Readings in Russian Philosophical Thought: Philosophy of History

By Louis Shein

A collection of readings in Russian philosophical thought.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Wilfrid Laurier University Press
• Release date: Oct 30, 2010
• ISBN: 9781554587865

Louis Shein

Contact WLU Press for information about this author.

Book preview

Readings in Russian Philosophical Thought

Philosophy of History

Readings in

Russian Philosophical

Thought

Philosophy of History

Edited and translated with preface

and Introduction and notes

by

LOUIS J. SHEIN

McMaster University

1977 WILFRID LAURIER UNIVERSITY PRESS

WATERLOO, ONTARIO, CANADA

© 1977

LOUIS J. SHEIN

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data

Main entry under title:

Readings in Russian philosophical thought

Bibliography: p.

Includes index.

ISBN 0-88920-035-1 bd.        ISBN 0-88920-034-3 pa.

1. History—Philosophy—Addresses, essays, lectures.

2. Philosophy, Russian—Addresses, essays, lectures.

3. Russia—History—Addresses, essays, lectures.

I. Shein, Louis J., 1914-

D16.8.R42         901’.8         C77-001087-3

Wilfrid Laurier University Press

Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

N2L 3C5

No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print,

photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from

the publishers.

Dedicated to my wife Margaret

and the children:

Brian, David, Elizabeth and Fraser

PREFACE

The present work is a companion volume to the two earlier works under the same title (Readings in Russian Philosophical Thought), published by Mouton Publishers, The Hague, in 1968 and 1973 respectively. The original plan was eventually abandoned when it became obvious that a single volume would be too unwieldly and unmanageable. It was therefore decided to present the material in three separate volumes. The first of these contains essays on philosophic problems, namely, epistemology, metaphysics and ethics; the second volume contains selections from works on logic and aesthetics.

The present volume offers portions of works on the philosophy of history by nineteenth- and twentieth-century Russian thinkers. Although not all of these writers were professional historians, all of them were deeply concerned with the meaning of history. The selections represent a cross-section of Russian views on the subject. Many writers have been omitted, not because their views were considered unimportant, but because some of them, at least, appear in the Readings previously chosen for this volume. Nevertheless, brief outlines of the views of Chaadaev, Khomyakov, Solovyov, and others are presented in the general introduction. To my knowledge (apart from six selections) the pieces chosen for this volume have not hitherto appeared in English translation.

The selections which have already been published in English are:

1. The Doctrine of Progress and the Goal of History, which is chapter ten in N. A. Berdyaev’s book, The Meaning of History, (London: Geofrey Bles, 1936).

2. The General Character of the Elements that Promote Progress, in N. G. Chernyshevsky’s Selected Philosophical Essays (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1953).

3. The Slav Cultural-Historical Type, which is taken from N. Y. Danilevsky’s book, Rossia iEvropa (Russia and Europe), and which may be found in abridged form in English in The Mind of Modern Russia, edited by Hans Kohn (Harper Brothers, 1955). In this instance I made my own translation from the original Russian text, Rossia i Europa (5th ed.; St. Petersburg, 1894).

4. The Role of the Individual in History, by George Plekhanov, was published in English by International Publishers (New York, 1940). The selection from the above work is from pp. 17-62 (with some minor abridgments).

5. The Historical Process, was taken from Peter Lavrov’s Historical Letters, translated by James P. Scanlan (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967).

6. What is Progress? appeared in English translation in Russian Philosophy, Vol. II, edited by James M. Edie, James P. Scanlan, et al. (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1965). This translation in abridged form was taken from N. K. Mikhailovsky’s Chto Takoe Progress?, Sochineniya, Vol. I (1896). In this case again I made my own translation from the original Russian text.

The transliteration of Russian titles and names is based on the new Russian orthography given in the transliteration table immediately following the Table of Contents. Many phrases and passages have been omitted, either because they were too long, or because they did not add to the general sense of the text, such as lengthy examples or repetitious and involved arguments. The omissions in no way affect the main arguments of the text.

Some long and unwieldy paragraphs had to be broken down to manageable size, and the following suspension points are used to indicate omissions in the text: three dots in brackets [. ..] for words and phrases omitted; three dots followed by a period [...]. for sentences or short paragraphs omitted; for larger passages omitted, [. . .] following a break.

This volume is intended primarily as an introduction to some of the main views on the philosophy of history current in Russia during the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth centuries. But selections from Soviet philosophers are also included to bring the subject up to date. It is hoped that the book will be of interest not only to historians and philosophers, but also to the general reader concerned with the meaning and purpose of history.

Among the many to whom I am deeply indebted, I wish particularly to express my thanks and gratitude to the following: Professor Georges Florovsky of Princeton for his many helpful suggestions; Dr. Samuel D. Cioran of the Department of Russian, McMaster University, for reading the manuscript and also for offering helpful suggestions; Professor Robert E. MacMaster, Department of Humanities, M.I.T., for his many ideas on Danilevsky’s views on history; and Miss Patricia Goodall, for typing the manuscript. I am especially grateful to the Canada Council for their generous financial support, making it possible for me to do the necessary research and to complete my writing. I also wish to express my thanks and deepest appreciation to McMaster University for the financial help which enabled me to have this book published. An expression of gratitude is also due to the various libraries which permitted me to use their facilities, especially the University of Helsinki Library, the Columbia University Library and the Lenin Library. Finally, I want to record my personal debt to my wife, Margaret, for her patience and loyal support during the arduous period of research and the actual writing of the book.

For their permission to use selections for this volume, I am grateful to the following publishers: International Publishers, University of California Press, and Garnstone Press, London. To these I express my sincere thanks and appreciation.

McMaster University                                                     LOUIS J. SHEIN

Hamilton, Ontario

January, 1976

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface

Russian Transliteration Table

General Introduction

SECTION I: HISTORY AND HISTORIOGRAPHY

P. L. Lavrov

Biographical Sketch

The Historical Process

N. I. Kareyev

Biographical Sketch

Philosophy of History and Historiosophy

The Person in Cultural History

The Role of the Person in History

P. M. Bitsilli

Biographical Sketch

The New Philosophy of History

G. V. Florovsky

Biographical Sketch

Types of Historical Interpretation

SECTION II: THE NATURE OF PROGRESS IN HISTORY

N. K. Mikhailovsky

Biographical Sketch

What is Progress?

N. Y. Danilevsky

Biographical Sketch

The Slav Cultural-Historical Type

N. A. Berdyaev

Biographical Sketch

The Doctrine of Progress and the Goal of History

N. G. Chernyshevsky

Biographical Sketch

The General Character of the Elements that Promote Progress

V. F. V. F. Ern

Biographical Sketch

The Idea of Catastrophic Progress

M. I.Rostovtsev

Biographical Sketch

The Idea of Progress and its Historical Basis

SECTION III: MATERIALIST CONCEPTION OF HISTORY

G. V. Plekhanov

Biographical Sketch

The Role of the Individual in History

I. S. Kon

Biographical Sketch

Is Objective Truth Possible in Historical Science?

A. V. Gulyga

On the Nature of Historical Knowledge

V. I. Mishin

The Marxist Philosophy of History

Selected Bibliography

Index

RUSSIAN TRANSLITERATION TABLE

(Based on the New Russian Orthography)

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the introduction is to give a brief account of the various views on the philosophy of history current in Russia during the nineteenth and first decades of the twentieth century.

The meaning and goal of history became of paramount importance in Russia during the reign of Nicholas I (1825-1855). Despite the rigid censorship of the Nicolaevan authoritarian regime, ideas from the West, like a swollen river, could not be held back. These ideas found expression in philosophy, history and literature, and gradually replaced interest in politics and religion. The Russian Intelligentsia were particularly attracted by the philosophies of Schelling, Fichte, Kant, and Hegel, as well as by French and British thinkers such as Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, John Stuart Mill and others. These philosophers served as an escape from the harsh realities and daily frustrations which the Intelligentsia were experiencing under an autocratic and bureaucratic regime. Schelling’s philosophy, for example, enabled them to rediscover something that traditional religion in Russia failed to offer. It also assured them of a unifying purpose in life and in history.

Before proceeding with our account of the state of philosophy of history in Russia, it is worth pointing out that the term philosophy of history is of comparatively recent origin. It was first used by Voltaire to denote independent and critical thinking about history. In the eighteenth and first three decades of the nineteenth century philosophy of history was primarily regarded as a theory of historical development concerned with the formulation of the goal and meaning of the historical process. Historians during that period failed to construct a universal history because they confused history with science since both disciplines entailed observation of phenomena and events. They failed to see that there is a fundamental distinction between the scientist’s approach to facts and that of the historian. For the scientist the individual fact is important insofar as it illustrates a general law. Hence, the individual fact is for him a means to an end—the general law. The order is reversed in history. Here the individual fact or event is the end, while the general law enables the historian to define and interpret that fact or event. This confusion was particularly noticeable among Russian positivists, and was reflected in their philosophy of history.

While there were many views on the meaning of history, there were some emphases which were common to most Russian thinkers interested in this problem. It may be stated in general that Russian philosophy of history is basically anthropocentric, i.e., it deals with the role and destiny of man in history. Russian philosophy in general and philosophy of history in particular were concerned with three basic problems: (1) the nature of man; (2) human freedom; and (3) man’s role in history. These problems were treated by historians, philosophers and literary people, and different interpretations were given to them. For some, history belonged to the future rather than to the past or the present. This approach presupposed strong eschatological and messianic elements. Russia was regarded as a chosen people destined to play a vital role in history. Berdyaev belongs to this category. Others, such as Danilevsky, saw God’s plan for Russia being fulfilled here on earth. But despite the different approaches to the meaning of history, there is a common leitmotif peculiar to all these views, namely, a strong concern for man’s role and destiny in history. Russia’s particular concern with philosophy of history also found expression in art and literature, an activity which eventually gave rise to important social and political movements.

Interest in philosophy of history as mentioned earlier, was not confined to historians. Philosophers and writers also devoted many of their writings to this problem. For example, Prince V. F. Odoyevsky (1804-1869) deals with the problem of the meaning of history in his book Russian Nights as well as in his other book The Year 4338 (published in 1839). According to this account the world by then was already divided between Russia and China. However, Russia is described as the cultural centre of the world. The letters speak of large new cities where even the weather throughout the north had been changed. Special aerial platforms and hotels and balloons filled the sky. The supreme ruler was a poet who was assisted by a minister of reconciliation and by philosophers of the first and second rank. Love of humanity had become so great that all tragedy had been eliminated from literature. China was not quite as advanced as Russia but was busy learning from Russia and had progressed quite rapidly in the five hundred years since the great Khun-Gin had awakened China from its deathly stagnation. From all this it is apparent that Odoyevsky’s philosophy is future-oriented and messianic in purpose.

It was Hegel more than any other German philosopher who was instrumental in bringing about a change in Russian intellectual history during the decade of 1838-1848 by offering a rational and all-embracing philosophy of history. The Intelligentsia hailed Hegel as the Columbus of philosophy and humanity, and his philosophy became for the young generation of Russians a weapon of revenge against the Nicolaevan autocratic regime.

The young generation was convinced that Hegel’s philosophy of history represented a clarion call to revolution with a view to destroying the autocratic system in Russia. Men like V. G. Belinsky, A. I. Herzen, N. P. Ogarev, N. G. Chernyshevsky and others were greatly influenced by Hegel’s dialectical view of history. These thinkers prepared the ground for the future development of Marx’s dialectical materialism and historical materialism. But it should be added that while Hegel provided the Russians with an algebra of revolution, he failed to provide any equivalents for this formula. It was George Plekhanov and V. I. Lenin who were able to provide these in a theoretical, practical, and concrete manner. Thus historical materialism became the official Soviet view on the meaning and purpose of history.

Two opposing opinions emerged in Russia in the nineteenth century regarding Russia’s role in history. These opinions found expression in two ideological movements, that of the Slavophiles and that of the Wester nizers. The Slavophiles maintained that Russia’s destiny was rooted in her traditions, her culture, and the Orthodox Church. Their view presupposed a messianic role for Russia in world history. The Westernizers, on the other hand, saw Russia’s destiny in adopting Western ideas. For the Slavophiles the course of history was controlled and guided by Providence, whereas the Westernizers insisted on a materialistic and scientific interpretation of the historical process. These two opposing views ultimately influenced future interpretations of the meaning of the historical process and the role of the individual in history. The selections in this volume present a cross-section of these different attitudes toward the philosophy of history.

Before proceeding with the text, however, we would like to outline the thinking of various representatives of other approaches to the philosophy of history.

Peter Chaadaev (1794-1856) is often categorized as a Westernizer because of some of his statements about the West and the Roman Catholic Church. The fact is, however, that Chaadaev is neither a Westernizer nor a Slavophile but a religious Utopian thinker with an idee fixe, namely, the realization of the Kingdom of God here on earth.

Chaadaev formulated his philosophy of history in a series of Philosophical Letters written in French and addressed to a young noblewoman, Ekaterina Dimitrievna Panova. In these Chaadaev sets forth his views on the meaning of history, and they reveal that he was deeply concerned with the problem of finding and establishing the basic content of history which, he said, must be extracted from the hidden wrapping of the external facts.

According to Chaadaev, the meaning of history is realized by the divine will which is present in history and which leads the human race towards its final goal. He calls this process providentialism. Providentialism implies that the Kingdom of God is being created in history, and is an historical event that occurs here on earth, not in some far-off mystical future. For Chaadaev was not a mystic. He insisted on the importance of proper material conditions in society to enable people to progress towards the realization of this Kingdom. He regards the Church as an historical phenomenon through which the divine energy (theurgy) penetrates history and establishes the unity of the Church itself. But Chaadaev has in mind the Western Roman Catholic Church rather than the Russian Orthodox Church, and he seems to evaluate the strength of Western Christianity in terms of its cultural rather than its spiritual achievement.

If it is true, as Chaadaev maintains, that Providence is working in history, as evidenced by Western solidarity and culture, why then did Providence miss the Russian people? His answer to this perplexing question is found in a suggestion that Russia’s isolation from world history was in itself an act of Providence. This answer is given in his first Philosophical Letter which suggests that the purpose of Russia’s existence in this world is to teach the world some important lesson. Such a conviction of Russia’s messianic mission was also enunciated earlier by other Russian thinkers. At a later period Berdyaev termed this The Russian Idea, stressing the messianic role of Russia in world history.

Chaadaev maintains that history moves towards the Kingdom of God, revealing the work of Providence and the nature and operation of the mysterious force which directs the course of history. Man is free, says Chaadaev, only to the extent that he follows a higher principle, namely, God. Man’s freedom manifests itself creatively in history through the Church as a community of people seeking to realize God’s purpose in history. Although the idea of Providence is central to his philosophy of history, Chaadaev insists that man must actively and responsibly participate in the historical process.

Alexis Khomiakov (1804-1860) developed a philosophy of history which expresses in essence the Slavophile belief concerning history’s meaning and Russia’s role in it. For him the historical process entails the interaction of two races—the Kushite and the Iranians. The Kushites lacked the fortitude to wrestle with the rigors of nature, and therefore had to invent systems of thought, economics and states in order to provide security for themselves in a hostile world. The Iranians, on the other hand, were willing to accommodate themselves to nature, and this adaptation kept them both simple and good. From such an unhistorical and romanticized hypothesis, Khomiakov arrived at the conclusion that the West Europeans were the Kushites while the Slavs were the Iranians. The Kushites, so the argument goes, revolted against authoritarian Catholicism, which later found expression in anarchistic Protestantism and this development led to secularism and radicalism. Khomiakov complains that the Kushite spirit had now penetrated Russian life and brought on bureaucracy, serfdom and atheism. For this Kushite invasion he blames Peter the Great.

Khomiakov suggests that the only way to meet the Kushite menace is to emphasize the messianic mission of the Russian people, for these were chosen by God to bring to the world the pure faith which they alone possessed. Thus Providence plays a role in Khomiakov’s philosophy of history, too, but not to the same extent that it does in Chaadaev. Khomiakov maintains that providentialism does not deprive man of individual responsibility, but that, on the contrary, it presupposes human freedom; and V. V. Zenkovsky points out that Khomiakov’s emphasis on the logic of history is more akin to Hegel’s view of history than to Chaadaev’s providentialism. Central to Khomiakov’s philosophy of history is Russia’s messianic role where history is summoning Russia to the forefront of universal enlightenment.

Vladimir Solovyov (1853-1900) developed a Christian version of Hegel’s metaphysical optimism, treating the history of the world and of man as a continuous process of ever-increasing penetration of the creature by the powers and essence of the Creator, of its gradual enlightenment, growing unity and deification.

Consistent with nineteenth-century optimism, the problem of evil receded into the background in Solovyov’s philosophy, and in his theoretical ideas, Solovyov failed to take sufficient account of the power of evil and the inevitable tragic nature of human history.

Toward the end of the nineteenth century scientific and technological progress inspired a belief in the absolute stability of cosmic reality and the continuous progress of all forms of life within it. History and the world’s political condition at the time gave rise to the thought that the moral and intellectual progress of humanity was equally continuous. The white race seemed to have indisputable power in the world. The epoch of great wars and catastrophes had apparently receded into the past. Even the Christian doctrine of eschatology seemed completely forgotten. Solovyov shared this general naive and optimistic view of historical progress.

But a profound change took place in Solovyov’s Weltanschauung in the early nineties, for he had a sudden premonition of imminent catastrophe. He seemed to sense that under the cover of peaceful progress a terrible force of evil was stirring, ready to overpower the world and destroy it. The dramatic element in Christianity—the struggle of Divine truth and love against cosmic evil—now came into the foreground together with the eschatological doctrine of Christianity. Solovyov suddenly became aware of the fact that his earlier ideal was based upon a superficial, non-Christian optimism. That ideal presupposed the belief that Christ’s truth was to triumph in the earthly life of mankind. Now, however, Solovyov was forced to accept the biblical view that the final triumph of Christ’s victory over evil was to be realized only when the world has come to an end.

This change resulted in a new heroic and eschatological conception of the role of Christianity in history. Solovyov now rejected his earlier notion of the external greatness and power of theocracy, and he came to realize that the unity of the Church must be a free union of persecuted believers in the face of the world’s evil.

As Solovyov became aware of the enormous and ever-growing power of evil, he called for a heroic struggle against it. In his last book, Three Conversations, he exposed the false optimism prevalent in Russia and denounced its danger. He saw the impending world catastrophe as a new Mongolian invasion of Russia and Europe, and in 1897 expressed the view that the approaching end of the world was actually in sight. Depicting humanity as a sick old man and the drama of history as the final scene in a play where only the epilogue is left, although the epilogue may be dragged out into five acts, he saw history in the last period of his life as both eschatological and apocalyptic, a conviction predicated on the ultimate triumph of God’s truth and the emergence of a new heaven and a new earth.

N. A. Berdyaev (1874-1948) regarded himself as a metahistorian and maintained that his philosophy of history was anthropocentric and eschatological. According to Berdyaev, then, the world may be considered from two points of view: it may be regarded as a cosmos, a view peculiar to the Greeks, making their approach to the world cosmocentric; or it may be regarded anthropocentrically, a view held by the ancient Hebrews.

Berdyaev argues that if we accept the cosmocentric position there can be no philosophy of history. That is the reason why the Greeks had no such philosophy. Their golden age was in the past with no expectation of the future. The Hebrews and the Persians, on the other hand, had an intense sense of expectation, and this made it possible for them to have a philosophy of history. Berdyaev insists that there can be no scientific construction of such a philosophy; only a prophetic element can provide one. But this prophetic element is not restricted to the biblical position for it is also characteristic of men like Hegel, Saint-Simon, Auguste Comte and Karl Marx, since their philosophies of history also contain an eschatological and messianic element, albeit a secularized one.

In support of his argument Berdyaev points out that when Hegel speaks of the manifestation of human freedom in the Prussian state, which he considers to be the goal of history, he is being prophetic; and that when Marx maintains that the proletariat will usher in a perfect social order, he too is being prophetic, prophetic in that his philosophy is future-oriented. This view, he argues, is messianic in its basic assumption although it has a secular form. Berdyaev’s own view is that philosophy of history is a religious metaphysic of history and its central idea is messianism.

Berdyaev rejects apocalyptic messianism because it is alien to biblical eschatology, and he bemoans the fact that Christianity has lost the eschatological element, for it became objectified, and the noumenal was replaced by the phenomenal. Thus he holds that all theocratic forms are a perversion and betrayal of the Kingdom of God. In his opinion, true messianism is concerned with the new eon of the Spirit and with the transformation of the world and the establishment of the Kingdom of God.

The only way Christianity can become a creative force in the world is to go back to the eschatological principle, which does not reject history and culture. Berdyaev regards philosophy of history as a philosophy of time, and he distinguishes three kinds of time: (a) cosmic time, which is concerned with mathematical calculations of the movement around the sun; (b) historical time which is within cosmic time and which also deals with decades, centuries and millennia; this kind of time may be symbolized by a line pointing to the future; (c) existential or metahistorical time. Existential time is not susceptible to mathematical calculation and its flow depends on the intensity of experience. Existential time implies that time is in man and not man in time, and time depends upon changes occurring in man. History, says Berdyaev, can move into cosmic time (which means that man is merely a part of the natural world and thus ceases to be a free human being), or on the other hand, history can issue in existential time (which means that objectification is overcome and history assumes a spiritual pattern of events). In existential time there is no longer any distinction between the past and the future, the beginning and the end, whereas in objectified time there is no beginning and no end, only an endless middle. The beginning and the end are found only in existential time.

Berdyaev maintains that the idea of progress can only be understood in terms of messianic ideas; otherwise, historical movement is merely natural evolution. Progress is not an endless movement but has a definite goal, which means it must be eschatological. The historical process contains an antithesis which cannot be resolved within history. This antithesis consists in the fact that man as an historical being realizes his existence within history. Man devotes all his creative power to history, but history uses him in such a way as to form a situation where material is created for inhuman and anti-human action. Berdyaev is aware of the fact that man cannot cease to be an historical being; and while history presupposes human freedom, at the same time it annuls human freedom. History has meaning only because it will come to an end.

For Berdyaev there are three forces operative in history: God, fate, and human freedom, and these make history a very complex business. Fate, he says, must be accepted as a fact, but it can be overcome by Christ. Human development in history is uneven because of the irrational and anti-rational forces in it. On the one hand a freedom hitherto unknown may evolve, but there is also the possibility of a servitude developing which baffles the imagination. Berdyaev urges us not to despair in the face of this complex situation, for beyond history there is a meta-history. The appearance of Christ is a meta-historical event that occurred in existential time, manifesting itself in history. Meta-history issues from the noumenal world and revolutionizes the phenomenal world.

Berdyaev’s eschatological interpretation of history does not imply that he is individualistic, for he constantly insists that man is not only an historical being, but is also a social being. Man can only realize himself in communion with other human beings. The two basic aims in society are co-operation for the common good and the union of all men. Hence, history is not only a record of the results of human freedom in the social sphere, but is also the scene of the redemptive process. The historical process is the redemption of man from sin and this results in a free union of man with God and man with man. This type of transformation cannot be achieved by force; it is possible only when men are transformed by a return to God. Only then can man experience history in existential time. Objectified time comes to an end, and a new meaning of history is achieved.

Nicholas Danilevsky (1822-1885) developed his philosophy of history in accordance with his totalitarian philosophy, according to Professor Robert MacMaster,¹ who defines Danilevsky’s totalitarian philosophy as Utopian in its conception of the future, and as basically messianic and eschatological. This characterization is generally true of Russian totalitarianism, which is more optimistic and more progressive than some of the Western totalitarian philosophies. Indeed, Russian totalitarianism is closer to the Judeo-Christian tradition than Western totalitarianism, because it has a pseudo-religious nature. Perhaps this is the reason why Marx was accepted in Russia more as a myth-maker than as a social or economic philosopher.

It is worth noting here that Danilevsky displayed some socialistic interests of a Utopian nature in his earlier years. It was only later that he set forth his totalitarian ideology in his book, Russia and Europe. Danilevsky visualized a new dispensation for the Slav world, even if it had to be accomplished by war. He wanted Russia to become a humanistic and socialist Utopia, and was convinced that this was possible because of the messianic role Russia was destined to play in world history.

At heart Danilevsky was a Russian nationalist who distrusted the West. He wanted to insure a place of leadership for Russia among the Slav nations for the purpose of building a Slav civilization. Like Chaadaev, Danilevsky visualized world history in terms of Divine Providence. He maintained that God has arranged and continues to arrange and direct the course of world history in a way that would eventually lead to a panhuman Russian socialist civilization. This type of civilization would be marked by perfect political, social, economic, artistic, scientific, and, above all, spiritual balance. His philosophy of history visualizes Russia and the Slavs (God’s chosen people) as being in the very forefront of world history. Danilevsky firmly believed that Providence enlists human action in order to intervene in human affairs. But his obsession with Russia’s role in history led him to advocate any means, including war, to achieve this aim.

Danilevsky developed a theory of national types in support of his peculiar philosophy of history. For example, he maintained that Europe’s malaise was due to her particular brand of Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant) which, in his view, was more political than Christian. This biased position led him to conclude that the European type was prone to violence and oppression. Russia, in contrast to Europe, possesses the pure faith and lacks the spirit of violence.

Danilevsky’s typal theory reveals some very interesting but fantastic ideas. In support of his philosophy of history, he argued that since the Russians had been chosen by Divine Providence to play an important role in history, they were required to mature under different kinds of authoritarianism. For example, they experienced slavery, vassalage and feudalism, and it was because of these experiences that Russia became a strong nation.

Danilevsky viewed history as a closed drama with a beginning,