Konstantin Leontev is often remembered for saying that an old tree is worth more than twenty men. The conservative Russian philosopher was widely read but not heeded during his lifetime. After his death nearly a century ago, his works received scant attention until the fall of the Soviet Union; they now enjoy a revival among thinkers interested in Russia's post-communist development, the globalization process, and the Christian and Conservative reactions to progress.

Leontev, a devout Christian, believed Russia was in an earlier stage of development than the rest of the world. He had faith in Russia's grand destiny provided Russia could somehow be "frozen" into a state of suspended animation to protect it from the leveling effect of democracy and technological modernization.

Leontev believed the average Nineteenth-century European was an instrument of global destruction. He was extremely critical of technology: as far as he was concerned, a one-hundred year old tree is worth more than twenty faceless, scurrying men. More and faster movement does not mean more life: "The machine runs but the living tree stands firm." He even complained about the results of the older, "passive technology" - the telegraph and railroads - claiming that the new machine gun was far superior to those innovations.

While his Slavophile contemporaries extolled the virtues of Slavdom, Leontev, who was not a racist, expounded his doctrine of byzantinism - the merger of Caesarism and Christiandom. Although the Byzantine Empire has never been a popular historical subject, Leontev held it in very high regard because it united Roman imperialism with the spiritualism of the Christian Church. Wherefore the emperor was both political and spiritual head of the empire - the East became the province of the Orthodox Church following the great schism with Rome.

Leontev viewed the Orthodox Church as Christianity without heresy and protestations; a Christianity disillusioned of the utopian ideals of earthly happiness, purity, and universal well-being; a Christianity that was the very antithesis of the humanist doctrines of equality, freedom, perfection, and contentment for everyone. Leontev's Christianity was a Christianity that opens its door to all, but knows everybody will not come in; it is a Christianity of exclusiveness - those who do not enter will not be saved.

Moreover, Leontev's byzantinism asserted the virtues of centralism in state and church and the primacy of state and church over individual rights. Byzantinism as a doctrine fiercely opposes liberalism. Leontev said liberalism was a leveling plague, a plague that arose from German feudalism, a plague destined to reduce mankind to a corpse destined to decay into its constituent particles. Mankind's history follows the course of an individual from birth, through life, to death and rotting decadence; that is, the history of mankind is a triunal, biological development: from "primeval simplicity" to "complex flowering" to "resimplification."

A romantic as well as pessimistic, Leontev wrote with a flair, fondly portraying the diverse expressions of human nature that were, alas, being leveled to the flat mundane plane of banal, bourgeois mediocrity. Nothing disgusted him more than to walk down a street and be confronted by the drab architectural similarity of its buildings and the repulsively uniform attire of the town's inhabitants.

You see, Leontev was an aesthete whose appreciation of the universe depended on sensibility and the love of beauty. Leontev's beauty is a diversity of sensation under the "despotism" of its unity, its organic "Idea." His artistic penchant for organic diversity favored ethnic diversity and multiculturalism. He embraced almost everything the decadent Nineteenth century opposed: for instance, he defended class strife, passion, prejudice, superstition, and fanaticism.

The struggle for beauty is not just something an artist does. It is the objective process of evolution culminating with beauty, where the "highest degree of complexity (is) held together by a certain inner and despotic cohesiveness", Leontev declared. "The fundamental law of the Beautiful is...diversity in unity."

Again, when the "complex flowering" outgrows itself, the organism, including humanity, declines and dies. Mind you that Leontev was trained in medicine at Moscow University; he served as an army doctor in the Crimean War; he seems to have acquired a somewhat morbid interest in the putrefaction of corpses.

The Russian philosopher's ascetic religious inclination conflicted with his exalted aethetics of flowering complexity. At first he loved the beauty of the pomp and circumstance of the Church with its icons and elaborate services, but he eventually tended towards the complete renunciation of things: shortly before his death in 1891, he took the vows.

Leontev's conversion actually took place twenty years prior to taking his vows. In 1871, he entered a Greek Orthodox monastery on Mount Athos, following a "religious crisis". His wife was mentally and physically ill at the time, and his mother had died far away, calling his name. He came down with cholera. As he was resting on his sofa, his eyes fell upon the icon of Virgin Mary. He suddenly believed in the "existence and the might of the Mother of God", as a genuine and real person. He begged Madonna for his life, saying he was not ready to die, for he had great works to do, then he confessed his sins. Thus Mary became his new mother, replacing the one who had died. Some time later he repeated the old French adage "Cherchez la femme!", saying one must seek the woman during every serious crisis in life.

Leontev used the term "transcendental egoism" to identify his religious doctrine. That is to say, religion is not a collective enterprise but an intimate personal undertaking, a personal relation between the believer and God. Notwithstanding his opposition to political individualism, he held fast to egoism in art and religion. What mattered to him, first of all, was his personal salvation. First things first: he asked his servant, "How can one save anyone else not having been saved himself?"

Of course Leontev's emphasis on personal salvation was traditional: the early Christians were not interested in fighting for Rome or for the public welfare - they cared not for this world, but for the next. In fact, Leontev thought "pink" Christianity and its efforts to bring social peace and heaven to Earth were absurd. In his view, peace and heaven on Earth is an oxymoron, an impossibility; if it could exist it would be the end of Christianity if not of all religions. In order to exist, God needs Satan; society is satanic; salvation Christianity is in a sense anti-social.


"From the Christian standpoint it can be said, the reign of perpetual peace, prosperity, concord and general security, all that democratic progress has so unsuccessfully espoused, would be the greatest imaginable calamity in the Christian sense....", said Leontev.

His faith in God was rooted in fear. He averred that fear is the very essence of faith.

"One must reach the point of really fearing God with an almost animal fear....The holy father and teachers of the Church have emphasized that the beginning of wisdom... is the fear of God... Love without fear and humility is one of the manifestations... of that individualism and that adoration of the rights of dignity of man... which destroyed faith in anything transcendental...."

A true believer is one who, being truly scared to death, surrenders his mind to God. First there must be that fear. Only then can love exist. And that fear is rejected by liberals and pink Christians. Moreover, life on earth is vain and the only thing certain is that all things will end. Only God is permanent. Truth is not found or realized in vainly hoping for happiness, or in rights and liberties. Hope and belief in worldly life contradicts Christ's teachings. Only by recognizing what a hell on Earth this life is can one be reconciled with his life and the power of others over it. According to this conservative version of Christianity, the further we "progress", the worse off we are.

Ironically, many people have found a great deal of joy in realizing that life on Earth is meaningless, futile, and hopeless. While some people are depressed with inklings of this truth, others find great comfort in acknowledging the futility of life, in wholeheartedly tossing their vain hopes for the future into the trash can. Still we might retain our animal faith, and, like Leontev, enjoy life's aesthetic detours along the highway of transcendental egoism.

We might sympathize with Leontev's views while disagreeing with them. In fact, a person often disagrees secretly, in his heart, with his own philosophy. His philosophy, the Wisdom he loves, might be a poor substitute for his sainted mother or wife or the Virgin Mary. His actions, based on feelings, might give the lie to his thoughts. Well, then, what sort of man was Konstantin Leontev?

He was a nice man. He loved his wife and he took care of her or at least made certain she was cared for when she fell ill. He had his friends - they were dear friends. He was kind to people. Although he did not believe in a great collective future for mankind, the records show that he was kind to people he encountered during his life, and that he was well-liked.Despite his poverty, he was a charitable man, and his charity was for the rich as well as the poor.

According to biographer, Stephen Lukashevich, Leontev's philosophy was the antithesis of his life. He advocated vigorous health - he was constantly ill. He preached virility - he was effeminate. He praised amorality and violence - he was meek, compassionate, remorseful. He wanted to reform Russia with his writings - he was a failed writer.

The eminent Russian philosopher, Nicolas Berdyaev, deemed Leontev important enough to write a book about him. Although Berdyaev takes Leontev to task for his weaknesses, the biography is written with obvious affection for the man and for his work. There is something likeable about the man, and his old-fashioned contradictions provide us with considerable insight into our own predicament.


Reference Quoted:

Stephan Lukashevich, KONSTANTIN LEONTEV (1831-1891): A Study in Russian "Heroic Vitalism", New York: Pageant, 1967

Suggested Reading:

Nicolas Berdyaev, LEONTIEV, Maine: Academic International, 1968

AGAINST THE CURRENT (Selections from Leontev), New York: Weybright and Talley.

RUSSIAN PHILOSOPHY, Vol. II, 'The Average European as an Ideal and Instrument of Universal Destruction' by Leontev, Trans. William Shafer and George L. Kline, Chicago: Quadrangle Books