Page:The Spirit of Russia by T G Masaryk, volume 2.pdf/246

220 considered that the future belonged to a union of the churches, that Byzantium and the third Rome must yield place to the first Rome. Leont'ev wished to constrain himself to believe but wished the impossible.

Leont'ev's philosophy of religion and philosophy of ecclesiasticism win more influence among theologians than among the more recent philosophers of religion. Weak-minded men, or those who have become weak-minded, cannot withstand absurdities and paradoxes.

HAVE alluded to the most notable defenders of official theocracy. Let us now take a comparative survey of the two camps, that of the right and that of the left.

Alike quantitatively and qualitatively, the theocrats are inferior to the radicals and the revolutionaries. If we contrast Bělinskii, Herzen, Bakunin, Černyševski, Dobroljubov, Pisarev, Lavrov, and Mihailovskii, with Katkov and Pobědonoscev, the two latter are incomparably weaker both as men of letters and as philosophers; Leont'ev alone has claims on our respect, but his theocratic allies were themselves alarmed by his syllogistic straightforwardness.

The reaction, long drawn out, after the days of Alexander I, had little to show in the way of intellectual pre-eminence. Karamzin, Šiškov, Pogodin, and Ševyrev; such official publicists, now quite forgotten, as Glinka, Greč, Bulgarin, and Senkovskii (Brambeus); such periodicals as "Majak" and "Věst"—a lean inventory!

The theocracy was incapable of attracting and training vigorous thinkers. The state fundamental law, Count Uvarov's formula, and the administrative machine, occupied and con-