UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The philosophical ideas of N. G. Chernyshevsky Pohoral, Georgine Barbara 1980

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1980_A8 P63_5.pdf [ 3.44MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094853.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094853-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094853-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094853-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094853-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094853-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094853-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094853-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094853.ris

Full Text

THE  PHILOSOPHICAL IDEAS  OF N . G.  CHERNYSHEVSKY  by  G E O R G I N E BARBARA B.A. , S i m o n  Fraser  POHORAL  University,  197/7'  )  A  THESIS THE  SUBMITTED IN P A R T I A L REQUIREMENTS MASTER  F U L F I L M E N T OF  FOR T H E D E G R E E OF  OF  ARTS  in  THE  F A C U L T Y OF GRADUATE  Department  We  accept to  THE  of Slavonic  this  thesis  the required  UNIVERSITY  Barbara  Studies  conforming  standard  OF B R I T I S H  September  (c) G e o r g i n e  as  STUDIES  COLUMBIA  1980  Pohoral,  198 0  In  presenting  an  advanced  the L i b r a r y I  this  degree shall  f u r t h e r agree  for  scholarly  by  his  of  this  written  thesis at  the U n i v e r s i t y  make that  it  purposes  for  freely  permission may  representatives. thesis  in p a r t i a l  is  financial  of  British  6  Columbia,  British  by  for  gain  shall  Columbia  the  that  not  requirements I  agree  r e f e r e n c e and copying  t h e Head o f  understood  Department  2075 Wesbrook P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1W5  of  for extensive  permission.  The U n i v e r s i t y  of  available  be g r a n t e d  It  fulfilment  of my  copying  be a l l o w e d  t  study.  this  thesi  Department or  publicati  without  my  ABSTRACT  This  thesis  Chernyshevsky: two  deals with  his  philosophical  Philosophy"  and  first  novel,  essays,  "The  "The  fair  cross-section of  they  are  formulated, Is  To  major  What  Is  works  To  text his  and  Be  is closely  arguments to  Done?,  and  p o i n t our although  i n which  late  h i s own  with  utilitarianism,  J.  S.  system  "The  Chernyshevsky ledge. strong  He  hence  his  ethics.  He  in  present in  a  which  shortcomings.  The  a  form  of  purpose  of  i t s form  is a  attempts  to  philoformu-  grapples unsuccessfully  some o f  the  Anthropological Principle attempts  toward  t a c k l e s some m o r a l "The  nyshevsky proceeds  to  s h e v s k y 's  formulate  principles  to  be  a  a  of  approach system,  point  of  knowwith  m a t e r i a l i s m and  pragmatism.  He  issues,  kind  theory  empiricist,  h i s own to  Philosophy,"  of  critique  develop  in  h i s own  advocating  Aesthetic Relation of  offers  The  to  shows h i m s e l f  tendencies  In  and  and  Reality."  to  w r i t t e n as  Chernyshevsky  adopting  G.  Mill. In  also  of  to  manner  their  is political  propaganda;  Art  the  the  dialogue,  N.  Done?,  examined  lacks psychological intricacies.  sophical  by  Anthropological Principle  fiction, work  Be  A e s t h e t i c R e l a t i o n of  Chernyshevsky's  What  three  of  Hegelian  aesthetic  a l l three out  Art  works  utilitarianism.  to  Reality,"  aesthetics.  He  then  theory. i s to  his philosophical  show w h e r e h i s p r e j u d i c e s l i e .  Cher-  l a y bare  Cherny-  inconsistencies  Chernyshevsky s 1  merit are of  as  f a r as  depth  I n s t e a d , i t s t a n d s as  and  mid-nineteenth  i s demonstrated  i t s philosophical  concerned. attitudes  work  concerns of  century.  the  and  t o be  of  literary  a monument  to  Russian p o s i t i v i s t  little scope the of  kind the  iv  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  PAGE INTRODUCTION  .  1  CHAPTER I. II.  WHAT I S TO B E DONE? "THE A N T H R O P O L O G I C A L  3 PRINCIPLE  IN  PHILOSOPHY" III.  "THE A E S T H E T I C  26  R E L A T I O N OF A R T  REALITY"  TO 43  NOTES  TO C H A P T E R  I  61  NOTES  TO C H A P T E R  II  62  NOTES  TO C H A P T E R  III  63  BIBLIOGRAPHY  ENGLISH TITLES  64 -  BIBLIOGRAPHY  RUSSIAN T I T L E S  65  V  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  In  the preparation  assistance my  debt  from  wish  t o thank  encouragement,  my  reader,  I would  f o rher patience And  ophy .  received  t o acknowledge  adviser,  Dr. Michael were  Dr. Christopher  Futrell,  invaluable. Turner,  whose Thanks  for his  suggestions. Further,  sharing  I have  a n d I am p l e a s e d  i n s i g h t and a s s i s t a n c e  t o the second  helpful  Toren  many p a r t s ,  thesis  t o them. I  also  of this  finally,  like  t o express  and e x p e r t i s e  s p e c i a l thanks  h i s responses  my  gratitude  i n typing  this  a r e due t o John  to nineteenth-century  t o Ruby paper.  Rowell f o r  European  philos-  INTRODUCTION  The deals two  first  with  seem  deal  this  novel,  with  Relation of  t o be  sky s 1  the  most  thought,  a l l his The  and  later study  present  the  and  manner  the  their  his  study  of  N.  W h a t Is? T o  Be  Done?  two  major  Art  to  G.  Chernyshevsky The  philosophical  i n Philosophy"  Reality."  can  safely  be  essays,  and  These  "The  three  relevant material i n viewing  they  remaining  works  Chernyshev-  considered  the  backbone  works. deals  reader  closely  with  a  i n which  with  fair  these  Chernyshevsky's  c r o s s - s e c t i o n of are  formulated,  text  his  and  to  arguments  points  out  shortcomings. A  great  shevsky,  deal  both  these  works  works  and  do  not  of  the  scholarly  to  Soviet  i n face  and,  of  course,  seem  to  follow a  similar  example,  Franco  Venturi s  presents  Chernyshevsky  aspirations Sons A g a i n s t  of  on  and  literary  has  been  West.  the  actual  texts of  examine criticism  of  the  context  of  work,  Studies  Roots  concentrates  on  his  E.  on  of  on  his  regime, in English  pattern.  radical,  century.  However,  closely.  repressive Tsarist  volume  Cherny-  concentrates  historico-biographical  i n the  also  them  Chernyshevsky's  lengthy  on  i n the  of  mid-nineteenth  Fathers  done  and  biographical studies.  1  the  on  analyze  relevance  heroism  work  S o v i e t Union  concentrate  fail  historical  apparent  of  i n the  they  Most the  first  of  Anthropological Principle  Aesthetic  of  his  chapters  "The  chapter  For  Revolution political  Lampert s 1  p r e s e n t i n g him  book in  2  an  historical  through  context,  biographical William  and attempts  F. W o e h r l i n ' s  recent  and t h e J o u r n a l i s t )  and  " A e s t h e t i c s and L i t e r a r y i n some d e t a i l  Woehrlin ment  literary  scene  Woehrlin's It on  which  good a  ical  of these ideas  Chernyshevsky  However, developthe  chapters  i s too general.  labyrinth  of h i s  to l a y bare  his so-called  "new  harm"  states  the theory  and  just,  i n "The A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l P r i n c i p l e  "theoretical  (p. 1 2 5 ) . of this  fallacy  Ironically, p o i n t when And  inevitably  h i s own  i t was  to this  source  culture. Principle  of the o f f i c i a l  The c r u d e  work  later  day  Aesthetic Relation of Art to Reality"  official  author  s c h o l a r s a r e not keen  i t i s important  to build  that  illustration  principal and  ideas.  him and through  In both  t e a c h i n g manual by L e n i n .  "The  the  society."  Philosophy"  practical  influenced  t h e c o n f u s i n g and c o n f u s e d However,  i n which  Chernyshevsky's  (The  "Philosophy"  1  who  Chernyshevsky in  chapters,  on p r e s e n t i n g C h e r n y s h e v s k y s  that  he hoped  progressive  two  o f Chernyshevsky's  appears  philosophy.  book Chernyshevsky  Criticism,"  of h i s time.  study  tackling  on  those  contains  with  concentrates  through  h i s development  data.  Man  deals  to trace  doctrine of the Kremlin.  remotely  adopted  stands  Soviet attitude  also  became  a as  Chernyshevsky's  m a t e r i a l i s m o f h i s "The  i n Philosophy"  leads to  as a towards a r t  Anthropolog-  voices the  3  CHAPTER I WHAT IS TO BE DONE? In mid-nineteenth-century European thought, the of a u t h o r i t y was  very h i g h l y regarded..  I t has  voice  been s a i d t h a t  . . . although the c r i t i c a l s p i r i t was characteri s t i c of the age, n e v e r t h e l e s s what e s p e c i a l l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d [ i t ] was [ i t s ] i n s i s t e n t a t t i t u d e of acceptance, [ i t s ] p e r s i s t e n t b e l i e f i n (but only r a r e examination of) the c r e d e n t i a l s of a u t h o r i t y , its innate d e s i r e to a f f i r m and conform r a t h e r than to r e j e c t or to q u e s t i o n . . . the w i l l to b e l i e v e overrode the d e s i r e to q u e s t i o n , and p r i vate judgment was renounced, both d e l i b e r a t e l y and u n c o n s c i o u s l y , f o r e x t e r n a l a u t h o r i t y . ^ Perhaps the best  example of t h i s a t t i t u d e i n Russia  l i t e r a r y endeavour of N.  G.  i s the  Chernyshevsky.  In What Is To Be Done?, h i s f i r s t work of f i c t i o n ,  Cher-  nyshevsky presents a s e l e c t i v e p i c t u r e of the most advanced p h i l o s o p h i c a l ideas of the time, hoping to show the t h a t there were answers at hand.  His motto i s to s p e l l  the t r u t h , even at the expense of a r t and y MeHH HeT  H H  TeHH  reader  xyfloacecTBeHHoro  out  style: H name  TajiaHTa.  A 3 H K O M - T O BJiafleiO ITJIOXO . Ho 3TO B C e ~ T 3 K H HH^iero: iHTafi, H o 6 p e a i i i a H ny6jiHKa! npo^Teuib He 6e3 n o x i B 3 H . HdHHa xopouian Beiiu>: O H a B 0 3 H a r p a » c n a e T H e f l O C T a T K H riHcaTeJiH, K O T O P B I H cny>KHT eft. nosTOMy H cica^y T e 6 e : ecjTH 6 H He npeflynpeflHJi Te6n, Te6e, noacajiyft, noKa3aJ i o c b 6 H I , ^iTO n o B e c T b H a n n c a H a x y a o a t e c T B e H H O , * I T O y H  —  a B T o p a M H o r o nosTHiecKoro T a j i a H T a . Ho H n p e n y n p e ^ H J i Te6n, ^ I T O TajiaHTa y MeHH H e T , — T H H dyrjeiub 3 H a i b T e n e p b , * I T O B e e flocTOHHCTBa noBecm naHH eft T O J I B K O  ee  H C T H H H O C T B B .  This i s a curious  [p.  11]  ^  statement at which most contemporary s c h o l 3  ars and  c r i t i c s would no doubt c r i n g e ,  but  above a l l ,  i t is  the k i n d of statement which i s t y p i c a l of Chernyshevsky's  4  ideas  and  attitudes.  principles  as  It virtually  formulated  Relation  of  Art  relation  to  philosophical  ciates hence  to  in  art with  the  Reality."  artifacts,  essay  For  and  holds  that  art  brings  illusion  which  does  not  exemplify  Hegelian  aesthetic  art  dialectical  a  the he  as  a  aesthetic  Aesthetic art  has  significance.  forth a  which  process,  "The  superficial  he  as  on  his  Chernyshevsky,  social  with  against  summarizes  of  living  serious  asso-  embellishments,  kind  argues  He  no  sugar-coated  reality.  in  the  The  essay  portrayal  sees  of  4 social  and In  shevsky  philosophical  "The  Aesthetic  criticizes  realities. Relation  Chernyshevsky  of  Art  to  disagrees.  Reality,"  Cherny-  Hegel:  I t i s a l s o n e e d l e s s t o say t h a t the b e a u t i f u l a c c o r d i n g t o H e g e l i s o n l y a phantom t h a t comes f r o m a s u p e r f i c i a l v i e w , u n e n l i g h t e n e d by p h i l o s o p h i c a l t h i n k i n g , which obscures the seeming p e r f e c t m a n i f e s t a t i o n of the idea i n the separate o b j e c t , so t h a t t h e more t h i n k i n g i s d e v e l o p e d the l e s s remains of beauty u n t i l , at l a s t , with fully developed thinking, only t r u t h i s l e f t , beauty has vanished.^ Philosophical sarily Hence  destroy his  of  the  title  of  how  of  to  bring  for  how  oneself  distinction  is told"  manual  to  and  or  Be  between  Done?  suggests,  about to  aid  general  expression  is written  than the  one's  the  in  must  e n t i t y , Chernyshevsky  rather  improve  how  thinking  aesthetic  What I s To  "what  As  any  rigid  Accordingly, tive  speculation  of  novel  social  Utilitarian others  "how  to  is and  from  argues. content.  the  perspec-  i t is  told."  intended  as  personal  situation,  "greatest this  and  neces-  goal.  a  happiness" Vera  Pavlovna,  5  the  female  social to  protagonist,  i s found  i n a  solitary  and  condition i n the exposition of the story.  find  h e r way  Lopukhov,  out of this  a medical  situation,  when  poor She  begins  she meets  student:  . . . I T O 3K C T p a H H o r o , *ITO Te6e x o i e T C H 6HITB BOJI:BH H M H c^acTJiHBHM ^ e j i O B e K O M ! B e f l b 3 T O >Ke.naHne — He 6 o r 3 H a e T K a n o e r o J i O B O J i O M H o e O T K p b i T H e , He 6 o r 3HaeT KaKofi noflBHr r e p o f i c T B a .  *ITO C T p a H H O , B e p O ^ K a , 1 T O eCTb T S K H e 7KB y K O T O P H X H e T 3 T o r o xcejiaHHH, y K O T O P H X c o B c e M A p y r H e ^ c e J i a H H H , H H M , noacajiyK, n o n a j K e T C H C T p a H H O , . . . A T H H e 3Haeuib, * I T O S T O C T p a H H O , a H 3 H a i o , *ITO 3 T O He C T p a H H O , 1 T O 3 T O O f l H O H HaTypaJIbHO, OflHO H no-'yejioBe^ecKH; npocTO no-^eJioBey;ecKH; — „ H ^lyBCTByiO p a f l O C T B H C i a C T L e " 3HaiHT „MHe XOieTCH,  A  B O T  JHORH ,  *iT06bI B C e JHOflH  CTajIH  paflOCTHbl H  C^aCTJTHBbl"  [p. This  i s where  first  premise  Chernyshevsky s 1  i s much  like  .thesis  that  begins  57]  to unravel.  o f J . S. M i l l  His  i n his U t i l i -  tarianism; The c r e e d w h i c h a c c e p t s a s t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f m o r a l s "utility" or "the greatest happiness principle" holds t h a t a c t i o n s a r e r i g h t i n p r o p o r t i o n as they tend t o promote h a p p i n e s s ; wrong as they tend t o produce the reverse o f happiness. By h a p p i n e s s i s intended p l e a s u r e and absence o f p a i n ; by unhappiness, p a i n and t h e p r i v a t i o n o f p l e a s u r e . . . . p l e a s u r e and freedom from p a i n a r e t h e o n l y t h i n g s d e s i r a b l e as ends; and t h a t a l l d e s i r a b l e t h i n g s . . . are desirable either f o r pleasure inherent i n themselves o r a s means t o t h e p r o m o t i o n o f p l e a s u r e and p r e v e n t i o n o f p a i n . 6 Simultaneously  with  the plot,  these  ideas  a r e e l a b o r a t e d and  exemplified. The Vera  reader's  Pavlovna's.  Chernyshevsky stages.  understanding So, what  Lopukhov  i s to the reader.  At first  Lopukhov  i s t o advance i s to Vera  Vera s  acquaints  1  along  Pavlovna,  awareness  her with  with  some  develops  i n  essential  6  pragmatic  axioms:  interest," —  he  i s governed  e x c l u s i v e l y by  self-  states.  CTajio jiiop,K  CKHe  "Man  npaBjj;y r o B o p j n xoJioflHHe n p a K T H ^ i e — TjejiOBeKOM y n p a B J i n e T T O J I B K O p a c ^ i e T  6 H T B , TITO  r  BHrOflbl?  — OHH roBopHT n p a B f l y . T o , * I T O Ha3biBaK3T B O 3 B B I UieHHblMH ^ l y B C T B a M H , HfleaJIBHblMH CTpeMJieHHHMH, — Bee S T O B oSmeM x o f l e J K H 3 H H c o s e p u i e H H O H H ^ I T O K H O n e p e f l C T p e M n e H H e M Kaacfloro K c B o e f t n o j i B 3 e , H B K o p H e caMO C O C T O H T H3 T O T O >Ke CTpeMJieHHH K n o j i B 3 e . [p. 65] Like Mill,  Hume, a n d  Chernyshevsky  picture of  Hobbes,  of  these  human  forth  nature.  philosophers,  However,  He  but  Chernyshevsky's  philosophy  is  thoughts, often  puts  and  The  carries  with  interest  this  a  completely  does  shows  a  i n which great  case  in  Chernyshevsky  he  he  deal  He  of  the he  subject,  yet  is talking  arguments His  these  often  notion  of  self-  point.  explores  this  topic  his  self-interested  or  his  naivete.  that  notion  utilitarian  grasp  knows what  one  Mill.  popularize  Principle  the  the  to  to  Anthropological of  c l o s e l y any  similarities  handles  of  and  aims  "The  examples  follow  some  good  c l e a r whether  i t a  not  Bentham  individualistic  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of  requires  manner  is a  utilitarians  somewhat m u d d l e d .  i t i s not  about.  the  describe  a  in  greater  i n Philosophy,"  different  actions  thing  detail  and  in  i t seems  either  contradict  altogether,  as,  for  7 instance,  will%  topic  better  of  are  problems  that  "men  here,  are  In  What I s To  exemplified, just  governed  as  he  Be yet  did  Done? he  ideas  encounters  in his  e x c l u s i v e l y by  his  essay.  on  the He  this same  states  self-interest,"  but  kind  7  s e l f - i n t e r e s t r e f e r s o n l y t o " a c t i n g from c e r t a i n motives i n a g i v e n type o f s i t u a t i o n . "  The same a c t i o n done from the  same motive i n another type o f s i t u a t i o n would not be c o r r e c t l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d as done from s e l f - i n t e r e s t .  Self-interest i s  i n v o l v e d where d i s r e g a r d f o r l e g i t i m a t e c l a i m s o f o t h e r s i s concerned.  And b e s i d e s , Chernyshevsky  cannot c l a i m t h a t a l l  men  w i l l be ready t o d i s r e g a r d l e g i t i m a t e c l a i m s o f o t h e r s i n  all  situations.  will.  So what he i n f e r s i s t h a t men e x e r c i s e  their  But what he wants t o say i s t h a t men d e s i r e happiness;  he wants t o promote the u t i l i t a r i a n p r i n c i p l e here. Chernyshevsky's problems  promotion o f s e l f - i n t e r e s t  i n h i s system.  creates  Had he f o l l o w e d M i l l ' s theory c l o s e l y  and d e a l t w i t h the i n d i v i d u a l ' s d e s i r e f o r happiness, h a p p i ness f o r the g r e a t e s t number, and the p l e a s u r e and p a i n f a c t o r s , he would have been f r e e o f major i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s . L u c k i l y , h i s l a t e r statements tend t o c l a r i f y h i s e a r l i e r ones and put them i n t o p e r s p e c t i v e .  Lopukhov's f u r t h e r  i n s t r u c t i o n o f Vera Pavlovna i n t r o d u c e s a k i n d o f u t i l i t a r i a n calculus: —  Pacc^HTbiBafiTe,  ^ J T O RJIH.  Bac  nojie3Hee.  — ^ T O fljiH MeHH n o j i e 3 H e e ! B H 3 H a e T e , H o^ieHb He 6oraTa. C oflHOft C T O P O H H , HepacncuicoKeHHe K ^ejioBeny; c flpyroK — r o c n o f l C T B O nap, H U M , 3 a B H f l H o e nojicoKeHHe B o6mecTBe, fleHbrn, TOJina I I O K J I O H H H K O B .  — B3BecbTe Bee; Bbi6npafiTe. —  H ecjiH  H  Bbi6epy  nOKJIOHHHKOB? H  CKa>Ky,  coo6pa3Hee c  I T O noJie3Hee  —  6oraTCTBO  1 T O Bbl B H d p a j l H BaniHM  HJTH  HmepecoM.  Bac, T O H  Mysca  H  TOJiny  T O , ^ITO B a M K a 3 a j l O C b  [p. 66]  8  Bentham's hedonic c a l c u l u s was a d o c t r i n e by which one c o u l d determine a way t o judge between a l t e r n a t i v e courses o f act i o n by c o n s i d e r i n g the consequences o f each, and a s s e s s i n g them i n terms o f the p l e a s u r e  and p a i n o f a l l the people  9 affected. Chernyshevsky s c a l c u l u s i s a t t h i s p o i n t concerned o n l y 1  with the one i n d i v i d u a l ' s happiness r a t h e r than with t h a t o f all  involved. .  .  . ecjiH  JIH^HOCTB,  TaKHX  no H  B H  Tan  HeoSxoflHMocTH He  6BUIO  —  H  —  K T O HMeeT  BbiBonfai  H3  —  CKaStyT,  *ITO,  TaKOBa  nocTyxiHTB  Bbl  1 T O  SbiJia  HHa^ie  coScTBeHHO  Bama npn  nOCTynHJIH  roBopn,  BaM  Bbi6opa.  npaBO  MoeMy  nocTynny?  BbiBOflbi  H3  $aKTa,  Bama J I H ^ H O C T B Baura nociynKH —  B  flaHHOft  nopHuaTB  $aKT?  $ S K T ;  3Torp  H H X He  OHH  nopHuaHHH  cymecTByeT  3Ha^HT,  B a M 6bUIO  Bemefi,  flpyroro  HHKaKoro  oScTaHOBKe 3a  ccejiajiH,  ^ITO H e J l B 3 H  06CTOHTeJIBCTBaX,  Korjj;a Bbi  Lopukhov f u r t h e r e x p l a i n s h i s p o s i t i o n :  $aKTa,  OTBeiaeie,  HeJiaeMbie a  Heo6xoflHMHe  npHpoHOio  nopuqaTB  H X —  Bemeft. rjiyno.  [p. 67]  T h i s passage i s somewhat c o n f u s i n g . presents  the i n d i v i d u a l with c h o i c e s .  The u t i l i t a r i a n  system  The i n d i v i d u a l has t o  choose, and s u r e l y he i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r h i s a c t i o n s .  Cher-  nyshevsky seems t o be saying here, j u s t as he d i d i n "The A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l P r i n c i p l e i n Philosophy," factor i s negligible. however.  t h a t the c h o i c e  There may be a p l a u s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n ,  M i l l argues t h a t knowledge p r o v i d e s  greater  hori-  zons, t h e r e f o r e a g r e a t e r number o f c h o i c e s and a g r e a t e r moral s t r e n g t h : I t i s b e t t e r t o be a human being d i s s a t i s f i e d than a p i g s a t i s f i e d ; b e t t e r t o be Socrates d i s s a t i s f i e d than a f o o l s a t i s f i e d . And i f the f o o l , or the p i g , are o f a d i f f e r e n t o p i n i o n , i t i s because they only  9  k n o w t h e i r own s i d e o f t h e q u e s t i o n . The o t h e r p a r t y t o t h e c o m p a r i s o n knows b o t h sides. ± v  Accordingly, action  i s only  f o r the fool,  someone  like  strength. of  moral  of  What  Thus  Vera she than the  supports  (Vera's  f o r instance, evolved  Pavlovna  decides  neither likes  other  hand,  well-to-do  not t o marry  finds  i s Vera's  such  a view  of the  plot  mother),  1  fiance) or  h i s courses  While  i s not  Kirsanov.  consciousness,  the wealthy  nor r e s p e c t s him.  the question  (Vera s  former  Lopukhov,  i n choosing  to h i s moral  interpretation.  the individual's  and p o s i t i o n  about  Alexeyevna  f o r Vera,  of  of choices f o r  development  this  course  according  i s vague  the later  i s h i s reasoning  money  decide  i s desirable f o r Maria  t h e more  complex  will  inevitable)  i s a number  Chernyshevsky  Done?  f o r Storeshnikov  desirable,  (thus  there  who  responsibility, I s T o Be  one  while  Socrates,  Although  What or  there  of  t h e more  action.  Storeshnikov;  independence  choice, Vera's  rather  mother,  on  incomprehensible.  Virtue, according to the u t i l i t a r i a n doctrine, i s not n a t u r a l l y and o r i g i n a l l y p a r t o f t h e end, b u t i t i s c a p a b l e o f b e c o m i n g s o ; a n d i n t h o s e who l i v e i t d i s i n t e r e s t e d l y i t h a s become s o , and i s d e s i r e d a n d c h e r i s h e d , n o t a s means t o h a p p i n e s s , but as a p a r t o f t h e i r happiness.H Chernyshevsky, part  Mill,  does  not place  o r t h e end o f t h e u t i l i t a r i a n  example a  like  life  (e.g.,  Lopukhov's,  of virtue In  nyshevsky  happiness,  Kirsanov's, Vera's  as e i t h e r  b u t shows lifestyles)  a  by that  i s preferable.  "The A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l P r i n c i p l e argues  virtue  for self-interest  i n Philosophy,"  throughout  the essay,  Cherbut  10  in  t h e e n d he comes  for  h i m , means  prudent; only  only  his  h e who  as though  1849  of virtues:  i s good  that  he  i s good."  i s probably  Chernyshevsky  anthropologism.  The f i r s t  "Only  i s rational,  Chernyshevsky  source here In  i n support of rational  the pursuit  t o the degree  sound  down  12  declares  conduct  good  and he  which,  actions  are  i s rational  Although  this  allegiance  to  may Plato,  Feuerbach. read Feuerbach premise  and a c c e p t e d h i s  of anthropologism  states  13 that  only  exactly It  how  seems  highly to  a sensible  f a r Feuerbach's  that  evident  matter;  do n o t know  on C h e r n y s h e v s k y  has a  not approve.  "The A e s t h e t i c  goes.  of Feuerbach i s  Chernyshevsky  would  i n Chernyshevsky's  We  interpretation  f o r instance, Feuerbach  being.  influence  Chernyshevsky's  pragmatic:  deify  being i s a real  tendency  This i s especially  Relation  of A r t to  14 Reality."  We  Feuerbach's and,  whose  causality, of  view  further,  compound  can only that  behaviour  and whose  f o r instance,  Chernyshevsky In  also  attempts  own.  [man] may  do  people  Chernyshevsky  a sensible view  that  character  within  holds this  t o show  he  that view.  that  by t h e  i s what  chemical  features  to act. he  of  Feuer-  eats;  o f Philosophy," Cher-  rationality I will  n o t be a b l e  being  t o t h e laws  i s obliged  Principle  say t o himself:  harm; b u t he w i l l  i s a complex  subject  man 15  accepted  i s a real  i s determined  which  advocates  being  man  i s strictly  "The A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l  nyshevsky "He  only  his overall  the environment  bach,  say that  has a w i l l be w i c k e d ,  t o do  that,  ofi t s I  will  any  more  11  than  a c l e v e r man  Similarly player life  then,  would  been  on being  against  intellectual  What  statement action?  a tyrant,  about  Principle"  characters  coherent In thinking  even  supposing  to dispose  token,  h i s teaching  of events  and t o  Lopukhov free  another.  redeem  the  have  Inquisi-  Chernyshevsky s 1  dictating  the course  he s a y s  statements  the actions  of h i s  G a l i l e o would  before  he  of  i n "The A n t h r o -  i n What  he a s c r i b e s  I s To  Be  to his f i c -  h i m a n d show h i s r a t i o n a l e t o b e  enough. Chernyshevsky s  conception,  1  gives  characters  moral  strength.  are capable  leaves  when  principles  follow h i s reason such  painful  t o him.  a  choice  Hence,  of great  like  makes  compatible;  For instance,  f o r a greater  pleasure,  will,  with  and t h e  man  cannot  as i t were),  prove p h y s i c a l l y  i n the u t i l i t a r i a n  he m e r e l y  suicide  she i s i n love  the rational  o f a c t i o n may  But t h i s ,  and fakes  the r a t i o n a l i s t  (he h a s no o t h e r  a course  because  both  that  of clear  Socrates, h i s  sacrifices.  he d i s c o v e r s  Chernyshevsky  though  t h e power  home a n d f r i e n d s f o r A m e r i c a  h i s wife  utilitarian  ure  t h e game,  known  by h i s l a t e r  tional  right  was  16  chess i f his  B y t h e same  the force  L u c k i l y enough,  even  who  a good move  to self-interest  Done?  but  to lose  t o be one."  a wrong  He b l a t a n t l y c o n t r a d i c t s w h a t  pological  to  i f he wanted  o f making  of recanting  happened  even  t o Chernyshevsky,  able  superiors,  incapable  tion.  according  n o t be c a p a b l e  depended  played  c a n be a f o o l  sacrifices  and t o f o l l o w  sense,  a smaller  h i s reason  may  be  pleasgives  12  him  more  not  i n contradiction  Is  pleasure  To Be Done?  than  that  any o t h e r  with  action  This i s  statement  1  i fone's  i s such  i n What  and such,  that  who c o u l d n o t a c t o t h e r w i s e  under  circumstances. Chernyshevsky s  relationship  1  as  he t r a c e s V e r a  At  first,  his  to crystallize.  h e r awareness  is  able  bring  channel and  which  books,  noKa  sky well  Vera  having  comes  but her struggle  l e a d i n g t o mental Lopukhov  attitudes  exposed  took  anguish  was t h e f i r s t  a n d s h e was a b l e t o  i n a total  been  Vera  a state of  into  positive  change  t o Lopukhov's  to the conclusion that  ideas  i n her situation. philos-  "everything  ocHOBaHO Ha n e H b r a x , . . . y K O T O BjtacTb H n p a B O , r o B o p H T B a u i H K H H T H ;  neubra,  Bee  T O T O  sceHinHHa  M O C T H  Like  after  dream,  o n money": —  y  culminated  with  the progression  a t home w i t h  i n her situation.  her previously negative  Later,  rests  level,  awareness.  understanding  In her f i r s t  i t out to her consciousness,  efforts  ophy  shows  intensifies  identifies  h e r own  f o rindependence  on t h e subconscious  n o t t o a change  dreams.  i n social  she merely  Chernyshevsky  her situation  she longed  the reader  development  Lopukhov,  i n Vera's  to identify  paralysis;  but  with  L a t e r , as Lopukhov's w i f e ,  of  place  Pavlovna's  conversing with  ideas.  begins  to  of action.  Chernyshevsky s  means o n e i s a n i n d i v i d u a l the  course  Mill  O T  C T O T  MyscnuHH, O H a  B  Hero.  [ p . 89]  i n The P r i n c i p l e s  advocates aware  xcHBeT H a  3HaiHT, 3aBHCH—  financial  of Political  independence  of the d i f f i c u l t i e s  Economy,  f o r woman.  ChernyshevB u t he i s  women o f h i s e r a f a c e d  i f they  13  tried  f o r independence.  Vera  Pavlovna  summarizes  these  thoughts: HaM O o p M a j i b H O 3aKpbiTbi n o ^ T H B e e n y T H 5KH3HH . H a Mn p a K T H H e C K H 3aKpHTbI O^eHb  Bee,—Rayme  no^TH  H 3 T e x nyTeft  rpaxcnaHCKOH M H o r a e , —  oSinecTBeHHOft  neHTejib-  H O C T H , K O T O p H e _ _ H e , . 3 a r O p O K e H H . flJIH. H a C $ O p M a J I b H b l M H npenHTCTBKHMH . H3 B C e X C $ e p }KH3HH H a M O C T a B J i e H O T e C H H T B C H T O J I B K O B O f l H O H C $ e p e CeMeftHOft JKH3HH , S b l T b MIJieHaMH C e M b H , H T O J I b K O . KpOMe 3TOTO, KSKHe HCe 3 S H H T H H O T K p f c J T b l H a M ? I l O I T H TOJIbKO O f l H O , 6blTb  ryBepHaHTKaMH; ypOKH, HaM  n a eme p a s B e — a a B a T b He 3aXOTHT OTHHTb y  KOTOPHX  KaKHe-HHSy^b HaC  MyJKTOHH.  TecHO  n o sTOft eflHHCTBeHHOft flopore; M H MemaeM n o T O M y ^ I T O C J I H W K O M T O J i n H M C H Ha H e f t ; O H a n o ^ T H H e MO>KeT g a B a T b H a M c a M O C T O H T e j i B H O C T H , n o T O M y I T O H a c , npeftnaraioiiiHx C B O H y c j i y r a , C J I H U I K O M  flpyry,  flpyr  M H O T O .  HeT,  .  .  .  noKa  KeHmHHbi H e 6 y j j ; y T  CTapaTbca  T O M , ^To6bi  o  p a 3 0 f t T H C b Ha M H o r o j a o p o r , KSHmHHbi He 6yp,yi H M e T b caMOCTOHTejiBHOCTH. KoHe^HO, npo6nBaTb H O B y w n o p o r y THXcejro.  [ p . 259]  Chernyshevsky the He  actual  t o show  shows V e r a  ness  knows  profits), medical  Pavlovna  at first  which  the business and l a t e r ,  He s e e s  privileged  when  man's rise  themselves  suspends  happier  society.  i n h e r sewing  a number  financially  deplores  both  groups,  women  o f young  busi-  women  and share t h e  secure,  entering  above  abject  and t h e poor  oriented  and t h e emancipation  emancipation  the social realities  and t h e s o l u t i o n s  Done? a r e e s p e c i a l l y  poverty  among  future  thriving  employs  y e t he  a  school.  Chernyshevsky period.  situation,  the possible—the  (a c o - o p e r a t i v e  who m a n a g e  Be  the actual  starts poverty  o f women.  with  as t h e most  he o f f e r s  towards  of h i s under-  i n What  I s To  the elimination He b e l i e v e s  h i sstrength  i fcircumstances  that  and a b i l i t y place  of  to  him i n such  14 a c o n d i t i o n , and t h a t man should f i g h t f o r h i s i n t e r e s t s , even a t the expense o f v i r t u o u s conduct. not d i r e c t l y advocate  does  l a w l e s s conduct, but i s not ready t o  condemn any s e l f - i n t e r e s t e d In  Chernyskevsky  Vera Pavlovna's  action.  second dream, Chernyshevsky  Vera's circumstances t o show what her l i f e  reverses  would have been  l i k e had her mother been a v i r t u o u s woman.  The circumstances  he p a i n t s are much l i k e those o f the Marmeladov f a m i l y i n Dostoevsky's broken,  Crime and Punishment.  the f a t h e r i s a hopeless drunk, and the daughter i s  f o r c e d t o walk t h e s t r e e t s . to  The mother i s i l l and  He then allows Maria  Alexeevna  comment on the scene: Tbi y ^ e H a a — H a  M O H  BopoBCKHe  neHbra  yieHa.  Tu 06  nyiviaeuiB, a K a x 6BI H He 3 J i a H 6bina, T a K 6BI He 3HaJia, * I T O T a K o e noSpoM Ha3HBaeTCH.  n;o6poM TBI  H  noHHMaeuiB?  Bee O T MeHH.  [p.  123]  It  i s t r u e t h a t c h i l d r e n p r o f i t from p a r e n t s ' s a c r i f i c e s , but  it  i s presumptuous t o say t h a t Vera's v i r t u e r e s u l t e d  her r e l a t i v e l y s h e l t e r e d l i f e ,  from  w h i l e her mother's somewhat  coarse nature was a product o f h e r poor c i r c u m s t a n c e s .  Virtue  is  n e i t h e r i n h e r i t e d nor can i t be taught, nor i s i t a product  of  one's environment.  V i r t u e i s an i n s t i n c t , but i s not an 17  i n s t i n c t accompanied by reason.  I t i s very l i k e l y t h a t had  Vera Pavlovna been i n her mother's s i t u a t i o n , she would have been an i l l and d e f e a t e d woman i n the second dream, w h i l e her mother would have been t h e unprotected but e n t e r p r i s i n g daughter, who would have emerged f i n a n c i a l l y of  her a g g r e s s i v e n e s s .  Chernyshevsky  secure by means  does not take t h i s  into  15  consideration. Chernyshevsky on  his  by  nature  asserts  environment. good  and  Like  man's  strict  Rousseau,  that,  i f he  he  causal  dependency  believes  proves  to  be  that  man  otherwise,  is his  18 environment  is  n y s h e v s k y 's  characters  of  the  young  upright lies.  continuous exception  people  who  Storeshnikov, their  He  comes  from  both  a  base  man  and or  Chernyshevsky  in  "The  "The  future  and C K O P O  the  a  a  the  SyfleT,  fool,  like  who  has  state  knowledge,"  he  the  argues future  Bepo^Ka.  why  as  about  when  case,  he a  of  his  either  37iBie  man-  formulates particle  "plenitude  of  mankind":  HM HeJTB3H 6bITB 3JIBIMH ; H T e 3Jlfaie , JIIOflBMH, C T S H y T fl06pbIMH : B e f l B O H H n O T O M y , *ITO H M B p e f l H O 6bUIO 6bITb  these  isn't  in  progress  i s only  Toraa  the  Storeshnikov  interest  future  Principle,"  is  society.  in  in  the  Cher-  by  Rakhmetov,  corruption.  believes of  But  his  of  to  amongst  Storeshnikov's  no  fami-  Rakhmetov  family.  In  poor  corrupt  character  fiance,  Most  morally  according  made  Cher-  i s .  from  poverty?  improvement  Likewise, virtue  when,  wealthy  to  are  come  been  instance,  theory  Done?  only  similar?  Anthropological  goodness 3TO  present  whole.  is  contributes  self-improvement  kind.  against  this  this  large,  have  one-time are  Be  virtuous  would  struggle  Vera's  To  and  people  In  false  Is  by  here.  wealth  this.  s h o w how  they  circumstances  mother's is  for  i n What  these  theory,  1  new  people  are  nyshevsky s  only  blame  i n d i v i d u a l s who, Why  their  to  Y B H E H T ,  *ITO  KOTOpbie 6HUM 6bIJIH 3JIBIMH T O J I B K O fl06pbIMH, a BeflB  O H H 3 H a i o T , ^ T O n;o6po j i y M m e 3 J i a , O H H n o j i i o S H T ero, K o r j j a M O H C H O 6y,n;eT JIK>6HT& e r o 6 e 3 Bpefla. [p. 125]  of  i t the  16  It  i s difficult  the he  statement suspends  encourage in  all  indicates.  the reader.  h i s hopes  Chernyshevsky s  second  from  manual  1  t o work  t h a t once  world  i s unlikely  the statement  because  as  again  i n order  about  i s t o be t a k e n  towards  poverty  fla,  to  everything  t h e good and  seriously.  ecTB  flBH)KeHHe  HOCTB  H  C B O K M  sjieMeHTOM  peaJIBHOCTH  ^ITO  OflHO  He  stakes  e x t e n s i v e l y about  Ho  a noTOMy  HMeei  rviaBHbift  BepHblft  labour:  AjieKcefi  a  M C H 3 H B ,  5 K H 3 H B  item  Pavlovna's  p e a j i B H O C T B , — T O B O P H T  H CaMBlK  item of  The second  In Vera  HBHHceHHe—3TO  H T O HCe .  rpyp.,  Tpyfl,  talks  the f i r s t  of action.  self-improvement.  neTpoBH^c,—noTOMy 5 K H 3 H B  i s then  f o r t h e man  dream,•Chernyshevsky —  i s as naive  on t h e f u t u r e .  Emancipation  is  that  future existence  be argued  of the actual  But t h i s  indicates  Chernyshevsky  I t may  h i s experience  h i s work  virtuous  t o know w h e t h e r  peajibrJiaBHblM  3JieMeHT peajIBHOCTH  npHSHSK  fleJIBHOCTB. —  OTcyTCTBHe  fla,  —roBopHT  AjieKcefi  CTaBJiHeTCH $opMoio BceM  flBHHceHHH  ecTB  H B H J K e H H H , .naiomeio O C H O B 3 H H 6  Jxpyr-HM  BecejiBio;  $opMaM:  O H H 6e3  peaJIBHOCTH .  A  pa3BJie*ieHHio,  npefliuecTByromero  6e3  n ; B H > K e H H H  *ITO  aHajiH3e  aHTponojiorHTiecKOM  B  OTcyTCTBHe  neTpoBH^i,—noTOMy  HeT  H  Hegel's This  view  His  that  philosophy,  flux  i s a n adaptation  philosophy, In  o f Marx's  cojjepacaHHe  OTflbixy, Tpyna K H 3 H H ,  which  and s t r i f e  this  3a6aBe,  H e HMeiOT .  .  .  119-120]  outlook  also  are the l i f e  progress  on  of the Pre-Socratic, Heraclitean  fits  well  "theory  of mankind,  builds  of the world.  into  Chernyshevsky's  fact, i t helps h i m to t i e a l l h i s theoretical relativistic  npen;-  KopeHHoro  [pp. Reminiscent  Tpyna,  Tpyji.  of truth,"  his belief  and h i s pragmatic  ethics  overall loose  view.  ends.  i n the future are quite  17  compatible  with  essence  life.  of  aesthetics between  and  the b e l i e f This  and  motion  view  may  he  makes  s h o w why  expression  that  also  and  be  such  change  are  the basis  a harsh  the  for his  division  content.  H e r a c l i t u s , w i t h a s t a t e m e n t l i k e "you c a n n o t s t e p t w i c e i n t o t h e same r i v e r , " r e a c h e s t h e l o g i c a l c o n c l u s i o n o f the m a t e r i a l i s t i c answer. The w a t e r w i l l b e d i f f e r e n t w a t e r t h e s e c o n d t i m e , a n d i f we c a l l t h e r i v e r t h e s a m e , i t i s b e c a u s e we s e e i t s r e a l i t y i n i t s form.18 Hence tent  one which  change, the  can  i n the  and  static  for  Marx,  and  The  stagnation  leads  world  ignores  to  life.  roots  form  the  idea  of  con-  element  (expression),  considers  labour  Idleness,  he  a  plant  the  rot.  This  of  waters employed  idleness him  of  i n Vera  isolates  to withdraw  o f p a s s i o n s and  solution  deifies  conception i s the  Chernyshevsky  element  in stale  Further,  Heraclitean  virtually  corruption. mersed  Chernyshevsky  which  of is  element.  Like principal  s e e why  the into  dreams.  and  t o be  believes, soil  causes  which  i s Chernyshevsky s 1  Pavlovna s  second  1  individual h i s own Labour  from  the  the  are  metaphor  dream. collective  imaginary world, alone  is  alienation.  06  S T O M .  .  . . . Hy»HO HMeTB O T K a 3 3 T b C 3 , KOTOpOTO  .  the  Chernyshevsky s  — BOT n o ^ e M y T e 6 n TaK 3 a H H j i H C T H X H O T O M , K a K K a T H H36aBJiHJiacB O T T O C K H p a d o T o r a . Tbi x o ^ e u i b 3 H a T & , H c n u T a j i J I H H B e p H O C T b 3 T o r o 3aMe^aHHH Ha c e d e ? fla, O H O coBepiueHHO c n p a B e f l J i H B O . 9L flOBOJibHO Jier-KO B t m e p >KHBaji 6 o p b 6 y n o x o M y , I T O MHe H e K o r n a Sbino M H o r o 3aHHMaTBCH ero. Bee B p e M H , K o r n a H o6pamaji BHHMaHHe Ha H e e , H C T p a n a j i o i e H B cHJibHO; H O esceflHeBHaa H e o 6 XOflHMOCTb 3aCTaBJIHJia MeHH Ha SOJIblliyK) ^ a C T b BpeMeHH 3a6bIBaTb  im-  .  TaKoe n e j i o , O T KOToporo H e x t b 3 H HeJlb3H O T J l O S C H T b , T O T f l a ^ieJlOBeK  1  18  HecpaBHeHHO  .  TBepace.  . H y s H O J i H ^ H o e neno,  .  Heo6xo,nHMoe .rjejio, O T  K O T o p o r o 3 a B H c e j i a 6bi c o 6 c T B e H H a n K H 3 H B , T a K o e jxe.no, K O T O p O e J I H ^ H O flJIH M e H H , flJIH M O e T O 0 6 p a 3 a 5 K H 3 H H , flJIH MOHX V B J i e ^ e H H f i C T p a C T b B , T O J I b K O T a K O e fleJIO MOJKeT CJiyXCHTb O n o p O K ) B 6 O p b 0 e C O C T p a C T b K ) ; T O J I b K O O H O H e B H T e c H H e T C H H3 » C H 3 H H c T p a c T b r o , a caMO 3ar\nyiiiaeT C T p a C T b , T O J I b K O OHO fliaeT C H J i y H O T f l b l X .  [pp. In  this  that  of  stand "Man of  instance, the  new  English  i s summarized i s sent  man—it In  pered  by  ledges  Vera  long  encounters who  her  recollect  her  to  ago  written—is  to  read her  finally  although  friends  another,  do  not  with has  to  continue  living  love  each  other  with  and  statements: — t h e  not  a  Chernyshevsky  end  Thought." makes  a  i s p e r s o n a l , unham-  this  dream  who  now  form  of  doubts  that  great deal  f o r Lopukhov  her  t o work;  imaginary  conclude a  for his offer  later  appearances.  an  to  Vera  acknow-  i s her a  husband  famous  This  diary about  opera  apparition  and the  enables nature  Lopukhov.  have  it  been  from  who  feeling  his  dream In  similar  anti-intellectual  Action,  Lopukhov,  suspicions  predominant not  third  love  an  dream,  ideology.  aloud  relationship Vera  third The  not  of  question, but  m y s t e r i o u s l y changes  Vera  of  i n one  "self-awareness" i n the  forces to  Carlyle  i n concerns.  does  i s very  b o u r g e o i s i e , whose  Pavlovna's  she  attitude  not  references to  that  singer,  by  hither  was  transition  She  Chernyshevsky's  255-256]  and  of  never  and  Lopukhov,  respect have  and  her,  she  would  eventually  for  one  done.  i s gratefulness,  to marry family  she  Vera's  because have  would  had  have  had to  19 been f o r c e d t o marry Storeshnikov, whom she d e s p i s e d .  Though  t h i s dream causes Vera t o f e e l g u i l t and a n x i e t y , i t has a f i n a l l i b e r a t i n g e f f e c t on h e r . Once she admits t h a t she had been d e c e i v i n g h e r s e l f , her trauma i s over.  I t i s i n the  open and she can begin t o d e a l w i t h the problem.  Chernyshev-  sky 's f i n a l concern i n the realm o f self-improvement show the importance o f p e r s o n a l emancipation.  i s to  Man should  q u e s t i o n h i s hopes and h i s f e a r s . Chernyshevsky essence p o l i t i c a l ,  c o n s i d e r s human r e l a t i o n s h i p s t o be i n and makes a s t r o n g case f o r i t here: Vera's  i n i t i a l c h o i c e between her former misery a t home and Lopukhov was s t r i c t l y a u t i l i t a r i a n one. in  a different  Now Chernyshevsky  p l a c e s her  situation:  Mbi BHfleJiH nepen coSoro H B V X JiKmeft 3 T o r o rana: Bepy IlaBJiOBHy H JIonyxoBa, H B H f l e J i H , K a K y c T p o H j i H C B O T H O meHHH Memny H H M H . Tenepb B X O A H T T p e m R ^eJiOBeK. IIOCMOTPHM, KaKHe p a 3 H O C T H 06Hapy>KaTCH OT B 0 3 M O K H O C T H  OflHOMy  H3 H H X c p a B H H B a T f c flByx flpyrtix. Bepa B H f l H T nepen; C O 6 O H D J I o n y x o B a H K a p c a H O B a . eft He 6 H I J I O B b i S o p a ; T e n e p b e c T b . [p. 14 6]  IlaBJiOBHa  ripeacfle At  t h i s p o i n t the reader a l r e a d y knows t h a t Vera and K i r s a n o v ,  Lopukhov's b e s t f r i e n d , a r e i n l o v e .  Both suspect t h a t the  f e e l i n g i s mutual but n e i t h e r f e e l s i t r i g h t t o i n t e r f e r e i n the o t h e r ' s l i f e . his  But Lopukhov, who i s i m p a r t i a l , because o f  f r i e n d s h i p w i t h K i r s a n o v and h i s b r o t h e r l y l o v e f o r Vera,  decides t o a c t when he f i n d s out about the s i t u a t i o n .  At  f i r s t he c o n f r o n t s K i r s a n o v and i s ready t o convince him t h a t he i s o b l i g a t e d t o pursue h i s happiness, i m p l y i n g t h a t K i r sanov and Vera should be t o g e t h e r .  But K i r s a n o v i s outraged;  20  Moreover,  he p r e s e n t s  an argument  that  Lopukhov  cannot  dispute: c T O S O K ) n p H 3 H a e M 3 a HopMajibHyro >KH3Hb, 6yfleT T3K , K O T f l a n e p e M e H H T C H n O H f l T H H , o6H^iaH o6mecTBa. O H O noxoKHO n e p e B O c n H T a T B C H , 3 T O TaK. O H O H nepeBOcnHTHBaeTCH pa3BHTHeM s t H 3 H H . K T O n e p e B O c n H T a j i C H , n o M o r a e T n p y r - H M , S T O T a K . Ho n o K a O H O eme He n e p e B O c n H T a j i o c b , He n e p e M e H H J i o c b c o B e p n i e H H O , T H He HMeeuib n p a B a p n c K O B a T b ^yscoio .  . .  To,  *ITO  M H  cynb6oio. . . . H nocTaBJiK) 3 T O T TeopeTHiecKHft B o n p o c B jjtpyroft O o p M e : HMeeT JIH K T O - H H 6 y f l b n p a B O n o f l B e p r a T b ^ l e j i o B e K a p n c K y , e c j i H ^ e j i o B e K y H 6e3 p u c n a x o p o m o ? . . . npenriojioKy, ^ C T O S T O T ^ejiOBeK—aceHinHHa; npeflnojioacy, onmB-TaKH B CMHone OTEJie^eHHOH ranoTe 3H, 1TO 3TO nOJTOHCeHHe, B KOTOPOM e M y npHBOJIbHO JKHTB ,—3aMy»cecTBO; n p e f l n o j i O H c y , ^ T O O H jjoBOJieH S T H M n o j i o a c e H H e M , H r o B o p i o : n p H TaKHx flaHHHX, n o 3 T O H OTBjie^eHHOfi ranoie3e, K T O HMeeT n p a B O noflBepraTB 3Toro ^ e j i o B e K a p H C K y n o T e p H T B x o p o m e e , K O T O P H M OH H O B O J i e H , * I T O 6 H n o c M O T p e T b , He y r j a c T C H J I H 3TOMy ^ l e j i o B e K y n p n o S p e c T H Jiy^mee, 6e3 K O T O P O T O e M y jier-KO O S O H T H C B ? [pp- 1 8 1 - 1 8 2 ]  Lopukhov ing  cannot  b u t agree  and i t i s then  follows  a kind  hedonic  calculus,  cial  and secure  affairs  isfactory. burden  were  when  judged  akin  to  the happiness  to his decision  concerned,  Finally,  Lopukhov's according  but his private  and l i f e Vera s 1  with  Vera  reason-  His decision Bentham's of a l l involved.  t o l e a v e was  as f a r as h i s professional  a l lthe reasons  Nevertheless, so  prior  utilitarian  t o leave.  calculus  favours  H i smarriage  on him.  outweighed  which life  Kirsanov's  he d e c i d e s  of utilitarian  Lopukhov's comfortable  that  with  life  and f i n a n was u n s a t -  Pavlovna  were  a  and Kirsanov's unhappiness  w h i c h m i g h t h a v e made h i m s t a y .  action  i s a heroic  t o Kirsanov's  deed,  utilitarian  especially argument  21  about from  loss both  leaves  of  security.  financial  of  and  fact,  most  of  Done?  have  a heroic  to  be  courageous  willing  Lopukhov  to  and  superhuman  because  use  de  actions  deeds.  to  immune  the  at  least  of  differences  of  to  i n which "the  heroic  one  temperament,  action  that  would  i n What  and  a l l are  inertia  and  later  be  said  none  of  themselves  author accompanies  mocking  and  heroism  seemed  of Mill's stated  have  I s To  made Be  qualify.  given,"  urging  as  Katerina  virtually  the  they busy  t o have But  Both  f i t this  also  philosophizing,  dichotomy  reiterated  Chernyshevsky  ideas  heroism.  i n What  A l l can  in.action,  nineteenth-century positivists. have  people  super-hero,  Pavlovna  the world, while the  kind  contra-  against  i n them.  forceful  a world  self-interest,  This  of  whereby  as  with very pragmatic  adherence  young  Chernyshevsky*s  B e a u v o i r ' s term,  restructuring  argues  away  eventually  a blatant  with high  Kirsanov, Vera  creates  step  to unfavourable circumstances.  although not  Chernyshevsky  Simone  assertive,  sacrifice  and  streak  is a  (when h e  t o be  Chernyshevsky's  Rakhmetov,  description, Vasilievna,  and  security  theory which  In Be  action  i t appears 1  To  the  cultural  Chernyshevsky s  Is  are  and  f o r America),  diction  Lopukhov's  to in  their  strict  altruistic  afflicted  most  Chernyshevsky  basic  assumptions  could on  in his  Utilitarianism,  a good  case  fora l l  Done?  The main c o n s t i t u e n t s o f a s a t i s f i e d l i f e appear t o be two, e i t h e r o f w h i c h by i t s e l f is^often f o u n d s u f f i c i e n t f o r t h e p u r p o s e : t r a n q u i l i t y and excitement. W i t h much t r a n q u i l i t y , many f i n d t h a t t h e y c a n be c o n t e n t w i t h v e r y l i t t l e pleasure;  22  w i t h much selves to  e x c i t e m e n t , many c a n r e c o n c i l e t h e m a considerable quantity of pain.  Hereby  Chernyshevsky s  thrive  on  on  excitement:  expansion, and  that  d e s p i t e the  man  occasional  of  ness  the  pre-empts  the  story.  leaves to  to  start  but  pragmatic  to  this  start  a  theirs  life  i s completed.  with  business  Kirsanov while and  begins  further  juxtaposes  another  couple,  Lopukhov, now  is a  Katerina with.  who  her this  and  goes  four, and  which  the  book  prophesies  weak-  and  kind  of  preface  the  cycle:  and  Kirsanov  to  depict  continues  are  happiness  Katerina.  who  start  ends w i t h future  with  runs  a  new a  kind  Vera  that is  sewing  of really  identity.  factory  someone he a  new  Chernyshevsky  Beaumont  under  here,  contented  i n the  i n medicine.  free  the  Vera's  aiding  to  Lopukhov  of  on  of  Chernyshev-  his vision  America  end,  since  that  couple's  a  remains  ended  b u s i n e s s man  i n the  some  suggest  c o u l d have  i s a woman t o h i s l i k i n g ,  The  to  story  studies  r e t u r n s from  cause  a l r e a d y knows  in a  Vera  feel  she  Beaumont  successful  existence, dream,  He  who  short,  unconscious  suicide,  closes  The  not  may  in  Chernyshevsky  reader  moment  life,  does  the  now  together.  Chernyshevsky  society  dramatic  new  a l l this  probably  h i s faked  Chernyshevsky  those  action,  I t i s tempting  a  to  action.  plot,  and  belong  assertion, that  era with  the  people  theorizing,  heroic  departure  sky  fact  setbacks.  and  return  Lopukhov's  interest,  romantic  f o r heroes To  young  d e s p i t e the  pain  a  new  1  can  be  i n Russia. happy  of co-operative  Pavlovna's  harmonious  He  fourth  existence of  23  mankind,  Done?  He  free  as  piece  up  into  He  of  fiction  both.  he  of  human  situations  needs  those  i s clumsy has  the  same way  of as  one  of  psychological intricacies  and  action  to  live  i s known  to  be  present  succeed  positivism,  Realism,  "bourgeois lend  indeed,  themselves  impulses  are  he  which  easily  subdued;  a  philosopher.  both  as  at a l l  the  criticizes.  works  Being  bad  tendency  a  Life  to  f o r him  seems  absolutely  cannot  conceive  aside,  because  attitude,  one  has  i n those  actually,  view,  which  is willing.  became  passions."  i s  a  fiction  deal  with  i s to  be  problem,  oblivious  of  insoluble  to  acknow-  situations  absurd.  Soviet o f f i c i a l  i n a l l i f only  Socialist  with,  fits  but  solutions  i s just  Be  contrived.  problem-solving  Chernyshevsky's the  he  To  which  t a c k l e s a mathematical He  learn  bad  misreads  solutions.'  game.  which,  is a  he  Is  philosophy,  unfortunate  proceeds  and  chess  and  or  situations  and  What  writing,  positive  relations,  i n terms  in a  of  political  distorts  p r a i s e s and  injustice.  intentions,  Chernyshevsky  he  his writing  i n the  and  dogmatic;  Chernyshevsky  solved  ambiguous  simplifies,  observer  writer;  an  both  philosophy  ledge  and  ends  is painfully  all  poverty good  example  poor  from  Chernyshevsky's  costs. of  life  Despite  loosely poor  a  a  was  The to they  very  holds  deify  characters these seem  a r t of  labour  and  i n What  concerns: as  t h a t man  Chernyshevsky's  r e c i p e f o r the to  much u n d e r l i e s  Is  their  i f directed  can naive  so-called  downplay To  Be  Done?  passions from  and  above,  24  like out  puppets their  cient  or  lives  and  robots. only  rational  emotional  to  responses,  they  appear  as  an  "greatest  of  this.  lack  of  to  was  while  society.  programmed  to  act  most  endowed w i t h  effi-  elementary  sophistication. super-hero,  wizard to  be  o b s t a c l e s i n the  Chernyshevsky  intellectual  happiness"  improvement  But,  intended  1  example  appear  eliminate  manner.  Chernyshevsky s good  They  wanted  and  serve  a  is  Rakhmetov  to  superman,  humanity  Rakhmetov,  Rakhmetov,  whose  and  a man  whose  assist  nickname  a  in  i s ,  the  f i t -  22 tingly, of  Nikita  Russian  like  Ilya  when  the  byliny  oppressed  for their  despite He  The are  legendary  of  of  these  figures,  strength, insults  stories  of  a  the  also  finesse, people  wits,  fits  always  and  someone appear  and  a  are  better  and  Rakhmetov,  this acts  orders  heroes  always  protector  however,  for their  efforts, and  after  or mythological t a l e s ) ,  s t r e n g t h than  grace  modeled  i n g r e a t need  1  social  doubt  heroes  Chernyshevsky s  lacks  tion  These  i s no  (folktales  Muromec.  liberator. known  Lomov,  description. from  them  a  posi-  around;  in  23 argument  he  incredible nails. for  a  than  quantities  Rakhmetov future  rather metov  is forceful  than  of  dogmatic.  food  But  praiseworthy  and,  of Is  like  and  a l l this  revolution.  seems more a man What  does  and  Dr.  integrity. To Be D o n e ?  Beside  i s known  supposedly  a l l this to  the  to  this,  have  slept  to prepare  appears  he  ludicrous  Frankenstein's legendary  a  on  himself  perceptive reader,  i s undoubtedly  eats  Rakh-  monster  challenge to  the  25  critic, of  since  literature  Barthes, the  dotes.  i s the  poem,  style,  i t lacks the  the  The  "writerly" "writerly,"  novelistic  essay  on  without  without  production without  the  which  according  the  novel,  to  analyst Roland  poetry  dissertation,  product,  the  without  writing  structuration  without  without  24 structure. product  and  But not  What  the  been  developed  to  been  a modern  form  more  a p p l i e d than  it  does  ideology not  not  nothing  but  the  Be  Done? m e r e l y  production."  of  those  of  What  Is  close to  when he  do  presents  "the  i t s philosophical  side  To  have  Be  Done?  dialogue,  P l a t o and  i t doesn't  truth.  Had  philosophical  come a n y w h e r e  this  To  perfection,  "reflects,  foresee  Is  only  Berkeley.  that. work."  s t a t e d t h a t he  Sadly  As  could  slightly i t stands,  enough,  Chernyshevsky was  to  present  did  26  CHAPTER  "THE  In in  ANTHROPOLOGICAL  the  exposition to  Philosophy,"  He  i s a man  but  who  and  ambition  material  had  of  man,  his  the  intellect,  just are  "The  man  of  as  a wealth  great  the  self-taught, to  the  IN  PHILOSOPHY"  Anthropological Principle  sketches  awakened  a  picture  of  the  Post-Napoleonic and  without  realization as' t h a t  of  that the  new era.  means, intellect inherited,  order.  Chernyshevsky's what  PRINCIPLE  Chernyshevsky  nineteenth-century  II  atypical  assessment  i n comparison  with  of  this  that  of  phenemenon his  is  some-  time:  The w e a l t h y c l a s s e s a r e a t f i r s t moved t o p i t y a t t h e s i g h t o f i n t e l l i g e n t , h o n e s t and industrious p e o p l e l i v i n g i n h o p e l e s s p o v e r t y and d e g r a d a t i o n . O u t o f p u r e human k i n d n e s s t h e g r e a t h e l p t h e i r less fortunate brothers. Thanks to the c h a r i t a b l e concern o f w e l l - t o - d o p e o p l e , the son o f a poor a r t i s a n , s h e p h e r d and c o o p e r ' s a p p r e n t i c e goes t o s c h o o l and e n t e r s t h e r o a d t h a t l e a d s him t o honour and o u t o f p o v e r t y . But praiseworthy though i t i s , t h i s a s s i s t a n c e i s inadequate; . . . The youth's n a t u r a l t a l e n t s a r e g r e a t , however; he has n o t y e t l e a r n e d a n y t h i n g , b u t he knows, a t a l l e v e n t s , t h a t o n l y l e a r n i n g can save him. He w i l l n o t a b a n d o n i n t e l l e c t u a l w o r k n o m a t t e r how s t r a i t e n e d h i s c i r c u m s t a n c e s may b e . . . . Even w h i l e h i s hands a r e e n g a g e d i n d r u d g e r y , h i s m i n d i s t a k e n up w i t h g e n e r a l human p r o b l e m s a n d w i t h t h e p r o b l e m s o f t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e w h o l e c l a s s t o w h i c h he b e l o n g s . . . . A t f i r s t t h e s e new t h o u g h t s p l e a s e t h e l e a r n e d men i n r e s p e c t a b l e s o c i e t y i n t h e same way as t h e y had b e e n p l e a s e d by t h e g i f t e d v i l l a g e l a d . T h e y e n c o u r a g e h i s l a b o u r s , he c o n t i n u e s h i s i n t e l l e c t u a l o c c u p a t i o n s , he d e v e l o p s h i s i d e a s . But a t l a s t h i s p a t r o n s awaken t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e i s a pernicious side to h i s thoughts, . . . But too l a t e : he no l o n g e r n e e d s p a t r o n a g e , he i s a l r e a d y stronger than h i s persecutors, . . . he c r u s h e s everybody a g a i n s t whom h e i s c o m p e l l e d t o r a i s e h i s  27  hand. This biography of a single individual h i s t o r y o f t h e c l a s s t o w h i c h he b e l o n g s . [pp. In  Chernyshevsky's  ately to  identifies  enter  ruling  himself  the path  stratum,  at first  finding  merits, ranks  with  outlook  a n d a new  himself  environment  artificial  lar  Thus,  order  such  What  be t h a t  i s s u e when  Chernyshevsky  of  form  social sense.  particto  those  t h e new  i s established. t h e change He  i s possible  infers  i s morally He  that  each  obligated  i s to prepare will  happen  implications this  the s o c i e t y would  this  himself  by i n f i l t r a t i o n ,  The change  a s o c i e t y i s not Chernyshevsky's would  h i s own  elevates  activities.  possible  sees  i n the universal  c a n , and perhaps  with  hand,  from  channels.  for a revolution.  means.  However,  of  immedi-  and i s ready  c l a s s b u t a man  perspective  b y means o f r e v o l u t i o n a r y  to,  here  1  to overthrow the  and e x p e r i e n c e  social 1  individual  for  an i n d i v i d u a l  class.  Chernyshevsky s  involve  himself  by v i r t u e o f h i s m e r i t s  enlightened  an  struggle  of a particular  diverging  class In  only  class  on t h e other  dissociating  of the ruling  a new  ruling  who  outlook,  himself  i s n o t a member  the  individual  his social  of revolutionary  evolutionary  individual  ular  with  t h e aware  64-66]  class. The  He  conception,  i s the  would  by have  concern.  The  assumption  deal  that  particu-  with  i t arose. this  change  gathers,  contradictions.  He  i s still  because  i n the distant  t h e aware  i s not ready  individual  to guide  future, i s full  h i s society  28  toward  a new  social  order:  He h a s n o t y e t g r a s p e d t h e s c i e n t i f i c c o n c e p t s w h i c h c o r r e s p o n d most t o h i s p o s i t i o n , i n c l i n a t i o n s and n e e d s , a n d , we t h i n k , t h a t c o r r e s p o n d most t o t h e truth, but a t a l l events to the present state of knowledge. [ p . 68] We h a v e s e e n w h a t s t a g e o f d e v e l o p m e n t h a s b e e n reached by t h e t r e n d o f thought o f a p l e b e i a n i n Western Europe. He h a s n o t y e t g r a s p e d t h e g e n e r a l ideas of present-day science, the deductions from which correspond t o h i s needs. He s t i l l c l i n g s t o the o b s o l e t e p r i n c i p l e s . . . and c o n s t a n t l y passes from j a u n d i c e d r e p u d i a t i o n o f them t o s u b m i s s i o n t o them. He c a n n o t r e m a i n i n t h i s s t a t e o f submission long and a g a i n b u r s t s o u t i n c a u s t i c t i r a d e s o n l y to submit t o r o u t i n e once a g a i n . This jaundiced indecision, this vacillation, i s totally alien to t h e s p i r i t o f t h e new i d e a s . [ p . 86] What  are the obsolete  about?  Perhaps  those  negative  implications  believes  that  of  these  the learned  man  nineteenth-century a  pragmatist  principles that  realm.  t o be r e j e c t e d .  without man  Chernyshevsky  talks  a r e p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y sound  f o r the social  have  and w i l l  that  means  s t i l l  Chernyshevsky  The j a u n d i c e d  i s accurately  looks  t o adopt  image  depicted.  f o r absolutes.  n o t be i n c l i n e d  b u t have  He  The  i s not  ready-made  solutions. What that his  one's  i s i t that political  Chernyshevsky  i n t e r e s t s determine,  p h i l o s o p h i c a l views.  serves  the purpose  presumably  help  him i n h i s p o l i t i c a l  truth,  he  Further,  he  o f f u r t h e r i n g one's  thus  Knowledge,  expounds  the strength  i n Chernyshevsky's states,v*>wi'll p e r h a p s  opinion,  that  political  against  He  or should  infers  of h i s social  struggle  here?  determine,  knowledge strength,  class,  which  another  i s relative.  be e v i d e n t : i n  states  will  class. The  the,~distant  29  future.  "The  ered  closest token  a  the  glimpse  present  e x a c t l y what  judge. is  The  insufficient  of  this  to  retains  should  although  the  mankind  importance  of  presents any  of  be  consid-  i t affords  on  f o r him this  only  the  progress,  i s impossible  topic It  in this  and  superstition, and  standards  and  a  What  that  ideas  and  emphasis  on  the  metaphysical of  to  essay  is likely  historicist  empirical habits  extending  in  eighteenth-century  theological or  belief  conclusions.  reason  from  positive  sort  entails  characteristic  away  to  some  i s i n f l u e n c e d by  s t r u g g l e between  thought  truth,  notion  make  view  1  the  the  holds  m a t e r i a l he  Chernyshevsky s it  of  knowledge"  of i t .  Chernyshevsky but  state of  movement  modes  mind,  and  methods  on  of  on  of  the  the  2 sciences  to  a l l domains.  However,  this  after  analysis of  ophy"  i s that  theories  of  knowledge,"  "The  knowledge that  i s , of  Chernyshevsky censors. precise  in  i s , the was  very known not  aware  that  However,  there  understanding  of  lived  seems  favour  course,  was  guess.  is really  Anthropological Principle  Chernyshevsky  Chernyshevsky Feuerbach  i s just  to  of  denounce  the  latest to  be  a  by  name  name w o u l d  Feuerbach  beyond  dualistic  o p p o s i t i o n between  state  follower of  evidence  t h a t man  a l l past  "present  is little  assertion  and  of  not of  the  God,  or  Feuerbach.  in this pass  essay.  the  Chernyshevsky's fundamental  i n a material universe man  Philos-  view.  mentioned the  in  left  any  and  that  other  a  30  supernatural If essay,  power  Chernyshevsky  the references  scientific  concepts  inclinations present  be  are extremely  which  d i d not exist. "  J  t o Feuerbach esoteric,  correspond  most  "the s p i r i t  i n this  e.g., "the  to his position,  o f t h e new  ideas,"  "the  o f knowledge," e t c .  appears  technology  simply  i s referring  and needs,"  state  It  that  or essence,  will  that  Chernyshevsky  further  the obstacles  man's  that  believes  social  hampered  man  that  and moral  science  progress,  i n the past  will  and and  thus  eliminated. Already,  outline  earlier  h i s view  to  enlighten  of  t h e new  on  i n the essay,  "the order  h i s contemporaries  Chernyshevsky  of things." with  begins  to  His objective i s  his so-called  "spirit  ideas":  That part o f philosophy which deals with the probl e m o f man, j u s t l i k e t h e o t h e r p a r t w h i c h d e a l s w i t h t h e problems o f e x t e r n a l n a t u r e , i s based on the n a t u r a l sciences. The p r i n c i p l e underlying t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l v i e w o f human l i f e a n d a l l i t s phenomena i s t h e i d e a worked o u t by n a t u r a l sciences o f t h e u n i t y o f t h e human o r g a n i s m ; t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s o f p h y s i o l o g i s t s , z o o l o g i s t s a n d m e d i c a l men h a v e d r i v e n a w a y a l l t h o u g h t o f d u a l i s m i n man. Philosophy sees him as m e d i c i n e , p h y s i o l o g y and c h e m i s t r y see him. T h e s e s c i e n c e s p r o v e t h a t no d u a l i s m i s e v i d e n t i n man, a n d p h i l o s o p h y a d d s t h a t i f man possessed another nature, i n addition to h i s r e a l nature, t h i s other nature would r e v e a l i t s e l f i n some w a y , b u t s i n c e i t d o e s n o t r e v e a l i t s e l f i n a n y way, s i n c e e v e r y t h i n g t h a t t a k e s p l a c e a n d m a n i f e s t s i t s e l f i n man o r i g i n a t e s s o l e l y f r o m h i s r e a l n a t u r e , he c a n n o t have a n o t h e r n a t u r e . This proof i s beyond doubt. [ p . 70] What  i s this  really  prove  real  nature  o f man?  that  no d u a l i s m  Do  i n man  these  named  i s evident?  sciences Chernyshevsky  31  does  not  sciences chief from  e l a b o r a t e on but  intent  i s not of  he  insight  the  urged  the  Further,  concerned  Since  i s thus into  statements. with  his journalistic  his reader.  said,  these  the to  issues  social  cannot  h i s own  the  analysis.  i s to be  of  get  clear  research to  a  reaction  on  get  The  what a  is  better  presented.  Chernyshevsky  s c i e n c e s and  i s fond  scientific  approach  reader  do  He  talks  of  the  p r o g r e s s made  in  sciences:  I n t h e same way, the union of the exact sciences, under the government o f mathematics, that i s , c o u n t i n g , w e i g h i n g and m e a s u r i n g , i s y e a r a f t e r y e a r s p r e a d i n g t o new s p h e r e s o f k n o w l e d g e , i s growing by t h e i n c l u s i o n o f newcomers. Chemistry was g r a d u a l l y f o l l o w e d b y a l l t h e s c i e n c e s c o n c e r n e d w i t h p l a n t and a n i m a l o r g a n i s m s : p h y s i o l o g y , c o m p a r a t i v e anatomy, v a r i o u s b r a n c h e s o f b o t a n y and z o o l o g y . Now the moral sciences are j o i n i n g i t . [ p . 91] The n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s h a v e a l r e a d y d e v e l o p e d t o s u c h an e x t e n t t h a t t h e y p r o v i d e m a t e r i a l f o r t h e exact s o l u t i o n of moral problems too. A l l the prog r e s s i v e t h i n k e r s among t h o s e who a r e s t u d y i n g t h e m o r a l s c i e n c e s have begun t o work o u t t h e s e p r o b lems w i t h the a i d o f p r e c i s e methods s i m i l a r t o t h o s e by w h i c h t h e problems o f t h e n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s are b e i n g worked out. [ p . 94] . . . i n the moral sciences, a s t r i c t distinction h a s b e e n d r a w n b e t w e e n what i s known a n d what i s n o t known, a n d on t h e b a s i s o f w h a t i s known t h e u n s o u n d n e s s o f some o f t h e p r e v i o u s a s s u m p t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g what s t i l l r e m a i n s unknown has b e e n proved. [ p . 94] There all,  i s a  But  of  Chernyshevsky  together of  number  as  inquiry; the  two  problems  lumps  i n these  science,  i f they  were  he  identifies  are  also very  one  p h i l o s o p h y and  discipline  different  statements.  with  of  psychology  identical  philosophy with disciplines.  First  modes  psychology.  Psychology  is  32  an  empirical  work,  i . e . , what  causal  laws  complete both  science which  them,  and abnormal.  with  available  observed  that  himself),  a r e and what  the object of giving o f mental  happenings,  are those  (except  of  and behaviour  o f human  natural i snot  i n the case  b u t has t o be i n f e r r e d  as  of the  from t h e  ( o r sometimes  bodies.  Psychology, in  finding  is  interested  then,  i s interested  o u t how m i n d s w o r k . i n questions  material world,  history,  and so o n .  Moral  to other  i s a discipline  relation  persons'  t o which which  approval or disapproval, goodness  o r wisdom  what minds  on t h e o t h e r work  hand,  on, what  i s to objects i n the  minds,  t o the events  of  4  philosophy,  wrongness,  i n causal questions,  Philosophy,  about  i s , what t h e i r  external  bility  o u r minds  i t s subject matter  inspection  appearance  non-human)  and  with  I t s methods  the handicap  fordirect  experimenter  of  among  processes  an e x p l a n a t i o n as p o s s i b l e  science,  refers,  t o d i s c o v e r how  the v a r i o u s mental  operate  normal  their  tries  Chernyshevsky  concerns  judgements  o r badness,  of actions,  itself  especially with  judgements  as t o t h e r i g h t n e s s  virtue  dispositions  or vice,  desira-  or objects or  5 states  of affairs.  dispositions, the  human  Even first  that  So, a l t h o u g h  i s , the circumstances  condition,  utilitarianism, paragraph  i t may  when  i t s chief t o which talking  concern  be i n t e r e s t e d i n of the f r a i l t i e s  i s i n what  Chernyshevsky about  i s just.  alludes  quantitative  of  i n the  assessments,  33  although  a  ministic  position.  terms,  pragmatic  is a  philosophy, The  values  pain,  in hedonistic  as  ianism  will  and  those  incorporates  imperatives. "what  Secondly,  n e c e s s a r i l y cause  and  this  pattern.  will  become about  have.  He  that This  these  the  a l l his i s why  man  actions  i s ,  of Although  utilitar-  humanitarian imply  human  that  inclinations—  and  matters  i s geared  will  suggests  sciences,  these  to  deter-  utilitarian  inclinations.  to  a  act.  that  he  from  combination  seems  presumably to  in  that,  Chernyshevsky  a man  spring  i s undesirable,  values,  inclinations,  discusses  from  representing  believes  laboratory  not  happiness,  philosophy,  i s known"—referring  selfishness  out  absolute  Chernyshevsky  out  greatest  s o l u t i o n worked  absolute  does  therefore  that  moral  where more w i l l what  towards follow  sciences be  found  i m p l i c a t i o n s they  in greater  will  detail:  . . . i s man a g o o d o r an e v i l b e i n g ? Lots of p e o p l e r a c k t h e i r b r a i n s i n an e n d e a v o u r t o s o l v e t h i s problem. N e a r l y h a l f o f them d e c i d e t h a t man by n a t u r e i s good; o t h e r s , a l s o c o n s t i t u t i n g n e a r l y h a l f of the b r a i n - r a c k e r s , decide otherwise: they s a y t h a t man i s by n a t u r e bad. . . . But a t the very f i r s t a p p l i c a t i o n of s c i e n t i f i c a n a l y s i s the w h o l e t h i n g t u r n s o u t t o be as c l e a r as c l e a r c a n be. A man l i k e s what i s p l e a s a n t and d i s l i k e s what is unpleasant— . . . a man i s g o o d when, i n o r d e r t o o b t a i n p l e a s u r e f o r h i m s e l f , he m u s t g i v e pleasure to others. A man i s bad when, i n o r d e r t o o b t a i n p l e a s u r e f o r h i m s e l f , he i s o b l i g e d t o cause unpleasantness f o r others. H e r e , human n a t u r e c a n n o t be b l a m e d f o r one t h i n g o r p r a i s e d f o r t h e o t h e r ; e v e r y t h i n g depends on circumstances, . . . [pp. 98-99] Chernyshevsky s 1  camp o f  those  p o s i t i o n i s very  who  assert  that  man  peculiar. i s by  He  nature  does good,  join  the  despite  34  his  claim  But  his position  man  cannot  Man  seeks  only  that  i s altogether  pleasure  and r e f r a i n s  which  will  pleasure;  he c a u s e s  from  Chernyshevsky  pain  i s pleasurable  as  a moral  principle  men  pleasure  always  do what  pleasure  i s right,  "good"  ultimate  pleasurable others cannot  Chernyshevsky actions  (and thereby maintain  things a man  be p a r t  as those  actions  introduces  a strict  I t would  Thus  follow irrelwill  o f what  to  others  giver's  happiness.  because  principle  doing  i t i s quite  give  the important  pleasure  from  people  pleasure  which  I f the  i s quite  h i s own  i n a dilemma,  pleasure  sanction  of the pleasure  a r e always  prefers  have  regardless  gives  pleasure  refrain  because  to others.  attain  are bad.  to others  t o them  are the  causes  man  some  which  cannot  or pain  an a c t i o n which  i n t e n t i o n s , which  places  him t o  to say that  i s pleasurable,  i t can never  Man  he c a n o b t a i n  him pleasure.  i s caused  to call  when  what  help  he c a n p r o v i d e  i s pleasurable  or pain  arbitrary  This  unless  bad i f i t gives  to deciding  and these  t o him, b u t he c a n n o t  the giving of pleasure  evant  when  pleasurable  principle  something that  doing  f o rh i s actions.  pain,  will  i s entitled  do what  In h i s view,  h i s conduct.  this  only  immaterial.  extreme.  from  direct  to  against  quite  are  responsible  when h e knows t h a t  i t .  distinctions  be a t a l l m o r a l l y  criteria  pleasure  t h e two b a s i c  i f he  defines  pleasure  sanction), such;as  to he  MillVs:  . . . t h a t p l e a s u r e and freedom from p a i n a r e t h e o n l y t h i n g s d e s i r a b l e as ends; and t h a t a l l d e s i r able things . . . are desirable either f o r pleasure i n h e r e n t i n t h e m s e l v e s o r a s means t o t h e p r o m o t i o n  of For  pleasure  Mill,  the standard  happiness, Thus get  pleasure  using  be from  of people Mill  pleasure allows  principle,  Chernyshevsky  who  benefit.  called  like  argue  Speaking' of ^ s e l f  unless  there  a  greater  of the which  theory.  himself  t o any moral  a  utilitarian/  theory.  notion  f o r pleasure  to  I f Chernyshevsky i s  a moral  a defined  agent  out the standard  to think  own  altogether.  was  formulation  he has l e f t  with  i s n o t t h e agent's  of happiness  o f h i s own  i s not adhering  would  conduct  others  t o be  he would  pain.  f o r a pleasure-seeking  would  then  a utilitarian  hedonist  good'.  y e t who  as the source  Although  a  harming  of  amount  impossible  utilitarianism  neither  of moral  but the greatest  i t would  number  and t h e p r e v e n t i o n  He i s  of happiness,  t o be  nor  the universal  i n t e r e s t> -he . s t a t e s :  . . . the strongest passion gets the upper over those that are less strong, which are f i c e d t o the former.  hand sacri-  A c a r e f u l e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e m o t i v e s t h a t prompt p e o p l e ' s a c t i o n s shows t h a t a l l d e e d s , g o o d a n d b a d , n o b l e and b a s e , h e r o i c and c r a v e n , a r e prompted by o n e c a u s e : a man a c t s i n t h e way t h a t g i v e s h i m most p l e a s u r e . He i s g u i d e d b y s e l f interest, which causes him t o a b s t a i n from a s m a l l e r g a i n , or a l e s s e r pleasure, i n order t o obtain a l a r g e r gain or a greater pleasure. The f a c t t h a t good a n d b a d a c t i o n s a r e p r o m p t e d b y t h e same c a u s e does n o t , o f course d i m i n i s h t h e d i f f e r e n c e between them. [ p . 124] Here  Chernyshevsky's  from  his initial  that  satisfaction  ally  cause  pain,  position  argument  seems  on t h i s  c a n be g a i n e d besides  that  t o be q u i t e  issue.  from  which  He  finally  an a c t i o n actually  different  that  causes  admits may  actu-  pleasure.  36  Further, lesser this  he p o s t u l a t e s  pleasure,  mean  that  that  man  passes  f o r a larger gain,  Chernyshevsky  up a s m a l l e r  greater  identifies  gain,  pleasure.  Does  Plato's  position  with  7 as  formulated  contradicts understand context, idea  hisearlier the idea  then  In M i l l ' s  identified  with  i s the greater  Chernyshevsky catalysts tives.  tarian  pleasure.  actions,  choice  an agent  i s arbitrary;  h i s own  interests Mill  decisions.  interests,  aware  denies  i s , the  "good"  i s  for  that the  are moral  decisions.  imperathat the  The  u t i l i -  deterministic  to the pluralistic  that  t o make a  can w i l l i n g l y  moral  pluralism,  the p o s s i b i l i t y  willingly  belief  two a l t e r n a t i v e  pluralism but, like  I f an agent  of  given  by which  excludes  he c a n n o t  f o r t h e sake was  that  he u n d e r s t a n d s  that,  has no c r i t e r i o n  of self-interest  in  moral  u t i l i -  c a n be  to assert  assessments  i s an answer  his  moral  concept  but can Chernyshevsky's  Chernyshevsky  making  fails  The  i s i n essence  Protagoras,  c l e a r whether  decision. notion  i n this  for this?  Utilitarianism moral  pleasure  However, what He  position involves  has t o choose,  this  he  he does n o t  greater  pleasure  of Plato's  i s not clear.  position.allow  that  greater  I t i s n o t even  then  p o s i t i o n i n incomprehensible.  of a l l utilitarian  utilitarian  gain,  Utilitarianism  that  i s true,  I f ,however,  of greater  gain,  If this  claim.  h i s whole  of greater  tarian.  good  i n The P r o t a g o r a s ?  of  a c t only  sacrifice his  others. any theory  o f moral  behaviour  must  include that  notions  any  interest moral  moral but  If,  the  as  and  is right,  must  i s one  that  what  what  he  an  can  decision  to  ever act,  Further, culturally  then  the  (p.  to  of  not  so  be  very a  states  his  own  Then  he  no  when m a k i n g  that  a moral good  goes  on  and to  a  possible  i n t e r e s t s of  i s not  self-  least,  self-interest,  account  on;  only  account  to  the  and  the  into  be  decision  124).  At  believes  into  Chernyshevsky  relative  take  notion  taken  just,  i n t o account  must  believes  be  good,  others.  agent  i n Chernyshevsky's  conflict  take  i n t e r e s t s of  between  interest,  what  theory  decision  conflict  of  others such  a one.  evil  are  state  that  The i n t e r e s t s o f m a n k i n d as a w h o l e s t a n d higher t h a n t h e i n t e r e s t s o f an i n d i v i d u a l n a t i o n ; the common i n t e r e s t s o f a w h o l e n a t i o n a r e h i g h e r than t h e i n t e r e s t s o f an i n d i v i d u a l c l a s s ; t h e i n t e r e s t s of a l a r g e c l a s s are higher than the i n t e r e s t s of a s m a l l one. In theory, t h i s g r a d a t i o n i s beyond doubt; i t i s merely the a p p l i c a t i o n to s o c i a l problems of the g e o m e t r i c a l axioms: "the whole i s g r e a t e r than the p a r t , " "the l a r g e r q u a n t i t y i s bigger than the smaller q u a n t i t y . " [p. 125] This  gradation,  minority that  and  then,  those  of  further criteria  first  time,  utilitarian  he  would an  individual.  will  mentions  sacrifice  one  be of  the  Chernyshevsky  necessary. the  i n t e r e s t s of  And  imperatives  here, of  is for  the  position:  Theoretical f a l l a c y i n e v i t a b l y leads to p r a c t i c a l harm. I n t h o s e c a s e s w h e n , f o r i t s own advantage, an i n d i v i d u a l n a t i o n t r a m p l e s upon t h e i n t e r e s t s o f m a n k i n d , o r when an i n d i v i d u a l c l a s s t r a m p l e s upon the i n t e r e s t s o f the n a t i o n , the r e s u l t i s a l w a y s d e t r i m e n t a l n o t o n l y t o t h e s i d e whose i n t e r e s t had been e n c r o a c h e d upon, b u t a l s o t o t h e s i d e t h a t had h o p e d t o g a i n by t h i s . [p. 125]  a aware the  38  A  particular  another  group  however,  interests  why  the is  would  becoming  be  He  power  theoretical  and  the  a  fallacy.  i n Russia,  whose  Chernyshevsky  any  the  quantitative  individual the  whose  opposite  majority;  that  No  he  doubt,  conduct,  quantitative principle,  implications of  to  chooses  over  upon  Chernyshevsky,  according  minority  sacrificed.  class  a r b i t r a r i l y .trample  interests.  that,  the  clear that  political  their  exercises  i t a  ruling  cannot  mention  be  utilitarian  ical at  not  i t would  calls  the  then,  f u l f i l l  a minority  he  mind  to  does  principle,  where  group,  case, is  has  according  i s outrageous.  does  not  in  aim  at  to  It  theoret-  p h i l o s o p h i c a l p o s i t i o n , but  rather  agitation.  Chernyshevsky  winds  up  his  essay  by  exploring  what  the  good i s : Good very  i s , as useful  i t w e r e , ' t h e . s u p e r l a t i v e .of ^ u t i l i t y , u t i l i t y , as i t were. [p. 129]  I f we t h i n k t h a t " g o o d i s h i g h e r t h a n u t i l i t y " we o n l y say "very b i g u t i l i t y i s h i g h e r than not very b i g u t i l i t y , " we o n l y e x p r e s s a m a t h e m a t i c a l t r u i s m , . . . O n l y g o o d a c t i o n s a r e p r u d e n t ; o n l y he who i s g o o d i s r a t i o n a l , and he i s r a t i o n a l o n l y t o t h e d e g r e e t h a t he i s g o o d . [p. 130] This  s e r i e s of  initially not is  states  explained. the  about  essence what It  things  as  statements that  good  I t merely of  what  qualities  as  of  i s the  confusing. greatest  Chernyshevsky  utility.  This  gives  the  impression  that  i s good,  but  nothing  mentioned  are  i s elementary well  i s very  quantity  involved.  that  good  is  is  there  things.  can  be  What  an  abundance  i s bad  will  of  not  bad be  39  made b e t t e r the  or  g o o d by  utilitarian that  This  unexpected  sky  seems t o  good and left  the  with  would  i t s quantity.  good u n e x p l a i n e d ,  conclusion i s an  v i r t u e of  what i s good  turn  to  are  words, he,  In  obtain who  undefined.  the  takes  greatest  other  of  a l l there  Of  what does Chernyshevsky's n o t i o n  i s , is rational.  1  in his Utilitarianism.  quantitative contention  would of  final  goes as  of  w h a t we  the  are  syllogism, i t is  rational.  largest  this  be  portion  rational?  rationality  claim  Mill's  Chernyshev-  utility  greatest,  How  However, C h e r n y s h e v s k y s  the  the  the  versa.  concepts  So  Chernyshevsky's  In  Mill's  vice  Both  leaving  jumps t o  From U t i l i t a r i a n i s m ,  s t i l l  i s a tautology. to  and  Platonic idealism.  rational  follow that  Chernyshevsky  is rational  turn.  Thus,  consist?  r e s e m b l e s one  of  argument i n favour  of  follows:  The o n l y p r o o f c a p a b l e o f b e i n g g i v e n t h a t an o b j e c t i s v i s i b l e i s t h a t p e o p l e a c t u a l l y see i t . The o n l y p r o o f t h a t a s o u n d i s a u d i b l e i s t h a t p e o p l e h e a r i t ; and so o f t h e o t h e r s o u r c e s o f o u r experience. In l i k e manner, I apprehend, the s o l e evidence i t i s p o s s i b l e to produce that anything i s d e s i r a b l e i s t h a t p e o p l e do a c t u a l l y d e s i r e i t . I f t h e end w h i c h t h e u t i l i t a r i a n d o c t r i n e p r o p o s e s f o r i t s e l f w e r e n o t , i n t h e o r y and i n p r a c t i c e , a c k n o w l e d g e d t o be an e n d , n o t h i n g c o u l d e v e r c o n v i n c e a n y p e r s o n t h a t i t was s o . No r e a s o n c a n b e g i v e n why t h e g e n e r a l h a p p i n e s s i s d e s i r a b l e , e x c e p t t h a t e a c h p e r s o n , so f a r as he b e l i e v e s i t t o b e a t t a i n a b l e , d e s i r e s h i s own happiness.^ In  this  a l s o be  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , the  idea  given  Mill,  a  f r e e hand.  important  qualification  of  the  to  what i t i s to  be  fully  define It  i s better  to  be  of  the  general  however,  idea.  His  good  would  introduces initial  concern  human:  a human b e i n g  dissatisfied  an  than  is  40  a p i g s a t i s f i e d ; b e t t e r t o be S o c r a t e s d i s s a t i s f i e d than a f o o l s a t i s f i e d . And i f t h e f o o l , o r t h e pig, are of a d i f f e r e n t opinion, i t i s because t h e y o n l y know t h e i r own s i d e o f t h e q u e s t i o n . The o t h e r p a r t y t o t h e c o m p a r i s o n knows b o t h s i d e s . ^ Chernyshevsky s  own  1  rational  statement  remotely voices  As  the  yet, Chernyshevsky  virtues.  But  i n the  end  that  good  concerns says  of  i s prudent this  n o t h i n g on  of h i s essay  he  and  passage.  the  subject  touches  on  of  the  subject: He [ a man] may s a y t o h i m s e l f : I w i l l b e w i c k e d , I w i l l do p e o p l e harm; b u t he w i l l n o t be a b l e t o do t h a t , a n y m o r e t h a n a c l e v e r man c a n b e a f o o l e v e n i f he w a n t e d t o be one. [p. 131] This for  shows moral  tualize  who  He  right  cannot  self-interest not  self-interest?  What 1  the  Platonic  subject be  but  philosophy  to  put  happened  moral  a  to  fully  weakness  Further, greatest  or  Chernyshevsky  utility  value:  the  to protect  were  person.  utilitarian  to  man he  In  a  his  close  cannot  could in  not  Plato's  addition,  incompatible position.  virtue  has  a  will?  comes  But  i s certainly  that  Will  p r e t e n d t o be  rational  i f he  argues  What  self-interest?  rationality  the  place  concep-  action.  i s acknowledged."^  hedonistic  can  self-deception?  rational  with  i s no  who  i n order  because  present position  the  of  right  Chernyshevsky's either  i t into  conception of  weakness,  as  a man  i s i n jeopardy not  c o n c e p t i o n , where  to moral  referred  that  notion  know m o r a l  Chernyshevsky s to  assumes  1  does  theory there  1  to Chernyshevsky s  whose  fool  i n Chernyshevsky s  weakness.  moral  happened man  that  the  be  41  E x t e r n a l o b j e c t s , n o m a t t e r how c l o s e l y t h e y may b e a t t a c h e d t o man, n e v e r t h e l e s s , only too o f t e n p a r t from him: . . . I f , h o w e v e r , he i s u s e f u l t o o t h e r p e o p l e b e c a u s e o f h i s own virtues, b e c a u s e o f h i s own spiritual qualities . . . he c a n n o t c e a s e t o be u s e f u l t o o t h e r p e o p l e — . . . [p. 131] Virtue,  i n Chernyshevsky s  value.  But  view,  1  accordance  why  would  with  an  individual  i t , r a t h e r than  Chernyshevsky  f a i l s to explain.  formulated  Mill,  morals, of  by  but  the  does  a  put  adhere The  virtue  to  absolute as  the  utility and  act  in  self-interest?  utilitarian  i t forward  greatest  permanent  seek  incorporates the  not  utilitarian  has  position,  system  p a r t or  as  of  the  end  good:  V i r t u e , according to the u t i l i t a r i a n d o c t r i n e , i s n o t n a t u r a l l y and o r i g i n a l l y p a r t o f t h e end, but i t i s c a p a b l e o f b e c o m i n g so; and i n t h o s e who l i v e i t d i s i n t e r e s t e d l y i t has become s o , and i s d e s i r e d and c h e r i s h e d , n o t a s a means t o h a p p i n e s s , b u t as a p a r t o f t h e i r happiness.12 This  latter  statement  statement  on  what  utilitarianism  like  S o c r a t e s , who who  similar.  In  are  Mill's  is entailed  that  Socrates,  of  designs are  not.  his novel  fully  What  Is  happiness  thing  f o r Lopukhov  and  that  To  a man  must  (pp.  be  regarded  132-133).  In  as  It  Done?  he  unlike  shows  people. like  r e v e a l s why  shows  those  understanding  f o r someone  Anthropological Principle  for  f o r those  for different  another  human.  happiness  and  Be  c o n c l u s i o n , Chernyshevsky  "The  nature"  human,  detracts.from his  fully  Chernyshevsky's  is different  essay  i n being  different  there  In  i n some way  i s  that It is  one  Storeshnikov. he  calls  i n Philosophy":  a  single  being  having  other  words,  Chernyshevsky  his  "It is only  one  states  42  his he  opposition presents  to the position of philosophical  no a r g u m e n t  Chernyshevsky ciple of  i s evident  h i s main 1.  sophical  for this  believes  opposition.  that  i n a l l areas  dualism; but  the anthropological  o f human  activity.  prin-  I n summary  points:  S e l f - i n t e r e s t determines and t h e r e f o r e  the individual's philo-  his political  position  (pp. 64-66,  68,  86) . 2. (pp.  Man's m o r a l  i s determined  by  circumstances  91-92, 9 4 ) . 3.  and  conduct  Man  cannot  r e f r a i n s from 4.  Good  5.  Man  "The present argue  pain  has only  are culturally one n a t u r e  Anthropological  religious,  beliefs  He  seeks  amount  relative  pleasure  (pp. 70,  (pp. 124-125).  132-133).  P r i n c i p l e i n Philosophy"  philosophical  philosophically. which  for evil.  (pp. 88-89).  and e v i l  a consistent  principles,  order.  be blamed  position;  I t i s , rather, t o vehement,  i n progress  neither  does n o t does i t  a declaration of i n essence  a n d a new  almost  scientific  social  43  CHAPTER  "THE  AESTHETIC  Chernyshevsky s methods  and  aspirations  Anthropological  of Art to  master's  thesis.  endeavours  (idea  and  this  to prove  content)  Chernyshevsky's question  of  phenomenon view  that  nature  the of  beauty,  but  and  the  the  of  the  In  he  highest only the  by  of  deals  "The  defends  i s to  of  Aesthetic  nature  states  beauty  against art.  and  in  art  of  the  school's  present i n  connection, of  h i s own the  379).  the  a r t to  Rationalist  this  beauty (p.  investigate  a r t , i s not In  "The  Chernyshevsky's  o f works  art.  he  in  i s far superior  German  aim  with  described  Hegelian categories  addition,  essence  task  the  REALITY"  (execution) to  relation  test  examines  tragic.  questions  to  those  originally  nature  initial  i s attained  Chernyshevsky  was  perfection  aesthetic  life,  TO  aesthetics  to  essay  that  and  ART  i n Philosophy."  Reality" In  OF  on  similar  Principle  Relation  He  RELATION  treatise  1  III  the  sublime  views  on  c o n t e n t and  the  aim  of a r t . Chernyshevsky it  s h o u l d be  that  he  comments  ever on  i s highly  pointed read this  any  out of  subject  here  critical that  Hegel's  of Hegel;  t h e r e i s no  works.  are h e l p f u l  therefore  clear  William  F.  evidence Woehrlin's  here:  H i s [ C h e r n y s h e v s k y s ] l a s t two y e a r s a t t h e u n i v e r s i t y had w i t n e s s e d a c o l l a p s e o f h i s e a r l i e r r e l i g i o u s c o n v i c t i o n s , and a f t e r a b r i e f attempt to understand Hegel, h i s r e j e c t i o n of p h i l o s o p h i c a l idealism. S i g n i f i c a n t l y , the basis f o r h i s r e j e c t i o n o f Hegel had been the p h i l o s o p h e r ' s 1  44  d i f f i c u l t y , which the young Chernyshevsky readily a d m i t t e d , a n d h i s f e e l i n g t h a t H e g e l was " a s l a v e of the e x i s t i n g order of things," the e x i s t i n g structure of society.^ Chernyshevsky's to  his identifying  Nikitenko of  advised  Vischer,  to he  connection giving  a  ideas  to revise  retain  most  adopted  the  with Hegel  scholarly  of term  and  yet avoid of  seems  from  work  this,  to which  Vischer's  aesthetics  d i d not  one  can  this  take  that  definitions view"  to  taken  responsibility  views  or  from  suggest  a  for  quoting  that  Chernyshevsky  refers  in this  oder  him  on  and  of  source.  aesthetics analysis  into  that  of  as  to his lectures  on  of  not  not  raised  in  have p r e s e n t e d  original.  have  of  Vischer's  issues  Hegel  refer  a  perspective  Clearly,  d i d the  Thus i t  i s not  even  to Hegel  aesthetics,  Relation  consideration.  full  could  may does  Aesthetic  a  criticism he  Hegelian of  a l l the  and  Chernyshevsky  "The  sort,  this  scope  essay  an  from the  only  Sch5nen"  gained  considering  essay  was  the  W i s s e n s c h a f t des  have  Chernyshevsky's  However,  this  discussion  assume  not  i n such d e t a i l e d  analysis  his  only  "Aesthetik  embrace  lectures  justified, text.  objected  Chernyshevsky  the  Hegel's  could  them  to omit  Since  had  Hegelian philosophy.  "prevailing  Chernyshevsky  Hegel's  as  the basic  Although Vischer  work  Nikitenko,  either  it.  (1846-1857).  Hegel's  V.  2  Judging  T.  A.  from V i s c h e r  coherent picture  directly.  F.  adviser,  Chernyshevsky  Hegelianism or  preferred  is  thesis  quite  read by  hence  Hegel's name i n  the  of Art to Reality"  must  45 Chernyshevsky of  actually  opens  the  essay with  criticism  Hegel: . . . the b e a u t i f u l according to Hegel i s only a "phantom" t h a t comes f r o m a s u p e r f i c i a l v i e w , u n e n l i g h t e n e d by p h i l o s o p h i c a l t h i n k i n g , which obscures the seeming p e r f e c t m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f the i d e a i n t h e s e p a r a t e o b j e c t , so t h a t t h e more t h i n k i n g i s developed the l e s s remains of beauty u n t i l , at last, with f u l l y developed thinking, o n l y t r u t h i s l e f t , beauty has v a n i s h e d . [ p . 283]  Chernyshevsky  opposes  moving  i n a l l of  that he  factor  beauty  s h o u l d be  emphasizes  that  that  that  conceptualized.  t o human v i s i o n ,  stand exemplifies  with  perception  purely seems beauty  sensual t o him  t o be  a mental  an  Hegel's  Although  Hegel  concept)  i s the  thing  the  holds  can  process. Hegel's  sensual  that he  that  on only  He  deems  this the  wants  that  matter Idea  postulates  t o do  away a  theory  sensuous  philosophical concepts  they  undertake  i s actually  (that  that  that  i t t o be  philosophical  forms  essay  anti-intellec-  the  that  idea  touch, etc.,  abstract  of  the  i s , i n nature,  wants  highly  i s the  the  p r o c e s s and  i n place  abstract  view  truth,  dislikes  H i s vehement  Chernyshevsky  are barren of  He  Chernyshevsky  impostor  presents merely  contemplate.  living  this.  experience.  of nature.  thinking which  as  spirit  hearing,  i s a mental  i s inevitable.  tual  that  Throughout  i s i n matter,  perception  conceptualization  assertion  human a c t i v i t y .  beauty  i t i s exposed  forgetting  Hegel's  only  similar.  i s , the a  concrete,  represent i t :  We s p o k e ( i n C h a p t e r One) o f t h e b e a u t i f u l a s I d e a i n t h e same s e n s e a s we s p o k e o f t h e g o o d a n d t h e t r u e as I d e a , i n t h e sense t h a t . . . t h e i d e a i s  to  46  t h e p u r e l y s u b s t a n t i a l and u n i v e r s a l , t h e absolute m a t t e r (not s e n s u a l l y p e r c e p t i b l e a t a l l ) , the substratum of the world. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , however, a s we h a v e s e e n a l r e a d y . . . the Idea i s not only s u b s t a n c e and u n i v e r s a l i t y , b u t p r e c i s e l y t h e u n i t y of the Concept with i t s r e a l i t y , the concept r e b u i l t as c o n c e p t w i t h i n i t s o b j e c t i v e r e a l i z a t i o n . I t was P l a t o . . . who e m p h a s i z e d t h e i d e a as a l o n e t h e t r u t h and t h e u n i v e r s a l and i n d e e d as the inherently concrete universal. Yet the Platonic idea i s i t s e l f not yet genuinely concrete; for, a l t h o u g h , a p p r e h e n d e d i n i t s c o n c e p t and univers a l i t y , i t d o e s c o u n t as t h e t r u t h , s t i l l t a k e n i n t h i s u n i v e r s a l i t y , i t i s not yet a c t u a l i z e d and, i n i t s a c t u a l i t y , the t r u t h e x p l i c i t to itself. I t g e t s no f u r t h e r t h a n t r u t h m e r e l y i m p l i c i t . But j u s t as t h e c o n c e p t w i t h o u t i t s o b j e c t i v i t y i s n o t g e n u i n e l y c o n c e p t , so t o o t h e i d e a i s n o t genuinely i d e a w i t h o u t and o u t s i d e i t s a c t u a l i t y . Therefore t h e i d e a m u s t go f o r t h i n t o a c t u a l i t y , a n d i t a c q u i r e s a c t u a l i t y o n l y through the a c t u a l subject i v i t y which i n h e r e n t l y corresponds with the concept and t h r o u g h s u b j e c t i v i t y ' s i d e a l b e i n g f o r i t s e l f . So, f o r e x a m p l e , t h e s p e c i e s i s a c t u a l o n l y as a f r e e c o n c r e t e i n d i v i d u a l ; l i f e e x i s t s o n l y as a s i n g l e l i v i n g t h i n g , t h e good i s a c t u a l i z e d by i n d i v i d u a l men, and a l l t r u t h e x i s t s o n l y as k n o w i n g c o n s c i o u s n e s s , a s p i r i t c o n f r o n t i n g i t s e l f as spirit. F o r o n l y c o n c r e t e i n d i v i d u a l i t y i s t r u e and actual; a b s t r a c t u n i v e r s a l i t y and p a r t i c u l a r i t y a r e not.^ Philosophical become a  any  more  concept,  Beauty  can  external  seems  and  be  the  concept-making  Hegel  enough  actualized  to  only  takes  he  Anthropological  states  peculiar  unless  that,  i t i s not  "The  nyshevsky he  than  i s merely  argues.  put  and  Although  i t forth  as  when p r e s e n t e d  will  not  beauty  is  understanding.  in  its  sensual  form.  In  that  thinking  a  that  the  good  favourable that  i s not  beautiful  he  aware are  Principle in  stand  chooses that  is  intimately  rational.  towards  to  the  the  Philosophy"  attack  abstract related.  It  Plato.  ideas  appears  Hence  Hegel's  Cher-  i t  aesthetics,  of  Hegel's  the  good  aesthetics  47  are,  after  a l l , grounded  Although aesthetics, principle  often  It  Hegel's  The  seems  theory  following  philosophy.  argues  identifies  detail.  misunderstands strongest.  Plato's  Chernyshevsky  he  or  in  against  with that  his  example  Hegel's whenever  the  Hegelian  ideas  either  Chernyshevsky  criticism  becomes  is a  in  case  in  the  point:  "That being i s b e a u t i f u l i n which the idea of t h i s being i s f u l l y expressed"—translated into ordinary l a n g u a g e t h i s means: " t h a t i s b e a u t i f u l w h i c h i s e x c e l l e n t of i t s kind; that of which nothing better o f i t s k i n d c a n be i m a g i n e d . " It is quite true t h a t a t h i n g must be e x c e l l e n t o f i t s k i n d t o be called beautiful. F o r e x a m p l e , a w o o d may be b e a u t i f u l , b u t o n l y a " f i n e " wood, one i n w h i c h t h e t r e e s a r e t a l l and s t r a i g h t , a t h i c k wood, i n s h o r t , an e x c e l l e n t wood; . . . In s h o r t , a l l b e a u t i f u l things are e x c e l l e n t of t h e i r kind. But not everything that i s e x c e l l e n t of i t s kind i s beautiful. A m o l e may be an e x c e l l e n t s p e c i m e n o f i t s k i n d , b u t i t w i l l n e v e r seem " b e a u t i f u l . " . . . Not e v e r y t h i n g t h a t i s e x c e l l e n t o f i t s k i n d i s b e a u t i f u l because not a l l things are b e a u t i f u l . The d e f i n i t i o n o f b e a u t y g i v e n by H e g e l , v i z . , t h e c o m p l e t e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e o f an o b j e c t t o t h e idea of i t , i s too broad. I t m e r e l y s a y s t h a t among t h o s e c a t e g o r i e s o f o b j e c t s , o r phenomena, t h a t can a c h i e v e b e a u t y , i t i s t h e b e s t o f them t h a t s e e m b e a u t i f u l ; b u t i t d o e s n o t e x p l a i n why these c a t e g o r i e s o f o b j e c t s and phenomena a r e d i v i d e d i n t o s u c h i n w h i c h b e a u t y a p p e a r s and o t h e r s in w h i c h we s e e n o t h i n g b e a u t i f u l . [p. 284] It  i s evident  that  for  creativity,  hence  of  is  287),  but  life  (p.  because forest  i t is alive, will  It is  not  be  Chernyshevsky  beauty. under also  concerned  as  though  with  this  the  b e a u t i f u l by  looked  Later, view  crooked  the  same  nature he a  and  the  realm  declares  that  mole  be  and  can  weak  of  beauty  beautiful  trees  in  the  token.  Chernyshevsky  nature  is  understood  perfection  in  the  that realm  Hegel of  48  physical  phenomena  comprehend is  this,  concerned  things,  and  (p.  283).  since  with this  the is  he  Now  i t appears  infers that  physical  the  that  he  Hegelian  perfection  of  its essential criterion  did  aesthetic  phenomena for  not  and  beauty.  Another expression, . . . "beauty i s the u n i t y of t h e i d e a and the image, t h e c o m p l e t e m e r g i n g o f the i d e a w i t h t h e i m a g e , " has an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t meaning. This expression does, indeed, p o i n t to an e s s e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , n o t , h o w e v e r , o f the i d e a o f b e a u t y i n g e n e r a l , b u t o f what i s c a l l e d a work o f a r t . [p. 285] In  this  instance,  that  the  work  of  with  beauty.  in  art,  unity art.  and  of But He  he  Chernyshevsky the  idea  and  he  believes  sees  beauty  assumes  possibly  argue  that  ther,  he  states  life,  Chernyshevsky  his  that  only own  agrees the  that as  the  art  image this  Hegel's  has  nothing  from,  Hegelian  aesthetic  on  lay the  premise  is essential  separate  can  thesis  with  claim  to  subject:  or  to  not  in do  present  could  beauty. beauty  a  not  Furis  declares:  T h e s e n s a t i o n t h a t b e a u t y r o u s e s i n man i s serene j o y , l i k e t h a t w h i c h f i l l s us i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f s o m e o n e we l o v e . ( I am s p e a k i n g o f w h a t i s i n t r i n s i c a l l y b e a u t i f u l and n o t what i s d e p i c t e d by a r t ; o f b e a u t i f u l o b j e c t s and phenomena and n o t o f the b e a u t i f u l way they are d e p i c t e d i n works of a r t : t h e a r t i s t i c m e r i t s o f a w o r k o f a r t may give one a e s t h e t i c p l e a s u r e , but the e s s e n c e o f what i s d e p i c t e d i n i t may c a u s e s a d n e s s and e v e n r o u s e disgust. S u c h , f o r e x a m p l e , a r e many o f L e r m o n t o v ' s poems, and n e a r l y a l l t h e w o r k s o f G o g o l . ) We disi n t e r e s t e d l y l o v e b e a u t y , we a d m i r e i t ^ i t f i l l s u s w i t h j o y , a n d t h e o n e we l o v e f i l l s u s w i t h j o y . From t h i s i t f o l l o w s t h a t t h e r e i s something i n b e a u t y t h a t i s n e a r and d e a r t o our h e a r t s . But t h i s " s o m e t h i n g " must be a l l - e m b r a c i n g , m u s t be c a p a b l e o f assuming the most d i v e r s e forms, must be e x t r e m e l y g e n e r a l , b e c a u s e t h e m o s t d i v e r s e t h i n g s a n d b e i n g s , h a v i n g no r e s e m b l a n c e t o one a n o t h e r w h a t e v e r , seem b e a u t i f u l t o u s .  49  The most g e n e r a l t h i n g t h a t i s d e a r t o a man, than which there i s nothing dearer i n the world, is l i f e ; f i r s t t h e l i f e a man w o u l d l i k e t o l e a d , the l i f e he l o v e s , and t h e n , any l i f e ; f o r , a f t e r a l l , i t i s b e t t e r t o be a l i v e t h a n d e a d : by t h e i r very n a t u r e , a l l l i v i n g t h i n g s have a h o r r o r o f death, of nonexistence; they love l i f e . And i t seems t o us t h a t t h e d e f i n i t i o n : "beauty  is  life";  " b e a u t i f u l i s t h a t b e i n g i n w h i c h we s e e l i f e as i t s h o u l d be a c c o r d i n g t o o u r c o n c e p t i o n s ; b e a u t i f u l i s the o b j e c t which expresses l i f e , or reminds us o f l i f e , " — seems t o be one t h a t c a s e s t h a t r o u s e i n us  Chernyshevsky But  because  properly  grants that  i t may  represent  evoke  satisfactorily explains a l l the sense of beauty.  a r t may sadness  beauty.  depict and  Beauty  [pp.  286-287]  life  truthfully.  even  has  disgust,  to  evoke  i t cannot  joy  and  ecstasy. But trasting as  how  would  one  i t to ugliness?  i t were,  incorporates  so  art will  ugliness.  f u n d a m e n t a l l y .from H e g e l . different  know w h a t Also, depict This  i s beautiful  ugliness beauty  i s where  - Hegel, v i e w s  without  highlights  more  con-  beauty,  strikingly  i f i t  Chernyshevsky  departs  n a t u r e , f r o m an  entirely  angle:  Now a s t h e p h y s i c a l l y o b j e c t i v e I d e a , l i f e i n nature i s b e a u t i f u l because t r u t h , the Idea i n i t s e a r l i e s t n a t u r a l form as l i f e , i s i m m e d i a t e l y p r e s e n t t h e r e i n i n d i v i d u a l and a d e q u a t e actuality. Yet, because t h i s i s p u r e l y the sensuous immediacy, the l i v i n g beauty of nature i s produced n e i t h e r for n o r o u t o f i t s e l f and b e a u t i f u l and f o r t h e sake o f b e a u t i f u l appearance. The b e a u t y o f n a t u r e is b e a u t i f u l only f o r another, i . e . , f o r us, f o r the mind which apprehends beauty. Hence a r i s e s the q u e s t i o n i n w h a t way a n d b y w h a t m e a n s life i n i t s immediate e x i s t e n c e appears b e a u t i f u l . ^ Nature,  i n Hegel's  view,  is a  realm of  neutrality.  Neither  50  beauty nor u g l i n e s s can be a t t r i b u t e d to i t . of  n e c e s s i t y , and only the mind makes use o f i t .  i n i t s e l f whereas the mind i s f o r i t s e l f . the  Nature i s there Nature i s  That i s to say,  mind has a c a p a c i t y t o reason and to w i l l .  T h e r e f o r e the  mind, not matter, i s c r e a t i v e and a t t r i b u t e s such as beauty are  a p p l i c a b l e to i t and to i t s c r e a t i o n s . Chernyshevsky s t a t e s t h a t beauty must be a l l - e m b r a c i n g ,  extremely g e n e r a l , because the most d i v e r s e t h i n g s and b e i n g s , having no resemblance to one another whatever, to us.  seem b e a u t i f u l  Here again, Chernyshevsky i s i n agreement  w i t h Hegel.  T h i s corresponds w i t h H e g e l s view t h a t beauty as the Idea 1  i s a l l - e m b r a c i n g and g e n e r a l , y e t i t s a c t u a l i z a t i o n must take d i v e r s e forms, forms which draw upon e x t e r n a l appearance. Chernyshevsky d i s m i s s e s a r t as the proper r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of beauty, because a r t o f t e n d e p i c t s u g l i n e s s and sadness or d i s g u s t . theory.  evokes  Hegel b u i l d s on these f a c t o r s i n h i s  He argues t h a t i f unseemliness i s p a r t o f e x i s t e n c e ,  then i t has a proper p l a c e i n a r t .  Since t r u t h , i n the  P l a t o n i c sense, can l a y c l a i m to goodness, i t w i l l b e a u t i f u l by the same token.  a l s o be  E s p e c i a l l y when the unseemly  i s i n c o r p o r a t e d i n a work of a r t , when the i d e a , t h a t i s , the way  the a r t i s t  comprehends l i f e ,  corresponds w i t h the image,  t h a t i s , w i t h the e x p r e s s i o n the a r t i s t  g i v e s i t , then the  work i s good and t h e r e f o r e b e a u t i f u l . Beauty, Chernyshevsky c l a i m s , must evoke j o y and ecstasy.  Hegel i s of t h a t same view.  However, t h e i r  51  conceptions  spring  founded  in Plato:  Whether  this  of  Just  comprehending  evokes  joy  be  and  sad  and  on  a  true  is  creation the  fact  existence  ecstasy,  further  the  good  and  Hegel's thus  e n t a i l s apparent that in  the  thinking  i t s entirety  despite  convinced  attacks that  misunderstanding,  Hegel.  d i f f e r e n t sources.  the  fact  is  the  beautiful.  ugliness mind  is a  that  again  is  is capable  factor  that  existence  may  ugly.  With becomes  the  final  immaterial.  from  The  following  on  Hegel's  aesthetics,  the  Chernyshevsky's  entire  that  misinterpretation  i s , on  passage  his  exemplifies  thesis  reader is  built of  this:  The c o m p l a i n t t h a t b e a u t y i n r e a l i t y i s r a r e i s n o t , however, a l t o g e t h e r j u s t i f i e d ; b e a u t y i s by no m e a n s a s r a r e i n r e a l i t y a s t h e G e r m a n a e s t h e ticians assert. T h e r e a r e v e r y many b e a u t i f u l a n d magnificent l a n d s c a p e s ; i n some c o u n t r i e s t h e y a r e met w i t h a t e v e r y t u r n , f o r e x a m p l e , F i n l a n d , the Crimea . . . not to speak of S w i t z e r l a n d , the Alps, Italy. [p. 321] Chernyshevsky tuous  of  views  the  believes  nature, natural  and  that  that,  realm  Chernyshevsky's  entirely  this  He dant are  than only  asserts  and  aesthetics  i t s drawing-room i n t e r e s t and  position  in  this  is  contemp-  attitude, i t  admires  only  essay  is  and  more  based  assumption. that  nature  imagination, pale  in  without  artifacts. on  Hegelian  often  that  i s more the  animated  images  unsuccessful  of  the  imitations  abun-  imagination of  nature:  Indeed, inanimate n a t u r e does not t h i n k about the beauty of i t s c r e a t i o n s , anymore than a tree thinks about making i t s f r u i t d e l i c i o u s . Nevertheless, i t must be a d m i t t e d t h a t o u r a r t has b e e n u n a b l e t o t h i s day t o c r e a t e a n y t h i n g l i k e an o r a n g e o r  52  a n a p p l e . . . man's f o r c e s a r e much w e a k e r t h a n t h o s e o f n a t u r e ; h i s work i s e x c e e d i n g l y r o u g h , c r u d e and clumsy compared w i t h t h e work o f n a t u r e . [p. Nature  i s more p o w e r f u l  argues,  because  luxurious this  and c r e a t i v e  i t produces  intent  he  that,  neither  would  seem  involved  here,  t h e whole  Chernyshevsky  seems a  apple  pointless Mozart  t o mention  similar  tionality,  that  answer  since  to nature.  a r t i n such  cannot  e t c . , w h e n we  regarded  as a presumptuous  nature.  Further, i t  this  creating  i twould  i n Hegel's  hints  a t what  . . the Turks,  be a  o f a r t and n a t u r e i s  attribute  Why  aesthetics.  will,  that  would nature?  imitate  man  i s , intenwant t o  Would  animals,  these  i n our  natural gardens,  s u p e r f l u o u s l a b o u r may  game w h i c h  falls  that  even, b e  f a r short of  7  Hegel .  he b u i l d s h i s  painting.  already possess  Besides,  meaningless.  i s incapable of creating  as t o i m i t a t e  etc.?  be  since  A n d b e s i d e s , why  forests,  does  nor e f f o r t i s  a r t i s incapable of  c a n be f o u n d  a way  intent  of nature.  nature  be a s u p e r f l u o u s l a b o u r ?  scenes,  would  the comparison we  shapes,  Nature  B y t h e same t o k e n ,  o r a Leonardo  t o Hegel,  meaningless,  that  Chernyshevsky  adds.  not perceive this,  t o mention  According  create  argument  o r an orange.  symphony A  since  on t h e u n i n t e n t i o n a l i t y  pointless  real  not  does  sustenance.  and e f f o r t ,  It  man,  (of a l l colours,  s m e l l s , e t c . ) f o r man's  without  argument  food  than  320]  a r t must  deal  a s Mohammedans,  with:  do n o t , a s i s w e l l  53 k n o w n , t o l e r a t e a n y p i c t u r e s o r c o p i e s o f men, etc. James B r u c e i n h i s j o u r n e y t o A b y s s i n i a showed p a i n t i n g s o f f i s h t o a T u r k . At f i r s t the T u r k was a s t o n i s h e d , b u t q u i c k l y e n o u g h h e f o u n d an answer: " i f t h i s f i s h s h a l l r i s e up a g a i n s t y o u o n t h e l a s t d a y a n d s a y : 'you h a v e i n d e e d g i v e n me a b o d y b u t n o l i v i n g s o u l , ' how w i l l y o u j u s t i f y yourself?" 8  Chernyshevsky's that,  although  itself,  s t i l l  understanding imitation this  i s contrary to this.  of nature  o c c u p a t i o n may  i s far inferior be w o r t h w h i l e  He  claims  to nature  i n certain  instances: The s e a i s b e a u t i f u l ; . . . But not a l l people l i v e near t h e sea; . . . b u t they would l i k e very much t o s e e a n d a d m i r e i t , . . . Of c o u r s e , i t i s much p r e f e r a b l e t o s e e t h e s e a i t s e l f r a t h e r t h a n p i c t u r e s o f i t ; b u t when a g o o d t h i n g i s n o t a v a i l a b l e , man i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h a n i n f e r i o r o n e , . . . [ p . 364] This  claim  cludes  itself  that  i s sober  imitation  enough..  of nature  But Chernyshevsky  i s the sole  purpose  con-  of a r t :  T h i s i s t h e s o l e a i m a n d o b j e c t o f v e r y many ( t h e m a j o r i t y ) o f works o f a r t : t o g i v e those people who h a v e n o t b e e n a b l e t o e n j o y b e a u t y i n r e a l i t y the o p p o r t u n i t y t o acquaint themselves with i ta t l e a s t t o some d e g r e e ; t o s e r v e a s a r e m i n d e r , t o prompt and r e v i v e r e c o l l e c t i o n s o f beauty i n r e a l i t y [ i . e . , nature] i n t h e minds o f those people who a r e a c q u a i n t e d w i t h i t b y e x p e r i e n c e a n d l o v e to r e c a l l i t . [ p . 364] This  i s reductionist.  angelo's to  L a s t Judgement  was  confine a r t to imitative Chernyshevsky  claiming He  Would  that  states  assumed  imitation  that  that  then  "this  Chernyshevsky an i m i t a t i o n  of nature?  MichelHe  seems  painting.  proceeds of nature  argument  a r t wants  say that  t o c r i t i c i z e Hegel f o r i s a superfluous  i s valid  t o compete  with  o n l y when reality  labour.  i t i s  [nature] and  54  not  simply  shevsky  of  for, In  ders  of  arts,  t h a t which  greater  man.  of  useful  He  sees  Hegel's the  his  the  i s how  must  be  reminders  of,  beauty  Hegel  Cherny-  with  the  and  substi-  will  behind  i n harmony  believes that  a  that  presents how  on  certainly  for i t to  to  But  cope  work  have  a r t as  a  art, interest  with  with  according  a  kind  existo  Cher-  irrelevant.  what Will  Hegel  c l a i m any  a l l a r t should  a  i s of  believes that  idea?  particular  has  his misinterpretation  arranged.  the  of  mankind  existence, that in i t .  of  admits,  that  altogether  i s based  instrumen-  Chernyshevsky,  anything  a i d on  of  he  remin-  available, or  conception to  as  i s , singing  in literature,  a l l be and  vocal  Literature,  with  serve  i t i s not  whether  According  interest  expression  Idea  when  secondary,  argument  i s of  this  us  portraits  Hegelian  deals  g r e a t e s t scope  here  to  teaching  theory.  a l l that  the  366).  a r t , perhaps  and  especially,  i s , i f not  with  the  a  idea of  Again,  that  as  nightingale.  manual,  nyshevsky,  between  of  In music,  literature,  The  embrace  f o r i t " (p.  imitate nature,  Literature,  tence.  goal.  i s dear  contrived theory.  to  He  serve  landscapes  to  the  scope.  especially  of  a l l forms  argues.  attempt  e.g.,  highly  substitute  nature.  fine  men  birds,  a  literature,  Chernyshevsky tal,  as  believes that  exception tutes  serve  and  art  must  i t must  deal  is in there  merely  be  harmony  argues  i t s expression  aspirations  this  question  principle  to  beauty.  as i t s  55  Chernyshevsky  continues h i s a t t a c k on Hegel.  This  time, he attempts to dismantle the concept of "the sublime." He argues t h a t preponderance not produce  of the i d e a over the image can  s u b l i m i t y but t h a t i t produces  nebulousness,  i n d e f i n i t e n e s s , hence u g l i n e s s . Again, h i s argument i s b u i l t on h i s m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Hegel. versy.  The term "sublime" i s the cause of t h i s c o n t r o -  Chernyshevsky  f o l l o w s the popular d i c t i o n a r y use of  t h i s word when he analyzes the H e g e l i a n use of t h i s concept. Hegel uses the word i n a very s p e c i f i c context to account f o r a p a r t i c u l a r trend i n a r t , usually associated with p r i m i t i v e and a n c i e n t a r t . D e s p i t e t h i s , Chernyshevsky's  v a l u e judgement of the  sublime comes very c l o s e to Hegel's own.  The sublime, as a  pure form, i s a substratum. I t i s the Idea, t r u t h , without shape, without i n d i v i d u a l i t y [Hegel a r g u e s ] . A r t begins when the Idea, s t i l l i n i t s indeterminacy and o b s c u r i t y , or i n bad and untrue determinacy, i s made the content of a r t i s t i c shapes. Being i n d e t e r m i n a t e , i t does not y e t possess i n i t s e l f t h a t i n d i v i d u a l i t y which the i d e a l demands; i t s a b s t r a c t i o n and one-sidedness l e a v e s i t s shape e x t e r n a l l y d e f e c t i v e and arbitrary. The f i r s t form of a r t i s t h e r e f o r e r a t h e r a mere search f o r p o r t r a y a l than a c a p a c i t y for true presentation. . . . We may c a l l t h i s form, i n g e n e r a l terms, the symbolic form of a r t . 9 Thus, l i k e Chernyshevsky,  Hegel i d e n t i f i e s the sublime with  i n d e f i n i t e n e s s , which i s not, on examination,  aesthetically  pleasing. Chernyshevsky's  c r i t i c i s m of the category l i e s i n h i s  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the term "sublime" i t s e l f .  He  associates  56  and  identifies  i t with  perfection  physical  phenomena  in their  with  pyramids, (e.g.,  e t c . , and  patriotism).  contexts; purpose, which  however, Hegel  i s also  Hegel's a  initial  one  or  Hegel's  of  the  i s to  primitive  incorporated  the  to  be  understood  "lying  and  situation,  an  and  near  a  historical  passions such  For  of  suitable  namely,  class  in  the  definitions  find,  mountains,  emotions,  meaning  dictionary  remain  of  e.g.,  is different.  stages,  i n future  Subsequently,  grandeur  especially  context  define,  historical  i s either  with  phenomena,  grandeur,  S u b l i m i t y can  borrows  concern  particular  trend  also  of  his  surface," "sublime." term  for art in i t s  i t as past  a  trend.  or  to  art trends.  Chernyshevsky  deals with  the  category  In r e a l l i f e t h e t r a g i c i s most o f t e n a d v e n t i t i o u s , i t does not s p r i n g from the essence o f p r e c e d i n g events. The f o r m o f n e c e s s i t y i n w h i c h i t i s c l o t h e d by a r t s p r i n g s f r o m t h e o r d i n a r y p r i n c i p l e of works o f a r t : "the denouement must f o l l o w from t h e p l o t , " o r e l s e i s due t o t h e a r t i s t ' s m i s p l a c e d surrender to the conception of fate. [p. 380] gives  some e x a m p l e s  This  be  "tragic":  He  for  to  explain  his  view:  The f a t e o f C r o e s u s , Pompey a n d J u l i u s C a e s a r was t r a g i c ; b u t t h e c a r e e r s o f Numa P o m p i l i u s , M a r i u s , S u l l a and A u g u s t u s were v e r y happy t o t h e end. W h a t was t r a g i c i n t h e f a t e o f C h a r l e m a g n e , P e t e r the Great, F r e d e r i c k I I , i n the l i v e s of Luther, V o l t a i r e or Hegel h i m s e l f ? T h e r e was m u c h s t r u g g l e i n t h e l i v e s o f t h e s e men; but, speaking generally, i t must be a d m i t t e d t h a t s u c c e s s and g o o d f o r t u n e were on t h e i r s i d e . True, Cervantes died i n poverty, but i s not t h i s the l o t of thousands of o b s c u r e p e o p l e who, no l e s s t h a n C e r v a n t e s , c o u l d c o u n t on a happy c l i m a x i n t h e i r l i v e s and who, b e c a u s e o f t h e i r o b s c u r i t y , c o u l d n o t a t a l l come under t h e law o f t r a g e d y ? [ p . 309]  of  57  The a  tragic  truly  power of  i s adventitious in real  great  to  tragedy  diminish or  existence.  The  with  i t poverty  side  of  life,  This patible  as  ment  arguments Principle  to  i s again with  context  the  of  universal  of  views  various ends  of  really  tragic:  i s the  view,  i n What  but Is  as  but  i t  carries tragic  i t i s highly  incom-  To  poverty  an  universal  ordinariness  truly  Be  i n Philosophy."  as  the  argues.  everyday  collide,  this  because  I t has  i s the  as  Aside  misunderstanding.  tragedy  i t . and  struggle against. case  side to tedium  considers  "tragic"  i s that  Hegel powers  a  supposedly  the  o b s c u r i t y and  Chernyshevsky  deals  transcend  interesting  his  something  lofty  Chernyshevsky  Anthropological works  a  ordinary  and  i s an  with  has  life,  art trend,  Done? In  a  both  tragic  from  and  these phenomenon,  this,  Hegelian but  "The  his  aesthetics  Chernyshevsky's  existence. a  c o n f l i c t between  ends; the  or  else  conflict  no  ethical  substantial  i s centred  on  personalities: The e s s e n t i a l l y t r a g i c f a c t i s t h e s e l f - d i v i s i o n . . . o f t h e e t h i c a l s u b s t a n c e , n o t so much t h e war o f g o o d w i t h e v i l as t h e war o f g o o d w i t h g o o d . Two o f t h e s e i s o l a t e d p o w e r s f a c e e a c h o t h e r , making i n c o m p a t i b l e demands. The f a m i l y c l a i m s what t h e s t a t e r e f u s e s , l o v e r e q u i r e s what honour forbids. The c o m p e t i n g f o r c e s a r e b o t h i n thems e l v e s r i g h t f u l , and so f a r t h e c l a i m o f e a c h i s e q u a l l y j u s t i f i e d ; but the r i g h t of each i s pushed i n t o wrong, because i t i g n o r e s the r i g h t o f the o t h e r , and demands t h a t a b s o l u t e sway w h i c h b e l o n g s to n e i t h e r alone, but to the whole of which each is but a p a r t . And one nature of  argu-  r e a s o n why t h i s happens l i e s i n the t h e c h a r a c t e r s t h r o u g h whom t h e s e c l a i m s  or  58  a r e made. I t i s the nature o f the t r a g i c hero, a t o n c e h i s g r e a t n e s s a n d h i s doom, t h a t h e k n o w s n o shrinking or halfheartedness, b u t i d e n t i f i e s hims e l f w h o l l y w i t h t h e power t h a t moves h i m , and w i l l a d m i t t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f no o t h e r power.^ The e n d o f t h e t r a g i c c o n f l i c t i s t h e d e n i a l o f both the exclusive claims . . . i t i s the act of the e t h i c a l substance i t s e l f , a s s e r t i n g i t s absoluteness against the excessive pretensions of i t s p a r t i c u l a r powers. I n t h a t s e n s e , . . . i t may b e called the act of "eternal j u s t i c e . " H Hegel tragedy mere  places  rather  than  suffering  dreadful human  sufferer.  on t h e a c t i o n  on m i s f o r t u n e  and m i s f o r t u n e  i t may  agency,  emphasis  be, unless  and t h e s u f f e r i n g .  i s tragic,  i t springs  a n d i n some d e g r e e  and c o n f l i c t i n  from  however  No  pitiful  i n a great  part  t h e agency  of the  or  from  However,  . . . t h e r e i s one p a r t i c u l a r k i n d o f m i s f o r t u n e n o t o b v i o u s l y d u e t o human a g e n c y , w h i c h u n d o u b t e d l y may a f f e c t u s i n a t r a g i c w a y . [Iti s ] the kind which suggests the idea o f fate. . . . But where t h o s e f a c t o r s o f t r a g e d y a r e p r e s e n t which Hegel emphasizes, the impression o f something f a t e f u l i n w h a t we c a l l a c c i d e n t , t h e i m p r e s s i o n t h a t t h e h e r o n o t o n l y i n v i t e s m i s f o r t u n e by h i s e x c e p t i o n a l s t a t u r e and d a r i n g , b u t i s a l s o . . . s t r a n g e l y a n d t e r r i b l y u n l u c k y , i s i n many p l a y s a genuine ingredient i n t r a g i c e f f e c t . I t i s so . . . i n dramas l i k e S h a k e s p e a r e ' s , w h i c h exemplify the saying that c h a r a c t e r i s destiny.12 This  i s Hegel's  likely he  that  does  states  that  argument  with  of the "tragic"  Chernyshevsky  n o t comment  nection  shevsky  theory  that  the idea this  i s n o t even  not acquainted  on any o f H e g e l ' s  he f e e l s  shows  was  the "tragic"  of fate  weak  t o argue  with  contentions.  I ti s  i t , since He  merely  h a s no e s s e n t i a l  or necessity  t o be a v e r y prepared  i n a nutshell.  (p. 380).  point;  besides,  con-  Hegel's -Cherny-  f o r h i s assumption.  59  Since text his  of  Chernyshevsky  life  rather  conception  earlier, claims death  placed  there  when he  that  and  i s the  opposite.  If  "tragic"  high,  in  death  "tragic"  he  analogy  represent  is inevitably  from  denies  this. He  the  (pp. In  nyshevsky  "The  could  hardly  more  s c h o l a r l y , but  many  things.  His  are  bits  be  Relation  In  this  necessity,  a  summary  he  and  man  is he  and  once is  this  fate:  old  sense, and  events.  age  the  i t does  Chernyshevsky  of  almost  and  the  his  main  Art  to  R e a l i t y " he  outcome are  pieces  an  the  means.  i n Philosophy,"  argue  always was  Principle to  i s the  badly  for his  position; in  attempts  same: he  researched,  Cher-  to  be  is guilty  of  and  his  faulty. intellectual  f o r what  sometimes—discarded,them. justified  stage.  even),  to  stage  in  Yet  later  subject  first  that  thing  and  said  of  essays  Chernyshevsky odd  are  with  Anthropological  Aesthetic  up  wealth,  con-  380-381).  "The  arguments  life  fall—where  a  preceding  essay  (any  as  the  the  such.  precious  linked with  the  as  most  a l l men  of  in  i t i s curious  life  and  second  essence  concludes  as  represents  the  "tragic"  for death  dearest,  power  the  art,  place  beauty  achieves by  of  i s defined  i t s strength  spring  points  i s no  is i t s the  that  defines  life  dethroned—then youth  than  talks of  Unlike  His  they  magpie,  who  picked  were worth  and  then—  a t t i t u d e was  Mill,  he  did  not  that  the  realize  end that  60  "No as  one a  can  thinker  whatever sionate in  be  great  i t is his  conclusions dogmatic  Philosophy"  proves  a  this.  first  i t may  stand  and  thinker  "The  who  duty  does to  lead.""^  i n both  "The  Aesthetic  not  follow  recognise, his  intellect  Chernyshevsky s 1  Anthropological  Relation  of  that  Art  to  to  pas-  Principle Reality"  61  NOTES  W a l t e r E. and L o n d o n : 1  Haven  TO  CHAPTER  I  Houghton, The V i c t o r i a n Frame Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1957),  of p.  Mind 94.  (New  2 H.  T. ^epHbmieBCKHH, nojiHoe coSpaHHe co^HHeHHH  (MocKBa: r o c y n a p c T B e H H o e H 3 j i ; a T e J i b e T B O T y p a , 1 9 3 9 ) , V o l . 11, 9-336.  XyfloacecTBeHHaH  JtaTepa-  Roland B a r t h e s h o l d s t h a t " a l l t e l l i n g m o d i f i e s what i s b e i n g t o l d , so t h a t what t h e l i n g u i s t s c a l l t h e message i s a parameter of i t s performance. [Hence] what i s t o l d i s always the t e l l i n g . " S/Z, p. x i , t r a n s , by R i c h a r d M i l l e r , p r e f a c e by R i c h a r d Howard (New Y o r k : H i l l a n d Wang, 1 9 7 4 ) . 4  of  S e e p a g e s 44-45, C h e r n y s h e v s k y ' s "The 5  (Moscow:  N. G. C h e r n y s h e v s k y , S e l e c t e d P h i l o s o p h i c a l F o r e i g n Languages P u b l i s h i n g House, 1953), J . S. Arts,  6  Liberal  • • 51-55 of the present study: critique Aesthetic Relation of Art to Reality."  Mill, Utilitarianism 1 9 5 7 ) , p. 10.  (New  York:  The  Essays p. 283.  Library  of  7 See p a g e s 32-37 o f t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y : c r i t i q u e o f C h e r n y s h e v s k y ' s "The A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l P r i n c i p l e i n P h i l o s o p h y . p P a u l Edwards, ed., The E n c y c l o p e d i a o f P h i l o s o p h y (New Y o r k : M a c M i l l a n P u b l i s h i n g C o . , I n c . , 1 9 6 7 ) , V o l . 2, 466. 1  9  Ibid.,  Vol.  Mill, Ibid.,  1,  281-283.  Utilitarianism, p.  p.  14.  46.  12 Chernyshevsky,  Essays,  p.  150.  13 Edwards,  "The  Encyclopedia  of  Philosophy,  See p a g e s 44-55 o f t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y : Aesthetic Relation of A r t to Reality."  Vol.  3,  critique  191. of  15 Edwards,  Encyclopedia  of  Philosophy,  Vol.  3,  192.  16 Chernyshevsky,  Essays,  p.  131.  17 (New  B. J o w e t t , e d . a n d t r a n s . , T h e D i a l o g u e s o f P l a t o Y o r k : R a n d o m H o u s e , 1 9 2 0 ) , V o l . 1, 3 6 7 - 3 8 0 . 18 E d w a r d s , E n c y c l o p e d i a o f P h i l o s o p h y , V o l . 7, 2 2 0 - 2 2 1 .  62  x : 7  20 21 22 split.  I b i d . , V o l . 6, 4 4 3 . Houghton, Mill,  Victorian  Frame  Utilitarianism,  Lomov: a s i n l o m i t '  lepHbimeBCKHH,  Barthes,  nojiHoe  co6paHne  break,  burst,  co^HHeHUH,  force,  V o l . 11,  S/Z, p p . 3-5.  NOTES  ^  p. 110.  p . 18.  = To bend,  23 195-223. 24  o f Mind,  Chernyshevsky,  TO C H A P T E R I I  Essays.  2 Edwards,  Encyclopedia  o f P h i l o s o p h y , V o l . 6,  4 84  3 W. F . W o e h r l i n , C h e r n y s h e v s k y ( C a m b r i d g e : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1971), p. 122. 4 A. D. W o o z l e y , T h e o r y o f K n o w l e d g e ( L o n d o n : H u t c h i n son U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r y , 1967), p. 15.  5  D a g o b e r t D. R u n e s , L i t t l e F i e l d Adams  Jersey:  ^ Mill,  Dictionary of Philosophy Co., 1972), p. 98.  Utilitarianism,  pp.  (New  10.11.  7 Jowett,  Dialogues of Plato,  V o l . 1,  120-125.  g  Mill,  Utilitarianism,  Ibid.,  9  p. 44.  p . 14.  1  0  Jowett,  1  1  Ibid.,  Dialogues of Plato,  V o l . 1,  120-125.  12 Mill,  UtilItarianism,  p. 46.  356-380.  63  NOTES  ^  Woehrlin,  2  Ibid.,  3  p.  TO  CHAPTER  Chernyshevsky,  p.  III  122.  147.  Chernyshevsky,  Essays.  4 G. W. F . H e g e l , A e s t h e t i c s , t r a n s . T. U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 7 5 ) , V o l . 1, 143.  Oxford 5  . Jowett,  Dialogues  Hegel,  Aesthetics,  Ibid.,  7  New  Ibid-  9  Ibid.,76.  1  1  Plato,  Vol.  1,  Vol.  1,  Knox  (Oxford:  263-280.  123.  42.  8  York:  of  M.  M o r r i s Weitz, Problems i n A e s t h e t i c s (second e d i t i o n ; Macmillan Publishing Co., I n c . , 1 9 7 0 ) , p. 714. Ibid.,  p.  715.  Ibid.,  p.  721.  12 13 J . S. M i l l , U t i l i t a r i a n i s m , L i b e r t y , t a t i v e G o v e r n m e n t , w i t h a n i n t r o d u c t i o n b y A. (new e d i t i o n ; New Y o r k a n d L o n d o n : E v e r y m a n ' s p. 125.  and RepresenD. L i n d s a y Library, 1950),  64  BIBLIOGRAPHY  Barthes,  Roland.  S/Z.  C h e r n y s h e v s k y , N. G. F o r e i g n Languages Edwards, Paul New York:  New  ENGLISH  York:  Hill  TITLES  and  Wang,  1974.  Selected Philosophical Essays. P u b l i s h i n g House, 1953.  (ed.). The E n c y c l o p e d i a o f P h i l o s o p h y . M a c m i l l a n P u b l i s h i n g Co., Inc., 1967.  H e g e l , G. W. F . Aesthetics. Oxford University Press, Houghton, W a l t e r E. and L o n d o n : Y a l e  Trans. 1975.  T.  M.  Knox.  The V i c t o r i a n Frame o f M i n d . University Press, 1957.  New  of  Lampert,  Oxford  Press,  Sons A g a i n s t  Fathers.  London:  .  Haven  Plato.  University  Utilitarianism.  New  York:  The  Representative D. L i n d s a y . New 1950. Library  of  Liberal  1957.  R u n e s , D a g o b e r t D. Dictionary of Philosophy. L i t t l e F i e l d Adams Co., 1972. Venturi,  vols.  1965.  M i l l , J . S. U t i l i t a r i a n i s m , L i b e r t y , and Government. New edition. I n t r o d . A. Y o r k and London: Everyman's L i b r a r y ,  Arts,  8  Oxford:  J o w e t t , B. (ed. and t r a n s . ) . The D i a l o g u e s Vol. 1. New Y o r k : Random H o u s e , 1920. E.  Moscow:  Franco.  Roots  of  Revolution.  New  New  York:  Jersey:  Knopf,  1960. Weitz, Morris. Problems i n A e s t h e t i c s . Second e d i t i o n . New Y o r k : M a c m i l l a n P u b l i s h i n g Co., Inc., 1970. W o e h r l i n , W. F . sity Press, W o o z l e y , A . D. University  Chernyshevsky. 1971.  Cambridge:  Theory of Knowledge. Library, 1967.  Harvard  London:  Univer-  Hutchinson  65  BIBLIOGRAPHY  RUSSIAN  TITLES  BOJIOJ4HH, A . H. H n p y r n e . qepHbnneBCKHft HJIH He^aeB? H3naTeJibCTBO „MbicJib", 1 9 7 6 . KaMeHeB, J l , E . qepHHUieBCKHfi. OeiseflHHeHHe, 19 33.  MocKBa: )KypHajibHO-ra3eTHoe  JleSefleB, A . r e p o f t ^epHHtueBCKoro. Tejib, 1 9 6 2 . ^TepenaxoB, M. C. H. r . „Mbicjib", 19 7 7 . ^epHbiuieBCKHH,  H. r .  MocKBa: CoBeTCKHft  qepHbmieBCKHft.  MocKBa:  JlHTepaTypa,  IlHca-  H3BaTejibCTBO  LTojiHoe co6paHHe coieHeHHfi.  H3flaTeJTbCTBO XyfloxecTBeHHaa  MocKBa:  1939.  MocKBa: T.  11.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094853/manifest

Comment

Related Items