Different faces of Byzantium

I detect a specific attitude to Byzantium (“the Byzantine Enlightenment”) in Ivan Kireevsky’ Slavophile article “On the Character of Enlightenment Europe” (1852). qualify this as Byzantinocentrism. take that focal point and, against background, consider image Kireevsky and some thinkers his social circle. It allows me trace most important lines attitudes Russian historiosophical literature opinion journalism nineteenth century. two opposite perceiving Kireevsky’s early circle: anti- pro-Byzantine ones. The first line goes back an anti-Byzantine message, characteristic epoch Enlightenment. found its manifestation G. W. F. Hegel’s Lectures on Philosophy History. traces implicit polemics with anti-byzantinism identify context these Arist Kunick. As well, outline how worked Pyotr Chaadaev Alexander Pushkin. Then distinguish between was presented, first, earlier second, last Necessity Possibility new Foundations for Philosophy” (1856). In latter article, which sees bipolar, find another view Byzantium. suggest bipolar entity Alexey Khomyakov’s Semiramis. My is difference views paradigmatic it reflects division present Slavophile-conservative milieu time. stands behind within same milieu, politically oriented, one relation Greek-Bulgarian ecclesiastical question. analyze both monopolar (Byzantinocentric) were reflected question considered by Khomyakov Terty Filippov. developing towards François Guizot’s historiosophic scheme well.