From the methodological point of view, much advantage can be derived from a comparison of Europe with Russia. Europeans will find that a study of Russian analogies makes their own problems more fully alive.
But in respect of matters of detail Russia and Russian development are likewise most instructive. The enormous extent of the country suffices to make it a world in miniature. The study of the Europeanisation of Russia, expanding as it does into a study of reciprocal cultural influences, suggests numerous and extremely interesting problems. The study of Russia will give the sociologist a clearer insight into the problem of cultural mutuality and cultural unification, a problem that is of such profound importance to human evolution.
The philosopher of history who undertakes the study of Russia must perforce acquire a clearer understanding of the outlook of the middle ages and of earlier days, and he is thereby constrained to undertake a more accurate analysis of the essential nature of the modern epoch.
As far as I myself am concerned, I have no hesitation in saying, not merely that the study of Russia and Russian literature helped me to form more accurate estimates of the philosophies of Feuerbach and of Hegel, but further that it was through Russian philosophy and literature that I came to realise the world-historical importance of Hume and of Kant.
How instructive is the study of the Russian revolution. The interest of Europe in the Russian revolution was very great, and the Russian revolution had a favourable repercussion upon Europe. In Austria, for example, manhood suffrage was introduced as an outcome of the pressure exercised by the Russian revolution. It is true that the victory of the reaction in Russia was acclaimed by the European reaction, but it cannot be said that the delight in Europe was by any means intense.
The interest in the Russian revolution does not. attach solely to the political aspect of the question. The philosopher of history sees in the revolution the great religious and ethical problem of the age. This is a matter upon which we may learn something from the Russians.
The present studies will, I may hope, have made this point clear, and that is why I conclude by appealing to the reader's interest on behalf of the sequel, which will deal with Dostoevskii, the great analyst of the Russian revolution.
