What do you think?
Rate this book
??????? ???
?? ????????? ?????:
?? ????? ???????? ???? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ??????? ? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ? ????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ???? ? ?? ?????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ??????...
??????? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?? ??? (???? ?? ????) ?? ??? ?? ????????? ??? ??? -?????? ? ?????? ????- ????? ???. ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ????. ???? ?? ??????????? ???????? ??? ???? -???? ????? ? ??????????- ???? ??? ???? ?????????? ???? ???? -??????? ? ?????- ?? ??? ???? ??????? ? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ???????? ? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??????.
??? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???
?? ????? ???????? ???? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ??????? ? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ? ????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ???? ? ?? ?????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ??????...
??????? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?? ??? (???? ?? ????) ?? ??? ?? ????????? ??? ??? -?????? ? ?????? ????- ????? ???. ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ????. ???? ?? ??????????? ???????? ??? ???? -???? ????? ? ??????????- ???? ??? ???? ?????????? ???? ???? -??????? ? ?????- ?? ??? ???? ??????? ? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ???????? ? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??????.
??? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???
455 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1978
117 people are currently reading
2,898 people want to read
About the author
Isaiah Berlin
180?books735?followersSir Isaiah Berlin was a philosopher and historian of ideas, regarded as one of the leading liberal thinkers of the twentieth century. He excelled as an essayist, lecturer and conversationalist; and as a brilliant speaker who delivered, rapidly and spontaneously, richly allusive and coherently structured material, whether for a lecture series at Oxford University or as a broadcaster on the BBC Third Programme, usually without a script. Many of his essays and lectures were later collected in book form.
Born in Riga, now capital of Latvia, then part of the Russian Empire, he was the first person of Jewish descent to be elected to a prize fellowship at All Souls College, Oxford. From 1957 to 1967, he was Chichele Professor of Social and Political Theory at the University of Oxford. He was president of the Aristotelian Society from 1963 to 1964. In 1966, he helped to found Wolfson College, Oxford, and became its first President. He was knighted in 1957, and was awarded the Order of Merit in 1971. He was President of the British Academy from 1974 to 1978. He also received the 1979 Jerusalem Prize for his writings on individual freedom. Berlin's work on liberal theory has had a lasting influence.
Berlin is best known for his essay Two Concepts of Liberty, delivered in 1958 as his inaugural lecture as Chichele Professor of Social and Political Theory at Oxford. He defined negative liberty as the absence of constraints on, or interference with, agents' possible action. Greater "negative freedom" meant fewer restrictions on possible action. Berlin associated positive liberty with the idea of self-mastery, or the capacity to determine oneself, to be in control of one's destiny. While Berlin granted that both concepts of liberty represent valid human ideals, as a matter of history the positive concept of liberty has proven particularly susceptible to political abuse.
Berlin contended that under the influence of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant and G. W. F. Hegel (all committed to the positive concept of liberty), European political thinkers often equated liberty with forms of political discipline or constraint. This became politically dangerous when notions of positive liberty were, in the nineteenth century, used to defend nationalism, self-determination and the Communist idea of collective rational control over human destiny. Berlin argued that, following this line of thought, demands for freedom paradoxically become demands for forms of collective control and discipline – those deemed necessary for the "self-mastery" or self-determination of nations, classes, democratic communities, and even humanity as a whole. There is thus an elective affinity, for Berlin, between positive liberty and political totalitarianism.
Conversely, negative liberty represents a different, perhaps safer, understanding of the concept of liberty. Its proponents (such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill) insisted that constraint and discipline were the antithesis of liberty and so were (and are) less prone to confusing liberty and constraint in the manner of the philosophical harbingers of modern totalitarianism. It is this concept of Negative Liberty that Isaiah Berlin supported. It dominated heavily his early chapters in his third lecture.
This negative liberty is central to the claim for toleration due to incommensurability. This concept is mirrored in the work of Joseph Raz.
Berlin's espousal of negative liberty, his hatred of totalitarianism and his experience of Russia in the revolution and through his contact with the poet Anna Akhmatova made him an enemy of the Soviet Union and he was one of the leading public intellectuals in the ideological battle against Communism during the Cold War.
Born in Riga, now capital of Latvia, then part of the Russian Empire, he was the first person of Jewish descent to be elected to a prize fellowship at All Souls College, Oxford. From 1957 to 1967, he was Chichele Professor of Social and Political Theory at the University of Oxford. He was president of the Aristotelian Society from 1963 to 1964. In 1966, he helped to found Wolfson College, Oxford, and became its first President. He was knighted in 1957, and was awarded the Order of Merit in 1971. He was President of the British Academy from 1974 to 1978. He also received the 1979 Jerusalem Prize for his writings on individual freedom. Berlin's work on liberal theory has had a lasting influence.
Berlin is best known for his essay Two Concepts of Liberty, delivered in 1958 as his inaugural lecture as Chichele Professor of Social and Political Theory at Oxford. He defined negative liberty as the absence of constraints on, or interference with, agents' possible action. Greater "negative freedom" meant fewer restrictions on possible action. Berlin associated positive liberty with the idea of self-mastery, or the capacity to determine oneself, to be in control of one's destiny. While Berlin granted that both concepts of liberty represent valid human ideals, as a matter of history the positive concept of liberty has proven particularly susceptible to political abuse.
Berlin contended that under the influence of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant and G. W. F. Hegel (all committed to the positive concept of liberty), European political thinkers often equated liberty with forms of political discipline or constraint. This became politically dangerous when notions of positive liberty were, in the nineteenth century, used to defend nationalism, self-determination and the Communist idea of collective rational control over human destiny. Berlin argued that, following this line of thought, demands for freedom paradoxically become demands for forms of collective control and discipline – those deemed necessary for the "self-mastery" or self-determination of nations, classes, democratic communities, and even humanity as a whole. There is thus an elective affinity, for Berlin, between positive liberty and political totalitarianism.
Conversely, negative liberty represents a different, perhaps safer, understanding of the concept of liberty. Its proponents (such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill) insisted that constraint and discipline were the antithesis of liberty and so were (and are) less prone to confusing liberty and constraint in the manner of the philosophical harbingers of modern totalitarianism. It is this concept of Negative Liberty that Isaiah Berlin supported. It dominated heavily his early chapters in his third lecture.
This negative liberty is central to the claim for toleration due to incommensurability. This concept is mirrored in the work of Joseph Raz.
Berlin's espousal of negative liberty, his hatred of totalitarianism and his experience of Russia in the revolution and through his contact with the poet Anna Akhmatova made him an enemy of the Soviet Union and he was one of the leading public intellectuals in the ideological battle against Communism during the Cold War.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews
July 23, 2023
How I wish Berlin had written a novel! I loved his style and his eloquence, it made this complex matter so much appealing. This is, I gather, one of the most important books on the history of ideas, since it so accurately describes the philosophical/ethical and political notions developed in Russia in the tumultuous 19th century; the different aspects on religion, politics, the cultural chasm between Russia and western Europe, the collective guilt of serfdom (most of the thinkers were members of the aristocracy, so their families owned dozens of "souls") and the great novels and essays produced in the midst of this mental battle.
I owe this book my "acquaintance" with Alexander Herzen, a brilliant mind who influenced most of his contemporary intellectuals and was regarded a leading figure among them (curiously enough nothing of his is published in my Russophile country, I 'll have to find the English translations). Also, I renewed my love affair with Turgenev!
Highly recommended.
I owe this book my "acquaintance" with Alexander Herzen, a brilliant mind who influenced most of his contemporary intellectuals and was regarded a leading figure among them (curiously enough nothing of his is published in my Russophile country, I 'll have to find the English translations). Also, I renewed my love affair with Turgenev!
Highly recommended.
November 6, 2024
?? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ????? ???? ? ?? ????? ??????.
?? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ??????? ? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ? ??? ??? ? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ? ?? ???? ???????? ????? ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????????? ?? ?? ????? ????(???????).
???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????????? ( ?? ???? ??? ?? ) ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??????.
?? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ??????? ? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ? ??? ??? ? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ? ?? ???? ???????? ????? ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????????? ?? ?? ????? ????(???????).
???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????????? ( ?? ???? ??? ?? ) ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??????.
December 21, 2024
This collection includes what is arguably Berlin’s most famous essay, The Hedgehog and the Fox. The quotation from which the title is taken is usually attributed falsely, “There is a line among the fragments of the Greek poet Archilochus which says: ‘The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.’” I suspect that many of those who ascribe the quote to Berlin have rarely read beyond that first line. But they would have missed Berlin's brilliant intellect and unique writing style—majestic sentences and paragraphs brimming with commas, semicolons and run on sentences of impeccable logic.
It is worth reading Berlin’s explanation of the aphorism above to get a real sense of his style:
Russian Thinkers focuses on the intellectual life of 19th century Russia. He examines the varied influences of issues and events including the Revolutions of 1848, German Romanticism, populism, literature, the Enlightenment, the struggles between right and left in Russia, and, for some, the tensions of being an expatriate in Europe on intellectuals including Tolstoy, Turgenev, Belinsky, Bakunin and his favorite thinker, Herzen.
Herzen is a relatively obscure figure today and deserves to be better known and understood. Berlin deftly compares, for example, the Hegelian-inspired views of Bakunin, who believed in making sacrifices for some future good with Herzen’s, which he sums up beautifully:
It is worth reading Berlin’s explanation of the aphorism above to get a real sense of his style:
“For there exists a great chasm between those, on one side, who relate everything to a single central vision, one system less or more coherent or articulate, in terms of which they understand, think and feel—a single, universal, organising principle in terms of which alone all that they are and say has significance—and, on the other side, those who may pursue many ends, often unrelated and even contradictory, connected, if at all, only in some de facto way, for some psychological or physiological cause, related by no moral or aesthetic principle; these last lead lives, perform acts, and entertain ideas that are centrifugal rather than centripetal, their thought is scattered or diffused, moving on many levels, seizing upon the essence of a vast variety of experiences and objects for what they are in themselves, without, consciously or unconsciously, seeking to fit them into, or exclude them from, any one unchanging, all-embracing, sometimes self-contradictory and incomplete, at times fanatical, unitary inner vision.”Berlin created the field of history of ideas. He wrote no great tomes. He focused on writing essays, disjointed when taken chronologically, that were compiled into loosely-themed books edited in large part by Henry Hardy. He didn’t write, as his biographer Michael Ignatieff describes in one of my very favorite biographies, he dictated and was transcribed. Therefore, when read aloud, one can almost hear Berlin’s voice. For those new to Berlin, Four Essays on Liberty (or, as it has been republished, Liberty: Incorporating Four Essays on Liberty) is probably a better place to begin. I read or reread Berlin at least once a year. Although he writes about the history of ideas, there are always lessons to be found that enlighten present day politics and governing.
Russian Thinkers focuses on the intellectual life of 19th century Russia. He examines the varied influences of issues and events including the Revolutions of 1848, German Romanticism, populism, literature, the Enlightenment, the struggles between right and left in Russia, and, for some, the tensions of being an expatriate in Europe on intellectuals including Tolstoy, Turgenev, Belinsky, Bakunin and his favorite thinker, Herzen.
Herzen is a relatively obscure figure today and deserves to be better known and understood. Berlin deftly compares, for example, the Hegelian-inspired views of Bakunin, who believed in making sacrifices for some future good with Herzen’s, which he sums up beautifully:
“Why does a singer sing? Merely in order that, when he has stopped singing, his song might be remembered, so that the pleasure that his song has given may awaken a longing for that which cannot be recovered? No. This is a false and purblind and shallow view of life. The purpose of the singer is the song. And the purpose of life is to live it.”
May 11, 2021
Begleitend zu Dostojewskis B?se Geister (Die D?monen) gelesen. Bietet einen ausgezeichneten ?berblick, über die verschiedenen politischen, philosophischen und literarischen Str?mungen im Russland des 19. Jahrhunderts. Zudem nicht nur inhaltlich interessant, sondern auch sehr gut geschrieben (bzw. vorgetragen).
June 5, 2013
"Describe, don't explain". Though Wittgenstein perhaps wrote those words while discussing the epistemological value of science, one has to read Isaiah Berlin in order to see their true expository demonstration. This is no ordinary achievement. In more than one way, its an indispensable text; that is, its a marvel of literary criticism, a classical description of the inner-most structures of Russian thought, introduction to some of the brilliant minds and intellectual giants of 19th century Russia, and most importantly, an exquisite commentary on the history of ideas that made the modern world. But while trying to achieve these goals, Berlin does not try to supply judgements, leaving reader with a lot to chew.
As I said, its the description that is perhaps far important that explanation; the latter has the tendency to eject the enquirer out of the domain of possibility, which in a way brings the creative process to a terminus.
On a different note, would anyone believe that a collection of essays about Russian literature and thought can prove to be a page turner? Well, to tell you the truth, it might not be unless the reader is at least familiar with major trends of Russian literature. For instance, two essays included in the volume -'The Hedgehog and the Fox' and 'Fathers and Children' - may fail to inspire a sense of awe without a decent familiarization with Tolstoy and Turgenev and if you have read 'War and Peace' and 'Fathers and Sons', its a bonus. However, if you are not familiar with Herzen, Belinsky or Bakunin, Berlin makes a point to generally characterize these trends of liberal intelligentsia before taking the reader finally to the outliers of the whole liberal spectrum.
Besides lucidity of prose, the greatest aspect of Berlin's exposition is fine categorization of social and political trends in literature, and how he supplies archetypes of thought for an informed as well as uninformed reader. His point, for instance in the starting essay, that Tolstoy could neither be characterized as a Fox or Hedgehog and his ultimate conclusion that he was a Fox trying to portray as a Hedgehog is so illuminating and potentially powerful that one is forced to place intellectuals in these relative compartments for the rest of one's life. Then there are subtleties such as Turgenev being an archetype for liberal predicament which are expounded with such force that now we have a way to describe various ideological movements of 21st century through the models of Russian thought.
An illuminate experience, a gripping read and a force to make you fall in love with Russia.
As I said, its the description that is perhaps far important that explanation; the latter has the tendency to eject the enquirer out of the domain of possibility, which in a way brings the creative process to a terminus.
On a different note, would anyone believe that a collection of essays about Russian literature and thought can prove to be a page turner? Well, to tell you the truth, it might not be unless the reader is at least familiar with major trends of Russian literature. For instance, two essays included in the volume -'The Hedgehog and the Fox' and 'Fathers and Children' - may fail to inspire a sense of awe without a decent familiarization with Tolstoy and Turgenev and if you have read 'War and Peace' and 'Fathers and Sons', its a bonus. However, if you are not familiar with Herzen, Belinsky or Bakunin, Berlin makes a point to generally characterize these trends of liberal intelligentsia before taking the reader finally to the outliers of the whole liberal spectrum.
Besides lucidity of prose, the greatest aspect of Berlin's exposition is fine categorization of social and political trends in literature, and how he supplies archetypes of thought for an informed as well as uninformed reader. His point, for instance in the starting essay, that Tolstoy could neither be characterized as a Fox or Hedgehog and his ultimate conclusion that he was a Fox trying to portray as a Hedgehog is so illuminating and potentially powerful that one is forced to place intellectuals in these relative compartments for the rest of one's life. Then there are subtleties such as Turgenev being an archetype for liberal predicament which are expounded with such force that now we have a way to describe various ideological movements of 21st century through the models of Russian thought.
An illuminate experience, a gripping read and a force to make you fall in love with Russia.
July 17, 2020
????? ????? ? ?????? ?? ????????? ????- ???? ????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ????-???????. ??? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??????? ????????? ? ??? ? ???????????? ?? ?????? ?????? ? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?????????-??????? ????. ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ? ?? ????? ???????? ???????? ??? ? ???????? ?? ??? ? ????? ???????????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ?? ????? ????? ???? ???????????? ?????? ????? ??????. ??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ????-???? ?? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ?????? ????? ? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??- ???? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????? ? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ????? ???. ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ??????? ?????? ???????. ?????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????????. ??? ????? ?????? ???? ???. ????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ? ?????? ?? ???? ???????? ????? ????????? ?? ?????? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ? ???? ????????? ???? ????? ????. ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????? ????? ? ???. ? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????????? ???? ????????
August 23, 2016
A classic, but at this distance I found it overly vivid and viewpointy. Probably because I didn’t see eye to eye with his portraits, or (want to) recognise his Turgenev, his Dostoevsky.
Funnily, sent me to Isaiah Berlin, of whom she is follower in Russian intellectual history; and she explains his great importance in the historiography, as a solitary figure against the tides of his day – yet she didn’t mention how different, in the end, her understandings of these thinkers are. Her portraits () were more persuasive to me, and weighed, I think, with more balance. Perhaps she also learnt to value prose style from Berlin, because his is splendid, and I had been struck by hers.
Funnily, sent me to Isaiah Berlin, of whom she is follower in Russian intellectual history; and she explains his great importance in the historiography, as a solitary figure against the tides of his day – yet she didn’t mention how different, in the end, her understandings of these thinkers are. Her portraits () were more persuasive to me, and weighed, I think, with more balance. Perhaps she also learnt to value prose style from Berlin, because his is splendid, and I had been struck by hers.
November 11, 2014
?? ????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????????. ??? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ? ????? ???. ???? ?? ??????? ?? ?????????. ???? ???? ??? ????????? ???????
September 20, 2022
Essayistic intellectual history shot through with Berlin’s ethics, ie. value pluralism & individual liberty vs moral abstractions.
September 3, 2009
If one reads only two books to understand Russian thought, Berlin's should be one of them. Berlin's essays line up Russian liberal intelligentsia for close, dazzling, and critical examination: Herzen, Bakunin, Belinsky, Turgenev, and most of all Tolstoy. His essay "The Hedgehog and the Fox," which argues that Tolstoy "was by nature a fox but believed in being a hedgehog" (read for more) is so successful I hasten to point to "A Remarkable Decade" (1838-1848) which reviews the emergence of the Russian public literary class.
The problem with Berlin is his success in the West. Reading his book alone leaves the reader thinking the prominent strain of Russian intellectual thought is classically liberal. Nope. Berlin treats the outliers, not the substance, of Russian thought. His is a brilliantly high standard of criticism, but his scope is far from representative.
Now, if one agrees to three books, the third is up to you and the second to Berlin should be valuable and politically charged Richard Pipes' /Russian Conservatism and its Critics/ (2007) which recounts the work and times of thinkers like Catharine II, Karamazin, Chaadaev, Gogol, Dostoevsky, Leontiev and many others (to complete the point) too unfamiliar to mention. Between the two, the backdrop against which to understand the puzzle we call contemporary Russia becomes a little brighter.
The problem with Berlin is his success in the West. Reading his book alone leaves the reader thinking the prominent strain of Russian intellectual thought is classically liberal. Nope. Berlin treats the outliers, not the substance, of Russian thought. His is a brilliantly high standard of criticism, but his scope is far from representative.
Now, if one agrees to three books, the third is up to you and the second to Berlin should be valuable and politically charged Richard Pipes' /Russian Conservatism and its Critics/ (2007) which recounts the work and times of thinkers like Catharine II, Karamazin, Chaadaev, Gogol, Dostoevsky, Leontiev and many others (to complete the point) too unfamiliar to mention. Between the two, the backdrop against which to understand the puzzle we call contemporary Russia becomes a little brighter.
March 7, 2012
Without any doubt a superlative book by any measure. I can think of no better introduction to the origins of the Russian intelligensia - none, but then I've not yet read Mark Raeff's book. Nonetheless, in a series of justly praised essays, Berlin gives his account, necessarily hints outlines rather than presents a sustained, comprehensive account. [Sir Isaiah preferred to record his thoughts in essays and lectures rather than in sustained narratives - of which he wrote a few.]
What is most impressive about his writing, is his writing, entirely precise, engaging and - beautiful. Such clarity, such intelligent summaries and penetrating, insightful conclusions. I only wish that he had written the book for which the essays in this collection could have provided a very solid foundation. I only wish his lectures and essays had filled another 500 pages.
There's no doubt about the hero of it all - Alexander Herzen.
All in all, one could collate material from all the essays, arrange it in a roughly chronological sequence, and begin to develop an narrative of one's own. Quite a contribution.
What is most impressive about his writing, is his writing, entirely precise, engaging and - beautiful. Such clarity, such intelligent summaries and penetrating, insightful conclusions. I only wish that he had written the book for which the essays in this collection could have provided a very solid foundation. I only wish his lectures and essays had filled another 500 pages.
There's no doubt about the hero of it all - Alexander Herzen.
All in all, one could collate material from all the essays, arrange it in a roughly chronological sequence, and begin to develop an narrative of one's own. Quite a contribution.
February 21, 2016
Isaiah Berlín me cae mal, pero siempre genera polémica. En estos ensayos, es un esquizofrénico que valora y menosprecia intermitentemente a los rusos decimonónicos. Hay algo de sorpresa y envidia por ellos, además de una valoración tan extra?a que le hace ningunear a Dostoyevski. Ese detalle le hace engrandecer a Tólstoi y atribuirle cosas que son elementos inherentes a Dostoyevski. De todos modos, Berlín se redime un poco haciéndole justicia a Herzen, a Belinsky y a Turgueniev -al que le dedica el ensayo más bello-. Si usted odia su liberalismo, cierre los ojos cuando habla de Bakunin: lo vapulea más que a Dostoyevski, MI Dostoyevski.
December 10, 2022
DNF at 95 pages.
A disappointment. Berlin attempts to investigate Russian thinking by looking at Russia as though he's inspecting a rabid medieval city full of monkeys and hogs. At one point in "Herzen and Bakunin on Individual Liberty", he says; "Russia is not so rich in first-rate thinkers that she can afford to ignore one of the three moral preachers of genius born on her soil." This is such a narrow mindset, and to assign the role of "moral preacher of genius" to Alexander Herzen, of all people, is absurd.
I did not expect much going into this book, but Berlin's commentary often seems downright strange and much more inventive than it needs to be.
A disappointment. Berlin attempts to investigate Russian thinking by looking at Russia as though he's inspecting a rabid medieval city full of monkeys and hogs. At one point in "Herzen and Bakunin on Individual Liberty", he says; "Russia is not so rich in first-rate thinkers that she can afford to ignore one of the three moral preachers of genius born on her soil." This is such a narrow mindset, and to assign the role of "moral preacher of genius" to Alexander Herzen, of all people, is absurd.
I did not expect much going into this book, but Berlin's commentary often seems downright strange and much more inventive than it needs to be.
July 14, 2022
The sheer quantity of undefined references can be overwhelming, but as a sum total he does get around to explaining all the central figures and events that are most important. That said, he's comfortable leaving you confused.
The best thing about the text was how it put many of the Russian writers I know into relational context. It's not just about their ideas; it's about how their ideas affected one another and who they were most interested in communicating with. By thinking of this as a somewhat haphazard collective biography, the reader can get a much better sense of the environment around Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Turgenev, and many others who are less well known now but were just as important among their peers.
If you have a proclivity toward the "Russian novels," then this is worth getting both for context and for seeing who else you should be reading.
The best thing about the text was how it put many of the Russian writers I know into relational context. It's not just about their ideas; it's about how their ideas affected one another and who they were most interested in communicating with. By thinking of this as a somewhat haphazard collective biography, the reader can get a much better sense of the environment around Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Turgenev, and many others who are less well known now but were just as important among their peers.
If you have a proclivity toward the "Russian novels," then this is worth getting both for context and for seeing who else you should be reading.
November 5, 2020
A series of essays about a group of Russians whose thoughts about the regime and revolution are obscured by the shadow cast on their wtitings by the Bolsheviks and their revolution. They are all here, Herzen, Belinsky, Turgenev and Bakunin. Berlin's examination of their thought and development is sensitive and unprejudiced. Well written and very enlightening.
September 22, 2020
I bought this book on a whim, but it turned out to be one of the best non-fiction books I've ever read. Russian intellectuals of the 19th century have a lot to say that's very relevant in 2020, especially to people like me who have a conflicted relationship with capitalism and sympathize with the far left but feel uncomfortable at the radicalism of some of their tactics and proposed solutions.
March 1, 2023
Sunt c?r?i care dup? zece pagini citite sim?i c?t de u?or au trecut, le sim?i urzeala; dar sunt alte c?r?i care dup? zece pagini citite ai impresia c? ai citit trei volume at?t ca densitate de informa?ii, c?t ?i ca timp de parcurgere. Dac? primul gen de c?r?i are pagini care se topesc f?r? s?-?i dai seama ?i po?i s? le urm?re?ti firul narativ cu u?urin?? ?ntr-o continuitate lejer?, al doilea gen se parcurge mai greu, cumva fracturat, relu?nd pe alocuri paragrafele precedente ca s? faci lumin? ?n cele curente, s? g?se?ti firul logic.
Cartea e dedicat? g?ndirii acelor membri ai societ??ii ruse?ti care constituiau practic un ordin devotat r?sp?ndirii, ?ntr-o form? aproape evanghelic? a unui anumit mod de via?? — intelighen?ia, proveni?i, dup? cum se autocaracteriza Herzen, din a?a numit? genera?ie a oamenilor de prisos; caracteriza?i de spontaneitate ?i distinc?ie, priveau libertatea personal? de pe pozi?ia unor privilegia?i ai sor?ii ?i totu?i g?ndind ?i ac?ion?nd radical ?n orizontul larg al unor min?i educate, rafinate av?nd afinit??i la tot ce e progres, nou ?i t?n?r, g?sindu-se ?ntr-o societate subdezvoltat? social, ?nc? ag??at? ?n evul mediu, deformat? ?i de sus ?i de jos de tiranii arbitrare at?t ale autorit??ii, c?t ?i ale birocra?iei slab, astfel ?nc?t, ace?ti intelectuali sim?eau acut drama "neput?ndu-?i g?si un loc ?n propria patrie" singura sc?pare fiind o evadare ?n cinism ori disparare, sau ?n fantezie ?i iluzie sf?r?ind ?n autodistrugere sau capitulare.
Este o carte destul de greoaie pentru c? secolul al XIX-lea a fost un secol bogat ?n evenimente istorice, iar ele au lovit cel mai special popor european: poporul rus. Primul din cele ?apte eseuri descrie influen?a Revolu?iei din 1848, din Europa, asupra Rusiei ?ariste. Cum cazanul clocotitor al poporului rus a fost supus unei opresiuni preventive a ?arului Nicolae I din care a rezultat filoane de g?ndire radicale ce s-au transformat ?n secolul urm?tor ?ntr-un r?spuns ?nt?rziat al societ??ii ruse dar cu efecte extreme. Dac? Rusia a sc?pat de inflamarea revolu?ionar? care a agitat Europa ?n 1848, a f?cut-o doar temporar. ?n 1905 spiritul revolu?ionar s-a declan?at ?i aici ?n cele din urm?. ?arul Nicolae I a impus un regim draconic pentru a ?n?bu?i orice demers revolu?ionar ?n Rusia ?i chiar a pus um?rul pentru a ?n?bu?i revolu?iile ?i-n Europa. ?ns? presiunea ?arist? nu a reu?it s? distrug? filonul revolu?ionar, ci a reu?it s?-l transforme ?ntr-o serie de curente de g?ndire originale. Isaiah Berlin prezint? r?spunsul intelectualit??ii ruse la opresiune ?i la dezam?girea rat?rii programului revolu?ionar european.
G?ndirii paradoxale a lui Tolstoi, Berlin ?i dedic? un eseu complex ?i amplu ?n care figura marelui scriitor ne apare pe fondul fr?m?nt?rilor politice ale epocii sale. Teoria istoric? a lui Tolstoi este elementul central al eseului. Tolstoi ??i expune viziunea sa asupra istoriei inser?nd-o ?n capodopera sa R?zboi ?i pace. Aici Berlin se documenteaz? temeinic din critica literar? ?i analizeaz? optica lui Tolstoi. Romancierul apare divizat ?ntre dou? tendi?e opuse care-l ?nscriu pe acea traiectorie paradoxal?. Are acea for?? de critica ra?ional? a teoriilor istorice ale epocii, care f?ceau ca istoria s? par? o ?tiin?? exact?, cu legi destul de limpezi; el neag? posibilitatea de a cunoa?te aceste legi suficient de bine pentru un demers explicativ suficient al desf??ur?rii istorice; are o capacitate fulminant? de a descrie ?n am?nunt multitudinea complex? a aspectelor vie?ii produs? de individualit??i la fel de complexe.
Dar totodat? aspir? incon?tient la g?sirea unei explica?ii unice, a acelei legi explicative universale. ?Prin natura sa, Tolstoi nu a fost un vizionar, el a v?zut multitudinea de obiecte ?i situa?ii din lume ?n varietatea lor ?i a surprins cu o claritate f?r? egal esen?a lor individual? ?i ceea ce le desp?r?ea de ceea ce nu erau. [...]Geniul s?u consta ?n perceperae propriet??ilor specificie, a calit??ii individuale aproape inexprimabile ?n virtutea c?reia un obiect dat este diferit ?i unic ?n compara?ie cu toate celelalte.
Totu?i, el t?njea dup? un principiu explicativ universal, adic? dup? perceperea asem?n?rilor sau a originilor comune, ori a unui scop unic; ori a unit??ii din aparenta varietate de elemente disparate, ce par s? se exclud? reciproc, care alc?tuiesc materia lumii”. Personajele sale sunt superioare personajelor mai metodice, nu prin iscusin?a g?ndirii, ci prin intuirea raporturilor dintre lucrurile naturale, ?a texturii universale a vie?ii omene?ti” ?n care sunt cuprinse adev?rul ?i dreptatea.
Disec?nd opera R?zboi ?i pace, afl?m subtilit??ile g?ndirii istorice a lui Tolstoi. Disec?nd mai departe, afl?m ?i originile g?ndirii lui. Astfel c? Berlin ?l pune ?n paralel pe Tolsoi cu Joseph de Maistre, de la care a ?mprumutat din critica lui asupra liberalismului, dar i-a respins dogmatismul religios antira?ionalist; puncteaz? viziunea comun? a sa cu lui Schopenhauer ?i cu ?mprumutarea de la socialistul francez Proudhon a titlului, R?zboi ?i pace.
Aleksandr Herzen ?i Mihail Bakunin sunt dou? personaje fascinante ale intelectualit??ii ruse?ti din secolul XIX pe care Berlin ?i pune ?n paralel ca s? ?n?elegem punctele esen?iale ale g?ndirii libere ruse?ti ?ntr-o epoc? destul de restrictiv?. Herzen este scriitorul care detest? opresiunea ?i g?ndirea abstract? ce conduce la sisteme filosofice opresive. Condamn? romantismul german care ?ncepe s? clocoteasc? ?n intelectul g?nditorilor ru?i; el conduce formule ambigue care fundamenteaz? o moral? antiumanist?. "A ?n?eles ca termeni generali ?i abstrac?i ca libertate ?i egalitate, dac? nu sunt transpu?i ?n cuvinte specifice aplicabile unor situa?ii reale, pot, cel mult, s? st?rneasc? imagina?ia poetic? ?i s? insufle oamenilor sentimente generoase, iar ?n cel mai r?u caz, s? justifice prostii sau crime."
Un secol mai t?rziu, Constantin Gheorghiu depl?ngea dezumanizarea produs? de aceste teorii romantice. ?n romanul Ora 25 (publicat ?n 1949) depune m?rturie ?mpotriva ?nghesuirii umanului ?n categoriile generale ale politicilor abstractizante, care puneau ?n practic? visurile utopice ale secolului trecut. ?Generaliz?nd mereu ?i c?ut?nd ori plas?nd toate valorile ?n ceea ce este general, umanitatea occidental? a pierdut orice sim? pentru valorile unicului ?i, prin urmare, ale existen?ei individuale. De aici imensul pericol al colectivismului, fie el ?n?eles ?n stil rusesc sau american.” Societatea se pr?bu?e?te c?nd individualismul este distrus de av?ntul statisticii abstractizante.
Bakunin este revolu?ionarul ?nfl?c?rat, contradictoriu — de parc? era un sofism din antichitate care sus?inea cu aceea?i patim? argument?rii opuse "justifica [prin dialectica hegelian?] nevoia de a te supune unei guvern?ri brutale ?i a unei birocra?ii stupide ?n numele Ra?iunii eterne ?i a justifica apoi rebeliunea aduc?nd acelea?i argumente", adeptul unei libert??i f?r? restric?ii. "Bakunin, prietenul oficial al libert??ii absolute, nu a l?sat mo?tenire nicio idee ce merit? a fi considerat? ?n sine", cu un "caracter turbulent ?i despotic". Crezul s?u e s? demoleze starea actual? f?r? alt scop. ?i nu ?tie ce s? pun? ?n loc. Revolu?ia e doar pentru a distruge, nu a ?i schimba cu ceva, "noi suntem revolu?ionari, treaba noastr? este s? demol?m" spune el din exilul londonez.
"Un deceniu remarcabil" este un eseu vast ?n care Berlin prezint? geneza "intelighentiei" ruse?ti, adic? perioada 1838-1848. E momentul de cotitur? al g?ndirii ruse?ti ?i chiar al civiliza?iei europene. Berlin ?tie s? exprime limpede o imagine istoric? complex?. Bog??ia eseului const? ?n descrierea caracterului politico-cultural european al ?nceputului secolului XIX ?i a condi?iilor care au condus la contactul dintre el ?i caracterul specific rusesc, pasional, cu o nevoie stringent? de a fi eliberat. C?nd Berlin contureaz? imaginea romantismului german, filosofia lui Hegel sau Schelling, el prezint? r?d?cinile ideologice care au condus pe intelectualii ru?i la cele din urm? consecin?e ale sistemelor germane de g?ndire c?nd aceste sistem le ofereau, prin metafizica lor un mod de-a evada dintr-o realitate istoric? ostil?.
For?a ideilor romantice germane, diseminate ?n min?ile tinerilor studio?i ru?i ai anilor 30-40 din secolul XIX, a furnizat o cale de retragere a lor din fa?a mizeriei de zi cu zi ?ntr-o dimensiune metafizic? ampl?, l?ng? care realitatea imediat? era doar un aspect insignifiant plutind ?ntr-o mare subtil? de elemente virtuoase revelate doar prin intui?ia cultivat? de filosofie. "A urm?ri valori materiale — reforme sociale sau scopuri politice de orice fel — ?nseamn? a umbla dup? n?luci, a-?i atrage speran?ele fr?nte, frustrare ?i nefericire". Dincolo de lumea empiric?, resping?nd morala bisericii ortodoxe, se crea o religie secular? ?i metafizic?. Dar ?i la Gheorghiu g?sim ecoul aspira?iei spre un scop unic al vie?ii dezv?luit prin sim??mintele transmise de art? ?i religie, ?n timp ce sistemul politic, democra?ia, chiar dac? e superioar? totalitarismului, se rezum? doar de dimensiunea social? a umanit??ii.
Vissarion Bielinski este personajul care a fascinat ?ntreaga genera?ie ?i, cu toat? scurtimea vie?ii lui (a tr?it doar 36 de ani), a produs schimb?ri majore ?n g?ndirea urma?ilor cu ecouri p?n? la revolu?ia din 1917. Berlin ?i prezint? ?n detaliu evolu?ia g?ndirii ?i influen?a. Este un personaj care a impus respect ?i criticilor s?i ?n aceea?i m?sur? ?n care i-a fascinat pe admiratori. O personalitate efervescent?, ve?nic ?n c?utarea ?i ap?rarea la cote paroxistice a adev?rului. S-a orientat spre literatur?; c?ci acolo ideile se manifestau mai complex, nu doar sub forma ra?iunii, ci ?i a ceva mai greu de explicat, ?n emo?ii ?i g?nduri, mod prin care ideile deveneau mai intime celui care le exprim? definind ?nsu?iri individului u?or de distins. Bielinski ne apare pasional, ?nfl?crat, ambivalent, nep?s?tor fa?? de sentimentele celor cu care nu e de acord, ??i sus?ine cu t?rie teoriile sim?indu-le la cote maxime ?i renun?? la ele cu aceea?i ?nver?unare cu care le-a asimilat. Adopt? ideile romantice ale lui Hegel ?i Schlegel ?i le propov?duie?te cu vigoarea specific? lui, dar renun?? la el ?i-?i pune cenu?? ?n cap apoi.
Tipic rusesc este ?i conflictul care-l m?cina nu doar pe Bielinski, ci ?ntreaga intelectualitate. Pornit din ciocnirea a dou? civiliza?ii cu decalaje mari ?ntre ele, una avansat? ?i puternic? ?n a seduce, avangardist?, surs? de moral? ?i idei, Occidentul, ?i cealalt? dornic? s?-l imite, tradi?ionalist? ?i ?nchis?, dar decis? s? adopte acela?i stil, societatea ruseasc?, conflictul producea tulbur?ri ?n con?tiin?a rusului. Acesta era prins ??ntre convingerile intelectuale ?i nevoile emo?ionale, uneori aproape fizice” ?i chiar dac? realiza c? occidentul este demn de respect ?i emula?ie, via?a de acolo era inacceptabil?, obiceiurile occidentale erau deranjante pentru rus. Cei cu origini ?n straturile mai de jos ale societ??ii sim?eau ?i mai acut criza. Bielinski se sim?ea mizerabil ?n s?nul societ??ii pe care o admira ?i voia cu ardoare s? revin? ?n locul pe care-l detesta. ??ns? exista ?n el o sciziune izvor?t? dintr-o simultan? admira?ie fa?? de valorile idealurilor occidentale ?i o lips? profund? de simpatie, de fapt o ostilitate ?i lips? de respect fa?? de tr?s?turile ?i felul de via?? ale burgheziei occidentale ?i ale intelectualilor occidentali tipici”. Intelectualii din clasa de mijloc nu sim?eau a?a de intens conflictul, dar ?i ei ?l tr?iau; nici ei nu preferau via?a ?n mijlocul obiceiurilor occidentale. Caracteristica aceasta ambivalent? avea s? caracterizeze societatea rus? p?n? ?n contemporaneitate.
Urm?toarea etap? ?n dezvoltarea g?ndirii intelighentiei ruse?ti a fost populismul rus, narodnicismul care a recunoscut o r?sp?ndire ?ntre 1860-1870. Populi?tii au dus mai departe ideile genera?iei anterioare a lui Herzen ?i Bakunin. ?n centrul idelurilor lor era p?tura cea mai de jos a poporului rus, ??ranii ?n special. Au rezonat la problemele lor ?i au c?utat solu?ii s?-i civilizeze. Ei credeau c? Rusia este o na?iune ?napoiat?, departe de realiz?rile Occidentului. Dar au separat via?a politic? de via?a social? observ?nd e?ecurile revolu?iilor europene ?i nefericirea societ??ii; oamenii nu aveau nevoie de principii abstracte exprimate prin politici, ci de o ridicare din stadiul de general de barbarie ?i s?r?cie a oamenilor. Contactul acestor intelectuali cu mediul rural este dramatic. ?n 1874 tinerii intelectuali coboar? ?n sate s?-i emancipeze pe ??rani. Ace?tia sunt refractari ?i chiar ?i denun??. Urmeaz? o radicalizare a unor populi?ti ce vor inspira mai t?rziu a treia genera?ie a intelighen?iei, pe cei care vor implementa cu agresivitate un socialism ?mpotriva principiilor promovate de ei ?n anii 60-70.
Tolstoi ?i iluminismul ni-l prezint? pe romancier ?n toat? splendoarea pasiunii sale de a promova adev?rul chiar dac? demersul ?l condamn? la sacrificii enorme. ?c?ci a sacrificat tot ce avea pe altarul virtu?ii adev?rului — fericire, prietenie, iubire, pace, siguran?? moral? ?i, ?n cele din urm?, propria via??. Iar de la ea a primit ?n schimb doar ?ndoial?, nesiguran??, dispre? fa?? de sine ?i contradic?ii de nerezolvat”. Invoc? ?i crede ?ntr-o educa?ie care nu perverte?te inocen?a. A studiat ?n Occident diverse tehnici educa?ionale ?i s-a declarat nemul?umit de ele. Oamenii de r?nd ?i copiii sunt de?in?torii unei inocen?e autentice pe care civiliza?ia, cu normele ei educa?ionale sau prin reformele politice tind s-o strice. Individul singur avea posibilitatea s? se ridice singur f?r? ajutorul altor sisteme ?i institu?ii. Construie?te singur ?coli ?i s? inventeze metode noi de studiu. Crezul lui fundamental era c? ?oamenii au o serie de nevoi primare, materiale ?i spirituale, acelea?i pretutindeni ?i ?n orice epoc?. Dac? acestea sunt satisf?cute, duc o via?? armonioas?, care e ?i scopul naturii umane”. Detest? atitudinea scriitorilor de a sacrifica exprimarea moralit??ii ?i adev?rului pentru a realiza doar lucruri frumoase.
Ivan Turgheniev este alt reprezentat al g?ndirii specific ruse?ti la care se opre?te Berlin. Dar ?nainte de a-i diseca romanul P?rin?i ?i copii (care ?n 1862, c?nd a ap?rut a creat o furtun? f?r? precedent ?n litratura rus?), Berlin ?l a?az? pe autor ?n contextul istoric ca fiin?? pe deplin con?tient? ?i cu propriile lui reflexe. Turgheniev este un observator des?v?r?it al st?rii de spirit ruse?ti, nu este a?a de p?tima? precum contemporanii s?i. "Mai sensibil ?i mai scrupulos, mai pu?in obsedat ?i mai pu?in intolerant dec?t marii morali?ti fr?m?nta?i din epoca lui", ?ns? condamn? odiosul regim autocrat, dar ?i barbaria revolu?ionar? care vrea s? mature totul ?n calea ei. "Credea ?n progresul lent, realizat doar de minorit??i, dac? reu?esc s? nu se distrug? ?ntre ele. Literatura este ?i pentru el un mijloc de a scoate adev?rul din mla?tina societ??ii ruse?ti. Dar nu avea mania s? predice prin scris; nu ?ndrum? cititorul oferindu-i repere care s?-i rezolve dilemele, nu-i ofer? solu?ii. Furtuna era cumva garantat?.
Dar chiar ?i a?a, r?m?ne oarecum deta?at de problemele politice. P?streaz? o distan?? care-i permite s? critice de pe pozi?ia unui realism lucid angajamentele colegilor s?i de genera?ie dedica?i trup ?i suflet cauzei. C?nd Herzen este dezam?git de e?ecul liberalismul occidental ?i propune ?n schimb promovarea ??ranului rus ?i a organiz?rii lui ca etap? de re?nnoire a lumii occidentale, Turgheniev consider? aceasta o imens? exagerare. Nu avea solu?ii la ?ntreb?rile sociale stringente ?i nici nu adera la nicio ideologie, iar, ?n polarizata societatea rus? l-a transformat ?n ?int? a criticilor din ambele p?r?i, reac?ionar? ?i revolu?ionar?. El doar "?n?elegea ambele fa?ete ale vie?ii". Cu romanul P?rin?i ?i copii ajunge practic ?ntre nicovala reac?ionar? ?i ciocanul revolu?ionar ?i nimeni nu-l iart?.
Cartea e dedicat? g?ndirii acelor membri ai societ??ii ruse?ti care constituiau practic un ordin devotat r?sp?ndirii, ?ntr-o form? aproape evanghelic? a unui anumit mod de via?? — intelighen?ia, proveni?i, dup? cum se autocaracteriza Herzen, din a?a numit? genera?ie a oamenilor de prisos; caracteriza?i de spontaneitate ?i distinc?ie, priveau libertatea personal? de pe pozi?ia unor privilegia?i ai sor?ii ?i totu?i g?ndind ?i ac?ion?nd radical ?n orizontul larg al unor min?i educate, rafinate av?nd afinit??i la tot ce e progres, nou ?i t?n?r, g?sindu-se ?ntr-o societate subdezvoltat? social, ?nc? ag??at? ?n evul mediu, deformat? ?i de sus ?i de jos de tiranii arbitrare at?t ale autorit??ii, c?t ?i ale birocra?iei slab, astfel ?nc?t, ace?ti intelectuali sim?eau acut drama "neput?ndu-?i g?si un loc ?n propria patrie" singura sc?pare fiind o evadare ?n cinism ori disparare, sau ?n fantezie ?i iluzie sf?r?ind ?n autodistrugere sau capitulare.
Este o carte destul de greoaie pentru c? secolul al XIX-lea a fost un secol bogat ?n evenimente istorice, iar ele au lovit cel mai special popor european: poporul rus. Primul din cele ?apte eseuri descrie influen?a Revolu?iei din 1848, din Europa, asupra Rusiei ?ariste. Cum cazanul clocotitor al poporului rus a fost supus unei opresiuni preventive a ?arului Nicolae I din care a rezultat filoane de g?ndire radicale ce s-au transformat ?n secolul urm?tor ?ntr-un r?spuns ?nt?rziat al societ??ii ruse dar cu efecte extreme. Dac? Rusia a sc?pat de inflamarea revolu?ionar? care a agitat Europa ?n 1848, a f?cut-o doar temporar. ?n 1905 spiritul revolu?ionar s-a declan?at ?i aici ?n cele din urm?. ?arul Nicolae I a impus un regim draconic pentru a ?n?bu?i orice demers revolu?ionar ?n Rusia ?i chiar a pus um?rul pentru a ?n?bu?i revolu?iile ?i-n Europa. ?ns? presiunea ?arist? nu a reu?it s? distrug? filonul revolu?ionar, ci a reu?it s?-l transforme ?ntr-o serie de curente de g?ndire originale. Isaiah Berlin prezint? r?spunsul intelectualit??ii ruse la opresiune ?i la dezam?girea rat?rii programului revolu?ionar european.
G?ndirii paradoxale a lui Tolstoi, Berlin ?i dedic? un eseu complex ?i amplu ?n care figura marelui scriitor ne apare pe fondul fr?m?nt?rilor politice ale epocii sale. Teoria istoric? a lui Tolstoi este elementul central al eseului. Tolstoi ??i expune viziunea sa asupra istoriei inser?nd-o ?n capodopera sa R?zboi ?i pace. Aici Berlin se documenteaz? temeinic din critica literar? ?i analizeaz? optica lui Tolstoi. Romancierul apare divizat ?ntre dou? tendi?e opuse care-l ?nscriu pe acea traiectorie paradoxal?. Are acea for?? de critica ra?ional? a teoriilor istorice ale epocii, care f?ceau ca istoria s? par? o ?tiin?? exact?, cu legi destul de limpezi; el neag? posibilitatea de a cunoa?te aceste legi suficient de bine pentru un demers explicativ suficient al desf??ur?rii istorice; are o capacitate fulminant? de a descrie ?n am?nunt multitudinea complex? a aspectelor vie?ii produs? de individualit??i la fel de complexe.
Dar totodat? aspir? incon?tient la g?sirea unei explica?ii unice, a acelei legi explicative universale. ?Prin natura sa, Tolstoi nu a fost un vizionar, el a v?zut multitudinea de obiecte ?i situa?ii din lume ?n varietatea lor ?i a surprins cu o claritate f?r? egal esen?a lor individual? ?i ceea ce le desp?r?ea de ceea ce nu erau. [...]Geniul s?u consta ?n perceperae propriet??ilor specificie, a calit??ii individuale aproape inexprimabile ?n virtutea c?reia un obiect dat este diferit ?i unic ?n compara?ie cu toate celelalte.
Totu?i, el t?njea dup? un principiu explicativ universal, adic? dup? perceperea asem?n?rilor sau a originilor comune, ori a unui scop unic; ori a unit??ii din aparenta varietate de elemente disparate, ce par s? se exclud? reciproc, care alc?tuiesc materia lumii”. Personajele sale sunt superioare personajelor mai metodice, nu prin iscusin?a g?ndirii, ci prin intuirea raporturilor dintre lucrurile naturale, ?a texturii universale a vie?ii omene?ti” ?n care sunt cuprinse adev?rul ?i dreptatea.
Disec?nd opera R?zboi ?i pace, afl?m subtilit??ile g?ndirii istorice a lui Tolstoi. Disec?nd mai departe, afl?m ?i originile g?ndirii lui. Astfel c? Berlin ?l pune ?n paralel pe Tolsoi cu Joseph de Maistre, de la care a ?mprumutat din critica lui asupra liberalismului, dar i-a respins dogmatismul religios antira?ionalist; puncteaz? viziunea comun? a sa cu lui Schopenhauer ?i cu ?mprumutarea de la socialistul francez Proudhon a titlului, R?zboi ?i pace.
Aleksandr Herzen ?i Mihail Bakunin sunt dou? personaje fascinante ale intelectualit??ii ruse?ti din secolul XIX pe care Berlin ?i pune ?n paralel ca s? ?n?elegem punctele esen?iale ale g?ndirii libere ruse?ti ?ntr-o epoc? destul de restrictiv?. Herzen este scriitorul care detest? opresiunea ?i g?ndirea abstract? ce conduce la sisteme filosofice opresive. Condamn? romantismul german care ?ncepe s? clocoteasc? ?n intelectul g?nditorilor ru?i; el conduce formule ambigue care fundamenteaz? o moral? antiumanist?. "A ?n?eles ca termeni generali ?i abstrac?i ca libertate ?i egalitate, dac? nu sunt transpu?i ?n cuvinte specifice aplicabile unor situa?ii reale, pot, cel mult, s? st?rneasc? imagina?ia poetic? ?i s? insufle oamenilor sentimente generoase, iar ?n cel mai r?u caz, s? justifice prostii sau crime."
Un secol mai t?rziu, Constantin Gheorghiu depl?ngea dezumanizarea produs? de aceste teorii romantice. ?n romanul Ora 25 (publicat ?n 1949) depune m?rturie ?mpotriva ?nghesuirii umanului ?n categoriile generale ale politicilor abstractizante, care puneau ?n practic? visurile utopice ale secolului trecut. ?Generaliz?nd mereu ?i c?ut?nd ori plas?nd toate valorile ?n ceea ce este general, umanitatea occidental? a pierdut orice sim? pentru valorile unicului ?i, prin urmare, ale existen?ei individuale. De aici imensul pericol al colectivismului, fie el ?n?eles ?n stil rusesc sau american.” Societatea se pr?bu?e?te c?nd individualismul este distrus de av?ntul statisticii abstractizante.
Bakunin este revolu?ionarul ?nfl?c?rat, contradictoriu — de parc? era un sofism din antichitate care sus?inea cu aceea?i patim? argument?rii opuse "justifica [prin dialectica hegelian?] nevoia de a te supune unei guvern?ri brutale ?i a unei birocra?ii stupide ?n numele Ra?iunii eterne ?i a justifica apoi rebeliunea aduc?nd acelea?i argumente", adeptul unei libert??i f?r? restric?ii. "Bakunin, prietenul oficial al libert??ii absolute, nu a l?sat mo?tenire nicio idee ce merit? a fi considerat? ?n sine", cu un "caracter turbulent ?i despotic". Crezul s?u e s? demoleze starea actual? f?r? alt scop. ?i nu ?tie ce s? pun? ?n loc. Revolu?ia e doar pentru a distruge, nu a ?i schimba cu ceva, "noi suntem revolu?ionari, treaba noastr? este s? demol?m" spune el din exilul londonez.
"Un deceniu remarcabil" este un eseu vast ?n care Berlin prezint? geneza "intelighentiei" ruse?ti, adic? perioada 1838-1848. E momentul de cotitur? al g?ndirii ruse?ti ?i chiar al civiliza?iei europene. Berlin ?tie s? exprime limpede o imagine istoric? complex?. Bog??ia eseului const? ?n descrierea caracterului politico-cultural european al ?nceputului secolului XIX ?i a condi?iilor care au condus la contactul dintre el ?i caracterul specific rusesc, pasional, cu o nevoie stringent? de a fi eliberat. C?nd Berlin contureaz? imaginea romantismului german, filosofia lui Hegel sau Schelling, el prezint? r?d?cinile ideologice care au condus pe intelectualii ru?i la cele din urm? consecin?e ale sistemelor germane de g?ndire c?nd aceste sistem le ofereau, prin metafizica lor un mod de-a evada dintr-o realitate istoric? ostil?.
For?a ideilor romantice germane, diseminate ?n min?ile tinerilor studio?i ru?i ai anilor 30-40 din secolul XIX, a furnizat o cale de retragere a lor din fa?a mizeriei de zi cu zi ?ntr-o dimensiune metafizic? ampl?, l?ng? care realitatea imediat? era doar un aspect insignifiant plutind ?ntr-o mare subtil? de elemente virtuoase revelate doar prin intui?ia cultivat? de filosofie. "A urm?ri valori materiale — reforme sociale sau scopuri politice de orice fel — ?nseamn? a umbla dup? n?luci, a-?i atrage speran?ele fr?nte, frustrare ?i nefericire". Dincolo de lumea empiric?, resping?nd morala bisericii ortodoxe, se crea o religie secular? ?i metafizic?. Dar ?i la Gheorghiu g?sim ecoul aspira?iei spre un scop unic al vie?ii dezv?luit prin sim??mintele transmise de art? ?i religie, ?n timp ce sistemul politic, democra?ia, chiar dac? e superioar? totalitarismului, se rezum? doar de dimensiunea social? a umanit??ii.
Vissarion Bielinski este personajul care a fascinat ?ntreaga genera?ie ?i, cu toat? scurtimea vie?ii lui (a tr?it doar 36 de ani), a produs schimb?ri majore ?n g?ndirea urma?ilor cu ecouri p?n? la revolu?ia din 1917. Berlin ?i prezint? ?n detaliu evolu?ia g?ndirii ?i influen?a. Este un personaj care a impus respect ?i criticilor s?i ?n aceea?i m?sur? ?n care i-a fascinat pe admiratori. O personalitate efervescent?, ve?nic ?n c?utarea ?i ap?rarea la cote paroxistice a adev?rului. S-a orientat spre literatur?; c?ci acolo ideile se manifestau mai complex, nu doar sub forma ra?iunii, ci ?i a ceva mai greu de explicat, ?n emo?ii ?i g?nduri, mod prin care ideile deveneau mai intime celui care le exprim? definind ?nsu?iri individului u?or de distins. Bielinski ne apare pasional, ?nfl?crat, ambivalent, nep?s?tor fa?? de sentimentele celor cu care nu e de acord, ??i sus?ine cu t?rie teoriile sim?indu-le la cote maxime ?i renun?? la ele cu aceea?i ?nver?unare cu care le-a asimilat. Adopt? ideile romantice ale lui Hegel ?i Schlegel ?i le propov?duie?te cu vigoarea specific? lui, dar renun?? la el ?i-?i pune cenu?? ?n cap apoi.
Tipic rusesc este ?i conflictul care-l m?cina nu doar pe Bielinski, ci ?ntreaga intelectualitate. Pornit din ciocnirea a dou? civiliza?ii cu decalaje mari ?ntre ele, una avansat? ?i puternic? ?n a seduce, avangardist?, surs? de moral? ?i idei, Occidentul, ?i cealalt? dornic? s?-l imite, tradi?ionalist? ?i ?nchis?, dar decis? s? adopte acela?i stil, societatea ruseasc?, conflictul producea tulbur?ri ?n con?tiin?a rusului. Acesta era prins ??ntre convingerile intelectuale ?i nevoile emo?ionale, uneori aproape fizice” ?i chiar dac? realiza c? occidentul este demn de respect ?i emula?ie, via?a de acolo era inacceptabil?, obiceiurile occidentale erau deranjante pentru rus. Cei cu origini ?n straturile mai de jos ale societ??ii sim?eau ?i mai acut criza. Bielinski se sim?ea mizerabil ?n s?nul societ??ii pe care o admira ?i voia cu ardoare s? revin? ?n locul pe care-l detesta. ??ns? exista ?n el o sciziune izvor?t? dintr-o simultan? admira?ie fa?? de valorile idealurilor occidentale ?i o lips? profund? de simpatie, de fapt o ostilitate ?i lips? de respect fa?? de tr?s?turile ?i felul de via?? ale burgheziei occidentale ?i ale intelectualilor occidentali tipici”. Intelectualii din clasa de mijloc nu sim?eau a?a de intens conflictul, dar ?i ei ?l tr?iau; nici ei nu preferau via?a ?n mijlocul obiceiurilor occidentale. Caracteristica aceasta ambivalent? avea s? caracterizeze societatea rus? p?n? ?n contemporaneitate.
Urm?toarea etap? ?n dezvoltarea g?ndirii intelighentiei ruse?ti a fost populismul rus, narodnicismul care a recunoscut o r?sp?ndire ?ntre 1860-1870. Populi?tii au dus mai departe ideile genera?iei anterioare a lui Herzen ?i Bakunin. ?n centrul idelurilor lor era p?tura cea mai de jos a poporului rus, ??ranii ?n special. Au rezonat la problemele lor ?i au c?utat solu?ii s?-i civilizeze. Ei credeau c? Rusia este o na?iune ?napoiat?, departe de realiz?rile Occidentului. Dar au separat via?a politic? de via?a social? observ?nd e?ecurile revolu?iilor europene ?i nefericirea societ??ii; oamenii nu aveau nevoie de principii abstracte exprimate prin politici, ci de o ridicare din stadiul de general de barbarie ?i s?r?cie a oamenilor. Contactul acestor intelectuali cu mediul rural este dramatic. ?n 1874 tinerii intelectuali coboar? ?n sate s?-i emancipeze pe ??rani. Ace?tia sunt refractari ?i chiar ?i denun??. Urmeaz? o radicalizare a unor populi?ti ce vor inspira mai t?rziu a treia genera?ie a intelighen?iei, pe cei care vor implementa cu agresivitate un socialism ?mpotriva principiilor promovate de ei ?n anii 60-70.
Tolstoi ?i iluminismul ni-l prezint? pe romancier ?n toat? splendoarea pasiunii sale de a promova adev?rul chiar dac? demersul ?l condamn? la sacrificii enorme. ?c?ci a sacrificat tot ce avea pe altarul virtu?ii adev?rului — fericire, prietenie, iubire, pace, siguran?? moral? ?i, ?n cele din urm?, propria via??. Iar de la ea a primit ?n schimb doar ?ndoial?, nesiguran??, dispre? fa?? de sine ?i contradic?ii de nerezolvat”. Invoc? ?i crede ?ntr-o educa?ie care nu perverte?te inocen?a. A studiat ?n Occident diverse tehnici educa?ionale ?i s-a declarat nemul?umit de ele. Oamenii de r?nd ?i copiii sunt de?in?torii unei inocen?e autentice pe care civiliza?ia, cu normele ei educa?ionale sau prin reformele politice tind s-o strice. Individul singur avea posibilitatea s? se ridice singur f?r? ajutorul altor sisteme ?i institu?ii. Construie?te singur ?coli ?i s? inventeze metode noi de studiu. Crezul lui fundamental era c? ?oamenii au o serie de nevoi primare, materiale ?i spirituale, acelea?i pretutindeni ?i ?n orice epoc?. Dac? acestea sunt satisf?cute, duc o via?? armonioas?, care e ?i scopul naturii umane”. Detest? atitudinea scriitorilor de a sacrifica exprimarea moralit??ii ?i adev?rului pentru a realiza doar lucruri frumoase.
Ivan Turgheniev este alt reprezentat al g?ndirii specific ruse?ti la care se opre?te Berlin. Dar ?nainte de a-i diseca romanul P?rin?i ?i copii (care ?n 1862, c?nd a ap?rut a creat o furtun? f?r? precedent ?n litratura rus?), Berlin ?l a?az? pe autor ?n contextul istoric ca fiin?? pe deplin con?tient? ?i cu propriile lui reflexe. Turgheniev este un observator des?v?r?it al st?rii de spirit ruse?ti, nu este a?a de p?tima? precum contemporanii s?i. "Mai sensibil ?i mai scrupulos, mai pu?in obsedat ?i mai pu?in intolerant dec?t marii morali?ti fr?m?nta?i din epoca lui", ?ns? condamn? odiosul regim autocrat, dar ?i barbaria revolu?ionar? care vrea s? mature totul ?n calea ei. "Credea ?n progresul lent, realizat doar de minorit??i, dac? reu?esc s? nu se distrug? ?ntre ele. Literatura este ?i pentru el un mijloc de a scoate adev?rul din mla?tina societ??ii ruse?ti. Dar nu avea mania s? predice prin scris; nu ?ndrum? cititorul oferindu-i repere care s?-i rezolve dilemele, nu-i ofer? solu?ii. Furtuna era cumva garantat?.
Dar chiar ?i a?a, r?m?ne oarecum deta?at de problemele politice. P?streaz? o distan?? care-i permite s? critice de pe pozi?ia unui realism lucid angajamentele colegilor s?i de genera?ie dedica?i trup ?i suflet cauzei. C?nd Herzen este dezam?git de e?ecul liberalismul occidental ?i propune ?n schimb promovarea ??ranului rus ?i a organiz?rii lui ca etap? de re?nnoire a lumii occidentale, Turgheniev consider? aceasta o imens? exagerare. Nu avea solu?ii la ?ntreb?rile sociale stringente ?i nici nu adera la nicio ideologie, iar, ?n polarizata societatea rus? l-a transformat ?n ?int? a criticilor din ambele p?r?i, reac?ionar? ?i revolu?ionar?. El doar "?n?elegea ambele fa?ete ale vie?ii". Cu romanul P?rin?i ?i copii ajunge practic ?ntre nicovala reac?ionar? ?i ciocanul revolu?ionar ?i nimeni nu-l iart?.
July 27, 2010
Russian Thinkers is a classic work on Russian literature and ideas. Included in this excellent collection of essays Isaiah Berlin has a fascinating essay, The Hedgehog and the Fox. In this essay Berlin uses the distinction found in a fragment of the poet Archilocus that argues that there are two types of thinkers: Hedgehogs, who know one big thing and foxes, who know many things. Berlin goes on to categorize the great thinkers of the ages into groups based on this distinction. Hedgehogs like Dante, Plato, Lucretius, Pascal and Dostoevsky versus foxes like Shakespeare, Herodotus, Aristotle, Goethe and Balzac. He goes on to attempt to classify Tolstoy and analyze his view of history. It is a worthy task and I will recommend to all that they read the essay and decide for themselves what Berlin succeeds in accomplishing with all his analysis. It is essays like this one that document the seriousness of the thought of Isaiah Berlin.
This collection of essays also include discussion of other Russian luminaries, including Alexander Herzen, Belinsky, Tolstoy, Bakunin, and the populists (including Chernyshevsky). Four essays in particular document the birth and development of the Russian Intelligentsia in the Nineteenth Century. These provide a valuable introduction to ideas that eventually, after much more development, led to the ultimate demise of Czarist Russia and the Bolshevik Revolution. Combined with Berlin's insight into literary writers like Turgenev the result is a magnificent tome--both a rewarding and delightful collection of essays.
This collection of essays also include discussion of other Russian luminaries, including Alexander Herzen, Belinsky, Tolstoy, Bakunin, and the populists (including Chernyshevsky). Four essays in particular document the birth and development of the Russian Intelligentsia in the Nineteenth Century. These provide a valuable introduction to ideas that eventually, after much more development, led to the ultimate demise of Czarist Russia and the Bolshevik Revolution. Combined with Berlin's insight into literary writers like Turgenev the result is a magnificent tome--both a rewarding and delightful collection of essays.
January 25, 2008
Tom Stoppard brought this classic back into vogue when he cited it as inspiration for his recent epic, "The Coast of Utopia."
Thrilling, incandescent writing. Even if you only read "The Hedgehog and the Fox," the most celebrated essay in this justly celebrated collection, Isaiah Berlin's dazzling book deserves a place in your library.
The subject of "Hedgehog" is Tolstoy's inability to forge a scientific theory of history, but Berlin ranges effortlessly across 19th century Russian history, literary criticism, and philosophy. His erudition is humbling (readers who, like me, are not trilingual, will have to skip the French and Russian quotes and footnotes), but Berlin is never less than fabulous company. This is a desert island book. I recommend it without reservation to serious readers of literature.
Thrilling, incandescent writing. Even if you only read "The Hedgehog and the Fox," the most celebrated essay in this justly celebrated collection, Isaiah Berlin's dazzling book deserves a place in your library.
The subject of "Hedgehog" is Tolstoy's inability to forge a scientific theory of history, but Berlin ranges effortlessly across 19th century Russian history, literary criticism, and philosophy. His erudition is humbling (readers who, like me, are not trilingual, will have to skip the French and Russian quotes and footnotes), but Berlin is never less than fabulous company. This is a desert island book. I recommend it without reservation to serious readers of literature.
Currently reading
July 18, 2012Do his insights really penetrate, or is it just the supremely self-assured prose? No, they do. Amazing essay on Tolstoy, even if a Tolstoy I barely recognize: "an incurable love of the concrete, the empirical, the verifiable, and an instinctive distrust of the abstract, the impalpable, the supernatural – in short an early tendency to a scientific and positivist approach, unfriendly to romanticism, abstract formulations, metaphysics. Always and in every situation he looked for 'hard' facts – for what could be grasped and verified by the normal intellect, uncorrupted by intricate theories divorced from tangible realities, or by other-worldly mysteries, theological, poetical and metaphysical alike . . . [He] remained an enemy of transcendentalism from the beginning to the end of his life.”
March 26, 2024
I picked up this book because I had been both fascinated and confused by Berlin's essay "the Hedgehog and the Fox many years ago, and that essay is included in this collection. I remembered the essay as about Tolstoy and Dostoevsky -- Tolstoy being a fox who wanted to be a hedgehog and Dostoevsky a hedgehogs who wanted to be a fox. But this version of that essay says almost nothing about Dostoevsky, and a lot about Alexander Heren, who seems to be Berlin's hero, his model for the ideal attitude toward history, government, and life.
Immersing himself in Tolstoy's writing and speaking as if he were Tolstoy, he says: "Only unconscious activity bears fruit and the individual who plays a part in historical events never understands their significance. If he attempts to understand them, he is struck with sterility." p. 34 "... these men must be impostors since no theories can possibly fit the immense variety of possible human behavior, the vast multiplicity of minute, undiscoverable causes and effects which form that interplay of men and nature which history purports to record ... This, then, is the great illusion which Tolstoy sets himself to expose: that individuals can, by the use of their own resources, understand and control the course of events." p. 35 "History is plainly not a science, and sociology, which pretends that it is, is a fraud; no genuine laws of history have been discovered, and the concepts in current use -- 'cause', 'accident', 'genius' -- explain nothing: they are merely thin disguises for ignorance."
Sometimes a rambling, carefully balanced run-on sentence sums up and ties together the life-work many well-known authors. In this one he is ostensibly talking about Tolstoy, but ranges far with intriguing generalizations. "Utterly unlike her as he is in almost every other respect, Tolstoy is, perhaps, the first to propound the celebrated accusation which Virginia Woolf half a century later levelled against the public prophets of her generation -- Shaw and Wells and Arnold Bennett -- blind materialists who did not begin to understand what it is that life truly consists of, who mistook its outer accidents, the unimportant aspects which lie outside the individual soul -- the so-called social, economic, political realities -- for that which alone is genuine, the individual experience, the specific relation of individuals to one another, the colors, smells, tastes, sounds, and movements, the jealousies, loves, hatreds, passions, the rare flashes of insight, the transforming moments, the ordinary day-to-day succession of private data which constitute all there is -- which are reality." p. 36
He clarifies the views and the important influence of the critic Belinsky: "...he remained faithful tot he romantic doctrine that the best and least alloyed art was necessarily the expression not merely of the individual artist but always of a milieu, a culture, a nation, whose voice, conscious and unconscious, the artist was, a function without which he became trivial and worthless, and in the context of which alone his own personality possessed any significance." p. 161 "The value and the influence of his position reside precisely in his lack of, and conscious opposition to, artistic detachment: for he saw in literature he expression of everything that men have felt and thought and have had to say about life and society, their central attitude to man's situation and to the world, the justification of their whole life and activity, and consequently locked on it with the deepest possible concern." p. 184
He quotes Annenkov and clearly wishes that he too could have met Herzen face-to-fact. "...I was puzzled and overwhelmed, when I first came to know Herzen -- by this extraordinary mind which darted from one topic to another with unbelievable swiftness, with inexhaustible wit and brilliance; which could see in the turn of somebody's talk, in some simple incident, in some abstract idea, that vivid feature which gives expression and life." p. 189
Berlin brilliantly summarizes Herzen's life work. "Herzen declares that any attempt to explain human conduct in terms of, or to dedicate human beings to the service of, any abstraction, be it never so noble -- justice, progress, nationality -- even if preached by impeccable altruists like Mazzini or Louis Blanc or Mill, always leads in the end to victimization and human sacrifice. Men are not simple enough, human lives and relations are too complex for standard formulas and neat solutions, and attempts to adapt individuals and fit them into a rational schema, conceived in terms of a theoretical idea, be the motives for doing it never so lofty, always lead in the end to a terrible maiming of human beings, to political vivisection on a ever increasing scale." p. 193 "...the goal of life is life itself, ... to sacrifice the present to some vague and unpredictable future is a form of delusion which leads to the destruction of all that alone is valuable in men and societies -- to the gratuitous sacrifice of the flesh and blood of live human beings upon the altar of idealized abstractions." p. 194 And he quotes Herzen directly, "We think that the purpose of the child is to grow up because it does grow up. But its purpose is to play, to enjoy itself, to be a child. If we merely look to the end of the process, the purpose of all life is death." p. 196
I now feel compelled to read Herzen's autobiography My Past and Thoughts.
Immersing himself in Tolstoy's writing and speaking as if he were Tolstoy, he says: "Only unconscious activity bears fruit and the individual who plays a part in historical events never understands their significance. If he attempts to understand them, he is struck with sterility." p. 34 "... these men must be impostors since no theories can possibly fit the immense variety of possible human behavior, the vast multiplicity of minute, undiscoverable causes and effects which form that interplay of men and nature which history purports to record ... This, then, is the great illusion which Tolstoy sets himself to expose: that individuals can, by the use of their own resources, understand and control the course of events." p. 35 "History is plainly not a science, and sociology, which pretends that it is, is a fraud; no genuine laws of history have been discovered, and the concepts in current use -- 'cause', 'accident', 'genius' -- explain nothing: they are merely thin disguises for ignorance."
Sometimes a rambling, carefully balanced run-on sentence sums up and ties together the life-work many well-known authors. In this one he is ostensibly talking about Tolstoy, but ranges far with intriguing generalizations. "Utterly unlike her as he is in almost every other respect, Tolstoy is, perhaps, the first to propound the celebrated accusation which Virginia Woolf half a century later levelled against the public prophets of her generation -- Shaw and Wells and Arnold Bennett -- blind materialists who did not begin to understand what it is that life truly consists of, who mistook its outer accidents, the unimportant aspects which lie outside the individual soul -- the so-called social, economic, political realities -- for that which alone is genuine, the individual experience, the specific relation of individuals to one another, the colors, smells, tastes, sounds, and movements, the jealousies, loves, hatreds, passions, the rare flashes of insight, the transforming moments, the ordinary day-to-day succession of private data which constitute all there is -- which are reality." p. 36
He clarifies the views and the important influence of the critic Belinsky: "...he remained faithful tot he romantic doctrine that the best and least alloyed art was necessarily the expression not merely of the individual artist but always of a milieu, a culture, a nation, whose voice, conscious and unconscious, the artist was, a function without which he became trivial and worthless, and in the context of which alone his own personality possessed any significance." p. 161 "The value and the influence of his position reside precisely in his lack of, and conscious opposition to, artistic detachment: for he saw in literature he expression of everything that men have felt and thought and have had to say about life and society, their central attitude to man's situation and to the world, the justification of their whole life and activity, and consequently locked on it with the deepest possible concern." p. 184
He quotes Annenkov and clearly wishes that he too could have met Herzen face-to-fact. "...I was puzzled and overwhelmed, when I first came to know Herzen -- by this extraordinary mind which darted from one topic to another with unbelievable swiftness, with inexhaustible wit and brilliance; which could see in the turn of somebody's talk, in some simple incident, in some abstract idea, that vivid feature which gives expression and life." p. 189
Berlin brilliantly summarizes Herzen's life work. "Herzen declares that any attempt to explain human conduct in terms of, or to dedicate human beings to the service of, any abstraction, be it never so noble -- justice, progress, nationality -- even if preached by impeccable altruists like Mazzini or Louis Blanc or Mill, always leads in the end to victimization and human sacrifice. Men are not simple enough, human lives and relations are too complex for standard formulas and neat solutions, and attempts to adapt individuals and fit them into a rational schema, conceived in terms of a theoretical idea, be the motives for doing it never so lofty, always lead in the end to a terrible maiming of human beings, to political vivisection on a ever increasing scale." p. 193 "...the goal of life is life itself, ... to sacrifice the present to some vague and unpredictable future is a form of delusion which leads to the destruction of all that alone is valuable in men and societies -- to the gratuitous sacrifice of the flesh and blood of live human beings upon the altar of idealized abstractions." p. 194 And he quotes Herzen directly, "We think that the purpose of the child is to grow up because it does grow up. But its purpose is to play, to enjoy itself, to be a child. If we merely look to the end of the process, the purpose of all life is death." p. 196
I now feel compelled to read Herzen's autobiography My Past and Thoughts.
March 4, 2023
Although I have yet to read Isaiah Berlin's later works, which include the books Four Concepts of Freedom and An Essay on Liberty, nevertheless it seems to me that in his later years he became a champion of liberal values and was more or less happy to proselytize for the American way of life. If only he had known how long he was going to live, (he nearly reached one hundred years of age,) I suspect he would have injected more of his political leanings into his early academically-leaning books like Russian Thinkers. Perhaps you would suggest that explicitly stated politics has no place in these types of books, or that at the time Berlin did not have the sufficient prestige that would have allowed him this discretion, but I would suggest that if one reads carefully, his political leanings are embodied in his books. In writing this review, I feel there is a balance to be struck between an individual's right to engage in polemics and the honest treatment of the text itself. But one should ask oneself the question: For all the knowledge that a man like Isaiah Berlin was able to garner in his years of studious writing, would it have been possible for him to offer more than the definitive history of the literary backbone that shaped the critical perspective of the Russian revolution? In my opinion, the fact that a man like Isaiah Berlin was not able to continue where Marx left off and offer his advice on how power could be realized within the body of the people and, furthermore, how the state could eventually be liquidated as, at last, society is freed to embrace a perfect socialism, causes an intellectual chill to settle over me that extends 'from Siberia to the scaffold'. The reality is that Berlin's books are to be obtained in our culture as commodities among commodities, and the fact that there is such a place (if only on the web) as the Isaiah Berlin literary archive and book depository, where such ostensibly revolutionary ideas are stored, neutralized and disenfranchised, implicitly fuels a cycle where reality is unable to catch up with the illusory self-generating image that capitalism produces and so is condemned to remain forever out of reach. Three stars.
February 8, 2018
In Russian Thinkers Isaiah Berlin surveys the century of intellectual ferment in Russia that led in nearly linear fashion to the disastrous Russian Revolution. At the commencement of the 19th century, Russia had a tiny educated class (less than 1% were literate), and it was oppressed by a repressive state, a sluggish bureaucracy, a Church swaddled in ignorance and hypocrisy, and an peasant class that lived in serfdom. When the amateur-hour Decembrist coup of 1825 predictably failed, it set off the beginnings of the formation of a class of educated young men who dreamed of a different future. Some merely sought traditional liberalization and reforms, while others pursued more radical paths. But as the 19th century progressed, the "liberation" of the serfs largely failed, and the repressions of the various Tsars intensified, the more radical voices eventually smothered more moderate ones. The result was a hard-edged version of utilitarianism that justified any level of violence in service to the supposed iron laws of communism. Berlin knew this field intimately, so he is able to analyze how and why this happened with a tone that is a mixture of sympathy for the plight those Russians found themselves in, but having seen the many horrors imposed upon Russia in the name of the Revolution, with a firm revulsion for its unjustifiable crimes against humanity. This book is lucidly written; save going to the original texts, there is no better non-academic guide to this fascinating but dreadful era.
June 24, 2021
Between the endless name dropping and the sometimes critical references to articles of the day, or turning points of thought Isaih is at his best making bold and a romantic assertions. There are great portions in each essay, but the nu-romantics from essay 3, and the dialectic (fox, hedgehog, and those who are damned to demand something they can’t quite mark) of the second essay were my favorite. It takes until Russian populism for him to really develop his initial talking points about Turgenev, but his takes on herzen get a bit repetitive.
Overall an awesome opening ressource picking apart historical literary circles and the critics they faced
Overall an awesome opening ressource picking apart historical literary circles and the critics they faced
February 25, 2023
Tegemist on Berlini 19. sajandi vene m?tlejaid k?stileva esseekogumikuga, millest lugeja saab hea ülevaate nii idanaabri suurimatest m?tlejatest tol sajandil kui ka üldise ekskursi vene aja- ja kultuurilukku.
Berlini elegantne stiil teeb ta esseed nauditavaks ka neile, kes ei loe teost akadeemilisest huvist. Samuti aitab tema esseede analüüsimine m?elda sellele, mis teeb ühe essee t?eliselt heaks. Eks ikka see, kui autoril on midagi uut ?elda teema kohta, millest tundus, et juba k?ik teada on. Berlinil on t?epoolest iga suure Vene m?tleja kohta midagi endale iseloomulikku ?elda, mingisugune suur ja huvitav üldistus teha.
Berlini elegantne stiil teeb ta esseed nauditavaks ka neile, kes ei loe teost akadeemilisest huvist. Samuti aitab tema esseede analüüsimine m?elda sellele, mis teeb ühe essee t?eliselt heaks. Eks ikka see, kui autoril on midagi uut ?elda teema kohta, millest tundus, et juba k?ik teada on. Berlinil on t?epoolest iga suure Vene m?tleja kohta midagi endale iseloomulikku ?elda, mingisugune suur ja huvitav üldistus teha.
March 2, 2021
Given Berlin’s Russian roots, I guess this should be a authentic depiction of the great Russian thinkers in 19th century. However, after reading it, I still don’t have a clear picture of what makes members of the cohort stand out from each other. It seems to me that they are categorized as either Slavophile or westernizers (mostly Romanticists). Conceptualization without much detail has limited value in interpreting the real spirit of a mysterious nation like Russia.
June 21, 2024
Rather illuminating - looks at some of the key mid-19th century bearded Russians (OK, Belinsky is the exception to prove the rule here - but what a magnificent cover) and places them in a wider context, in brilliant style. For all the magnificence and effort, there are some minor misquotes or mistranslations in the main text, and an occasional minor mistake in the glossary (eg. misdating Derzhavin's most famous piece or Vera Figner's return to Russia).
July 24, 2022
Since I was young I have always wanted to add a tattoo or two, but struggled with the design, since most of my ideas seemed to be idiotic, looking back a decade later. However, after reading this, I’ve decided to tattoo Turgenev on my left chest, Alexander Herzen on my right, and Hegel on my ass……
June 11, 2019
Outstanding
November 11, 2020
毫不夸张地说，从这本书开始，以赛亚·伯林为我打开了一个新世界的入口。自此之后，我简直恨不得建议每一个碰到的人去读读这本书。
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.