K. A. ZHUKOV. THE EASTERN QUESTION IN K. N. LEONTIEV'S HISTORIOSOPHICAL CONCEPT, St. PETERSBURG: Alethea, 2006, 227 p.

The reviewed monograph traces the period of diplomatic service in Turkey of the famous Russian philosopher, publicist and writer K. N. Leontiev (1863-1874). In all modern studies of his work, one can feel the influence of the classical work of the Freudian psychologist Yu. P. Ivask (Ivask Yu. P. Konstantin Leontiev (1831-1891). Life and creativity. Bern-Frankfurt am Main, 1974), written in the genre of a creative biography of a scientist, as a result of

then the same story was reproduced, adjusted for the personality of the narrator. Meanwhile, K. N. Leontiev himself noted that it was his stay in the East that helped him formulate his views on Russia in a new way.

Unlike his predecessors, K. A. Zhukov is an Orientalist, which gave him the opportunity to analyze the Orientalist aspects of K. N. Leontiev's life and work, and his understanding of the Eastern question in religious, geopolitical and cultural terms. The work is distinguished by its multidimensional nature, knowledge of the historical realities of the East. The author managed to feel and convey the unique originality of the Leontief style.

The biographical details of K. N. Leontiev's life are considered against the background of the life of the Ottoman Empire in the 1860s-1870s. K. A. Zhukov also examined the system of personnel training and the organization of the Russian diplomatic service in the East, its advantages and disadvantages. Materials about Russian diplomats are given in the context of the formation of Oriental studies, the teaching of Oriental languages in Russia, as well as the manifestation of various aspects of the Eastern Question in the 1870s-1890s. Considering K. N. Leontiev as the forerunner of the Eurasian doctrine, K. A. Zhukov includes an essay on classical Eurasianism and its prospects in the last chapter of the monograph. The monograph consists of five chapters.

The author is well aware of the historiography devoted to K. N. Leontiev, the analysis of which was given by him in the course of research on the topic raised. To develop it, K. A. Zhukov studied the creative heritage of the scientist during his diplomatic service in Turkey, analyzed his reading range and literary heritage, revealing the essence of K. N. Leontiev's spiritual worldview.

From the total mass of numerous and diverse sources used by the author in writing the monograph, I will single out:: 1) literary works of K. N. Leontiev; 2) works that had a significant influence on the formation of the philosopher's historiosophical views; 3) memoir literature and works about the peoples of Turkey; 4) works of the founders of the classical Eurasian doctrine; 5) archival materials of the Russian National Library (RNB).

The structure of the monograph proposed by K. A. Zhukov, the tasks set by him and the methods of their research, as well as the literature and sources used, allowed the author to cover in detail, widely and in a new way the issues related to the problems of the Eastern Question in the historiosophical concept of K. N. Leontiev.

Having studied the development of Oriental studies in Russia in the XIX century, the level of knowledge about the Ottoman peoples accumulated during this time, as well as the degree of public interest in the problem of the East in Russia, K. A. Zhukov showed the theoretical basis for the formation of K. N. Leontiev's historiosophical ideas. He identifies three reasons why K. N. Leontiev managed to awaken the "Old Russian man" in his soul: the fact of K. N. Leontiev's serious illness during his stay in Turkey and the pilgrimage to Mount Athos after his healing, which gave rise to his love for the canonical foundations of Greek Orthodoxy; a long stay in the homeland of Greek-Byzantine Orthodoxy, which allowed K. N. Leontiev to better understand his country and realize the breadth of its historical vocation; the ideas of the Greek translator and Russian diplomat K. M. Bazili about Constantinople as the center of true Orthodoxy and the positive role of Turkish rule over the Slavs. Thus, it is no coincidence that it was European Turkey that became the favorable environment where K. N. Leontiev managed to form his understanding of the solution of the Eastern issue.

The historiosophical concept of the philosopher was based on the theory of the cultural and historical type of N. Ya. Danilevsky, the concept of Turanism (f. Dukhinsky et al.) and J. Mill's ideas about originality as a necessary element of the historical development of peoples. However, as shown by K. A. Zhukov, K. N. Leontiev's ideas were an integral and original concept of solving the Eastern question on the basis of the Byzantine aspect, i.e. the establishment of Russia in the East as an Orthodox country. K. N. Leontiev considered spiritual identity to be the main link between Russia and the Christian peoples of Turkey. Thus, the cultural aspect of the Eastern question was fundamental in his historiosophical concept.

The scientist considered Russia as the most non-Slavic country among other Slavic peoples, meaning the presence of a significant proportion of the Asian (Turanian) element in it. In his opinion, it was Russia that was supposed to lead the Slavic peoples, introduce an original (Turanian) culture into their environment, not allowing them to turn into its pale copy under the influence of Europe.

This explains K. N. Leontiev's views on Russia's relations with the Balkan peoples. I note that the author of the monograph did not consider the evolution of the scientist's political views on Slavism. Meanwhile, in the 1860s, K. N. Leontiev was a supporter of Slavophilism, but after serving for more than 10 years in Turkey, he came to the sad conclusion that there was no strong connection between Russia and the Slavic peoples on the basis of the Orthodox religion. In his opinion, only the power of the sultan protected the cultural identity of the Slavs from the leveling influence of the West, as a result of which a patronizing policy towards the Slavs should be carried out only to the extent that it is consistent with the cultural ideals of Russia. At the same time, Turkey's integrity must be preserved until Russia is ready to replace it on the Bosphorus.

The political solution to the Eastern question was the least developed by K. N. Leontiev. In his opinion, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Russia needs to establish itself as the head of the Great Eastern Union of Christian Peoples, choosing Constantinople (Istanbul) as the new cultural capital. However, since Russia has not yet found its unique cultural identity, he said, it should come to Tsaryrad with ready-made ideas. At the same time, the scientist clearly did not take into account the differences between the Slavs, their dynastic and territorial disputes.

Using the example of K. N. Leontiev, K. A. Zhukov traced the path of the Russian intelligentsia from pan-Slavism (a special path of development of Russia within the framework of the Slavic civilization) to Turanism as an alternative to the Western influence of the Slavic-Asian culture formed within the framework of the Russian world. In this regard, it should be recognized that K. N. Leontiev's teaching with the concept of Turanism embedded in it had a huge impact on the formation of Eurasianism , a movement that emerged in emigrant circles in the 1920s and considered Russia and the surrounding Asian space as a different from Europe, an integral and self-sufficient historical and geographical world with a peculiar culture and a mixed Slavic-Turkic population, which has its own special mentality. Thus, Eurasianism, which has now taken on new forms, has become the result of the intelligentsia's search for a solution to the Eastern question. Based on the tasks that the author of the study set for himself, this can be considered the general conclusion of his monograph.

The orientalist analysis of Leontief's legacy allowed K. N. Zhukov to show the results of the pro - Western policy in Turkey in the 1860s-1870s in a different way, and to take a fresh look at the problem of the relationship between the adaptation of the East to modern civilization and the breaking of the deep foundations of Eastern life. In my opinion, K. A. Zhukov's deliberate refusal to be objective in assessing the Westernization policy in the Ottoman Empire is controversial. Nevertheless, it should be noted that Westernization had a largely negative, leveling influence of the West on the traditional way of life and spiritual culture of the Ottoman peoples.

The monograph can be used for preparing lectures and seminars on the modern history of Turkey, as well as for writing scientific papers on Russian-Turkish relations in the second half of the XIX century, the history of Russian literature and philosophy, and political science.

Permanent link to this publication: