Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Russian thought. A preliminary review of the literature II

  • Published:
Studies in Soviet Thought Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Cf.Studies in Soviet Thought V, 1/2 (April 1965) 30–50 and 114–128 respectively.

  2. Cf. Struve, Gleb [3E], in Bibliography under Belinskij,infra; also, more generally, in the present article, pp. 184 ff.,infra.

  3. Lavrin, Janko [4] (see Bibliography Va), pp. 280–281.

  4. On this problem, cf. esp. McNally, R. T. [1]: ‘Chaadaev's Evaluation of Peter the Great’,ASEER, March 1964.

  5. Lavrin, Janko [4], pp. 283–284. Hare [1] considers that “the pro-Catholic interpretation of Chaadayev has sometimes been wishfully exaggerated” (p. 19). “Roman Catholics ... have slurred over his hostility to unadulterated Christian teaching and his express belief that political Christianity had no longer any part to play in educating society.” (p. 12)

  6. Lavrin, Janko [4], p. 280.

  7. For a more recent Soviet reference to Čaadaev, cf. the article by V. A. Malinin, ‘Naučnaja istorija russkoj filosofii i spekuljacii buržuaznyx filosofov’ (in:Protiv sovremennyx buržuaznyx fal'sifikatorov marksistsko-leninskoj filosofii, pp. 162–191), to be reviewed inSST 5 (1965) No. 4.

  8. McNally, Raymond T. [2] (see Bibliography Va), p. 355. The evidence of Čaadaev's association with the Decembrists seems overwhelming. Herzen (Byloe i dumy, Ch. XXX) already stated, from a study of Jakuškin's notes, that Čaadaev had been amember of the movement. Cf. also,inter alia, Utechin [2] p. 75 andMSE 10, p. 301.FS (p. 489) states that Čaadaev joined the Northern Society as early as 1821, was arrested for complicity on his return to Russia in 1826, was released (only) owing to insufficient evidence, but kept under police surveillance. McNally brings no details in support of his views, yet the onus of proving his case surely rests with him.

  9. McNally, Raymond T. [2], pp. 357–358.

  10. On the dearth of Soviet literature on the Slavophils, cf. Chapter IVb of this article,Studies in Soviet Thought V (1965) 43 ff.

  11. Cf. Malinin, V.A.: ‘Naučnaja istorija russkoj filosofii...’, p. 184, including note 24.

  12. Cf.Studies in Soviet Thought V (1965) 33.

  13. Cf. Struve, Gleb. [2E]: ‘On Some Malpractices in Soviet Literary Scholarship’,SEEJ VII (1963) 2, 134–141. Küchelbecker is referred to in Part II, pp. 138–140. Küchelbecker's article, ‘Poézija i proza’, written in 1835 or 1836, was sent by him to Puškin for publication inSovremennik, but was intercepted by the Third Section. The suppression (in any case rendered pointless by the reproduction alongside the article of a facsimile of the relevant part of the original!) is considered by Struve to be more probably the work of the chief editor of the volume (A. M. Egolin, “a notorious Ždanovite”) than that of the commentator of the article, the Soviet critic Vl. Orlov.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lieb, Fritz [2], p. 87.

  15. Sakulin, P. N.:Iz istorii russkogo idealizma. Knjaz' V. Odoevskij. Myslitel'-pisatel'. M. 1913. (1 vol. in 2 parts)

  16. Cf. Zen'kovskij, V. V. [1R], pp. 30–37.

  17. Riasanovsky, N. V. [5], p. 20. In this connection, cf. Odoevskij's letter to Ševyrëv (1836), following the publication of Čaadaev's firstLettre philosophique: “What Čaadaev says concerning Russia, I say of Europe — andvice versa.” (Cited in Zen'kovskij [1R], p. 32.)

  18. Zen'kovskij, V. V. [1R], p. 30. Odoevskij's philosophical thought is dealt with in some detail in Zen'kovskij'sHistory of Russian Philosophy (for details, cf. Bibliography Vb under Odoevskij,infra.)

  19. Riasanovsky, N. V. [5], pp. 21–22.

  20. Cf. Koyré, Alexandre [3]:La philosophie et le problème national en Russie au début du XIXe siècle. (In Bibliography VIIIa,infra.)

  21. Cf. Zen'kovskij, V. V. [2R] I, pp. 142–143; [2E] pp. 132–133.

  22. Zen'kovskij, V. V. [2R] I, pp. 143–144; [2E] pp. 133–134.

  23. Cf.The Russian Review 22 (1963) 3, 325–329.

  24. For Puškin's political views, see also his correspondence, e.g. his letter of Oct. 19th, 1836, to Čaadaev, which gives Puškin's reaction to the ideas contained in Čaadaev'sLettre philosophique. (Cf.A. S. Puškin: Polnoe sobranie sočinenij v desjati tomax, izd. vtoroe, M., AN SSSR, t. X (1958), str. 596–598 [Letter No. 740].)

  25. For a sympathetic defence of Gogol'sSelected ... Correspondence with Friends, cf. Zen'kovskij, V. V. [1R], pp. 54 ff. Also Hare ([1], pp. 60–64), who concludes: “Gogol's crime was not that he had betrayed Russia, but that he had betrayed Belinsky's own ideal version of Gogol ..., a permanent social rebel, a consistent satirist and atheist.”

  26. Cf.The Russian Review 22 (1963) 3, 327.

  27. Cf. Bibliography, Vc, Decembrists,Works, infra.

  28. Riasanovsky, N. V., in BRP 363 note.

  29. On this point, cf. review by N. V. Riasanovsky inThe Russian Review 18 (1959) 1, 71–72, and letter from him to the Editor, inThe Russian Review 18 (1959) 3, 252–253.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Utechin, S. V. [2], p. 103.

  31. Kropotkin, P.:Russian Literature: Ideals and Realities. London, Duckworth & Co. 1916, p. 288.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Zen'kovskij, V. V. [2R] I, p. 247; [2E] p. 240. A footnote refers the reader to material on Stankevič in the works by Čiževskij ([2R] and [2G]) and by Setschkareff, on Hegel and on Schelling respectively, q.v.,infra, Bibliography VIIIa.

  33. Cf. Bibliography Vd, Stankevič. Vaseckij [2] is already listed as a general work in Section III,supra.

  34. On this point,vide supra, Chapter IVb of this study,Studies in Soviet Thought V (1965) 45–46. Also in Chapter VIb, on Belinskij,infra, pp. 184–185.

  35. Struve, Gleb [3E]: ‘A Belinsky Centenary Bibliography: An Annotated List of 1948 Publications’ (Bibliography, VIb,infra), p. 546.

  36. Cf. Chapter I of this article,Studies in Soviet Thought V (1965) 32.

  37. Cf. Al'tman, I.: ‘Patriotizm Belinskogo’, cited by Struve [3E], p. 551.

  38. Cited in: Zen'kovskij, V. V. [1R], p. 39.

  39. Cited in: Zen'kovskij, V. V. [1R], pp. 39–40.

  40. Cf. Baskakov, V. G. [1]: ‘Knigi po istorii russkoj filosofii’,VF 1949, 1, 327–338. This article, which is a review of four Soviet books, one each on Belinskij and Herzen and two on Černyševskij, was included in error in Section I of the present Bibliography (Reference Works) instead of Section II (General Works). Cf. Bibliography, p. 250,infra. Neither Baskakov's article (which is in any case not confined to Belinskij, and appeared only in 1949) nor the work edited by Smirnova [2] appear in Struve's bibliography, which makes no claim to be complete or exhaustive.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Contrast the ‘Western’ account given by Mirsky (A History of Russian Literature, 1949, p. 165). Referring to Belinskij's ‘Literary Musings’, which he regards as “the beginning of Russian intelligentsia journalism”, Mirsky continues: “His (Belinskij's) articles were inspired with a youthful irreverence for all that was old and respected in Russian letters, andan equally youthful enthusiasm for the new ideas of idealism and for the creative forces of the young generation.” (My italics, R.K.)

  42. Cf.,inter alia, Chapter IVb of this article,Studies in Soviet Thought V (1965) 44 (citation fromMSE concerning Slavophils).

  43. The author in question is Él'sberg, Ja.; the book [3]:A. I. Gercen. Žizn' i tvorčestvo, 1948 edition. (Cf. Bibliography VIc under Herzen,infra.)

  44. On current Soviet classification (or better “subdivision”) of the so-called Westernisers, cf. Chapter IVb of this article,Studies in Soviet Thought V (1965) 45–46. The SovietFilosofskij slovar' (1963 ed.), in its entry on theZapadniki, lists Herzen and Ogarëv as members of the Moscow circle of Westernisers (vxodili v kružok ...), but Belinskij as having had (only) “close connections” (tesnuju svjaz') with them. The entry concludes with a surprising reference to Western “falsification”, as follows: “Several contemporary falsifiers of the history of Russian social thought (H. Kohn, S. R. Tomkins, A. Schelting,et al.) have distorted the substance of the term “Zapadniki”, using it as a means of deliberately misrepresenting Russian history: to the Westernisers they relate (as continuers of the tradition of Belinskij and Herzen) theKadety and theMen'ševiki; theBol'ševiki are declared by them to be the ideological successors of the Slavophils.” (FS, pp. 152–153.) In so far as the views attributed to these “falsifiers” faithfully reflect their opinions, they are certainly open to attack from Western as well as Soviet critics!

  45. Struve, Gleb [3E], p. 547.

  46. Cf. BRP 1051 note.

  47. As regards Belinskij's correspondence, it is worth recording Zen'kovskij's view ([2E] p. 258; [2R] I, p. 264): “In studying Belinskij one must study hisletters primarily, for in them he expressed his thoughts and searchings freely.”

  48. Cf. Struve, Gleb [2E], pp. 136–138. The story of Oksman's “fall and rise” is based largely on the account given by L. L. Domherr (Domger) in:Sovetskoe akademičeskoe izdanie Puškina, Research Program on the USSR (East European Fund), New York, 1953.

  49. InThe Russian Review 14 (1955) 2, 160–162.

  50. Cf. Chapter IVb of this article,Studies in Soviet Thought V (1965) 44 ff.

  51. Zen'kovskij refers to Čiževskij,Gegel' v Rossii, p. 113. (For this work, cf. Čiževskij [2R], Section VIIIa of the present Bibliography.)

  52. Zen'kovskij, V. V. [2E], pp. 257–258.

  53. Zen'kovskij, V. V. [2E], p. 259. The Russian original ([2R] I, p. 266) reads: “...strastnaja, pridirčivaja, i surevaja, no i gorjačaja ljubov' k Rossii”.

  54. Hare, Richard [1], p. 68.

  55. At the same time, in view of the recent reference to Čaadaev by V. A. Malinin (vide supra, p. 178 and Reference 64), it seems at least conceivable that Soviet critics may reach their ownrapprochement between Čaadaev and Belinskij — albeit with a very different emphasis from that made by Zen'kovskij!

  56. Kropotkin, P.:Russian Literature etc. (cf. Ref. 85), pp. 296–297.

  57. Cited in: Kropotkin, P.,op. cit., p. 297.

  58. Utechin, S. V. [2], pp. 116–117.

  59. Ibid., p. 117.

  60. On Herzen's “crypto-Slavophilism” etc.,vide supra, Ch. IVb of the present work,Studies in Soviet Thought V (1965) 47.

  61. Utechin, S. V. [2], pp. 117–118.

  62. “...pečatat' po-russki vne Rossii”. Cited in Putincev, V. A. [2] (Bibliography VId,infra), p. 151.

  63. SEER 40, 95 (June 1962), 551. (The review of Malia's book covers pp. 550–552.) Herzen's ambivalent attitude towards his ‘fellow-’ Westernisers was matched by his lifelong personal regard for his Slavophil ‘adversaries’ (described in his memoirs as “nos amis les ennemis, or better, nos ennemis les amis”). This is well brought out in the following passages which appeared inKolokol, to mark the passing of Xomjakov and of Konstantin Aksakov: “It is painful for those persons who loved them to know that these noble, tireless workers are no longer, that theseopponents, who were closer to us than many ofours, no longer exist. The Kireevskijs, Xomjakov, and Aksakovaccomplished their task ... they ... made all serious men think.With them begins the turning-point of Russian thought .... Yes, we were their opponents, but very strange opponents: we hadone love, butnot an identical one. Both they and we conceived from early years one powerful, unaccountable, physiological feeling, which they took to be a recollection, and we — a prophecy: a feeling of boundless, all-encompassing love for the Russian people, Russian life, the Russian turn of mind. Like Janus, or like a two-headed eagle, we were looking in different directions whilea single heart was beating in us.” (Cited in: Riasanovsky, N. V. [5], p. 89, note 59.) See also Herzen's generous tribute, especially to Ivan Kireevskij, inByloe i dumy (Ch. XXX,Ne naši ...), where he emphasises that itwas the “religious wall” (cerkovnaja stena) that separated them.

  64. Cf. Simmons, Ernest J. (ed.):Continuity and Change in Russian and Soviet Thought. On this symposium,vide supra, Chapter II of the present work,Studies in Soviet Thought V (1965) 35; also p. 120 (Bibliography II).

  65. Vide supra, p. 187, and Reference 99.

  66. Utechin, S. V. [2], p. 119.

  67. Ibid., pp. 119–120.

  68. Hare, Richard [1], p. 5, where he refers to the fact “that influential Westernisers, like Chaadayev, were politically Conservative, and thatmany Slavophils — Bakunin is an extreme example — were violently radical”. (My italics, R.K.) This remark is typical of Hare's frequent confusion of Slavophilism with Panslavism.

  69. Cf. FBSP 3765 (2). M. N. Peunova: ‘Zlobnye vymysli vmesto nauki’,VF 1960, 5, 175–178.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Filosofskij slovar' (M., 1963), p. 40.

  71. Zen'kovskij, V. V. [2R], I, pp. 251–252; [2E], p. 245.

  72. Shapiro, David: WERH p. 68, B. note; Hare, Richard [2], p. 20. Carr's study is availableinter alia as No. V-725 of the Vintage Russian Library (q.v., Bibliography VII,infra).

  73. Vide supra, p. 194.

  74. Vide supra, p. 194.

Download references

Authors
  1. R. J. Kemball
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

For part I, cf.Studies in Soviet Thought V (1965) 30–50 and 114–128.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kemball, R.J. Nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Russian thought. A preliminary review of the literature II. Studies in Soviet Thought 5, 173–203 (1965). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044029

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044029

Keywords

Search

Navigation