콘스탄틴 레온티예프와 불가리아 교회 독립문제

Abstract

Not much has been settled about Konstantin Leont'ev(l831-1891), but he has indeed a unique place in the history of Russian thoughts. He is one of the most popular pre-revolutionary thinkers in post-Soviet Russia trying to come in terms with its own historical development. This article focuses on Leont'ev' s critique on the independence of the Bulgarian church during the high tide of Russian Pan-Slavism (1870' s), linking it with his critique of nationalism. Leont ' ev was deeply convinced of the originality of Russian culture, based on the so-called "Byzantinism". In his typology, the most important

criterion of cultural affinities was religion. He was sceptical about the political Pan-Slavism which he thought was senseless without cultural solidarity among the Slav nations. Moreover, as a conservative and reactionary thinker, he was against the progressive and revolutionary character of nationalism. Thus, he was critical of endeavors to obtain national independence or unification. The Bulgarian nation, which was subjected to the Ottoman sultan since 1393, had in his view no specifically Slavic characteristics. When the Bulgarian people insisted on a separation from the Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople which led to the establishment of their own national autocephalous church-which they had had before the Ottoman rule-and when it caused conflicts among Greeks and Bulgarians, Leont'ev furiously criticised the latter. He declared that the ecumenica](BCeJIeHC l<a.ll) Orthodox Church doesn't have any national characteristics, may it be Greek or Bulgarian, and that the Bulgarians established their national church only for political aims. He sympathized with the Greeks, though the Bulgarians expected support from Russia, their "elder Slavic brother". Leont'ev eagerly assured the Greeks that Russia won' t take side with the Bulgarians. Such attitude is to be understood in the light of Leont' ev's conception of the Orthodox bloc-the solidarity of eastern Orthodox peoples against western culture. He thought that the Orthodox bloc should by no means exclude the Greeks. His suggestion to his Russian compatriots to seizure Constantinople {IstanbuD was also a part of the anti-western strategy. He objected to the nationalist position of the Bulgarian people because it undermined the prospect of solidarity among the Orthodox peoples. Leont' ev' s critique of the independence of the Bulgarian church did not change even after this nation was liberated from the Ottoman rule. As for him, the Bulgarian culture did not evince cultural uniqueness in spite of its political autonomy. Leont'ev was in this sense not a Pan-Slavist, but a sort of Pan-Orthodoxy protagonist. But was Leont'ev, a loyal subject of the Russian tsar, not too arrogant in that he brushed off the cultural potentials of a lesser nation which can mature and flower only in

favorable conditions?