No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Question of Heinrich Rückert's Influence on Danilevskij
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 August 2018
Extract
In the eighties and early nineties of the last century Vladimir Solovëv, the Russian philosopher and religious thinker, was engaged in an extensive journalistic polemic against nationalism in general and Slavophilism in particular. One of his main targets was the philosophy of history of Nicholas Danilevskij, the Panslavist theoretician. In the light of the doctrines of world Christian unity enunciated by Solovëv, his strong reaction to Danilevskij's denial of the possibility of an ultimate world historical synthesis and to his espousal of a kind of cyclical interpretation of history is entirely understandable.
Solovëv addressed himself especially to Danilevskij's division of history into mutually independent civilizations or “cultural-historical types.” In particular, he criticized Danilevskij's claim that Slavdom constituted a cultural-historical type separate from “Europe.”
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies 1955
References
2 For details see Karpovich, Michael, “Vladimir Soloviev on Nationalism,” The Review of Politics, VIII (April, 1946), 183-91Google Scholar.
3 Solovëv, Vladimir S., Sobranie sočinenij, 2nd ed. (St. Petersburg, 1191-1914), V, 82–147 Google Scholar, 267-351 contains the pertinent articles.
4 Rossija i Evropa was first published in the magazine Zarija (Nos. 1-6, 8-10) in 1869. It was republished in book form in 1871, 1888, 1889, and 1895 (all in St. Petersburg). Darvinism was never finished. Volume I (in two parts) appeared in St. Petersburg in 1885; Volume II (consisting of one posthumous chapter and indices) in 1889.
5 Rückert, Heinrich, Lehrbuch der Weltgeschichte in organischer Darstellung, 2 Vols. (Leipzig, 1857).Google Scholar Rückert was a professor of philology at the University of Breslau. He was the son of the German romantic poet, Friedrich Rückert. See Sohr, Amelie, Heinrich Rückert in seinem Leben und Wirken (Weimar, 1880).Google Scholar This seems to be the only work on Rückert, but it is too highly personalized to be of much value for our purposes.
6 N. N. Strakhov, “Istoričeskie vzgljady G. Ruckerta i N. Ja. Danilevskogo,” Russkij vestnik, October, 1894, pp. 154-83.
7 Boris J. Elkin in a review essay on von Schelting, Alexander, Russland und Europa (Bern, 1948)Google Scholar, The Slavonic and East European Review, May, 1949, p. 593. See also Masaryk, T. G., he Spirit of Russia (New York, 1919), I, 292-93Google Scholar; P. N. Miljukov, “La décomposition du slavophilisme,” in his Le Mouvement intellectuel russe (Paris, 1918), pp. 377-439; the articles in Russkij biografičeskij slovar, the Brockhaus-Efron Ènciklopedičeskij slovar (by Solovëv himself), the Granat Ènciklopedičeskij slovar, and the Èncylopedia of the Social Sciences. The Bol'šaja sovetskaja ènciklopedija desisted.
8 The influence of Slavophilism is, of course, obvious. On the biological and statistical influences there is no discussion in print that is known to the present author. He can only apologize here and ask the reader to await other publications of his on Danilevskij now in preparation.
9 Rückert, , op. cit., I, IV.Google Scholar
10 Ibid., I, 1-2.
11 Ibid., I, 64-65.
12 Ibid., I, 92-93. There is also some similarity between the lists of cultures enumerated by both authors: see Rückert's tables of contents and Rossija i Evropa, IV, 88 (Zarija No. 2). Rückert's treatment of the Eastern Roman Empire and the Slavs is also interesting (op. cit., II, 479 ff.). He used the expressions “cultural-historical” and “type,” but never combined them as did Danilevskij.
13 Ibid., I, 77-91.
14 Ibid., I, 117-72.
15 Ibid., II, 796 ff.
16 Ibid., II, 16-51.
17 Ibid., II, 506 ff., 680-81, 700 ff.
18 Ibid., II, 787.
19 Ibid., II, 796-840.
20 Ibid., II, 841-920.
21 Ibid., II, 842.
22 Ibid., II, 919.
23 Ibid., II, 919-20.