Historiosophy by N. Ya. Danilevsky: the Union of Theory and Practice

The subject of this article’s research is the system of the notionalist’s ideas about the contemporary reality correlated with his theoretical vision of the worldwide historical process. The novelty of the work relies on the fact that the creative heritage of N.Ya. Danilevsky had been mainly studied by philosophers, whose major interest was his newly developed methodology of history. Without a comprehensive consideration of Danilevsky’s views, it is, however, impossible to grasp his theory and to liberate it from the stereotypes that had stuck to it at the end of the 19th — beginning of the 20th century. His theory cannot be understood without analyzing his interpretation of Russia’s historical path and its connection with the fate of the Slavs as a whole. The research performs a consistent analysis of the theory of cultural and historical types, Danilevsky’s interpretation of the history of Russia and the Eastern Question, and his project to create an All-Slavic Union. Based on the results of the study, the author of the article came to the following conclusions. Despite Danilevsky’s criticism of positivism, he could not overcome its infl uence in his theoretical constructions. Denying the existence of a single line of historical progress, he introduced the concept of a civilization “basis”, which tends to grow to become ever more complex over time. It is easy to imagine this complexity in the form of an ever upward vector. Danilevsky idealized the socio-political development of Russia, believing all problems to have been solved by the 1861 Peasant Reform. Fearing that the Germanic-Roman civilization would not allow the Slavic cultural and historical type to develop, the notionalist threaded the motive of the struggle throughout his work “Russia and Europe”. The struggle, however, would appeared to be defensive rather than aggressive and would ultimately be aimed at the creation of the Slavic federation — the All-Slavic Union, which was envisioned by Danilevsky as a union of equal members.

 Danilevsky’s work is still of interest to the reading public. The author of “Russia and Europe” tried to challenge the Eurocentric approach to the worldwide historical process, thereby declaring the value of each civilization. This idea is more than relevant in our time, when the problem of originality and uniqueness of diff erent cultures and civilizations is of utmost importance.

1. Aksakov, I. S. (1997). Biografiia Fedora Ivanovicha Tiutcheva. Reprintnoe vosproizvedenie izdaniia 1886 goda [Biography of Fedor Ivanovich Tyutchev. Reprint of the 1886 Edition]. Moscow: AO “Kniga i biznes”. [In Russian].

2. Danilevsky, N. Ia. (1995). Rossiia i Evropa [Russia and Europe]. Saint Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Eksmo. [In Russian].

3. Dostoevsky, F. M. (2004). Collected Works in 9 volumes (Vol. 9, book 1: Writer’s Diary). Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Astrel’. [In Russian].

4. Fadeev, R. A. (2003). Mnenie o vostochnom voprose [Opinion on the Eastern Question]. In Kavkazskaia voina [Caucasian War]. Moscow: Eksmo: Algoritm. [In Russian].

5. Kareev, N. I. (1889). Teoriia kul’turno-istoricheskikh tipov (N. Ia. Danilevskii: “Rossiia i Evropa. Vzgliad na kul’turnye i politicheskie otnosheniia slavianskogo mira k romano-germanskomu”. Izdanie chetvertoe) [Theory of Cultural-Historical Types (N. Ya. Danilevsky: “Russia and Europe. A Look at the Cultural and Political Relations of the Slavic World to the Romano-Germanic”. Fourth edition]. In Russkaia mysl’. (IX, pp. 1–32). [In Russian].

6. Khorosheva, A. V. (2015). “Udel Rossii — udel schastlivyi…”: Istoriosofiia N. Ia. Danilevskogo [“The Destiny of Russia is a Happy Destiny ...”: Historiosophy of N. Ya. Danilevsky]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta. [In Russian].

7. Leont’ev, K. N. (2003). Vladimir Solov’ev protiv Danilevskogo [Vladimir Solov’ev vs Danilevsky]. In Khram i Tserkov’ [A Sanctuary and a Church]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo «AST». [In Russian].

8. Nikitin, S. A. (1970). Ocherki po istorii iuzhnykh slavian i russkobalkanskikh sviazei v 50–70-ykh gg. XIX v [Essays on the History of the Southern Slavs and Russian-Balkan Relations in the 50–70s of the 19th Century]. Moscow: Nauka. [In Russian].

9. Rozanov, V. V. (2001). Literaturnye izgnanniki [Literary Exiles]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo «Respublika». [In Russian].

10. Semenov-Tian-Shansky, P. P. (1917). Memories. (Vol. 1). Petro-grad: Izdatel’stvo sem’i. [In Russian].

11. Solov’ev, V. S. (1989). Rossiia i Evropa [Russia and Europe]. In Works in 2 volumes (Vol. 1, pp. 333–396). Moscow: Pravda.

12. Strakhov, N. N. (1995). Zhizn’ i trudy N. Ia. Danilevskogo [Life and Works of N. Ia. Danilevsky]. In Danilevsky N. Ia. Rossiia i Evropa [Russia and Europe] (pp. 562–578). Saint Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Eksmo. [In Russian].

13. Tvardovskaia, V. A. (1978). Ideologiia poreformennogo samoderzhaviia [The Ideology of the Post-reform Autocracy]. Moscow: Nauka. [In Russian].