philosophy, as national. Herder likewise considered religion a product of the national character.
In this matter Homjakov follows the logical development of the Orthodox theocrat. If religion and dogma, and if in conjunction with religion the principles of law, morals, and politics are revealed, little sphere is left for folk-activity. It is true that Homjakov did not think the matter out sufficiently. From the religious standpoint Čaadaev dispensed with nationality, leaving place only for the "Christian folk," for the church. Homjakov left scope for nationality, but within narrow limits, and he failed to define the precise significance of nationality in the spheres of morals and of law. He considered that the Russian state originated through church and nation, and from this outlook it could be conceded that folk-character somehow found expression in the state and in its laws.
Strictly speaking, Homjakov leaves nothing but art for the domain of the folk-spirit, and here he involves himself in difficulties as far as church art is concerned, especially in the matter of Byzantine and Russian iconography. The relationship of the individual artist to the community at large is specified by Homjakov by saying that the artist does not create out of his own energy, but that the spiritual energy of the folk is the motive force which drives the artist.
Science, says Homjakov, inasmuch as it is truth, is universally the same; but in the positive sciences and in history, the way in which a truth finds expression, the way in which we attain to truth, is subject to conditions of time and space. Twice two is four, universally, so that there can be no "Russian arithmetic" or "Russian astronomy." The sciences which formulate simple external laws are not national. Those sciences alone are national which are concerned with the moral and spiritual endeavours of human beings.
Such problems of art and science need far more thorough investigation. Homjakov frequently devoted his attention to such matters.
Kirěevskii here diverges from Homjakov, whilst K. Aksakov diverges yet more conspicuously. Both Kirěevskii and Aksakov discover in the Russian or Slavic national character a notable source of anti-european views of life; whilst Kirěevskii contends that the Romans, the Latin nations, and the Teutons have led western civilisation into devious paths. A more detailed critical investigation would have involved the asking
