Aleksey Stepanovich Khomyakov, (born May 1 [May 13, New Style], 1804, Moscow, Russia—died Sept. 23 [Oct. 5], 1860, Ryazan, near Moscow), Russian poet and founder of the 19th-century Slavophile movement that extolled the superiority of the Russian way of life. He was also an influential lay theologian of the Russian Orthodox church.
Khomyakov came from a family that had for many generations served the Russian tsars. He received an excellent education and acquired a mastery of numerous languages. Though he did not enroll as a student, Aleksey passed his final examinations in mathematics at Moscow University. A visit to France for 18 months completed his education.
During the Russo-Turkish War (1828–29) he served with distinction, and he spent the remainder of his life in Moscow involved in intellectual pursuits, though frequently visiting his family estates of Bugucharovo and Lipitsy. He was reputed to have been happily married and had several children.
Khomyakov was known as a gifted writer and a brilliant controversialist; he dealt with a wide range of subjects, composed poetry, and wrote philosophical and political essays and treatises on economics, sociology, and theology. A successful landlord, he was also a self-taught doctor who treated many of the peasants on his estates.
Rigid censorship in tsarist Russia permitted only some of his articles to appear in print during his lifetime. His major theological and historical works were thus published posthumously by his friends and associates.
Khomyakov belonged to what has been called the Golden Age of Russian literature. At that time (first half of the 19th century) an intellectual elite of exceptional ability created a striking contrast to the proponents of the reactionary rule of Nicholas I (1825–55). The best Russian thinkers were preoccupied with the problem of the political and social orientation of their people. Russia had been brought out of its previous isolation by Peter I the Great (1682–1725), and contacts with the West had stimulated the upper classes, but under Nicholas I they felt frustrated and dissatisfied. Two main groups appeared in response to this situation: the Westernizers and the Slavophiles. The Westernizers saw in the political institutions of the West and in liberal and socialist ideas a pattern for imitation. The Slavophiles, led by Khomyakov, insisted that Russia should follow its own path of development based on the pre-Petrine (pre-Peter the Great) culture inspired by the Eastern Orthodox church.
Students save 67%! Learn more about our special academic rate today.
Though Khomyakov felt at home in the Western world, he also knew and loved Russia’s past, a sentiment rare among his upper-class contemporaries. His aim was to combine the best elements of both traditions, but the social system he advocated was opposed to the individualism of the West. He did not believe that secularized and selfish man, denying the existence of a divine creator, could establish a satisfactory political and social order. Criticizing both capitalism and socialism, he regarded them as coming from the same Western outlook. He believed that the root of man’s problems lay in what he viewed as the defects of Western interpretations of Christianity, and he blamed Roman Catholicism and Protestantism equally for their failure to solve the problem of the relationship between authority and freedom. “Rome kept unity at the expense of freedom. Protestants had freedom but lost unity.” He was convinced that the Orthodox church possessed a more balanced presentation of Christian teaching than any of the Western churches. Indeed, Khomyakov’s contribution to the movement was chiefly in the field of theology, rather than through political nationalism.
In Khomyakov’s system the key term was sobornost, a word with a number of broad translations, among them “togetherness” and “symphony.” This word, in the Slavonic version of the Nicene Creed, corresponds to “catholic.” It does not, however, mean “universal” but denotes a perfect organic fellowship of redeemed people united by faith and love. Khomyakov believed that a person could best achieve spiritual and intellectual maturity in an organic community that respected the liberty of its members and that true progress would depend not on competition (as in the West) but on cooperation. He thus claimed that the task of the church was to teach mankind how to live in unity and freedom. In Khomyakov’s estimation, the Christian West, after its separation from the East, had not been able to fulfill this role. His writings on sobornost are among the more influential of his works.
In another aspect of his Slavophile thought, Khomyakov idealized the Russian peasants, exalted their humility and sense of brotherhood, and regarded them as better fitted to realize a Christian social order than the more aggressive Western nations.
Khomyakov’s vast erudition, his literary gifts, his integrity, and his strength of convictions should have procured for him a distinguished political and academic career. But he lived under the oppressive rule of Nicholas I and had no opportunity of using his talents for the public good. He remained until his death a mere retired cavalry captain. He died from cholera, which he caught from the peasants whom he treated.
Aleksey Stepanovich Khmyakov (kuzaliwa Mei 1, 1804 - Septemba 23, 1860 - Ryazan, karibu na Moscow) alikuwa mshairi wa Urusi na mwanzilishi wa harakati ya Slavophile ya karne ya 19 ambayo ilisifu ubora wa njia ya maisha ya Urusi. Pia alikuwa mwanatheolojia wa kawaida mwenye uvutano wa kanisa la Othodoksi la Urusi. Khomyakov alitoka katika familia ambayo kwa vizazi vingi ilikuwa imemtumikia maliki wa Urusi. Alipata elimu bora na akajifunza lugha nyingi. Ingawa hakujisajili kama mwanafunzi, Aleksey alipitisha mitihani yake ya mwisho ya hisabati katika Chuo Kikuu cha Moscow. Alitembelea Ufaransa kwa miezi 18 na kumaliza elimu yake. Wakati wa Vita vya Urusi na Uturuki (1828-1829) alitumikia kwa heshima, na alitumia maisha yake yote huko Moscow akihusika katika shughuli za kiakili, ingawa mara nyingi alitembelea mali za familia yake za Bugucharovo na Lipitsy. Alidaiwa kuwa ameolewa kwa furaha na alikuwa na watoto kadhaa. Khomyakov alikuwa mwandishi mwenye kipawa na mchangamfu sana; alishughulikia mada mbalimbali, akaandika mashairi, na kuandika insha za kifalsafa na kisiasa na maandishi ya uchumi, jamii na theolojia. Akiwa mwenye shamba mwenye mafanikio, alikuwa pia daktari aliyejifunza mwenyewe ambaye aliwatunza wakulima wengi katika mashamba yake. Uangalifu mkali katika Urusi ya kifalme uliruhusu baadhi tu ya makala zake kuchapishwa wakati wa maisha yake. Hivyo, vitabu vyake vikubwa vya kitheolojia na kihistoria vilichapishwa baada ya kifo chake na marafiki na washirika wake. Khomyakov alikuwa mshiriki wa kile kinachoitwa Enzi ya Dhahabu ya fasihi ya Urusi. Wakati huo (nusu ya kwanza ya karne ya 19), wasomi wenye uwezo wa kipekee walifanya tofauti kubwa na watetezi wa utawala wa Nicholas I (1825-1855). Wanafikira bora wa Urusi walijishughulisha na tatizo la mwelekeo wa kisiasa na kijamii wa watu wao. Urusi ilikuwa imeponywa kutoka kwa kutengwa kwake hapo awali na Petro Mkuu (1682-1725), na mawasiliano na Magharibi yalikuwa yamechochea tabaka la juu, lakini chini ya Nicholas I walijisikia kukatishwa tamaa na kutoridhika. Vikundi viwili vikuu vilitokea kwa sababu ya hali hiyo: wale waliopenda mambo ya Magharibi na wale waliopenda mambo ya Kislavonia. Wanasayansi wa magharibi waliona katika taasisi za kisiasa za Magharibi na katika mawazo ya kiliberali na ya kisoshalisti kielelezo cha kuiga. "Waslavophiles, wakiongozwa na Khomyakov, walisisitiza kwamba Urusi inapaswa kufuata njia yake mwenyewe ya maendeleo kulingana na utamaduni wa kabla ya Petro (kabla ya Petro Mkuu) ulioongozwa na Kanisa Othodoksi la Mashariki. """ Wanafunzi wa kuokoa 67% Jifunze zaidi kuhusu kiwango chetu maalum cha kitaaluma leo. Ingawa Khomyakov alihisi akiwa nyumbani katika ulimwengu wa Magharibi, pia alijua na kupenda wakati uliopita wa Urusi, hisia isiyo ya kawaida miongoni mwa watu wa tabaka la juu wa wakati wake. Alitaka kuunganisha mambo bora ya mapokeo yote mawili, lakini mfumo wa kijamii aliotetea ulikuwa kinyume na ubinafsi wa Magharibi. Hakuamini kwamba mwanadamu aliyejifanya kuwa wa kidunia na mwenye ubinafsi, akikanusha kuwepo kwa Muumba wa kimungu, angeweza kuanzisha utaratibu wa kisiasa na wa kijamii wenye kuridhisha. Akikosoa ubepari na usoshalisti, aliwaona kuwa wanatoka katika mtazamo uleule wa Magharibi. Aliamini kwamba mizizi ya matatizo ya binadamu ilikuwa katika kile alichokiona kuwa kasoro za tafsiri za Magharibi za Ukristo, na alilaumu Ukatoliki wa Kiroma na Uprotestanti kwa usawa kwa kushindwa kwao kutatua tatizo la uhusiano kati ya mamlaka na uhuru. <unk>Roma ilihifadhi umoja kwa gharama ya uhuru. Waprotestanti walikuwa na uhuru lakini walipoteza umoja. <unk> Alikuwa na hakika kwamba kanisa la Orthodox lilikuwa na uwasilishaji wenye usawaziko zaidi wa mafundisho ya Kikristo kuliko kanisa lolote la Magharibi. Kwa kweli, mchango wa Khomyakov katika harakati hiyo ulikuwa hasa katika uwanja wa theolojia, badala ya kupitia utaifa wa kisiasa. Katika mfumo wa Khomyakov, neno muhimu lilikuwa sobornost, neno lenye tafsiri nyingi, kati yao <unk>kuungana<unk> na <unk>symphony.<unk> Neno hili, katika toleo la Kislavonia la Nicene Creed, linalingana na <unk>katoliki.<unk> Hata hivyo, halimaanishi <unk>universal<unk> lakini linaonyesha ushirika kamili wa kikaboni wa watu waliokombolewa waliounganishwa na imani na upendo. Khomyakov aliamini kwamba mtu angeweza kufikia ukomavu wa kiroho na kiakili katika jamii ya kikaboni ambayo inaheshimu uhuru wa wanachama wake na kwamba maendeleo ya kweli hayategemei ushindani (kama ilivyo Magharibi) bali ushirikiano. Kwa hiyo alidai kwamba kazi ya kanisa ilikuwa kuwafundisha wanadamu jinsi ya kuishi katika umoja na uhuru. Kwa makadirio ya Khomyakov, Magharibi ya Kikristo, baada ya kutenganishwa na Mashariki, haikuweza kutimiza jukumu hili. Maandishi yake juu ya sobornost ni miongoni mwa kazi zake zenye ushawishi zaidi. Katika mtazamo mwingine wa mawazo yake ya Kislavonia, Khomyakov aliwafanya wakulima wa Urusi kuwa bora, akainua unyenyekevu wao na hisia ya udugu, na kuwaona kuwa wenye kufaa zaidi kutambua utaratibu wa kijamii wa Kikristo kuliko mataifa ya Magharibi yenye uhasama zaidi. Ujuzi mkubwa wa Khomyakov, vipawa vyake vya fasihi, uadilifu wake, na nguvu yake ya imani inapaswa kumpatia kazi bora ya kisiasa na ya kitaaluma. Lakini aliishi chini ya utawala wa ukandamizaji wa Nicholas I na hakuwa na fursa ya kutumia vipaji vyake kwa manufaa ya umma. Hadi alipokufa, alibaki kuwa nahodha wa jeshi la wapanda farasi aliyestaafu. Alikufa kutokana na kipindupindu, ambacho aliambukizwa kutoka kwa wakulima aliowatunza.