and, alike in their philosophical and political forms, I always looked upon them sceptically, just as I regarded Western culture with a critical eye. We have no right to talk, as the Slav and the German Messianists did, of the “decline of the West.” Nor, for my part, do I accept Spengler’s philosophy or the theory of the decline of the Germans. Deeper knowledge points to a synthesis of culture, to the influence of all nations, Slav and non-Slav, upon each other. Our whole history and our geographical position demand such synthesis; and my answer to the old saying “Ex oriente lux” is that light comes likewise from the West. In truth, this synthesis is already going on, in philosophy and science, in mechanics and in the externals of civilization generally. In literature and art we know how long and how eagerly the Slavs have been absorbing Western culture, while, in the West, Russian literature has been gladly read, never with more avidity than in recent years. As the French novelist, Paul Adam, said years ago, “The Empires of the East and of the West must espouse each other.”
Before the war, as I have shown, the reciprocal influences of Western literature were strong in France, England, America and Italy. Even after the war the outlook is promising. Such Europeanism supplements and develops the healthy germ in Kollár’s doctrine of reciprocity. It excludes only romantic Messianism and Chauvinism. In so far as it draws attention to the good qualities and special aptitudes of peoples, Messianism, that is to say belief in a national mission, has some merits. Sober critics will not exclude it wholly from their purview but will rather assign proper value to all living forms of culture. Thus they may prepare an organic synthesis, each nation fostering its own special genius and qualities under the influence of every vivifying factor in civilization.
This general rule has to be adapted and applied to individual cases. It is hard to say precisely what foreign influences have affected us most deeply and permanently, and still harder to decide which of them was most congenial and in what measure. For this we should need to know what our own national character consists in, how far our national being and striving are on right lines, what makes up the value of our culture and what foreign influences are suitable to it. When we were under official compulsion to adopt the German language and German culture, we naturally resisted them and welcomed other influences and examples, especially French, Slav and Russian. Our chief task is now to work out a critical, scientific philosophy of
