In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

 5  Cultural-Historical Types and Some Laws of Their Movement and Development     Out  past  the  waves   Of  the  seas  of  your  mind   Is  a  land,  on  which  shines   Full  of  beauty  most  glorious   An  empire  of  new  ideas.   —Khomiakov1     I  will  start  right  off  by  explaining  some  general  conclusions  or  laws  of  histori-­‐‑ cal   development,   derived   from   the   grouping   of   historical   phenomena   into   cultural-­‐‑historical  types.   Law   1.   Any   tribe   or   family   of   peoples   characterized   by   a   separate   lan-­‐‑ guage   or   group   of   languages   with   similarities   that   can   be   readily   detected   without  deep  philological  investigation  constitutes  a  distinct  cultural-­‐‑histori-­‐‑ cal  type,  if  it  has  already  grown  out  of  its  infancy  and  is  inclined  toward  and   generally  capable  of  historical  development.   Law  2.  For  the  civilization  of  a  distinct  cultural-­‐‑historical  type  to  be  born   and  develop,  the  peoples  belonging  to  it  must  have  political  independence.   Law  3.  The  principles  of  civilization  for  one  cultural-­‐‑historical  type  are  not   transferable  to  the  peoples  of  another  type.  Each  type  produces  its  own,  influ-­‐‑ enced  more  or  less  by  foreign  civilizations  preceding  or  contemporary  to  it.     Law   4.   The   civilization   of   each   cultural-­‐‑historical   type   only   attains   full-­‐‑ ness,   diversity,   and   richness   when   its   diverse   ethnographic   elements,   inde-­‐‑ pendent  but  not  combined  into  a  political  whole,  form  a  federation  or  political   system  of  states.   Law  5.  The  course  of  development  for  cultural-­‐‑historical  types  closely  re-­‐‑ sembles   that   of   perennial   plants   that   bear   fruit   only   once,   whose   period   of   growth  is  indefinitely  long,  but  whose  period  of  flowering  and  bearing  fruit  is   relatively  short  and  exhausts  its  vitality  once  and  for  all.2   The   first   two   conclusions   cannot   be   doubted   and   do   not   require   much   explanation.   In   fact,   of   the   ten   cultural-­‐‑historical   types   whose   development   makes  up  the  content  of  world  history,  three  belong  to  tribes  of  the  Semitic                                                                                                                             1  Khomiakov,   see   Strakhov’s   preface,   n.   27.   From   the   1848   poem   “K   I.   V.   Kireev-­‐‑ skomu”  (To  I.  V.  Kireevskii).   2  Danilevskii  is  describing  monocarpic  plants,  like  bamboo  and  agave.   5. CULTURAL-HISTORICAL TYPES 77 races,   and   each   tribe   characterized   by   one   of   the   three   Semitic   languages— Chaldean,  Hebrew,  and  Arabic—had  its  own  distinct  civilization.  The  Aryan   languages,   as   is   well   known,   subdivide   into   seven   main   linguistic   families:   Sanskrit,  Iranian,  Hellenic,  Latin,  Celtic,  German,  and  Slavic.  Of  the  tribes  cor-­‐‑ responding  to  these  seven  language  families,  five  (Indian,  Persian,  Greek,  Ro-­‐‑ man  or  ancient-­‐‑Italian,  and  German)  were,  or  are,  distinct  cultural-­‐‑historical   types,  developed  within  distinct  civilizations.  True,  one  tribe,  the  Celtic,  did   not  constitute  an  independent  type,  but  (combined  with  the  decomposing  ele-­‐‑ ments  of  Roman  civilization  and  under  the  influence  of  the  German  formative   principles)   ended   up   as   ethnographic   material   within   the   Germanic-­‐‑Roman   cultural-­‐‑historical   type.   But   the   Celts   lost   their   political   independence   at   an   early  stage.  Although  the  Gauls  and  Britons  had  the  instincts  for  distinctive   development—both  in  peculiarities  of  national  character  and  in  an  indepen-­‐‑ dent  religious  and  artistic  worldview,  as  well  as  favorable  conditions  of  the   lands   where   they   resided—all   these   instincts   were   crushed   by   Roman   con-­‐‑ quest.   No   civilization   can   be   born   and   develop   without   political   indepen-­‐‑ dence,   although   once   having   attained   a   certain   strength,   a   civilization   can   continue  for  some  time  after  losing  its  independence,  as  we  see  in  the  example   of  the  Greeks.  This  phenomenon  from  which  there  is  not  a  single  exception  in   history  is  perfectly  clear  in  itself.  What  hinders  the  development  of  the  person   in  slavery  also  hinders  the  development  of  a  nationality  lacking  political  inde-­‐‑ pendence,  since  in  both  cases  individuality,  having  its  own  goals,  is  turned   into   a   servile   instrument,   the   means   for   attaining   the   goals   of   others.   If   an   individual   or   nationality   falls   into   such   circumstances   at   an   early   stage   of   development,  then  obviously  its  distinctiveness  will  die.  Thus  the  Celts  seem   to   present   an   exception   from   the   first   law   of   cultural-­‐‑historical   movement   only  because  of  what  the  second  law  requires.   Outside  the  Semitic  and  Aryan  tribes,  two  other  distinct  tribes—the  Ham-­‐‑ itic  or  Egyptian,  and  the  Chinese—also  formed  distinctive  cultural-­‐‑historical   types.  All  other  tribes  of  any  significance  did  not  form  distinct  civilizations,   either  because  like  the  Celts  they  were  absorbed  by  other  tribes  and  subordi-­‐‑ nated  to  other  cultural-­‐‑historical  types  (such  as  the  Finnic  tribes,  for  example),   or  because  from  living  in  lands  unsuitable  for  culture  they  did  not  leave  the   state  of  savagery  or  nomadism  (such  as  the  whole  black  race,  and  the  Mongol   and...

Share