484

p Oh, ironie, sainte ironie, viens, que je t’adore!  [484•* 
P. J. Proudhon

p Mr. Ivanov-Razumnik has written a two-volume History of Russian Social Thought which has run into a second edition in a short time. And although, of course, the success of any given work can never guarantee its intrinsic worth, it does at leastshow that the content of this work meets certain requirements of the reading public. Therefore any work that is a success deserves the attention of those who for this or that reason are interested in readers’ tastes. With regard to Mr. Ivanov-Razumnik’s work in particular, it is of interest also because it deals with an extremely important subject. How can a Russian fail to be interested in the history of the development of Russian social thought?

p I read Mr. Ivanov-Razumnik’s “study”, as Mr. Kareyev is fond of saying, most avidly. I read it and ... understood the reason for the success which our new historian of Russian social thought undoubtedly enjoys here today.

p Any process of development, any “history” appears differently to people, according to the point of view from which they regard it. A point of view is a great thing. It was not without reason that Feuerbach once said man differed from the ape only in his point of view. What then is Mr. Ivanov-Razumnik’s point of view?

It is characterised by the sub-title of his book: Individualism and Philistinism in Nineteenth-Century Russian Literature and Life. Mr. Ivanov-Razumnik is the irreconcilable enemy of philistinism. Philistinism is the shibboleth^^138^^ with the help of which he determines—positively or negatively—the services of Russian writers: anyone who lias fought philistinism enjoys his sympathy; anyone who has reconciled himself to philistinism, submitted to it or, which is even worse, has preached it himself, is censured. In conformity with this the history of Russian social thought is also presented as something in the nature of a lengthy combat between thinking Russians,—meaning the intelligentsia,—and pllilistinism. In this lengthy combat the "luck of battle" is very often 485 on the side of the thinking Russians. Here, for example, we learn from Mr. Ivanov-Razumnik "that the people of the thirties and forties, the Westerners, the Slavophils, Belinsky and Herzen, gave battle to ethical philistinism—and vanquished philistinism drifted away like a mist in the bright dawn of the sixties" (Vol. I, p. 225). Naturally, this would be most heartening, even if it were said in less high-flown language. But here is the rub: having "drifted away like a mist" vanquished philistinism again and again gathers as a black cloud over thinking people. Thus, having informed us of the victory of the people of the thirties and forties over "ethical philistinism”, Mr. Ivanov-Razumnikj adds mournfully: "Only it is a pity that this victory was riot a final one.” It certainly is a pity! And it is an even greater pity that thinking people,—not only in Russia, but all over the world,—are evidently not fated to conquer philistinism at any time at all. Take socialism, for example. Many think that the triumph of socialism would mean the final defeat of philistinism. But this is a grave error. Mr. Ivanov-Razumnik reminds his readers of Herzen’s “heretical” idea that "socialism, while remaining victorious on the battle-field, will itself degenerate into philistinism" (Vol. I, p. 369, italics as in the original). And to his reminder he adds: "this idea about socialism’s potential philistinism has been comprehended only by the generation of the Russian intelligentsia of the beginning of the twentieth century”. I cannot proceed to examine straightway exactly what Herzen’s "heretical idea" was and precisely how it has been understood by "the generation of the beginning of the twentieth century”. I shall have to discuss this in great detail below. For the moment I should like merely to direct the reader’s attention to the fact that if even socialism does not get the better of philistinism, it is clear that the latter really is invincible, or, to put it more precisely, must seem invincible to us, who live, struggle, suffer and hope at the "beginning of the twentieth century”. For so far we have not thought up anything better than socialism, yet it transpires that socialism too is suffering from philistinism, at least “potential” philistinism. How is one not to lose heart? How is one not to exclaim:

_p Ah, woe to us who have been born in this world!

p But whence the invincible power of philistinism? And what precisely is it?

_p By understanding the concept of philistinism we shall at the same time gain a clear idea of Mr. Ivanov-Razumnik’s point of view. But in order to understand the concept of philistinism properly, we shall have to part company with our author for a while and turn to Herzen. All digressions are annoying; some of them, however, are occasionally not only useful, but absolutely necessary, and one must reconcile’oneself to them.

r