(1822-1885) - publicist, naturalist and practical figure in the field of the national economy, in his main literary work "Russia and Europe" presented a special theory of pan-Slavism, which forms a link between the ideas of the old Slavophiles and the newest unprincipled nationalism. A native of the Oryol province., The son of an honored general, D. was brought up in the Alexander Lyceum, and then was a free student at the Faculty of Natural Sciences in St. Petersburg. univ. Being specially occupied with botany, at the same time he enthusiastically studied Fourier's socialist system. Having received a candidate's degree and having passed the master's examination, he was arrested in 1849 in connection with the Petrashevsky case. After spending 100 days in the Peter and Paul Fortress, he presented an acquittal, in which he proved his political innocence, and was released from court, but expelled from St. Petersburg and appointed to the office of the Vologda, and then the Samara governor; in 1853 he was sent on a scientific expedition under the command of the famous Baer to study fishing along the Volga and the Caspian Sea, and in 1857, assigned to the Department of Agriculture, he was sent for the same research to the White Sea and the Arctic Ocean. After this expedition, which lasted three years, he made many similar, but less significant, trips to various parts of Russia. Danilevsky developed the current legislation on fishing in all European waters. Russia. Having acquired an estate on the southern coast of the Crimea, D. entered into a vigorous struggle with phylloxera. D.'s main work, "Russia and Europe", was first published in the journal Zarya. The first separate edition (erroneously shown as the second) was published in 1871, the second (erroneous 3rd) in 1888 and the third (erroneous 4th) in 1889. Another extensive work by D., "Darwinism", appeared in 1885 d. In two thick books (to which, after the death of the author, an additional issue was attached), D. subjects Darwin's theory to a detailed analysis with the aim of proving its complete groundlessness and absurdity. To this criticism, which caused enthusiastic praise of H. H. Strakhov, an unconditional supporter of Danilevsky, natural scientists generally reacted negatively. In addition to a hot attack from the well-known botanist, Moscow professor Timiryazev, who entered into a sharp polemic with Mr. Strakhov, D.'s work was dismantled by Academicians Famintsyn and Karpinsky. The first one, having reviewed the entire book chapter by chapter, comes to the following conclusions: “Of the objections he raises, comparatively very few belong to the author Darwinism; the vast majority of them, and, moreover, the most weighty ones, were stated in more or less detail by his predecessors (Negeli, Agassiz, Baer, ​​Catrfage, and especially the three-volume work of Wiegand are indicated below); D., however, they are only more thoroughly developed and in places supported by new examples "... "I consider D.'s book useful for zoologists and botanists; it contains all the objections made to Darwin and scattered in places interesting factual data, for which science will remain grateful to D. ". Academician Karpinsky, who analyzed the paleontological part Darwinism gives the following assessment of it: "in the author one can recognize a person of an outstanding mind and very diverse and significant knowledge; but in the field of geology, his information, often embracing even details, is not without major gaps. Without a doubt, this circumstance, as well as biased, already established before considering the issue from the geological side, the conviction of the injustice of the theory of evolution was the reason that D. came to conclusions with which one cannot agree" (see Vestn. Evropy, 1889, book 2). D.'s essay, submitted to the Academy of Sciences for the award, was not awarded it. In addition to the two books mentioned, D. published many articles in various periodicals, partly in his specialty, partly of a journalistic nature. Some of them were published by H. H. Strakhov in 1890 under the title "Collection of political and economic articles by H. Ya. D."; there is also a detailed list of everything he wrote. The basic view of the author of "Russia and Europe", which, however, he does not pursue with perfect consistency, differs sharply from the way of thinking of the former Slavophiles. They asserted that the Russian people had a world-historical vocation as the true bearer of universal final enlightenment; D., on the contrary, denying any universal task in history, considers Russia and the Slavs only a special cultural-historical type, however, the most extensive and complete. Seeing in humanity only an abstract concept, devoid of any real meaning, and at the same time challenging the generally accepted divisions: geographical (according to parts of the world), and historical (ancient, middle and modern history), D., as well as the German historian Heinrich Rückert, exposes as real carriers of historical life several isolated "natural groups", which he, like the named foreign author, designates with the term "cultural-historical types". Any tribe or family of peoples, characterized by a separate language or group of languages, close enough to each other so that their affinity is felt directly, without deep philological research, constitutes an original cult.-ist. type, if at all, according to its spiritual inclinations, it is capable of historical development and has already emerged from infancy. There are 10 such types that have already appeared in history: Egyptian, Chinese, Assyro-Babylonian-Phoenician [?, also known as Chaldean (?), or Ancient Semitic], Indian, Iranian, Jewish, Greek, Roman, New Semitic, or Arabian , and Germano-Romance, or European. Russia with the Slavs form a new one, which will soon manifest itself as a cult. a type quite different and separate from Europe. To these undoubted, according to D., natural groups, he lists two more dubious types (American and Peruvian), "who died a violent death and did not have time to complete their development." As for the new America, its significance has not yet been clarified for D., and he hesitates whether or not to recognize it as a special cult that is being developed. type. - Beginnings of civilization of one cult.-ist. types are not transmitted to peoples of another type; each type develops it for itself with greater or lesser influence of civilizations alien to it, previous or modern civilizations. D. allows such influence only in the sense of "soil fertilizer", but he unconditionally denies any educational and determining influence of alien spiritual principles. All cult.-ist. types are equally original and draw the content of their historical life from themselves, but not all realize this content with the same completeness and versatility. D., like Ruckert (although in a slightly different distribution), recognizes four general categories of cult.-ist. activities: religious, cultural activities proper (science, art, industry), political and socio-economic. Some of the historical types concentrated their forces on one of these spheres of activity (for example, the Jews - on religion, the Greeks - on culture in a narrow sense), others - manifested themselves in two or three directions at once; but only Russia and the Slavs, according to D., were given the opportunity to evenly develop all four spheres of human activity and realize a complete "four-basic" culture. Recognizing humanity as an empty abstraction, D. sees in the cult.-ist. type higher and final for us expression of social unity. If that group, he says, to which we give the name cult-ist. type, and is not absolutely the highest, then it is in any case the highest of all those whose interests can be conscious for a person, and therefore constitutes the last limit to which the subordination of lower interests to higher ones, the sacrifice of private goals to the common ones, can and should extend. - "Interest of mankind" is a meaningless expression for a person, while the word "European interest" is not an empty word for a Frenchman, a German, an Englishman. In the same way, for a Russian and every other Slav, "the idea of ​​Slavism should be the highest idea, above freedom, above science, above enlightenment." This last word of the theory of D. is its self-condemnation. Since every culture consists precisely in the development of science, enlightenment, true freedom, etc., apart from these higher interests, which have a universal significance, the alleged "idea of ​​Slavism" is reduced only to the ethnographic features of this tribe. Forgetting that a cultural-historical type first of all needs culture, D. exposes some kind of Slavism an und für sich, recognizes the very peculiarity of the tribe as the highest principle, regardless of the historical tasks and cultural content of its life. Such an unnatural separation of ethnographic forms from their universal human content could only be done in the realm of abstract reasoning; when comparing the theory with actual historical facts, it turned out to be in irreconcilable contradiction with them. History does not know of such cultural types that would develop the educational principles of their life exclusively for themselves and from themselves. D. put forward the intransmissibility of cultural principles as a historical law - but the real movement of history consists mainly in this transmission. Thus, Buddhism, which arose in India, was transmitted to the peoples of the Mongolian race and determined the spiritual character and cultural and historical fate of all of East and North Asia; the diverse peoples of Asia Minor and North Africa, who, according to D., made up several independent cult.-ist. types, learned first the enlightening principles of Hellenism, then Roman citizenship, then Christianity, and finally the religion of the Arabian prophet; Christianity, which appeared among the Jewish people, even in two steps violated the imaginary "historical law", because first the Jews transmitted this religion to the Greek and Roman world, and then these two cultural-historical types once again committed such an unlawful transfer to two new types: the Germanic-Roman and Slavic, preventing them from fulfilling the requirements of the theory and creating their own religious principles. Religious differences within Christianity itself also do not correspond to the theory, because the German-Roman world, united according to D., was divided between Catholicism and Protestantism, and the Slavic world - between the same Catholicism and Orthodoxy, which, moreover, was not developed by the Slavs themselves, but was entirely adopted from Byzantium , i.e. from another alien cult.-ist. type. - In addition to these private contradictions, the theory of individual cult.-ist. groups runs counter to the general direction of the world-historical process, which consists in the gradual increase (extensive and intensive) of real (though half unconscious and involuntary) solidarity between all parts of the human race. All these parts at the present time, despite the enmity of national, religious and class, live one common life due to that factual irremovable connection, which is expressed, firstly, in their knowledge of each other, which was not the case in antiquity and in the Middle Ages. secondly, in the incessant political, scientific, commercial intercourse, and, finally, in that involuntary economic interaction, thanks to which some industrial crisis in the United States is immediately reflected in Manchester and Calcutta, in Moscow and in Egypt. D. thinks to find a logical support for his theory in a completely erroneous distinction kind and kind. Mankind, in his opinion, is a genus, that is, an abstract concept that exists only in a generalizing thought, while a cultural-historical type, tribe, nation are specific concepts corresponding to a certain reality. But logic does not allow such a contradiction. Genus and species are relative concepts, expressing only comparatively the degree of commonality of conceivable objects. What is a genus in relation to one is a species in relation to another. Mankind is a genus in relation to tribes and a species in relation to the world of living beings; in the same way, Slavism is a species in relation to humanity and a genus in relation to the Russian or Polish nation, which, in turn, can be considered as a genus in relation to the closer groups it embraces. From the point of view of empirical realism, "man in general" is only an abstract concept, and not an object that exists in reality, but in the same way, "a European in general", "a Slav in general", even a Russian or an Englishman "in general" do not exist in reality. Moreover, it is not a matter of the general concept of "man", but of humanity as a single whole, and if it is possible to deny the reality of this whole, then only in the same sense and on the same grounds that are valid against the reality of tribal and national groups. . From an ethical point of view, to recognize the cultural-tribal group to which we belong as the ultimate limit of human duties and the highest goal of our activity as something more specific and specific compared with humanity, it means for a consistent mind to open a free road to any further lowering of moral requirements. National interests (in the strict sense) are much more concrete, definite and clearer than the interests of the whole cultural-ist. type (even assuming the actual existence of such); it is just as indisputable that the interests of some estate, class or party are always more definite and concrete than the interests of the whole nation; and finally, there can be no doubt that for everyone, his personal egoistic interests are the clearest, most definite of all possible, and if these properties determine the circle of moral action, then we will have no other duty than to think about ourselves. In presenting his view of history, D. inserted a special excursus on the influence of nationality on the development of the sciences. Here he seems to forget about his theory; instead of talking about the expression cult.-ist. types in the scientific field, only the impact of various national Characters: English, French, German. etc. Distinguishing several main degrees in the development of each science (artificial system, empirical laws, rational law), D. found that scientists of a certain nationality are mainly able to raise sciences to one or another definite degree. These generalizations turn out to be, however, only approximately correct, and the rules established by D. represent as many exceptions as there are cases of application. In any case, this question is not in any direct relation to the theory of cult-ist. types. Occupying a significant part of D.'s book, discussions about the decline of Europe and about the distinctive features of Russia (Orthodoxy, community, etc.) ) do not represent anything new in comparison with what was expressed by the former Slavophiles. More original for the time when the book appeared, the political views of D., which he summarizes in the following words: “In the continuation of this book, we constantly carry out the idea that Europe is not only something alien to us, but even hostile, that its interests are not only not may be our interests, but in most cases they are directly opposite to them ... If it is impossible and harmful to remove oneself from European affairs, then it is quite possible, useful and even necessary to look at these affairs always and constantly with our special Russian point of view, applying to them as the only criterion for evaluation: what relation can this or that event, the direction of minds, this or that activity of influential personalities have to our special Russian-Slavic goals; what can they do to hinder or assist them? To indifferent persons and events in this respect, we must remain completely indifferent, as if they lived and took place on the moon; those who can bring us closer to our goal, we must promote in every possible way and resist in every possible way those who can serve as an obstacle to it, while not paying the slightest attention to their irrelevant significance - to what their consequences will be for Europe itself, for humanity, for freedom, for civilization. Without hatred and without love (for in this alien world nothing can and should arouse neither our sympathies nor our antipathies), indifferent to red and white, to demagogy and despotism, to legitimism and revolution, to Germans and French , to the British and Italians, to Napoleon, Bismarck, Gladstone, Garibaldi - we must be a true friend and ally to those who are willing and able to promote our common and unchanging goal. If, at the cost of our alliance and friendship, we take a step forward towards the liberation and unification of the Slavs, we are approaching Tsaregrad - does it really matter to us whether Egypt is bought at this price by France or England, the Rhine border - by the French or the Vosges - by the Germans, Belgium - by Napoleon or Holland - Bismarck... Europe is not accidentally, but essentially hostile to us; consequently, only when it is at enmity with itself, can it be safe for us ... It is the balance of the political forces of Europe that is harmful and even disastrous for Russia, and its violation from anyone's side is beneficial and beneficial .... We need, therefore, to renounce the idea of ​​any kind of solidarity with European interests. "The goal for which we must, according to D., renounce all human feelings for foreigners and cultivate in ourselves and to ourselves odium generis humani - consists in the formation of a Slavic federation with Constantinople as the capital.When drawing up a plan for this federation, which brought him some popularity in the literary and political circles of Bohemia and Croatia, D. greatly facilitated his task: one of the main Slavic nationalities was doomed to complete destruction for betraying the future cultural-historical type; on the other hand, three non-Slavic nationalities must "voluntarily" become members of the Slavic federation: Greeks, Romanians and ma dyars. This plan, based on the division of Austria and Turkey, will come to fruition after a bitter struggle between Russia and the European coalition led by the French; Prussia will be our only ally in Europe. - "Russia and Europe" gained fame among us and began to spread only after the death of the author due to the coincidence of its main thoughts with the prevailing public mood. Supporters of D., who contributed to the external success of his book, have not yet done anything for the internal development and development of his historical views, probably due to the inability to reconcile these views with the actual content of world history. The theory of D. was critically analyzed: Shchebalsky, acad. Bezobrazov, prof. Kareev, Vl. Solovyov, Milyukov; N. Strakhov repeatedly acted as its unconditional apologist; D. had a strong influence on the views of K. Leontiev, who recognized him as one of his teachers. Regardless of the assessment of his historical and journalistic work, one must recognize in D. a person who thought independently, strongly convinced, straightforward in expressing his thoughts and having modest but indisputable merits in the field of natural science and the national economy.

Vl. Solovyov.

• - Abramovich, Nikolai Yakovlevich, writer. Born in 1881. Since 1898, he published critical feuilletons in "Donskoy Rech", "Azov Region" and other publications. He published poems in "Life" and "Magazine for All" ...

  Biographical Dictionary

• - physiologist. Genus. in 1839. He graduated from the medical faculty of Kharkov University in 1860, after which he went abroad for improvement. He received his medical degree in 1863....
• - physiologist. Genus. in Kharkov in 1852. He was educated at the gymnasium in Kharkov and in Kazan, then from 1868-74 at the university, first Kazan, then Kharkov, at the Faculty of Medicine. Since 1877 doctor of medicine...

  Big biographical encyclopedia

• - a well-known naturalist and philosopher-publicist of a Slavophile hue, was born on November 28, 1822, in the family estate of his mother, the village of Oberets, Oryol province, Livensky district ...

  Big biographical encyclopedia

• - Danilevsky, Alexander Yakovlevich - physiologist. Born in 1839. He graduated from the medical faculty of Kharkov University. From 1863 to 1871 he was a professor of medical chemistry and physics in Kazan...

  Biographical Dictionary

• - Danilevsky, Vasily Yakovlevich - physiologist. Born in 1852. He graduated from the course at Kharkov University in the Faculty of Medicine. From 1883 to 1911 professor of physiology at Kharkov University...

  Biographical Dictionary

• - Danilevsky - a publicist, naturalist and practical figure in the field of the national economy, in his main literary work "Russia and Europe" presented a special theory of pan-Slavism, which forms ...

  Biographical Dictionary

• - physiologist. Genus. in 1839 he graduated from the medical course. Faculty of Kharkov Univ. in 1860, after which he went abroad for improvement. He received his medical degree in 1863....
• - physiologist. Genus. in Kharkov in 1852. He was educated at the gymnasium in Kharkov and in Kazan, then from 1868-74 at the university, first Kazan, then Kharkov, at the Faculty of Medicine. Since 1877 doctor of medicine...

  Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron

• - a publicist, naturalist and practical figure in the field of the national economy, in his main literary work "Russia and Europe" presented a special theory of pan-Slavism, which forms a link ...

  Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron

• - Russian biochemist, corresponding member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. Graduated from the medical faculty of Kharkov University. Since 1863 he was a professor at Kazan University...
• - Soviet physiologist, academician of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR. Graduated from Kharkov University. Professor of Kharkov University, Kharkov Medical Institute...

  Great Soviet Encyclopedia

• - Russian publicist, sociologist and naturalist, ideologist of pan-Slavism. Graduated from Petersburg University. At the end of the 40s. participated in the circles of the Petrashevites, on whose behalf he was expelled from St. Petersburg in 1850 ...

  Great Soviet Encyclopedia

• - Russian biochemist, founder of the first Russian scientific school. Brother of V. Ya. Danilevsky. The main works on the chemical structure and metabolism of proteins, enzymology, nutritional biochemistry ... the author Fokin Pavel Evgenievich

  MYASKOVSKY Nikolai Yakovlevich 8 (20) 4/1881 - 8/8/1950 Composer, teacher. A student of A. Lyadov and N. Rimsky-Korsakov. Professor at the Moscow Conservatory. Author of 27 symphonies, 3 symphoniettes, concertos for instruments and orchestra, 13 string quartets, 9 sonatas and cycles of pieces for pianoforte,

  AGNIVTSEV Nikolay Yakovlevich

  From the book Silver Age. Portrait Gallery of Cultural Heroes of the Turn of the 19th–20th Centuries. Volume 1. A-I author Fokin Pavel Evgenievich

  AGNIVTSEV Nikolay Yakovlevich 8 (20) 4/1888 - 10/29/1932 Poet, playwright, children's writer. Publications in "Petersburgskaya Gazeta", "Birzhevye Vedomosti", "Pyatak", "Solntse Rossii", "Lukomorye", "Argus", "Satyricon", "New Satyricon" magazines. Poetry collections “Student songs.

  10. Nikolay DANILEVSKY

  From the book of 100 prophecies about the fate of the Russian people author Klykovskaya Tina Nikolaevna

  10. Nikolai DANILEVSKY To build a thousand years, shedding sweat and blood, and to form a state of eighty million (of which sixty are one clan and tribe, to which, except for China, the world has not presented and does not represent another example) in order to regale

  Demyanov Nikolay Yakovlevich

  From the book Great Soviet Encyclopedia (DE) of the author TSB

  Aristov Nikolay Yakovlevich

  From the book Great Soviet Encyclopedia (AR) of the author TSB

  Grot Nikolay Yakovlevich

  From the book Great Soviet Encyclopedia (GR) the author From the book Great Soviet Encyclopedia (FOR) the author TSB

  Mamai Nikolai Yakovlevich

  TSB

  Marr Nikolai Yakovlevich

  From the book Great Soviet Encyclopedia (MA) of the author TSB

  Marr Nikolai Yakovlevich Marr Nikolai Yakovlevich, Soviet orientalist and linguist, academician of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (1912). Graduated from St. Petersburg University (1890). He made his main contribution to science in the field of Armenian-Georgian philology; studied and published

  Kuznetsov Nikolay Yakovlevich

  From the book Great Soviet Encyclopedia (KU) of the author TSB

  Danilevsky Vasily Yakovlevich

  From the book of 100 famous Kharkovites author Karnatsevich Vladislav Leonidovich

  Danilevsky Vasily Yakovlevich (born in 1852 - died in 1939) Physiologist, author of a number of pioneering works on the structure and functioning of the brain, central nervous system, muscular system, etc. The Holy of Holies is the human brain. While "as spaceships plow the expanses

  DANILEVSKY Nikolay Yakovlevich (1822-1885)

  From the book The Newest Philosophical Dictionary author Gritsanov Alexander Alekseevich

  DANILEVSKY Nikolai Yakovlevich (1822-1885) - Russian publicist, social thinker, culturologist, ideologist of pan-Slavism. Master of Botany, Petersburg University (1849). For scientific and administrative activities he was awarded the gold medal of the Russian Geographical

Nikolay Yakovlevich Danilevsky

Danilevsky Nikolai Yakovlevich (1822-1885), Russian publicist and sociologist, ideologist of pan-Slavism. In the essay "Russia and Europe" (1869) he put forward the theory of separate "cultural-historical types" (civilizations), developing like biological organisms; considered the "Slavic" type to be qualitatively new.

+ + +

DANILEVSKY Nikolai Yakovlevich (11/28/1822-11/7/1885), Russian thinker, philosopher, sociologist, naturalist. In the 1850s he was engaged in fish farming on the Volga, in the Caspian Sea, in the Russian North. In the 1860s he began to study the problems of civilization. In the book "Russia and Europe" (1869) he develops the theory of "cultural-historical types" of mankind. According to his teachings, there is no universal human civilization and cannot be. There are only its various types, such as Egyptian, Chinese, Assyro-Babylonian-Phoenician, Jewish, Greek, Roman. In modern history, Danilevsky most of all pays attention to the Germanic and Slavic types, the latter of which is just beginning to take shape. The foundations of a civilization of one cultural-historical type are not transferred to a civilization of another type. The period of growth of the cultural-historical type is not defined. The period of its flowering and fruiting is short. The last period exhausts once and for all the vitality of the cultural-historical type. “Humanity”, according to Danilevsky, is an abstraction, an empty concept, and the people are a concrete and essential reality. The significance of cultural-historical types lies in the fact that each of them expresses the idea of ​​a person in its own way, and these ideas, taken as a whole, constitute something universal. The dominance of one cultural-historical type, extended to the whole world, would mean a gradual degradation (...).

In the last years of his life he was engaged in the refutation of Darwin's theory.

D.K.

Preface note:

Danilevsky N. Ya. Russia and the Franco-German War. Supplement to the book "Russia and Europe".

The founder and main representative of Pan-Slavism was Nikolai Yakovlevich Danilevsky (1822-1885). At the university, Danilevsky received a natural science education and devoted most of his scientific career to natural science - research in the field of biology and zoology, which left a noticeable imprint on his legal ideas, which he began to develop already in his declining years. In his main work “Russia and Europe. A look at the cultural and political relations of the Slavic world to the German-Roman world ”(1871), the thinker substantiated the theory of cultural and historical types of human civilization, which, like living organisms, are in constant struggle with each other and with the environment. But, unlike

Darwin, Danilevsky did not believe that such a struggle (natural selection) is an indispensable condition for development - the historical task of the people is not the destruction of rival peoples, but the development of their inner essence.

According to Danilevsky's definition, an original cultural-historical type is formed by any tribe or family of peoples, characterized by a separate language or a group of languages ​​that are quite close to each other, if it is capable of historical development in terms of its spiritual inclinations. Each cultural-historical type manifests itself in four areas: religious, proper cultural, political and socio-economic. The level of their coordination and development speaks of the perfection of this or that civilization. The course of history is expressed in the change of cultural-historical types displacing each other, passing the way from an ethnographic state through statehood to a civilized level. The cycle of life of a cultural-historical type consists of four periods and lasts about one and a half thousand years, of which a thousand years constitutes a preparatory, ethnographic period; about four hundred years - the formation of statehood, and the last 50-100 years - the flowering of all the creative possibilities of this or that people. The cycle ends with a long period of decline and decay. To prove his thesis, Danilevsky cites examples of ancient Greece and Rome, while trying to fit the history of other peoples (Egypt, China, India) into his scheme.

Along with cultural-historical types, to which Danilevsky refers only developed peoples, there are also two other types of peoples. First, the destroyers or negative figures are peoples such as the Vandals or the Huns, whose historical vocation is the destruction of other civilizations. Secondly, non-independent peoples, whose vocation is to serve as a means for the cultures of developed peoples. As an example, the scientist cites the small northern peoples of Russia.

In the spirit of his time, where positivism prevailed, Danilevsky tried to introduce elements of the natural sciences into the study of social phenomena. Thus, he bases the study of the historical evolution of societies on the methods of biology: the generic and species classification of societies according to the degree of their proximity, as well as the organic theory of development, where it is assumed that society goes through the same stages of life as biological organisms - birth, flourishing and death. Therefore, the thinker denied the idea of ​​a universal civilization - how can one talk about some kind of unity of the civilizations of China, the Incas and the ancient Greeks, who did not even know about the existence of each other! The beginnings of a civilization of one historical type are not transmitted to peoples of another type, although they are subject to certain cultural influences. For example, modern Arab Egypt is not a cultural and historical successor to Egypt from the time of the pharaohs. Denying the existence of a single world culture, Danilevsky singled out ten cultural and historical types: Egyptian, Chinese, Assyro-Babylonian, Indian, Iranian and others. One of the latest on the historical stage is the European Romano-Germanic cultural community, which Danilevsky considers to be two-fold (politics and culture). The ideological core of the Western European cultural type, as the thinker believed, is the cult of individual strength and independence.

Qualitatively new and having a great historical perspective, Danilevsky proclaims the Slavic cultural-historical type, designed to unite all Slavic peoples led by Russia, as opposed to Europe, which allegedly entered a period of decline. The Slavic type managed to develop in itself as harmoniously as possible all four principles of civilization (religious, political, social and cultural) at once, which surpassed all other historical types. According to Danilevsky, religiosity is inherent in the Russian national character due to its “natural softness”, which corresponds to the Christian ideal of humility and contradicts the violence and rigidity of the German character. In the sphere of political activity, Danilevsky considers the Russian people to be the most developed: "There has hardly been and still is a people capable of enduring a greater share of freedom than the Russian people, and having less inclination to abuse it."

Danilevsky found the basis for such confidence in the Russian habits of obedience, in his credulity to power, in the absence of a love of power, in his unpretentiousness, moderation in the use of freedom. These properties of the Russian character reveal that autocratic power is organically adapted to him, to his spiritual way of life. In the socio-economic sphere, Russian civilization surpassed Western civilization due to the existence of peasant communal land tenure. For a more organic development of the Slavic civilization, Danilevsky considered it necessary to liberate the southern Slavs and Greeks from the power of the Turks - at that time Russia was just participating in the liberation wars with Turkey - and the creation of a pan-Slavic federation with its capital in Constantinople. Hence the name that is often given to Danilevsky's concept - pan-Slavism.

In the realm of political ideas proper, Danilevsky's teaching is characterized by the denial of the possibility of applying Christian morality to state relations. Here he strongly disagrees with the Slavophiles and follows the political principles of Machiavelli, the famous Italian thinker of the Middle Ages, who defended the idea that all means are suitable for achieving and maintaining power. Danilevsky argued that Christian morality is based on the idea of ​​the immortality of the human soul. But state organisms do not possess such an immortal soul, and therefore their activities can be based solely on considerations of momentary or long-term gain, which are important in the struggle for the interests of the state.

(1885-11-19 ) (62 years old)

Nikolai Yakovlevich Danilevsky(November 28 [December 10], the village of Oberets, Livensky district, Oryol province - November 7, Tiflis) - Russian sociologist, culturologist, publicist and naturalist; geopolitician, one of the founders of the civilizational approach to history, the ideologist of pan-Slavism.

Encyclopedic YouTube

1 / 1

✪ Europe and Asia Traces of a thousand years of struggle One of the opinions

Subtitles

Key Ideas

• Criticism of the Universal Civilization.
• The concept of a cultural-historical type, consisting of four foundations: religion, culture (science, art, technology), politics, socio-economic structure. Cultural-historical types or civilizations are opposed to ethnographic material.

Biography

Having received a candidate's degree and having passed the master's examination, he was arrested in 1849 in the Petrashevsky case. After spending 100 days in the Peter and Paul Fortress, he presented an acquittal in which he proved his political innocence, and was expelled from St. Petersburg: he was appointed to the office of the Vologda, and then the Samara governor.

In 1853, he was sent to a scientific expedition under the command of Academician Karl Baer to study fishing along the Volga and the Caspian Sea. In 1854 he began work on the monumental work " About the climate of Vologda”, which often relies on the work of A.F. Fortunatov“ Meteorological observations and various physical observations made in Vologda". In 1857, assigned to the Department of Agriculture, he was sent for the same research to the White Sea and the Arctic Ocean. Danilevsky developed legislation on fishing in all waters of the European part of Russia. In 1866, for his research on the Sea of ​​Azov and previous work in the Caspian expedition, he was awarded the Konstantinovsky medal of the Russian Geographical Society.

Creative activity

Danilevsky's main work, Russia and Europe, was first published in the journal Zarya. The first separate edition (erroneously shown as the second) appeared in 1871, the second (erroneously 3rd) in 1885 and the third (erroneously 4th) in 1887.

Another extensive work by Danilevsky, "Darwinism", appeared in. In two thick books (to which an additional issue was added after the author's death), Danilevsky subjects Darwin's theory to a detailed analysis with the stated goal of proving its complete groundlessness and absurdity. To this criticism, which caused enthusiastic praise of H. H. Strakhov, an unconditional supporter of Danilevsky, natural scientists generally reacted negatively. In addition to a hot attack from the well-known botanist, Moscow professor Timiryazev, who entered into a sharp polemic with Strakhov, Danilevsky's work was dismantled by academicians Famintsyn and Karpinsky.

The first one, having reviewed the whole book chapter by chapter, comes to the following conclusions: “Of the objections he raises, comparatively very few belong to the author of Darwinism; the vast majority of them, and, moreover, the most weighty ones, were stated in more or less detail by his predecessors (Negeli, Agassiz, Baer, ​​Catrfage, and especially the three-volume work of Wiegand are indicated below); Danilevsky, however, they are only more thoroughly developed and in places supported by new examples ... "" I consider Danilevsky's book useful for zoologists and botanists; it contains all the objections made to Darwin and scattered in places interesting factual data, for which science will remain grateful to Danilevsky.

Academician Karpinsky, who analyzed the paleontological part of Darwinism, gives the following assessment of it: “one can recognize in the author a person of an outstanding mind and very diverse and significant knowledge; but in the field of geology, his information, often embracing even details, is not without major gaps. Without a doubt, this circumstance, as well as the biased conviction that the theory of evolution was unfair, which had already been established before consideration of the issue from the geological side, was the reason that Danilevsky came to conclusions with which one cannot agree ”(see“ Bulletin of Europe ”,, book 2 ).

Danilevsky's work, submitted to the Academy of Sciences for the award, was not awarded it.

In the 20th century, "Darwinism" was highly appreciated by the founder of nomogenesis, L. S. Berg:

This book, of course, is known by hearsay to all natural scientists, but of the people of my age, I think there are hardly five or six people in Russia who would read it: behind it there is the glory of Herostratus.<…>After reading it, I was convinced with joyful surprise that our views are largely the same. Danilevsky's work, the result of the author's extensive erudition, is a work deserving full attention. It contains a lot of practical considerations, which were later independently arrived at in the West.

Nomogenesis, or Evolution based on regularities. Pg., 1922. S. III-IV.

In addition to the two books mentioned above, Danilevsky published many articles in various periodicals, partly in his specialty, partly of a journalistic nature. Some of them were published by H. H. Strakhov in 1890 under the title "Collection of political and economic articles by H. Ya. Danilevsky"; there is also a detailed list of everything he wrote.

"Russia and Europe"

Danilevsky, denying any universal task in history, considers Russia and the Slavs only a special cultural-historical type, however, the broadest and most complete Danilevsky sees in humanity only an abstract concept, devoid of any real meaning and disputes the generally accepted divisions - geographical (according to parts of the world) and historical (ancient, middle and modern history). At the same time, Danilevsky exposes several isolated “natural groups” as the actual bearers of historical life, which he designates with the term “cultural-historical types”.

Any tribe or family of peoples, characterized by a separate language or a group of languages, close enough to each other so that their affinity is felt directly, without deep philological research, constitutes an original cultural-historical type, if it is generally capable of historical development and development due to its spiritual inclinations. already out of infancy. Danilevsky has 10 such types that have already appeared in history: Egyptian, Chinese, Assyrian-Babylonian-Phoenician [?, he is also Chaldean (?), or Ancient Semitic], Indian, Iranian, Jewish, Greek, Roman, New Semitic, or Arabian, and Germano-Romance, or European. Russia with the Slavs form a new cultural-historical type, which should appear soon, completely different and separate from Europe. To these undoubted, according to Danilevsky, natural groups, he lists two more dubious types (American and Peruvian), "who died a violent death and did not have time to complete their development" (in relation to New America, Danilevsky did not recognize a special developing cultural-historical type).

Danilevsky, like Ruckert (although in a slightly different distribution), recognizes four general categories of cultural and historical activity: religious activity, cultural activity proper (science, art, industry), political and socio-economic activity.

Recognizing humanity as an empty abstraction, Danilevsky sees in the cultural-historical type the highest and final expression of social unity. If the group to which we give the name of a cultural-historical type is not absolutely the highest, then it is in any case the highest of all those whose interests can be conscious for a person, and therefore constitutes the last limit to which it can and must extend the subordination of lower interests to higher ones, the sacrifice of private goals to the common ones.

Denying that a cultural-historical type primarily needs culture, Danilevsky proposes a kind of Slavism in and for himself, recognizing the very peculiarity of the tribe as the highest principle, regardless of the historical tasks and cultural content of its life. Such an unnatural separation of ethnographic forms from their universal human content could only be done in the realm of abstract reasoning. When comparing the theory with actual historical facts, it turned out to be in irreconcilable contradiction with them. History does not know of such cultural types that would develop the educational principles of their life exclusively for themselves and from themselves. Danilevsky put forward the intransmissibility of cultural principles as a historical law - but the real movement of history consists mainly in this transmission.

In his presentation of his view of history, Danilevsky inserted a special excursus on the influence of nationality on the development of the sciences. Here he seems to forget about his theory: instead of talking about the expression of cultural-historical types in the scientific field, he only points to the influence of various national characters - English, French, German, etc. Distinguishing several main degrees in the development of each science (artificial system, empirical laws, rational law), Danilevsky found that scientists of a certain nationality are mainly able to raise sciences to one or another certain degree. These generalizations, however, turn out to be only approximately correct, and the rules established by Danilevsky present as many exceptions as there are cases of application. In any case, this question is not directly related to the theory of cultural-historical types.

The arguments about the decline of Europe and about the distinctive features of Russia (Orthodoxy, community, etc.), which occupy a significant part of Danilevsky's book, do not represent anything new at all compared to what was expressed by the former Slavophiles. More original for the time when the book appeared are Danilevsky's political views, which he summarizes in the following words:

Europe is not only something alien to us, but even hostile, that its interests not only cannot be our interests, but in most cases are directly opposed to them.

The goal for which the Russians, according to Danilevsky, must renounce all human feelings for foreigners and educate in themselves and for themselves sodium generis humani- consists in the formation of a Slavic federation with Constantinople as the capital.

Criticism

"Russia and Europe" gained fame in Russia and began to spread only after the death of the author. Shchebalsky , academician Bezobrazov , professor Kareev , and Milyukov critically analyzed Danilevsky 's theory . N. Strakhov repeatedly acted as her unconditional apologist, K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin and V. Rozanov positively assessed her. Dostoevsky called "Russia and Europe" "the reference book of every Russian." Danilevsky had a strong influence on the views of K. Leontiev, who recognized him as one of his teachers. N. Trubetskoy considered himself the heir to Danilevsky's historiosophical views. Highly appreciated "Russia and Europe" L. Gumilyov.

The work of N. Ya. Danilevsky "Russia and Europe" was subjected to thorough criticism by the Russian thinker and philosopher V. S. Solovyov (the article "Russia and Europe", later included in the collection "National Question in Russia"), pointing to the superficiality and bias of the author and his self-contradiction. At the same time, V. S. Solovyov admitted that the work of N. Ya. Danilevsky "Darwinism" is "the most thorough and beautifully presented set of all the essential objections made against Darwin's theory in European science", but expressed regret that Nikolai Yakovlevich offered no original concept to replace Darwin's. In the Soviet historiography of the 1920s, Danilevsky was characterized as an extreme reactionary, a member of the Black Hundreds, an ideologist of the expansion of Russian tsarism.

Actually, the key point in Danilevsky's concept, which to this day is included in the history of sociology courses all over the world, is the cyclical nature of the civilizational process. Unlike Toynbee and Spengler, Danilevsky does not focus his attention on the signs of decline or progress, but collects extensive factual material that makes it possible to see the repetition of social orders behind many historical features.

At the moment, Danilevsky is deservedly recognized as a classic of Russian geopolitics, who had a strong influence, for example, on the Eurasian geopolitical school, along with O. Spengler, he is recognized as the founder of a civilizational approach to history. He also owns small, but indisputable merits in the field of natural science and the national economy.

DANILEVSKY, NIKOLAI YAKOVLEVICH(1822–1885), Russian natural scientist, thinker, publicist. Born November 28 (December 10), 1822 in the village. Oberets, Livensky district, Oryol province. In 1842 he graduated from the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, and then the natural faculty of St. Petersburg University. In 1849 he received a master's degree in botany. In the summer of the same year, the young man's passion for Fourier's socialist ideas led to his arrest (in connection with the Petrashevsky case). Danilevsky spent a hundred days in the Peter and Paul Fortress. After his innocence was proven, he was released. A short-term passion for Fourierism did not make the young Danilevsky a radical. In the future, he was always critical of various variants of the Russian radical left ideology. “The whole difference between our nihilism and foreign, Western nihilism,” wrote Danilevsky in an article The origin of our nihilism, - lies solely in the fact that there it is original, but with us it is imitative, and therefore it has some justification being one of the inevitable results of the historical life of Europe, while ours hangs in the air and ... is a funny, caricatured phenomenon. After being released from the fortress, Danilevsky was expelled from St. Petersburg and worked first in Vologda and then in Samara. In 1853 he went on his first scientific expedition led by the famous naturalist Karl von Baer to the Volga and the Caspian Sea. In the future, he made many such trips, spending most of his life on the banks of the rivers, lakes and seas of Russia. Danilevsky developed legislation on fishing in all waters of European Russia.

In the last years of his life, Danilevsky worked on a fundamental scientific work Darwinism(the first two volumes were published), where he criticized Darwinism as a theory that "simplifies the problem of species diversity of life forms." The most famous work of Danilevsky - Russia and Europe, which had a significant impact on F.M. Dostoevsky, K.N. Leontiev, N.N. Strakhov, K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin.

In this work, Danilevsky criticized the Eurocentrism that dominated the historiography of the 19th century, and, in particular, the generally accepted scheme for dividing world history into Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and Modern Times. The Russian thinker considered such a division to have only a conditional meaning and completely unjustifiably "tying" phenomena of a completely different kind to the stages of European history. The very principle of considering history from the point of view of the "degree of development" of various forms of social and cultural life, he considered quite legitimate. But only when this principle helps, and does not hinder the solution of the main task of cultural-historical research - the definition and study of the historical diversity of "types of development". “The main thing,” Danilevsky wrote, “should be to distinguish between cultural and historical types, so to speak, independent, peculiar plans of religious, social, everyday, industrial, political, scientific, artistic, in a word, historical development.” The concept of "cultural-historical types" is central to Danilevsky's teaching. According to his own definition, an original cultural-historical type is formed by any tribe or family of peoples, characterized by a separate language or a group of languages ​​that are quite close to each other, if at all, in terms of their spiritual inclinations, it is capable of historical development and has already left the state of infancy.

Danilevsky singled out the Egyptian, Chinese, Assyro-Babylonian-Phoenician, Indian, Iranian, Jewish, Greek, Arabian and Germano-Roman (European) types as the main cultural and historical types that have already realized themselves in history. Already in the near future, Danilevsky believed, a new cultural and historical community - Russia and the Slavic world - would have to play a huge role in history.

Being a deeply religious man, Danilevsky did not question the role of Providence, but did not try to connect it directly with the historical activity of ethnic groups. He insisted that "the state and the people are transient phenomena and exist only in time, and therefore, the laws of their activity can be based only on the requirement of their temporary existence." Considering the concept of human progress as too abstract, Danilevsky practically ruled out the possibility of direct continuity in cultural and historical development. "The beginnings of civilization are not transmitted from one cultural-historical type to another." Various forms of influence of one cultural type on another are not only possible, but actually inevitable. The cyclic model of the historical process outlined by Danilevsky anticipated subsequent very diverse experiments of this kind both in the West (O. Spengler, A. Toynbee) and in the East (the most prominent representative of cultural cyclism is the Chinese thinker Liang Shumin).