Abstract This is the second part of an overview of the cultural history of Slavophiles, a term applicable to those ascribing to the traditional values, especially in relation to the philosophical treatises written by Aleksey Khomyakov, Ivan Kireevsky, and their contemporaries from 1839 to the middle 1860s. Having established the troika of themes at the treatises’ foundation ­ the Russian state and Tsar, the Russian Orthodox Church, and the hierarchical governmental ​
mir​
and sociocultural ​
obshchina​
constructions present in history ­ I examine the philosophical, theological, and anthropological realities of poems by Khomyakov, Nikolai Yazykov, and Fyodor Tyutchev. My primary focus is on Tyutchev, a philosopher­poet and lifetime Slavophile who is known for many works which fall outside of this investigation. I will uncover and discuss how Khomyakov and Kireevsky’s ideas are conveyed through the semiotics, rhetoric, and specific poetics of three decades of Tyutchev’s oeuvre. In the end, I find that Tyutchev transversed through three phases, beginning with a personal construction of Slavdom or the Slavic ​
obshchina​
, creating a relationship between Slavic and universally true good, and concluding with the development of the correlation between Western and evil. The final part of the Slavophile overview will the existing sociopolitical remnants of Slavophile ideologies in the 21st century. Acknowledgements I would like to thank all those that supported me in this endeavour: my friends, David, Sofia, Natalie, Heather, and Victoria; my advisor, Dr. Teresa Polowy; other faculty and staff at the University of Arizona College of Humanities, Department of Russian and Slavic studies, and the Honors College; and all other friends, family, and classmates in the past four years. I am forever in your debt. Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..1 Poetry of the Slavophiles………………………………………………………………………….8 Selected Poetry of Aleksey Khomyakov, Nikolai Yazykov, and Fyodor Tyutchev…….10 Aleksey Stepanovich Khomyakov……………………………………………….12 “Russian Song” (?).....................................................................................14 “To Russia” (1839)....................................................................................16 “To Russia” (1854)....................................................................................18 Nikolai Mikhailovich Yazykov…………………………………………………..19 “To A.S. Khomyakov” (?).........................................................................22 “Pitiful writer! He does not hear…” (?).....................................................23 “To P. Y. Chaadaev” (?)............................................................................24 Fyodor Ivanovich Tyutchev……………………………………………………...24 “The Banner and the Word” (1842)...........................................................29 “Russian Geography” (1848­49)................................................................31 “Daybreak” (1849).....................................................................................34 “The Prophecy” (1850)..............................................................................38 “The Neman” (1853)..................................................................................40 “Now you are not up to verses…” (1854).................................................44 “These poor villages…” (1855).................................................................47 “To the Slavs” (1867)................................................................................49 “Grand day of Cyril’s departure…” (1869)...............................................52 “Huss at the Stake” (1870).........................................................................56 “The Vatican’s Anniversary” (1871).........................................................60 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….62 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………..65 “​
For us, Russians with a soul, one Russia distinctly, one Russia truly exists; all others have only a relationship to her, an idea, a Providence. We may think, we may dream in Germany, France, Italy, but we may do solely in Russia.​
” ­ Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin, historian (1766 ­ 1826) Introduction Before commencing with the intended examinations of Slavophiles, their thoughts, and their works in the cultural sphere of the Russian empire, it would be wise to present the background which both preceded and occurred contemporaneously with the Slavophil­Westernizer dichotomy. This contention over the “one Russia” in existence, as Karamzin said, did not come to a head ex nihilo, after all, but instead was the result of centuries of related questions and debates. A short summary of the historical antecedents to 1830 will give some perspective as to both why the question of Russian identity is given so much attention and to the ideas and opinions from which Slavophile philosophers and thinkers drew from. The first organized government that would become the Russian Empire was formed in the late ninth century or early tenth century, and was centered for centuries in present­day Kiev, Ukraine.1 Although its capital was temporarily located in Novgorod, it was then permanently moved to Kiev, lending to the name Kievan Rus’ (​
Keivskaya Rus’​
) that it was given centuries later by Russian historiographers. Not much is definitively known about Kievan Rus’, most likely due to the absence of a concerted, consistent writing system among local peoples. Tenth­century Kiev’s citizens were not all Slavs, but then included both European and Asian peoples who conducted business with the East and the West, setting the cultural and political foundations which last until this day in the Russian state. 1
Thompson, John M. Russia and the Soviet Union an Historical Introduction from the Kievan State to the Present. 6th ed. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 2009. 11­12. Page 1 The state of Kievan Rus’ had for centuries a history that is often looked back on as example par excellence for political and economic stability, strength, and unity. However, it would not last forever; in the twelfth century, Kievan Rus’ imploded due to violent and unsustainable turbulence.2 The period of long­strided reigns was over by the second quarter of the twelfth century and it gave way to a succession of rulers that abdicated almost every year. Kievan economy, which at its apex thrived off of its central position in trade, was in a decline as new routes were discovered. By 1200 ​
A.D.​
, Kiev was in the hands of several conquering tribes. So it remained until 1547 ​
A.D.​
when Ivan IV (b. 1530 ­ d. 1584), also known as “Ivan the Terrible”, reunified Moscow and neighboring states, resulting in the formation of in the Tsardom of Russia (​
Tsarstvo Russkoye​
).3 Though still tumultuous, the state was now more consolidated and thus manipulable. Due to the advantageous positioning of an ancestor of the Tsardom, the Grand Duchy of Moscow, Ivan IV moved his capital to young Moscow, where it would stay until the reign of Peter the Great (b. 1672 ­ d. 1725, r. 1682 ­ 1721 & 1721 ­ 1725) in the early eighteenth century. Over the period of almost two hundred years, the autocracy of the Russian tsars became the sole seat of political power and held a great deal of clout with the Russian Orthodox Church, in addition. Every citizen below the Tsar was subject to his whim, and decisions were handed down to the local level with great authority and no flexibility. It is also important to note that between the mid­1500s and 1700, the Tsardom multiplied manyfold in area. By the succession of Peter the Great to the throne, Russia moved its eastern boundary from the Ural Mountains to the U.S. state of Alaska.4 This geographical expansion likewise conquered new Asian peoples, likewise expanding the meaning of “Russian”. 2
Thompson, John M. 24­25. ibid. 70. 4
Ibid. 101, map. 3
Page 2 St. Petersburg, a name formed from that of its founder and the German suffix for “city”, was founded upon the swampy lands of the Russo­Scandinavian borderlands in 1703. Less than ten years later it became the capital of the Tsardom of Russia; then in 1721, St. Petersburg was the seat of the new, Westward­looking Russian Empire under Peter the Great.5 It was conceived to be an imitation of Amsterdam and to adopt the aesthetic and atmosphere of a Western city, a sign of what was to come for the next century. Peter the Great, a controversial moniker, is known for abruptly redirecting the progress of the Russian state. His reforms, which were first implemented around the founding his namesake city, touched each and every aspect of Russian life, from the manufacture of bullets to the shaving of beards. Indeed, if Peter was undeniably something, he was unquestionably thorough. Summarizing all of his reforms would require a space even greater than this introduction, thus only those significant to the Slavophiles will have a forthcoming acknowledgement. What follows is not at all an exhaustive list. In 1718, Peter formed the Holy Synod in order to subjugate the Russian Orthodox Church.6 Although Peter was born and bred into Orthodoxy, it may have been in name only. The effect of the Holy Synod was the removal of the autonomous Patriarch of the Church. Church affairs now could be manipulated and directed by the secular government, an idea averse to the pious, such as the Old Believers, whom Peter ostracized and silenced continuously. With a newly renovated army and a freshly created navy, Peter required every citizen to serve in some 5
Billington, James H. The Icon and the Axe: An Interpretive History of Russian Culture. New York: Vintage Books, 1970. 181. 6
Ziegler, Charles E. ​
The History of Russia​
. 2nd ed. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Greenwood Press, 2009. 38. Page 3 capacity.7 This included religious clergy and monastics, who were taken from what many saw as a righteous leadership position to serve the state and its treasonous leader. Aiming to increase Russia’s intellectual competitiveness, Peter founded the Russian Academy of Sciences, still in existence today, just months before his death.8 The Academy, to be picked up again by Empress Anna (r. 1730 ­ 1740), boasted of Western professors and leading scientists in mathematics, astronomy, and biology. The new trend in material and rational education and thinking would become a major source of critique for Slavophile philosophers after it had permeated more of Russian society and culture. Gradually throughout his reign, Peter altered social life and relations. He decreed that a new style of clothing should be worn to replace monochromatic cossacks, enforced by taxation. Socially, he strongly encouraged men and women to dance and converse with each other in public.9 Society before that time, like an Orthodox church, strictly separated the sexes from interacting with each other so as to preserve the modesty and gentility of women, and provided narrowly prescribed manners in which a man and woman could openly converse lest the subject matter turn unbecoming to undefiled ears. Peter greatly liberalized this custom, modelled after relations he observed abroad in Western Europe. Westernism continued to encroach upon the Russian state after Peter established the precedent, though with a mostly inactive interruption between his death in 1725 and the assumption of the throne of Catherine II (b. 1729 ­ d. 1796), like Peter also known as “the Great”, in 1762. Catherine had an obvious connection with the West as she was born in 7
Thompson. 117. Ziegler. 39. 9
Ibid. 40. 8
Page 4 present­day Germany, like her father Peter III. She would bring many of the traditions and customs of her home country to her adopted dynasty for thirty­four years. Catherine’s enacted laws and reforms were largely extrapolated and localized from Enlightenment thinkers, in which Catherine was all too well educated from her childhood.10 Diverting from historically significant personages from Russian and Orthodox history, she continued Peter the Great’s trend of steering Russia toward a Western path in an attempt to keep pace with England, France, and her native Germany. Most notable of all of her reforms occurred in 1785 when Catherine enacted both a charter of rights and privileges to social groups of higher standing, the nobility of Russia. In addition to adopting Western­style legislation, she also strengthened the class boundaries in Russia by exempting nobility from military service and allowing nobles to form local, administrative groups around the country.11 This was surely a betrayal to the peasants and serfs of Russia; it was also the first step to creating a petit bourgeoisie in the country, a private interest group so to speak. Free to spend more leisure time, the nobility learned French and German at universities, travelled to those locations, and consequently, saw Russian culture as something that only the lower classes could afford. As a consequences of the massive changes in official policy and unofficial personal and class­based values, the ruling classes imported more than only languages, clothes, and food; new idea systems began to infiltrate Russia. Widely influenced by the mysticism and classlessness of Russian Orthodoxy, pre­Petrine Russia was, in general, lacking in intense rationality of thought like Western Europe. However, at this time, thinkers such as Hegel, Locke, Montesquieu, and Voltaire became common names in circles of nobility and, by close association, decision makers. 10
Thompson. 134. Ibid. 135. 11
Page 5 Thier philosophies were largely materialist and looked to the physical world to solve and answer unknowns regarding the physical world. To the Slavophils, the absence of the metaphysical would become troubling. The differences between what Russia was before 1700 and that, which Russia became under Peter and Catherine will hopefully become more clear and nuanced below, but for now it is important to know that significant, lasting, and pervasive change was underway. Concluding the introductory background, I will touch on the cultural imports of the Slavophiles as well as that of their followers. Former roommate and lifelong friend of Georg Hegel, Friedrich Schelling (1775 ­ 1854) was a contributing inspirator to Slavophile philosophers and writers. Second in line of the German idealists, Schelling contributed to Slavophile ideological bases of identity and natural philosophies, which formed most of their writings. The Slavophiles have received a new treatment of examination and analysis in the recent fifty years since glasnost, but never more than one aspect at a time. The study that follows covers more than forty years of Russian culture, though selectively. As has been seen, I will draw from history, philosophy, prose, poetry, and other facets of history in order to explain a genesis, transformations, and precipitations in an ideological line. In the following pages I will answer who the Slavophils were, what their values and motives were, how they expressed themselves, the lasting themes and narratives of the movement, and the general significance of the Slavophiles in Russian history and culture. Secondarily, I will answer questions about Russians views and expressions on and of their own identity. How do various groups of Russians identify and express their self­identity? Similarly, how do foreigners relate to and value Russians and Russian culture? Moving into a more philosophical realm, I will answer how these answers may shed light on the creation of a Page 6 temporary or semi­permanent self­identity, a value of society, and the unavoidably important relationship between self and society. As a final goal, I will discover what all of my previous conclusions contribute to the broad concept of trickle­down philosophy, in which an idea travels through the higher classes toward the bottom social rung, and its transformations and survival adaptations therein. Page 7 The Poetry of the Slavophiles The various works of fiction that are examined below have been selected in order to argue the point that the philosophical ideas of Aleksey Khomyakov and Ivan Kireevsky expounded in the three decades discussed above were fruitful and argued by Russian society’s greatest minds of the mid­ to late­nineteenth century. Irrespective of their usefulness or applicability to broader society, I will in this section attempt to show that Slavophile­branded perspectives were partially or wholly resonant with the values and thinking of various renowned authors. I have selected what I consider to be the most important philosophical loci from the founders’ ideas to serve as the major themes around which I will base my analyses and discussion. The first theme is the everlasting uniqueness and supremacy of the Russian state and people, especially in contrast to Western Europe and its cultural and intellectual descendents. This topic is arguably the most ideologically prevalent and important to both the philosophical writings and the related fictional works of literature. It is the first among many objectives that underlie and interrelate all previously discussed theses. In the belle lettres, we will see, it arises more distinguishably than in Khomyakov’s or Kireevsky’s writings in that all of the works discussed below will use the theme of Russia’s primacy to drive forward the message and/or plot of their works. Whereas Russia’s privileged status has been herein shown by the philosophical essays to be innate, my discussions will uncover devices used by authors and poets to develop a more nuanced comparison between Russia and the rest of the world. The second theme is the role of Orthodoxy in creating Russia’s sense of uniqueness and in the creation and maintenance of the Russian ideations of savior­nation. Khomyakov in Page 8 particular often supplied the idea that Orthodoxy and Russia are one and the same essence. In the literature and poetry influenced by their writings, one will discover a similar discourse of the close inter­relatedness of the Russian people and their faith. The intensity of Khomyakov’s religious fervor will likewise be reproduced in the works of Tyutchev. Much of each author’s corpus and ideology includes features attributable to Orthodoxy’s presence and influence in their daily personal lives. The third and final theme is the presence and utility of traditional Russian social organization, which continually reinforces the previous two themes. The ​
mir​
and ​
obshchina​
are the dual managerial frameworks which demarcate the interpersonal boundaries for social collectivity and relations. Further discussion of the two topics at a later point is necessary for a juxtaposition of their ideological and literary manifestations. At the conclusion of the section, I will revisit the dynamic interplay between the three themes and how their close relationship with Khomyakov and Kireevsky’s writings can inform us about the mobility of ideas between individuals, society, and art. Although the Slavophiles’ heyday had passed quickly, the core ideology developed by Khomyakov and Kireevsky continues to exist in prose, poetry, plays, literary criticisms, short stories, and other non­fictional and fictional works from both the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. There is much to explore in seeking explanations for the wide impact of Slavophile thought in subsequent authors’ work; that which follows is an examination of how influential authors of the nineteenth century refocused two men’s philosophies to create artful works that would reach millions throughout the world.12 12
A note on the quotation sources in this section: due to the difficulty of finding available, not even to speak of dutiful translations of much of the poetry of Khomyakov and Yazykov and several poems from Tyutchev, all translations of their verses are mine alone. The translations represent an intention to convey primarily the content and message of the verses, and only secondarily the fine poetic details contained within. Page 9 Selected Poetry of Aleksey Khomyakov, Nikolai Yazykov, and Fyodor Tyutchev Three poet­contemporaries’, Khomyakov (1803 ­ 1860) himself, Nikolai Mikhailovich Yazykov (1803 ­ 1846), and Fyodor Ivanovich Tyutchev (1803 ­ 1873), inscribed in poetry the Slavophile spirit, if not its ideology. The primary subject of the examination will be Tyutchev who, I suggest, contributed the greatest quantity and highest quality of poetry to the Slavophile idea. Still, all three authors have significantly contributed to the body of Russian poetry as a whole, and to the number of Slavophile or Slavophile­related each in his own idiosyncratic manner. In the early­ to mid­nineteenth century, Romanticism reigned as the most popular genre among poets. The style was particularly fitting for expressing a more personal and empathetic side of nationalism which is consistently exhibited throughout Khomyakov, Yazykov, and Tyutchev’s verses. Euro­Russian romanticism, so named after Pushkin delivered the trend­setting Slavic spin on literatures coming out of the UK, France, and Germany, is dominated by a first­person view of one’s surroundings and is produced after the external has been altered and reproduced by one’s sensory and emotive faculties. What thus penned on paper is a mixture of both the objective external and the subjective, personal impressions of the author which enhance or mute to varying degrees what is observed through the senses. Slavophile poetry may therefore be a naturally arising phenomenon of Euro­Russian romanticism as Khomyakov and Kireevsky’s movement is primarily constituted by figures’ highly personal interpretation of equally and otherwise highly inscrutable components of land, population, and cultural practices. By Slavophile authors, these ingredient elements are transformed into ​
homeland​
, ​
narod​
, and Page 10 savior­paragon instructions​
. Such a reframing is enabled, even enhanced by the romanticist poetry conduit. In order to fulfil the mission begun by Pushkin, an author seeks the deepest emotions that will host his perceptions of the world. Such is the vehicle on which poets place their visual, auditory, tactual, and other senses in order to reach their audiences. To a certain extent, this method may be largely effective as we may assume that pride, joy, grief, jealousy, and love are experienced by all at one time. Emotional experiences are independent of sex, race and ethnicity, age, income, education, nationality, and many other classifications which often limit the availability of certain experiences across sub­populations within a wider populace. Emotions are an elemental factor which can unite grand numbers of people, which, with auxiliary tools such as meter, form, rhyme, and diction manipulation, confers a great advantage as a tool to reach as large of an audience as possible. The number of readers reached by the end of the poem may not be limited by emotions as a tool, but may be bounded instead by the objective sources which do not correspond to a similar emotive product. The possibility of maximizing the effectivity of romanticism is thus dependent on the most generalizable source, the emotive vehicle. Slavophilism faces a particularly pertinent obstacle in this regard. As a result of the highly specific and non­transferable nature of their vehicle, the participating poets may have created for themselves a destiny of, so to speak, preaching to the choir. It is impossible to know the extent to which Khomyakov, Yazykov, Tyutchev, or any other poet converted a non­believer into a believer, to borrow a phrase relevant to the topic, but one may easily assume that the controversial subject­matter was more of a deterrent than any such motivator to the contrary. Page 11 Aleksey Stepanovich Khomyakov It is now only necessary to focus on the context around Khomyakov that contributed to his career as a poet. Aleksey Stepanovich Khomyakov penned around a hundred pieces of poetry, with approximately 60% written before 1840, corresponding to the time around which he began to devote much more time and effort to his theo­philosophical contributions to the Slavophile circle. Many of his pieces have, even under a quick examination, a consistently strong Orthodoxy­heavy theme revolving around discipline and salvation. This is unsurprising, even predictable to anyone familiar with any other aspect of his life or written corpus. He likewise often variegating his form and style past a small handful of repeating schemes. Khomyakov is known usually solely for his contributions to philosophy for several reasons. According to Newmarche, Khomyakov’s views were appropriate within that context, but too extremely sectarian to gain popularity outside of his small niche, not to mention finding a following among non­Orthodox readers.13 His relatively small number of publications which drew from an even more insignificant quantity of themes signified that his poetry would always take a secondary role to his philosophy. His purpose in this analysis is to offer a standard against which we may compare and contrast the methods and motives of Yazykov and Tyutchev, which in turn will help facilitate analysis of a half­step idea transfer between original source of the philosophy and a poet who adopted the philosophy. A most ubiquitous motif throughout Khomyakov’s works is insisting on the savior­nation capacity of Russia. As discussed in the previous chapter, Khomyakov was strongly of the opinion that Orthodoxy was the only valid remaining branch of Christianity. Moreover, 13
Newmarch, Rosa. Poetry and Progress in Russia. London: J. Lane, 1907. 214. Page 12 Khomyakov insisted that the Russian state, lead by the demigod tsar and inhabited by a faithful narod​
, was the paragon society and the singular state to exist in that capacity. Unrivaled by any other nation or people, Russia had earned a special relationship with God through its incessant adherence to the traditions of old. This idea took a principled position within most of Khomyakov’s philosophies and similarly in his artistic writings as well. Several of Khomyakov’s poems highlight this savior sentiment through explicit characterization of the Russian people and land. In “Russian Song” (“​
russkaya pesnya​
”, written early 1830s), he begins by immediately establishing the setting in Kiev, “the beautiful land of Volodimir.”14 The birth name of Prince Vasily (ca. 980 ­ 1015), Volodimir is responsible for accepting on behalf of the Slavic people a holy baptism into the Orthodox Church. For the author, Volodimir represents, as he explicits in line 9, a forefather to Khomyakov and all Russian Christians since the original baptism of the land. This event, which would radically redirect the path of first the Russian nobility, then the gentry, and eventually all of society, Khomyakov celebrates with a song. He continues, “From me in the steppes all men came, / all godly men came. / From me true judgment in trials came…” In this exodus from Kiev, the event is treated in both pomposity and imagery as a genesis story of the entire universe. Ignoring the fact that Christianity was brought from the West to Kiev, Khomyakov tells in his eulogistic “Russian Song” the beginning of the faith in the eastern lands. He illustrates an energistic expansion of Christianity following its adoption. 14
From “Гой красна земля Володимира!” Page 13 “Русская Песня” (?)15 Ходит по небу солнце ясное, Греет, светит миру целому, Ночью теплятся звезды частые, А траве да песчинкам счету нет. По земле ходит слово божие, Греет жизнию, светит радостью; Блещут главы землей золоченые, А господних слуг да молильщиков, Что травы в степях, что песку в морях. “Russian Song” (?) A bright sun travels along the sky, Warming, shining on the whole world, The common stars are warmed at night, Blades of grass and grains of sand are numerous. The word of God travels across the land, It warms with life, shines with joy; The gilted heads of the lands shine, They are the Lord’s servants, supplicants, Like blades of grass on the steppes, like grains of sand in the seas. The usage of sunlight imagery at the beginning of the second­to­last quatrain is reflective of the word of God as they both transverse the setting in the same manner (​
khodit​
). This informs that the bright sun is representative of the word of God and that the latter consequently moves at a similar velocity would the first ray of sunshine in darkness. The word of God, like the ray, gives life and joy with its presence across the land. The baptism, reminiscent of the Big Bang Theory’s instantaneous and eruptive beginnings, is both here and there at the same time. Khomyakov returns to the region’s distinctive geography in the penultimate and final lines of “Russian Song.” Reinforcing the importance of the Christianization of both the people and the land under the Rus’ prince, the new disciples and their environs are connected through simile. The “Lord’s servants” (​
gospodnikh slug​
) and “supplicants” (​
molil’shchikov​
, old form of contemporary ​
molel’shchikov​
) are likened to the steppes’ and seas’ contents. This serves to testify to their grand numbers and, as mentioned, reminds the reader of the setting. The steppes act as icons of inland Kievan Rus’ and the seas the southern boundary of the state, today called The Black Sea. This poem was written in the period before Khomyakov began collaboration with Kireevsky or, as far as we know, any other of the thinkers who would become members of the 15
Khomyakov, Aleksey Stepanovich. “Хомяков Алексей Степанович Стиховорение.” Lib.ru. July 31, 2012. Accessed January 1, 2015. http://az.lib.ru/h/homjakow_a_s/text_0010.shtml. Page 14 Slavophile circle. “Russian Song” is perhaps one of the clearest and most purely original exhortations of his views outside of his socio­theosophical compositions which would begin less than a decade later. The poems that succeeded “Russian Song” were decidedly still very much written in Khomyakov’s straightforward style and proud voice, but with a noticeable reorientation of mood and content. Possibly his most popular poems are both simply titled “To Russia” (​
Rossii​
, autumn 1839 and March 1854), written as a letter­style composition in only the second (using the familiar ​
ty pronoun found in all of Khomyakov’s poems) and third points of view. These two poems predominantly vacillate between the first and second themes outlined above, first, the self­endowed supremacy of the Russian people and land, and second, the radically integral position of Orthodox Christianity in the conception and maintenance of the assertion of Russia’s uniqueness. Both works employ similar devices to project onto the created image of Russia a strong opinion of the state’s status in relation to others and the mandated future will of the people. As in “Russian Song,” in his “To Russia” poems Khomyakov creates an ideal of Russia as both perfect and human, a duality and dichotomy of the utmost importance in Orthodox Christianity as it alludes the ascendency of Jesus Christ as the unblemished, praise­worthy example. In these poems Khomyakov here intends to relate in broad strokes the idea of Russia, that is all people, places, and objects Russian, and the ideal of Jesus of Nazareth. The savior complex is one of the most commonly utilized images to us what the theme is. Khomyakov contributed greatly to the particular philosophy that constructed Russia’s saviorhood, but among the authors examined in this chapter, Dostoevsky was by far its greatest contributor. For now, Page 15 though, I will focus on Khomyakov’s poems “To Russia” (1839, 1854) as forbearers of the concept. He begins “To Russia” (1839) with two quatrains that he will use as evidence of Russia’s magnanimity and capacity for humility. His tone resembles a priest preaching to his congregation or a monk advising a young parishioner. Khomyakov starts thusly: “России” (1839)16 Гордись! ­ тебе льстецы сказали. ­ Земля с увенчанным челом, Земля несокрушимой стали, Полмира взявшая мечом! Пределов нет твоим владеньям, И, прихотей твоих раба, Внимает гордым повеленьям Тебе покорная судьба. “To Russia” (1839) Be proud! ­ flatterers said to you. ­ The land has a crowned brow, The land that became invincible, Half of the world taken with the sword! There are no limits to your dominion, And, the whimsy of a slave It listens to your proud commandment, Fate is submissive to you. Khomyakov immediately bring a very subject tone to the poem in the first line. By beginning with “Be proud! ­ flatters said to you ­,” he instantaneously creates a rhetorical distancing of the support for engaging pride and Russia or himself. One senses that he will invoke a moralistic tete­a­tete between those who are antagonizing Russia and Russia herself. Interestingly, in addition, is the unfolding of the arguments by the others and by Khomyakov in order to convince, one could say, Russia or the Russian people. This stanza is followed by Khomyakov’s interjections: “Do not believe [them], do not listen, do not be proud!”17 Khomyakov’s strong feelings against pride most likely came from Christian teachings. One may take any number of verse from the Old or New Testament and find an incessant antipathy toward pride and the proud. For example, Proverbs 16:5 affirms 16
Khomyakov, Aleksey Stepanovich. “Хомяков Алексей Степанович Стиховорение.” From “Не верь, не слушай, не гордись!” 17
Page 16 “Everyone proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord; Though they join forces, none will go unpunished;” and, of course, the oft quoted Matthew’s Beatitudes in which 5:5 states that “Blessed are the meek: for they will inherit the earth.”18 The moral impetus for Khomyakov’s words are found in his faith which seeks to support the notion that Russia is as Jesus was said to be, guiltless in all regards. The first half of the poem warns Russia of the path taken by the prideful. Instead of continuing in this vein, Khomyakov lists natural features found throughout Russia which invoke his admiration, such as “the bosom of mountains full of diamonds,”19 and comments of adoration which continue the personification of Russia, such as “Let people humbly bow their gaze / before your powerful luster.”20 At the end of these laudatory quatrains, he returns to his purpose, “Of all this power, of this glory, / Of all these remains do not be proud!”21 These remains (or dust or ashes) are of the once­powerful Roman Empire. As discussed in the previous chapter, the idea referenced is that Russia represents the third manifestation of Rome (after the city itself and then Constantinople). Both in the “To Russia” of 1839 and that of 1854, Khomyakov underscores the greatness of Russia’s calling and the responsibility to fulfil the idea of destiny. The later poem, about half of the length of the earlier, is more heavily laden with the motif of the chosen savior­nation. This idea may have ironically come to the philosopher­poet from Hegel22 even though Khomyakov was a sworn enemy of the German philosopher. Nevertheless, the savior­nation image is 18
NKJV translation From “недра гор алмазов полны” 20
From “Пусть пред твоим державным блеском / Народы робко кланят взор” 21
From “Всей этой силой, этой славой, / Всем этим прахом не гордись!” 22
Newmarche. 219. 19
Page 17 constantly replayed throughout Khomyakov’s poems. In “To Russia” (1854), Khomyakov begins his work with a similar tone of admonishment: “России” (1854)23 Тебя призвал на брань святую, Тебя господь наш полюбил, Тебе дал силу роковую, Да сокрушишь ты волю злую Слепsх, безумных, буйных сил. Вставай, страна моя родная, За братьев! Бог тебя зовёт Чрез волны гневного Дуная, Туда, где, землю огибая, Шумят струи Эгейских вод. Но помни: быть орудьем бога Земным созданьям тяжело. Своих рабов он судит строго, А на тебя, увы! как много Грехов ужасных налегло! “To Russia” (1854) You were called to a holy war, Our Lord loved you, He gave you a fateful strength, And you will shatter the evil will Of deaf, mad, riotous powers. Arise, my native land, For our brothers! God calls you Through the furious, Danube waves, Thither, where, skirting the land, The currents of Aegean waters rustle. But understand: being God’s weapon As an earthly creation is difficult. He judges his servants sternly, And on you, alas! How many Horrible sins have been laid! Like in the earlier “To Russia,” Khomyakov immediately engages with the subject matter at hand, reminding Russia, one could say, of her duties as the chosen one by God. He also moves directly to the crux of the issue, that the power is as great as the responsibility with which it comes. The second stanza invokes “our brothers” as the reason for which the country should arise, representing the first invocation of ​
sobornost’​
in one of Khomyakov’s works. Its purpose in this poem is to convey the sense of duty to one’s community, especially as it relates to religious responsibilities. Khomyakov implicates Russia as necessarily acting as the leader on behalf of her brothers because she is the most capable of carrying out God’s consigned tasks for the world. Khomyakov does leave the identity of “Russia” and what or who comprises its constituents somewhat ambiguous, however. We do not know if he is specifically naming the 23
Khomyakov, Aleksey Stepanovich. “Хомяков Алексей Степанович Стиховорение.” Page 18 Tsar, the elders of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), the society as a whole, or all of those. That being said, “Russia” is the first among nations and people, loved by and thus was called upon by God to serve as a Jesus­like example. Further analysis of the second stanza leaves one with the question, why does Khomyakov reference the Danube River and the Aegean water thus calling Russia westward? In his statement, by choosing to include non­Russian geography in a poem about Russia’s duty, Khomyakov further implies that the “brothers” are not only Russian, but they are all ethnically Slavs, historically (post 1054) regional Orthodox Christians. The Aegean Sea is located far away, south of Greece and west of Turkey. Khomyakov chose a location that is west of Eastern Christianity’s homestead, Constantinople (now Islamic Istanbul) but a location that is the most Western that Eastern Christianity has sustained its presence. Thus we may infer that Khomyakov, believing that Orthodoxy is the only true Christianity, has extended Russia’s influence to the western­most settlements of God’s Kingdom on Earth. Furthering the notion of a savior­nation, Khomyakov envisions Russia to be the example ​
par excellence​
for more than just itself, which would be prideful, but for Orthodoxy as a whole. Nikolai Mikhailovich Yazykov Nikolai Mikhailovich Yazykov is a contemporary poet of Pushkin, Delvig, Zhukovsky, and Batyushkov. He was born of an old Slavic family in 1803 in Simbirsk Province. He attended what is now called the University of Tartu in Estonia, then called the Dorpat University in 1822 while studying under Batyushkov and Zhukovsky. Upon graduation in Tartu, he entered government service in Moscow for four years before leaving it for poetic projects which he considered to be more noble and invigorating business. His circle of friends in Moscow included Page 19 the Kireevsky brothers, Khomyakov, and others of the Slavophile movement. He often studied the Bible and religion, especially Orthodoxy though also other sects of Christianity and other religions, as well as Slavic folklore, all of which would influences his poetic work. He died alone in 1846 the day after (Western) Christmas at the age of forty­three of unknown causes. By the end of his life, according to his poem which will be later examined, he surrounded himself with many Slavophiles due to their similar interests. In addition to examining Yazykov’s artistic contributions to the Slavophile movement, I desire in the following analyses to discover his sentiments and predilections toward the Slavophile movement. They are thus far unknown ambiguous. Though many readers today are uneducated about Yazykov’s contributions to nineteenth century Russian poetry and the Slavophile movement, I hope to in what follows to add to the general corpus of knowledge that surrounds Yazykov. I consider him to be an incredibly talented and focused individual, who composed over three hundred poems which will go down in Russian romanticist history. In his poems, Yazykov often makes note of various environmental elements, such as that of the river Volga cutting through Eastern Russia and lush expanses of taiga forest, along with general features that characterized pre­industrial, untrodden Russian landscapes, as “clean,” “abundant,” and “cruel” to non­native inhabitants. Broadly speaking, Nature is often represented as a contributing and affective interface in Romantic works, approaching and on occasion superseding the role of the main characters in the novel, poem, painting, or play.24 Despite the fact that Romanticism traveled to Moscow and Petersburg from Western Europe in the early 19th century, Russian authors readily embraced its nature motifs as familiar to its own literary and 24
Pratt, Sarah. Russian Metaphysical Romanticism: The Poetry of Tiutchev and Boratynskii. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1984. 38. Page 20 cultural history; the famous “Слово о полку Игореве” (​
Slovo o polku Igoreve​
) from the late twelfth century for example, portrays nature with a significant level of agency. Yazykov appropriated the Russo­Romantic aesthetic of nature for his own poetic purposes. The poetic works of Nikolai Yazykov express their predilection for Slavophile philosophies in a consistent, though less explicit, more creatively abstract style than the poetry of Khomyakov. In comparison, Yazykov eschews religious foundations to explicate Russian qualities and instead molds mystical elements around the environs and communities in Russia. To him, especially in his early ode “Motherland” (​
rodina​
, 1824) which will be discussed shortly, nature act as the mother­like figure which has given birth to awe­inspiring beauty. Moreover, Yazykov’s poetry is an apt forerunner to Tyutchev’s supernatural and mystical poetry which is imbued with multiple layers of significance regarding Slavic spiritual and metaphysical essence. In this examination of Yazykov’s work, five short poems will act as evidence of the author’s intellectual recognition and alliance with Slavophile ideology. The first poem “To A. S. Khomyakov” («A. S. Khomyakovu», date unknown) establishes several facts that permits little doubt that Yazykov possessed not only Slavophile leanings, but that he was, to some extent, in contact with people central to the building of the Slavophile intellectual movement and himself was largely a champion of the general philosophy of Slavdom’s superiority. In “To A. S. Khomyakov,” in which, much like the namesake’s literary preference, Yazykov addresses the poem directly to the philosopher in a epistolary tone. Page 21 “​
To A. S. Khomyakov​
”​
(?) “К А.С. Хомякову” (?)25 Прими ты мой поклон заздравный! Тебе, возвышенный поэт И совопросник достославный, Желаю много, много лет Стихом и прозой красоваться, И цвесть красою чистых дел! Receive my bow of graces!26 To you, sublime poet and illustrious disputant, I wish many, many years Beautified by verse and prose, and blooming with the beauty of pure deeds! In only these few lines it becomes clear that Yazykov aligned himself with the Slavophile ideology. There are panegyric elements of esteem and exaltation reminiscent of the tone and formality of the neo­classic ode. Despite this tone, it is noteworthy to notice that Yazykov immediately begins with the informal second­person pronoun ​
ty​
. Its use implies that they were at least acquaintances who had established a relationship. We can assume, of course, that they were slightly more than acquaintances by July 5, 1836 when Khomyakov married Yazykov’s sister, Ekaterina Mikhailovna.27 The two men often conversed with each other and shared philosophies until Yazykov’s early death. Despite their relationship, Yazykov still creates a pedestal on which he places the philosopher: he offers Khomyakov a bow, both a symbol of humility and fraternal trust, and describes him as a “sublime poet” and “illustrious disputant.” The latter likely refers to Khomyakov’s contributions to the widely discussed and eternally debated question “Что делать?” (​
chto delat’?​
), or “What is to be done?” that was on many minds during the first half of the nineteenth century, as discussed in the previous chapter. In this opening sextain, Yazykov 25
Yazykov, Nikolai Mikhailovich. "Николай Михайлович Языков Стихотворения." Lib.ru. December 13, 2005. Accessed January 1, 2015. http://az.lib.ru/j/jazykow_n_m/text_0130.shtml. 26
“Заздравный” (​
zazdravniy​
) here used to describe a bow is often used to describe actions that applaud or praise others, such as a toast, or used in “заздрвная чаша” (​
chasha​
) which specifically refers to the cup used in old European rituals of thanksgiving and brotherhood. 27
Walicki, Andrzej. The Slavophile Controversy: History of a Conservative Utopia in Nineteenth­century Russian Thought. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975. 222. Page 22 clearly shows steadfast allegiance to one of the Slavophile founders and his values before maneuvering to a defensive position on his behalf. Following a sextain that introduces Khomyakov’s “enemies”,28 Yazykov alludes to the Slavophile­Westernizer debate about which he takes an explicit position in defense of Khomyakov. * * * (?)29 Несчастный книжник! Он не слышит, Что эта Русь не умерла, Что у нее и сердце дышит, И в жилах кровь еще тепла; … Очнется, встанет Русь и с сбою Свое заветное возьмет! Untitled (?) Pitiful writer! He does not hear, That this Rus’ did not die, That she has a heart that beats, And in her veins warm blood flows; … Rus’ will awake and arise and fight To take what she cherishes most In the last two lines, Yazykov chooses an image that most likely resonated with Khomyakov very strongly and poignantly. In this couplet the author revisits a resurrection­esque sequence of events. The Second Coming of Jesus, awaited by millions of Orthodox Christians, may be envisioned as the restoration of the Kingdom of God on earth. Like the Second Coming, the couplet alludes to a new period for resurrected Rus’, i.e. the state prior to the construction of the Russian Empire by Peter I. Yazykov unites through this personification of the state, the nation and their Savior. The first four lines boldly make mention of a particular person (“pitiful writer) who deserves a condemnation in a work principally about one of Yazykov’s close companions. Out of context, it is not possible to definitively say who the “pitiful writer is, but with the aid of another verse, the identity becomes more easily definable. “To [Pyotr Yakovlevich] Chaadaev” («K 28
From “Враги ж твои” Yazykov, Nikolai Mikhailovich. "Николай Михайлович Языков Стихотворения." 29
Page 23 Chaadaevu») features a relevant quatrain that employs similar language to the excerpt just examined. “К П.Я. Чаадееву” (?)30 На нас, на все, что нам священно, В чем наша Русь еще жива. Тебя мы слушаем смиренно; Твои преступные слова “To P. Y. Chaadaev” (?) In us, in everything that is sacred to us, It is in that our Rus’ in still alive. We humbly listen to you; To your criminal words Pyotr Chaadaev, a popularly anathematized Westernizer philosopher who, some original Slavophiles believed was also a Russian philosopher once sympathetic to Kireevsky’s philosophies and then betrayed the cause and wrote several works which protested Russia’s unique position as an exemplary nation and people.31 In Chaadaev’s most popular works, his philosophical letters, he begins with a similar rhetoric that Russia and the ​
narod​
are truly an example, but then later explicitly states that they are an example of how ​
not​
to live. Many of his writings were censored within Russia for years. Yazykov makes special note of these “criminal words” that stained the Slavophile image of a near­perfect Russia. We may assume that it is also Chaadaev of whom he is speaking in “To A. S. Khomyakov”; he mentions in both verses that the Westernizer is mistaken that Russia is no longer alive. In this way, Yazykov represents a strong ally to Khomyakov and the remainder of the Slavophile movement. Fyodor Ivanovich Tyutchev First among the poets in the Slavophile cadre was the philosophical, stubborn, and wonderfully creative mind of Fyodor Ivanovich Tyutchev. The prolific and fecund artist was 30
Ibid. Dostoevskij, Fyodor Mikhailovich, Richard Pevear, and Larissa Volokhonsky. “Preface.” In ​
Demons​
, 12. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000. 31
Page 24 born in 1803 in Ovstug, Russian Empire amongst a family of well­to­do, landed gentry which was able to enrich young Tyutchev’s imagination throughout his childhood.32 Educated at home until his middle­teen years, he completed his university education at Moscow State University in the Philological Faculty in less than three years. His adult life began in 1822 when he joined the Empire’s Foreign Affairs Office and accepted a post as a diplomat­in­training in Munich. He would remain there and other locations abroad for more than two decades. His upbringing and relocation beyond the borders of the tumultuous Russian Empire greatly influenced the emergence of this poet. His noble family could afford to send the children to distinguished tutors in Moscow, under whom Fyodor would receive a world­class, contemporary education. Moreover, he found in the capital a circle of his teachers with whose aid he would attain his first publication in a literary journal before matriculating into university. In showing an unusually promising level of potential at an early age, he was gained access to more elite mentors, who enhanced his skills as a poet and thinker. Thus, at the time of his departure for Germany, Tyutchev was knowledgeable enough to participate in written exchanges with some of the most eminent minds in Europe and beyond. The most significant of his influences while he worked as a diplomat was German Idealist Friedrich W. J. von Schelling (1775 ­ 1854), almost thirty years Tyutchev’s senior. Through their long friendship and mutual exchange of ideas and views, the poet was informed by the philosopher’s lifetime work in German Idealism, a branch of metaphysical philosophical thought that explores the correlations and constructions of perceptions of external phenomena. Schelling was notable for his work in ​
Romantische​
​
Naturphilosophie​
which built on his 32
“Fyodor Tyutchev | Biography ­ Russian Writer.” Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Accessed February 3, 2015. Page 25 predecessor J. G. Fichte’s contributions and most relevantly argues, among other things, in short, that nature is arbitrarily compartmentalized by human perception, and that the ideal is equal to the real.33 This is known as “​
indifferenz​
,” or undifferentiation of reality and ideation.34 In other words, to the question “How does reality compare to our idea of reality?” Schelling would answer that the division between that which is reality and that which is our conception of reality is a falsehood. It is, instead, born of the human psyche and is purely inconsequential. The subjective is inseparable from the objective point of view, and vice­versa. With this mindset Tyutchev was able to validate his own beliefs as an inerrant matter of fact rather than the opinion of a devout Orthodox Christian or quasi­jingoist Russian national. Metaphysics can be considered a philosophy of philosophy or a way to discover other philosophies, and for that reason Tyutchev freely applied Schelling’s ​
Naturphilosophie​
to other passions, most notably his romantic poetry. In order to complement his informal philosophical training, the poet attempted to reconnect with Russian current events while he was abroad in Germany. According to S. S. Labanov, during the 1830s and 1840s, Tyutchev closely kept abreast of the Slavophile circle and their writings, and, moreover, Khomyakov “sympathetically cited Tyutchev’s political writing/essays,” including “Russia and Revolution” and “The Papacy and the Roman Question.”35 The relationships can clearly be seen in Tyutchev’s works in Russian;36 one may unmistakably document a turn in the general trend of poetical subjects to which Tyutchev turned his attention beginning in mid­1842 with the simple, single sextant “The 33
Pratt. 4. Pratt. 191. 35
Labanov, S. S., and Boris Tarasov. "Проблема взаимоотношения России и запада у А. С. Хомянова и Ф. И. Тютчева." In ​
А. С. Хомяков ­ мыслитель, поэт, публициист Сборник статей по материалам международной научной конференции, состоявшейся 14­17 апреля 2004 года в г. Москве в литературном институте им. А. М. Горького​
. Vol. II. Москва: Литературный Институт им. А. М. Горького, 2004. 36
Opposed to his number of works in French, spanning from 1838 to 1851, which were apolitical and areligious. 34
Page 26 Banner and the Word”. At that time, a significant portion of his verses began to consistently wax political, voicing Tyutchev’s desire for internal change within the Russian Empire or external submission to the Empire.37 As is reflected in the selected poems that follow, Tyutchev became a passionate devotee and, later an innovative and artistic manipulator of Khomyakov and Kireevsky’s philosophies which gradually led to the acknowledgement that he was the most talented, influential, and well­known of all Slavophile poets. Fyodor Tyutchev’s oeuvre is stylistically constant throughout his career, but topically varied across a swath of subjects and treatments. These subjects range from the bucolic afternoons spent at a picnic to odes of his forbearers to screeds at enemies of the state to the successes and failings of the Russian Orthodox Church and its hierarchy. Many of Tyutchev’s poems represent Slavophile ideology and philosophy; the chosen poems below instead represent more than a dozen distinct yet connected views which modify and expand on Khomyakov and Kireevsky’s ideas. Each poem reflects a single intellectual or emotional position, corresponding to a single piece of a larger argument developed and defended by Tyutchev from the beginning of his career to his death. That argument’s substance and execution will be the primary question to be answered. In order to accomplish that task, however, several smaller observations must be made to address quanta of his reasoning. The first assertion that I will make is that Tyutchev frames his political and religious poems as reflections and expressions of inner ­ immaterial, intrapersonal mental and emotional ­ faculties, and outer ­ grander, suprapersonal material and immaterial institutions and systems, phenomena as inherently and irreconcilably oppositional forces. The purpose of this 37
Тютчев, Фёдор Иванович. "Тютчев Федор Иванович ­ Собрание стихотворений." Lib.ru. February 8, 2011. Accessed February 3, 2015. Page 27 structure is to establish a clearly demarcated division between that which Tyutchev has deemed and thus factually conducive to and facilitative of the salvation of man and that which he has deemed obstructive to the salvation of man. This is the broadest context of Tyutchev’s poetry. Embedded within the functionality of inner and outer phenomena toward Tyutchev’s final goal is the context, which can distinguish an actor between the pro and contra sides. This context primarily involves the idea of ​
sobornost’​
of the ​
obshchina​
and is crafted uniquely in each work where an individual is found to either contribute to the health or the detriment of the collective, or alternatively, where the Russian ​
sobornost’​
possesses qualities or capabilities which lend an advantage to the pro argument. I will specifically examine the process of creation and utilization of ​
sobornost’​
in Tyutchev’s works as it helps better understand the content and sequence of his narrative: the establishment of a Russian singularity, of Russia as equal to noble, and of others as equal to ignoble and in need for conversion or elimination. As opposed to Khomyakov’s and Yazykov’s poetry which is not as consistently exacting, Tyutchev’s poetry successfully follows the most specific to the most general themes of the founders’ philosophy within the entirety of his unflaggingly creative and convicted opus. The product of Tyutchev’s first attempt to write political poetry came about in June 1842 when he completed “The Banner and the Word.” This work is the forerunner of his career devotion to an ever­present political poeticism; with a familiar subject, his renowned abilities for philosophical creativity and prowess are also more significant around the same time. The early writings of Khomyakov and Kireevsky penned in the recent years before were already influential on Tyutchev’s weltanschauung before the middle of the decade. As opposed to later works, “The Banner and the Word” represents an exercise in concrete, tactile, and accessible symbolism, Page 28 diction, and significance. It is, nonetheless, already pregnant with the basic rhetoric of later poems, the first of its kind, that ties all of his Slavophilic pieces together. Because of this, it serves as an ideal introduction to the rest, showing the progression of Tyutchev from his early years. “Знамя и Cлово” (июнь 1842 г.)38 “The Banner and the Word” (June 1842) В кровавую бурю, сквозь бранное пламя, Предтеча спасенья ­ русское Знамя К бессмертной победе тебя провело. Так диво ль, что в память союза святого За Знаменем русским и русское Слово К тебе, как родное к родному, пришло? Into the bloody storm, through the martial flame, The forerunner of salvation ­ the Russian Banner Led you toward the deathless victory. Was it such a miracle that in memory of the holy union Behind the Russian Banner, the Russian Word Like kin to kin, has come to you? This poem, consisting of only two sentences, describes a violent battle path. Beginning ​
in media res​
of the sanguine scene, the “Russian Banner”39 is introduced using the equational definitive marker, the “Forerunner of salvation.” That it is leading you, as banners ofttimes do, to victory is not as indicative of the poem’s significance as eternal, which the reader is assured, is indicative. True salvation, i.e. that which leads to immortality, with which Khomyakov was principally concerned, is in its essence, synonymous with the “Russian Banner.” Inseparable, to follow the Russian Banner is to achieve salvation. I will show that the significance of the Russian banner is crafted once by the reader and once more by Tyutchev at the beginning and the end of these eight lines. A primary stylistic feature in “The Banner and the Word” is the personification of the symbols used which helps achieve a full understanding of the relationships between the important instruments in the poem. Having already suggested that the “forerunner of salvation” 38
Tyutchev, Fyodor Ivanovich. "Тютчев Федор Иванович Собрание стихотворений." In the original Russian, only “Banner” is capitalized, “Russian” is not. However, due to English standards, that could not be properly reflected in the translation. 39
Page 29 is synonymous with the “Russian Banner,” the second triplet explains the “Russian Banner’s” greater meaning. In line 5, one may understand that the “Russian Banner” has commanded the “​
(emphasis particle) ​
Russian Word” in the latter’s actions and operative functions. Line 6 indicates a hierarchy which replicates the Holy Trinity in Orthodox Christianity: God the Father as the “Russian Banner” which is both equal to and superior of Jesus the Son as the “Russian Word.” The last of the tripartite union, the Holy Ghost, is covertly existing, for it is implicated in coming of the Word to a humanly realm. There is however more in “The Banner and the Word.” The final line is primarily concerned with the arrival of the Word. It is useful to note that “kin” (​
rodnoye​
) is used to describe the relationship between “you” (​
tebye​
) and the Word, which demonstrates multiple aspects of the Slavophile point of view. Firstly, there is more than a casual relationship between “you” and the Word; it is instead one founded on commonality, endearment, and trust. “Kin,” indicated as an adjective first describing the Word and then “you,” is a sacred concept in Russian that describes such a bond. Moreover, “Russian Word” refers to the Russian language as an entire concept. With this assumption, the “Russian word” may amplify the nearness of the relationship through self­identification with the language as well as fully qualify as kin. The identity of “you” is tacitly implied: a Russophone and Russophile. From a broader perspective, “The Banner and the Word” asserts a intimate relationship between the Russian existence and God. Though published some six years later than “The Banner”, “Russian Geography” (late 1848 ­ early 1849) is the apt follower in the genre of Tyutchev’s strong political works. In it is the beginning of Tyutchev’s delineation of the physical Russian kingdom as the spiritual seat of Page 30 God’s presence on earth. He uses the poem primarily to implicitly define the boundaries of the Russian Kingdom and secondarily assert the preeminence of the holdings within the boundaries through reference to the Book of Daniel of the Old Testament. Tyutchev’s questions in the first stanza further his attitude toward the Russian kingdom’s similarity with the Kingdom of God in Heaven and set up the second stanza’s references to literal geographic points and time. “Русская География” (1848­49 г.)40 “Russian Geography” (1848­49) Москва и град Петров, и Константинов град­ Вот царства русского заветные41 столицы... Но где предел ему? и где его границы­ На север, на восток, на юг и на закат42? Грядущим временам судьбы их обличат... Семь внутренних морей и семь великих рек... От Нила до Невы, от Эльбы до Китая, От Волги по Евфрат, от Ганга до Дуная... Вот царство русское... и не прейдет вовек, Как то провидел Дух и Даниил предрек. Moscow and Peter’s city, and Constantine’s city­ These are the sacred capitals of the Russian kingdom But where is its limi? And where are its borders­ To the north, to the east, to the south and to the sunset? The fates will be revealed in future times Seven inner seas and seven great rivers… From the Nile to the Neva, from the Elbus to China, From the Volga through the Euphrates, from the Ganges to the Danube… This is the Russian kingdom… and it won’t ever pass, As the Spirit foresaw and Daniel prophesied. Tyutchev commences with three cities and simply proclaims “these are the capitals of the Russian kingdom.” Moscow is the first city and the first word of the poem; it is a city strongly tied to Russia and to the Russian Orthodox Church in all senses. At first glance, one may assume that the reference to “Peter’s city” refers to St. Petersburg, but in fact, “Peter’s city” refers not to 43
Petersburg ​
but to the city of Peter the Apostle, Rome, the location of the first established church of Jesus’ disciples. 40
Tyutchev, Fyodor Ivanovich. “Тютчев Федор Иванович Собрание стихотворений.” Also the word used for covenant in “People of the Covenant”: заветный народ (​
zavetniy narod​
). 42
A play on the Russian word for west, “запад” (​
zapad​
) which is similar in sound to закат (​
zakat​
). 43
Though it is in fact a direct translation: ­burg taken from the Germanic ​
berg​
, meaning fortress or walled town. Peter I chose this name for his city because of his Western proclivities. 41
Page 31 Constantine’s city, Constantinople, as the seat of the Byzantine state was known as the Rome of the East or the Second Rome because it became a powerfully influential metropolis or a thousand or more years after the sack of Rome and its dissolution into obscurity. As missionaries began to move north­eastward toward non­proselytizing lands of present­day Eastern Europe and the Eurasian gradient, including the Christianization of Kievan Rus’ in 988, Constantinople’s influence over Eastern Christianity was similarly impressed on these new lands. Slowly, it became more like any other megapolis and lost its title as Second Rome, most like beginning in the decades following the fall of Constantinople in 1453 to the Ottomans.44 Returning to the poem, the first line clearly invokes the notion that, as a seat of the autocephalous Russian Orthodox Church and its Patriarchate leading millions of followers is most suitable to become the Third Rome. This idea, as discussed already, was a central tenet held for nineteenth­century Slavophiles and harkened back to pre­Petrine Russia when Moscow was simultaneously the center of the Church and the government. In this way, by refusing to acknowledge Petersburg as capital of the Russian kingdom, the godliness of the dynastic succession after Peter II is undermined as the tsars of Rus’, Muscovy, and the Tsardom of Russia are elevated to the heavens. The questions of the third and fourth lines assume that one may initially interpret “kingdom” as a human innovation of governance and not in fact a celestial throne. This is especially clear in the allusion borders which has an instantly recognizable connection to the demarcations on a political map rather than anything else. This holds true until Tyutchev mentions the sunset (​
zakat​
), which is obviously not a direction, like the listed North, South, and Parry, Kenneth, and David Melling, eds. ​
The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity​
. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1999. 490. 44
Page 32 East. The primary meaning of ​
zakat​
is “sunset,” which, of occurs, occurs in the West.Russian speakers will also know that закат (​
zakat​
) also has a general meaning of drop, decline, decrease, and ending.” Tyutchev’s use of ​
zakat​
instead of a direction is a reference to the final two lines of the poem, in which he reveals that this kingdom is not only of earth by referencing the Spirit and Daniel. Tyutchev begins the second stanza with a symmetry between seas and rivers; there are seven of each. Seven, of course, is significant in Christian symbology, representing the presence of God and His work on earth. Within the poem the use of this symbol likewise turns one’s thought away from Russia as merely a physical kingdom toward a spiritual kingdom. The final two lines are a reference toward the final book of the Old Testament, the Book of the Prophet Daniel to whom God revealed a dream which the prophet must decipher. In his interpretation, Daniel reveals to the King Nebuchadnezzar that his mighty kingdom will one day fall as others did before and will many in the future. Daniel continues that this pattern will continue until “in the times of those kings, the God of heaven will raise up a kingdom and it shall never be destroyed. This kingdom shall not be left to another people, but it will break in pieces and crush all these kingdoms; it will stand forever.”45 Thus this everlasting kingdom of God is equated to the Russian kingdom of Orthodoxy and all of Christianity having physical but not spiritual limits, a motif repeated liberally throughout Tyutchev’s works. Later in 1849 Tyutchev completed “Daybreak” (November 1849) in which he continues the themes found in “Russian Geography.” Having positioned Russia at the head of Christendom on Earth, “Daybreak” is his call to assume the responsibility of the position. The poem is split 45
NKJV Daniel 2:44 Page 33 into two immediately differentiable halves: the first consists of two quatrains that establish setting and build anticipation for a coming crescendo; the second, of three quatrains that are characterized by repeating verbs in the imperative punctuated by exclamation marks throughout. The images created invoke a long­awaited opportunity for Rus’ to fill the vacancy of spiritual leadership left by Constantinople. Possibly more than anything before, “Daybreak” is an early example of how Tyutchev could liberally weave symbols into his verse with forethought and exacting precision in order to produce a work that is long­lasting. Though not all such works of his will be examined in this volume, one will be able to see a progression of his skill as he continues to experiment and mature in his trade. “Рассвет” (Ноябрь 1849)46 Не в первый раз кричит петух; Кричит он живо, бодро, смело; Уж месяц на небе потух, Струя в Босфоре47 заалела. Еще молчат колокола, А уж восток заря румянит; Ночь бесконечная прошла, И скоро светлый день настанет. Вставай же, Русь! Уж близок час! Вставай Христовой службы ради! Уж не пора ль, перекрестясь, Ударить в колокол в Царьграде? Раздайся благовестный звон, И весь Восток им огласися! Тебя зовет и будит он,­ Вставай, мужайся, ополчися! В доспехи веры грудь одень, “Daybreak” (November 1849) The cock crows not for the first time; He crows vivaciously, vigorously, bravely; So the moon in the sky had faded, A current in the Bosphorus crimsoned. The bells are still quiet, And already the sunrise splashes the East red; The endless night has passed, And soon a bright day will come. Arise, Rus’! The hour is already near! Arise to serve Christ! Is it not already time, crossing oneself, To strike the bell in Constantinople? Ring out church48 bells, And all of the East announce them! They call and awake you,­ Arise, take heart, rise up in arms! Put the armor of faith on your breast, , 46
Tyutchev, Fyodor Ivanovich. “Тютчев Федор Иванович Собрание стихотворений.” A strait connecting the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, separates the European and Asian parts of Turkey; an important shipping route 48
In Russian, the bells are known as “благовест” (​
blagovest​
, here given the adjectival suffix) or literally “the good news,” a metaphor of Christ’s Second Coming. 47
Page 34 И с богом, исполин державный!.. О Русь, велик грядущий день, Вселенский день и православный! And go with God, the sovereign giant!.. O Rus’, great is the coming day, The universal49 and Orthodox day! The first two quatrains are not strictly necessary in order to understand the significance of the poem, but a sunrise’s only context is the preceding dark night. Tyutchev immediately positions a cock in poem’s setting and one receives the sense that daybreak is nigh, but still not arrived. It is sensible to view this cock as the Russian state for multiple reasons: firstly, the color of the cock, red, is long tied to the Russian people and its culture; secondly, Tyutchev references the Russian ​
narod​
’s millennia of living as a unified spiritual community in noting that it “crows not for the first time” though the significance is greater than simply a measure of time and shall be treated further promptly; and thirdly, Slavophile doctrine defers religious matters to the central governing authority, that is the autocrat, who is responsible for, as a shepherd is for his sheep, corralling and guiding the group toward opportunities of progress in physical and religious health and wellbeing. The cock, even in times of darkness, is a beacon by which people may find novel chances to seize for themselves a beginning which was not there previously. In more concrete terms, the cock refers to the unity of power found within pre­Petrine Russia which held a commanding role in affecting change within society, as lead Tsar Aleksey I and Patriarch Nikon in the seventeenth century toward ecclesiastical change as well as the tsars before and after Aleksey. The cock is imbued with vitality and life’s forces found in those still in the prime days of their lives. In the second and third lines of the first stanza time is still between an extended period of darkness and a new episode of light. Tyutchev uses “месяц” (​
mesyats​
), 49
With a double meaning “ecumenical” Page 35 principally meaning “month,” in order to increase the significance of the coming daybreak by implying that it is the first on a larger scale of time and beckons the arrival of a new time, rather than a new day. Even before its arrival, the daybreak is treasured for it is a long­awaited rarity. The second sign of the light’s coming is shown on the Bosporus, a historically and commercially valued strait connecting the Black and Aegean Seas traversing the isthmus between mainland Turkey and Southeastern Europe, and on which lies Constantinople or present­day Istanbul. A link between the East and the West, the strait’s illumination conveys that the coming daybreak will be unique in its capacity to provide light to the furthest reaches of both poles of the East­West continuum. Tyutchev reiterates the idea from “Russian Geography” that Russia will preside over all of Christendom as a single Church (directly related to Khomyakov’s “One Church” essay). The Bosporus is more than a recipient of the light, however, but is instead invigorated by the reflection of the light and begins to shine crimson itself. It is imbued with the symbolic fire that is said to burn inside all Christians which first came down during the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost and with which Jesus baptized during his time.50 Thus before daybreak has occurred, it has begun to repair the broken link between eastern and western christians in preparation for the revitalization of the Kingdom of God on earth. The second stanza exists to build anticipation for the climax of the poem in the third stanza. Quietness pervades as the east slowly begins to brighten and daylight is only a short time away. Then, comparable to Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture, “Daybreak” explodes with energy and exuberance as the rays from the sun race across the valleys and peaks of the land from East to West and enliven all creatures in all corners of the world. It is the warm blood held back and then 50
NKJV Acts 2:3, Matthew 3:11 Page 36 released into the human body imbibing life and vitality for action. “Arise, Rus!” Tyutchev exclaims emphatically, for “the hour is already near!” to serve Christ, he further explains. Within the third and fourth stanzas, the toll of a bell is a repeating symbol that is deeply resonant within Orthodox Christianity and symbolic of new and triumphant beginnings. Bells most plainly are a call for the faithful to Orthodox service every Sunday. Three rings signal the commencement of liturgy and preparation for the sacrament of Holy Communion. In Russia, this is a tradition that heralds back to 988 at the baptism of the population of Kievan Rus’ that widely popularized the use of bells during religious ceremony.51 The bell is more than practical. Then and today, bell ringing is spiritually viewed as a cleansing process that thwarts evil away from its epicenter so that peace and hope may prevail. In propositioning “Is it not already time, crossing oneself, / To strike the bell in Constantinople?” Tyutchev suggests that a new baptism has occurred that is worthy of bell ringing to expand from the center of the Christian world to all sides. The baptism is symbolic of the new era of Russian (Eastern) preeminence in God’s worldly kingdom. Transitioning between the fourth and fifth stanzas, Tyutchev redirects the joyous fervor toward a martial attitude that foretells his coming offensive oratory aimed against the West. The previous command, “Arise!” is repeated to reset one’s attention toward developing a battle mindset: “Take up arms” is followed by the exhortation to “Put the armor of faith on your breast” Finally, with God on one’s side, Tyutchev looks toward a day that will mark the everlasting triumph of Orthodoxy over Catholicism, a characteristic that he reserves for the final remark. Tyutchev in this line repeats the primary Slavophile doctrine of reunification of the Slobodskoy, Archpriest Seraphim. "Bells and Russian Orthodox Peals." In ​
The Law of God​
, 623­635. Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1996. 51
Page 37 earthly Church of God in order to reflect the unification of His Heavenly Church and importantly emphasizes that it can only come after the submission of Western Christianity. Like Khomyakov and Kireevsky, he waits with anticipation for the end of the intersectional competition and is willing to achieve it with an attitude akin to that of a military commander. Five months after finishing “Daybreak,” Tyutchev penned “The Prophecy” in March 1850, a simpler poem that feels like a summary of many themes, images, and morals exhibited in his previous religious and political works. It is two stanzas, ten lines in its entirety. 52
Пророчество (Март 1850 г.) The Prophecy (March 1850) Не гул молвы прошел в народе, Весть родилась не в нашем роде­ То древний глас, то свыше глас: “Четвертый век уж на исходе,­ Свершится он ­ и грянет час! No noise of rumor passed through the people, The news was not born among our kind­ That ancient voice, that voice from upon high: “The fourth century already in exodus,­ Will be done ­ and the hour strikes! “И своды древние Софии, В возобновленной Византии, Вновь осенят Христов алтарь.” Пади пред ним, о царь России,­ И встань как всеславянский царь! “And the ancient arches of Sophia, In a restored Byzantium, Once more shadow Christ’s altar.” Fall before him, O Tsar of Russia,­ And arise as pan­Slavic Tsar! The voice in “The Prophecy” is matter­of­fact, and as before gives notice when the time is correct to take action. The ancient “voice from upon high” is an undeniable personification of God, a God which, to Tyutchev, was not silent in communication with the Russian people. The connection between Slavophiles and God is continually stressed as vital to the construction of their identities. In Tyutchev’s works, one sees a pattern of paternal guidance by God to the Russian people in accordance with their opportunities for supremacy. God is both the initiator and animator in Tyutchev’s poetry, as seen here giving the signal to take action. 52
Tyutchev, Fyodor Ivanovich. “Тютчев Федор Иванович Собрание стихотворений.” Page 38 Similar to previous poems, also, is the hierarchy created: God atop all, tsar, author and the people below all as equal. The implication within this poem and those before this stresses the role of the tsar over his kingdom (tsardom). He is the actor responsible for responding to the summons on behalf of Russian people; in “The Prophecy,” the tsar represents the petitioned animator, not the author or public, and is thus implicated as the principle of all credit given for fulfillment. As a result, in “The Prophecy” and other verses, the tsar is the position under which all can and shall form a collective, or ​
sobornost’​
. Slavophiles confer the highest earthly religious and political authority to the tsar of Russia who is bestowed by God to act on behalf of Orthodoxy and Slavdom. Tyutchev instructs Russia’s tsar, at the time Nikolai I, that submission is timely and rewarded simply by arising from bended knee to to the position of “pan­Slavic tsar.” Under this broader title, the tsar's authority is expanded to encompass all Slavic peoples which may trace their heritage to Rus’ or other settlements, but are nevertheless aggregated in this concept under Slavic. The expansion similarly widens the sovereignty of the leader against the Roman Catholic Church’s broad base and most importantly unifies a formerly­disintegrated populace. The congregation constructed is built as oppositional force against any enemy perceived abroad. The adversary painted in Tyutchev’s works is often left unspecified or at least minimally vague, as shown in poems such as “Daybreak” and “Russian Geography,” save very few exceptions. “The Neman,” penned in three days in September 1853, is such an exception in that it names an individual as the target of disdain and malintent. One of Tyutchev’s longer verses, “The Neman” is composed of five octets that allude with a marked Russian bias to an meeting in 1807 of two emperors; from the Russian Empire Alexander I met with Napoleon in order to sign Page 39 a peace treaty that staged the two superpowers as allies. The outcome, Tyutchev’s impetus for writing “The Neman,” was antithetical to any amicable sentiments that may have existed at the meeting. 53
“Неман” (7 сентября 1853) “The Neman” (September 7, 1853) Ты ль это, Неман величавый? Твоя ль струя передо мной? Ты, столько лет, с такою славой, России верный часовой?.. Один лишь раз, по воле бога, Ты супостата к ней впустил­ И целость русского порога Ты тем навеки утвердил... Is it you, great Neman? Is it your stream before me? You, so many years, with such glory, A faithful watchman to Russia?.. Only one time, by God’s will, You admitted an adversary And the integrity of the Russian threshold You affirmed for evermore… Ты помнишь ли былое, Неман? Тот день годины роковой, Когда стоял он над тобой, Он сам ­ могучий южный демон, И ты, как ныне, протекал, Шумя под вражьими мостами, И он струю твою ласкал Своими чудными очами?.. Победно шли его полки, Знамена весело шумели, На солнце искрились штыки, Мосты под пушками гремели И с высоты, как некий бог, Казалось, он парил над ними И двигал всем и все стерег Очами чудными своими... Лишь одного он не видал... Не видел он, воитель дивный, Что там, на стороне противной, Стоял Другой ­ стоял и ждал... И мимо проходила рать­ Всё грозно­боевые лица, И неизбежная Десница Клала на них свою печать... И так победно шли полки, Знамена гордо развевались, Струились молнией штыки, И барабаны заливались... Несметно было их число­ Do you remember what once was, Neman? That day, that fatal moment, When he stood above you, He ­ the mighty southern demon, And you, like today, flowed past, Rustling under enemies’ bridges, And he caressed your stream With his miraculous eyes?.. Victoriously marched his armies, Banners playfully rustled, In the sun bayonets sparkled, Bridges under cannons rumbled And from high, like a god, It seemed, he hovered above them And moved all and watched over all With his miraculous eyes… Only one he did not see… He, a brave warrior, did not see That there, on the opposite side, Stood Another ­ stood and waited… And the army moved past­ All war­threatening faces, And the inescapable Right Hand Placed on them his mark… And so victoriously marched the armies, Banners proudly fluttered, Bayonets streamed with lightning And drums were crashing … Uncountable was their number­ 53
Tyutchev, Fyodor Ivanovich. “Тютчев Федор Иванович Собрание стихотворений.” Page 40 И в этом бесконечном строе Едва ль десятое чело Клеймо минуло роковое... And in this endless formation Barely every tenth brow The fatal mark passed... Knowledge of the Treaty of Tilsit of 1807 is integral to understanding the specifics of “The Neman” which are only implied. The agreement was signed on a June day between leaders of France and Russia following Napoleon’s victories over the latter empire’s armies at 54
modern­day Pravdinsk, Russia. ​
Through that city runs the river Neman, which also hosted miniature, floating barges of wood which held the leaders and their assistants while the Treaty of Tilsit was finalized. Napoleon would break that treaty almost precisely five years later when the Grand Armee crossed the Neman on its way to Moscow and a decisive defeat what Russians call the Patriotic War of 1812. At eight years of age at the war’s end, Tyutchev likely held in his memory the death of patriots and destruction of various cities in the country that he considered most sacred. Though Napoleon appears to be the focus in “The Neman” for the most part, accusation or condemnation of the French general is not the poem’s intent. It is undoubtedly true that, when he names an “adversary” and the “mighty southern demon,” Tyutchev is invoking Napoleon’s deception of the Russian people and the suffering inflicted on the nation during the six months of battle. However, as the poem unfolds, Tyutchev demonstrates a transition from employing Napoleon primarily as a worthy and valorous opponent to an object of irony. Napoleon’s characterization is most positively portrayed by the details in the third stanza. Through the end of the poem, the French general is correlated with multiple images and 54
Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. "Battle of Friedland | European History." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Accessed May 5, 2015. Page 41 descriptors that create an honorable depiction, that is, in terms of one’s enemy. First and foremost, one is under the impression that Napoleon tactically employed his prowess of deception, for in hindsight it may appear that Alexander I was lured into a false sense of security during the treaty’s formulation and signing. Moreover, he is labeled as “mighty” even by a most earnest and serious detractor. Subsequently he is shown to lead a sizeable army over which he watches “like a god.” In this light, Napoleon seems as though he represents a formidable opponent for Russia and its forces. Tyutchev permits this opinion to develop until at the final moment he quickly and forcefully pulls on the reins in order to dismiss any notion of danger as a result of Napoleon’s actions. “Only one [person] he did not see,” begins the fourth stanza, immediately signifying an unexamined detail that represents the Grand Armee and its leader’s mistake. The poet quickly 55
reveals that opposite of the French forces stood Jesus Christ ​
who “placed on [Russian soldiers] his mark.” In knowing Tyutchev sentiments and the fate of the Grand Armee during the winter of 1812, when one revisits an earlier comment in this stanza, one observes that irony is fiercely present in the characterization of Napoleon as “a brave warrior” inasmuch as though he may be both brave and a warrior, he could not ever rise to the occasion of a battle against Jesus Christ. With these words Tyutchev taunts Napoleon and reduces him to only a human. In the transition to and completion of the fifth stanza, Tyutchev describes the insurmountable forces that are weighted against a French victory and for Russian success during the Patriotic War of 1812. In doing so, he also finally arrives at the central message of “The Neman.” Despite the capacities of the French forces, it is revealed that Jesus Christ was on the Like English, Russian employ “right hand” (​
desnitsa​
) as a name for Jesus Christ. 55
Page 42 side of the Russian Empire and, in doing so, ensured an outcome favorable to Alexander I and his soldiers. As will be explored in further detail in the examinations of coming poems, Tyutchev asserts in “The Neman” that God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all invariably and unarguably Russian, and by extension Orthodox. Slavophile ideology relies on the assertion that Orthodoxy is the faith closest to the word of Jesus Christ and for that reason is on the correct side of all matters religious. Tyutchev is here not only correlating but in fact integrating several concepts into a single one, including Slavdom, Orthodoxy, the will of the Trinity, and holiness. All therein are equal and interchangeable. In continuing the second of three themes of Tyutchev’s political and religious oeuvre, we turn this examination toward an untitled poem (herein titled with its first line, “Now you are not up to verses”) penned in the autumn of 1854, thirteen months after “The Neman.” Similar to many others, “Now you are not up to verses” creates a dichotomy between ‘Russian’ and ‘other’ ; in its execution it characterizes Russia and Slavdom through opposition to stated characteristics of the vaguely formed ‘other’. Its unique contributions to Tyutchev’s body of work lies in the decidedly defensive stance of the poem’s subject, the Russian word, which was only once mentioned elsewhere in “The Banner and the Word.” Despite its scarcity among Tyutchev’s writings, discussions of the Russian language are tied to emotionally heavy notions of community which play a significant role in the deconstruction and discovery of the author’s sentiments of ​
sobornost’​
and Slavdom. Page 43 56
* * * (Октябрь 1854) Untitled (October 1854) Теперь тебе не до стихов, О слово русское, родное! Созрела жатва, жнец готов, Настало время неземное... Now you are not up to verses, O Russian word, native! The harvest ripened, the reaper is ready, An unearthly time has arrived… Ложь воплотилася в булат; Каким­то божьим попущеньем Не целый мир, но целый ад Тебе грозит ниспроверженьем… Все богохульные умы, Все богомерзкие народы Со дна воздвиглись царства тьмы Во имя света и свободы! Тебе они готовят плен, Тебе пророчат посрамленье,­ Ты ­ лучших, будущих Глагол, и жизнь, и просвещенье! О, в этом испытанье строгом, В последней, в роковой борьбе, Не измени же ты себе И оправдайся перед богом… The lie is embodied in the sword; By some allowance of god Not the whole world, but all of hell Threatens you with subversion… All blasphemous minds, All vile peoples Since the day the kingdoms of darkness arose In the name of light and freedom! For you they prepare bondage, For you they divine opprobrium,­ You – are of the best, of the forthcoming Word, and life, and enlightenment! O, in this rigorous trial, In the last, in the fateful fight, Do not change yourself And exonerate yourself before God… “Now you are not up to poems” is a complementary work to the poem “The Banner and the Word” inasmuch as it assumes the opposite stance of the latter; as opposed to the forward march of “The Banner and the Word,” this work rather describes a defensive and more tactically calculating circumstance and purpose for “the Word.” This idea, which may be developed in the first stanza due to a tone of urgency and interruption of a norm (literature and poetry, socially serious preoccupations, were the primary outlets for Russian language use in the nineteenth century among the educated, wealthy, and elite social classes) at the outset, is confirmed in the final ten lines of the poem which recall preceding events and knowledge of an impending and threatening presence of an exogenous entity oriented toward Slavdom. Tyutchev implies that the 56
Tyutchev, Fyodor Ivanovich. “Тютчев Федор Иванович Собрание стихотворений.” Page 44 Russian word is the most vital target of the threats; he excludes from this work the Tsar, the Church, and the common history shared among Slavic peoples and instead solely calls for the significance of the Russian tongue as the device which connects its kin. Because it is irreplaceably crucial to the Slavic identity, it is the first aim of external aggressors who, per Tyutchev’s rationale, want to terminate the communal connectedness. “The Russian word, native [word]” is its beating heart. The second and third stanzas are occupied by direct and indirect characterizations of the ‘other which are framed as antithetical reflections on the character of the Russian word and, as discussed in “The Banner and the Word,” by extension on Russophones. He begins with an observation that he who threatens with sword the Russian word is false and has intentionally separated himself from God. Therefore, to turn against Slavdom is similar to rejecting the truth, peace, and God contemporaneously. In that vein, Tyutchev dictates that he who threatens must therefore be residing in hell, for it is a place that is devoid of that which has been previously forsaken by the other. The poet then continues to more directly label the other: he is of a blasphemous mind, a people vile to God, and a kingdom of darkness. Tyutchev here comprehensively illustrates the other with qualities that invoke fear, suspicion, and an inward turn toward that which is perceived as familiar and thus safe. In various levels of detail these characteristics are employed to strengthen the solidarity of similar peoples and permanently imprint sentiments of distrust about outsiders. In the final stanza, Tyutchev depicts a sympathetic image of the Russian word which would resonate with many among the Orthodox faithful, an image of the beaten but undefeated victim who suffers relentlessly and unabashedly for a cause in search of redemption from his Page 45 aggressors and for his soul. A complex scene, it would likely be instantly recognized by those familiar with the Russian and Orthodox legacy of the victim tableau. According to Pospielovsky, this is an example of the “dreamy romanticism” which can be found in “[Slavophile] writings, dreams of a future re­Christianized Holy Russia, re­purified through the bloody sufferings of a revived and regenerated Russian people”57. In this way, the notions of victimization and the resultant passion is viewed as the head of the causal relationship with attaining a state of purity, of Godliness, and of worthiness. this idea is taken directly from the description of Jesus Christ’s passion at the hands of his oppressor, Pontius Pilate, in the Gospels after which He was rewarded with an everlasting position adjacent to God the Father. Through pain there is redemption, after which lies salvation. In less than a year’s time, Tyutchev published a poem, a short twelve lines, that continued to build on what I have called the second of three stages, a development of the ideal that Slavdom is purely good and definitively aligned with the Orthodox God’s prescriptions for living. The verses, like many others, do not have a title (and will thus heretofore be referred to per the previous protocol as “These poor villages”). The work as a whole displays an introspective view as opposed to the extraspective paradigm most frequently found in the contained collection of Tyutchev. The inward reconnaissance of “These poor villages” positions its focus on a singular aspect, modesty and meekness, of the society in question, “the Russian people,” with a specific image used to qualify or define the nature of the Russian ​
narod​
. 57
Pospielovsky, Dimitry. "A Comparative Enquiry into Neo-Slavophilism and Its Antecedents in the Russian History of Ideas." ​
Soviet Studies​
31, no. 3 (1979): 326. Page 46 *** (13 августа 1855)58 Untitled (August 13, 1855) Эти бедные селенья, Эта скудная природа­ Край родной долготерпенья, Край ты русского народа! These poor villages, This meagre nature­ The native land of long­suffering, You land of the Russian people. Не поймет и не заметит Гордый взор иноплеменный, Что сквозит и тайно светит В наготе твоей смиренной. Удрученный ношей крестной, Всю тебя, земля родная, В рабском виде Царь небесный Исходил, благословляя. The proud gaze of a stranger won’t understand and won’t notice, That it passes through and secretly shines In your humble bareness. Dispirited by the burden of the cross, Across all of you, native land, The heavenly Tsar dressed as a slave went, giving blessings. The principally important representations of Rus’ and Russia appear immediately at the beginning of “These poor villages” in an abnormally negative light, which is indicative of an ensuing contemplation on the values of Russian life; indeed, the verses represent a strong point of view pertaining to desirable qualities in the Russian character. Villages are named first, followed by nature, as the geographical confines of the Russian people as an entity. Both locations are said to demarcate the limits of Russian existence and thus can be easily seen as a significant influencing factor on the propagated idea of Russianness. These regions are connected with concepted lauded by Slavophiles, including, but not limited to, the priorities of tradition­oriented and communal living, personal care for the land, the ​
mir​
governmental form, and nature as a connection to God. Truly, cities and industrial labor had already begun to envelope large parts of European Russia, but Russia and Russianness is to Tyutchev innately tied to a rural and small­scale setting. However, this context has not entirely benefitted Slavdom and Russia. 58
Tyutchev, Fyodor Ivanovich. “Тютчев Федор Иванович Собрание стихотворений.” Page 47 At the same level of evaluated influence on the Slavic image, Tyutchev names a historical observation of the Russian existence which explains hindrance of earthly progress and the simultaneous elevation in the eyes of God: everlasting suffering. This cross­generational pain has formed a mold of the Russian soul which, Tyutchev posits, present it in such a manner that it is almost unnoticeable. Like a town small enough to be passed unnoticed by travellers, the soul of Slavdom “the proud gaze of a stranger won’t understand and won’t notice.” It is a barren, empty, clean. At the closing of the second stanza, he makes it more precisely clear that Slavs may differentiate themselves by the measure of their modesty ­ a result of long­lasting absence of welfare in the Slavic world. After this ending, a natural impulse arises to ascertain the benefactor of said reservedness and the potential consequences of the modest behavior. At the conclusion of “These poor villages,” Tyutchev demonstrates the benefits received from Russia’s meekness, and his doing so confirms another Slavophile­inspired poem from his pen. Firstly, that the Tsar’s blessings were a direct result of the persistence through long­suffering is confirmed; Tyutchev repeats the usage of “native” (​
rodnoi​
) as a modifier of both “land” and “area,” creating their correlation. Secondly, the Tsar is once more considered a figure more divine than human, an idea consistent in Slavophile ideology. He proceeded59 and projected the theocratic nature of a spiritually­empowered leader described in Khomyakov and Kireevsky’s works on the prominence of the Tsar in Russian society (cf. the former’s essay on the religiosity and ecclesiastics of the Christian faith entitled “One Church”). Before concluding this section, it is necessary to visit one of Tyutchev’s works that proves to be continually relevant in contemporary discussion to this day,60 due to its blatantly The word in Russian, исходить (​
iskhodit’​
), is related to the name of the second book of the Pentateuch or Old Testament, Исход (​
iskhod​
) 60
Cf. for example http://politikus.ru/articles/12168­slavyanam.html and http://www.stihi.ru/2014/05/11/6021 59
Page 48 Slavocentric message, content, and title ­ “To the Slavs” (May 1867). Instead of an underlying existential paradigm, the poem is written in an ostensibly narrative­form genre, which would correspond to its above average length in Tyutchev’s oeuvre. The goal of its writing is to establish a solidarity­oriented hierarchy, e.g. the ​
mir​
, that seeks the foundation of a unified people from disparate and disjointed tribes based on common language and religion. Another look at the continuing contemporaneity of “To the Slavs” will mark the “Conclusion” section of this examination. 62
К СЛАВЯНАМ (мая 1867)61, ​
To the Slavs (May 1867) Привет вам задушевный, братья, Со всех Славянщины концов, Привет наш всем вам, без изъятья! Для всех семейный пир готов! Недаром вас звала Россия На праздник мира и любви; Но знайте, гости дорогие, Вы здесь не гости, вы ­ свои! An affectionate hello to you all, brothers, From all far points of Slavdom, Our hello to all of you, without exception! For all, the family feast is ready! Not for nothing did Russia call you To a holiday of peace and love; But know, dear guests, You are not guests, you are our own! Вы дома здесь, и больше дома, Чем там, на родине своей,­ Здесь, где господство незнакомо Иноязыческих властей, Здесь, где у власти и подданства Один язык, один для всех, И не считается Славянство За тяжкий первородный грех! You are at home here, and more at home, Than there, in your homeland,­ Here, where the rule of foreign powers Is unknown,, Here, where power and allegiance Have one tongue, one for all, And Slavism is not considered As a grievous original sin! … Опально­мировое племя, Когда же будешь ты народ? Когда же упразднится время Твоей и розни и невзгод, И грянет клич к объединенью, И рухнет то, что делит нас?.. Мы ждем и верим провиденью­ Ему известны день и час… И эта вера в правду бога … Worldly disgraceful tribe, When exactly will you be a people? When exactly will be abolished the time Of both your discord and misfortune, And the call for unification sound, And that which divides us tumble down?.. We wait and believe with foresight­ The day and hour are known to him… And this faith in the truth of God 61
In actuality, the poem represented below is incomplete. The remainder of the original may be found through the online source provided in the following citation. 62
Tyutchev, Fyodor Ivanovich. “Тютчев Федор Иванович Собрание стихотворений.” Page 49 Уж в нашей не умрет груди, Хоть много жертв и горя много Еще мы видим впереди… Он жив ­ верховный промыслитель, И суд его не оскудел, И слово царь­освободитель За русский выступит предел… Has not yet died in our chest, Although many victims and much woe Still we see ahead… He is alive ­ the supreme provider, And his judgement has not grown scarce, And the word Tsar­liberator Will cross the Russian boundary… In treating the work as a narrative form, it is befitting to depart from the analysis of rhetoric and poetics and temporarily adopt a subtextual analysis of Tyutchev’s speech within the poem. During the introductory comments, contained in the first two octets, the speech voices several presumptive attitudes concerning the vertical (power) and horizontal (intimate) natures of the relationship between Russia and the remainder of the Slavic peoples. The implications of these interstitial Slavic connections unexplainedly create hierarchical structure from which Russia gains the most and all else equally lose the most power in the creation of the pan­Slavic family described in “To the Slavs.” These relationships moreover preface the remainder of the work. From the first lines, Tyutchev describes a setting of both grandiosity and intimacy at the same time. The latter is created through his repeated usage of words that indicate long­existing relationships between the speaker and the attendees at the banquet hosted by Russia. The speaker is assumed to be a messenger for Russia, or possibly Russia itself, and addresses the audience as “brothers” at a “family feast” provided for all for a celebration. This voice of Russia indicates the scale of the occasion in line two, especially through the use of “all” ­ a construction repeated in the next line. The third line is a reflection of “all ends” as “all of you” and shows equity between the two quantities. In transition to the second half of the first stanza, the voice of Russia reveals the organizer and leader’s identity as Russia and in doing so implied the country’s dominance Page 50 over the remainder of ​
Slavyanshchina​
, or above as “Slavdom.” The next octet dictates the conditions upon which Slavdom exists: language and one’s religious opinion on the question of original sin.63 In other words, the identity of Slav is contingent upon the existence of a Slavic language and the Orthodox faith. The superiority of these Russian notions is reaffirmed by the tone conveyed through “power and allegiance” and underlies the remainder of the poem. After explaining the unsuccessful history of unification to be a result of misfortune and ineptitude (“And between us,­ a considerable disgrace”), 64 the narrator explains the legitimacy of the pan­Slavic mission of supremacy in the concluding two stanzas of “To the Slavs.” Throughout the penultimate stanza, Tyutchev quickly recreates the imagery of a chosen people that is faulty though faithful and devoted to “Him.” Specifically, the notion of religiosity is carried over as the subject of the final stanza, in which the narrator notes the self­affirming “belief in the truth of God” is the only requisite for the future. Similar to the notion examined in “Daybreak” published almost two decades earlier, Tyutchev imagines faith as an armor that may withstand adversities of future times. The battle, a returning symbol from Tyutchev’s political writings, is foreseen by Russia as encompassing the future times under the “supreme provider,” namely the “Tsar­liberator,” the nickname of the Russian Empire’s Alexander II (b. 1818, reign 1855­1881), of Russian origin. As a correlatable microcosmic representation of Slavophilism’s main points, Tyutchev creates “To the Slavs” which importantly organizes the messianic spirit of Khomyakov against the rest of Europe in the form of Russia’s realization of the Third Rome prophecy. This concludes the second phase of three within Tyutchev’s writings, that of the equation of the Slavic 63
From that question one can distill from a group any Orthodox Christians; Eastern Christianity is opposed to Western Catholicism in that the former denies the intergenerational endurance of the original sin’s guilt. 64
From “А между нас,­ позор немалый,­” Page 51 singularity with theocratic variations on religious and irrefutable vindication by a superior power, or God. In other words, how Tyutchev built the positive image of the Slavophile idea throughout the middle of his career. In the following section, the examination of how Tyutchev created an enemy out of non­Slavs during the end of political and theological career and life. An apt transition to this conclusion is a short, nameless verse at the end of the decade which compares Western Europe in greater detail with Russia. In this untitled work (heretofore named “Grand day of Cyril’s departure”), Tyutchev juxtaposes Russia against the qualities of the leading rival body, Rome and the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), and focuses on the inferior status of the latter. This is disparate from analyses of previous works which compared Russia and the West in that it uses a greater quantity of finer detail about the specific qualities antagonistic toward the view taken by the Slavophile. The transition has been arriving, one could say however, since the writing of “The Neman” and Tyutchev’s attack against another enemy from the West, i.e. the bellicose Emperor Napoleon. What will separate the following conversation from any previous is Tyutchev’s reference to the RCC as the most foreboding and capable enemy of the Slavs. Therefore, the final three selections in conclusion will feature the resolution Tyutchev’s politico­theological career and thematically center around Tyutchev’s attack on Western Christianity and its allies. * * * (13 февраля 1869)65 Untitled (February 1869) Великий день Кирилловой кончины­ Каким приветствием сердечным и простым Тысячелетней годовщины Святую память мы почтим? Grand day of Cyril's departure­ With what heartful and simple welcome Do we honor the holy memory Of the thousand­year anniversary? Какими этот день запечатлеть словами, Как не словами, сказанными им, Когда, прощаяся и с братом и с друзьями, With what words to capture this day, If not with the words said by him, When, bidding farewell to brother and friends, 65
Tyutchev, Fyodor Ivanovich. “Тютчев Федор Иванович Собрание стихотворений.” Page 52 Он нехотя свой прах тебе оставил, Рим… He inadvertently left his ashes to you, Rome… Причастные его труду, Чрез целый ряд веков, чрез столько поколений, И мы, и мы его тянули борозду Среди соблазнов и сомнений. Participants in his work, Through a whole span of ages, through so many generations, We, we furrowed out his trench Amongst the temptations and doubts. И в свой черед, как он, не довершив труда, И мы с нее сойдем, и, словеса святые Его воспомянув, воскликнем мы тогда: "Не изменяй себе, великая Россия! Не верь, не верь чужим, родимый край, Их ложной мудрости иль наглым их обманам, И, как святой Кирилл, и ты не покидай Великого служения славянам"... And in our turn, like him, not having finished his work, We will leave it, and, his holy words Having remembered , we will exclaim then: 66
“Don’t lie to yourself ​
, great Russia! Don’t trust, don’t trust others, native land, Their false wisdom or their naked lies, And, like Saint Cyril, you too shall not forsake your great service to Slavs”... Though one may consider “Grand day of Cyril’s departure” to be not be either stylistically or philosophically byzantine, on part with much of Tyutchev’s other works, the verse nevertheless serves a purpose to nominate an enemy whom Slavophile­minded people at this point could harangue as does the author. The poem, five quatrains, is nominally about the saint but less specifically about the Russian image after the disastrous Crimean War and paradigm­shifting reforms of Alexander II in the early 1860s. Tyutchev uses the occasion of the anniversary of Cyril’s death and the reflectionary period around it to probe deep feelings likely in the heart’s of Russians about themselves and their country at the time of writing. Cyril is most important to Tyutchev as the courier of literacy to Rus’, which allowed the Christian faith to spread across the country and through time in the form of the Bible and writings of Church Fathers.67 This innovation, eventually becoming the namesake Cyrillic alphabet, influenced the following thousand years of Russian history guided by the Russian 66
Having the dual meaning of “Don’t change yourself” Church Fathers 67
Page 53 Orthodox Church and a Heavenly Tsar, the realization and contemplation of which, I believe, led Tyutchev to pen “Grand day of Cyril’s departure” as an everlasting memorial to that day. Pinpointing the the topic is not as easy as point toward Cyril, however. While the first stanza is squarely in line with that thinking, but the rest of the poem noticeably deviates from the topic of Cyril, leaving a question unanswered through the conclusion. Therefore, though it started as such, it is difficult to argue that this poem is only or primarily concerned with the theologian­missionary. Rather, as I will show, one will see that the poem is more largely concerned with the relationships that Russia has with itself and a rival city, both undeniably altered by wake of Cyril after the 988 proselytization of Kiev. The author is reluctant in his admission that Cyril was in Rome at his death, sure to mention that if he was there (for he undeniably died there68), he must have been on his path out of the city. That is to say that Tyutchev hesitates even with the unrestricted idea that a man of such renown in Orthodox Christianity was in Rome on his own free will. These notions are ignorant of the fact that such divisions did not exist before the Schism in Cyril’s time, creating barriers only in his mind, but moreover are indicative of what Rome, being representative of the Roman Catholic Church, signified to the author ­ an opponent, an antithesis, an enemy. Though not at this time but in this way, Tyutchev begins to sketch the image of Rome in the mind of a Slavophile. He produces very little in that way, however. Unwilling or unable to be more specific, Rome is only indirectly named as possessing “false wisdom and naked lies” and therefore unable to be trusted, matching Khomyakov and Kireevsky’s sentiments in many fewer 68
Pennington, Ken. "Cyril." Cyril. Accessed May 5, 2015. http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/churchhistory220/LectureTwo/CyrilMethodius.htm. Page 54 words. This, in conjunction with the question hung on the hook of the first stanza, represents that which I believe to be most instructive from "Grand day of Cyril’s departure." Tyutchev’s unanswered question is like a bottomless fall: at first, it invigorates the senses, but eventually one gets to asking where he is going to come to solid ending. The answer lies in multiple locations and is not only at the end of the work. Instead, Tyutchev opens with a question that will remain responseless while verbally lashing at an enemy amidst the swirling winds of confusion. Its cause is the crisis of identity on behalf of Russia: one who has faced “temptations and doubt,” while through the years “not trusting his work.” The long history, at time stable and unstable, can often be clouded with unsure national transitions, as through the scores of political, social, demographic, and geographic changes experienced; national defeat, as between 1244 to 1488 under what is known as the Mongol Yoke; and cultural defeat, as during the years of heightened popularity among the aristocracy to speak German and French. It may confuse the human mind when taken in at once. An effect of this crisis is the inability to answer such questions as in “Grand day of Cyril’s departure” and the frustrated outburst against another, Rome. This trend against the Catholic Church forms the backbone of the concluding poems, written in the final years of his life. The following work by Tyutchev, written in Spring 1870, has a characteristic unlike any other in that its target of calumny, a Roman Catholic priest and theologian, is similarly a Slav. This combination of belongings seems unconscionable in light of Tyutchev’s featured work; he has said that the truth lies only in one group’s hands, the Orthodox. In “Huss at the Stake,” (1870) a paradox must be solved and Tyutchev has the answer to the question of reunification. The priest at hand, who serves as the untenable example, is John Huss (ca. 1369 ­ 1415), a Czech Page 55 priest, philosopher, and predecessor­reformer of the Catholic Church, paving the way for Calvin, Armenias, and Luther in the coming centuries to pull even further away from the traditions and practices of Rome (and Tyutchev seems to acknowledge their common enemy). At the end of his life, Huss was burned alive at the stake by the Church’s orders on charges of heresy.69 Written to mark neither an anniversary nor any other known significant event, one may assume that Tyutchev’s attraction to this topic was suggestive of an outlook in transition. Like never before, Tyutchev writes directly at Rome and its Church in this work and the next. 71
Гус На Костре (марта 1870)70, ​
Huss at the Stake (March 1870) Костер сооружен, и роковое Готово вспыхнуть пламя; все молчит,­ Лишь слышен легкий треск, и в нижнем слое Костра огонь предательски сквозит. The stake was constructed, and the fateful Flame is ready to spark; everything is quiet,­ Only a slight crackle is heard, and on a lower level The fire’s light treacherously shines through. Дым побежал ­ народ столпился гуще; Вот все они ­ весь этот темный мир: Тут и гнетомый люд, и люд гнетущий, Ложь и насилье, рыцарство и клир. Тут вероломный кесарь, и князей Имперских и духовных сонм верховный, И сам он, римский иерарх, в своей Непогрешимости греховной. … Народа чешского святой учитель, Бестрепетный свидетель о Христе И римской лжи суровый обличитель В своей высокой простоте,­ Не изменив ни богу, ни народу, Боролся он ­ и был необорим­ За правду божью, за ее свободу, За все, за все, что бредом назвал Рим. The smoke blew away ­ the people huddled closer; There they all are ­ all of this dark world: Here are the oppressed and the oppressive, Lie and violence, knighthood and clergy. Here is the deceitful emperor, and the supreme assembly Of spiritual and imperial princes, And he himself, the Roman Hierarch, in his Sinful infallibility. … Holy instructor of the Czech people, Intrepid witness of Christ And harsh accuser of the Roman lie In its high expanse,­ Not betraying neither God, nor people, He fought ­ and was insurmountable­ For God’s truth, for its freedom, For all, for everything that Rome calls injurious. 69
Oberman, Heiko Augustinus. “The Longed­For Reformation.” In Luther: Man between God and the Devil, 54­55. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1989. 54­55. 70
In actuality, the poem represented below is incomplete. The remainder of the original may be found through the online source provided in the following citation. 71
Tyutchev, Fyodor Ivanovich. “Тютчев Федор Иванович Собрание стихотворений.” Page 56 Он духом в небе ­ братскою ж любовью Еще он здесь, еще в среде своих, И светел он, что собственною кровью Христову кровь он отстоял для них. He is like a spirit in heaven ­ brotherly love He is still here, still in their midst, And he shined, that with his own blood He defended Christ’s blood for them. О чешский край! О род единокровный! Не отвергай наследья своего! О, доверши же подвиг свой духовный И братского единства торжество! И, цепь порвав с юродствующим Римом, Гнетущую тебя уж так давно, На Гусовом костре неугасимом Расплавь ее последнее звено. O Czech land! O consanguineous kin! Don’t reject your heritage! O, complete your spiritual struggle and the triumph of fraternal unity! And, the chain having broken with foolhardy Rome, Oppressing you for so, so long, At Huss’ inextinguishable stake Melt its last link! The introductory duo of stanzas serves to establish the setting, tone, and mood of the ork. At glance one understands the reality of the burning stake in the final seconds before the initial ignition ­ all in the crowded masses hush before life becomes ashes. Tyutchev from the beginning pinpoints the somberness of the moment truly occurring centuries before, but the stake’s detailed engulfment in flames brings the events to the page in a realistic manner and thereby involves the reader’s attention in “Huss on the Stake.” He redirects that attention to the crowd in order to create an emotional connection: pleas of sympathy for wrongdoing are easy to detect detect in as Tyutchev outlines the victims, crimes, and accused parties in plain speech in stanza two. Justice becomes central to the purpose of the work, both superficially as one moves through the poem’s lines and as one examines the difficulty faced by the author while addressing Huss, who in Tyutchev’s eyes both is blood and traitor. By the poem’s conclusion, his priorities are laid bare in the decision between his love for Slavs and his disdain of non­Orthodox practice. Though talk of “Rome” may as often as not inferred as the Holy Sea as opposed to the secular structure of government in the city, one will see in the third stanza that in fact Tyutchev’s gaze is directed at both the Papacy and the government of the land. He calls each out by name: Page 57 the emperor and his council of advisors and those below, the true princes and princes of the church, i.e. bishops and priests. These groups are empowered servants to a higher power; princes of the empire obey the emperor, and bishops and priests kiss the ring of the “Roman Hierarch.” The Pope is uniquely described with additional detail ­ a note that isolates the Papal seat as the enemy in question. Here, Tyutchev refers to Catholic doctrine, a long­held belief ratified almost unanimously in July of 1870 at the First Vatican Council, that states that “[w]hen the Pope (1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the whole Church, he is preserved by the Holy Spirit from error.”72 The first Slavophiles conversely did not often take notice of this practice or speak out against it, dismissing the idea as another lie. With likewise little more to say, Tyutchev begins his ode to the persecuted Slav. He connects to the memory of Huss through their common opposition to the Roman theocratic structure. Appearing so prominently in this poem, it is easy to draw a connection between “Huss at the Stake” and the previous poem for both serve as a vessel of wholehearted, anti­Catholic sentiment veiled in a kindred anecdote on an admired personage perished long ago. The author interweaves his eulogy of Huss and attacks on the Roman Catholic faith several times: in those stanzas beginning with “Holy instructor…” and “Not betraying neither God…” and the final stanza of the work. His poems increasingly have been littered with such derision of the Papacy. This trend continues through the end of his writing, arriving shortly for examination. Amongst his attacks, Tyutchev nevertheless reaches out to the legacy of John Huss, as it the poem was presumably intended. He memorializes Huss through the latter’s accomplishments in exemplary Christ­like behavior, studded with instances of persistence (“Intrepid witness of 72
Mirrus, Jeffery. "Papal Infallibility." Papal Infallibility. Accessed May 5, 2015. Page 58 Christ”), bravery (“And harch accuser of the Roman lie / In its expanse”), fidelity (“Not betraying neither God, nor people”), and loyalty (“He defended Christ’s blood for them”). He celebrates the reformer’s behavior, though always with personal delight by way of Rome’s displeasure. In the penultimate and final stanzas, Tyutchev elaborates explicitly his desire in this communication to Catholic Czechs. In a celebratory facade and requests of “fraternal unity” among Slavs, the author suggests using the common anti­Papal values to cultivate a reunification of the estranged Czechs with the Orthodox remainder of Slavdom. The implication therefore is that inaction results in the continued ostracization of the Catholic Slavs from the majority. Tyutchev here clearly favors a religious unity to even a fraternal unity between family members. For such reasons, the overarching themes of analysis exist around the Church ­ it occupied the foremost reverential authority in Slavophile philosophy for the founders and Tyutchev alike. As a result, one will see that the climactic conclusion of this examination posits Church against Church in, as the first line states, “a day of judgement and condemnation.” The final work to be examined is “The Vatican’s Anniversary.” It was written in July of 1871, two years before his death at Tsarskoye Selo. It is differentiated from the previous poems in this section of Tyutchev’s oeuvre in its full­voiced criticism against not only its history or legacy but the Holy See or “Vatican’s” name. In this way, Tyutchev demonstrates the conclusion of his transition from accuser to demonizer of the Papal institution. The poem’s principle characters are the Pope and Jesus; the formulation of the poem intends to contrast the images of each man, so as to argue against the uniquely elevated role of the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church (specifically against his infallibility in fulfillment of quotidian duties). While little is said Page 59 about Christ, the contrast is largely carried out by libel against the Vatican so as to debase the doctrinal and spiritual authority over Catholic Christians held within the walls of St. Peter’s Square. That attempt is reiterated in the conclusion. 74
Ватиканская Годовщина (июля 1871)73, ​
The Vatican’s Anniversary (July 1871) Был день суда и осужденья­ Тот роковой, бесповоротный день, Когда для вящего паденья На высшую вознесся он ступень,­ It was the day of judgement and condemnation­ That fateful, irreversible day, When for a greater fall He was carried to a higher rung,­ … Когда, чужим страстям послушный, Игралище и жертва темных сил, Так богохульно­добродушно Он божеством себя провозгласил… О новом бого­человеке Вдруг притча создалась ­ и в мир вошла, И святотатственной опеке Христова церковь предана была. О, сколько смуты и волнений С тех пор воздвиг непогрешимый тот, И как под бурей этих прений Кощунство зреет и соблазн растет. … . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Но нет, как ни борись упрямо, Уступит ложь, рассеется мечта, И ватиканский далай­лама Не призван быть наместником Христа. … When, adherent to another’s passions, A plaything and victim of dark forces, So blasphemous­complacently He claimed himself a deity… Of a new man­god Suddenly a parable was made ­ and it entered the world, And by sacrilegious guardianship Christ’s church was betrayed. O, how much distemper and unrest Since that infallible one arose, And, how under a storm of these debates Blasphemy ripens and temptation grows. … . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . But no, no matter how you fight stubbornly, Falsehood will prevail, the dream will scatter, And the Vatican’s dalai­lama Is not called to be Christ’s second in command. The first stanza introduces Tyutchev’s primary concern, the divinity of Jesus Christ as it was attained through what is known as The Passion. There is at first a clustered use of 73
In actuality, the poem represented below is incomplete. The remainder of the original may be found through the online source provided in the following citation. 74
Tyutchev, Fyodor Ivanovich. “Тютчев Федор Иванович Собрание стихотворений.” Page 60 eschatology­related terms, each of which emphasizing the grandeur of the day to address a “greater” (​
vsyashchevo​
) problem. The end couplet then maximizes the mood as Tyutchev utilizes irony to shade the scene described as awe­worthy. Though Christ, according to “Vatican’s Anniversary,” was to fall, “He was carried to a higher rung”75 instead, speech strongly correlative to the thematic overtone of redemption. This reverent poetry is to be juxtaposed against the description of the Papacy’s relationship with “Christ’s church,”76 once more to most broadly contrast the Pope and Jesus. His notions of such a church were likely resonant with Khomyakov’s strict Orthodox conception of an earthly church headed by Christ complementary to God’s Church in heaven.77 The critiques of the Pope in his description fall into one of two categories: accusation of heretical egotism or, in turn, of betrayal to the church. Of the former, Tyutchev specifies the Pope’s self­nomination as divine, using the term “new man­god.”78 The more substantive crime appears to be the latter, however. Instances in all three stanzas concerning the Pope create accusations of betrayal overtly or covertly against Christ. In the first stanza, he claims that Rome is “adherent to another’s passions,”79 indicating another’s preferences but additionally a passion to replace that of Christ. In the second, Tyutchev labels this historical rule over the Roman Catholic Church as “sacrilegious guardianship.”80 In the third, he explains that the rule has made it so that “blasphemy ripes and temptation grows.”81 These stanzas serve to detail the Pope’s rule 75
From “На вышсую вознесся он ступень” From “Христова церковь” 77
Khomyakov, Aleksey Stepanovich. "Хомяков Алексей Степанович Церковь одна." Lib.ru. October 13, 2005. Accessed May 5, 2015. 78
From “новом бого­человеке” 79
From “чужим страстям послушный” 80
From “святотатственной опеке” 81
From “Кощунство зреет и соблазн растет” 76
Page 61 Conclusion In the preceding section, I have examined a small number of works by both Khomyakov and Yazykov and about a dozen works by Tyutchev which each in their own way involved questions alive within Slavophile reasoning. The purpose of this broad investigation was to uncover the details of how each author understood and poetically expressed the tenets of philosophical Slavophilism, as expounded by Khomyakov and Kireevsky between 1839 and the late 1860s. As a founding thinker and prominent poet, Khomyakov’s works were the first to be examined for their unadulterated expression of Slavophile ideals. His verse is narrow in style and unoriginal in content, particularly emphasizing the supremacy of God the Father and the submissiveness of the faithful due unto him. In his later version of “To Russia” (1854), Khomyakov invokes a Slavic brotherhood common among those similarly called by God. Yazykov, a relative by marriage of Khomyakov and a similarly lifelong militant Slavophile, wrote a handful of poems related to the Slavophile philosophy. A small number were dedicated directly or indirectly to Khomyakov, his brother­in­law, while others attacked common enemies of the cadre, including Pyotr Chaadaev. In the primary segment, I studied several poems composed by Fyodor Tyutchev between 1842 and 1872, a span of three decades divided into three categories that place the author’s politico­religious views into chronological phases. The first phase looks at approximately a decade during which Tyutchev’s writings were characterized primarily by the goal of invoking the Slavic brotherhood seen in so many of his poems. His tools in the first decade aim to create a common connection based on shared language and territory between Slavic peoples. In the second phase, I showed that Tyutchev established the connection between Slavic brotherhood Page 62 and holiness or purity. These poems focused on the relationship of the Russian Orthodox Church, its members, and the Tsar with the Holy Trinity. Tyutchev here argues that the identities of Orthodox and Slav are one and the same. In the final phase, I examined how, building from the foundations established to this point, Tyutchev demonizes ‘others’ for not being Slavs and thus disconnected from pure Christianity. He specifically targets Western states, leaders, and Christianity as enemies of Slavdom, Orthodoxy, and the Russian word. The findings within this survey of Slavophile­inspired poetry are too numerous and detailed to recount within this conclusion. Their usefulness to studies of Tyutchev, the Slavophiles, and Slavic literatures and languages in general can hopefully be articulated. A large selection of poems by Tyutchev from three decades of his creative career are examined here. For other studying this author, I hope that this work will provide a multifaceted understanding of Tyutchev’s changing philosophy of writing, philosophy of poetry, and philosophy of change. His views and stances were shown to transition from largely introspective to extraspective, reserved to bellicose, and participant to bystander. If nothing else, the translations provided for Tyutchev’s poems, intricately manipulated and sagely borrowed from ancient lexicons, are instructive in their understanding of the author’s expert verbal deftness. For studies of Slavophiles and Slavophilism, it is my hope that this study will provide a nuanced look at three authors who contributed to the Slavophiles’ general artistic creativity. Students of the Slavophiles may notice that Khomyakov is a philosopher before he is a poet, that the authors used all three major ideologies of Slavophilism, and that Tyutchev was, in my opinion, and remains the most skilled writer on the Slavic collective. For those studying Slavic languages and literatures, it is my wish that a path has been newly forged toward an Page 63 understanding of the significance of each author, Slavophile philosophy, politics, and religion as they influence the body of general Slavic knowledge. From this point, one may continue similar questions by following Khomyakov and Kireevsky’s impacts on Slavophile­branded prose, namely present in novels by Turgenev, Dostoevsky, and Gogol. Until that opportunity arises, please accept this humble offering so that all may appreciate the accomplishments of Russian philosophers, authors, and poets of the nineteenth century. Page 64 Bibliography Billington, James H. ​
The Icon and the Axe: An Interpretive History of Russian Culture​
. New York: Vintage Books, 1970. Dostoevsky, Fyodor Mikhailovich, Richard Pevear, and Larissa Volokhonsky. "Preface." In Demons​
, 12. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000. Duncan, Peter J. S. ​
Russian Messianism Third Rome, Holy Revolution, Communism and after​
. London: Routledge, 2000. Dunn, Ethel. “A Slavophile Looks at the Raskol and the Sects.” ​
The Slavonic and East European Review​
44, no. 102 (1966): 167­79. Accessed May 21, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4205718. Florinksy, Michael. “Russian Social and Political Thought, 1825­1855.” ​
Russian Review​
6, no. 2 (1947): 77­85. Accessed May 21, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/125311. Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. ​
“Fyodor Tyutchev | Biography ­ Russian Writer.” Encyclopedia Britannica Online. December 16, 2013. Accessed February 3, 2015. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/612038/Fyodor­Tyutchev. Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. “Battle of Friedland | European History.” Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Accessed May 5, 2015. Gavin, William J. “Royce and Khomyakov on Community as Process.” ​
Studies in Soviet Thought​
15, no. 2 (1975): 119­28. Accessed May 29, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20098645. Page 65 Kline, George L. “Religion, National Character, and the “Rediscovery of Russian Roots” ​
Slavic Review​
32, no. 1 (1973): 29­40. Accessed May 21, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2494070. Kropotkin, Petr Alekseevich. ​
Russian Literature,​
. New York: B. Blom, 1967. Khomyakov, Aleksey Stepanovich. "Хомяков Алексей Степанович Церковь одна." Lib.ru. October 13, 2005. Accessed May 5, 2015. Khomyakov, Aleksey Stepanovich. “Хомяков Алексей Степанович Стиховорение.” Lib.ru. July 31, 2012. Accessed January 1, 2015. Labanov, S. S., and Boris Tarasov. “Проблема взаимоотношения России и запада у А. С. Хомякова и Ф. И. Тютчева.” In ​
А. С. Хомяков ­ мыслитель, поэт, публициист Сборник статей по материалам международной научной конференции, состоявшейся 14­17 апреля 2004 года в г. Москве в литературном институте им. А. М. Горького​
. Vol. II. Москва: Литературный Институт им. А. М. Горького, 2004. Malia, Martin E. ​
Herzen and the Peasant Commune​
. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956. Mirrus, Jeffery. "Papal Infallibility." Papal Infallibility. Accessed May 5, 2015. Newmarch, Rosa. ​
Poetry and Progress in Russia​
. London: J. Lane, 1907. Oberman, Heiko Augustinus. “The Longed­For Reformation.” In ​
Luther: Man between God and the Devil​
, 54­55. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1989. Parry, Kenneth, and David Melling, eds. ​
The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity​
. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1999. 490. Page 66 Pennington, Ken. "Cyril." Cyril. Accessed May 5, 2015. http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/churchhistory220/LectureTwo/CyrilMethodius.htm. Pospielovsky, Dimitry. "A Comparative Enquiry into Neo-Slavophilism and Its Antecedents in the Russian History of Ideas." ​
Soviet Studies​
31, no. 3 (1979): 326. Pratt, Sarah. ​
Russian Metaphysical Romanticism: The Poetry of Tiutchev and Boratynskii​
. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1984. Simmons, Ernest J. ​
Continuity and Change in Russian and Soviet Thought​
. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955. Slobodskoy, Archpriest Seraphim. “Bells and Russian Orthodox Peals.” In ​
The Law of God​
, 623­635. Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1996. Terras, Victor. ​
Handbook of Russian Literature​
. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985. Thompson, John M. ​
Russia and the Soviet Union an Historical Introduction from the Kievan State to the Present​
. 6th ed. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 2009. Tyutchev, Fyodor Ivanovich. “Тютчев Федор Иванович Собрание стихотворений.” Lib.ru. February 8, 2011. Accessed May 5, 2015. Walicki, Andrzej. ​
The Slavophile Controversy: History of a Conservative Utopia in Nineteenth­century Russian Thought​
. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975. Yazykov, Nikolai Mikhailovich. "Николай Михайлович Языков Стихотворения." Lib.ru. December 13, 2005. Accessed January 1, 2015. http://az.lib.ru/j/jazykow_n_m/text_0130.shtml. Ziegler, Charles E. ​
The History of Russia​
. 2nd ed. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Greenwood Press, 2009. Page 67