ST. PETERSBURG, 1909
CHAPTER I
CHERNYSHEVSKY'S YOUTH. - UNIVERSITY. - MARRIAGE
[11] As we will see further, Chernyshevsky creatively reworked and transformed the principles of utopian socialism. Attempting to combine them with the conclusions of Hegelian philosophy, with a materialist worldview, and with a critique of existing economic relations, Chernyshevsky independently embarked on a path that brought him closer to developing a system of scientific socialism. However, he was unable to create such a coherent system. On one hand, this was hindered by the forced interruption in his literary activity, caused by his arrest and exile; on the other hand, the underdevelopment of social relations in contemporary Russia weighed heavily on him and did not allow him to develop his views to their logical conclusion.
Karl Marx, who began studying social systems three years before Chernyshevsky (in 1843), lived in a different environment and managed to do what Chernyshevsky was fated not to achieve. In terms of the strength of his intellect and the breadth of his knowledge, the "great Russian scholar and critic," as Marx called him, was hardly inferior to the founder of scientific socialism...
CHAPTER II
A GENERAL OUTLINE OF CHERNYSHEVSKY'S LITERARY ACTIVITY
[30-35] ... A poet who is never malicious cannot have such passionate admirers as one who, like Gogol, nourished by hatred for all that is base, vulgar, and harmful, preaches love for good and truth through the word of negation. "Whoever flatters everyone and everything loves no one and nothing but himself; whoever pleases everyone does nothing good, because good is impossible without offending evil. Whoever is hated by no one owes nothing to anyone"...
well said!*

* - well said! Ed.
+
225

NOTES ON THE BOOK BY YU. M. STEKLOV "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY..."
The abolition of serfdom was approaching, and the peasant question was put on the agenda. The interests of the upper classes were protected by the government, noble organizations, and the majority of literature; only the interests of the peasant masses did not find sincere and disinterested defenders.
And so, Chernyshevsky, headlong, threw himself into the fray, both against open and hypocritical defenders of the serf owners' interests and against representatives of the emerging bourgeois tendencies...
For this purpose, Chernyshevsky wrote a series of brilliant articles, among which we can mention "Economic Activity and Legislation," "Capital and Labor," "The July Monarchy," "Cavaignac," and others. In these and many other articles, Chernyshevsky sought to expose bourgeois liberalism and show that it was incapable of even completing its own struggle against absolutism and the remnants of the feudal system and that, in essence, it represented the interests of large property owners, being fundamentally hostile to the interests of the working democratic masses...
To lay the foundation for the worldview of the emerging young Russian democracy, Chernyshevsky took advantage of the appearance of Lavrov's brochure "Outlines of Questions in Practical Philosophy" and wrote his brilliant article "The Anthropological Principle in Philosophy," in which he expounded the basic tenets of Feuerbachian materialism and subjected the idealistic worldview to merciless criticism...
It can be said without exaggeration that there was not a single major political issue of interest to Russian society to which Chernyshevsky did not respond with his rational and authoritative word... The Prometheus of the Russian revolution, as Rusakov* aptly calls him, spared no effort in defending the happiness of his native people and clearing the way for future fighters...
[37-38] Reactionaries, hostile to the emancipation of women and the liberation of the individual in general, insinuated that in "What Is to Be Done?" Chernyshevsky preached so-called "free love."* Of course, this is slander or an organic inability to understand the psychology of the new free people...
We know that Chernyshevsky once dreamed of an academic career. But soon he realized that he would be much more useful to the Russian people in another field. This democrat by conviction and fighter by temperament could not retreat to the cold heights of academic science at a time when life was boiling around him and there was a need to illuminate the meaning of the events unfolding and being prepared for the broad layers of Russian society...
[42] From the beginning of Lessing's activity to Schiller's death, over 50 years, the development of one of the greatest European nations, the future of countries from the Baltic to the Mediterranean, from the Rhine to the Oder, was determined by the literary movement.
Almost all other social factors were unfavorable to the development of the German people. Only literature led it forward, fighting countless obstacles.
Here, in Chernyshevsky, the enlightener spoke out, and here the confidence in the power of reason and the strength of knowledge prevailed over his materialist views in sociology. The typical enlightener Lessing was especially dear to Chernyshevsky because he reminded him in many ways of Belinsky, and the era of Lessing reminded him of the 1840s and 1850s of Russian history. In both cases, it was a "period of storm and stress," and the enthusiasm of one enlightener for another** is entirely excusable...

* N. Rusakov - Socialists of the West and Russia, St. Petersburg, 1908, p. 286.

* *NB* *NB* *NB* *NB* *NB*

* See, for example, the vile pamphlet by Prof. P. P. Tsytovich of Odessa University, published in 1879 under the title "What Was Done in the Novel 'What Is to Be Done?'" - A series of slanderous pamphlets by this libeler, directed against "nihilism," drew the attention of the government, which in 1880 granted him a subsidy for the publication of the anti-revolutionary newspaper *Bereg*. This prototype of *Rossiya* and *Russkoye Znamya* was not at all successful, and the publication soon ended in a deplorable fiasco and, it seems, embezzlement. - Unfortunately, very incomplete excerpts from this pamphlet can be found in N. Denisuk's book *Critical Literature on the Works of N. G. Chernyshevsky*. Moscow, 1908.
** In this respect, Chernyshevsky sometimes goes to extremes, not characteristic of his usual strict realism. For example, he explains the opposition of officials to popular sobriety by saying that "they are poorly educated and have studied too little" (Works, IV, 396). But such assertions are rare in his writings.

NOTES ON YU. M. STEKLOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY..."
[45] To form an idea of Chernyshevsky's worldview, one has to (perhaps somewhat artificially) combine his individual judgments and thoughts, expressed on various occasions in scattered articles and notes, and therefore sometimes contradictory or not thought through to their logical conclusion. Nevertheless, a careful study of Chernyshevsky's complete works leads us to the profound conviction that he possessed a fairly coherent materialist worldview, which he sought to apply in discussing all questions, both theoretical and practical...
CHAPTER III
PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWS OF CHERNYSHEVSKY. -
THE MORALITY OF RATIONAL EGOISM
[47-50] In the West, the evolution of left Hegelianism led to Feuerbach, who laid the foundation for materialist philosophy. "Thus," says Chernyshevsky, "the development of German philosophy was completed, which for the first time reached positive conclusions, shed its former scholastic form of metaphysical transcendence, and, recognizing the identity of its results with the teachings of natural science, merged with the general theory of natural science and anthropology" *.
With these words, Chernyshevsky clearly aligns himself with Feuerbach's "anthropological principle" and "humanism."
The fundamental question of philosophy is the relationship between thought and being. Idealism recognizes the primacy of spirit over nature, while materialism asserts the primacy of nature or matter. In this regard, Feuerbach moved toward materialism, rejecting Hegel's idealism with its absolute idea ***...
Feuerbach versus .... 226
NB
Cf. Engels not accurate!
NB cf.
Feuerbach 227

* Sketches of the Gogol Period. Works, II, 162.
** Compare Engels. Feuerbach in relation to the general outcome. Ed.
*** Lange's attempt to prove that Feuerbach was not a materialist (*History of Materialism*, St. Petersburg, 1899, vol. 2, p. 394 et seq.) does not stand up to criticism. See Plekhanov - *Fundamental Questions of Marxism*, St. Petersburg, 1908, p. 7 et seq.; his - *For Twenty Years*, 3rd ed., St. Petersburg, 1909, p. 271 et seq.

[53] Previous theories of moral sciences, Chernyshevsky says, lacked any scientific value due to their neglect of the anthropological principle. What, then, is this anthropological principle? "Anthropology," replies Chernyshevsky, "is a science which, no matter what part of the human life process it discusses, always remembers that this entire process and each part of it occurs in the human organism, that this organism serves as the material producing the phenomena it examines, that the qualities of the phenomena are determined by the properties of the material, and that the laws according to which the phenomena arise are only special cases of the action of the laws of nature" (our emphasis)...
[58-60] Such was this famous article, which for the first time in Russian literature clearly set forth the basic principles of Feuerbach's materialism, carried to their extreme logical conclusions by Chernyshevsky... This article was the philosophical manifesto of the "new people," the raznochintsi intelligentsia - and so it was viewed by the enemies of revolutionary democracy...
*Otechestvennye Zapiski* collected the objections made by Iurkevich against Chernyshevsky*. They boiled down to the following: 1) Chernyshevsky does not know philosophy; 2) he confused the application of the natural-scientific method to the study of mental phenomena with the explanation of mental phenomena themselves; 3) he did not understand the importance of introspection as a special source of psychological knowledge; 4) he "mixed (?) the metaphysical doctrine of the unity of matter"; 5) he allowed for the possibility of quantitative differences transforming into qualitative ones; 6) finally, "you have admitted that every view is already a fact of science, and thus you have lost the difference between human and animal life. You have destroyed the moral personality of man and admit only egoistic motives of the animal"**.
To this, Chernyshevsky replied that the same mortal sins that Iurkevich discovers in him, seminary notebooks discover in Aristotle, Bacon, Gassendi, Locke, etc. - in short, in all philosophers who did not have the honor of belonging to the guild of idealists...
NB
NB
NB

* With his article against Chernyshevsky, the "modest" professor of the Kiev Theological Academy, Iurkevich, made a career: Katkov and Leontiev soon arranged for him to be transferred to the chair of philosophy in Moscow. At the same time, this unfortunate man thus immortalized his name. Can one envy such immortality?
** As we shall see below, a similar argument is brought forward almost forty years later by Mr. Ivanov in his *History of Russian Criticism*. Not bad, eh?

NOTES ON YU. M. STEKLOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY..."
[63] Idealism is essentially contemplative; materialism, on the other hand, is an active system, corresponding to periods of social upsurge and to revolutionary-minded classes. Along with his entire generation, Chernyshevsky naturally adopted the standpoint of materialist monism...
[66] Chernyshevsky, who linked philosophical worldviews with specific practical aspirations, understood that the latest materialism is the philosophy of the working class...
[71] Chernyshevsky's ethics strongly resemble Feuerbach's ethics; let us, therefore, say a few words about the latter. As Engels* notes, Feuerbach's ethics are realistic in form but entirely abstract in essence...
[74] Chernyshevsky continues his argument. A person who spends whole weeks at the bedside of a sick friend sacrifices their time and freedom to their sense of friendship: this "own" feeling is so strong in them that, by satisfying it, they derive greater pleasure than from any other pleasures and even from freedom itself; while neglecting it, leaving it unsatisfied, they would feel more discomfort than from temporary restrictions on their freedom. The same can be said about scholars who renounce personal life for the sake of science, or about political figures, "commonly called fanatics," - explains Chernyshevsky, i.e., revolutionaries...
[82] The theory of rational egoism should not mislead us. This seemingly individualistic doctrine is, in reality, thoroughly imbued with a social character. What matters is not the form but the content of "rational egoism" - and, as we have seen above, Chernyshevsky and his followers resolved all related contentious issues in a social spirit, in the service of societal and universal human interests.
At the foundation of the morality of rational egoism lies the idea of duty, but of free duty, the idea of choice corresponding to inner, organic nobility. "To be
?
?
NB
NB
«

* Engels. From Classical Idealism, etc., p. 35 and following. - Engels sharply ridicules Feuerbach's ethics, asserting that according to his moral code, the stock exchange is the highest temple of morality, provided that speculation is conducted with proper calculation. This, of course, is a polemical device, but it effectively reveals the abstractness and ahistoricity of Feuerbach's morality.

a defender of the oppressed or a defender of oppression, - the choice here is not difficult for an honest person."* The theory of rational egoism is the morality of honest people, the morality of the revolutionary generation of the 1860s...
CHAPTER IV
CHERNYSHEVSKY'S AESTHETICS AND CRITICISM
[93] Full of strength and hope, the representative of the revolutionary democracy, just beginning its historical career, resolutely refuses to recognize the idealistic view that sees tragedy as a universal law of the universe. Here, too, he attempts to adopt an "anthropological" viewpoint...
[104] For him, aesthetic questions were merely a battlefield, where the young revolutionary of thought gave his first battle to the hated old world, hated with all its political and economic institutions and with all its ideology and morality. In his dissertation, "where
under a somewhat scholastic form, there seethes a thirst for life, work, and earthly happiness,"** Chernyshevsky emerged as the voice of the ideas and sentiments of the non-aristocratic intelligentsia, which, at that time (after the Crimean War), was boldly stepping onto the historical stage with a fully unfurled banner of protest...
CHAPTER V
CHERNYSHEVSKY'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY
[135] If we recall that Chernyshevsky lived in an era of deep European reaction, following the suppression of the revolutionary movement of 1848-49, that in France Napoleon III was triumphant, in Austria absolutism was restored, Prussia was suffocating under the yoke of feudal reaction, Italy was vainly striving for its liberation, and Russia was only just preparing to abolish serfdom, if we recall that in Europe, political revival began only after the Austro-Italian war of 1859, and that, as we will see below, Chernyshevsky did not believe in the existence of serious revolutionary forces in Russia, then we will understand that his objectivism must have often led him to a gloomy pessimism. Nevertheless, Chernyshevsky considered it a matter of honor not to conceal the whole truth from himself and his readers,
?.
?

* Collected Works, IV, 475.
** Andreyevich - An Attempt at a Philosophy of Russian Literature, St. Petersburg, 1905, p. 249.

NOTES ON YU. M. STEKLOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY..."
no matter how bitter it may be, and never recognized the position: "a multitude of low truths is dearer to us than an uplifting deception"...
[145-147] Thus, Chernyshevsky recommended an optimistic attitude toward life
precisely on the basis that in our time the main driving force of history is industrial development... "… The victories of Napoleon in Spain and Germany brought some benefit to these countries, so why should the victories of manufacturers
and engineers, merchants and technologists not bring some benefit? When industry develops, progress is assured. From this point of view, we primarily rejoice at the strengthening of the industrial movement among us." And further, Chernyshevsky enthusiastically notes several new facts in the field of industrial development: the establishment of a new steamship company on the Volga and its tributaries, the agricultural exhibition in Kyiv, and the like *...
After what has been said, of course, we will not be surprised when we hear from Chernyshevsky that social discontent usually underlies political ferment **. We will not be struck by his phrase, as if taken from Marx's pamphlets of 1848-49,
that "salt and wine participated in the fall of Napoleon, the Bourbons, and the Orléans dynasty" ***. And we will not be surprised, reading his discussion of the causes of the fall of Rome,
which he, following Pliny, explains by changes in land relations: "large latifundia ruined Italy - latifundia perdidere Italiam" ****...
[152] In the article "Capital and Labor," Chernyshevsky shows that class struggle was at the foundation of ancient history. In Athens, in his opinion, the purely political element predominated in this struggle: the eupatrids and the demos fought almost exclusively for or against the extension of political rights to the mass of the demos *****. In Rome
NB
Cf.
Plekhanov 229

* Contemporary Review (November 1857). Collected Works, III, 561-2. Cf. "Notes on Journals" (November 1856), where Chernyshevsky considers "the most important of all improvements" after the Crimean War to be "measures taken for the construction of an extensive network of railways." Collected Works, II, p. 653.
** The July Monarchy. Collected Works, VI, 63.
*** Cavaignac. Collected Works, IV, 33.
**** "Capital and Labor." Collected Works, VI, 15.
***** It is quite clear that Chernyshevsky is mistaken here, but this is a random error, since he usually proves that economic interest conflicts underlie political struggles. - However, we also find such a phrase in Engels: "At least in modern history, the state, the political system, is a subordinate element, while civil society, the sphere of economic relations, is decisive" (loc. cit., 57). Is it only in "modern history" that this is the case? This, of course, is a slip. Let us not be too strict with similar slips by Chernyshevsky.
* Notes on Journals ("Russian Conversation" and Slavophilism), March 1857, Collected Works, III, 151. - At that time, Chernyshevsky still hoped that the "best representatives" of Slavophilism, whom the government viewed with suspicion, would go hand in hand with the democrats on certain issues (in particular, on the question of political freedom and ensuring the people's well-being).
Soon he was disillusioned.

[154-155] Thus, for Chernyshevsky, it was clear that modern social classes are formed in the process of production: the three elements of production - land, capital, and labor - correspond to the three main classes of modern society:
landowners, the bourgeoisie, and workers. In his notes on Mill, he clearly indicates that, in general, the mutual relations of these three classes are determined by the tripartite division of the product into rent, profit, and wages...
[157-160] Indeed, Chernyshevsky uses the expression "the ulcer of the proletariat," but he actually uses this expression during polemics with Westernizing bourgeois, who tend to see in Western Europe something like paradise and do not wish to critically assess the negative aspects of Western European relations *... Chernyshevsky could, in the interest of more accurately defending communal land ownership, point out to Russian society the threatening proletarianization of the people. But, after all, social democrats, objecting to Stolypin's agrarian measures, resort to a similar argument (not in form, of course, but in substance)...
But what is a proletarian? Perhaps Chernyshevsky meant by this simply
a poor person or the same "commoner"? Let us listen to Chernyshevsky himself. Mocking Verndasky for his phrase that in France "many proletarians have real property," Chernyshevsky writes: "We dare to ask, how could such a peculiarity come about? As often as we have read economists, a proletarian always means to them a person without property; this is not the same as a simple poor person; yes, economists strictly distinguish this concept: a poor person is simply
"?
?
Cf. Marx "Das Kapital"
III, 7 230
false!

* Notes on Journals ("Russian Conversation" and Slavophilism), March 1857, Collected Works, III, 151. - At that time, Chernyshevsky still hoped that the "best representatives" of Slavophilism, whom the government viewed with suspicion, would go hand in hand with the democrats on certain issues (in particular, on the question of political freedom and ensuring the people's well-being).
Soon he was disillusioned.

NOTES ON YU. M. STEKLOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY..."

A person with scanty means of subsistence is a pauper, and a proletarian is a person without property. The pauper is opposed to the rich, the proletarian to the owner.
A French peasant who owns 5 hectares of land may live very poorly if his land is poor or his family is too large, but still he is not a proletarian; on the contrary, some Parisian or Lyonnais artisan worker may live in a warmer and more comfortable room, eat better, and dress better than this peasant, but still he will be a proletarian if he has no real estate, no capital, and his fate depends exclusively on wages*.* These words of the founder of Narodism show how much higher he stood above such epigones of Narodism as, for example, V. Chernov, who still refuses to grasp the difference between a pauper and a proletarian. They also show why he considered "proletarianism... a more serious scourge for the people's life than mere poverty." Chernyshevsky had in mind the insecurity of existence, which, in case of unemployment, illness, or old age, condemned the proletarian to a hungry death... "We have no doubt at all," he says, "that these sufferings will be healed, that this disease is not unto death, but unto health"**. The proletarians will not rest until they achieve the satisfaction of their demands, and this is why new disturbances, more severe than the previous ones, await the capitalist nations. "On the other hand," says Chernyshevsky, "the number of proletarians is constantly increasing, and, above all, their consciousness of their own strength is growing, and their understanding of their needs is becoming clearer"***. Tell me honestly, reader, does this phrase not remind you of something from the *Communist Manifesto*?
[174-176] The part of our public that is inclined towards Narodism is least interested in analyzing Chernyshevsky's views from the standpoint of their proximity to scientific socialism; and it is quite possible that they would consider the establishment of such proximity an insult to the memory of the great thinker.
Among the majority of Marxists, on the contrary, there prevails the view of Chernyshevsky as a writer very sympathetic, useful in his time, but very far from the modern materialistic worldview. Their attitude towards Chernyshevsky is strongly influenced
NB
NB
NB

* On Land Ownership. Collected Works, III, 418 (1857).
** Collected Works, III, 303 (1857).
*** On Land Ownership. Collected Works, III, 455 (1857).

by the caprice of history, which made this objectivist and materialist the founder of Narodism. Generally, the majority of the public knows about Chernyshevsky only that he wrote the utopian novel *What Is To Be Done?* and allegedly dreamed of Russia's transition from the commune directly to socialism through the conspiracy of a small group of revolutionary intellectuals.
The actual scientific profile of Chernyshevsky has very little in common with this fantastic image...
Chernyshevsky viewed the history of humanity through the eyes of a strict objectivist. He saw in it a dialectical process of development through contradictions, through leaps, which themselves are the result of gradual quantitative changes. As a result of this unceasing dialectical process, there is a transition from lower forms to higher ones. The actors in history are social classes, whose struggle is determined by economic causes. At the basis of the historical process lies the economic factor, which determines political and legal relations, as well as the ideology of society.
Can one deny that this point of view is close to the historical materialism of Marx and Engels? The worldview of Chernyshevsky differs from the system of the founders of modern scientific socialism only in the lack of systematization and the definiteness of certain terms. The only serious gap in Chernyshevsky's historical-philosophical views is that he did not clearly indicate the decisive importance of the development of productive forces as the main factor in the historical process...
CHAPTER VII
POLITICAL ECONOMY AND SOCIALISM
[275-280] In Chernyshevsky's discussions on this subject, we again encounter a peculiar mixture of brilliant insights and utopian tendencies, a mixture explained, as in all other cases, by the general character of his economic system, which we have discussed repeatedly.
He criticizes Mill for limiting himself to a couple of remarks on "the most important commodity - labor," while "labor is the only or the most important commodity for a huge
NB
excessive
NB

REMARKS ON YU. M. STEKLOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY..."

"of the majority of people"* Chernyshevsky explains this circumstance by the fact that Mill's entire analysis is conducted from the standpoint of the capitalist, that "the point of view from which the idea of the cost of production arises - is the point of view of the producer, and specifically only the producer, who buys labor from hired workers"**. If the fundamental question about this "strange commodity" is not raised, then nothing special can be said about its exchange value: a commodity as a commodity is subject to the equation of supply and demand - and that is all. "But the fundamental question is: should labor be a commodity, should it have an exchange value?"...
The purchase of labor differs from the purchase of a slave only in the duration of time for which the sale is made, and in the degree of power that the seller gives to the buyer over themselves. The essential feature here is the same: the power of a private individual over the economic forces of another person.
"Jurists and administrators may be interested in the difference between the purchase of labor and slavery; but the political economist should not"...
"Labor is not a product. It is only a productive force, it is only the source of the product. It differs from the product as a muscle differs from the weight it lifts, as a human being differs from cloth or bread"***...
Following classical economics, Chernyshevsky distinguishes two kinds of value: intrinsic and exchange. By intrinsic value, he means use value**** - and in contrast to bourgeois economics, he focuses his main attention on the analysis of this intrinsic value. This is entirely natural if we recall that Chernyshevsky criticizes the capitalist system not so much from the standpoint of its internal objective tendencies, but rather from the standpoint of its opposition to the interests of society, the people, the masses...
"We see," he concludes, "that essentially, exchange value should coincide with intrinsic value and deviates from it only due to the erroneous recognition of labor as a commodity, which it should not be.
NB
NB

* Notes to Mill, p. 436 ff.
** Ibid., p. 492.
*** Notes to Mill, p. 493.
**** "For an object to have exchange value, it must... be suitable for a certain use - according to the opinion of the buyer... In the language of political economy, this is expressed as follows: only those objects have exchange value which have intrinsic value." Notes to Mill, p. 420.

Therefore, the possibility of distinguishing exchange value from intrinsic value is evidence only of the economic unsatisfactoriness of a life in which there is a difference between them. Theory should regard the separation of exchange value from intrinsic value in the same way as it regards slavery, monopoly, and protectionism. It can and should study these phenomena in the greatest detail, but it should not forget that it is here describing deviations from the natural order. It may find that the elimination of one or another of these economic life phenomena will require a very long time and very significant efforts; but however distant the cure for one or another economic ailment may seem, it should not fail to represent what the healthy state of affairs should be*.
The healthy state of affairs is the socialist system, in which production is systematically organized according to the needs of society, labor ceases to be a commodity, and "exchange value coincides with intrinsic value." The distribution of productive forces among different occupations in a system of production based on exchange, or in production for sale, is determined by the distribution of purchasing power in society; in a system of production, however, based "directly on the needs of the producer," it is determined by these needs. This is the case at the lower stage of development, characterized by the existence of closed small-scale economies; but it will also be the case at the higher stage of economic development, where collective organized economy will prevail**...
[282-283] In this system, "the exchange value of the product is left without any attention; the product is directly brought to meet human needs, and only its suitability for satisfying them - its intrinsic value - is considered; the acquisition of exchange value by the product is assumed to be a random, exceptional matter, because the mass of products does not go into sale or exchange, but serves directly for
NB
NB
no!
NB

* Notes to Mill, 440-441.
** Notes to Mill, 449-450. - Now it becomes clear what additions Chernyshevsky made to Mill's 17 theses on value (see above, p. 232): in them, he opposes the principles of capitalist and socialist economies from the standpoint of the opposition between the two kinds of value.

REMARKS ON YU. M. STEKLOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY..."
the consumption of the producer; if, however, a part of the products goes into exchange for the products of other producers*, exchange value does not become something distinct from use value - use value directly transforms into exchange value without any increase or decrease**...
[295-296] From the preceding exposition, the reader could form an idea of the character of Chernyshevsky's economic system, his method, and the aim of his research. The aim was to reveal, through the critique of existing economic relations, the harm of capitalism for the broad masses of the people, to emphasize its transitory nature, and to outline the basic features of the future socialist system. In this process, the emphasis naturally shifted to the critique of the existing situation from the perspective of the impending one and to the characterization of the future system - even in the most general terms. As a result, the analysis of existing economic relations suffered somewhat, and, as we have seen above, Chernyshevsky's definitions of some fundamental concepts of political economy proved to be inconsistent from a historical and dialectical standpoint.
However, if the shortcomings of the method applied by Chernyshevsky adversely affected the overall significance of his system and made it short-lived, and if this system played a certain historical role but is now recognized as outdated, these general deficiencies and the inaccuracy of individual definitions did not prevent our author from making a series of profound critical remarks concerning the capitalist system as a whole. In this area, the talent and insight of your author were fully evident...
[320] Chernyshevsky's socialism, of course, was not free from certain utopian elements, but on this basis, we do not dare to label Chernyshevsky simply as a utopian. As we have already said, Chernyshevsky occupies an intermediate stage between utopian and scientific socialism, in most cases standing closer to the latter...
[324] We repeat, Chernyshevsky's utopianism should be discussed with a grain of salt. A strict realist, he took from utopian systems primarily their critique of private property and the capitalist system, as well as the general principles of the future system, such as association, the combination of industry and agriculture, the organization of production, etc.; but he clearly saw the shortcomings of utopian systems and brilliantly criticized many of their positions...
[328-330] But does all this give us the right to classify Chernyshevsky as a utopian tout court? We certainly do not think so.
It is clear from the entire preceding exposition that Chernyshevsky cannot be classified as a representative of "petty-bourgeois socialism"...
All these negative features of petty-bourgeois socialism were organically foreign to our Chernyshevsky. He was completely free from the idealization of patriarchal barbarism; he categorically denied the viability of small-scale production; and his positive program was by no means aimed at the restoration of small-scale crafts or agriculture, but at the planned social organization of production on the principles of collectivism.
But is there any basis to classify our author as a representative of critically utopian socialism? Let us see...
Marx, who was so severe in his assessment of the writings and activities of such representatives of European socialism as Proudhon and Lassalle (the latter being his own pupil), and such representatives of Russian socialism as Herzen, Bakunin, and Nechaev, treated Chernyshevsky with the greatest respect and deep sympathy. Extremely restrained in praise and sparing in complimentary remarks, the creator of scientific socialism acknowledged our author as a great scholar and critic who masterfully exposed the bankruptcy of bourgeois economics. Clearly,
NB
? ?

* Here, as we see, Chernyshevsky allows for partial exchange even in the future society. The point is that, as we will see below, he allowed for the possibility of an intermediate stage between capitalism and socialism.
** From all the above, it is clear that if there can be established some very general similarity between Chernyshevsky's and Proudhon's views on value, this similarity is purely formal. According to Proudhon, his "constituted (or constituted) value" can only be realized in a society of small independent producers freely exchanging their products-goods; whereas Chernyshevsky's "norm of values" presupposes, on the contrary, a society organized on the principles of collective labor and collective ownership of the means of production, putting only a negligible part of its products into exchange. The starting point for Chernyshevsky is socialist, for Proudhon - petty-bourgeois, individualistic. Where the "norm of values" of the former begins to operate, there is no place for the "constituted value" of the latter.
*** The word "only?" is written by Lenin in the upper left corner of the page. Ed.

NOTES ON YU. M. STEKLOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY..."
that this flattering review, perhaps the only one from the stern Marx, must have had some serious grounds—especially when compared with Marx's strict reviews of other major representatives of socialist thought. And such grounds undoubtedly existed...
[332-336] The traits of the utopians were completely foreign to Chernyshevsky—except for one: he also saw in the foundation of productive associations a means to demonstrate the advantages of cooperative economy over the capitalist one and as an instrument for propagating new ideas. But what a colossal difference there was between him and the utopians in this respect! First, he never declared the establishment of associations to be the sole means of social transformation, nor did he try to doctrinarily impose this single form on the working class or set it against the historical forms of the workers' movement; second, he not only did not deny the political struggle and the political tasks of the proletariat, but, on the contrary, as we have seen above (Chapters V and VI), he reproached the socialists for their timidity and inconsistency in carrying out these tasks, particularly on the issue of seizing political power and revolutionary dictatorship. Political indifference, the narrow exclusivity of the inventor of the philosopher's stone, the armchair thinker dreaming of benefiting the foolish humanity with his ingenious inventions and looking down on the helpless floundering of the unenlightened masses in the whirlpools of historical turmoil—in short, sectarian self-assurance and pedantry were absolutely foreign to him*.
And if in the field of scientific criticism of capitalism Chernyshevsky was a disciple of Fourier, Owen, and Saint-Simon, then in the field of practical actions and methods of political struggle, he was closer to the Blanquists and Chartists...
However, Chernyshevsky did not believe in the imminent advent of socialism. In this regard, he viewed things more realistically than, for example, Marx and Engels in the late 1840s. In the article "Economic Activity and Legislation" (1859), he states that we are still very far from socialism, "perhaps not for a thousand years, but probably more than a hundred or a hundred and fifty"* *. Therefore, Chernyshevsky's hopes for the commune (while he still had these hopes) should not be interpreted as if he allowed the possibility of a sudden leap from Russian barbarism, with its illiteracy and wooden wheels, straight into the communist millennium. He probably believed that if history, which, "like a grandmother, loves her youngest grandchildren terribly,"** ** turns out to be especially favorable for the Russian people, something like what has been called a "labor republic" in recent years will emerge, and in such a case, the preservation of the commune would provide the opportunity to gradually move towards genuine collective farming with the use of machinery.
Thus, Chernyshevsky did not believe in the nearness of socialism, but he believed that it was necessary to study the foundations of the socialist system now, "otherwise we will go astray"***. But if complete and final realization of the socialist system is currently unthinkable, partial realization of socialism is conceivable. "Does it not happen," says Chernyshevsky, "that a thinker, developing his idea with a single concern for justice and the consistency of the system in his purely theoretical works, knows how to limit his advice in practical matters of the present to only one part of his system, which is feasible and for the present?" This is why Chernyshevsky considers it not useless, while preserving the integrity of his socialist aspirations, "to talk about what is possible in the present reality." Further, Chernyshevsky repeats his plan for productive associations, drawn up according to Fourier and Louis Blanc, with the proviso that this is only one of the "assumptions taking into account the limits of what is possible for the present era"****.
?
NB
NB
"realism"?

* Collected Works, IV, 450.
** Ibid., 329.
*** Note to Mill, 634 and following.
**** In this regard, Chernyshevsky was undoubtedly influenced by Fourier's doctrine of guarantism as an intermediate stage between the capitalist system (civilization) and the socialist one (social order, harmony). Guarantism, in Fourier's view, is a social arrangement in which private interests, dominant in civilization, will be subordinated to guarantees of public interest. The absolute right of private property will be limited; joint-stock community offices will organize production and trade on cooperative principles; a broad system of state...

REMARKS ON YU. M. STEKLOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY..."
Let us not judge him too harshly for this. Let us remember that Kautsky, in his pamphlet *The Day After the Revolution*, also speaks of the gradual realization of socialism—albeit after the proletariat has seized power. Furthermore, if we take an era closer to Chernyshevsky, the congresses of the International, whose work was influenced by Marx himself, also allowed for such partial realization of socialism within the framework of the bourgeois system (which included the nationalization of land, railways, canals, and mines, and their transfer to workers' associations, etc.).
CHAPTER VIII
CHERNYSHEVSKY AND RUSSIAN SOCIETY OF HIS TIME
[340-354] Chernyshevsky viewed contemporary Russian society with extreme pessimism; he saw in it neither a desire for decisive struggle nor the strength to carry such a struggle to its conclusion. "To remake Russian society according to our convictions!—says the hero of the story *A Quiet Voice*:—in youth, it is natural to think about all sorts of chimeras. But at my age, it would be shameful to retain such naivety... I have long been an adult, long since I saw the society in which I live, the country, the nation to which I belong. To strive to apply my convictions to its life would be like trying to instill my notions of the yoke into an ox."* It seemed to him that he lived in an era of "hopeless societal lethargy"**...
Levitsky thus describes the impression made by conversations with Chernyshevsky***.
From what he said, much seemed too dark, too hopeless. His words aroused
Oh!
He's exaggerating
Mr. Steklov
??

a deep contempt in the listener for the present and for any activity in the present. A sincere democrat should not get excited because all our public affairs are trivial and nonsense. Our society does nothing but trifles. Now*, for example, it is solely agitated over the abolition of serfdom. What is serfdom? A trifle. In America, slavery is not a trifle: the difference between the rights and well-being of a black worker in the southern states and a white worker in the northern states is immeasurably great; to equalize the slave with the northern worker would be a great benefit. With us, it is different. How much better do free peasants live than serfs? How much higher is their social significance? The difference is so microscopic that it is not worth talking about. The abolition of serfdom is a trifle, as long as the land remains in the possession of the nobility. From the reform, only one-hundredth of the peasants will benefit, while the rest may only lose. In essence, all this is a trifle and nonsense. All is nonsense compared to the general character of the national system. Suppose this partial reform is carried out. What comes next? Trial by jury? "Also an important thing, when it is not under the influence of such a general national system, under which no judicial forms can function much worse than trial by jury." Two trifles—this is the entire program of the efforts and enthusiasms of Russian society for quite some time, unless something special happens; and nothing special is yet foreseen...
Levitsky (Dobrolyubov) could not agree with these gloomy conclusions of Volgin (Chernyshevsky), although during the conversations, he succumbed to the powerful influence of this great and consistent mind. He acknowledges Volgin as a man devoted heart and soul to the people's interests, but he also clearly sees his shortcomings: he does not believe in the people...
We quote from this deeply interesting diary (let us not forget, written by Chernyshevsky himself) another conversation, characteristic of Chernyshevsky's mood at the time (the second half of the 1850s). Living in a remote province, Levitsky recalls conversations with his teacher. "In my head, Petersburg, journalism, our liberals, and Volgin, speaking with languid mockery: 'Ah, you!—What kind of beer can you brew with such scum?' And you object to Volgin: 'When and where has society not been a crowd of scum? Yet, decent people have always worked everywhere.'—'Naturally, out of stupidity; always and everywhere, wise people were foolish, Vladimir Alekseevich. What joy is there in grinding water?—

* That is, in the late 1850s.

* *A Quiet Voice*. Collected Works, X, Part 1, 63.
** Ibid., 70.
*** *Levitsky's Diary* (the second, unfinished part of the *Prologue*). Collected Works, X, Part 1, p. 210 and following.

REMARKS ON YU. M. STEKLOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY..."
Volgin continued his feeble sarcasms. - History moves not by the thoughts and work of intelligent people, but by the foolishness of fools and ignoramuses. There is no need for intelligent people to get involved here; it is foolish to meddle in things that are not one's own, believe me!" You reply to him: "The question is not whether it is wise to meddle, but whether you can avoid meddling. Is it wise for my body to shiver from cold, is it wise for my chest to feel constricted in suffocating gas? It is foolish. It would be better for me if it were otherwise; but such is my nature: I shiver from cold, I am indignant at baseness, and if there is nothing to break down the wall of the stifling prison, I will beat my head against it - even if it does not budge, at least my head will be broken - still, I am in the gain." I see a feeble smile, I see a shaking of the head: "Ah, Vladimir Alekseevich, indeed, in this sense you speak rightly, but believe me, it is not worth having such feelings." - "It is not a matter of whether it is worth having them, but of the fact that you do have them"*
To work for people who do not understand those who work for them - this is very inconvenient for the workers and disadvantageous for the success of the work, Chernyshevsky said in "Letters Without an Address." This is the tragedy of Chernyshevsky and his contemporaries. Given the social forces at the time, the course of events proceeded with fateful inevitability, directed against the interests of the people...
And what about the liberals? Chernyshevsky placed the least hope in them. Distrust of the liberals is necessary for a revolutionary, as the liberals think least of all about the people's welfare and pursue purely bourgeois interests. But he would have forgiven them half of their historical sins if they had shown even a little resolve and persistence, even in pursuing their class goals, if they had understood that no reforms have any significance in Russia as long as the basic features of the old regime remain intact...
There are no men in Russian society, says Chernyshevsky. Without acquiring the habit of independent participation in public affairs, without developing the feelings of a citizen, a male child, growing up, becomes a being of the male sex, first in middle age, then in old age, but he does not become a man or, at least, not a man of noble character.
The pettiness of views and interests reflects on character and will: "the breadth of views determines the breadth of decisions." This defines the character of Russian heroes, who, as Chernyshevsky notes, act in the same way in the works of all our writers. "While there is no talk of action, and it is only necessary to fill idle time, an idle mind, or an idle heart with conversation and dreams, the hero is very bold; when it comes to directly and precisely expressing his feelings and desires, most of the heroes begin to waver and feel awkward in speech. A few, the bravest, manage to gather all their strength and stammer out something that gives a vague idea of their thought, but if someone were to seize upon their desire and say: 'You want this and that; we are very glad; start acting, and we will support you,' - at such a response, half of the bravest heroes faint, while the others begin to harshly reproach you for putting them in a difficult position, saying that they did not expect such proposals from you, that they are completely at a loss, cannot make sense of anything because 'how can it be so soon,' and 'besides, they are honest people,' and not just honest, but very humble, and do not want to cause you any trouble, and in general, how can one really bother with everything that is talked about out of idleness, and that it is best not to undertake anything, because everything involves trouble and inconvenience, and nothing good can come of it, because, as already said, they 'did not expect and could not have expected,' etc."*
Chernyshevsky wrote the article on Turgenev's "Asya" to expose "liberal illusions." He systematically fought these illusions in all his writings, incidentally revealing the narrowness and class character of liberal aspirations. Naturally, the liberals repaid him for his campaign with deep hatred, comparing him to Grech, Bulgarin, and Senkovsky.
But Chernyshevsky and his circle were not disturbed by liberal slander and continued to mercilessly expose liberal sentimentality, pompous and solemn talk about Russian progress; they proved that the ship of Russian progress not only did not move forward at full speed, but continued to prosperously stick in the old historical swamp. In the satirical supplement to "Sovremennik," the famous "Svistok," in which Chernyshevsky himself wrote little (Dobrolyubov was the main contributor), but over which he had a great influence on its direction and content, liberal enthusiasm, moderation, punctuality, and the dear-to-liberal-hearts "publicity" were mercilessly ridiculed.
Chernyshevsky's attitude toward Russian liberals is well illustrated in the novel "Prolog." There is no need to speak of liberal bureaucrats: Chernyshevsky despised and hated them from

* Diary of Levitsky (the second, unfinished part of the "Prologue"). Collected Works, X, Part 1, 239.

* The Russian Man at a Rendezvous. Collected Works, I, 90-91 (1858).

REMARKS ON YU. M. STEKLOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHESKY..."

...with all his heart, perhaps even more than the open and convinced reactionaries...

In No. 44 of *The Bell* for 1859, there appeared an article by Herzen entitled "Very dangerous!" («Extremely Dangerous!»), directly aimed at Chernyshevsky's circle. "Lately," wrote Herzen, "a certain noxious current, a kind of corruption of thought, has been blowing through our journalism." Herzen refuses to accept the views of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov as an expression of public opinion, and instead suggests that their articles were inspired by the government...

This scandalous article by Herzen, in which Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov were portrayed almost as provocateurs and servants of the reaction, and in which future victims of absolutism were promised the Stanislaus on their necks, made a very unpleasant impression on the *Sovremennik* [The Contemporary] circle. In June 1859, Chernyshevsky went abroad, where in London he had an explanation with Herzen about this matter. As was to be expected, this explanation led to nothing: at that moment both interlocutors stood at opposite poles. Chernyshevsky was a representative of the revolutionary-democratic trend in social thought, while Herzen then still stood on the ground of enlightened liberalism and was not free from some hopes in liberal bureaucracy...

Herzen told of his meeting with Chernyshevsky in the article "Superfluous Men and Cholerics"* in an extremely biased and one-sided manner. According to him, the entire conversation between representatives of two directions of Russian social thought revolved around historical excursions into the 1830s and 1840s. In reality, there can be no doubt that the dispute between Chernyshevsky and Herzen must have centered on their attitude toward the then-current Russian liberalism and the reforms of the 1860s...

After the explanation with Chernyshevsky, Herzen was already forced to abandon his insinuations against the radicals, who, according to him, acted under the government's instigation. Now he acknowledges that they are the kindest-hearted and most noble-minded people, but adds that their tone could provoke an angel to fight and a saint to curse**. Moreover, he says, they exaggerate everything in the world with such aplomb and not in jest, but to vex, that they drive good-natured people to distraction. For every "bottles and very large ones" they have a gloomy "no, sir, forty-bucket barrels!" Herzen consoles himself with the hope that the type of cholerics is short-lived. Life, he says, cannot long endure the depressing faces of Neva Danyils, who grimly reproach people for eating without gnashing their teeth and, admiring a picture or music, forgetting all the misfortunes of the world. In place of these relentless negators, consumed by irritable and "curled-up" self-esteem, in place of these hypochondriacs, undeveloped talents, and failed geniuses, a new, cheerful, and healthy generation should come, to whom the old men à la Herzen might extend a hand over the heads of the physically and morally sick generation of cholerics.

As we see, even such a sincere and enlightened representative of liberalism as Herzen could not organically understand the first generation of Russian revolutionary democrats*. Because of the tone, he did not discern the essence of their aspirations; because of the trees, he did not see the forest. So organically were the liberals and the democrats already then alien to each other. For here it was not a matter of a clash between two generations, or rather, not so much a clash between two generations as a conflict between two social trends, two parties representing essentially different and hostile class interests**. The liberals represented the interests of the-

NB
NB
NB

* G. Bogucharsky, in his book *From the Past of Russian Society* (p. 250), having described this conflict between the two trends, concludes: "it is quite clear that Chernyshevsky was essentially wrong in the matter." True, he remembers that "we have testimony on this subject (the conversation in London) from only one side," but, first, this should have been remembered before making such a decisive conclusion, and second, the testimony on this subject is the entire literary and public activity of both great writers. Chernyshevsky remained true to his views to the end—and history has proved the justice of his attitude toward Russian liberalism; whereas Herzen soon had to abandon his idealism and largely adopt Chernyshevsky's point of view. Why, then, does Mr. Bogucharsky still consider Chernyshevsky "essentially wrong"? In what respect and in what matter? In his attitude toward the Russian liberals, or the liberalizing bureaucracy? This is what comes of going through the school of the Liberationists and Cadets!
** It is characteristic that Turgenev (of course, a man of the 1840s), after breaking with the radical *Sovremennik*, switched to Katkov's *Russian Herald*, which by that time had already sufficiently revealed its true tendencies. Turgenev's novel *Fathers and Sons*, which, whatever may be said, was directed against the "nihilists" (although, thanks to the author's artistic sincerity, the nihilist Bazarov turned out to be the most sympathetic character in the novel), was published in the *Russ. Herald* in 1862. Meanwhile, Katkov, in his journal, was already conducting a campaign of denunciation against the democrats and soon turned against Herzen (Turgenev's personal friend), pouring buckets of filth on him.

[595
Page from Yu. M. Steklov's book
*N. G. Chernyshevsky, His Life and Work* with remarks by V. I. Lenin

Reduced

REMARKS ON YU. M. STEKLOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY..."

As the press of the bourgeoisie and progressive nobility, Chernyshevsky and his circle defended the interests of the toilers or, in his own phraseology, the common people, in which, given the social conditions of the time, the working class and peasantry were inextricably mixed. It should not be overlooked that at that time the peasantry constituted almost the sole mass of toilers from which the proletariat had not yet emerged sufficiently to be considered by the democrats as a serious historical factor. This is why, in the calculations of the socialists of that time in general, and of Chernyshevsky in particular, the peasantry played the leading role, while the proletariat was mentioned only obliquely and with faint allusions (for example, the sewing workshops in the novel *What Is To Be Done?*).

Precisely because the foundation of the regime, under which all that was honest and alive in Russia was suffocating, lay in serfdom—precisely for this reason, the advanced Russians of that time welcomed with such enthusiasm the first acts by which the government announced its resolve to embark on the emancipation of the peasantry. Even our great Chernyshevsky, at the moment, succumbed to the general enthusiasm and, paralleling Herzen's: "You have conquered, Galilean!" prefaced his article "On the New Conditions of Rural Life" (*Sovrem.*, 1858, No. 2) with an epigraph addressed to Alexander II: "Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows (Psalm XLV, verse 8)"*...

The chief source of all the defects in Russian life was serfdom**. "With the abolition of this fundamental evil of our life, every other evil will lose nine-tenths of its strength." Serfdom paralyzed "all the government's efforts, all the endeavors of private individuals for the good of Russia." Under it, there could be no justice, no normal functioning of the state machinery, no decent administration, no rational budget, no development of productive forces. The forced labor of the peasants was, first and foremost, disadvantageous to the landowners themselves. The abolition of serfdom would benefit the entire people, the whole country, but most of all and primarily, the landowning class, and then the merchants and industrialists: hence the costs of the emancipation of the peasants should be borne by the entire nation***.

NB
1858

* Collected Works, IV, 50 and 83.
** Later, as we know, Chernyshevsky somewhat modified his view; the failure of the peasant reform compelled him to seek this fundamental cause more deeply—and he found it in the political system of Russia, one of whose manifestations he recognized as serfdom.
*** Collected Works, IV, 62, 66, 67, 94, 99, 112, 387.

However, all these positive aspects will manifest themselves only if the reform is carried out thoroughly and seriously, if the peasants are provided with all the land they need and at a small redemption price*. In the event of a rational resolution of the peasant question, Russia will advance by rapid strides, with communal land ownership helping her to gradually and painlessly transition to higher forms of organized labor.
This is why the first steps of the government in the field of peasant reform filled Chernyshevsky with such enthusiasm, inspiring him with such rosy hopes. And this is why, from his pen, came such praise for Alexander II, so uncharacteristic of the writer's general worldview. "The blessing promised to peacemakers and the gentle crowns Alexander II with happiness, such as no ruler of Europe has yet been crowned—happiness in being the one to begin and complete the liberation of his subjects." But soon, still in the same year 1858, Chernyshevsky changed his attitude toward the government when he saw that it was distorting the great reform in the interests of the landowners**.
[356-362] With anguish and impotent rage, Chernyshevsky watched as the peasant reform, having fallen into the hands of the bureaucrats and serf owners, was systematically distorted and carried out to the detriment of the people's interests. No one asked the opinion of the people, and Chernyshevsky took it upon himself to express the peasant point of view. The people, he said, expect from the reform land and freedom, that is, not only personal liberation but also the transfer of all the land they use for a moderate redemption (it was impossible to even mention the idea of liberation without redemption due to the censorship conditions of the time, as we have noted). He warns the government that the temporary preservation of obligatory relations and a heavy redemption will instill in the people the thought that they have been deceived, and in such a case, the country faces the most severe trials***. Influenced by the feeling of indignation that overcame Chernyshevsky at the sight of the distortion of the peasant reform, he began to lean towards the idea that it would be better if there were no reforms at all. "I do not wish," says Volgin,

NB
p. 357
1858
No. 12

* In essence, Chernyshevsky stood for the complete expropriation of the landowners and the transfer of the land to the peasants without any redemption; but he could not openly speak about this in his articles due to censorship conditions. Compare the excerpt below from the novel *Prologue* (the conversation with Sokolovsky).
** The famous article "Critique of Philosophical Prejudices Against Communal Land Ownership," in which Chernyshevsky laughs at himself for the temporarily optimistic hopes that had seized him, was published in No. 12 of *Sovrem.* for 1858.
*** The Organization of Life. Collected Works, IV, 545-47.

REMARKS ON YU. M. STEKLOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY..."

"Reforms are made when there are no conditions necessary for the reforms to be carried out satisfactorily."*
"In another place, he remarks: 'Let us free the peasants.' - Where is the strength for such a task? There is no strength yet. It is absurd to take on a task without the strength to accomplish it. And you see where it is heading.
They will start freeing [the peasants]. What will come of it? - Judge for yourselves what happens when you take on a task that you cannot complete. Naturally, you will spoil the matter; something vile will come of it... - Volgin
fell silent, frowned, and began shaking his head. - Ah, our so-called emancipators, all
these Riazantsevs and their company! - what braggarts; what chatterers; what fools! -
He shook his head again." In persuading the revolutionary Sokolovsky (Serakovsky) not to believe in our liberals and to be skeptical about the empty talk of serious reforms being undertaken, Volgin asserts that, in his opinion, there would be no great harm if the matter of peasant liberation were handed over to the landowner party. The difference is not colossal, but negligible.
It would be colossal if the peasants received land without redemption (this is where Chernyshevsky reveals his cards: in the novel written in Siberia; in articles written with censorship approval, he could not even hint at this). The plan of the landowner party differs from that of the progressives only in that it is simpler and shorter, and therefore even better. If we are to speak the truth, it would be better for them to be freed without land. "The question is posed in such a way that I do not find any reason to get excited about whether or not the peasants will be freed; even less so about who will free them - the liberals or the landowners. To me, it is all the same. Or perhaps the landowners are even better."**
Why did Chernyshevsky think that the liberation of the peasants without land was better? Because, in his view, this was the only means to stir up the inert mass of the people and arouse in them a movement that would sweep away the old regime entirely and give the people real land and freedom. All this time, he wavered between complete dejection and hope for an impending peasant revolution. At a liberal banquet, Volgin threatens the reactionary landowners with a popular revolution; but a minute later, he laughs at himself. To threaten with a peasant uprising, a peasant revolution! "Wouldn't that be ridiculous? Who would believe it, who
NB
NB

* "Prologue," loc. cit., 91, 116, 120, 121.
** Ibid., 163-164.

would not burst out laughing? - And it is not quite honest to threaten with something in which you yourself believe the least of all..."*
Chernyshevsky refers to the unrest in Poland, peasant disturbances within Russia, the appearance of revolutionary proclamations ("Velikoruss," "To the Young Generation"), and ferment among the university youth in St. Petersburg, as well as the constitutional movement among the nobility.**
Thus, despite his pessimistic attitude toward the consciousness and activity of the Russian people, by the end of 1861, Chernyshevsky apparently began to admit the possibility of a broad peasant movement. In this regard, his article
"Is This Not the Beginning of a Change?" is extremely characteristic, written in response to N. V. Uspensky's stories and published in the eleventh issue of *Sovremennik* for 1861. Pointing out that N. Uspensky writes the truth about the people without any embellishments and that his stories are free from saccharine idealization of peasant life, Chernyshevsky explains this circumstance by the fact that a change for the better has occurred in the psychology of the Russian peasantry...
"The determination of Mr. Uspensky to describe the people in such a manner, which is far from flattering to them, testifies to a significant change in circumstances, to a great difference between the present times and the recent past, when no one would have dared to expose the people...
In great historical moments, when the vital interests and aspirations of the masses are touched,
the people are transformed. 'Take the most ordinary, the most colorless, weak-willed, and vulgar person: however apathetic and petty his life may be, there are moments
of a completely different hue, moments of energetic effort and bold decisions. The same can be said of the history of every people.'
And Chernyshevsky concludes his article with a call to the intelligentsia to go to the people, for which no fantastic Slavophile tricks are needed, but simply a straightforward and unpretentious conversation about their interests.***
To bring the people closer to the ideas of democracy and socialism - this great historical task was to be accomplished by the new
NB
NB

* "Prologue," loc. cit., 181.
** "Letters Without an Address," l. c, 304.
*** "Is This Not the Beginning of a Change?" Collected Works, VIII, 339-359.

NOTES ON YU. M. STEKLOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY..."

the young generation that emerged on the scene after the defeat of the old regime during the Crimean War. Chernyshevsky placed all his hopes on this vigorous and bold generation; for them, he and Dobrolyubov wrote their articles, to them they appealed with calls to go to the people. The depiction of these
new people is dedicated to Chernyshevsky's novel *What Is To Be Done?*, written in the Peter and Paul Fortress. "Good and strong, honest and capable," Chernyshevsky addresses them in the preface to the novel, "you have only recently begun to appear among us, but there are already many of you, and your numbers are rapidly increasing." And when there are very many of you, then it will be very good...
These people have a natural human aspiration toward socialism, toward the establishment of the kingdom of labor. Their bride, the queen of freedom and equality, suggests
to them magical words that attract every aggrieved and offended being.
They influence those around them, "develop" them, i.e., instill in them a sense of human dignity and love for the suffering (characteristic of Chernyshevsky is that Lopukhov, in developing Vera Pavlovna, gives her books by Fourier and Feuerbach). They are organically at odds with the liberals; they are propagandists of new democratic and socialist ideas: Owen is for them "a holy old man." They closely follow science,
are interested in anthropological philosophy, Liebig's chemical theories, the laws of historical progress, and current political issues, and organize a circle that
includes a couple of craftsmen and small traders, a couple of officers, teachers, and students; they set up sewing workshops on communist principles. But in essence, their ideal is bourgeois happiness; their activity is primarily cultural; they refrain from direct political struggle and participation in revolutionary enterprises, and even fear it.
The true representative of the new people and the forerunner of the people's fighters is Rakhmetov,
"a special person," as Chernyshevsky calls him. In Rakhmetov, the relentless
logic of Chernyshevsky himself is combined with the vein of a genuine revolutionary agitator, which Chernyshevsky, apparently, lacked. In this respect, Rakhmetov resembles Chernyshevsky's friend, the famous Polish revolutionary Serakovsky, whom Nikolai Gavrilovich
depicted in the "Prologue" under the name Sokolovsky; but Rakhmetov is free from the liberal enthusiasms of Sokolovsky. "Agitators are amusing to me," says
NB
NB
NB

Volgin, but in reality, he admires them, feeling that they possess the instinct of true political figures and the practical energy of fighters for the people's cause*.
[365-375] If the Lopukhovs and Kirsanovs are a new type, then Rakhmetov is, so to speak, the newest type, the latest word in Russian social development. There are few such people, according to Chernyshevsky; so far, he has met only 8 specimens of this breed, including two women. "There are few of them," Chernyshevsky concludes his description of Rakhmetov, "but they enliven the life of all; without them, it would wither and sour; there are few of them, but they give all people breath, without them, people would suffocate. There is a great mass of honest and good people, but there are few such people; but they are the tea in the cup, the bouquet in fine wine; from them comes

* Serakovsky was a close associate in the *Sovremennik* [Contemporary] circle, and biographical information about
him is partly included in the novel *Prologue* and partly in Shaganov's pamphlet *N. G. Chernyshevsky in Exile and in Banishment* based on the words of Nikolai Gavrilovich. In 1848, while still a student, Serakovsky came home to Podolia Province for the Christmas holidays. At that time,
among the local Polish gentry, a rebellion was being prepared due to rumors of a movement starting in Galicia. Serakovsky suggested to the overzealous hot heads not to rush into decisive actions until he himself went to the border to find out what was happening. On the way, he was arrested and, "on suspicion of intending to leave the country," was sent as a private to the Orenburg Line Battalions—primarily for his frank and bold conversations with military investigators. At the beginning of the new reign, he was promoted to officer, went to St. Petersburg, and entered the Military Academy, which he completed with distinction, and then was sent abroad by the government on some military-technical missions. In England, he met Palmerston, who introduced him to Queen Victoria. In 1863, he joined the Polish uprising,
became the leader of the Kovno revolutionary detachment, was captured, and hanged by Muravyov. -
This remarkable man was depicted by Chernyshevsky under the name of Sokolovsky in the *Prologue*.
Unyielding to himself, he gently pokes fun at the passionate Sokolovsky for his optimism in the novel: "Bolislav Ivanovich and I are amusing... we await a storm in a swamp," he says. But it is clear that he loved and respected this pale enthusiast with a fiery, penetrating gaze, a knight without fear or reproach, an agitator with a practical streak, a warm heart, and a cool head, who never loses his composure in the most dangerous moments and is always ready to sacrifice his life for the cause of national liberation. The pages dedicated to the description of Sokolovsky are the best in the novel and are distinguished by striking artistic power. -
In the novel, Volgin refuses to associate with Sokolovsky because the latter, as an energetic and selfless person, will not remain long under the influence of liberal illusions and will inevitably get involved in some revolutionary activities; it is unsafe to be acquainted with such
a person. In reality, of course, things were not like that. But it is characteristic of Chernyshevsky that he even conceals in a novel, written in distant exile, long after the events it depicts.

NOTES ON YU. M. STEKLOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY..."
strength and aroma; they are the flower of the best people, the movers of the movers, the salt of the earth*.
Thus, by the end of his literary career, Chernyshevsky, despite his negative attitude
NB

* It is believed that in the character of Rakhmetov, Chernyshevsky portrayed a certain Bakhetiev, who is depicted entirely differently by Herzen (in "The Common Fund." Posthumous Articles Collection. Geneva, 1874, p. 181 and following). Herzen met him in London in 1858: around this time, in Chernyshevsky's work, Rakhmetov leaves for abroad. In our author's narrative, Rakhmetov goes abroad to offer Feuerbach money for the publication of his works (incidentally, this once again shows how highly Chernyshevsky regarded Feuerbach, "the greatest of European thinkers of the 19th century, the father of the new philosophy." *What Is To Be Done?*, l. c., 194); Bakhetiev, on the other hand, came to London to offer Herzen part of his capital for the cause of Russian propaganda.
Here is how Herzen describes Bakhetiev:
"A young man with the appearance of a cadet, shy, very gloomy, and with a peculiar appearance, rather crudely finished, like the seventh or eighth son of a country squire. Very reticent, he was almost always silent; it was evident that something was on his mind, but he had not yet reached the point where he could express it.
I left, inviting him to dinner in a couple of days. Before that, I met him on the street.
- Can I go with you? - he asked.
- Of course, it's not dangerous for me to be with you, but for you to be with me. But London is large.
- I am not afraid, - and here, suddenly, biting his bit, he quickly said; - I will never return to Russia, no, no, I absolutely will not return to Russia...
- Forgive me, you are so young.
- I love Russia, I love it very much; but there, people... There, I cannot live. I want to establish a colony on completely social foundations; I have thought it all through and now I am going straight there.
- That is, where?
- To the Marquesas Islands."
From the 50,000 francs he had, Bakhetiev took 30,000 with him to the Marquesas Islands, tying them up in a handkerchief "as one would tie up a pound of gooseberries or nuts," and left 20,000 with Herzen for the cause of propaganda: this was the "common fund" which later caused so many disputes among the Russian emigration. The further fate of Bakhetiev is completely unknown; he disappeared without a trace. In Herzen's depiction, he comes across as some kind of unhinged, almost half-mad eccentric, very little resembling the formidable and stern figure of Rakhmetov. But then again, Herzen was organically incapable of understanding the Russian revolutionaries of that time; on this ground, all those misunderstandings arose which poisoned the last days of his life. If Herzen could so falsely understand the writers Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, what is surprising if he completely failed to understand the angular and stern representative of the revolutionary youth? But on the other hand, it is quite possible that one of two other assumptions is true: either Bakhetiev did not at all serve as the prototype for Rakhmetov, or Chernyshevsky greatly idealized him, creating an image that has nothing in common with the original, or combining in it the traits of Dobrolyubov's (a severe sense of civic duty), Bakunin's (travels through Slavic lands, cf. also Kelsiev), Serakovsky's (rapprochement with all classes) characters, etc.

In relation to Russian society and distrust of the activity of the masses, [Herzen] began to admit the possibility of a broad revolutionary movement, prompted by the peasantry's disappointment with the 1861 reform. On the other hand, he could confirm the presence of new people, revolutionaries from the intelligentsia, ready to lead the people in their struggle against the realm of exploitation and oppression...
What path should the revolutionary movement take in Russia, according to Chernyshevsky's perspective?
Above (in Chapter VI), we saw that in terms of his general political views, Chernyshevsky stood close to Blanquism - but not in the sense that the word has come to be used in colloquial language*, but rather in the sense in which Marx understood it, when he recognized the Blanquists as the true representatives of the revolutionary proletariat... The Blanquists held the view that a minority is strong only insofar as it faithfully expresses, if not the aspirations, then at least the interests of the working majority.
Chernyshevsky, it seems, also stood on this same point of view, the only possible one for epochs characterized by the passivity of the masses. He clearly emphasized that without the participation of the masses, it is impossible to achieve serious practical results; he stated that only the sympathy of the broad masses can ensure the success of any political program and that without arousing enthusiasm in the masses, revolutionary movements
NB
NB
NB

* An example of such a superficial understanding of Blanquism is provided by Mr. Nikolaev's reflections on Chernyshevsky's political views. After recounting his conversation with Chernyshevsky in exile, during which Nikolai Gavrilovich expressed the idea that it would have been much better if, during the peasant reform, the openly serf-owning party of the nobility had triumphed and the peasants had been freed without land, because then a catastrophe would have immediately occurred, Mr. Nikolaev concludes: "Here, as you see, is pure Blanquism: the worse, the better (!). This does not at all resemble the later theories of our homegrown Marxists (whom, incidentally, the gentlemen Nikolaevs at the time precisely accused of the principle 'the worse, the better' and whom these gentlemen precisely accused of sympathizing with the dispossessing of the peasantry. - Yu. S.). Not evolution, not gradual liberation of the peasants from the means of production, not boiling the peasant in the factory pot, not his gradual transformation into a laborer, but complete and immediate dispossession. Not evolution, which, I repeat, N. G. viewed with indignation (?), but catastrophe. Not Marxism, but Blanquism" (*Personal Recollections*, 21-22). - One can say, a fine understanding of Chernyshevsky's views can be gleaned from such a tirade!

NOTES ON YU. M. STEKLOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY..."

attempts are inevitably doomed to a deplorable fiasco. He, as we know, had little faith in the activity of the masses, in their ability for broad political initiative. But he believed that in those historical periods when the immediate interests of these masses—primarily economic, especially those close, sensitive, and understandable to them—are at stake, they are capable of coming into motion and, in any case, can serve as a support for the conscious minority inclined to decisive initiative...

In a series of brilliant articles dedicated to defending the communal principle from the attacks of
bourgeois economists *, Chernyshevsky developed all the arguments that later constituted the arsenal of the Narodniks, who adopted the letter but not the spirit of the great teacher...
In the West, the realization of socialism is hindered by the psychology and habits of the peasantry, although suffering on their small plots, yet clinging tenaciously to private property; there, for organizing the national economy on the principles of collectivism, it is necessary to "re-educate entire peoples." In Russia, only 1/15 or 1/20 of the land is cultivated under the right of "full ownership," while the overwhelming majority of lands are either distributed for cultivation and use according to the communal principle, or belong to the state, i.e., to the entire nation. The mass of the people still regards the land as communal property...

The theoretical possibility of this transition is analyzed in one of Chernyshevsky's most
brilliant articles, namely, "Critique of Philosophical Prejudices Against Communal Land Ownership." In fact, when writing this article, Chernyshevsky was already greatly disillusioned with the practical possibility of implementing this transition—due to the turn that the peasant reform had taken...

But when Chernyshevsky realized that none of the "lower" guarantees, which he considered necessary prerequisites for further development
NB
NB
NB
.1858, 12

* Let us name the main of these articles: 1) Review of Chicherin's "Overview of the Historical Development of the Rural Community in Russia," "Sovremennik," 1856, 4; 2) Slavophiles and the Question of the Community, "Sovremennik," 1857, 5; 3)
"Historical Studies" by Haxthausen, "Sovremennik," 1857, 7; 4) On Land Ownership, "Sovremennik," 1857, 9 and 11; 5) Critique of Philosophical Prejudices Against Communal Land Ownership, "Sovremennik," 1858, 12; 6) Superstition and
Rules of Logic, "Sovremennik," 1859, 10.

of the communal principle had been realized, when he saw that the old political
regime remained completely intact, that the implementation of the peasant reform
was handed over to the bureaucracy and the nobility, that the people not only did not receive all the land, but were even deprived of a significant part of their former pastures, and that a high redemption fee was imposed on the land provided for their use—in short, when he understood that the "great reform" threatened to worsen rather than improve the condition of the masses, not to liberate them, not to provide full scope for their creative forces, but to shackle them with even heavier chains, then he acknowledged that his hopes were unfounded, his constructions abstract, and the entire campaign in favor of the community, as a possible embryo of the socialist system, was a complete misunderstanding. And out of honesty, he hastened to openly acknowledge this.
"Suppose," he says using his "favorite method of explanation," "that I was interested in taking measures to preserve the provisions, from the stock of which your dinner is prepared. It goes without saying that if I did this out of affection for you, my zeal was based on the assumption that the provisions belonged to you and that the dinner prepared from them was healthy and beneficial for you. Imagine my feelings when I learn that the provisions do not belong to you at all and
that money is taken from you for each dinner prepared from them, which not only does not cover the cost of the
dinner itself, but which you generally cannot pay without extreme hardship. What thoughts come to my mind with these strange discoveries? 'Man is vain,' and the first thought that arises in me is about myself. 'How foolish I was to be concerned with a matter for which the conditions of usefulness were not secured! Who, except a fool, would be concerned with preserving property in certain hands without first verifying that the property will indeed go to those hands and on favorable terms?' My second thought is about you, the object of my concern, and about the matter, one of the circumstances of which I was so interested in: 'Better let all this provision rot, which brings only harm to the person I love!
Better let the whole matter perish, which brings you only ruin!' Anger for you, shame for my own foolishness—these are my feelings!" *...

* The meaning of this parable is clear: a solution to the agrarian question that is advantageous for the masses presupposes
a prior political revolution. After the 1861 reform, this idea
became the common property of all democratically minded elements. NB

NOTES ON YU. M. STEKLOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY..."

Can the Russian commune, under certain conditions, directly transition to a higher stage, bypassing the intermediate stage of capitalism?
This was the "cursed question" of then-Russian life, which tormented Chernyshevsky and his contemporaries among the socialists and democrats...
[378-392] Forced to build their theoretical edifice from the materials and on the foundation offered by the reality of the time, the socialist Sixtiers, in their aspirations and hopes for the impending peasant uprising, essentially reflected the vague yearnings and expectations of the multi-million peasant masses and gave them only, so to speak, a generalized expression...
By the end of 1861, such a peasant uprising was considered likely, and
such hopes were not held only by hot-headed young people. The conditions under which the serfs were liberated seemed to create a favorable ground
for such a spontaneous explosion, and, according to contemporary witnesses, a general peasant uprising against the then-existing state order and the ruling
classes was anticipated by all, from the government to the revolutionaries, the "nihilists." Herzen writes: "B. (Bakunin) believed in the possibility of a military-
peasant uprising in Russia, and we partly believed it too; even the government itself, as it turned out later, believed it, as evidenced by a series of measures, articles commissioned by the state, and executions ordered by
the state. The tension of minds, the ferment of minds, was undeniable, no one
foresaw then that it would be diverted into fierce patriotism"* On this same mood,
a participant in the revolutionary movement of the time, L. Panteleev, testifies:
"The mood of society (at the end of 1861) was extremely elevated; wherever you went,
there was noise, talk, lively debates, and above all - a general expectation of something big and even in the near future"**.
NB
NB
not only
NB

* Posthumous Articles Collection, p. 212. - Herzen refers to the outburst of chauvinism that swept through Russian society during the Polish uprising due to attempts by European diplomacy to intervene in the matter.
** "From Recollections of the Past," Part 1. St. Petersburg, 1905, 188, 228.

Here, even non-purely Russian conditions were at play. Throughout Europe, the air was charged with electricity. Garibaldi, the idol of the then-Russian radicals, was preparing for his crusade to Rome. In Prussia, a constitutional conflict was taking place, which, it seemed, should
lead to a revolutionary explosion. In Austria, absolutism, after its defeat in the Italian war of 1859, had not yet recovered, and there was again a beginning of revolutionary
ferment in Hungary. In France, which Chernyshevsky called the "volcano of Europe,"
the government was forced to loosen the reins, the liberal party strengthened, and the first symptoms of reviving republican agitation appeared. Poland was stirring, preparing
to rise again for its national existence. In short, it seemed that the heavy night of reaction,
which had descended over Europe after the suppression of the 1848 revolution, was beginning to give way to a new dawn.
Despite his skepticism, Chernyshevsky had too healthy a sense not to
admit the possibility of a refreshing storm, which this time should engulf Russia as well. If all previous European revolutions had been broken at the Russian border and only led to
an intensification of reaction within Russia, now, when some active
revolutionary elements had appeared in Russia itself and, above all, when the very depths of the popular masses began, apparently, to show dissatisfaction with their condition, the situation should have changed. It could not be said with certainty, but there was some probability here*. There were:
a strong government unwilling to share power, brought up on the traditions of the Nicholas era - on one side; a general ferment in the West, a smoldering discontent of the peasant masses and the liberal society in Russia, and finally, the first germs of the Russian revolutionary party - on the other. Given such conditions, an attempt had to be made. Its outcome would largely depend on "the different grouping of the elements of power"**. If the revolutionary party managed to take advantage of the government's confusion and the discontent of the broad masses, then, in the context of a pan-European revolution, which, to a greater or lesser extent,
NB

* Mr. Nikolaev tries to characterize Chernyshevsky's mood at the time in the following words: "A catastrophe is soon unthinkable (it would be more accurate to say: unlikely. - Yu. S.), but the duty of a thinking and consistent person is to strive for it and do everything
possible to bring it closer. Less talk and theories and more action (l. c., 23). -
We are somewhat doubtful about the 'theories': as a theorist, Chernyshevsky hardly regarded 'theories' with such disdain as Mr. Nikolaev. But he did indeed recommend energy... if it was necessary to get down to business.
** Shaganov - Chernyshevsky in Exile and Banishment, p. 8.

NOTES ON YU. M. STEKLOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY..."
would be colored with a socialist hue, and given the presence of communal land ownership in Russia, it might be possible
to come close to socialism. If, however, the revolutionary party fails to achieve its goal, and the result of the revolution is only the conquest of political freedom, then even in such a case, the gain will be great *.
Thus, a popular movement is possible; its slogan - land and liberty; the path - seizure
of power by revolutionaries with the active support and sympathy of the people; the result - a labor republic, and in the event of the revolution's defeat,
NB

* At the end of 1871, Chernyshevsky, bidding farewell to his young comrades in exile, outlined something like his political *profession de foi*, which Shaganov recounts as follows: "He told us that since Rousseau's time in France, and then in other European countries, democratic parties had become accustomed to idealizing the people—placing hopes on them that were never realized and only led to greater disappointment. The people's autocracy led only to the transfer of this autocracy to Napoleon I, and, uncorrected by this mistake, it repeatedly transferred it through plebiscites to Napoleon III. Any party with military power on its side can monopolize the supreme rights of the people for itself and, thanks to skillful manipulation, become the supposed exclusive representative and defender of the people's needs—the party of the privileged populists. He, Chernyshevsky, knows that the center of gravity lies precisely in the people, in their needs, the neglect of which leads to the destruction of the people, both as a nation and as a state. But no people have ever saved themselves (a similar thought was expressed by Belinsky shortly before his death. - Y. S.), and even in fortunate cases, when they acquired autocracy, they handed it over to the first scoundrel. This—whether transferred or not, but once well-earned—autocracy is not so easily passed on to anyone else. Becoming the executor of the will of its people, it disposes of them as if they were dead, and manages the people's property at its own discretion. And then woe to those who would wish to awaken this seemingly dead one—to interfere in its affairs! Along this path, both word and conscience are stifled, for these things bring all sorts of troubles for the authority... And how can a prisoner bypass his jailer? Should he not deal with him above all? What jailer would voluntarily allow a prisoner to make an appeal for the destruction of the prison? Of course, forms are an unreliable thing. Under any forms, a strong prison can be built for the industrious farmer. On the other hand, perhaps it is good that forms are unreliable. With them, there is always the possibility of a struggle between parties and the victory of one party over another—and in practice, the victory is always progressive. The most terrible thing is a formless monster, an all-consuming Leviathan. Chernyshevsky had previously said that the history of our homeland would have gone differently if, during Anna's accession, the party of the Supreme Privy Council had triumphed. No party can avoid sharing power for its own salvation... Under the rule of parties, there is still a greater likelihood of doing something for the people than in the absence of any political forms, and thus any possibility of undertaking anything in the indicated direction" (Shaganov, l. c., 28-29). - This does not quite resemble the narodnichestvo with its political indifference and contempt for constitutional forms.

The program that Chernyshevsky developed before his contemporaries, the path on which he invited them to embark, or rather, pushed them with his writings, aimed at significant improvement in the people's condition. But did he personally take part in the revolutionary activities of that time? This is a highly contentious question, to which we still cannot give a positive answer today. If there was any secret, Chernyshevsky took it to the grave. In such a case, he should indeed be recognized as a great conspirator. N. Russov, based on Shelgunov's words, tells that after long hesitation and careful weighing of arguments for and against, Chernyshevsky decided to actively intervene in the course of events, recognizing that there was no other way out of the historical conflict, and that some chances for the triumph of the people's cause existed*. But what exactly Chernyshevsky's participation in revolutionary activities entailed, Russov does not specify, except for his indications of Chernyshevsky's likely authorship of the proclamation "To the Barin's Peasants"...
It is doubtful that Chernyshevsky participated in *Zemlya i Volya*; at least, there are no direct indications of this. As is known, this society emerged at the end of 1861 or the beginning of 1862. Who the original founders were, we still do not know; it is possible that one of them was N. Serno-Solovyevich. In 1862, several students joined, including N. Utin and L. Pantaleev, the author of rather incomplete memoirs about this organization. However, it is quite possible that the *Zemlya i Volya* society as a specific organization arose after the meeting held at Utin's apartment in the spring of 1862, as recounted by Pantaleev**. The initiator of the meeting, a good acquaintance of Chernyshevsky ("the gentleman in glasses"), informed the newcomers about the existence of a central committee, but it is very likely that this was simply a myth invented for added importance, and that no such committee existed. In any case, it is very characteristic that when, at the end of the meeting, Utin asked Pantaleev, "What do you think, is Nikolai Gavrilovich a member of the committee?"—Pantaleev without hesitation replied, "Don't be silly, of course he is."

* "Socialists of the West and Russia," p. 294.
** "From the Recollections of the Past," vol. I, p. 252 and following.

REMARKS ON YU. M. STEKLOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY..."

"He is too much of a scholar," they thought. After some time, the two young converts to the revolution decided to probe Chernyshevsky himself. Without openly declaring their entry into the society, they spoke in various allusions, discussing the necessity of organizing circles among the youth, and moreover, circles with a social orientation. But although Chernyshevsky expressed approval of these plans, he remained inscrutable, and he spoke well of the "gentleman in spectacles" and told Aesop's fable about the bear who broke off his friendship with a man because in one instance the man blew on the fire to make it burn better, and in another, to extinguish it*.

In any case, although the idea of Chernyshevsky's possible leading role in *Zemlya i Volya* (Land and Liberty) greatly "encouraged" its young members, neither at that time nor later did Pantaleev, one of the most active members of the society, have any grounds to confidently assume Nikolai Gavrilovich's participation in this organization.

It is equally doubtful that Chernyshevsky was one of the authors of the constitutional underground leaflet *Velikoruss*. Three issues of this newspaper were published between July and September 1861. ... Those who support the view that Nikolai Gavrilovich was almost the editor of *Velikoruss* should provide at least some factual evidence for their assertion, but so far this has not been done, and their arguments do not go beyond the realm of conjecture**...

/ / / / / / / / / /

/ / / /
NB
NB

*Pantaleev does not explain what meaning this parable had at the time. Perhaps Chernyshevsky wanted to convey to the youth that if earlier he had restrained them from revolutionary conspiracies, he did not intend to do so in the future.
**Lemke, in his article "The Trial of the Velikoruss" (*Byloe*, 1906, No. 7), refers to the testimony of Stakhovich, who was sent into exile in the early 1860s for another political case and lived with Chernyshevsky for several years in Siberia. "I noticed," reports Stakhovich (*Zakaspiiskoe Obozrenie*, 1905, No. 143), "that Chernyshevsky viewed the leaflets, which appeared at irregular intervals under the title *Velikoruss*, with evident sympathy; I remember three issues came out. Listening to Nikolai Gavrilovich's conversations, I sometimes observed that both the content of his thoughts and the way they were expressed strongly reminded me of the *Velikoruss* leaflets, and I concluded to myself that he was either the author or, at the very least, a co-author of these leaflets, which preached the necessity of constitutional reforms." Pantaleev is rather cautious on this point. Mentioning a certain Zakharyin, who "according to some indications, directly participated, it seems, in *Velikoruss*," he adds in a footnote: "Zakharyin's closeness to Chernyshevsky gives me reason to think that Nikolai Gavrilovich may not have been entirely uninvolved in the *Velikoruss* affair. Moreover, the style of *Velikoruss* very much resembles N. G. In the 1890s, the late A. A. Richter told me that, according to his information, one of the main members of the circle that published *Velikoruss* was the long-deceased Luginin.

Chernyshevsky's attitude toward the Moscow "Jacobins" circle of Zaichennevsky and Argirovulo, which issued a proclamation *Young Russia* under the signature of the "Central Revolutionary Committee,"* was decidedly negative. Despite the anti-bourgeois content of this proclamation, which caused such a stir at the time, and despite its exposure of the liberal illusions of Herzen and *Velikoruss*, and its refusal to compromise with the existing political and economic system, and its clearly revolutionary and even socialist character, Chernyshevsky found it thoroughly distasteful. He was probably dissatisfied with its lack of seriousness, its declamatory and bloodthirsty tone, especially since, appearing simultaneously with the Petersburg fires, it gave the enemies of democracy an opportunity to accuse the revolutionaries of arson to incite unrest. Chernyshevsky received the delegate from the Moscow circle, who had come to him, very coldly and refused to take the copies of the proclamation that had been brought for distribution. But then he seemed to regret having repelled people who, though perhaps impulsive and carried away, were passionately devoted to the people's cause, resolute, and ideologically close to him. He decided to issue a proclamation *To Our Best Friends* to dispel the misunderstandings between him and the Muscovites; but his swift arrest prevented him from carrying out this intention. This is how Pantaleev relates it, based on the words of N. Utin**. Lemke, based on the words of S. Yuzhakov, who heard this story from I. Golts-Miller, a member of the Moscow circle, reports that Chernyshevsky partially carried out his intention. Specifically, he sent to Moscow a prominent revolutionary figure of the time and one of the founders of *Zemlya i Volya*, A. A. Slepsov***, to persuade the committee to somehow smooth over the extremely unfavorable impression.

It seems that he is depicted by Chernyshevsky in the "Prologue to the Prologue" under the name of Nivelzin* ("From Recollections," Part I, 327). V. Obuchev, a young officer sentenced to hard labor in the *Velikoruss* case, was very close to Chernyshevsky; according to Pantaleev, he was even a favorite of Nikolai Gavrilovich. Based on the above-mentioned facts, Mr. Kulchitsky firmly asserts that "the initiator, editor, and leader of *Velikoruss* was none other than Chernyshevsky" (History of the Revolutionary Movement, p. 256). This is a bold and risky assertion...
NB

*This proclamation is printed in the 2nd supplement to the collections *State Crimes in Russia*, published abroad by V. Bazilevsky (Bogucharsky), *Materials for the History of the Revolutionary Movement in Russia in the 1860s*, Paris, 1905, pp. 56-63; partly in Lemke, *Political Trials*, 94-104.
**"From Recollections," Part I, 269-270.
***Is he not the one depicted by Mr. Pantaleev under the name of "the gentleman in spectacles"? See "From Recollections," Part I, Chapter XXIV: *Zemlya i Volya*.

NOTES ON YU. M. STEKLOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY..."

The impact made by the "Young Russia" on society. Whether the messenger succeeded in his mission is not known with certainty, but it is possible that Chernyshevsky's convictions influenced the Muscovites. At least, during the search of Ballod's premises, a manuscript of a proclamation was found, entitled "Warning," which seemed to satisfy Chernyshevsky's desire. However, whether this proclamation actually belonged to the members of the Central Revolutionary Committee remains uncertain*.
Equally obscure is the question of Chernyshevsky's relationship with M. Mikhailov and, in particular, his revolutionary undertaking, i.e., the dissemination of the well-known proclamation "To the Young Generation." The text of this proclamation was written by N. Shelgunov, while Mikhailov printed it in London at Herzen's and smuggled it into Russia hidden in the bottom of a suitcase. It is unknown whether Chernyshevsky knew about Shelgunov and Mikhailov's plan; however, Pantaleev categorically asserts that upon his arrival in St. Petersburg, he was initiated into this matter...
... In any case, one thing is clear: even if Chernyshevsky did not actively participate in the various manifestations of the then-emerging revolutionary movement, he was keenly interested in all of them, knew about many**, and even provided ideological guidance for some.
Was Chernyshevsky the author of the appeal "To the Peasants of the Nobility"? Lemke and Russov believe that he was***. We can only say: Lord, you know! According to Pantaleev, who heard this story from Mikhailovsky, who in turn heard it from Shelgunov, in the winter of 1861, Chernyshevsky wrote a proclamation "To the People"; Shelgunov copied it in a different handwriting and gave it to M. Mikhailov, who passed it on to Vsevolod Kostomarov (more on him later) for printing****. Clearly, this refers to the proclamation "To the Peasants of the Nobility." Even if we assume that the first half of it was written by Chernyshevsky (although neither Lemke nor Russov provide any direct evidence for this; the similarity in style and content proves nothing, as we have already mentioned above), - so, even if we assume that the first half of the proclamation was composed by Chernyshevsky, the second half was certainly written by someone else.
Chernyshevsky would never have allowed himself to tell the people that in France and England (in 1861) colonels and generals took off their hats before the village elder and that the people replaced the rulers they disliked; he would not have said that the English and French lived well, that justice there was fair and equal for all, etc.*. Moreover, Russov, probably for the same reasons, assumes that the appeal "To the Peasants of the Nobility" was not entirely written by Chernyshevsky.
Considering all that we know about Chernyshevsky's life, character, and views, we ultimately cannot definitively answer the question of his direct participation in the revolutionary movement. Most likely, he did not directly participate; but that he knew about all the significant manifestations of the then revolutionary movement, that the direct participants consulted with him and took his advice, that, in any case, they drew from their conversations with him and from his writings the conviction of the necessity of practical attempts, which Chernyshevsky, due to the indecisive and sluggish nature of his character, his impracticality, and bookishness, may not have been capable of**, is hardly open to doubt... Whether Chernyshevsky wanted this or not, whether he abstained from any incitement, as Pantaleev reports, and used every suitable opportunity to emphasize the difficulties awaiting the revolutionaries and the strength and cunning of the enemies, his works awakened conscience and powerfully pushed toward the struggle for the people's liberation.
??
1)
2)
3)
4)
NB

* See the text of the appeal in Lemke, l.c., p. 336-346. - It begins with the words: "To the peasants of the nobility, greetings from your well-wishers. You were waiting for the tsar to give you freedom - here is the tsar's will." Further, it provides a devastating critique of the 1861 reform from the perspective of peasant interests, gradually preparing the reader for a critique of the autocratic system as the main factor in the people's suffering. The author of the proclamation tries, using facts, to undermine the "tsarist legend." The significance of political freedom and the necessity of fighting for it are clarified. Further, it is argued that the interests of all layers of the peasantry, especially former serfs and state peasants, and the solidarity of the people and soldiers, who should greatly benefit from the revolution, are aligned. The need for organization among the masses is pointed out, - "the peasants must all agree among themselves to be united when the time comes." Until that time arrives, partial actions and wasteful expenditure of forces should be avoided...
** Perhaps the words Chernyshevsky said about Necker apply to him: "He appeared more indecisive and confused because his vision was more far-sighted: indecision is the weak side of insight" ("Turgot," l.c., 231).

NOTES ON YU. M. STEKLOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY..."
In this sense, it can be said that Chernyshevsky was the ideological leader and inspirer of the then revolutionary movement. The government could perhaps still accuse him of knowing and not reporting. And he certainly knew a lot, probably everything.
CHAPTER IX
THE ARREST, TRIAL, AND EXILE OF CHERNYSHEVSKY
Do not say:
"He forgot caution, He will be the cause of his own fate."
He sees no less than we do the impossibility
Of serving good without sacrificing oneself.
But he loves more elevated and broader, His soul has no worldly thoughts,
One can live for oneself only in a world,

* Lemke. "Political Trials," p. 109 et seq.
** A small fact, reported by Pantaleev, testifies to Chernyshevsky's broad knowledge in this area: "I was once extremely surprised, probably in April (1862), when he asked me what considerations I had in opposing certain overly harsh proposals in the student committee in September 1861?" ("From Memoirs," vol. 2, 179).
*** Lemke. "Political Trials," 194, 335-6; Russov, loc. cit., 327.
**** Pantaleev. "From Memoirs," vol. 2, 181.

But to die for others is possible.
Thus he thinks, and death is dear to him.

He will not say that life is necessary for him, Nor will he say that his destruction is useless:

His fate has long been clear to him...
They have not yet crucified him, But the hour will come—when he will be on the cross.

The god of wrath and sorrow

Sent him to the slaves of the earth to remind them of Christ.
Nekrasov*.
[393-396] The government viewed Chernyshevsky as the chief ideological, and perhaps also material, leader of the nascent revolutionary ferment. He had the misfortune to touch upon the material interests of the ruling classes, and from that moment he could be considered doomed. The question was only when the government would see fit to lay its hand on the founder of Russian socialism. After the student disturbances of 1861, the beginning of unrest in Poland, and the famous Petersburg fires, the government deemed it opportune to take action, and on June 12, 1862, Chernyshevsky was arrested.
This arrest was preceded by a fierce campaign against Chernyshevsky in the reactionary and liberal press, which freed the government's hands for decisive action and incited it to repressive measures against the spiritual leader of the "nihilists." Katkov denounced *Sovremennik* as a nest of revolution, and *Moskovskie Vedomosti*, after the fire at Shchukin Market, asserted that the arson was committed by Poles and Russian nihilists acting on Chernyshevsky's orders. After the May
NB

* This poem, which Nekrasov titled "The Prophet" (after Baudelaire) for the censors, was originally (in 1874) titled simply: "N. G. Chernyshevsky." See Lemke, l. c., 195.

fires, Petersburg was seized by a paroxysm of reactionary fury. People who yesterday still admired Chernyshevsky's articles in support of the peasants now renounced him, joining in the general reactionary cry: "Crucify him!..."
Chernyshevsky was considered a man of immense influence in revolutionary circles. Dostoevsky, in his *Writer's Diary*, reports that in 1862 he himself went to Chernyshevsky and urged him to influence the authors of the proclamation "To the Young Generation" and to dissuade them from revolutionary excesses. In the novel *Prolog to a Prolog*, Chernyshevsky, with good-natured irony, tells how his most ordinary actions were interpreted by liberal gossips (Ryazantsev-Kavelin) as significant revolutionary undertakings (the supposed dispatch of an emissary to Herzen). The administration viewed Chernyshevsky in the same light...
[395-396] In addition to literary denunciations, Chernyshevsky received anonymous threatening letters. One of them, sent by some landowner, was full of malicious abuse and threats against the preacher of "dirty democracy" and "socialism, recognized by science as the unfortunate product of a diseased mind." To the inflamed brain of the frightened serf-owner, Chernyshevsky appeared no differently than with a knife in his hand, up to his elbows in blood, and the letter ends with the following significant statement: "We consider it not superfluous to inform you, Mr. Chernyshevsky, that we do not wish to see some Anton Petrov on the throne, and if there is indeed a bloody uprising, we will find you, Iskander, or someone from your family, and, probably, you will not have time to provide yourself with bodyguards*."
It goes without saying that, in addition to literary denunciations and threatening letters, a series of reports about Chernyshevsky was also submitted to the Third Section. On June 5, 1862, such an anonymous report was received there, which likely did not remain without influence on Chernyshevsky's arrest. We present some extracts from this interesting historical document. "What are you doing? Have pity on Russia, have pity on the tsar! This is the conversation I heard yesterday among a company of professors. The government forbids all nonsense from being printed, but does not see what ideas Chernyshevsky is propagating; he is the ringleader of the youth; the direction of the cadets is given by him; he is a cunning socialist; he himself told me (said the professor), 'I am so clever that they will never catch me out.' For trifles, Pavlov was sent into exile, and many other mistakes are made, but this one is harmful
NB sic!

* Lemke. *Political Trials*, 198-99. It should be noted that the authentic materials of Chernyshevsky's case were first published by Mr. Lemke, who worked in the archives.

NOTES ON YU. M. STEKLOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY..."

You tolerate such an agitator. Can you not find a way to save us from such a pernicious person!.. Now, seeing his tendencies not in words but in actions, all the very liberal people, so sensible that they recognize the necessity of our monarchy, have distanced themselves from him and are convinced that if you do not remove him, there will be trouble—there will be blood; he has no place in Russia—everywhere he is dangerous, unless perhaps in Berезов or Gizhiga; it is not I who say this, but learned, capable people, who with all their heart desire a constitution*... And you will not avoid bloodshed and will ruin us all—this is a gang of rabid demagogues, desperate men—this is what "Young Russia" showed you in its prospectus, all its brutal inclinations; perhaps they will be killed, but how much innocent blood will be shed for them! Here, too, I heard that in Voronezh, Saratov, Tambov—everywhere there are committees of such socialists, and everywhere they incite the youth... Society is in danger, homeless rascals are ready for anything, and you cannot sleep; the sin will fall on you if you let them get to the slaughter, and it will happen if you doze off or content yourself with half-measures... This rabid gang thirsts for blood and horrors and will go full steam ahead—do not neglect them. Rid us of Chernyshevsky—for the sake of general peace.
This denunciation once again reminded the government of Chernyshevsky, upon whom the Third Section had long cast its benevolent eye...
[398-400] On the telegraphic denunciation of a spy, one of Herzen's visitors, Vetoshnikov was arrested at the border, and all of Herzen's letters were found on him. For the Third Section, the above-mentioned postscript in the letter to Serno-Solovyevich was enough to arrest Chernyshevsky the very next day, on July 7th. All of Chernyshevsky's papers and part of his books were seized, and he himself was taken to the Alekseevsky Ravelin...
Chernyshevsky's arrest made an unusually strong impression on the democratic intelligentsia... The revolutionary youth, of course, was shaken by the arrest of their ideological leader. Reactionaries triumphed, rejoicing that their most dangerous enemy had been neutralized, as they hoped, forever. But even the liberals, in their hearts, rejoiced at Chernyshevsky's downfall, deeply despising him and mercilessly exposing their true nature. Thus, one of the leaders of the then liberalism and a good acquaintance of Chernyshevsky, Kavelin, in a letter to Herzen, did not hide his true feelings: "News from Russia, from my point of view, is not so bad... The arrests do not surprise me and, I confess, do not seem outrageous... I love Chernyshevsky very, very much, but such a brash, tactless, and overbearing person I have never seen. And is it worth dying for! That the fires are connected with the proclamations, there is now no doubt*."
Such was the Judas kiss of the liberal, still surrounded by a halo of glory in the eyes of our "constitutional-democratic" bourgeoisie. By repeating the vile police gossip about the connection of the Petersburg fires with revolutionary proclamations, these gentlemen provided moral justification for the wave of repressions with which the reactionaries descended upon the democrats. However, if one can connect the epidemic of fires at that time with any political aspirations, it certainly was not with the activities of the revolutionaries. Senator Zhdanov, sent two years later to the Volga region to investigate the fires in Saratov, Simbirsk, etc., established that they were connected with the machinations of the then reactionaries and serf owners, who sought to intimidate the government, terrorize society, and thus hinder the reform process...
The Third Section did not want to release its victim. On August 1, Potapov presented a memorandum to the commission, composed based on reports from police agents (incidentally, this memorandum reveals that since autumn 1861, Chernyshevsky had been under constant espionage surveillance)...
Chernyshevsky was not interrogated. He patiently sat in the fortress, day after day expecting his release, as he was firmly convinced that the government had no serious evidence against him.
He worked diligently and corresponded with his wife. In a letter dated October 5, which the commission deemed unfit to pass on to his wife and instead attached to the case, contained the following phrase, which the detectives found terrible: "Our life with you belongs to history; hundreds of years will pass, and our names will still be dear to people; and they will remember us with gratitude when almost everyone who lived in our time will be forgotten. So we must not lower ourselves in terms of spirit and character before those who will study our lives" (followed by a plan for future works, which we discussed in Chapter I). In these words, the commission saw something extraordinary*.

* Of course, this is said by a despicable informer, and one cannot rely on the factual accuracy of his reports. But he correctly noted the hostile attitude of the liberals toward the great socialist.

* Russov, l. c., p. 276.

REMARKS ON YU. M. STEKLOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHESKY..."

arrogant self-esteem and criminal pride. Intellectually and morally, the members of the investigative commission, it seems, were no less than the liberal Kavelin...
[402] Kostomarov sits down to write letters to his relatives. Chulkov notices one thick letter,
reads it and - what a surprise! - it turns out that this letter is directly related to
Chernyshevsky. The letter is immediately sent to Potapov, who then telegraphs Chulkov about
the urgent return with Kostomarov to St. Petersburg. The comedy unfolds as if by script.
In this letter, which was the size of a printed sheet and more like a pamphlet, sprinkled with quotations in various languages, filled with forced jokes and disgusting chatter, contained everything that the Third Section needed to ruin
Chernyshevsky. Kostomarov writes to his mythical addressee that he will tell him about Chernyshevsky's literary activities, "secret and open, to show you
where the wind blew that brought so many wretched victims into the casemates of Russian fortresses and to those pleasant places where they are sent by agreement between the Minister of Internal Affairs and the Chief of the Gendarmes,... then you will see where the vile motto on the sacred banner of freedom came from, in the name of which our homegrown agitators act, all these 'Great Russians' and 'Young Russias', all these useless proclamations with red and blue seals"...
[405-406] But obviously, the documents in the case were not enough, and the Third Section decided to use its last resort. On July 2, the Minister of Justice Zamyatin sent an extensive note to the Senate "On
the Literary Activities of Chernyshevsky," clearly of spy origin. In this note, which was intended to exert a certain pressure on the judges, Chernyshevsky was portrayed as the chief preacher of materialism and communism, a tendentious analysis of his works was given, and an external similarity was established between his literary works and the content of the revolutionary proclamations of the time. The note ends with the following words: "The proclamations are as if a conclusion from Chernyshevsky's articles, and his articles - a detailed commentary on them"...
Stakhovich, who met Chernyshevsky in Siberia, recounts in his memoirs that long before Chernyshevsky's arrest, Serakovsky had told him about his conversation with General Kaufman, then the director of the War Ministry's chancellery. The brave general believed that Chernyshevsky should be exiled for his harmful influence on the youth. The government
subsequently acted in this way,
NB
NB

exiling Chernyshevsky to hard labor solely for "harmful influence." The same Stakhovich recounts that shortly before Chernyshevsky's arrest, an adjutant of Prince Suvorov visited him and, on behalf of the latter, advised him to leave the country immediately.
When Chernyshevsky asked why the prince was so concerned about him, the adjutant replied: "If you are arrested, then you will certainly be exiled, essentially without any guilt, for your articles, although they have passed censorship. The prince wishes to avoid this stain on the sovereign, his personal friend, of sending a writer into exile without cause." But Chernyshevsky categorically refused to go abroad, proudly facing his fate, and partly not allowing the thought of such lawlessness as the exile of a writer for censored articles...
[411] Herzen met the outrageous sentence against Chernyshevsky with a curse to his executioners of all ranks and degrees and branded the venal liberal and conservative press, whose denunciations and persecution had provoked the barbaric government's persecution of progressives and revolutionaries.
We quote from Lemke's book excerpts from the article published by Herzen in No. 186 of "The Bell" for 1864:
"Chernyshevsky has been sentenced to seven years of hard labor and to permanent settlement. May this immeasurable villainy fall as a curse upon the government, upon society, upon the base, bribed journalism, which incited this persecution, fanned it up from personalities.
It has accustomed the government to the murder of prisoners of war in Poland, and in Russia - to the confirmation of the sentences of wild ignoramuses of the Senate and the old villains of the State Council... And here, pitiful people, grass-people, slime-people say that one should not criticize this gang of robbers and scoundrels who rule us!.. Chernyshevsky was put on the pillory by you for a quarter of an hour..., and you, and Russia, will remain chained to him for how many years! Curse you, curse - and, if possible, revenge! "...
NB
Remarks written no earlier
October 1909 - no later
April 1911.
First published in 1959 in "Literary Heritage,"
Volume 67
Printed from the original