with the Redemptorists. The conversion of Gagarin and of Pečerin took place after the appearance of Čaadaev's Writing, which was perhaps contributory. Čaadaev himself did not become a Catholic, and his views upon the Russian church underwent a change. But we lack sufficient information as to Čaadaev's thoughts concerning the leading problems of theology and religion, and above all we are ill informed as to his views upon the relationships between the two leading Catholic churches, as to his estimate of their differences in point of dogma and as to his detailed hopes for their reunion. The abstract character of his fondness for the papacy is plainly shown by his selection of England, rather than France, or Austria under Metternich, as the ideal of a religious land.
Čaadaev's sympathy with Catholicism and the papacy prejudiced him with the liberals as well as with Uvarov, as is manifested by the protests of Odoevskii and Puškin. Puškin unfortunately took part against his friend in the Vjazemskii denunciation of Čaadaev to the minister for education. Dostoevskii, when composing the greatest of his novels, desired to make Čaadaev, with his fondness for Catholicism the leading figure in the story. Thus persistent was the influence of Čaadaev, and thus extensive was the significance attached to him by his successors.
§ 50.
ČAADAEV was astonished at the vogue of his Writing, and he endeavoured in his Apology to justify and expound the earlier work. It is undeniable that the exposition weakened his criticism of Russia, but it must also be admitted that in the Apology many of the utterances of the Writing are clarified. In the last-named work, some of the concepts are presented with inadequate precision, and this makes it difficult to decide whether Čaadaev's later views represent a natural development or the withdrawals of a weakling. It is necessary to emphasise the crudity of the Writing. Almost childish is the way in which Čaadaev fails to recognise that his commendation of England and of the English religious spirit conflicts with the fundamental thesis of his work. The more closely we examine that work, the more strongly are we impressed with the indefiniteness of its leading ideas. Čaadaev is no more than a philosophic improviser, an aphorist whose views had not been logically thought out and systematised.
