We continue with the fourth part of Michaël de Verteuil’s report on the recent “Orthodox Constructions of the West” conference at Fordham University (June 28-30) (Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3).
—–
Vera Shevzov, “The Burden of Tradition: Russia’s Orthodox academic theologians and the ‘West’ (late XIX-early XX cc)”
.
Dr. Gilbert’s already-posted summary of Dr. Shevzov’s presentation is excellent, but I would like to emphasize different aspects. I found her talk difficult to follow, particularly as someone with no background in the subject matter. It is only after carefully reviewing my notes and reading Dr. Gilbert’s summary that I can claim to grasp some of the points Dr. Shevzov was attempting to make. I have taken the liberty of glossing and restructuring somewhat the order of some of what I take to be her observations in order to highlight what I drew from her presentation. Ultimately I think it was worth the pain.
.
According to Dr. Shevzov, 19th century Russian intellectuals analyzing the future of Russia in its relationship with the West generally fell into Slavophile or Westernizing camps, both of which continue to influence Orthodox views of the West today. She noted however, that both tended to portray the West in reductionist and simplistic terms as culturally homogenous and undifferentiated, respectively either to be eschewed (for Slavophiles) or emulated (according to Westernizers).
.
Both perspectives were largely secular, however, and one has to look to academic theologians of the time period for an explicitly Orthodox Russian understanding of the West that was nevertheless characterized by a debate that closely paralleled that between the Slavophiles and Westernizers.
.
Much of this debate would turn on critiques, favourable or unfavourable, of the thoughts of Aleksei Khomiakov. For Khomiakov, the unilateral interpolation of the filioque into the creed had exemplified the defining characteristic of the West: a radically egotistical and individualistic world view that, in his view, explained Papal authoritarianism, Protestant dismissal of Tradition, and ultimately Western philosophical atheism. All this Khomiakov traced to a cultural imprinting contributed by and seemingly innate to a “Germanic” ethos dating from the barbarian conquest of the West.
.
(Just as an aside, while widely discredited and ridiculed today, this kind of quasi-genetic ascription of inherent and immutable “national culture” to broad language groups with objectively little natural (as opposed to artificially and anachronistically-created) sense of shared identity was a staple of 19th century writers and nationalist ideology. It provided a sort of intellectual veneer to racist and imperialist views, and still has some currency, as we shall see in subsequent conference reports, amongst contemporary Orthodox thinkers as well as in extremist right-wing circles.
.
Komiakov’s ascription of a “Germanic” ethos that would have pulled the West away from authentic Christian roots actually has a rather long pedigree. Traces of it can be found in the writings of usually anonymous 12th century Byzantine polemicists claiming that the West had been lost to heresy and become essentially Arian since the Gothic invasions. As this involves completely abstracting out Rome’s participation in the later ecumenical councils and its critical role in the ‘Triumph of Orthodoxy’, such notions require remarkably blinkered and bigoted historical amnesia. This hasn’t prevented more recent Orthodox thinkers like Romanides from subscribing to them, however. But back to Dr. Shevzov’s presentation…)
.
According to Dr. Shevzov, Russian Orthodoxy’s anti-Latinism had been largely inherited. Her quote from Vassily Roznov bears repeating: “It was as if decaying and dying Byzantium whispered to Russia all of its vexations and bequeathed Russia to guard them. Russia, at the bedside of the departing one, gave its word, mortal enmity towards the Western tribes.”
.
Yet this had to be set against the profound impact on Russia of post-Reformation Western intellectual and educational currents. Indeed, in the 19th century, most of Russia’s seminarians had received their education largely in Latin, and “progressive” Western influences continued to penetrate into Russian theology via Ukraine. Even Khomiakov’s work had to be translated into Russian after originally being published in French.
.
A more sympathetic theological response was to accept from the West what was good and useful with the aim of enriching an Orthodox response to the modern world that was then emerging from the West. Traditional polemic literature continued to play a strong role, however. In particular, anti-Westernizers like Khomiakov stressed the role of “national culture” in facilitating (in Russia’s case) or hindering (in the West) a full or proper internalization of Christianity. According to Dr. Shevzov, this understanding has since become standard, and risks mutating in some Orthodox circles from being merely traditional to gaining the status of “Tradition” in the full sense.
Eirenikon 
Thank you, Irenaeus, for another thoughtful post on this interesting conference.
Most of what was said in the post is beyond my knowledge, but I was struck by Michael’s comment about Fr. John S. Romanides’ scholarly work. When I first read one of his main works (“Franks, Feudalism, Romans, and Doctrine”), I was very intrigued by his historical perspective to the Great Schism, because it seemed to shed much more light on the situation than ever before (highlighting the conflict between Aachen and Rome, which seems to be glossed over by Western tradition, at least in my tiny reading).
However, I was also troubled by his tone in many places, and I can see the criticism which he receives about phyletism or the like.
But I have also heard Mt. Athos quote him, and I still wonder what influence his work has on this type of scholarship; if these (i.e. this conference) areas are more “moderate” and he more “conservative,” although Fr. John did participate extensively in ecumenical dialogue. And I know that some of his more insulting tones especially towards Blessed Augustine are later tempered when he admits his respect to the great Father.
Anyhow, just some wondering, I hope it doesn’t take focus off of the main jist of the post. I think the Dr.’s point about homogenizing the west is very important for us Orthodox, because I believe that many of our writers are very guilty of this. My spiritual Father once said, “We tend to take the worst from the west, and compare to the best from the east. This is not right.” Especially in America, in our evangelizing of Protestants, we OFTEN play on the deficiencies (and usually exaggerate them or fabricate them in my opinion) of the Roman Catholic Church in order to gain coverts. This is divisive. Lord have mercy.
Timothy,
Thank you for your kind and eirenic words.
Orthodox historians, Romanides included, tend to over interpret the 9th century tensions between Aachen and Rome. The Frankish bishops sometimes questioned orthodox doctrinal developments in the East, but always subsequently deferred to Rome’s judgment in such matters, even if somewhat grudgingly. There is no Western historical parallel to the doctrinal pressure even orthodox Eastern emperors (like Justinian) felt free to apply against the Holy See. Up to the Reformation, Rome always had the last word in the west.
I am wary of making psychological arguments, but will offer one in this case. This misreading of the 9th century relations between Rome and the Frankish bishops seems to stem from a visceral need to find some heresy in the West to match the doctrinal confusion in the East. That the East should have been serially scarred by heresy while the West should have stayed placidly in rock-like orthodoxy during this time period appears to be galling to some Orthodox polemicists. Since they can’t ascribe heresy to 9th century Rome, they try to look “behind” the Roman façade for signs of communion with heretics in its hinterland. And, of course, they think they find it in the Frankish questioning of the 6th and 7th ecumenical councils. Others with less of a polemic axe to grind just follow these writers reflexively and uncritically.
That Mt Athos should praise Romanides is not altogether surprising. Even if one sets aside the Holy Mountain’s anti-Latinism, one point made to me on the margins of the conference by Orthodox participants was that there were two Romanides’: the theologian and the historical philosopher. It is only in this latter capacity that his writings are objectionable and contentious in the West, whereas his theology, largely irrelevant to Western religiosity, is very congenial to the Orthodox monastic tradition. And Mt Athos, of course, is largely populated by Orthodox monks!
Two other interesting points were made to me regarding Romanides, though I had been hoping to hold them back until later in the conference reports: Romanides’ impact on Orthodoxy is actually limited largely to Greece (where he studied and taught) and amongst American Protestant converts to Orthodoxy who find his writings in English accessible; and that Greek academic discourse follows stylistic conventions that differ from those in scholarly writing in the West having, for example, greater tolerance for politically-incorrect speculative and bombastic polemics. In essence, my Orthodox conference informants suggested that Catholics need not take Romanides’ anti-Latin works and philhellenism too seriously as they didn’t themselves.
All this Khomiakov traced to a cultural imprinting contributed by and seemingly innate to a “Germanic” ethos dating from the barbarian conquest of the West.
Quite apart from its quaint 19th-century nationalism, this view strikes me as naively simplistic. It reminds me of the college professor who asks his class, “What are the three causes of the French Revolution?” If only the tangled mess of the historical record were that simple to disentangle!
It looks as if the goal of that Conference was to underscore the deficiencies of Orthodoxy and indicate to the Orthodox the way of political correctness in order to be accepted as adult rational beings. No Romanides or Mount Athos whose theologies are irrelevant to the West!
Diane,
We have to be fair. Khomiakov was writing in the mid-19th century, and this kind of thinking was not that alien to the social sciences at the time in the West. Let’s not forget that the West gave the world Nazism, all perfectly packaged in this kind of stuff.
Seraphim,
As you might tell from the title, the Conference is about “Orthodox Constructions of the West”, not about any deficiencies in Orthodoxy.
As to the side comments offered to me regarding Romanides, the allusion to a lack of “political correctness” (my words, not my informants) was in reference to “Greek” scholarship, not “to the Orthodox way.”
As Romanides’ theology focuses largely on hesychasm, it follows that it is not all that relevant to Western “religiosity.” Whether this makes it irrelevant to the West writ large (which no one at the Conference suggested) is quite another question.
Finally, where does this suggestion that Mt Athos is seen as irrelevant to the West by myself or anyone else at the conference come from?
I find it bemusing that you should be so determined to take offence at the mere holding of a conference whose (predominantly Orthodox) participants might take a critical view of the writings of some Orthodox authors writing at various points in history about something other than Orthodoxy. Surely this is taking confessional loyalty a bit far.
Michael:
thank you for your response concerning the parallel theory of Romanides towards the west. I find your dismissive attitude towards this theory very intriguing (considering the absoluteness with which it is held by its adherents), and ultimately I must confess my inadequacy to make scholarly judgments of such weight. My hope is that things like the filioque are in fact misunderstandings, but I do not believe this yet, because it has not been proven to me. But I pray for it. God willing, I would like to study this more in the future. Thank you for your thoughts.
in Christ,
Timothy
PS: Michael, are you a scholar, or just someone who is interested in this? I would enjoy speaking with you further.
Timothy,
To answer your second post first, I am a political scientist not a theologian. On that basis, I would not feel qualified to judge the import of Romanides’ theology for Orthodoxy even were I intimately familiar with it. The historical inter-relationship of culture, ethnicity, values and ideas, on the other hand, are very much in my field. I can confidently affirm that there is no factual basis for construing the existence of a shared “Germanic” ethos in the 6th century, let alone one that would have extended from then to our time.
The concept of “Germanic” peoples didn’t even exist prior to the 18th century, and the idea of a “German” people (other than in a strictly geographic sense) can’t be attested until the 12th. There is absolutely no evidence that what we now call the various “Germanic” invaders of the empire in the West shared a common identity or world view amongst themselves of any kind that was not strictly materially based, let alone one that they could have imposed subliminally on the Romanized populations with which they merged.
Romanides’ argument otherwise is completely circular. He ascribes perceived changes to Western ecclesiology and ritual to periods of what he considers “Germanic” ascendancy in the West, concludes that the relationship must be causal and so reads back into these “Germanics” (who had no consciousness of being so) the cultural values (of which they had no awareness) that supposedly underpin the changes he perceives.
It’s all rubbish and logically fallacious, and Romanides would have done better to stick to theology instead of setting out to comfort historically dubious and self-serving cultural prejudices.
Finally, I don’t want to dash your hopes but the difficulties involved in the filioque dispute are not simply limited to “misunderstandings,” though these certainly play a major complicating role. The dispute exposes significant and real differences in ecclesiology and in the breadth of acceptable understandings of the hypostatic relationship between the Three Persons.
We are, however, not so far on these points now as we were 100 years ago, and there was a time when we we were far closer to accepting each other’s differences than we are even now. In his Mystagogy, for example, Photios was quite willing to acknowledge that Augustine, Ambrose and Jerome were both holy and filioquists (he just thought they were mistaken). He also did not see the filioque dispute (at least as it existed in his time) as grounds for schism and died in communion with the filioquist West. This offers some grounds for hope (except possibly for anti-Catholics).
Parenthetically, and in partial answer to Seraphim’s objections to the conference, Dr Kolbaba did not in fact deny Photios’ authorship of the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. We can’t blame Seraphim for thinking otherwise, as he wasn’t there and is merely repeating what I assume he read in a comment on Dr. Gilbert blog.
I was there, however, and can testify that she only questioned Photios’ authorship of a part of the Mystagogy (as it has come down to us in some versions) cited by a member of the audience. I couldn’t make out exactly what passage was being referred to, but would note that there are at least two manuscript versions that are frequently quoted, neither of which is older than the 12th century.
As the Mystagogy seems to have been Photios’ last major work, Photios doesn’t cite himself in a later composition. As such, it is a matter of scholarly controversy whether the differences between at least these two versions are the product of Photios’ own re-edition or the result of later emendations or interpolations by subsequent copyists. I speculate, but presumably various historians, including Dr. Kolbaba, base their opinions regarding authorship of the disputed passages on considerations such as evidence or lack thereof of internal stylistic or logical consistency.
P.S. I’m sorry Timothy. I should have addd that I am greatly reluctant to post my e-mail address on the internet. I would be more than pleased to speak with you privately, however, and I am sure our host would forward you my address if you wrote and asked him for it. Alternatively, you could post YOUR address here so that I could write to YOU, but then you would have to deal with the likely exponential increase in spam and malware that I am so keen to avoid. ;-)
I would be happy to forward your address on to Timothy.
Is it not the very title “Constructions…” indicative of the premise of the Conference? Orthodoxy had built a “construction” of the West which is wrong, biased, politically motivated and even a bit fraudulent (look at the suggestion of Dr. Kolbaba that Photios is not the author of the Mystagogy!), which must be “deconstructed”. In the background of this “construction” are the usual villains Photios and Cerularius, the Greek philetists, the decaying and dying Byzance which infected the slavophiles with its hatred of the “western tribes”- as Vassily Roz(a)nov put it -, the “right-wing” nationalists. There are no real problems between Orthodox and Roman-Catholics, only invented ones by people in search of their own identity! What was new in this Conference, except, perhaps, the “deconstructionist” jargon?
Do not be “bemused” that an Orthodox takes offense at such caricatural presentation of Orthodoxy, the more when the Orthodox are urged “to behave”?
seraphim-
Are you arguing, then, that the “constructions of the west” that some Orthodox hold are correct, despite contrary evidence?
I find it interesting that the critiques of these constructions were by those who are Orthodox.
I understand that you take for granted that these “constructions” are incorrect.
Of course that the major reproaches that the Orthodox make to the “West” are correct and the evidence is plentiful and in many cases painful (not only the sack of Constantinople). That the “West” was the one splitting from the Church and that the guilt of the schism is not equally distributed, is an incontrovertible truth.
That some “Orthodox” criticized the “constructions” is not surprising. We have also the Uniates who are very vocal in the criticism of Orthodoxy (as such). Some of these “Orthodox” have a carrier, or pursue a carrier at non-Orthodox Universities. It is natural that they would not voice the opinions of a Romanides (or a St. Justin Popovic!). Nobody would invite them to “conferences”.
Seraphim,
Your honeyed words so exude brotherly love, understanding and humility that one could be forgiven for mistaking you for a Christian. I was going to attempt a charitable response to your previous post, but I can see that the requisite pixels could be put to more productive use elsewhere. I will ask you the same question I ask every other anti-Catholic Orthodox on this site: why are you here, and what do you hope to achieve?
Michael,
Should I “hope to achieve” anything? I long passed the age of “achievements”.
As to why I am “here”. It was by following a string of links extolling in advance the more than dubious merits of THAT “Conference”. That made me curious about it, the more that I have, rightly, smelled the rat in advance. I am not a freshman in that sort of disputes, whatever you may think. You correctly assessed that my “brotherly love, understanding and humility” does not extend to the willful twisters of the Truth, no matter how many doctorates they possess and have the gall to urge us Orthodox to “grow up” and “behave”. I am not among the sycophants of Prof. Robert Taft and I do not consider that he gained the right to say whatever he likes. As for the “Orthodox” who, I am inclined to believe, were guffawing at his most outrageous pronouncements, they should better examine their own conscience.
I hope (and I hope it would not be vainly) to help as many people as I would be able, not to sink deeper into the outer darkness (that is the meaning of Occident=West) “where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth”.
Well, considering that both Romanides and Justin Popovich are no longer alive, it would be difficult to invite them.
As for the schism, it’s an incontrovertible truth that it occured over a long period of tme and that both sides contributed to it each in its own way.
This book gives a very accurate treatment of one of the elents leadding to the schism.
The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy By A. Edward Siecienski
http://books.google.ca/books?id=auT8VbgOe48C&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+filioque+history+of+a+doctrinal+controversy&source=bl&ots=oPdovGhyy-&sig=dFFoE_9chWrGY9_NVz7ZPkZs_sc&hl=en&ei=Wvx-TPrMEoH68AbkopzWAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
Evagrius,
The joke is a bit thick. I was talking about the “Orthodox” who have tenures or pursue a carrier in non-Orthodox Universities who risk to be side-lined if they don’t toe the line (if not terminated).
Have you heard of Father Alexander Golitzin? He teaches historical theology at Marquette University and is a recognized expert on Dionysus and early patristics. He’s quite Orthodox and, as far as I know, has not had to toe any line.
Bishop Kallistos Ware taught at Oxford for many years and certainly didn’t have to toe the line.
David Bentlet Hart is an Orthodox theologian who has taught at non-Orthodox universities.
I think you have a rather mistaken concept of what academia is about.
Evagrius,
You are asking tough questions.
First of all I know very well what academia is about (on my own skin).
Secondly, consider that I might have known who Bishop Kallistos was at the time when he was just Timothy Ware. It was a time (oh, so long ago – possibly you weren’t even born?- I don’t know) when he was not shilly-shalling about women ordination, huh, before he was Professor at Oxford, still inflamed by the dazzling Light of his discovered Orthodoxy.
Thirdly, Fr. Alexander Golitsyn is a Priest and a scion of the Russian princely family of the Golitsyns, which always will impress the “democratic” Americans. He did indeed do much to put St. Dionysius “right”, but still had to toe the academic line in not saying clearly that St. Dionysius was indeed St. Dionysius and not a Pseudo…
Fourthly, I can’t comment about David Bentley Hart. I am not that familiar with baseball.
seraphim-
I guess you haven’t read The Living Witness of the Holy Mountain where Fr. Golitzin discusses how Dionysius is revered on Mt. Athos as a saint. His relics are there.
Fr. Golitzin does not put “pseudo” in front of Dionysius and neither do the most recent scholars.
I had the privilege of studying with him many years ago. I didn’t know at the time he was related to Russian royalty. He certainly never mentioned it.
As for Bishop Ware, he is exploring topics that Orthodox should explore.
It seems to me that you have a rather constricted view of
Orthodoxy.
“Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite” seems to be standard now among scholars.
Quite a few recent works on that period of theological history have dropped the “pseudo”.
However, even Fr. Golitzin argues that Dionysius, whoever he may have been, was most probably a 5th-6th century Syrian, possibly even a “monophysite”, ( though that label is quite vague).
At any rate, he was not a convert follower of St. Paul.
The philosophic language alone shows a very real knowledge of “Neo-Platonic” thought, something that occured quite after Paul.
Evagrius,
Certainly Fr. Golitsyn did not put Pseudo… How could he actually? He certainly did not mention his aristocratic origin. He belongs to that category for whom its name speak everything. Russian aristocracy has something about it, hasn’t it? I won’t be bothered if you disagree.
Now, St. Dionysius has always been revered in the Universal Church (“West” and “East” alike). He really was the disciple of the Holy Apostle Paul. It is encouraging that recent scholars dropped the pseudo… In a not so distant past to assert that St. Dionysius was really St. Dionysius was a proof of ignorance and obscurantism.
But if you mean that Orthodoxy should explore the topic of women ordination, you lost me entirely. I have an even more constricted view of Orthodoxy than you imagine.
not only the sack of Constantinople…
When we lived in Louisiana, some friends used to say (regarding their neighbors who engaged in Confederate battle re-enactments and such), “They still fighin’ the Wah.”
IMHO, Orthodox who still get all exercised about a siege that happened more than 800 years ago…well, they still fightin’ the Wah.
Silly me. I always thought Christianity had something to do with loving and FORGIVING enemies. At least after 800 years. But I guess not. ;)
The sack of Constantinople occurred in 1204, but what happened a mere 22 years earlier?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins
What the article doesn’t mention, is that after the massacre 6,000 of the survivors were sold into slavery to the Turks.
Innocent III excommunicated the crusaders as soon as he heard of the sack, and JP II issued a formal apology in 2001. On the Massacre of the Latins…? Continuing dead silence from the Orthodox side.
And what provoked the massacre?
Apparently the indignity of a Latin (insert shocked expression here) exercising her customary legal rights of regency for her son.
It would seem that in your universe the ethnic cleansing of some 40,000 people from their homes, the massacre of 6,000 (including priests, monks, women and children) and the sale of a further 6,000 to the infidel can be dismissed somehow as the mere by-product of “provocation.” As such it requires no remorse, repentance or even acknowledgment of responsibility and is best occluded from memory and expunged from any discourse on inter-communal relations.
The comparatively bloodless (albeit very thorough) sacking of Constantinople a few years later, on the other hand, must stand out as an incomparably worse, unforgivable and un-“provoked” atrocity to be dinned endlessly into our ears unto the 25th generation (and counting).
Would you care to include a few anti-Polish Csarist pogroms under your historical whitewash as well? Those unrepented inter-communal sins can be so unsightly.
Oh, I believed that it was “the envy and resentment” of the Greek populace against the “foreigners who were amassing more wealth than many of the native Greeks”, which led to “a xenophobic reaction”.
Actually, it was greed. Greed on the part of Latins, greed on the part of Greeks.
The “free market” worked its magic.
On another note, it is always interesting to see how much denial there is of the actual causes of the Byzantine Empire’s collapse. Either the Moslems or the Latins are blamed for the collapse rather than internal corruption and the greed of powerful aristocratic families.
It’s somewhat the same form of denial regarding the French Revolution.
Quite so. But let’s not forget that the collapse of the Byzantine Empire was seen in the Orthodox Church as precisely retribution for their sins.