A Herzen Reader

A decade after the appearance of Acton's biography, Judith Zimmerman published a monograph focusing on the transitional nature of Herzen's first years in the West, from i847 to i852, a period in which Herzen struck a new balance between his Russian heritage and European ideals. Although Malia's work extends to these years, Zimmerman contends that it does not properly address Herzen's transformation during this period. She asserts that Malia views Herzen's development in Russia as both formative and decisive, that he "had little interest in the mature [post-i847] Herzen," and that, in consequence, Malia's section on Herzen in the West is "truncated and inaccurate in detail."⁵⁹

Approaching Herzen with a sociological emphasis, Zimmerman ex­plores "the process by which Herzen became an effective political actor." According to her research, Herzen's development of a revolutionary emigre identity was facilitated by his integration into a revolutionary community that lent his efforts a stamp of legitimacy and provided a "supportive mi­lieu" and a "viable tradition" within which he could operate.⁶⁰ These con­tacts also played a large role in Herzen's reformulation of his positions.⁶¹ This process was so thorough that "by i852 Herzen had emerged [. . .] to make a new life and a new career for himself." This newly formed man then left the Continent and moved to England, where "he [. . .] found a com­munity in which he could function—the world of exiles as it crystallized in London during the :850s." Zimmerman, however, does not tell us anything more about this next stage, as this is beyond the parameters of her research. "The present work ends at the brink of this new life, with Herzen in Eng­land. [. . .]" As Zimmerman notes, commenting on Malia's work, which she feels is solid on Herzen only up until i847, "there is no similar substantial study of the mature Herzen." Zimmerman brings Herzen's biography five years forward, but no further. By her own criteria of analysis, one would expect that Herzen, now surrounded by a new set of close acquaintances in London, and a different "supportive milieu" and "tradition," would have been open to further change and integration of new perspectives and ap­proaches, beliefs, and values. Indeed, Zimmerman felt Herzen's post-i852 period merited attention, and vowed to write another volume, a sequel to Midpassage, but this project never materialized.⁶²

Abbott Gleason's monograph covers the development of Russian social­ism, populism, and radicalism of the :850s and :860s, including a chapter on "the new era and its journalists." Herzen's Bell is treated, however, as a section within a chapter, and not an attempt at a major evaluation.⁶³ As noted above, several scholars have pointed to the relative lack of study of Herzen's London years and his contributions to The Bell, with some biogra­phers vowing to one day fill that gap. Russian researchers have also noted the absence of research in this area. Lomunov maintains that "in interna­tional Herzen scholarship the English connections are studied much less than, for example, his French, Italian, or German connections."⁶⁴

There are several excellent studies by historians of philosophy and Rus­sian political thought that contain important sections on Herzen. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the surveys of Russian philosophy of N. O. Lossky (1870-1965) and V. V. Zenkovsky (1881-1962), both Russian Or­thodox philosophers in exile, were published. Lossky rejects the "typical bolshevik tendency" of Lenin and others who claim Herzen for themselves and interpret his writing as a forerunner of materialist doctrine. However, Lossky himself tends to slot thinkers into either what he considers to be mainstream Russian philosophy, which he regards as religious or spiritual, or that which is outside this category. Consequently, Herzen, an unbridled critic of organized religion, receives scant treatment. Lossky attempts to justify the short shrift he gives Herzen by noting that Herzen's efforts were more in the field of practical political thought than philosophy per se.⁶⁵