The Russian Prophet of Conflict and Rebirth

Did a Russian historian predict the decline of the West and foresee the current Ukrainian-Russian war in 1875? Alexander Adams investigates.

Those following the coverage of the new book Prophets of Doom by Neema Parvini will be familiar with cyclical history. One proponent of cyclical history not covered in that book is the Russian historian Konstantin Leontiev (1831-1891). Leontiev believed that the destiny of Russia lay in fulfilling its potential through leading Slavdom, the realm of the Slavs.

Leontiev began his adult life as a member of Tsar Alexander II’s diplomatic service, which gave him a chance to observe different peoples firsthand. He wrote novels, journalism, and observations on nationalism as his commitment to Orthodox Christianity deepened. He was disheartened by the ending of serfdom, which he considered contributed to the social decay of rural life. This set him against all aspects of liberalism advanced by the Russian intelligentsia; it was a sentiment that animated his writing about nationalism, including his book Byzantinism & Slavdom. In 1891, Leontiev took holy orders and entered a monastery, dying soon after.

Leontiev was a proud autocrat and aesthetic snob. (He declared he would take pleasure in the sight of a majestic tree and then cut it down to make medicine for peasants.) Leontiev’s vision of Russia’s situation was a mixture of ethnic nationalism, Orthodox Christianity, Nietzschean will to power, and Darwinism—actual evolution theory rather than Social Darwinism. Leontiev saw Russia as the leader of the Slavic people who could yet be saved if they turned away from Western Europe. He subscribed to the view that civilizations did not outlive periods of 1,000 to 1,200 years and feared that Russia was reaching the end of its civilizational cycle.

Byzantinism

As outlined in Byzantinism & Slavdom, first published in 1875, Leontiev believed that Russian and Slavic cultural development had been retarded by unique historical constraints. Byzantinism and Slavdom is not a difficult book, but it does contain some rambling passages. Leontiev takes a dim view of the calculating Bulgarians and super-sophisticated Czechs, led astray by intellectualism. Modern readers will find themselves consulting footnotes in the only English translation in order to follow the welter of references to 1870s politics.

Leontiev declared, “For the existence of the Slavs, the power of Russia is necessary. For the strength of Russia, Byzantinism is needed.” Byzantinism, both political and cultural in nature, entails the development of a governance system that would allow the Slav spirit to flourish. The pillars of Slavic governance include independence, regional unity, ethnic homogeneity, and autocracy—an “inner, despotic unity.” Under the conditions of Byzantinism, Slavic culture could overcome the disunity that had impeded it, allowing it to develop in a manner similar to that of Western Europe during the Renaissance. (The Renaissance made no appreciable impact in Russia.)

Leontiev draws a distinction between the spread of something (such as literacy or pestilence) and the development of something (like culture). The former implies the expansion of a homogeneous element, while the latter implies the growth of something distinct through a unique and complex process.

Cultural Complexity from Evolution

Leontiev invokes the evolutionism of Darwin by seeing within the development of culture a life cycle and within cultures an evolution of evermore complex and specialised forms. The evolution of culture distinguishes a people, as they move away from their primitive origins and manifest essential characteristics through complex forms. This civilisational cycle parallels the life cycle of an animal, including an inevitable decline and death. Just as in the dissolution and decay of a life form—where parts fail to cohere, become weak, and undergo homeostasis—so too does a society likewise break down. Leontiev observes, “Everything gradually declines, interferes, merges, and then disintegrates and perishes, turning into something common, not existing by itself or for itself.”

When Western societies deteriorate into collections of disconnected individuals (a situation actively advanced through individual rights and ideas of equality), we should understand this as an inevitable end stage of a civilisation, one that precedes death. For those interested in the implications of Leontiev’s cyclical reasoning regarding aesthetics, you can read an article by me here.

Outlined in Byzantinism & Slavdom are parallels between animals, plants, and cultures. Leontiev summarises this as follows: “Everything at first is simple, then complicated, then it is simplified a second time, first equalising and merging internally, and then simplifying further by falling away of parts and general decomposition, before the transition to the inorganic “Nirvana.” Leontiev’s belief in transcendental egotism and his incorporation of elements of physiological understanding of human nature have led to his being called the ‘Russian Nietzsche’, notwithstanding his Christianity, which sets him apart from Nietzsche.

“Progress […] is nothing but the process of decomposition.”

Leontiev is capable of creating arresting images and employing impressive rhetoric. “Progress, which fights against all despotisms; estates, workshops, monasteries, even wealth, etc., is nothing but the process of decomposition.” Elsewhere, he equates egalitarian-liberal progress to combustion and decay. Modern nationalism is described as “nothing more than the same liberal democracy that has long been at work on the destruction of the great cultural worlds of the West.” National or ethnic kinship is not enough; physical culture and shared historical touchstones are needed to bind together a people, allowing advanced civilisation to arise.

Atomisation, which has undermined the West through a dogma of equality, is the enemy of culture. “Equality of persons, equality of estates, equality (i.e. uniformity) of provinces, equality of nations; all this is one and the same process; in essence, universal equality in all things, universal freedom, universal pleasant benefit, universal good, universal anarchy, or universal peaceful banality.”

“Individualism destroys the individuality of people, regions and nations,” by refusing to acknowledge unique qualities, grinding every man, people, creed, and culture into granular homogeneous equality.

In nature, hierarchy is implicit in the way hereditary traits are passed down through generations. After all, “an olive does not dare to become an oak.” Nature forbids mutability and equivalence. In machines, we find the will of the creator, who compels components of specific designs and metals to work together in a prescribed manner, and the artist too chooses materials in a similar way. “Anyone who wants to be a true realist precisely where such an outlook is necessary should consider human societies from a similar point of view.”

A Prediction of the Future?

Just as Leontiev foresaw the aimlessness that mere materialist comfort-seeking would induce in modern man, he predicted that the logic of utilitarianism would have geopolitical implications. The states of Europe would merge, destroyed from within by the “insane religion” of “the material and moral well-being of mankind.” Guided by a doctrine of equality (and therefore unable to distinguish between states), what argument would there be to prevent such a union? A farsighted prediction in 1875.

Leontiev asked himself whether Russia should join such a union. He concluded that Russia should stand apart. “We must strengthen ourselves, thinking less about the good and more about strength. Where we have power, a certain amount of goodwill be possible.” The opposition of a strong, independent Russia to an egalitarian-liberal NATO-Ukrainian alliance is implicit in Leontiev’s analysis.

Leontiev’s conclusion could come from a document briefing President Putin: “Russia needs internal strength, it needs a strong organisation, a strong spirit of discipline.” To understand the Russian outlook, we could do no better than to read Leontiev’s insights into the nature of Slavism.

Konstantin Leontiev, K. Benois (trans., intro.), Byzantinism & Slavdom, 2020, Taxiarch Press, Zvolen, Slovakia/London