Remarks on Books:

G. V. Plekhanov.
N. G. Chernyshevsky .
Shipovnik Publishing House.
St. Petersburg, 1910 (Part One)

Written not earlier than October 1909 and not later than April 1911.
Published in part in 1933 in Lenin Miscellany XXV .
Published in full for the first time.
Published according to the original.

Lenin’s Remarks in G. V. Plekhanov’s book “N. G. Chernyshevsky,” St. Petersburg, 1910 —-written not earlier than October 1909 (the
actual date of the book’s appearance) and not later than April 1911.
They were first published in 1933 in Lenin Miscellany XXV .

Many of Lenin’s comments are devoted to a comparison of statements by Plekhanov
in his book published in 1910 with his articles on Chernyshevsky
published in 1890 and 1892 in Sotsial-Demokrat , a literary and political
review (see Sotsial-Demokrat , Book 1, London, 1890; Book 2, Geneva, 1890;
Book 3, Geneva, 1890; Book 4, Geneva, 1892).

These four articles by Plekhanov were brought together in the book N. G. Chernyshevsky
appearing in Germany in 1894 in German. Plekhanov’s book, which gave, in
the main, a correct characterisation of Chernyshevsky’s views and which
sharply attacked the Narodniks, was favourably commented upon by Lenin in the
article “A Retrograde Trend in Russian Social-Democracy”
(see pres. ed., Vol. 4, Moscow, 1961, p. 271).

Plekhanov’s book N. G. Chernyshevsky published in 1910 was written
at a time when he had already gone over to Menshevism . It was
in effect directed against Bolshevism against the Bolshevist evaluation of the world outlook and activity of Chernyshevsky
and the revolutionary democrats of the 19th century. In this book, Plekhanov abandons
a number of basic propositions in his earlier evaluation of Chernyshevsky, obscuring
his revolutionary democratism, his resolute struggle against liberalism and his
backing of the peasant revolution.

Lenin carefully collates the text of the book published in 1910 with Plekhanov’s
articles in Sotsial-Demokrat , noting which of Plekhanov’s basic
formulations remained unchanged and which underwent radical change.

Lenin’s remarks and notations in Plekhanov’s book are inseparably
linked with his numerous statements on Chernyshevsky—in the writings
published before he became acquainted with Plekhanov’s book ( What the “Friends of the People” Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats , The Heritage We Renounce , On “Vekhi” ; , and Materialism and Empirio-Criticism ) as well as in those written afterwards ( Peasant Reform and Proletarian Peasant Revolution , In Memory of Herzen , From the Past of the Workers’ Press in Russia , etc.).

| INTRODUCTION [51]... The unfortunate outcome [52] of the Crimean War compelled the Government to make a few concessions to educated society and effect at least the more pressing reforms that had long since become indispensable. Soon the problem of freeing the peasants was placed on the order | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| of the day, a problem plainly affecting the inter- ests of all social-estates. Needless to say, Niko- lai Gavrilovich [2] eagerly set about elaborating the problem. His excellent articles on the peasants’ |
| cause were written in 1857 and 1858. The mutual relations of our social forces in the epoch of the abolition of serfdom are now fairly well known. We shall, therefore, mention them only in passing , | | |
| only insofar as it may be necessary to elucidate the role adopted in this matter by our advanced publi- cists , chief of whom then was N. G. Chernyshevsky. It is well known that these writers zealously defended the interests of the peasants. Our author wrote one article after another, advocating the emancipation of the peasants and giving them land, and maintaining that the Government would find no difficulty whatever in redeeming the lands allotted to the peasants. He supported his thesis both with general theoretical considerations and with the most detailed estimates. “Indeed, in what way can the redemption of land prove dif ficult? How can it be too much for the people to hear? That is improbable,” he wrote in the article “Is Land Redemption Difficult?” “It runs counter to the fundamental concepts of economics. Political economy teaches clearly that all the material capital which a certain generation takes over from previous generations is not too considerable in value compared with the mass of values produced by the labour of that generation. For example, all of the land belonging to the French people, together with all the buildings and their contents, together with all the ships and cargoes, all the livestock and money and other riches belonging to that country, is hardly worth a hundred thou- sand million francs, while the labour of the French people produces fifteen or more thousand million francs’ worth of values annually, i.e., in no more than seven years the French people produce a mass of values equal to that of the whole of France from the Channel to the Pyrenees. Consequently, if the French had to redeem all France, they could do so in the lifetime of one [53] generation, using only one-fifth of their revenue for the purpose. And what is the point at issue in our country? Is it the whole of Russia that we must redeem with all her riches? No, only the land. And is it to be all the Russian land? No, the redemption would affect only those gubernias of European Russia alone where serfdom is deep-rooted,” etc. [3] After showing that the lands to be redeemed would constitute no more than one-sixth of the area of European Russia, he puts forward as many as eight plans for carrying out redemption. According to him, if the Government were to accept any one of these plans, it could redeem the allotted lands not only without burdening the peasants, but also to the great advantage of the state treasury. Chernyshevsky’s plans were all based on the con- cept that it is “ necessary to fix the most moderate prices possible in determining the amount of redemption payments .” We know now how much consideration the Government gave to the interests of the peasantry in the abolition of serfdom and how much it heeded Chernyshevsky’s advice regarding moderation in fixing redemption payments. Whereas our government, in freeing the peasants, never for a moment forgot the bene- fits to the state treasury, it thought very little about the interests of the peasants. In the re- demption operations fiscal and landlord interests were exclusively borne in mind. |
| |
| ...[57] It was not on economic problems alone that Chernyshevsky had to wage a fierce polemic. Neither were his opponents only liberal econo- | | | | Sotsial-Dem- okrat No. 1, p. 152 |
| mists. As the influence of the Sovremennik circle [4] in Russian literature grew, the greater were the number of attacks launched from the most varied |
| [58] quarters both on that circle in general and on our author in particular. The contributors to Sovremennik were regarded as dangerous people who were prepared to destroy all the notorious “foundations.” Some of “Belinsky’s friends,” who at first considered it possible to go along with Cherny- | | | | |
| shevsky and those holding his views, repudiated the Sovremennik as an organ of the “Nihilists,” and began to exclaim that Belinsky would never | | | | Up to here So- tsial-Demokrat No. 1, p. 152 |
| have approved of its trend. Such was I. S. Turge- nev’s attitude. [5] Even Herzen grumbled at the “clowns,” in his Kolokol. [6] He warned them that: | | |
| “while exhausting all their ridicule over the litera- ture of exposures, our dear clowns forget that on this slippery path they may not merely ‘whistle’ themselves into becoming like Bulgarin and Grech, but even into being decorated with the Stanislav Order.” Herzen affirmed that there were excellent things in the “literature of exposures” that the “clowns” were ridiculing. “Do you imagine that all the tales of Shchedrin and others can just be hurled into the water together with Oblomov [7] on their necks? You indulge yourselves too much, gentlemen!” [8] .... The reference to
Shchedrin was extremely unfortunate since Chernyshevsky him- |
| self was well able to appreciate his works. In gen- eral, everything shows that Herzen was misled by his liberal friends, such as Kavelin . The | | | | NB |
| “clowns”—or “whistlers,” as they were called in Russia—were not ridiculing the exposures, but the naive people who could not or would not go beyond innocent exposures, forgetting the moral of Krylov’s fable The Cat and the Cook [9] .... Herzen himself was to see very soon how bad in a political sense were those liberal friends who |
| kept questioning his relations with Chernyshevsky. When he had to break with K. D. Kavelin, he perhaps told himself that the “jaundiced ones” were not entirely wrong. [10] [59] Incidentally, the majority of the articles in | | | | |
| Svistok which evoked the especial dissatisfaction of the well-bred liberals did not belong to the | | | | NB |
| pen of N. G. Chernyshevsky. Only rarely did he contribute to it, as he was overwhelmed with other work. In the closing years of his literary activity he contributed regularly to every issue of Sovremennik ; what is more, every issue usually contained several articles by him. As a general rule, his articles were distributed among the various sections of the journal as follows: first of all, be contributed an article on some general theoretical problem, then he wrote a political survey, reviewed several new books, and, lastly, by way of relaxation and diversion, as it were, he made polemical sorties against his opponents. The Sovremennik of 1861 was particularly rich in polemical articles written by him. It was at that time that he wrote his well-known “Polemical Gems,” “National Tactlessness” (attacking Slovo of Lvov), “Popular Muddleheadedness” (attacking Aksakov’s Den ; we shall speak of this article later), and numerous other polemical notes in the section of Russian and foreign literature. What is now especially interesting in “Polemi- cal Gems” is our author’s views on his own literary activity. We shall cite them here. Chernyshevsky was very well aware that he held a prominent place in Russian literature, His opponents dreaded him, and occasionally even paid him compliments. But his growing renown did not make him happy in the least. He had too low an opinion of Russian literature to consider the prominent place he occupied in it to be honourable. He was “com- pletely cold to his literary reputation.” The only thing he was interested in was whether he would be able to preserve the freshness of his thought and feeling till those better days when our litera- ture would become really useful to society. “I know that better times will come for literary activity, when it will be of real benefit to society, and when he who possesses talent will really earn a good name. And so I am wondering whether when the time comes I shall still be able to serve society properly. Fresh strength and fresh convictions are needed for this. But I see that I am beginning to join the company of ‘respected’ writers, that is to say, of those writers who have been wrung dry, who lag behind the movement of social require- ments. This rouses a feeling of bitterness. But what is there to be done? Age takes its toll. Youth does not come twice, [60] I can’t help envying those who are younger and fresher than I....” [11] [61] Meanwhile, feelings were rising, at least in a section of Russian “society.” The student youth were filled with unrest and secret revolu- tionary organisations were springing up which printed their own manifestoes and programmes and awaited an imminent peasant uprising. We already know that Chernyshevsky fully recognised the possibility of impending “troubled times” [12] |
| in Russia and we shall yet see how strongly the rise of the social mood was reflected in his activity as a publicist. But was he in any way connected | | | | NB |
| with the secret societies? It is not yet possible to reply with certainty to this question, and who knows whether we shall ever have the facts to answer it. In the opinion of M. Lemke, who made an excellent study of the N. G. Chernyshevsky case, “it can be presumed (his italics) that he was the author of the proclamation ‘To the Manorial Peasants,’ which the court found him guilty of having written.” Mr. Lemke supports his conjecture by pointing to the style and content of the procla- mation. We find these arguments not without foundation. But we hasten to repeat with Mr. Lem- ke that “all these are more or less probable consider- ations, and no more.” [13] We also consider fairly well founded Mr. Lemke’s opinion that the famous paper Velikoruss was, in part, the work of Cherny- shevsky. Mr. Lemke supports his hypothesis by quoting Mr. Stakhevich, who for several years lived with Chernyshevsky in Siberia: “I noticed that Chernyshevsky was obviously sympathetically inclined towards the paper which appeared at irregular intervals under the title of Velikoruss ; I recall three issues coming out. As I listened to Nikolai Gavrilovich’s conversation, I sometimes noticed that both his thoughts and the way he expressed them [62] strongly reminded me of the paper Velikoruss , and I decided in my own mind that he was either the author or, at least, co- author of the paper which advocated the need for constitutional reforms.” [14] We are in full agreement |
| with Mr. Stakhevich: the style and content of Velikoruss are indeed very reminiscent of Cherny- shevsky’s journalistic articles. And if Cherny- | | | | NB |
| shevsky was in fact the author, then that, of course, explains the circumstance that Velikoruss was far wiser and more tactful than other such papers of the time. Simultaneously with the rise of the extreme party in Russia, there was a growth of the rev- olutionary movement in Poland. Had Cherny- shevsky any formal relations with the Polish revolutionaries of whom there were not a few in St. Petersburg at that time? Again, there are no data on this point. Not wishing to indulge in conjectures, we shall limit ourselves, in clarifying Chernyshevsky’s general sympathies towards the Polish cause, to data obtainable from his writings; however, even such data are not numerous. |
| |
| We know that the Slavophils [15] very much approved of the struggle of the Galician Ruthen- ians against the Poles. Chernyshevsky was always sympathetically inclined towards the Little Rus- | | | | Sotsial-Demo krat No 1, p. 157 |
| sians. He regarded Belinsky’s negative attitude to the emerging Little Russian literature to be a great mistake. In the January issue of Sovremen- nik for 1864 he published a very sympathetic article on the occasion of the appearance of Osnova , the organ of the Little Russians. But his attitude towards the struggle of the Galician Ruthenians against the Poles could not be one of unconditional approval. First of all, he did not like the fact that the Ruthenians sought the support of the Viennese Government. Neither did he like the influential role of the clergy in the movement of the Galician Ruthenians. “Lay affairs,” he wrote, “should be the concern of laymen.” Finally, Cherny- shevsky did not like the exiusively national formulation of this question, which he regarded as primarily an economic one. In an article entitled “National Tactlessness” ( Sovremennik , July 1861) attacking the Lvov Slovo , Cherny- shevsky [63] sharply criticised the excessive nation- alism of that organ. “It is very possible that a careful examination of existing relations,” he wrote, “would show the Lvov Slovo that at the basis of the matter there is a question that is far removed from the racial question—the question of social-estates. It is very possible that it would see Ruthenians and Poles on each of the two sides— people differing in race, but of the same social position. We do not believe that the Polish peasant should be hostile to the alleviation of the obliga- tions and, in general, of the living conditions of the Ruthenian settlers. We do not believe that the sentiments of the Ruthenian landowners should differ very much in this matter from the sentiments of the Polish landowners. If we are not mistaken, the root of the Galician question lies not in rela- tions of race, but of social-estate.” The mutual hostility of the peoples composing Austria ought to have appeared even more tactless to Chernyshevsky, in that the Viennese Govern- ment then, as previously, derived great advantages from it. “When one reflects carefully, one is not surprised at the many years of existence of the Austrian Empire,” he wrote in a political review in the same issue of Sovremennik that published the article “National Tactlessness”; “and why should it not maintain itself when there is such ‘excellent’ political tact on the part of the nationa- lities embraced within its borders.” To Cherny- shevsky the Austrian Germans, Czechs, Croats and, as we have seen, Ruthenians seemed equally “slow-witted”. He was afraid that the Slav “slow- wittedness” which was particularly evident in 1848-49 would again go very far. At the beginning of the sixties Hungary was waging a stubborn struggle against the Viennese reactionary central- ists. The discontent of the Hungarians was running so high that at one time it could have been expected that there would be a revolutionary outburst in their country. In his political reviews, our author repeatedly expressed the fear that, in the event of a revolutionary movement in Hungary, the Austrian Slavs would again become obedient tools of reaction. The tactics of many Slav races in Austria at that time could only strengthen such fears, since the Austrian Slavs even ventured to boast of the disgraceful role they had played in the 1848-49 events. Chernysheysky strongly condemned these tactics and showed that it would have been more to their advantage if, on the contrary, they had supported the enemies of the Viennese Government, enemies from whom they could have obtained substantial concessions. He said this concerning the attitude of the Croats to the Hungarians [64], and repeated this to the Ruthenians. “The social-estate party, hostile to the Ruthenians,” we read in his article “National Tactlessness,” “is now ready for concessions.... It would do no harm for the Lvov Slovo to give this some thought; perhaps the concessions which people who seem to it to be enemies are sincerely prepared to make, perhaps these concessions are so great that they would thoroughly satisfy the |
| Ruthenian settlers; in any event these concessions are without doubt far greater and far more impor- tant than the concessions the Ruthenian settlers can get from the Austrians....” | | | | Up to here Sot- sial-Demokrat No. 1. p. 158 |
| |
| [65]... Finally, the first part of the novel Prologue [16] depicts the friendly attitude of Volgin to Sokolovsky (Sierakowski). Volgin likes Sokolovsky’s utter devotion to his [66] convictions, the absence of conceited pettiness, his self-control, combined with the passionate zeal of the true agitator. | | | | |
| Volgin calls him a real man and thinks that our liberals could learn a great deal from him. All this is very interesting, [17] but it too in no way | | | | NB |
| explains Chernyshevsky’s practical relations with the Polish affair. [18] |
| |
| At that time Chernyshevsky was about 34 years of age. He was in the prime of his mental powers, and who knows to what heights he might not have risen in his development! But he had not long to live in freedom. He was the recognised leader of the extreme party, a highly influential exponent of materialism and socialism. He was considered the “ringleader” of the revolutionary youth, and was blamed for all their outbursts and agitation. As always happens in such cases, rumour exagger- ated the affair and ascribed to Chernyshevsky intentions and actions which were foreign to him. In “Prologue to a Prologue,” [19] Chernyshevsky | | | | idem Sotsial- Demokrat No. 1, pp. 165-166 |
| himself describes the liberal sympathetic gossip spread in St. Petersburg concerning Volgin’s (i.e., his own) alleged relations with the London circle of Russian exiles. [20] The gossip was occa- sioned by the most insignificant incidents that had absolutely nothing to do with politics. And, as usual, things did not stop at mere gossip. The police-inspired press had long been engaged in literary denunciations of Chernyshevsky. In 1862, Sovremennik was suspended for some time. Then came non-literary denunciations as well. “The Director of the Third Department of His Imperial Majesty’s Own Chancellery,” said the indictment of Chernyshevsky, “has received an anonymous letter warning the Government against Cherny- shevsky, ‘that youth ringleader and wily socialist’; ‘he himself has said that he will never be convict- ed’; he is said to be a pernicious agitator, and people ask to be spared from such a man; ‘all of Chernyshevsky’s former friends, seeing that his tendencies were finding expression in deeds and not merely in words, liberal-minded people... have dissociated themselves from him. Unless you remove Chernyshevsky, writes the author of the letter [67], there will be trouble and bloodshed; they are a band of rabid demagogues, of reckless people.... Perhaps they will eventually be eliminat- ed, but just think how much innocent blood will be shed because of them.... There are committees of such socialists in Voronezh, Saratov, Tambov and elsewhere, and everywhere they inflame the youth.... Send Chernyshevsky away wherever you like, but be quick to deprive him of the opportunity to act.... Deliver us from Chernyshevsky for the sake of public peace”.... [71]... What is the secret of the extraordinary success of What Is To Be Done? [21] It is the same as is generally responsible for the success of literary works, the fact that this novel gave a living and universally understood answer to questions in which a considerable section of the reading public was keenly interested. In themselves, the thoughts expressed in it were not new; Chernyshevsky had taken them wholly from West-European literature. In France, [22] George Sand had much earlier advocat- ed free and, most important, sincere and honest relations in the love of a man for a woman. As re- gards the moral demands she puts on love, Lucrezia Floriani differs in no way from Vera Pavlovna Lopukhova-Kirsanova. And as for the novel Jacques [72], it would be simple to copy out a fairly large number of passages from it to show that in the novel What Is To Be Done? the thoughts and reasonings of George Sand’s [23] freedom-loving, selfless hero are at times reproduced almost in their entirety. And George Sand was not the only one to advocate freedom in relations of this kind. It is well known that they were also advocated by Robert Owen and Fourier, who had a decisive influence on Chernyshevsky’s outlook. [25] And as early as the forties all these ideas met with warm sympathy in our country. In his articles Belinsky often called passionately for freedom and sincerity in relations of love. The reader will recall, of course, how bitterly the “impetuous Vissarion” reproached Pushkin’s Tatyana because, while loving Onegin, she did not follow the dictates of her heart; she belonged to “another,” her aged husband, whom she did not love but continued to live with. In their attitude to women, the best people of the “forties” adhered to the same principles as those of Lopukhov and Kirsanov. However, prior to the appearance of the novel What Is To Be Done? , these principles were shared only by a “select” handful; the mass of the reading public |
| did not understand them at all. Even Herzen hesitated to expound them fully and clearly in his [73] novel Who Is To Blame? A. Druzhinin handles the question more resolutely in his story Polenka Saks . [26] But this story is too colourless, and its characters, belonging to so-called high | | | | |
| society—officials and titled personages—did not |
| at all appeal to the non-gentry, who, after the | | |
| fall of Nicholas’ regime, formed the left wing of the reading public. With the appearance of | | | | NB |
| What Is To Be Done? everything changed, every- thing became clear, precise and definite. There was no more room left for doubt. Thinking people were faced with the alternative of being guided in love by the principles of Lopukhov and Kirsa- nov, or of bowing to the sanctity of marriage and resorting, should a new sentiment arise, to the old, tested method of secret amorous adventures, or else completely subduing all affection in their hearts in view of the fact that they belonged to a marriage partner, whom they no longer loved. And the choice had to be made quite consciously. Chernyshevsky dealt with the issue in such a way that what had been natural instinctiveness and sincerity in love relations became utterly impos- sible. Mind control extended to love, and the gener- al public adopted a conscious view of the relations between man and woman. And this was particu- larly important in our country in the sixties. The reforms which Russia had undergone turned upside down both our social and family relations. A ray of light reached into recesses that had been in complete darkness. Russian people were com- pelled to examine themselves, to take a sober view of their relation to their kin, to society and family. A new element came to play a big role in family relations, in love and friendship: viz., convictions , which formerly only the very smallest handful of “idealists” had possessed. Differences of conviction led to unexpected ruptures. A woman “given in marriage” to a certain man often discov- ered with honor that her lawful “lord” was an obscurantist,, a bribe-taker, a flatterer grovelling before his superiors. A man who had enjoyed the “possession” of his beautiful wife, and unexpectedly was affected by the current of new ideas, often realised in dismay that what his charming play- thing was interested in was not at all “new people” or “new views,” but new dresses and dances, and also [74] the title and salary of her husband.... [75]...In Vera Pavlovna’s dreams we see that side of Chernyshevsky’s socialist views to which, unfortunately, Russian socialists up to now have not paid sufficient attention. That which attracts us in these dreams is the fact that Chernyshevsky fully realised that the socialist system can only |
| be based on the broad application to production of the technical forces developed by the bourgeois period. In Vera Pavlovna’s dreams huge armies of labour are jointly engaged in production, pass- ing from Central Asia to Russia, from hot climate | | |
| countries to the cold countries. All this, of course, could have been conceived with the aid of Fourier as well, but it is evident even from the subsequent history of so-called Russian socialism that the Russian reading public was not aware of this. In their ideas of socialist society our revolution- aries frequently went so far as to conceive it in |
| the form of a federation of peasant communities, cultivating their fields with the same antiquated plough as that used to scrape the soil in the time | | |
| of Basil the Blind. But obviously such “socialism” cannot be recognised as socialism. The emancipa- tion of the proletariat can come about only through | | | | NB cf. Sotsial- |
| the emancipation of man from the “ power of the land ” and nature in general. And this | | | | Demokrat No. 1. |
| emancipation has made absolutely indispensable those [76] armies of labour and that extensive application of modern productive forces to produc- tion which Chernyshevsky spoke of in Vera Pav- lovna’s dreams and which we have completely forgotten in our desire to be “practical.” Chernyshevsky was present at the birth of the |
| 1 new type of “new people” in our country. He has drawn this type in the shape of Rakhmetov. Our author joyfully welcomed the emergence of this new type and could not deny himself the satisfac- tion of depicting at least a vague profile of him . | | | | 1 —“the revo- lutionary” in Sotsial- Demokrat (No. 1. p. 173) [27] |
| At the same time he foresaw with sorrow how many trials and sufferings there were in store for the Russian revolutionary whose life must be one of severe struggle and great self-sacrifice. And so, in Rakhmetov, Chernyshevsky presents us with the true ascetic. Rakhmetov positively tortures himself. He is completely “merciless towards him- self,” as his landlady says. He even decides to test whether he can bear torture by spending a whole night lying on a length of felt with nails sticking through it. Many people, including Pisa- rev, regarded this as mere eccentricity. We agree that some aspects of Rakhmetov’s character could have been drawn differently. But the character as a whole nevertheless remains completely true to life. Almost every one of our prominent |
| 2 [ socialists of the sixties and seventies ] possessed 3 [ no small ] share of the Rakhmetov spirit . We should like to say in closing our introduc- tion that Chernyshevsky’s significance in Russian | | | | 2 —“Russian revolution- aries” 3 —“enor- mous” ( Sot- sial-Demokrat No. 1, p. 174) |
| literature has yet to be appraised properly. How much he is misunderstood in our country even by many of those who think very well of him can be seen from V. G. Korolenko’s reminiscences of him. This gifted and intelligent author portrays him as a sort of “rationalistic economist” who, moreover, believes “in the power of Comte’s orga- nising reason.” [28] If the words about “organising reason” mean anything at all, then they mean that Chernyshevsky regarded social phenomena from an idealistic standpoint, from which they were considered by Comte himself. But he who looks on social phenomena from an ideal- stic standpoint cannot be called an econo- mist for the simple reason that this name is ap- plied, even if not very properly, to those who, while not believing [77] in the power of organising reason, do believe in the organising power of eco- nomics. An “economist” who believed in the power of organising reason would be like a Darwinist who accepted the cosmogony of Moses. But this is not the most important thing here. What is most important is the fact that Mr. Korolenko counter- poses the sociological views of our “subjectivists” [29] |
| to the “economism” of Chernyshevsky. “We, too, did not stand still when we ceased to be ‘rationalis- tic economists.’ Instead of purely economic patterns, the literary trend, represented chiefly by N. K. Mi- khailovsky, has opened to us a veritable vista of laws and parallels of a biological character, while | | | | |
| the play of economic interests was assigned a sub- ordinate role.” [30] “ Did not stand still ,” indeed! The “vista of laws and parallels of a biological char- acter,” revealed by Mikhailovsky, was an enormous step backwards in com- parison with Chernyshevsky’s social views. [31] N. K. Mikhailovsky was a disciple of P. L. Lavrov, whose views on the course of social development corresponded to those of Bruno Bauer, as we have shown in the book The Development of the Monist View of History . Hence whoever would like to understand the relation between N. G. Cherny- shevsky’s world outlook and that of our “subjectiv- ists” should first of all try to understand the rela- tion between Feuerbach’s philosophy, to which Chernyshevsky adhered, and Bruno Bauer’s views. And this is clear and simple: Feuerbach is far ahead of Bruno Bauer. |
| |
| As an epigraph to our first article on Cherny- shevsky , written while the news of his death was still fresh in mind, and completely revised in the present edition , we have taken the following | | | | NB |
| words from Chernyshevsky’s letter to his wife: “My life and yours belong to history; hundreds of years will pass and our names will still be dear to people who will recall them with gratitude when those who lived with us are no more.” This letter was written on October 5, 1862, i.e., when the author was already incarcerated. PART ONE N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY’S PHILOSOPHICAL, HISTORICAL AND LITERARY VIEWS SECTION ONE N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY’S PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWS Chapter One CHERNYSHEVSKY AND FEUERBACH [81]... In the first edition of this work, the first article of which, dealing, inter aim, with Cherny- sky’s philosophical views, was written in late |
| 18 |9| 9, we expressed the conviction that in his | | | | |8| |
| philosophical views our author was a follower of Feuerbach. Naturally, this conviction of ours was based above all on a comparison of those ideas of Chernyshevsky which had a more or less direct bearing on philosophy, with Feuerbach’s views.... Chapter Three POLEMIC WITH YURKEVICH AND OTHERS ... [101] Yurkevich ascribes to Chernyshevsky the idea that there is no difference at all between material and psychical phenomena, and inquires triumphantly how it is that sensa- tions arise from the movement of a nerve. This is the old nonsense that has long been flung at material- ists and from which it merely follows that the people who want to “criticise” materialism do not even know the ABC of materialism. Nowhere in his article does Chernyshevsky say that there is no difference at all between so-called [102] physical phenomena, on the one hand, and psychical pheno- mena, on the other. On the contrary, he categori- cally admits the existence of this difference; but he believes that it in no way justifies attributing psychical phenomena to a particular non-material factor. We are already acquainted with his re- mark to the effect that there are very many differ- ent qualities in every object. Now we shall discuss it in more detail. “For example,” Chernyshevsky says, “a tree grows and burns; we say it has two qualities: the power of growth and combustibility. What similarity is there between these two quali- ties? They are totally different; there is no concept under which one could put both these qualities, except the general conception—quality; there is no concept under which we could put both series of phenomena corresponding to these qualities, except the concept—phenomenon. Or, for example, ice is hard and sparkles; what is there common to hardness and sparkle? The logical distance from one of these qualities to the other is immeasurably great or, it would be better to say, there is no logical distance between them, whether near or far, because there is no logical relation between them. From this we see that the combination of quite heterogeneous qualities in one object is the |
| general law of things.” The same also with the quality we call the capacity for sensation and thought . Its distance from the so-called physical qualities of the living organism is immeasurably great . But this does not prevent it being a quality | | | | not im measur- ably (al- though we still do not know this “mea- |
| of the same organism which, at the same time, possesses extension and capacity for movement.... | | | | sure”) |
| |
| [103]... Even J. Priestley remarked in his Disquisitions that the idea that brain vibrations are identical with perception would be a very great abuse of materialist doctrine. “It is easy to form an idea of there being vibrations without any perceptions accompanying them. But it is | | | | |
| supposed that the brain, besides its vibrating power , has superadded to it a percipient or sentient power , likewise; there being no reason that we know why this power may not be imparted to it.” [32] This is precisely the point of view held by all the prominent materialists of modern times, including, of course, Feuerbach and Chernyshevsky. The opponents of material- ism—the consistent or inconsistent, conscious or unconscious idealists—ought, in their criticism of this doctrine, to convince us above all that they know more about it than Priestley does, and show us what grounds specifically prevent them from recognising, together with Priestley, that the brain, besides having the ability to vibrate, may also be capable of perceiving. They undoubt- edly have such grounds. But these amount to the spiritualistic prejudice that by itself, i.e., unless animated by spirit, matter is dead and incapable not only of perception, but even of motion. To re- fer, in arguing with the materialists, to such grounds means to commit an obvious petitio principii, i.e., to argue from the very same proposi- tion which has to be proved. The opponents of materialism themselves more or less vaguely sense this. Therefore, they are usually very careful not to show the grounds which hinder them from recognis- ing the capacity for perceiving one of the prop- erties of matter, and prefer to refute what no single prominent materialist has ever stated, at least in modern times, i.e., that perception is the same as motion. [33] We leave it to the reader to judge of this sort of criticism, a criticism which is more widespread in our country than anywhere else, and is more so now than ever before.... [105]... “It stands to reason,” Chernyshevsky admits, “that when we speak of the difference in the state of the body during a chemical process and at a time when it is not in that process, we mean only the quantitative distinction between a vigorous, rapid course of that process and a very feeble slow course of it. Properly speaking, every body is constantly going through a chemical pro- cess. For example, a log, even if it is not set on fire or burnt in a stove but lies quietly, seemingly undergoing no changes, in the wall of a house, will nevertheless come in time to the same end to which burning brings it: it will gradually decay, and nothing will be left of it, too, but ashes (the dust of decayed wood, of which in the end nothing remains but the mineral particles of ash). But if this process—e.g., in the case of the ordinary decay of a log in a house wall—takes place very slowly and feebly, then qualities which are proper to a body going through the process manifest them- selves with a microscopic feebleness that is com- pletely imperceptible under ordinary conditions. For example, the slow decay of a piece of wood in a house wall also generates heat; but that quan- tity of it which in burning would have been con- centrated into a few hours, in this case becomes diluted, so to speak, into several decades, so that it does not achieve any result that is easily per- ceptible in practice; the existence of this heat is negligible for practical purposes. It is the same as the taste of wine in a whole pond of water into which one has let fall a drop of wine: from the scientific point of view, the pond contains a mixture of water and wine, but to all practical purposes it can be assumed that there is no wine at all in it.” [106] This brilliant passage allows one to sur- mise that for Chernyshevsky in this respect too there was no cleavage between organised matter on the one hand and unorganised matter, on the other. To be sure, the organism of the animal (and even more so of the animal at the top of the zoologi- cal tree, that is, man) displays in the respect that is of interest to us such properties as are altogether alien to unorganised matter. But, after all, the burning of a piece of wood, too, is accompanied by a number of phenomena that are not to be observed during the process of its slow decay. However, there is no essential difference between these two processes. On the contrary, this is one and the same process, with this difference only that in the one case it is very rapid and in the other, extremely slow. Therefore, in the one case the properties which belong to a body undergoing this process manifest themselves with great force, while in the other case they do so “with microscopic feebleness that is completely imperceptible under ordinary conditions.” In regard to the question of |
| psychical phenomena this means that in an unor- ganised form also, matter is not devoid of the basic capacity for “sensation,” which provides such rich “spiritual” fruits among the higher animals. But in unorganised matter this capacity | | | | NB |
| exists to an extremely small extent. Therefore it is totally imperceptible to the investigator and, without risk of committing any appreciable error, we can equate it to nil. Nevertheless, it must not be forgotten that this capacity in general is inher- ent in matter and that in consequence there are no grounds for regarding it as something miraculous where it manifests itself particularly strongly, as can be seen, for example, among the higher animals in general, and pre-eminently in man. In express- ing this idea—with the caution necessary under the conditions of our press at that time— Chernyshevsky came close to such materialists as Lamettrie and Diderot, who, in turn, adopted the view of Spinoz- ism, freed of the unnecessary theological append- ages.... [107]... Yurkevich also asserted that quantita- tive differences are transformed into qualitative differences not in the object itself but in its re- lation to the sentient subject. But this is a very |
| gross logical mistake. In order to become changed in its relation to the sentient subject, the object must undergo a preliminary change ||in itself.|| | | | | not logical, but episte- mological |
| If for us ice does not have the same properties as steam, it is because the mutual relations of the water particles in the former case are entirely different from those in the latter. But enough of this.... We know how contemptuous Chernyshevsky was of Yurkevich’s arguments. He did not analyse these arguments—and had no possibility of doing so under the conditions of the censorship—but sim- ply declared them to be obsolete and not in the least convincing. “I am a seminarian myself,” he wrote in his Polemical Gems . “I know from my own experience the position of people who get their education as Yurkevich did. I have seen people in the same position as he is. I therefore find it hard to laugh at him; it would mean laughing at the impossibility of having decent books available, laughing at the complete helplessness in the matter of developing oneself, at a situation that is unimaginably re- stricted in all possible respects. “I don’t know Mr. Yurkevich’s age; if he is no longer a young man, it is too late to worry about him. But if he is still young, I gladly offer him the small collection of books in my possession.” Mr. Volynsky still finds this reply highly [108] unsatisfactory. He thinks that Chernyshevsky replied in this way solely because of his inability to decisively refute Yurkevich. Evidently some journalists at the beginning of the sixties also reasoned in this manner. For example, Dudyshkin, enumerating Yurkevich’s allegedly irrefutable arguments point by point, wrote the following in Otechestvenniye Zapiski , addressing himself to Chernyshevsky: “The matter would appear to be clear; it now concerns not someone else, but you; not philosophy or physiology in general, but your ignorance of these sciences. Why drag in the red herring of seminary philosophy? Why confuse totally differ- ent things and say that you knew all that when you were in the seminary and even now remember it all by heart?” To this Chernyshevsky replied that Dudyshkin’s lack of acquaintance with seminary notebooks prevented him from understanding what was at issue. “If you took the trouble to look through these notebooks,” he continues, “you would see that all the shortcomings which Mr. Yurkevich discovers in me, these notebooks discover in Aristotle, Bacon, Gassendi, Locke, etc., etc., |
| in all the philosophers who were not idealists . Consequently, these reproaches by no means apply to me as an individual writer; they apply properly | | | | NB |
| to the theory which I consider it useful to popular- ise. If you are incredulous, take a look at the Philosophical Dictionary , published by Mr. S.G., which takes the same line as Mr. Yurkevich, and you will see that the same thing is said there of every non-idealist: he does not know psychology, he is not acquainted with the natural sciences, he rejects inner experience, he is overwhelmed by facts, he confuses metaphysics with the natural sciences , he degrades man, etc., etc....” Chapter Four THE DOCTRINE OF MORALITY [111]... In general, very noticeable in Cherny- shevsky’s view of rational egoism is the endeavour, characteristic of all “periods of enlightenment” (Aufklärungsperioden), to seek support for morality in reason, and in the more or less well-founded calculations of the individual an explanation of his character and behaviour. Sometimes Cherny- shevsky’s arguments in this connection are as similar as two peas in a pod to the arguments of Helvétius and those who shared his ideas. They recall almost as strongly the arguments of Socrates, the typical representative of the epoch of enlight- enment in ancient Greece, who, in coming forward as a champion of friendship, showed that it is advantageous to have friends because |
| they may [112] be of some use in times of mis- fortune. The explanation for such |extremes of rationality| is that the enlighteners were usually incapable of adopting the viewpoint of development. [34] | | | | |
| |
| We know that, according to Chernyshevsky’s theory, man is by nature neither good nor evil but becomes good or evil depending on circum- stances. [35] Were we to recognise that man is always prompted by calculation in his behaviour, then we should have to formulate Chernyshevsky’s view on human nature differently; we should have to say that man is by nature neither good nor evil but only calculating, this property of his becoming more or less marked depending on cir- cumstances. But such a formulation would hardly be to our author’s liking. What is good, and what is evil, according to his theory? This question is answered by the same article, “The Anthropological Principle in Philos- ophy”—a very informative one, as the reader can see. “Individuals,” says Chernyshevsky in it, “regard as good the actions of other people that are beneficial to them; society holds as good, what is good for the whole of society, or for the majority of its members. Lastly people in general, irrespec- tive of a nation or a class, describe as good that which is beneficial for mankind in general.” It often happens that the interests of different nations or estates run counter to one another or to human interests generally; it is also a frequent occurrence that the interests of one estate are opposed to those of the whole nation. How is one to decide in this case what is good and what is bad? SECTION TWO N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY’S VIEWS ON HISTORY Chapter Two MATERIALISM IN CHERNYSHEVSKY’S VIEWS ON HISTORY [159]... Chernyshevsky applied Feuerbach’s views to aesthetics and in this, as we shall see below, he achieved results that in a certain sense are most remarkable. But here, too, his conclusions were not quite satisfactory because tbe perfectly correct idea of the aesthetic development of man- kind implies the preliminary elaboration of a general conception of history. As regards this general con- |
| ception of history, Chernyshevsky succeeded in making only a few, if very correct, steps towards its elaboration. One may cite as examples of such steps the large quotations from his writings that we have just made [160].... | |
| |
| Chapter Three IDEALISM IN CHERNYSHEYSKY’S VIEWS ON HISTORY Here is what we read in his article dealing with V. P. Botkin’s well-known-book Letters of Spain (Sovremennik , 1857, Book 2): “The division of a people into hostile castes is one of the greatest obstacles to the improvement of its future; in Spain, there is no such disastrous division, no irreconcilable enmity between social- estates every one of which would be prepared to sacrifice the most precious historical achievements |
| if only it could do harm to another estate; in Spain the entire nation feels itself a single whole. This peculiarity is so extraordinary among the peoples of Western Europe that it deserves the greatest | | |
| attention and may in itself be considered an | |
| earnest of the country’s happy future.” [36] |
| |
| This is not a slip of the pen, because, several pages further below in the same article, Cherny- shevsky says: “The Spanish people have an indis- putable advantage over most civilised nations in | |
| one, exceedingly important respect: the Spanish [161] estates are not divided either by deep-rooted hatred or by substantial conflicting interests; they do not constitute castes inimical to one another, as is the case in many other West-European coun- tries; on the contrary, in Spain, all the estates may strive jointly for a common goal....” [37] [163]... Utopian socialists took an idealist view of the entire future of contemporary society. They were convinced that the fate of that society would be decided by the “views” held by its members, i.e., the standpoint which they took, with regard to social reorganisation plan put forward by a particular reformer. They did not ask themselves why it was that the dominant views in that particular society were such and not others. That is why they were not eager for a further elaboration of those elements of a materialist interpretation of history which their doctrines undoubtedly were replete with. In fact, they were prone to look on mankind’s past history as well from an idealist standpoint. For this reason, in their statements about that history we very often encounter the most undoubted and, it would seem, most obvious contradictions: facts which have apparently been interpreted in an |
| entirely materialist sense are suddenly given an entirely idealist explanation; and, on the other hand, idealist interpretations are every now and again upset by perfectly materialist eruptions. This lack of stability, this recurrent shift from materialism to idealism and from idealism to materialism, a shift perceptible to the modern reader but imperceptible to the author, makes itself felt also in the historical statements of Chernyshevsky, who in this respect is very reminis- cent of the great utopians of the West. In the final analysis he inclines like them, we repeat, to idealism. |
| |
| This can be clearly seen from his interesting article “On the Causes of the Fall of Rome (an Imitation of Montesquieu),” published in Sovre- mennik for 1861 (Book 5). In it he vigorously | |
| opposes the very widespread opinion that the Roman Empire in the West [164] fell because of its inherent inability to develop further, whereas the barbarians who put an end to its existence brought new seeds of progress with them.... No mention is made here either of the internal social relations in Rome, which accounted for its weakness and which were pointed out even by Guizot in his first article “Essais sur l’histoire de France”, or of the forms of communal life to which the German barbarians owed their strength at the time of the fall of the Roman Empire in the West. Chernyshevsky forgot even the famous words of Pliny, which he himself quotes elsewhere: lati- fundia perdidere Italiam (“latifundia were the undoing of Italy”). In his “formula of progress”, as the phrase went in our country afterwards, |
| [165] there is no room for the internal relations in the country concerned. Everything is reduced to intellectual development. Chernyshevsky states | | | | — |
| emphatically that progress is based on intellectual development and that “its fundamental aspect consists precisely in the successes and develop- ment of knowledge.” It does not occur to him that “the successes and development of knowledge” may depend on social relations, which in some cases are conducive to those successes and that development and in others hinder them. He de- picts social relations as a mere corollary of the spread of certain views. We have just read this: “historical knowledge is broadened; this reduces the number of false notions that prevent people from organising their social life, which is, there- fore, organised more successfully than before.” This is very unlike what our author said in his article on Roscher’s book. From what he said there it followed, moreover, that it is impossible, |
| and indeed ridiculous, to judge scholars as if they were schoolboys, saying that a particular scholar was unfamiliar with a particular science and therefore came to hold erroneous views. It also | |
| followed from what he said there that what matters is not the amount of knowledge acquired by a partic- ular scholar, but the interests of the group which he represents. In short, it followed from what he said there that social views are determined by social interests; and social thought, by social life. Now, it is the other way round. Now, it appears that social life is determined by social thought and that if a social system has certain shortcomings, |
| it is because society, like a schoolboy, has studied poorly or little and therefore has conceived er- roneous notions. It would be hard to think of a more striking contradiction.... | |
| |
| [170]... Herzen formed his view of Russia’s attitude to the “old world” under the strong in- |
| fluence of Slavophils and this view was wrong. But one can arrive at an erroneuos view even when one employs a more or less correct method, just as a correct view may result from the employ- ment of a more or less erroneous method. It is therefore fair to ask oneself how the method by | |
| which Herzen formed his erroneous view was related to the method which led Chernyshevsky to a com- pletely justified repudiation and ridicule of that view.... Chapter Five CHERNYSHEVSKY AND MARX [188]...We may be reminded that, as we have remarked, the reviews by Chernyshevsky which we have examined appeared after the historical |
| views of Marx and Engels shaped themselves into a harmonious whole. We are not forgetful of this. But we believe that this matter cannot be settled by mere reference to chronology. The main writings of Lassalle, too, did not appear until after the historical views of Marx and Engels assumed a harmonious form, and yet, in ideological content, | |
| those writings, too, belong to the period of transi- |
| tion from historical idealism to historical material- ism. The point is not when a particular work ap- peared but rather what was its content. | |
| |
| If in previous historical periods the advance of knowledge depended on the character of economic relations, in passing to our own period Cherny- shevsky should have asked himself: what are the economic peculiarities of it that led to the discovery of social truth and ensured the future realisation of the latter. But in order to ask himself that question, he should have broken resolutely with idealism and firmly adopted a materialist interpre- |
| tation of history. We shall not reiterate that Chernyshevsky was still far from a break with idealism and that his conception of the further trend of social development was completely ideal- ist. We merely ask the reader to note that Cherny- | |
| shevsky’s historical idealism compelled him in his considerations of the future to give first place to “advanced” people—to the intellectuals , as we [189] now call them—who should disseminate |
| the ultimately discovered social truth among the masses. The masses are allotted the role of back- ward soldiers in the advancing army. Of course, no sensible materialist will assert that the average “man in the street”, just because he is an ordinary person, i.e., “one of the masses”, knows no less | | | | |
| than tho average “intellectual”. Of course he knows less. But it is not a matter of the knowledge of the “man in the street,” but of his actions. |
| The actions of people are not always determined by their knowledge and are never determined only by their knowledge, but also—and chiefly—by their position, which is merely made clear and comprehensible by the knowledge they possess . | | | | NB |
| Here again one has to remember the fundamental proposition of materialism in general, and of the materialist explanation of history in particular: it is not being that is determined by consciousness, but consciousness by being. The “consciousness” of a man from the “intelligentsia” is more highly developed than the consciousness of a man from the |
| “masses.” But the “being” of a man from the masses prescribes to him a far more definite method of action than that which the social position of the intellectual prescribes to the latter. That is why | | | | NB |
| the materialist view of history allows one only in a certain and, moreover, very limited sense to speak of the backwardness of the man from the “masses,” compared with the man from the intel- ligentsia; in a certain sense, the “man in the street” undoubtedly lags behind the “intellectual”, but in another sense he undoubtedly is in advance of him . And precisely because this is so, an adherent of the materialist interpretation of history, while by no means repeating the absurd attacks on the intelligentsia that are coming from the Black- Hundred and syndicalist camp, would never agree to assign the intelligentsia the role of a demiurge of history which is generally assigned to it by idealists. There are various kinds of aristocratical- ness. Historical idealism is guilty of an “aristocrat- icalness of knowledge.” |
| |
| What in Chernyshevsky’s historical views was a shortcoming resulting from the insufficient elaboration of Feuerbach’s materialism , later became the basis of our subjectivism, which had | |
| nothing in common with materialism and vigor- ously opposed it not only in the field of history but also in the field of philosophy. The subjectivists boastfully called themselves continuers of the best traditions of the sixties. In reality, they continued only the weak aspects [190] of the world outlook peculiar to that period.... Chapter Six LAST HISTORICAL WORKS OF CHERNYSHEVSKY [199]... Had Chernyshevsky consistently elabo- rated the idea expressed here, he would have had to renounce completely the idealist views expressed by him in the article—now familiar to us—con- cerning the causes for the fall of Rome. But the point is that he expresses such ideas only in pass- ing, he does not enlarge on them. In expressing them, he does not at all find it necessary to repu- diate historical idealism, and this is not due to |
| a predilection for idealism as a philosophical theory. Chernyshevsky’s attitude to this theory was in general extremely negative. While expound- ing the idealist view of the trend of historical development, he continues to regard himself as a consistent materialist. He is wrong. But the root of his error lies in one of the chief shortcom- ings of Feuerbach’s materialist system. Marx expressed it rather aptly: “Feuerbach wants sen- suous objects, really differentiated from the thought | | | | |
| objects, but he does not conceive of human activity itself as being objective activity. Hence, in the Essence of Christianity , he regards the theoreti- cal attitude as the only genuinely human atti- tude....“ [38] ... Like his teacher, Chernyshevsky directs his attention almost exclusively to the “theoretical” | | | | This is also the shortcoming of Plekhanov’s book on Chernyshevsky |
| activity of mankind, and, as a result, mental development becomes for him the most basic cause of historical movement.... | | | | |
| |
| [205]... It follows from Chernyshevsky that in history vice is always punished as it deserves. In reality, however, the historical facts known to us do not at all warrant this view, which may | |
| be comforting but is certainly naÏve. The only |
| question of interest to us is how it came to be held by our author. This question can be answered | |
| by reference to the period when Chernyshevsky lived. It was a period of social upsurge, a period having a moral need, so to speak, for such views as would bolster faith in the inevitable defeat of evil.... | |

On to Part Two >>

---
Notes:
[1] Here and elsewhere, an NB underscored with two slanting
lines implies that Lenin’s NB is in the corner of the page and apparently
refers to all of it. The full text of the page in question is therefore given
in such cases.— Ed.

[2] Chernyshevsky — Ed.

[3] Collected Works , Vol. IV, pp. 335-336. (Here
and elsewhere Plekhanov refers to the first Russian edition of N. G.
Chernysheveky’s works published in St. Petersburg in 1905-06.— Ed.

[4] The Sovremennik circle included, among others,
the revolutionary democrats N. G. Chernyshevsky, N. A. Dobrolyubov , N. A. Nekrasov, M. I. Mikhailov.

Sovremennik (Contemporary) —a monthly scientific-political and
literary journal, founded by A. S. Pushkin in 1836. In 1847 the journal was
taken over by N. A. Nekrasov. From the mid-fifties on the journal became a
militant organ of the revolutionary democrats, who advocated a peasant revolution
and the overthrow of tsarism. Chernyshevsky was a most prominent contributor
until his arrest in 1862. In 1866 Sovremennik was closed down by the
tsarist government.

In 1859-62 the satirical magazine Svistok (Whistle) appeared as a
supplement to Sovremennik . It wittily ridiculed the vain hopes
of the liberals for bringing about a change in the political system of Russia
through literary denunciations of government officials, and without resorting
to revolutionary struggle.

[6] Kolokol (The Bell) —journal founded
by A. I. Herzen in London and illegally circulated in Russia. It appeared
from 1857 to 1868. The journal attacked the autocratic regime and serfdom.
It played an important role in the development of the revolutionary movement
in Russia. “Clowns” and “whistlers” were nicknames given by liberals to the revolutionary democrats of Sovremennik and
Svistok .

[7] Oblomov —the title of a well-known
novel by the Russian author A. I. Goncharov which depicts the corruption
of the serf-owning system in 19th-century Russia.

[8] The article “Very Dangerous!” in
Kolokol , No. 44.— Plekhanov.

[9] Regarding the article “Very Dangerous”
and its more or less conjectural consequences, see, among others Vetrinaky’s
book Herzen , St. Petersburg, 1908, p. 354.— Plekhanov.

[10] The history of this break may be followed in the
letters of K. D. Kavelin and I. S. Turgenev to A. I. Herzen, published by
M. Dragomanov in Geneva in 1892.— Plekhanov.

[11] Collected Works , Vol. VIII, p.
231.— Plekhanov.

[12] i. e., the possibility of a revolution.— Ed.

[13] M. K. Lemke, “The Case of N. G. Chernyshevsky,”
Byloye , 1906, No. 4, p. 179.— Plekhanov.

[14] K. K. Lemke , “The
Trial of the Velikoruss Publishers,” Byloye , 1906, No. 7,
p. 92. Mr. Stakhevich’s article was published in Zakaspiiskoye Obozrenie ,
1905, No. 143.— Plekhanov.

[15] Slavophils represented a trend of social
thought arising in mid-19th-century Russia, which held that Russia’s
development would take place along a distinct path of its own. This, according
to them, stemmed from the communal system in Russia and its orthodoxy. The
Slavophils were confirmed opponents of the revolutionary movement in Russia
and the West.

[16] Chernyshevsky wrote the novel Prologue
while serving at hard labour in 1865-70. With great difficulty, his friends
smuggled the manuscript to St. Petersburg and then to London where it was
published in 1877.

The novel describes Russia in the late fifties. A revolutionary
situation was maturing in the country and the tsarist government, preferring
to free the peasants “from above” rather than wait till they took
action “from below,” was preparing for the abolition of serfdom
(the so-called Peasant Reform). The book describes the sharp struggle between
various classes and groups over the reform and portrays real people of the day
under fictitious names. Thus, Chernyshevsky himself, who headed the revolutionary
party, appears under the name of Volgin; Kavelin, the liberal, appears under
the name of Ryazantsev; Sierakowski, a prominent figure in the Polish liberation
movement—under the name of Sokolovsky, etc.

[17] Volgin particularly prized in Sokolovsky his
“ balanced judgment ” which he displayed in 1848 when of all his companions-in-arms in Volhynia Region he was the only
one not to lose his head and to weigh coolly the chances of the armed insurrection.
These proved to be all but nil.— Plekhanov.

[18] The reference here is to the uprising in Poland
in 1863-64, one of the organisers of which was Zygmunt Sierakowski. The uprising
against tsarist autocracy aimed at Polish national liberation. Broad support
for the uprising came from the szlachta intelligentsia, students, clergy, artisans,
workers and some sections of the peasantry. The Russian revolutionary democrats
also sympathised with the uprising. Members of the secret organisation
Zemlya i Volya, which had connections with Chernyshevsky, sought to render
help to the insurrection. A. I. Herzen published a number of articles in Kolokol
supporting the struggle of the Polish people.

However, the insurrection was ruthlessly suppressed by the tsarist government,
and its leaders, including Sierakowski, were executed.

[19] Prologue to a Prologue —the title
of the first part of the novel Prologue .

[20] The circle of Russian revolutionary emigrants in
London who were grouped around A. I. Herzen and N. A. Ogaryov.

[21] The reference is to Chernyshevsky’s novel
which exerted great influence on several generations of Russian revolutionary
youth. Chernyshevsky wrote the novel in 1862-63 in the Peter and Paul Fortress,
where he was imprisoned in the summer of 1862. The novel was published in Sovremennik
in 1863.

Vera Pavlovna, Lopukhov, Kirsanov and Rakhmetov mentioned by Plekhanov are
the chief characters in the novel.

[22] Let us note in passing that Goethe’s Wahlverwandschaften
also represents a word in defence of such relations. This is well understood
by some German historians of German literature who, while not daring to decry
such an authoritative writer, and at the same time not daring to agree with
him hecause of their own philistine virtuousness, usually mutter something
totally unintelligihie ahout the apparently strange paradoxes of the great
German.— Plekhanov.