Zenkovsky observes that Herzen lacked any formal system and did not expound his doctrine in a purely philosophical manner. He points out that it is this feature of Herzen's discourse that complicates the task of the scholar, who must sift and separate passages of pure abstract thought and speculation from off-the-cuff comments, artistic expressions, and simple opinion. However, he does see a fair amount of internal cohesiveness in Herzen's thought, and devotes a section to investigating his doctrine. While most scholars have considered Herzen an atheist, or at least agnostic,66 Zenkovsky identifies another Herzen who, in the 1830s, departed from analysis and rationalism and gave free rein to religious passion. Influenced by Saint-Simon's Nouveau Christianisme, Herzen saw in this doctrine the basis of moral renewal, a "new order" in Europe and Russia. While Herzen, ever the iconoclast, was a critic of the church as an institution, according to Zenkovsky's reading he espoused particular aspects of the Christian ethos as represented in scripture, and even gravitated toward aspects of mysticism. This aspect of Herzen's life and thought—Zenkovsky goes so far as to call Herzen an "essentially religious figure"—has yet to be explored in any depth.67
Sergei Vasilievich Utechin (1921-2004), who also came under the influence of Berlin during his time at Oxford, considers Herzen "the father of the modern Russian political emigration."68 He recognizes that Herzen moderated his radical revolutionary position during his later years, and attributes matters of revolutionary strategy and tactics more to Ogaryov than to Herzen himself.
The Jesuit priest Frederick Copleston (1907-1994) wrote one of the great histories of Western philosophy of the last century. His Philosophy in Russia benefits greatly from his comparative perspective. Tracing Herzen's movement from Schelling to Hegel, Hegel to Feuerbach, and on to positions akin to positivism, Copleston notes that the writings of Herzen and most other Russian thinkers belong more properly to the category of ideological thinking, social theory, or practical philosophy, rather than pure philosophy; however, any attempt to untangle and rationalize these various strands would be artificial, providing only a "caricature of his thought." Herzen was aware of discrepancies between his personal beliefs and those of the schools he studied and sometimes adopted.69 He had to live with such inconsistencies, but live with them he did, rather than trying artificially to reconcile them in a perfect and complete philosophical system. Along these lines, which recognize Herzen's complex interweaving of rational and incisive thought with his personal experience and constitution, Copleston does acknowledge the changes in Herzen's beliefs and positions in his later years, that is, during the Bell period.
Most significantly, and counter to the many accounts of Herzen as the committed revolutionary (a moniker which was true, of course, in his earlier days), Copleston notes what appears to be a fundamental change in Herzen's understanding of the progress of history. Man has limited ability to affect history, which has its own pace and direction. Regime change, in today's vulgar terminology, is a shallow, ill thought-out concept. The development of the consciousness of the people will do more to move society forward than a sudden, radical overthrow of the existing order, which may only result in external, cosmetic alterations. Real change must come from within. It is perhaps in part Herzen's profound emphasis on the inner life, the human spirit, that Copleston, a man of the cloth, finds so appealing (despite Herzen's critique of organized religion), leading him to laud Herzen as "one of the most attractive figures among the Russian radical thinkers."70
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
Most notably, there have been serious literary examinations of his Past and Thoughts. Earlier research recognized that there was more to this work than meets the eye, allowing for several layers of analysis and interpretation. Chukovskaya's small monograph suggests that Herzen's great work is "to no less degree a self-portrait than an autobiography."81 The best studies are those that detect Herzen's subtle but complex interweaving ofbiograph- ical details with world history. Hoffler-Preissmann's monograph asserts that Herzen aimed to construct a narrative in which contemporary history is embodied within literary portraits, resulting in "a perfect fusion of life with his artistic imagination."82 Schmid focuses on the personal dimension of Past and Thoughts, arguing that Herzen's intention was to represent "Weltgeschichte als Familiendrama," a skilled interlacing of global events and autobiography.83 In a modern paraphrase of Herzen's own comments, Ginzburg notes that Past and Thoughts eludes the usual categories of classification. Neither pure literature, nor straight history or autobiography, it is rather a distinctive fusion of several genres, a memoir imbued with a deliberate, studied, and conscious historicism.84 Along similar lines, Paperno examines how Herzen links "intimacy" and "history" by employing literary structures and Hegelian models.85 Other investigations have considered Herzen in terms of the literary schools that influenced his writing,86 as well as his relationship with other authors.87 Aside from literary studies, general works on nineteenth-century Russian journalism invariably include a section on Herzen.88