Page:The Spirit of Russia by T G Masaryk, volume 2.pdf/450

424 and encouraged thoughts of political liberty and political reforms. In addition to the Voltairians there were liberals of a religious turn (Radiščev and the freemasons), and there were liberals who declaimed against the moral corruption of Europe. French liberalism, with its individualism and its aspirations towards freedom, took Russian society by storm; democratic and even republican programs were conceived. Alexander I, no less than Catherine II, had a certain sympathy with the republican ideal.

The revolution and the terror aroused a reaction in St. Petersburg no less than in Europe (of this matter and concerning this date it would be incorrect to say "aroused a reaction in Russia"); nevertheless, cultured men occupying influential positions were still found to cherish an honest belief in the possibility of liberal reforms even in Russia, and such men endeavoured to realise their ideals (Speranskii). Alexander I was co-founder of the holy alliance; the wars against Napoleon confirmed the satisfaction with the old regime; the reaction became patriotic and nationalist. The romanticist movement, with its search for an asylum in the past, made its appearance also in Russia. Karamzin, who had at one time been an admirer of enlightened Europe, may be regarded as spokesman of romanticism and reaction.

But it proved impossible to repress liberal aspirations; repression served but to generate a more energetic resistance. Ideas, well-grounded ideas, cannot be repressed. Benjamin Constant and similar writers of the day secured Russian readers. The cult of liberalism was carried on in secret societies; the decabrist revolution was an attempt after the French model; some even believed in the possibility of a Russian republic (Pestel).

In the reign of Nicholas I the nationalist and patriotic reaction grew stronger and was more fully conscious of its aims. New legal and administrative foundations were provided for the theocracy, with its programs of orthodoxy, autocracy, and Russian nationalism.

Yet the reaction under Nicholas worked no real harm to liberalism. Čaadaev stepped forward with his bold negation of theocracy. It is true that there now originated the influential slavophil movement, whose trend was conservative; but the westernisers were thereby stimulated to redouble their efforts to diffuse western liberalism. To Bělinskii the