We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 January 2017
In the historiography of the Russian intelligentsia, liberal Slavophilism has suffered a sad neglect. Whereas Marxist and Populist historians alike have hallowed the radical Westernizers, the liberal Slavophiles have been relegated to a minor position, and Slavophilism presented as an ideology of obscurantist conservatism. In one respect this is understandable: the liberal Slavophiles were above all moderates and did not offer the violent expressions of resentment against the existing order that appealed so much to the revolutionary mentality. But although moderate, Slavophilism in the forties and fifties was a powerful progressive force, instrumental in bringing about the Great Reforms. In their concrete notions of reform and their determination and ability to carry them out, the liberal Slavophiles far surpassed the Westernizers, who in the forties were still groping in the labyrinth of Hegelian philosophy and who in the fifties were disoriented by the failure of the revolution of 1848.
1
(Leningrad, 1928), pp. 462-63.
2
, 1812-1883 (Berlin, 1884), Appendix, pp. 7-14; 
B. A.
B. A.
(Moscow, 1901, 1904), I, 11-20.
3
II, 1855-1881 (Paris, 1905), pp. 31-32.
4
, Appendix, pp. 7-14.
5
(Paris, 1926), p. 54.
6
, op. cit., p. 10.
7
, Appendix, p. 45.
8
, No. 1 (1858), pp. i-ii; 
, op. cit., I, 109.
9
, op. cit., p. 8.
10
ibid., pp. 37-43, 56-59; 
(Moscow, 1877-96), VII, pp. ii-iii, xxxvi-xxxvii.
11 Ibid., II, 115.
12
, op. cit., I, Appendix, pp. 84, 88-90.
13 Ibid., I, 294, Appendix, pp. 1-2.
14 Ibid., II, 1-10.
15
(St. Petersburg, 1906), pp. 36-39;
(Berlin, 1860-62), II, 93-112.
16 ibid., II, 139-40.
17
, p. 117.
18
, No. 4, 1899, pp. 106-8.
19
II(St. Petersburg, 1889-92), I, 610-13.
20
op. cit., II, 83.
21 Ibid., p. 84.
22 ibid., Appendix, pp. 36-45.
23
, Appendix, pp. 172-76.
24
(Bonn, 1862-68), I, 19-20.
25 ibid., pp. 780-82.
26
, Appendix, p. 195.
27
op. cit., II, 95.
28 Ibid., p. 95.
29 ibid., pp. 139-42.
30
op. cit., pp. 113-17; , Appendix, pp. 186-88.
31
op. cit., II, 415-26.
32
op. cit., II, 160-61.
33
(Leipzig, 1862), pp. 5-39.
34
(Leipzig, 1862), pp. 36-41.
35 Ibid., pp. 42-46.
36 ibid., pp. 22-24.
37
…, pp. 62-63.
38
, op. cit., II, 351-52.
39 Ibid., p. 352.
40 Ibid., pp. 352-53.
41 Ibid., p. 357.
42 ibid., p. 358.
43 Ibid., pp. 358-60.
44 Ibid., Appendix, pp. 121-27.
45 ibid., pp. 428-25
46 Ibid., p. 430.
47 Ibid., pp. 431-32.
48 ibid., pp. 432-33.
49 Ibid., pp. 433-34.
50 Ibid., p. 435.
51 Ibid., p. 426.
52 Ibid.
53 Ibid., pp. 390-91.
54 Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu, Un homme d'État russe (Nicolas Miluti7ie) d'aprés sa correspondance inédite (Paris, 1884), p. 110.
55 ibid., pp. 110-11.
56
, XXIX (1881), 14.
57 ibid., p. 14.
58
op. cit., II, 420.
59 Ibid., p. 426.
