Trubetskoy Nikolai Sergeevich (1890-1938) - one of the most universal thinkers of the Russian diaspora, a prominent linguist, philologist, historian, philosopher, political scientist. Born in 1890 in Moscow in the family of the rector of Moscow University, famous professor of philosophy S. N. Trubetskoy. The family, which bore an ancient princely surname, belonged to the Gediminovich family, among whom were such outstanding figures of Russia as the boyar and diplomat Alexei Nikitich (died in 1680), field marshal Nikita Yurievich (1699-1767), Nikolai Novikov's companion, writer Nikolai Nikitich (1744-1821), Decembrist Sergei Petrovich (1790-1860), religious philosophers Sergei Nikolaevich (1862-1905) and Evgenia Nikolaevich (1863-1920), sculptor Pavel (Paolo) Petrovich (1790-1860). The atmosphere of the family, which was one of the intellectual and spiritual centers of Moscow, favored the awakening of early scientific interests. Since her school years, N. Trubetskoy began to study ethnography, folklore studies, linguistics, as well as history and philosophy. In 1908 he entered the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University, attending classes in the cycle of the Philosophical and Psychological Department and then in the Department of Western European Literatures. In 1912 he graduated from the first graduation of the department of comparative linguistics and was left at the university department, after which he was sent to Leipzig, where he studied the doctrines of the young grammatical school.
Returning to Moscow, he published a number of articles on North Caucasian folklore, problems of the Finno-Ugric languages and Slavic studies. He was an active participant in the Moscow Linguistic Circle, where, along with the issues of linguistics, together with scientists and writers, he seriously studied and developed mythology, ethnology, ethnography, cultural history, closely approaching the future Eurasian theme. After the events of 1917, N. Trubetskoy's successful university work was interrupted and he left for Kislovodsk, and then taught for some time at Rostov University. Gradually came to the conclusion that the Pre-Slavs were spiritually more closely connected with the East than with the West, where, in his opinion, contacts were carried out primarily in the field of material culture.
In 1920 N. Trubetskoy left Russia and moved to Bulgaria, and began research and teaching activities at Sofia University as a professor. In the same year he published his well-known work "Europe and Humanity", which brings him close to the development of a Eurasian ideology. Subsequently, N. Trubetskoy's activities developed in two directions: 1) purely scientific, devoted to philological and linguistic problems (the work of the Prague circle, which became the center of world phonology, then years of research in Vienna), 2) cultural and ideological, associated with participation in the Eurasian movement … N. Trubetskoy approaches PN Savitsky, P. P. Suvchinsky, G. V. Florovsky, publishes in "Eurasian time books" and "chronicles", periodically makes reports in various cities of Europe. In the development of Eurasian ideas, N. Trubetskoy's main merits include his concept of the "top" and "bottom" of Russian culture, the doctrine of "true nationalism" and "Russian self-knowledge."
Due to his psychological characteristics, N. Trubetskoy preferred quiet, academic work to politics. Although he had to write articles in the genre of political journalism, he avoided direct involvement in organizational and propaganda activities and regretted when Eurasianism turned into politics. Therefore, in the story with the Eurasia newspaper, he took an unambiguously irreconcilable position in relation to the left wing of the movement and left the Eurasian organization, resuming publications in the updated editions only a few years later.
The last years of his life N. Trubetskoy lived in Vienna, where he worked as a professor of Slavic studies at the University of Vienna. After the Anschluss, Austria was harassed by the Gestapo. A significant part of his manuscripts was confiscated and subsequently destroyed. According to the testimony of L. N. Gumilyov, who received this information from P. N. Savitsky, N. Trubetskoy was not arrested only because he was "a prince, an aristocrat, but repeated, and very rude, searches were carried out in his apartment, which entailed myocardial infarction and early death ". On July 25, 1938, at the age of 48, N. Trubetskoy died.
The article was written in 1925.
All the nations surrounded me, but in the name of the Lord I brought them down.
Ps. 117, 10
In Transcaucasia there are: Armenians who have always been and will adhere to a Russian orientation, whatever the Russian government may be. There can be no serious Armenian separatism. It is always easy to come to terms with Armenians. But betting on the Armenians would be a mistake. Economically strong, concentrating in their hands the leadership of the entire economic life of Transcaucasia, they at the same time have a universal antipathy that reaches the level of hatred among their neighbors. To solidarize oneself with them would mean incurring this antipathy and hatred. The example of the policy of the pre-revolutionary period, which ultimately led to the fact that the Russians were left with only Armenians and turned against themselves all other nationalities of the Transcaucasus, should serve as a lesson. Moreover, the Armenian issue is to a certain extent an international issue. The attitude of the Russian government towards the Armenians in the Caucasus must be coordinated with the relations between Russia and Turkey.
Since the time of the February Revolution, Georgians have achieved recognition of their rights, at least for autonomy, and it is impossible to dispute these rights with them. But at the same time, since this situation gives rise to the emergence of Georgian separatism, every Russian government is obliged to fight it. If Russia wants to preserve Baku oil (without which it is hardly possible to retain not only the Transcaucasia, but also the North Caucasus), it cannot allow an independent Georgia. The difficulty and complexity of the Georgian problem lies precisely in the fact that it is now practically impossible not to recognize a certain amount of Georgia’s independence, and to recognize its full political independence is inadmissible. A well-known middle line should be chosen here, moreover one that would not give rise to the development of Russophobic sentiments in the Georgian environment … One should also learn the position that Georgian nationalism takes harmful forms only insofar as it is imbued with certain elements of Europeanism. Thus, the correct solution to the Georgian question can be achieved only under the condition of the emergence of true Georgian nationalism, that is, a special Georgian form of Eurasian ideology.
In terms of their numbers, Azerbaijanis represent the most important element of the Transcaucasus. Their nationalism is highly developed, and of all the peoples of Transcaucasia, they are the most constant in their Russophobic sentiments. These Russophobic sentiments go hand in hand with Turkophile sentiments fueled by pan-Islamist and panturan ideas. The economic significance of their territory (with Baku oil, Nukha silk-growing and Mugan cotton plantations) is so great that it is impossible to allow them to be separated. At the same time, it is necessary to recognize some, moreover, a rather significant dose of independence for the Azerbaijanis. The solution here also depends to a large extent on the nature of Azerbaijani nationalism, and sets as the task of primary importance the creation of a national-Azerbaijani form of Eurasianism. In this case, an assertion of Shiism should be put forward against Pan-Islamism.
Three national problems of Transcaucasia (Armenian, Georgian and Azeri) are intertwined with foreign policy problems. The Turcophil policy could have pushed Armenians towards an English orientation. The same result would have been obtained with a stake on Azerbaijanis. England, in every sense, will intrigue in Georgia, realizing that independent Georgia will inevitably become an English colony. And in connection with the inevitability of this intrigue, it is unprofitable in Georgia to make Armenians Anglophiles and thus strengthen the soil for English intrigue in the Transcaucasus. But betting on Armenians would also lead to the Turkophile orientation of Azerbaijanis and to the Russophobic mood of Georgia. All this should be taken into account when establishing relations with the peoples of the Transcaucasus.
The complexity of the national question in Transcaucasia is aggravated by the fact that individual nationalities are at enmity with each other. Some of the reasons for enmity are eliminated under the curial-multi-parliamentary system and the associated management technique. Under this system, it is possible, for example, in a number of aspects of life to differentiate management not by territory, but by nationality, which weakens the acuteness of disputes over belonging to one or another autonomous unit of regions with a mixed population. So, for example, the question of the language of instruction in schools in such areas loses all its acuteness: in the same area there are schools with different languages in which teaching is conducted, and each of these schools is under the jurisdiction of the corresponding national council of public education. But, of course, there are a number of aspects of life where management should naturally be based on a territorial, and not on a national principle. Not only the old division into provinces, based on random and often artificial signs, but also the division into three main regions (Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan) should be abolished. The Transcaucasian ulus should be firmly divided into small districts, more or less corresponding to the former districts, with the only difference that the boundaries of these districts should be more accurately adjusted to the ethnographic, historical, everyday and economic boundaries.
The ancient motto of imperialist statehood “Divide and rule” is applicable only where the state power or the ruling nation deals with a hostile alien population. Where the task of state power is to create an organic association of the indigenous population with the ruling nation for joint work, this principle does not apply. Therefore, in the Caucasus, one should not try to deepen friction and contradictions between individual nationalities. With all the variety of shades of democratic culture and everyday life in different regions of Georgia, it still represents a certain ethnographic whole that cannot be artificially divided into parts. The Georgian language, as the language of church and literature, has been the common language of the educated classes of Georgia, Mingrelia and Svaneti since ancient times. Along with this, admitting the existence of the Mingrelian and Svan languages and not hindering the development of literature in these languages, one should in every way resist the artificial creation of some new, historically insufficiently justified, independent and independent (in relation to Georgia) national units.
From the above, however, it does not yet follow that the desire of larger peoples to absorb smaller ones can be encouraged. Such aspirations exist in some border areas between Transcaucasia and the North Caucasus: there is a desire to Georgianize Abkhazia and South Ossetia, to Tatar the southern districts of Dagestan and the Zakatala district. Since in these cases we are talking about the deformation of a certain national image, this phenomenon should be combated by supporting the national resistance of the respective nationalities.
In an effort to prevent the separation of the outskirts, one should take into account all the psychological factors that feed the separatist aspirations of the outskirts. At the same time, one cannot fail to notice that among the common people such aspirations are not at all developed or are very poorly developed, and the main bearer of separatist aspirations is the local intelligentsia. An important role in the psychology of this intelligentsia is played by the principle "it is better to be the first in the village than the last in the city." Often the sphere of activity of some minister of an independent republic that replaced the former province is no different from the sphere of activity of the former provincial official. But it is more flattering to be called a minister, and, therefore, the minister holds on to the independence of his republic. With the transition of a province to the position of an independent state, a whole series of new positions are inevitably created, which are occupied by local intellectuals, who were previously forced either to be content with minor posts in their province, or to serve outside this province. Finally, independentism thrives especially in areas where the local intelligentsia is relatively small in number and therefore the main contingent of officials was previously made up of newcomer elements: when the newcomer element was expelled, who fell into the category of "foreign subjects," it is very easy for an intellectual to make a career. Self-determination is very often a "class" movement of the local intelligentsia, which feels that it, as a class, has benefited from self-determination. But, of course, the local intelligentsia carefully conceals and disguises this class nature of independence with "ideas": they hastily invent "historical traditions", local national culture, and so on. There is no doubt that the population of this region is more likely to suffer damage from such class-intellectual independence. After all, all this independence is directed, on the one hand, to an artificial increase in the demand for intelligent labor, to increase the number of people who receive state salaries and thus live at the expense of taxes from the population, and on the other hand, to establish competition among intellectuals from other areas, to a decrease in the field of competition, and, consequently, to a decrease in the quality of local officials. Naturally, therefore, the common people are often hostile to the independent aspirations of the local intelligentsia and display centralist aspirations, on which, for example, the Bolsheviks, of course, played in the liquidation of the independence of the various republics of Transcaucasia.
In the North Caucasus there are Kabardians, Ossetians, Chechens, small peoples (Circassians, Ingush, Balkars, Karachais, Kumyks, Turukhmen and Kalmyks, and finally, Cossacks).
The Kabardians and Ossetians have always quite firmly adhered to the Russian orientation. Most of the small nationalities do not present any particular difficulties in this respect. Only Chechens and Ingush are definitely Russophobes in the North Caucasus. Russophobia of the Ingush is caused by the fact that after the conquest of the Caucasus by the Russians, raids and robberies, which are always the main occupation of the Ingush, began to be severely punished; meanwhile, the Ingush cannot switch to other occupations, partly because of their atavistic unaccustomedness to manual labor, partly because of their traditional contempt for work, which is considered an exclusively female business. An ancient eastern ruler such as Darius or Nebuchadnezzar would simply expose this small bandit tribe, interfering with the calm and peaceful life of not only the Russians, but also all their other neighbors, to universal destruction, or would bring its population somewhere far from their homeland. If we discard such a simplified solution to the issue, then all that remains is to try, by means of public education and improvement of agriculture, to destroy the old conditions of life and the traditional disregard for peaceful labor.
The Chechen issue is somewhat more complicated. Since, firstly, there are five times more Chechens than Ingush, and secondly, the Chechen Russophobia is caused by the fact that the Chechens consider themselves financially bypassed: their best lands were taken by Cossacks and Russian settlers and Grozny oil is being developed on their land, from which they do not receive any income. It is, of course, impossible to fully satisfy these claims of the Chechens. Good neighborly relations, however, need to be established. This can be done again by setting up public education, raising the level of agriculture and involving Chechens in a common economic life with Russians.
According to their social structure, the peoples of the North Caucasus are divided into two groups: peoples with an aristocratic system (Kabardians, Balkars, part of the Circassians, Ossetians) and peoples with a democratic system (part of the Circassians, Ingush and Chechens). the first group enjoyed the highest authority, on the one hand, by the elderly, and on the other, by the Muslim clergy. The Bolsheviks are systematically working to destroy both social systems. If they succeed in this matter, then the peoples of the North Caucasus will be deprived of such groups and classes that would be authoritative in the eyes of the masses. Meanwhile, according to the properties of their characters, these peoples, without the leadership of such authoritative groups, turn into wild gangs of robbers, ready to follow any adventurer.
The North Caucasus also includes the Cossack regions - Tersk and Kuban. There is no special Cossack question in the Terek region: the Cossacks and nonresident people live in harmony, realizing themselves as a single nation opposed by foreigners. On the contrary, in the Kuban region, the Cossack issue is very acute. Cossacks and nonresidents are at enmity with each other.
In the east and west of the Caucasus, there are regions that cannot be fully reckoned either with the Transcaucasia or the North Caucasus: in the east it is Dagestan, in the west it is Abkhazia.
The position of Dagestan is such that it needs to be granted very broad autonomy. At the same time, Dagestan is not very popular both in terms of its ethnic composition and its historical division. Before the conquest by the Russians, Dagestan was divided into a number of small khanates, completely independent from each other and not subordinate to any supreme power. The traditions of this former fragmentation have been preserved in Dagestan to this day. The administrative unification of Dagestan is greatly hampered by the lack of a common language. in the past, it came to the point that official correspondence and office work were carried out in Arabic, and Russian government announcements were published in the same language. There are too many native languages: in the Andian region, 13 different languages are spoken for 70 versts along the course of the Andean Koisu; there are about 30 native languages in Dagestan in total. There are several "international" languages that serve for the intercourse of the mountaineers of various auls. These are the Avar and Kumyk languages in the northern and Azerbaijani in the southern part of Dagestan. Obviously, one of these “international” ones should be made the official language. However, it is far from indifferent which language to choose for this purpose. The Kumyk language is "international" in almost the entire North Caucasus (from the Caspian Sea to Kabarda inclusive), Azerbaijani dominates most of the Transcaucasia (except for the Black Sea coast) and, in addition, in Turkish Armenia, Kurdistan and Northern Persia. Both of these languages are Turkic. It should be borne in mind that with the intensification of economic life, the use of "international" languages becomes so important that it displaces native languages: many auls in the southern districts of Dagestan have already completely "Azerbaijanized". It is hardly in Russia's interests to allow such a Turkization of Dagestan. After all, if the whole of Dagestan is Turkized, then there will be a solid mass of Turks from Kazan to Anatolia and Northern Persia, which will create the most favorable conditions for the development of panturan ideas with a separatist, Russophobic bias. Dagestan should be used as a natural barrier to the Turkization of this part of Eurasia. in the northern and western districts of Dagestan, the situation is relatively simple. Here Avar should be recognized as the official language, which is already the native language for the population of the Gunib and Khunzak districts and the international language for the Andian, Kazikumukh, part of the Darginsky and part of the Zagatala districts. The development of Avar literature and the press should be encouraged; this language should be introduced into all the lower schools of the listed districts, as well as into the corresponding secondary schools as a compulsory subject.
The situation is more complicated in other parts of Dagestan. Of all the southern Dagestan tribes, the largest is the Kyurin tribes, which occupies almost the entire Kyurinsky district, the eastern half of the Samursky and the northern part of the Kubinsky district of the Baku province. Of all the non-Turkic native languages of this part of Dagestan, the Kurin language is the simplest and easiest, it is closely related to some other native languages of the same region. Therefore, it could be made “international” and official for this part of Dagestan. Thus, linguistically, Dagestan would be divided between two native languages - Avar and Kyurin.
Abkhazia should be recognized as the official language of Abkhaz, encourage the development of the Abkhaz intelligentsia and instill in it the consciousness of the need to fight against Georgianization.
