A Herzen Reader

Andrzej Walicki, one of the finest scholars of Russian thought to publish in the last third of the twentieth century, devotes several brief but important chapters to Herzen. Walicki situates Herzen's doctrine within the context of larger Russian and European currents, particularly the fascination with Hegel that dominated the Moscow salons in the 1830s and 1840s. Herzen proved to be something of a philosophical dissident, kicking up his heels at those who were "reconciled with reality" and who rejected any call for action in the real world. Using Hegel against the Hegelians themselves, Walicki details how Herzen decried the "cult of historical reason" and argued for a synthesis of empiricism (materialism) and idealism, especially in its ca­pacity to generate dialectics, which allowed for a fluid, mobile, and multi­dimensional approach to major issues. Herzen showed the same tendency toward synthesis in his consideration of the positions of Slavophiles and Westerners (particularly Belinsky and Kavelin). He adopted and expanded the Slavophile's championing of "indigenous" or "authentic" Russian prin­ciples; however, he accorded primacy to the rights of the individual over the claims of authority and tradition, these latter two notions constituting cardinal pillars of the Slavophile position. Walicki also notes that Herzen integrated key arguments, such as the concept of Russia's "lack of his­tory," from Chaadaev, a thinker who is difficult to slot into either category.⁷¹ Walicki examines Herzen's positions on this issue in greater detail in his Slavophile Controversy, where he considers Herzen as the "natural link" be­tween the Slavophiles and Westerners of the :840s and the populists of the :860s and '70s.⁷² Perhaps more than any other scholar, Walicki has noted a major shift in Herzen's positions in his mature years. Referring to a letter that Herzen wrote in i868, the very end of the Bell period, Walicki writes: "This document shows that Herzen's ideas had changed significantly."⁷³ Indeed, Herzen evolved and transformed during his years in England; his doctrine, as expressed in The Bell, furnished a bridge to the thought and activism of the following decades.

The above studies, which devote entire sections to Herzen, should be supplemented by a number of other works in the broader field of Rus­sian intellectual history that shed light on important aspects of Herzen's thought. These include works on the Russian intelligentsia in general.⁷⁴

Herzen has also been analyzed from a literary or stylistic perspective. While he did write a number of fictional pieces, Herzen did not earn his fame through his artistic talents, and many histories of Russian literature con­tain scant reference to him. Belinsky, analyzing Herzen's novel, Who Is to Blame? (Kto vinovat? ^45-47), suggests that Herzen is really more of a phi­losopher than a poet.⁷⁵ Despite such lukewarm assessments, Herzen has been analyzed as a belles-lettrist, ⁷⁶ a literary critic,⁷⁷ and an interlocutor in dialogue or debate with other literary figures.⁷⁸ His creative works have been examined in the context of the literature of the period,⁷⁹ and these, along with his other writings, have attracted the critical attention of Chernyshevsky, Do- brolyubov, Pisarev, Plekhanov, Gorky, Lunacharsky, and a host of others.⁸⁰