SLAVOFILIA
### I. LITERATURE
The Slavophile movement represents, within Russian culture, a reaction of a national and spiritual character against the cosmopolitanism and rationalism of the eighteenth century. Slavophilia may appear as a Russian adaptation of motifs drawn from German idealist philosophy and from more generally Western tendencies, inspired by the “mission” and “primacy” of a particular people and by the simultaneous enunciation of universal values.
Among the principal exponents of Slavophilia are remembered I. V. Kireevskij (1806–56), P. V. Kireevskij (1800–56), A. S. Chomjakov (1804–60), K. S. Aksakov (1817–60), I. S. Aksakov (1823–86). In a certain sense, Slavophilia represents the awakening of national consciousness, a reaction against an ahistorical conception of Enlightenment stamp that saw in Russia the eternal disciple of Europe; yet it is also characterized by patriarchal, folkloristic, and naïve traits, by a paternalistic democracy and an agrarian outlook, all under the protection of the tsar. According to the Slavophiles, the true “Russian soul” is to be sought in the primitive peasant and in Russia before Peter the Great. Latin and Germanic civilization would be in decline, while new religious and moral values would come instead from the “young Slavic peoples.” Among all the Slavic races, the Russians would have preserved the “pristine virtues” most purely. Russian “humility” would stand in contrast to the “tradition of force” of Rome and to the chivalric world of the medieval Roman and Germanic realms. Only the Eastern Church would not have slipped into rationalism and attachment to “material values.” Instinctively, the Slavophiles—with a typically Russian anarchic streak—show fear and aversion toward the State, the courts, and every form of hierarchy.
In comparison with the Slavophiles, K. Leont’ev (v.) developed a tendency more closely aligned with the “Byzantine spirit,” more openly opposed to “racial myths” and to every form of democracy, however patriarchal. Other thinkers and politicians then developed Slavophilia in the direction of panslavism (v.), with greater detachment from philosophical concerns and with ostentation of myths of strength. The poetry of Chomjakov reflects the ideals of the Slavophile school, with moments of delicate lyrical nostalgia.
**
---
### II. PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY
Slavophile philosophy, more sketched than elaborated—especially by I. Kireevskij and Chomjakov—aims at a knowledge that is not incomplete and abstract but concrete, engaging all the cognitive, volitional, and sensory faculties of man. At the foundation of true knowledge is love, unanimity, faith. True and full knowledge is given and guaranteed only within the community of the faithful, that is, in the Church; thus Slavophile philosophy passes over into theology. For the Slavophiles, the principal problems are therefore the relationship between reason and faith, “orthodoxy,” and the Church.
The Church is conceived not as an external authority but as the communion of the faithful in unity, freedom, and love. The subject of infallible teaching in the Church is not exclusively either the hierarchy or the ecumenical council, but rather the whole body of the faithful, which must accept the definitions of the councils. The Slavophile conception of the Church constitutes an attempt at self-determination and self-justification of “Orthodoxy” in the face of Western confessions. The true Christian synthesis would be found only in the Byzantine-Slav faith, whereas Catholicism possesses only the principle of exaggerated unity and Protestantism that of exaggerated freedom. Despite this stance, Slavophile theology was directly influenced by Protestant thought and drew near to Protestant positions even inasmuch as, protesting against Rome, it sought to provide an ideological justification for that protest. Yet by affirming its “democratic” coloring—that the subject of infallibility is not primarily the hierarchy—Slavophile theology also came into conflict with official theology, at least in large part (while certain currents within official theology, e.g., the teaching of fundamental theology at the Moscow Ecclesiastical Academy, shared the principal theses of Slavophilia). It was therefore subjected to severe censorship by the Holy Synod of Russia.
From the Slavophile point of view there also emerges a special conception of universal history (e.g., in Chomjakov, Danilevskij, Leont’ev) and, in particular, of the origins of the schism between East and West. The Church of Rome would be nothing other than the continuation of the ancient pagan Roman Empire. The schism would be the fruit of Latin particularism, which, by declaring the Filioque a dogma of faith, committed “a spiritual fratricide” (Chomjakov’s expression), thereby separating itself from ecclesiastical unity and falling into rationalism, of which later Protestantism, rationalism, and atheism would be but the logical consequences. This anti-Catholic orientation, in which Catholicism is identified with purely external authority, with an excess of rational and juridical principles, is evident first of all in Slavophile ecclesiology but also in other areas of theology, e.g., in soteriology.
Only relatively few representatives or continuators of Slavophilia have drawn near, wholly or in part, to the Catholic point of view (e.g., Soloviev).
**