This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
A.I. Gercen; Polnoe sobranie sočinenij i pisem, tt. I–XXII, pod red. M.K. Lemke, Lit.-izd. otdel Narkomprosa-GIZ, Pgr., 1915–1925 (henceforth:Lemke, Pol. sob. soč. Gercena).
Cf. M.K. Lemke,Očerki po istorii russkoj cenzury i žurnalistiki XIX stoletija, SPB.-M. 1904;Epoxa cenzurnyx reform 1859–1865 godov, SPB. 1904; ‘A.I. Gercen v Evrope 1847–1851. Po arxivu III Otdelenija sobstven. e. i. v. kancelarii’,Sovremennij mir, 1906,1, 36–66; ‘Očerki žizni i dejatel'nosti Gercena, Ogarëva i ix druzej. Po neizdannym istočnikam’,Mir Božij, 1906,1, 36–69; 2, 119–148; 4, 120–153; 7, 90–118. — Lemke's classic work on the reign of Nicholas I,Nikolaevskie žandarmy i literatura 1826–1855 gg., was first published the following year (SPB. 1908).
Lemke,Pol. sob. soč. Gercena, t.I, str. XXV (my italics, R.J.K.). Cited inGercen -Seminarij, str. 39–40.
L.O. Piper,Mirovozzrenie Gercena; istoriko-filosofskij očerk, Socékgiz, M.-L., 1935.
On this point, cf.inter alia SST, V,3 (Sept. 1965), 184–185.
For Soviet criticism of studies of this kind, cf. esp. the review inVoprosy istorii, 1956,6, 180–185.
Cf.Voprosy istorii, 1955,9, 4. Cited inGercen — Seminarij, str. 107 (My italics, R. J.K.)
The two authors in question are E. Reissner and G. Ziegengeist — both working in Eastern Germany. A footnote on p. 115 refers the reader to the bibliography of foreign literature on Herzen inKRatkaja literaturnaja énciklopedija, t.2, M. 1964, stlb. 159–160.
Cf.Rus', 1883,1, 30–42 and 2, 23–30: ‘Perepiska ju.F. Samarina s A.I. Gercenom’. — A brief account of Samarin's side of the argument is given in N.V. Riasanovsky,Russia and the West in the Teaching of the Slavophiles (Cambridge, Mass., 1952), pp. 159–161. For Herzen's side, cf.inter alia the An 30-vol. edition, t. XVIII, str. 600–602.
Cf. Franco Venturi,Il populismo russo, Giulio Einaudi, Turin, 1952 (2 vols). English translation by Francis Haskell,Roots of Revolution; A History of the Populist and Socialist Movements in Nineteenth Century Russia, London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London/Knopf, New York, 1960. For favourable Soviet comment on Venturi, cf.inter alia SST, V,4 (Dec. 1965), 327.
On this point, cf. the present writer's review inSST, V,3 (Sept. 1965), 173–174.
Letter of 17 June 1859. Cf.inter alia Lemke,Pol. sob. soč. Gercena, t. X, str. 42. — In general,Kolokol facsimile edition, vyp. I, str. XVII.
Cf.Kolokol facsimile edition, vyp. I, str. XVII.
Cf.inter alia V.A. Malinin, ‘Naučnaja istorija russkoj filosofii i spekuljacii sovremennyx buržuaznyx filosofov’ (inProtiv sovremennyx buržuaznyx fal'sifikatorov marksistskoleninskoj filosofii, str. 162–191), str. 184, incl. note 24. Alsoinfra, ref. 33.
N.V. Gogol': Polnoe sobranie sočinenij, tt. I–XIV, Izd. AN SSSR, L., 1937–1952. This edition is virtually complete, except for Gogol'sMeditations on the Divine Liturgy, included in the original plan, but finally discarded as being allegedly ‘devoid of literary interest’.
Edward C. Thaden,Conservative Nationalism in Nineteenth-Century Russia, University of Washington Press, Seattle, 1964, pp. vii-viii.
Russian PHilosophy (ed. by James M. Edie, James P. Scanlan, and Mary-Barbara Zeldin; with the collaboration of George L. Kline), Quadrangle Books, Chicago, 1965 (3 vols). — The completeLettre philosophique No. I, translated by Mary-Barbara Zeldin from the French original in Geršenzon (see note 25,infra), is given in Vol. I, pp. 106–125.
Russian Intellectual History; an Anthology (ed. by Marc Raeff), Burlingame, Harcourt, Brace & World, New York-Chicago 1966. — The completeLettre philosophique No. I, translated by Valentine Snow from Geršenzon, appears on pp. 160–173.
Very brief extracts may be found in: Hans KohnThe Mind of Modern Russia, Harper and Row, New York-London, 1962, pp. 38–46.
Oeuvres choisies de Pierre Tchaadaïeff, publiées pour la première fois par le P(ère) Gagarin(e) de la compagnie de Jésus, Librairie A. Franck, Paris/A. Frank'sche Verlags-handlung, Leipzig, 1862, 208 pp.
Sočinenija i pis'ma P.Ja. Čaadaeva (pod red. M. Geršenzona), Moskva, t.I, 1913; t.II, 1914.
‘Neizdannye “Filosofičeskie pis'ma” P.Ja. Čaadaeva’, Publikacija, perevod i kommentarii D. Šaxovskogo, inLiteraturnoe nasledstvo 22–24, M. 1935, pp. 6–78. — The explanatory article covers pp. 6–17; the Russian translations of the five newLettres, pp. 18–78. — D (mitrij Ivanovič) Šaxovskoj's paternal grandmother, Princess Natal'ja Dmitrievna Ščerbatova, was a first cousin of Čaadaev's mother.
Šaxovskoj,op. cit., p. 10. — More specifically, Čaadaev first develops his central theme from the point of view of religion (Letter II), philosophy (III), and natural science (IV), after which he relates the whole to other philosophical systems (V). Letters VI and VII (Gagarin's 2 and 3) deal, as stated, with philosophy of history. Letter VIII provides a summary and conclusion to the series as a whole. (Cf. Šaxovskoj, p. 70, note 1 to Letter V; also Falk,op. cit., p. 123, note 11.)
Cf. Falk,op. cit., pp. 85–128 (Anhang: ‘Deutscher Text der fünf neu aufgefundenen “Philosophischen Briefe” Čaadaevs, aus dem Russischen übertragen und mit zusätzlichen Anmerkungen versehen’). — Falk states (p. 10) that, despite laborious efforts through every imaginable intermediary, it proved impossible to obtain photographic copies of the original French texts in Leningrad. He therefore had the particularly ungrateful task of then putting the Russianback into French once more (cf. A. Koyré,Études sur l'histoire de la pensée philosophique en Russie, J. Vrin, Paris, 1950, p. 54, note 1. — For ‘Lettres II à VI’ read ‘Lettres II à V, ainsi que VIII’, R.J.K.). These double translations, however unsatisfactory, are thus not only excusable but unavoidable. The same cannot be said of the French edition of Zen'kovskij'sIstorija russkoj filosofii, where citations from Čaadaev — available in the original French in Geršenzon and translated into Russian by Zen'kovskij for his original Russian version — are then put back into French by the translator, often with appreciable differences in emphasis and even meaning (cf. B. Zenkovsky,Histoire de la philosophie russe, traduit du russe par C. Andronikof, t.I, Gallimard, Paris, 1953, pp. 168–192).
Cf.De Pouchkine à Gorki, Vol. II, pp. 8–12; p. 24. To be fair, the fact that Čaadaev'sLettres philosophiques andApologie d'un fou were originally written in French is mentioned on p. 10, where, however, as the result of a further slip, Nadeždin'sTeleskop is referred to as ‘Le Télégraphe’. In fact, Polevoj'sMoskovskij Telegraf had been banned in 1834, i.e. 2 years before the famous issue (No. 15) ofTeleskop, which, in a sense, replaced it. Haldas apparently relies exclusively on the classic study of Charles Quénet — which, however, appeared too early (1931) to embody the full implications of Šaxovskoj's findings.
De Pouchkine à Gorki, Vol. IV, Lausanne 1967, 576 pp. This contains,inter alia: Alexandre Herzen, ‘La Russie et l'Occident’ (pp. 281–445). —Compléments: ‘Le peuple russe et le socialisme; Lettre à Jules Michelet’ (pp. 519–560). — Lénine: ‘À la mémoire de Herzen’ (pp. 561–569).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kemball, R.J. Russian 19th-century thought — Recent source material. Studies in Soviet Thought 7, 211–233 (1967). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01043822
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01043822