p Alas, there is nothing new under the sun! All the gospels of Messrs Merezhkovsky, Minsky, and their ilk prove—at least in their negative attitude to the imaginary philistinism of the West European proletariat—to be but a new copy of a much worn original. But this is only half the sorry tale. The real tragedy is that the original which our half-baked denouncers of proletarian philistinism reproduce is itself saturated through and through with the spirit of the bourgeoisie. It is a kind of mockery of fate, and, one must admit, a very bitter, malicious mockery. While reproaching the "hungry proletarians" engaged in bitter struggle for the right to a human existence with philistinism, the French Parnassians and Decadents themselves not only did not turn up their noses at worldly goods, but, on the contrary, were incensed with contemporary bourgeois society, by the way, for failing to assure an adequate supply of the good things of life to them, the Parnassians and Decadents, the sensitive votaries of beauty and truth. Regarding the class movement of the proletariat as the offspring of a base feeling of envy, they had no objection whatever to society being divided into classes. Flaubert wrote in one of his letters to Renan: "I thank you for having risen against democratic equality, which seems to me to be an element of death in the world.” It is not surprising, therefore, that with all their hatred of philistinism, the "Parnassians and Decadents" took the side of the bourgeoisie in its struggle against the innovative aspirations of the proletariat. Nor is it less surprising that before locking themselves "in their ivory tower" they spared no effort to improve their own material position in bourgeois society. The hero of Huysmans’ famous novel A rebours is so revolted by philistinism that he decides to build his entire life the opposite way to what it is in bourgeois society (hence the title: The Other Way Round, inside out). He begins, however, by putting his own financial affairs in order, making sure of an income, I think, of some 50,000 francs. With all his heart and soul he detests philistinism, but it does not enter his head that it is only thanks to the philistine (capitalist) mode of production that he can receive his large income without lifting a finger and indulge in his anti-philistine extravagances. He wants the cause, but hates the consequences inevitably flowing from this cause. He wants the bourgeois economic order but despises the sentiments and moods it creates. He is an enemy of philistinism; but this does not prevent him from being a philistine to the very core, since in his rebellion against philistinism he does not once 396 raise his hand against the foundations of the philistine economic order.

p Mr. Merezhkovsky speaks of the tragedy which Herzen experienced under the influence of the impressions he had formed of " philistine" Europe. I shall not dilate here upon this tragedy. I shall only say that Mr. Merezhkovsky has understood it even less than the late N. Strakhov, who wrote about it in his book The Struggle with the West in Our Literature.  [396•*  But I should like to draw the reader’s attention to the tragic conflict which must inevitably arise in the mind of a man who sincerely despises “philistinism” and at the same time is utterly incapable of abandoning a philistine view of the basis of social relations. Such a man will become a pessimist in his social views whether he likes it or not: he has really nothing to expect from social development.

p But it is not easy to be a pessimist. It is not everyone who can bear the burden of pessimism. And so he who finds “philistinism” repulsive averts his gaze from the earth, soaked through and through and for ever with “philistinism”, and turns it towards ... heaven. There takes place that "devastating of man and nature" of which I spoke earlier. The phantom of the other world presents itself in the form of an inexhaustible reservoir of every kind of antiphilistinism, and thus prepares the most direct route into the domain of mysticism. It was no accident that the sincere and honest Huysmans lived his own works so profoundly that he ended his days as a thorough-going mystic, almost a monk.

Taking all this into account, we shall have no trouble in determining the sociological equivalent of the religious seekings which are making themselves felt so strongly in our country, in an environment more or less—and even more than less—involved in Decadence.  [396•**