THE LEGACY OF N.N. STRAKHOV IN FOREIGN HUMANITARIAN STUDIES OF THE XX- XXI CENTURIES (THE EXPERIENCE OF A BRIEF REVIEW)

НАСЛЕДИЕ Н.Н. СТРАХОВ В ЗАРУБЕЖНОМ ГУМАНИТАРНОМ ИЗУЧЕНИИ XX-XXI ВЕКА (ОПЫТ КРАТКОГО ОБЗОРА)

Дикарева Олеся Викторовна

магистрант, кафедра философии и теологии, Белгородский государственный университет,

РФ, Белгород

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the article is an attempt to give a brief overview of foreign studies devoted to N.N. Strakhov, an original philosopher and literary critic.  In the works of foreign experts, Strakhov's ideological views and the peculiarities of his critical concept were analyzed. Conclusions: Strakhov is of interest to foreign researchers primarily as a representative of the conservative trend of Russian social thought, who played a significant role in the formation of soil science as a certain kind of worldview.

АННОТАЦИЯ

Целью статьи является попытка дать краткий обзор зарубежным исследованиям, посвященным Н.Н. Страхову - оригинальному философу и литературному критику. В работах иностранных специалистов анализировались идейные воззрения Страхова, особенности его критической концепции. Выводы: Страхов интересует зарубежных исследователей прежде всего, как представитель консервативного направления русской общественной мысли, сыгравший значительную роль в становлении почвенничества как определенного рода мировоззрения.

Keywords: N.N. Strakhov; F.M. Dostoevsky; L.N. Tolstoy; pochvennichestvo; literary criticism.

Ключевые слова: Н.Н. Страхов, Ф.М. Достоевский, Л.Н. Толстой, почвенничество; литературная критика.

The name of Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov (1828 – 1896) is one of those significant Russian thinkers whose legacy for a long time was not the subject of close scientific interest both in Russia and abroad. Not only did many of his works disappear from public memory, but the extraordinary personality of this man was also forgotten. “Mathematician, zoologist, reserved metaphysician and philosopher of science,” writes O.N. Polukhin, a holistically thinking, original literary critic who revealed to the world the semantic depths of “War and Peace” by L.N. Tolstoy, translator - all the productive versatility of Strakhov is little by little revealed to modern researchers of the intellectual history of Russia” [4, p. 3].

Now one can observe active interest in the heritage of N.N. Strakhov, manifesting itself in various scientific communities - from the USA and Canada to China; in Russia, insurance research is conducted by scientists from St. Petersburg, Moscow, Belgorod, Ufa, Perm, etc.

Speaking about the creative heritage of N.N. Strakhov as the subject of foreign research initiatives, it should be noted that their beginning dates back to the 1930s, when the works of D.I. Chizhevsky. In them, he reflects on the philosophical ideas of N.N. Strakhov, expressed in the 1860s, and creatively comprehended by F.M. Dostoevsky; believing that in many ways Strakhov’s ideas anticipated F. Nietzsche’s concept of the “superman”, “eternal return” [6].

In the 1960-1970s, foreign researchers made attempts to give a general description of Strakhov’s personality, focusing primarily on the political beliefs of the philosopher. Thus, much attention is paid to Strakhov in the book of the American researcher E.S. Thaden, Conservative Nationalism in 19th Century Russia [5]. Strakhov is also mentioned in the work of another American author, R.E. McMaster in his study dedicated to N.Ya. Danilevsky, a friend and like-minded person of Strakhov, the publisher and popularizer of whose works Strakhov became after his death. The book has a clearly evaluative title “Danilevsky - Russian totalitarian philosopher”; the mention of Strakhov’s name in it is also given from the point of view of the political beliefs of the thinker [3].

In the monograph “Nikolai Strakhov” by L. Gershtein, published in London in 1971, an attempt is made to create an intellectual biography of the thinker. In the book, Strakhov is assessed, first of all, as a philosopher and thinker, and only then as a correspondent of F.M. Dostoevsky, A.A. Grigoriev and L.N. Tolstoy. Thus, the author emphasizes the independence of the philosopher’s thinking, its complexity and depth [1].

The studies of the Polish philologist and historian of philosophy Andrzej de Lazari from the late 1980s to the 2000s examine the activities of N.N. Strakhov, first of all, as one of the ideologists of “pochvennichestvo”. In the book “In the Circle of Fyodor Dostoevsky. Pochvennichestvo” the researcher considers pochvenism as the worldview of thinkers and writers, united around the magazines “Vremya” (1861-1863) and “Epocha” (1864- 1865), published by the brothers M.M. and F. M. Dostoevsky. The program goal of the Pochvenniks as bearers of this worldview, according to A. Lazari, was to establish a kind of reconciliation in the warring Russian society. On the one hand, reconciliation had to occur between individual groups of the intelligentsia, on the other, between the intelligentsia and the common people, which was manifested in the call addressed to the intelligentsia to “return to the soil,” i.e. to the traditional Russian worldview, the bearer of which, in their opinion, is supposedly the common people and the middle social strata - the philistinism and merchants. Lazari considers Strakhov “one of the creators of the worldview of the Pochvenniks” [2, p. 15], as well as “a consultant on the philosophy and social thought of F. Dostoevsky and L. Tolstoy.” The Polish researcher’s assessments are complementary to Strakhov: “with knowledge and intelligence he was head and shoulders above many Russian publicists. It was extremely difficult to discuss with him” [2, p. 17], since he “was distinguished by unusual tenacity in the consistent implementation of his intentions” [2, p. 27]. However, A. Lazari believes that “Strakhov was primarily a scientist, a popularizer of knowledge, even when he wrote journalism” [2, p. 183].

Research initiatives of the 2010s show a slightly changed vector of attention of scientists to the figure of N.N. Strakhov: if in the 20th century the history of the relationship between Strakhov and Dostoevsky aroused the greatest interest, primarily from an ideological point of view, then in the 2010s researchers are dealing with the issue of epistolary conversation Strakhov and Tolstoy, the history of their long-term correspondence.

Particularly noteworthy are the works of Professor Zhu Jiangang, who represents Chinese humanitarian thought, engaged in research into Russian intellectual culture of the 19th century, and an active participant in the annual international Strakhov readings held in Belgorod. In the article “The Thinking of an Anti-Nihilist (Notes about N.N. Strakhov),” he writes about Strakhov’s undeniably high position among significant figures of Russian culture, noting that “he knew how to be responsive, knew how to understand his interlocutors and be understandable to them. In addition, Strakhov is a researcher and opponent of Russian literary nihilism” [7, p. 78].

Zhu Jiangang defines pochvennichestvo as “a special direction of Russian thought <...> emerging in the middle of the 19th century as a kind of practice of combating the theoretical self-forgetfulness of the Russian intelligentsia” [7, p. 84]. The Pochvenniki, among whom Strakhov is one of the main figures, “are trying to preserve the openness and integrity of Russian thinking, its common sense - to be responsive to everything and stick to one’s own; relying on the heritage of their own culture, selectively accept Western European ideas, ultimately serving their authentic, Russian life world” [7, p. 84]. Discussing the mutual influence of Strakhov, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, the researcher notes: “Strakhov not only lived between the great peaks of Russian culture - he formed a single backbone with them, stood in the same rank with them” [7, p. 86].

To summarize, it should be noted that the figure of N.N. Strakhov - an original thinker, publicist, literary critic, sensitive interlocutor of many of his outstanding contemporaries - is attracting more and more researchers both in Russia and abroad. The main thematic impulses of this research interest can be defined as follows: Strakhov as a representative of the conservative direction of Russian social thought, his role in the formation of pochvennichestvo as a certain kind of worldview; Strakhov as an original independent figure, “sober among the mad” in Russian intellectual culture of the 19th century; Strakhov is the most important interlocutor.

References:

1. Gerstein, L. (1971) Nikolai Strakhov [Text] / L. Gerstein. – Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: Distributed by Oxford University Press, 1971, XI, 237 (In Eng).
2. Lazari, A.  (2000) W krçgu Fiodora Dostojewskiego Poczwiennictwo [Text] / by А. Lazari, Moscow, 194 (In Russ).
3. MacMaster, R.E. (1967) Danilevsky: a Russian totalitarian philosopher [Text] / by R.E. MacMaster. – Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, XIII, 368 (In Eng).
4. Polukhin, O.N (2018) Russian thinker // Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov. Life path: the beginning: biography album for the 190th anniversary of his birth, Belgorod: CONSTANTA, 124 (In Russ.).
5. Thaden, E.C. (1964) Conservative nationalism in nineteenth century Russia [Text] / by E.C. Thaden. – Seattle (Wash.): University of Washington Press, XI, 271 (In Eng).
6. Tschizewskij, D. (1936) Die Philosophie Ivan Karamazovs und Strachov [Text] / D. Tschizewskij // Zeitschrift fur slavische Philologie, Leipzig, pp.388-396. (In Germ).
7. Zhu Jiangang (2015) Thinking of an anti-nihilist: notes on N.N. Strakhov / Zhu Jiangang // Philosophical Sciences, 2015, No. 3, pp.78-88( In Russ).