A.J. Toynbee about Byzantinism and Russia: the heritage of the Second Rome in civilizational dynamics

The great British historian and philosopher Arnold Joseph Toynbee (1889–1975) in his monumental work "A Study of History" considered the Russian civilization as one of the autonomous units of the world-historical process. The key to understanding it for him was the concept of "Byzantine heritage" or "Byzantinism," which determined the unique path of Russia, its institutions, mentality, and place in the world.

Byzantinism as a civilizational choice

By analyzing the genesis of civilizations through the mechanism of "Challenge and Response," Toynbee saw the acceptance of Christianity from Constantinople (988) as a fundamental choice that predetermined the fate of Rus. This choice was not just religious but also civilizationally-cultural. By accepting baptism from Byzantium, Rus consciously entered the orbit of the Second Rome, inheriting:

Political model: the idea of the symphony of powers (cooperation of secular and spiritual powers) and the sacralization of the figure of the ruler as the "external bishop" and the anointed tsar. The Muscovite princes, and then the tsars, inherited the Byzantine concept of autocratic, divinely established power.

Cultural and religious code: liturgical language (Church Slavonic), iconographic aesthetics, literary and legal canons. Russia became part of the Orthodox world, which separated it from the Latin West for centuries.

Geopolitical mission: after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Moscow realized itself as the "Third Rome" – the sole legitimate heir and guardian of true Christianity. This messianic idea, formulated by the monk Philotheos, became, in Toynbee's view, the spiritual pillar of Russian expansion and imperial identity.

Russia as a "daughter society" of Byzantine civilization and its uniqueness

Toynbee classified Russia as a "daughter society" of the Byzantine civilization, but with a critical reservation. It grew on the periphery of two worlds – settled Christian and nomadic steppe. This imposed a deep imprint on the Byzantine foundation, creating a hybrid phenomenon.

Byzantine challenge: The need to protect vast borders from steppe nomads (Pechenegs, Polovtsians, Mongols) formed a militarized society with a strong central power. This "steppe border" became for Rus the same "challenge" as the Arabs and Turks were for Byzantium.

Mongol yoke (1240–1480): Toynbee considered it a catastrophic but formative event. It further strengthened authoritarian tendencies (borrowing of the fiscal system, the principle of universal service to the state), isolated Rus from Europe, and solidified its distinction from the West. The Muscovite tsardom, in essence, became the heir not only of Byzantium but also partially of the Horde in terms of methods of governance.

The Peterine turn and the schism ("Zeitgeist" vs. "Volksgeist")

Toynbee interpreted Peter I's reforms as a dramatic attempt to change civilization affiliation – to reorient Russia from Byzantine heritage to the Western model. This led to a deep split ("schism") in the soul of Russia, which he described in terms of opposition:

"Zeitgeist" (Spirit of the Age): The Westernizing elite, importing technology, ideas, fashion, and institutions from the West.

"Volksgeist" (Spirit of the People): The mass population, remaining faithful to Orthodoxy, communal way of life, and patriarchal values of the Byzantine-Muscovite type.

This split, according to Toynbee, gave rise to the phenomenon of the intelligentsia as a stratum that is disconnected from the people and torn between admiration for the West and love for the "homeland." He also explained the internal instability of the Russian Empire and its subsequent collapse.

The Soviet period as a "pseudomorphosis" and the return of Byzantine patterns

In Toynbee's interpretation, the communist experiment was not a negation but a secular transformation of Byzantine foundations. He used the term "pseudomorphosis" (borrowed from Spengler), meaning the imposition of a new ideology on old deep structures:

Marxist ideology became a secular eschatology and dogma, replacing Orthodox faith.

The Communist Party – a new "order of the faithful," analogous to the church hierarchy.

Cult of leaders (Lenin, Stalin) – secular sacralization of power, inheriting the cult of the tsar-father.

The idea of "a bright future" (communism) – a messianic goal, inheriting the idea of the "Third Rome" and "Moscow – the Third International."

Thus, the USSR, fighting against religion, inadvertently reproduced many socio-cultural patterns inherited from Byzantium through the Muscovite tsardom.

Interesting fact: Toynbee personally visited the USSR in 1930 and met with Stalin. This meeting strengthened his belief in the deep continuity between imperial and Soviet models of governance. He noted that even the Stalinist Empire style, with its gigantomania and monumentality, reminded him of Byzantine imperial projects.

Conclusion: Byzantinism as a "challenge" for modern Russia

For Toynbee, "Byzantinism" is not just a historical fact but a living, dynamic force in Russian history. He saw in it not weakness but a source of uniqueness and resilience of the Russian civilization in the face of external pressures – both from the West and from the East.

In his view, the main challenge for Russia was to find a creative "Response" to this heritage: to be able to synthesize it with modernization impulses, avoiding both painful splits and isolationism. Toynbee's analysis remains relevant because questions of civilization identity, relations with the West, and internal unity, formed by the Byzantine choice a thousand years ago, continue to define the historical trajectory of Russia.

Permanent link to this publication: