Two tendencies of understanding the “three worlds” in the early Eurasian discourse: V.I. Lamansky and I. Gasprinsky (second half of the 19th - early 20th century)

Introduction. The study is carried out in the genre of intellectual history and focuses on the contrasting views of the leading representatives of Slavic and Turkic social thought in Russia. Purpose: starting from Vladimir Lamansky’s ideas, to reconstruct and interpret Ismail Gasprinsky’s concept of “three worlds”. This is the first time such a task has been posed. Methods and materials. Methods are applied: intellectual reconstruction and historical-comparative. Main sources: “Three worlds of the Asian-European continent” by Lamansky and works of the Gasprinsky period of the 1880s - 1900s. (“Russian-Eastern agreement”, “China and Russia”, “Great Eastern question”, etc.). Analysis. The peculiarities of Lamansky’s interpretation of the “three worlds” (“European”, “Asian”, “Middle”), where the “Greco-Slavic world” constituted the basis of the “middle world”, were revealed. Reconstruction and comparison showed that Gasprinsky had his own understanding of the “three worlds”: “Western”, “Central”, “Eastern”. He proceeded from a combination of interests of the Turks and the Slavs and interpreted the “central” world as “Russian-Muslim”. Both thinkers recognized the consolidating role of Russia. However, Gasprinsky saw the prospects for Islam and was convinced of the need for cooperation with the Muslim world. Results. Two tendencies in the interpretation of the “three worlds” complemented each other, argued the Slavic-Turkic space of the Old World. Gasprinsky’s innovation was the concept of the “Russian-Muslim world”. He took into account the Muslim factor, so his version is more realistic. As a result, the concepts of both thinkers (taking into account the priorities) had the character of a pro-Eurasian counterpoint and became central in early Eurasian discourse.