Page:The Spirit of Russia by T G Masaryk, volume 1.pdf/449

Rh his friends in Moscow and in St. Petersburg has often been pointed out, and I have referred to the continued influence he exercised from Europe. "Vivos voco!" was the motto of "Kolokol," a motto taken from the favourite poet of his boyhood. And Herzen's "Bell" was heard throughout Russia. Ševčenko devoutly kissed the first numbers of the periodical to reach him.

Herzen was an awakener, his was the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Recognition is due to his character as well as to his literary activities. He said of himself that hypocrisy and duplicity were the two errors most alien to his disposition. Herzen could not be better portrayed.

Herzen helped the leaders of liberalism, such men as Čičerin, Kavelin, etc., to clarify their principles; the slavophils had to come to terms with Herzen; and even the reactionaries had to try conclusions with him.

His influence declined after the Polish rising of 1863. The decline has been ascribed to Herzen's sarmatiophil policy, and also to Bakunin's undesirable influence in "Kolokol." The number of subscribers to the periodical fell from three thousand to five hundred.

When we consider Herzen's Polish policy it is necessary to discriminate. He did good service by his protests against the brutal subjugation of the Poles, but in his approval of the revolution of that day he went too far, further than his own principles justified. Herzen himself admitted this. Katkov, who had at one time recognised "Kolokol" to be a power, came in 1863, as leader of official nationalism, into an attitude of opposition to Herzen.

I do not believe that the waning of Herzen's influence was solely due to his views upon the Polish rising. After 1861 his opinions and his policy forced him into a difficult position. Herzen's philosophy remained practically unchanged throughout life. Having become a Feuerbachian, a Feuerbachian he remained, as we learn from all his utterances down to the very last. Doubtless he mitigated his positivist disillusionment, and abandoned the Byronic Cain, but he held fast to his positivist materialism. It was natural that this philosophy should seem odious to conservatives and reactionaries, but some even of the liberals were repelled by it (Granovskii, Čičerin, etc.). Moreover, some of the liberals were antaagonised by Herzen's socialism.

On the other hand, young men of socialistic and radical