p If Ilerzen’s mistake was that he sought anti-philistinism in "the crowd, the grey masses”, our author regards as one of his greatest merits his rejection of the current contrasting of altruism 522 and egoism. This rejection, "which, is not accompanied moreover by the morality of utilitarianism (as it was in the pnhlicists of the sfxties). transfers us to the elhical individualism of the religiousphilosophical trend at Ihe beginning of the twentieth century" (I. 340). So says Mr. Ivanov-Raznmnik. And it must, he admitted that it is perfectly right theoretically to reject Ihe contrasting of altruism and egoism. But our author is very mistaken when he argues on these grounds that Her/en "was the first to show the true path from ethical iuividnalism to sociological individualism and built a bridge on this spot between Slavophilism and Westernism" (I. 341). In fact Herzen could not have claimed to he the first in this respect for the simple reason that, in rejecting the contrasting of altruism and egoism, he was simply repeating an idea frequently expressed by Hegel, whose philosophy he, together with many of his thinking contemporaries, studied carefully in the first half of the forties. If our author had studied this philosophy as carefully as Herzen, he would have understood that the question of “individualism” does not permit of any abstract solutions and acquires a definite meaning only when it is examined from the viewpoint of definite historical conditions. Ilerzen, as a pupil of Hegel’s, remarks aptly in this connection: "Harmony between the individual and society is not established once and for all. it is developed  [522•*  by each period, almost by each country and changes with the circumstances, like every living thing. There can be no general standard, no general solution here."  [522•**  The form taken by the relations of the individual to society at any given historical time depends in the final analysis on the socio-economic system of the time. The development of the socioeconomic system in its turn is determined by the development of the society’s productive forces and not by the way in which this or that theoretician regards the question of individualism: theoreticians’ views are themselves determined by the course of socioeconomic development. If theoreticians do not realise this; if they seek harmony between the individual and society in the sphere of abstract, albeit sociological, constructions, they are merely showing that they have not yet ceased to be Utopians. Herzen who. in so far as lie iras an Hegelian, realised that a general solution of the question of individualism was impossible, remained a Utopian and in so jar as he remained one, was prepared to seek for a general solution to this question. Thus, in the pamphlet Da Dcveloppement des idees revoLutionnaires en Russie (p. 141) he reproaches the Slavophils for not saying how they resolve the great antinomy between the freedom of the individual and the slate. As a person who strove to solve this "great anti- 523 nomy" he did not differ at all from the other Utopian socialists of his day. And if he teased some of them with the unexpected question as to why each individual person should sacrifice himself to society.  [523•*  this shows not that he abandoned the abstract ground of ntopianism, but merely that, while remaining on it. he revealed as a former pupil of Hegel’s far more flexibility of thought than the majority of Utopians, who—especially in France—did not have the slightest idea about Hegel. But Mr. Ivanov-Razumnik, who is destined to see the strength of the Russian writers studied by him in that which constituted their weakness, praises Herzen precisely for these attempts to find an abstract solution to the "great antinomy".

p When a person wishes to find a general solution to a question that does not permit of any general solutions, he becomes, without realising it, a scholastic helplessly enmeshed in his own definitions. Take Mr. Ivanov-Razumnik, for example. He, who, of course, pesters the Slavophils also with the question of how they solve the problem  [523•**  of “individualism”, discovers in Slavophilism some “undoubted” anarchist conceptions.  [523•***  "The distinctive anarchism of Tolstoy, but mainly of Dostoyevsky and the religious Romantics,” he remarks, "originates directly from the Slavophilism" (I, 324). But the anarchist conception is. as we know, an anti-state conception. Therefore, having heard from our author that the Slavophils were inclined towards anarchism, the reader will be totally confused on encountering the following phrase by him: "the individual is for the state.  [523•****  otherwise there will be egoism, self-will—that was the usual argument of the Slavophils" (1. 340, 341). There are "anarchist conceptions" for you! How can this be so? It is very simple: in his efforts to find a general solution of the question of individualism, Mr. Ivanov-Raznmnik has entered a dark realm in which all cats look grey and "anarchist conceptions" are the split image of the conceptions of the extreme supporters of a strong slate.

p After this we shall not be surprised to read the following lines in his book: "The Slavophils and the Westerners were the first to introduce a certain schematisation necessary for the theoretical solution of the problem of individualism. They disagreed with eacli other on many things, without realising that in many respects their dispute was a dispute about words; however careful 524 definition of terminology is the first step towards an understanding of a dispute" (I, 314).

p If anyone has nevertheless expressed some astonishment at these words of Mr. Ivanov-Razumnik’s, I would draw his attention to the following parallel:

p In his dispute with Samarin the Westerner Ravelin wrote: "So far ... in all the changes in social life in our day I can see one very clearly expressed desire: to give man, the individual, as much development as possible" ... (quoted by Razumnik on p. 315. I).

p For his part, the Slavophil Khomyakov maintained: "Mankind’s labour appears in two forms—in the development of society and in the development of individuals" (quoted by Mr. Razumnik, I. 319).

p This is indeed almost one and the same thing. But one must add to it the following apt remark by Mr. Ivanov-Razumnik concerning Khomyakov’s words which I have just quoted: "And this is the general opinion of Slavophilism as a whole in its attitude not to man, but to the individual: in revolting strongly against the extremes of sociological individualism, Slavophilism was not only not going against the individual as an ethical principle, but, on the contrary, was giving it pride of place" (I, 319).

p This parallel suggests that it would be quite right to say that the views of the Slavophils were very close to those of the Westerners. But in this case, what were the Slavophils and Westerners arguing about? And why did they bring into their dispute so much of the powerful passion that is usually generated only by great historical questions?

p The fact of the matter is, reader, that the dispute of the Slavophils with the Westerners was by no means generated by the abstract "problem of individualism”. Certainly not!

p In the course of this dispute each of the sides was, of course, compelled to turn to this “problem” also, just as it was compelled to turn to a whole number of other “problems”. But the essence of the dispute did not lie in this. The essence of the dispute was pointed out by Ilerzen as early as 1851. "The people has remained the indifferent spectators of December 14,” he wrote. "Every conscious person has seen the terrible result of the complete rupture between national Russia and Europeanised Russia. All connections between them had been broken; it had to be restored; but how? This was the great question."  [524•* 

p This was indeed the question. It could be answered only by finding a solution to the task that once tormented Belinsky: to discover in objective Russian reality contradictions the further development of which would lead to its negation.

Our author has overlooked both this great question and the only possible answer to it. I repeat, he belongs to the category of people who do not notice the elephant.