In not addressing Herzen's final eighteen years, two-thirds of which were spent in London, Malia's study stops short and does not embrace the full span, and arguably most intriguing period, of Herzen's thought. Clearly, there is much work to be done on this period in Herzen's life, and an understanding of his Bell writings is essential to the appreciation of Her- zen at his most sophisticated.
Aileen Kelly, who encountered Isaiah Berlin during her days as a graduate student at Wolfson College in the late i960s, writes in the solid tradition of the esteemed master, tracing the rich and variegated interweaving of Russian and European ideas to which Herzen was exposed. She has strong reservations regarding certain aspects of Malia's portrayal, which she rightly asserts has been a dominant influence for the understanding of
Herzen in the West. Kelly also notes that the "standard Soviet interpretation, based on Lenin's view that Herzen represents a transitional stage between utopian socialism and Russian Marxism," has meant that "his place in Russian thought, like that of many other thinkers mangled by Soviet ideologists, has yet to be properly assessed."54
One of the few scholars to seriously and consistently address the issue of Herzen's London period has been Monica Partridge. She unearths connections, contacts, and associations which were previously not known, places Herzen frequented in London, and figures with whom he associated. Partridge earned a reputation for uncovering unpublished memoirs and letters; however, she employs these mainly to supplement Herzen's biography, and she does not tend to weave these materials into the broader scheme of Herzen's intellectual development or with his written pieces during these years. Be that as it may, Partridge highlights the significance of Herzen's London years as "the most settled and successful period of his life."55 She strongly makes the case that Herzen's English period has been unjustifiably neglected, and is full of promise for further research.56
Edward Acton aims to construct a "unified picture" of Herzen's development. He maintains that "the different aspects of his life and thought were inextricably intertwined," and attempts to demonstrate this by "tracing the impact of public events and private tragedy upon his political thought and activity."57 Following in the footsteps of his doctoral supervisor E. H. Carr, Acton's framework is primarily biographical, and through this tangled skein he explores the development of Herzen's thought. Acton devotes a full chapter to "The Tragedy" and asserts that Herzen's personal crisis profoundly impacted his "political and ideological development" and "triggered off a basic shift in his outlook and activity."58
Acton's findings are worthy of note, in that he detects a palpable turn in Herzen's thought. Acton traces this "change in the tone of his writings" to the summer of 1852, the very time that Herzen moved to England. Indeed, after 1852 Herzen was prompted to reconsider and reassess many of his positions. It is Herzen's experience in England, his strong bonds with journalists and political activists as demonstrated by Partridge's research, his witnessing firsthand the town hall meetings and evolving parliamentary system, his exposure to the thought of Owen and Mill, as demonstrated in his writings—in sum, a long period of residency in a non-revolutionary, civil, and relatively prosperous and successful society—that contributed to Herzen's fundamental reorientation.
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