογλάνη, Αικατερίνα Κρικώνη Επιστημονική επιμέλεια: Αγγελική Δεληκάρη Συντονισμός έκδοσης: Όλγα Κοτσαμπάς Επιμέλεια κειμένων: Thessprint Α.Ε. Σχεδιασμός έκδοσης: Thessprint Α.Ε. Εκτύπωση-Βιβλιοδεσία: Thessprint Α.Ε. © Δήμος Θεσσαλονίκης © Για τα κείμενα: Οι συγγραφείς ΔΗΜΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΗΣ Βασιλέως Γεωργίου Α 1 54640, Θεσσαλονίκη Τηλ. 2313317182, Φαξ 2313-317185 www.thessaloniki.gr ISBN: 978-618-81018-1-4 Την ευθύνη για το περιεχόμενο των κειμένων, τις φωτογραφίες και τις εικόνες, που δημοσιεύονται στο παρόν βιβλίο – Πρακτικών του Διεθνούς Επιστημονικού Συνεδρίου «Κύριλλος και Μεθόδιος. Το Βυζάντιο και ο κόσμος των Σλάβων» έχουν αποκλειστικά οι συγγραφείς-εισηγητές του Συνεδρίου. 2 CYRIL AND MeTHODIUS: BYzANTIUM AND THe WORLD OF THe SLAvS (THeSSALONIKI 2015): pp. 121-131 Byzantism and Slavdom: Political Ideology of Constantine Leontiev Julia Zlatkova (Sofia, Bulgaria) Прошел великий муж по Руси – и лег в могилу. Ни звука при нем о нем; карканьем ворон встречен и провожен. И лег, и умер в отчаянии. В. Розанов A great man passed through Russia – and laid death in his grave. Nobody said a word about him; he was met and accompanied only by the crow’s croak. And he lay down and died in desperation. V. Rozanov B yzantine cultural and religious tradition was a foundation on which the Orthodox Slavic world was build. Medieval Slavic states and institutions and their spiritual and material culture were shaped on the Byzantine model. The Byzantine Commonwealth existed not only in the Middle Ages but throughout the times of the Ottoman rule and Modern History. According to the Russian philosopher, diplomat, and monk Constantine Leontiev1 Byzantism was real while Slavism was not. Leontiev lived for more than a decade in the Ottoman Empire (between 1863 and 1874) during his diplomatic career and had the opportunity to examine the life and traditions of the Balkan peoples and the vivid Byzantine 1 Constantine Nikolaevich Leontiev was born on January 13, 1831 in the village of Kudinovo, province of Kaluga. Both his parents were of aristocratic descent and his mother Theodosia Petrovna, from the old noble family of Karabanovs, had a particular influence on him. As Nikolay Berdyaev has pointed out, Leontiev was an aristocrat by nature, by character, by sense of life, and by conviction. Leontiev often changed his profession and habitation, in searching for beauty, inspiration, and personal salvation. A turning point in his spiritual development was his religious conversion in 1871, which made a great impact on his social and political convictions and literary activity. 121 jULIA zLATKOvA: BYzANTISM AND SLAvDOM: POLITICAL IDeOLOGY OF CONSTANTINe LeONTIev legacy of the East. He was not able to significantly influence the official Russian position and policy towards the Eastern question and Greek-Bulgarian church conflict, but his ideas and concepts made him one of the most original and remarkable European thinkers of the 19th century. His aristocratic, reactionary, monarchist, and universalistic ideology was highly unpopular in the age of democracy, nationalism, and political liberalism. Leontiev remained unappreciated, misunderstood, and even unknown, but his conceptions and his theory of the three-part process are of global significance. They deserve closer examination not just from historical perspective but also – for future developments. According to Leontiev, the idea of Byzantism was clear and understandable. Byzantism was based on autocracy, Orthodoxy, and Roman law. Pessimism and disillusionment with earthly things were the essence of the Byzantine moral ideal. Byzantism was the strongest antithesis of the modern ideas of universal equality, liberty, and prosperity. Byzantine civilization originated in the fourth century as a successor of the ancient Greco-Roman civilization and outlived it with 11 centuries, due mainly to the new Christian religion, which gave a new life to the Roman Empire. Most of the world’s civilizations lived much shorter; while the longest period a civilization could survive was 12 centuries. In contrast to Byzantism, Slavism was something amorphous and random, having no specific forms and features, and could be defined as an enigma: “If we try to imagine the Slavism, we have only an amorphous, spontaneous, and unorganized image, which resembles distant clouds forming different figures, when they come close to us. On the contrary, the image of Byzantism resembles the strict and clear plan of a vast spacious building. We know, for example, that Byzantism in state affairs means autocracy. In religion, it means Christianity with specific characteristics, which distinguish it from western churches, heresies, and sects…Byzantism also gives us quite clear notions in arts and aesthetics: fashion, custom, tastes, clothing, architecture, furniture – it is easy to imagine all this as more or less Byzantine…We can not see anything similar in Slavism.”2 Slavic peoples did not have common features and characteristics except the language and ethnic origins. There was Slavdom and it was rather strong in numbers, but there was not Slavism as a peculiar cultural formation. It either does not exist or did not develop yet. There was not a distinct Slavic culture and civilization, like Chinese, Greco-Roman, Byzantine 2 К. Леонтиев, Византизмът и славянството, София 1993, 21-22. Leontiev’s book Byzantism and Slavdom (Византизм и славянство) was first published in: „Чтения в Императорском Обществе истории и древностей российских при Московском университете“. Mосква 1875, №3; отдельное издание: Москва 1876. It was included in his collection of works: К. Леонтьев, Восток, Россия и Славянство, Москва 1996, 94-155; -http://knleontiev.narod.ru/texts/vizantizm.htm. We cite here from its Bulgarian edition: К. Леонтиев, Византизмът и славянството, София 1993. 122 CYRIL AND MeTHODIUS: BYzANTIUM AND THe WORLD OF THe SLAvS (THeSSALONIKI 2015): pp. 121-131 or West-European civilization. The only thing Slavs have done, was to emulate the others. Bulgarians, for example, were educated by the Greeks and imitated them, while Czechs imitated the Germans. Leontiev defined Czechs as Slavonic-speaking Germans and Bulgarians as Slavonic-speaking Greeks.3 The only differences between Greeks and Bulgarians were the language and the conflicting political interests. Culturally, psychologically, and traditionally they were nearly the same. They had similar habits, folklore, urban architecture, and even similar virtues and vices. Both Greeks and Bulgarians were conservative in their personal and family life and liberal in public affairs. They were modest, thrifty, and diligent. In contrast to the more generous and frivolous Russians, who were conservative in state affairs and quite liberal in family affairs: “Our state (monarchy/tsarism) was always stronger, deeper, and more perfect than both the aristocracy and the family. I can not understand those people who consider our people very devoted to the family.”4 The only thing that sustained the Russian family was religion and the Church, i.e. Byzantism, not the moral duty. Both the Russian family and state existed due to the Byzantine tradition and values: “The semi-wild Rus was consolidated by Byzantine ideas and sentiments. Byzantism gave us strength to endure the Tatar pogrom and the centuries of servitude. The Byzantine image of the Savior, on the great-princely flag, looked on the Orthodox warriors of Dmitry Donskoy on the battlefield, where we for the first time demonstrated to the Tatars that Moscow Rus is not already the former divided and weak Rus. Byzantism was the source of our power in the battles with Poland, the Swedes, France, and Turkey. If we remain faithful to Byzantism, under its flag, we will be able to resist the whole international Europe, in case she dares to impose on us her corrupt and reeking new laws of earthly bliss and universal commonplaceness!”5 “If we betray Byzantism, even in our secret thoughts, we will destroy Russia.”6 Byzantism influenced in two very different ways Western Europe and Russia after the fall of the Byzantine Empire. It became a stimulus for the development and flourishing of European culture and civilization, which was already formed and since the reign of Charlemagne created its own particular style and image. The impact of Byzantism and through it – of the ancient world – led to the age of Renaissance, which was the highest point of the European civilization. In Russia, Byzantism encountered simplicity, colorlessness, and underdevelopment. It was not transformed but became the fundament of the Russian state and society. “Byzantine spirit, Byzantine concepts and influences penetrate into the whole social organism of Russia.”7 3 Ibid., 55-68. 4 Ibid., 34. 5 Ibid., 43. 6 Ibid., 50. 7 Ibid., 45. 123 jULIA zLATKOvA: BYzANTISM AND SLAvDOM: POLITICAL IDeOLOGY OF CONSTANTINe LeONTIev The Byzantine concepts, however, were not organic but external and imposed on the Russian people. The West, in contrast to Russia, had its own organic concepts and was only influenced by Byzantism. Berdyaev compares the unity of Russia with Byzantism to the marriage of a young girl with an elderly man, which was not a happy marriage.8 „Byzantism was alien to the spirit of the Russian people and that is way the gap (раскол) between the people and the authorities in Russia was so deep. Russian people, evidently, could not create an organic form of statehood.”9 This is something on which Leontiev did not pay much attention in his uncritical perception of the role of Byzantism in Russia. He believed that regardless if Byzantism is good or not, it’s the only thing Russia could rely on. Leontiev praised ecclesiastical and state principles higher than the national principle. He criticized modern nationalism, which was just a manifestation and a product of the two main targets of his criticism – political liberalism and social egalitarianism. He stated that “national principle without religion becomes egalitarian and liberal principle, which slowly but surely destroys everything on its way”.10 Leontiev did not believe in Russian people but in Byzantine Orthodoxy and Monarchy on which Russia was build and organized. He claimed that “A truly religious person should not hesitate when he must make a choice between faith and fatherland. Fatherland should be sacrificed just for the reason that every earthly state is just an ephemeral phenomenon, but my soul and the soul of my fellow are eternal, and the Church is eternal too”.11 He opposed national idea to religious idea and definitely gave preference to religious principles and values blaming nationalism for cultural decline and depersonalization, and lack of originality and creativity. By examining the European and Balkan national movements in the 19th century, Leontiev made the paradoxical conclusion that political nationalism destroys cultural nationalism.12 National policy created cosmopolitan uniformity and fusion, not national peculiarity: “The idea of the nations, which was endorsed in the 19th century, is actually an extremely cosmopolitan, anti-statist, anti-religious idea. It has a large destructive force, there is nothing creative in itself, and it can not contribute for the cultural differentiation of the nations. Culture is indeed peculiarity and originality, but peculiarity is subjected to nearly ubiquitous annihilation from political liberalism. Individualism destroys the individuality of people, provinces, and nations.”13 8 Н. Бердяев, Константин Леонтьев, Париж 1997, 522. 9 Ibid., 523-524. 10 Леонтиев, Византизмът и славянството, 162. 11 Бердяев, Константин Леонтьев, 531. 12 К. Леонтьев, „Плоды национальных движений на православном Востоке II“, Восток, Россия и Славянство, 534-566. 13 Леонтиев, Византизмът и славянството, 52. 124 CYRIL AND MeTHODIUS: BYzANTIUM AND THe WORLD OF THe SLAvS (THeSSALONIKI 2015): pp. 121-131 Leontiev’s position to the Eastern question and Greco-Bulgarian church conflict was contrary to the official Russian policy, public opinion, and Slavophile ideology. He sympathized with the Greeks and Turks and did not like the Slavs, especially Bulgarians. He was repelled by the egalitarianism, liberalism, and democraticism of the South Slavs and accused them of lack of religiosity, spirituality, and originality. He preferred the Poles, liked their aristocratism and devotion to Catholicism, and considered a possible Polish uprising against Russia as less dangerous than the surreptitious activities of the South Slavic “democrats” and “progressists”. “What is Slavdom without Orthodoxy?” Leontiev asked – “Flesh without a spirit!” he answered.14 He valued Byzantism and the interests of the Church higher than Slavism and national policy, even higher than the Russian state and people. Leontiev passionately supported the Greeks in the Greco-Bulgarian church controversy of the second half of the 19th century. He believed that Greeks were faithful to Orthodoxy and the Byzantine tradition in contrast to Bulgarians, who were atheist demagogues, who used religion for political purposes and for protection of their narrow national interests. Nevertheless, he accused both Greeks and Bulgarians in the heresy of ethnophiletism or church nationalism. Leontiev claimed that the struggle of the Balkan Christian peoples for liberty and independence was just a form of the world’s egalitarian revolution. And paradoxically – the Ottoman authority was the only protector of their cultural and religious identity and of Orthodoxy itself: “The life in Turkey very soon helped me to realize something really horrible – the fact that the genuine Orthodoxy and the spirit of Slavism, here, in the East, are protected only by the Turks. I started to suspect that the Muslim oppression is salvage for Slavism for the lack of something better. I thought that the destruction and damages of the European liberalism would be stronger if there was not Turkey to protect us.”15 Leontiev was an ardent proponent of Ecumenical ideology and monarchy. He claimed that “The principle of monarchy is the only organizing principle and main instrument for sustaining social discipline in Russia”.16 He thought that Russia should support not the narrow Slavism but Orthodoxy and not to loose the confidence of the non-Slavic Orthodox Christians in the Balkans. Eastern question was not a Slavic question, as it was considered by some Slavophile circles in Russia. Pan-Slavism was counterproductive and dangerous in Leontiev’s opinion, because it was based on the modern national and liberal ideology. In reality, Pan-Slavism was a fiction. Creation of a united Slavic state would weaken and even destroy Russia, and would be unwanted by the other Slavs.17 The irrational Greek fear of 14 К. Леонтьев, „Враги ли мы с греками?“, Восток, Россия и Славянство, 156-157. 15 Леонтиев, Византизмът и славянството, 161. 16 Ibid., 46. 17 К. Леонтьев, „Панславизм и греки I“, Восток, Россия и Славянство, 38-55. 125 jULIA zLATKOvA: BYzANTISM AND SLAvDOM: POLITICAL IDeOLOGY OF CONSTANTINe LeONTIev Pan-Slavism was baseless because Russia did not support only Slavic nations but Orthodoxy. Moreover, the Slavic peoples were not united and often had conflicting interests. Leontiev criticized the Russian participation in the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878, which led to the liberation of Bulgaria, because it was a war for the Slavs, not for Orthodoxy. Russia should better wage a war in 1870 to protect the unity of the Church and against the Bulgarian schism.18 The annexation of Constantinople, not the emancipation of the Slavs should become a priority aim to the Russian foreign policy, according to Leontiev. Constantinople should become Russian because of its strategic geopolitical position and spiritual and religious significance. Russia did not need it for the realization of its imperialistic ambitions but for the fulfillment of its cultural and religious mission in history. Leontiev believed that Russia should protect and even adulate the Phanariotes because they, along with the high Greek clergy, will become its best allies after the capture of the Ottoman imperial capital.19 In Leontiev’s visions of the future Constantinople should become not administrative but cultural and political center of a new eastern Slavic-Asian civilization headed by Russia. This new eastern civilization should be built on religious and autocratic principles, not on national principles. It’s not necessary, however, this religious principles to be exclusively Christian. Constantinople could remain Turkish and is preferable to remain Turkish, as long as it resists the influence of the West. Leontiev believed that Turkey could become Russia’s most natural and loyal ally. He sympathized the Turks and appreciated them higher than the Orthodox Balkan Christians. “Turks are more merciful and fairer than any other people in the Balkans. The Turk is compassionate”, Leontiev claimed.20 He considered the Turks as honest and simple-hearted people, and predicted that the Balkan Christians will persecute them after their liberation: “In case the Turkish government leaves the Bosporus, and not all the Turks leave the Balkan Peninsula with it, they will always hope for us to protect them from their former slaves, Greeks and South Slavs, who are generally rather rude and cruel.”21 Leontiev’s Christianity was influenced by Islam, which gave reason to Vassiliy Rozanov to define him as “Turkish Abbot”: “Leontiev was the first among the Russians, and may be among the Europeans, who founded the “pathos” of Turkism, its militarism and love for women, its religious naivety and fanaticism, its devotion to God and particular respect for men.”22 18 К. Леонтьев, „Плоды национальных движений на православном Востоке XIII“, Восток, Россия и Славянство, 534-566. 19 К. Леонтьев, „Письма о восточных делах IV“, Восток, Россия и Славянство, 353-390. 20 К. Леонтьев, „Панславизм на Афоне II“, Восток, Россия и Славянство, 56-80. 21 Леонтиев, Византизмът и славянството, 47. 22 Бердяев, Константин Леонтьев, 414. 126 CYRIL AND MeTHODIUS: BYzANTIUM AND THe WORLD OF THe SLAvS (THeSSALONIKI 2015): pp. 121-131 Leontiev’s political ideology and his philosophy of history and social development were formulated in his most significant book Byzantism and Slavdom. His theory of the threepart process was inspired by his religious transformation in 1871 and by his impressions from the Ottoman Empire but it is of global significance. It refers to all worlds’ civilizations and it’s directed not only to the past but also to the future. By examining the past, Leontiev tried to foresee the future and his predictions were based on physical sciences and the life of nature. He had medical education and his philosophy of history was influenced by biology, although it’s mystical and fatalistic in essence. He claimed that the laws of development and demise of the states are similar to the natural laws of origin, growth, and death. Leontiev examined social and historical development as an organic process, but his naturalistic theories were highly complicated by his aesthetic assessments and religious convictions. He distinguished three periods in states’ and cultures’ development, which corresponded to the stages of living beings’ life: 1) initial simplicity, 2) flourishing complexity and diversity, 3) secondary simplification and fusion. The first period was characterized by the predominance of the aristocratic principle and the aristocratic authority; the second by autocratic monarchy, dictatorship or tyranny; and the last third period was marked by the establishment of democratic, egalitarian, and liberal authority.23 Civilizations lasted for about 11 – 12 centuries at best, and we do not have any reasons to believe that Western civilization, which originated in the 9th – 10th century, will be exception to the general rule and will avoid the destiny of its predecessors. Moreover, the signs of its decline were already visible and the causes of it were democracy, equality, utilitarianism, and atheism. Leontiev’s philosophy of history was influenced by the theory of Nikolay Danilevsky of change, of cultural-historical types and development, heyday, and decay of civilizations.24 Like Danilevsky, he adopted a cyclical view of history and opposed it to the evolutionary and progressive view. Similar to Danilevsky, he thought that a new eastern Slavic civilization should replace the aging Romano-German civilization of the Modern West. In case the Slavs will be incapable of creating a new original and peculiar culture and civilization, other eastern Asian people, Chinese, for example, will succeed the West and will become new world leaders.25 In case the creation of a new cultural type, strong social hierarchy26, and theocratic authority will be impossible in the whole world, the whole humanity will be destined first, 23 Леонтиев, Византизмът и славянството, 39. 24 Н. Данилевский, Россия и Европа, Санкт Петербург 1869. 25 К. Леонтьев, „Как надо понимать сближение с народом? Примечание 1885 года“, Восток, Россия и Славянство, 288-298. 26 Leontiev considered Plato’s theory of the ideal state as universal and applicable to all societies in all times. In Plato’s conception, the ideal society should consist of three classes: 1) workers; 2) warriors; 3) philosophers or clergy. 127 jULIA zLATKOvA: BYzANTISM AND SLAvDOM: POLITICAL IDeOLOGY OF CONSTANTINe LeONTIev to a democratic fusion and second, to a slow extinction or sudden downfall.27 Danilevsky excluded Byzantium from his classification of civilizations, while in Leontiev’s conceptions the Eastern Roman Empire should become an exemplary model on which the new Slavic civilization should be build. Leontiev was not anti-westerner; he was romantic, reactionary and a vicious opponent of the ideas of the French revolution. His position was completely different from that of the Slavophiles, who negated the basic principles on which the Western civilization was build. In contrast to Slavophiles, he appreciated modernization and westernization of Russia under Tsar Peter the Great, because his reforms strengthened the position of Russian nobility and created conditions for cultural and intellectual growth. Leontiev loved Medieval Europe of Catholicism, papacy, chivalry, monarchy, and aristocracy and despised Modern Europe of bourgeoisie, democracy, and industry. He was attracted to Catholicism for aesthetic and political reasons. Papal authority and the dogma of Papal infallibility were very attractive to him because they corresponded to his despotic and authoritarian gustoes. His positive attitude towards Catholicism linked him with Vladimir Solovyov, who was his close friend. Leontiev was even in love with Solovyov, who had a great impact on him, but eventually their relationship worsened and became antagonistic. Solovyov supported the unification of the Orthodox and Catholic churches under the leadership of the Roman Pope, while Leontiev considered it counterproductive and pointless. He believed, that Russia should remain faithful to Byzantism which, like Catholicism, was a universal not a national principle. Solovyov thought that Russia should have just a religious role in history and to serve as a mediator between Orthodox and Catholic churches. For this purpose, Russia should not distance herself from the West, but work for a religious alliance of all Christians. Solovyov defined Danilevsky’s theory as “creeping” and accused him of “dullness in thought” and sticking to the “existing realities”.28 Leontiev supported Danilevsky, pointing out, that the ideas of Solovyov himself were actually retrograde and old: “On the contrary, Solovyov’s reality is existing, outdated, and considerably older. Papacy exists and existed in the past; the two Churches were already united and were separated in full and passionate knowledge and confidence of their own rightness.”29 But the thing that repelled Leontiev most, was not Solovyov’s attitude towards Danilevsky, but his rapprochement of Christianity with humanitarian progress and democracy, which ran counter to Leontiev’s most precious ideas. Leontiev praised Byzantism, Russia, and 27 К. Леонтьев, „Владимир Соловьев против Данилевского“, Восток, Россия и Славянство, 466-511. 28 Solovyov’s article against Danilevsky was published in “Вестник Европы” under the same title as Danilevsky’s book - Россия и Европа (Russia and Europe). 29 Леонтьев, „Владимир Соловьев против Данилевского“, 466-511. 128 CYRIL AND MeTHODIUS: BYzANTIUM AND THe WORLD OF THe SLAvS (THeSSALONIKI 2015): pp. 121-131 the East only because he hoped that they could stop the triumph of the godless philistine modern civilization, not because he believed in the superiority of the Slavs and Orthodoxy. He considered not only Catholicism but even Islam, Buddhism, and any kind of spirituality, necessary and beneficial to humanity. Any religion was more preferable and better than the progressive utilitarian ideology. It’s worth noting, that Leontiev’s political ideology was formed under the influence of aesthetic impressions of vivid images. His thought was naturalistic and artistic, not metaphysical and abstract. A characteristic image, which provoked his strong anti-bourgeois sentiments and his rejection of development progress, was as follows: “Isn’t it terrible and painful to think that Moses ascended Mount Sinai, the ancient Greeks built their exquisite Acropoles, the Romans waged Punic Wars, the handsome genius Alexander crossed Granicus in a plumed helmet and battled at Arbela, the Apostles preached, the Martyrs suffered, the poets sang, painters painted, and the knights shone at the tournaments, only to make it possible for the French, German or Russian bourgeois, dressed in their repulsive and comic costumes, to live happily on the ruins of the glory of the past?... It would be shameful for the mankind if this vile ideal of universal utilitarianism, labour, and disgraceful prose were to triumph once and forever!”30 Leontiev became “reactionary” and “conservative” because he saw the beauty embodied in the Church, monarchy, aristocracy, and the architecture of the past, while democracy, equality, and bourgeoisie were a personification of ugliness and profanation. His aesthetics was an expression of his pagan nature, which was in constant conflict with his monastic and ascetic perception of Christianity. Leontiev was obsessed of aristocratic and aesthetic hatred towards democracy and hedonistic bourgeois culture. He was a proponent of aristocratic morality, morality of qualities not of quantities.31 The Russian romantic reactionary felt the crisis of the European culture and blamed democratic values, liberal rights and industrialization for the formation of the European middle class man, or the “mass-man” as Ortega y Gasset defined him. The middle class man was a product of the leveling tendencies of democracy and equality and was so deprived of individuality that even does not deserve to have a name. 30 К. Леонтьев, „Письма о восточных делах VI. Какое сочетание обстоятельств нам выгоднее всего?“, Восток, Россия и Славянство, 353-390. 31 Berdyaev has pointed out that Leontiev did not distinguish historical aristocracy from real spiritual aristocracy, which, paradoxically, could be revealed by democratic process: “There is a true in Leontiev’s aesthetic and mystical hatred towards democracy and plebeian culture. But there is also a great lie and misconception. I would suggest a paradoxical, at first glance, formula: triumph of democracy and socialism in the name of the ultimate triumph of aristocracy. Democracy and socialism are just ways of revealing of the true, super-historical, and mystical aristocracy. By these ways, false and casually-historical aristocracy will be eradicated. (Н. Бердяев, „К. Леонтьев – философ реакционной романтики“, Типы религиозной мысли в России. [Собрание сочинений. Т. III], Париж 1989, 175.) 129 jULIA zLATKOvA: BYzANTISM AND SLAvDOM: POLITICAL IDeOLOGY OF CONSTANTINe LeONTIev It was more proper to receive a number instead of a personal name. Leontiev felt an aesthetic disgust to the “mass man” psychology, but also to his “mourning” and “comic” attire, which was a symbol of equalization, depersonalization, and disgrace: „Everybody knows that since the proclamation of the “human rights” about a century ago, began the plastic distortion of the human image on the democratizing (i. e. vulgarizing) earth. Everybody knows that the European man of the 19th century was the only one in the whole world who began to be in mourning for his celebrations. Moreover, it was a lame mourning – not black mantle but a kind of black camisole with two black tails on its back.”32 When he saw the young Ionian Greek Mavrogenis, dressed in his traditional costume, Leontiev was amazed “how beautiful a man could be if he is dressed like a man, not like us (Europeans).” Leontiev’s ideological use of Byzantium as an antithesis and possible future alternative of Modern Europe was untimely and it is not strange that he remained unappreciated and even unnoticed. His reactionary and extreme ideas were highly unpopular and he did not have any political or intellectual influence. He ended his life as a monk, full of desperation and fear. A fear for himself and for the future of Russia. In Leontiev’s interpretation Christianity was a religion of fear, not of love. This was the source of his state positivism and his mystification and veneration of the state power. Leontiev spent his life in fear and in eschatological expectations. Nevertheless, he remains an exceptionally audacious and extraordinary thinker, who is comparable with Nietzsche and was often been defined as the “Russian Nietzsche”. Both Leontiev and Nietzsche were Renaissance men, who were unfortunate to live in a Modern age, which provoked their strong anti-bourgeois sentiments. Both of them were proponents of aristocratic and anti-humanitarian morality, a morality of power and personal qualities. Leontiev denied any connection between Christianity and Humanism. He sought for salvation from his innate Nietzscheism in the monastery. His resemblance to Nietzsche was one of the many paradoxes of his complicated personality. Another paradox was the fact that he was both a reactionary and a prophet. He managed to predict the Russian revolution, the World War, and the emergence of Fascism. Leontiev foresaw the “decline of the West” half a century before Oswald Spengler did it. But could a civilization based on the Byzantine values and the Byzantine tradition be an alternative to the Modern civilization? Surely the time could not go back and nothing in history could be repeated. But we are living in a transitional age and we are witnessing a reversal of time. Our age is similar to the fall of the Ancient world and the beginning of the Middle Ages, as it was first mentioned by Nikolay 32 К. Леонтьев, „Не кстати и кстати. (Письмо А. А. Фету по поводу его юбилея)“, Восток, Россия и Славянство, 567-572. 130 CYRIL AND MeTHODIUS: BYzANTIUM AND THe WORLD OF THe SLAvS (THeSSALONIKI 2015): pp. 121-131 Berdyaev less than a century ago.33 Desecularization of the world and religious revival, crisis of humanism, decline of nation states and emergence of universal unity, political instability and chaos, economic stagnation and beginning of the post-industrial era are significant phenomena, which give us reason to denote the postmodern world of globalization as a New Middle Age. And as far as Byzantium was an important part of the Middle Age of the past, the Byzantine cultural and religious tradition could become an important part of the New Middle Age of the future. 33 Н. Бердяев, Новое Средневековье, Москва 1991, 8. 131