1 A detailed description of these groups is given in A. Koyré, “La philosophic et le probleme national en Russie au debut de XIX siècle,” Bibliotheque de I'Inslitut Françis de Leningrad, tome X (Paris, 1929).

2 Edward J. Brown, “Stankevic and Belinskij,” American Contributions to the Fourth International Congress of Slavicists, Moscow, September 1958, p. 3. Professor Brown also points out (ibid., p. 2) that “indeed through the mediation largely of Stankevič and his circle the liberating ideas of European romanticism and western idealism became a fact of Russian intellectual history.“

3 Only isolated figures dared to assert a view explicitly opposed to the government's conservative “philosophy” based on revelation and faith. Professor Schad, for example, at Kharkov University, taught about natural right and human freedom. Professor Kunicyn lectured on similar topics at the Imperial College.

4 In Otechestvennye zapiski, 1845. “Peterburgskie ugly” is ch. V of Zhizn’ i pokhozhdenija Tikhona Trostnikova [1834-48], part I [see Nekrasov, N. A., Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem (Moscow, 1950), vol. VI]Google Scholar. It was first published in 1845 in the almanac Fiziologija Peterburga, part I, and was sharply criticized by conservative magazines, especially by Severnaja pchela.

5 In 1836 Gogol complained about a complete lack of aesthetic considerations in contemporary literary criticism. See his “O dvizhenii zhurnal'noj literatury v 1834 i 1835 g.” (in Russkie pisateli o literature, p. 279). To a certain extent, Gogol's complaint was justified, for the new criticism was a criticism of ideas in art, as if works of art were not and could not be autonomous.

6 Cited by Ivanov-Razumnik in Sochinenija V. G. Belinskago, ed. Ivanov-Razumnik (Petersburg, 1911), pp. 901-02.

7 V. G. Belinskij, “Vzgljad na russkuju literaturu 1847 goda,” in Sochinenija V. G. Belinskago, p. 956.

8 Belinskij would have agreed with Plekhanov that aesthetic experience is not cognitive but is, rather, a primarily spontaneous apprehension of the “aesthetic substance,” but such experience was marginal to Belinskij's criticism.

9 In his “Vzgljad na russkuju literaturu 1847 goda.“

10 Cf. Sochinenija V. G. Belinskago, p. 942.

11 Sochinenija V. G. Belinskago, pp. 919-28.

12 Marx himself believed that economic conditions are one of the determining influences on art, inasmuch as art is an intellectual process (see his Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy). However, he considered works of art to be unique, in no way comparable to other products of human labor (see K. Marx and F. Engels, Literature and Art [New York: International Pub., 1947], Engels’ well-known letters to Harkness in 1888 and to Bloch in 1890, and M. Lifshits, The Philosophy of Art of Karl Marx [New York, 1938] ). It is clear that Marx himself, in contradistinction to the Utopian socialists and to almost all of his own followers, never intended to establish a “science” of art.

13 Plekhanov pointed out the obvious inconsistency here: one cannot assert at the same time that reality is beautiful in itself and that only that is beautiful which corresponds to our conception of what ought to exist. ( Plekhanov, G. V., “Esteticheskaja teorija N. G. Chernyshevskogo,” Iskusstvo i literatura [Moscow, 1948]).Google Scholar

14 Contrast this conception of mind as an entity of cognition with James's view of mind as a function (William James, “Does ‘Consciousness’ Exist?” Essays in Radical Empiricism [New York, 1912] ).

15 Plekhanov, G. V., “Predislovie k tret'emu izdaniju sbornika ‘Za dvadcat’ let',” Iskusstvo i literatura (Moscow, 1948), p. 207 Google Scholar.

16 Ibid., p. 212.

17 A brief summary of Plekhanov's aesthetics is given in “Estetika Rossii,” Bol'shaja Sovetskaja Enciklopedija, LXIV (Moscow, 1933), 669-75.

18 Hare, Richard, Pioneers of Russian Social Thought (London, 1951), p. 43 Google Scholar. “ For some good studies on tsarist censorship, see Skabyshevskij, S., Ocherki po istorii russkoj century (Petersburg, 1898)Google Scholar; Eisenstock, I., “Francuskie pisateli v ocenkakh carkoi cenzury,” Literaturnoe nasledstw, XXXIII-XXXIV (Moscow, 1939)Google Scholar; Poljanskaja, L., “Arkhivnyi fond Glavnogo Upravlenija po delam pechati,” Literaturnoe nasledstvo, XXIIXXIV (Moscow, 1935)Google Scholar; Semevskij, V. I., “Materialy po istorii cenzury v Rossii,” Golos minuvshago, 3-4 (Moscow, 1913)Google Scholar; “Karl Marks i carskaja cenzura,” Krasnyi arkhiv, I (56) (Moscow, 1935); and works by Lemke, Engelhardt, and Arseniev.

20 Carr, E. H., The Romantic Exiles (London, 1949), p. 212 Google Scholar.

21 Hare, op. cit., p. 176.

22 Ibid., pp. 183, 195.

23 Sochinenija V. G. Belinskago, p. 790.

24 Hare, op. cit., p. 149.

25 Nekrasovskij sbornik, eds. Chukovskij and Evgenev-Maksimov (Petersburg, 1922), pp. 8ff.

26 Trotsky, L., Literature and Revolution (New York, 1925), p. 110 Google Scholar.

27 Written 1842-43; in N. A. Nekrasov, op. cit., VI, 42-43.

28 From “O Peterburgskikh uglakh i o pochtennykh postoialcakh, kotorye v nikh pomeshchajutsja,” which is ch. V of Zhizn’ i pokhozhdenija Tikhona Trostnikova [1843-48], Nekrasov, op. cit., VI, 104-05.

29 Tonkij chelovek, ego prikljuchenija i nabljudenija [1853-55], Nekrasov, op. cit., VI, 333-454.

30 Nekrasov, op. cit., VI.376.

31 Ibid., p. 375.

32 Ibid.

33 Makar Osipovich Sluchajnyi [1840], in Nekrasov, op. cit., V, 22-23.

34 George Sand may be called a comrade of the Utopian socialists since she shared with them the worship of human nature and the ambition of liberating the individual from the limitations of moral (Fourier) and political (Saint-Simon) absolutism. For her the proletariat was spiritually and intellectually equal to the privileged classes. (For Nekrasov, the Russian worker had perseverance, instinct, and intelligence, and lacked only information [Tri strany sveta, Nekrasov, op. cit., VII, 32]). She believed that, since virtue resides in human emotions, the noblest virtue is love (see her story Jacques, for example). Her stories and her theory were well-known in Russia. Belinskij remarked about her: “[George Sand] expresses everything that is beautiful, humane, and lofty.” [In Mysli i Zja.me.iki v russkoj literature, Sochinenija V. G. Belinskago, III , 506] Like Leroux, she was convinced that the masses are more spontaneous in their feelings and, therefore, closer to truth. For this reason she helped proletarian writers with advice and money. (See V. Karenin, “Zhorzh Sand i pisateli-proletarii,” Mir Bozhii, July [1904], pp. 1-35.)

35 Zaputannoe delo [1848], in N. Shchedrin (M. E. Saltykov), Sobranie sochinenii (Moscow, 1951), II, 170-242.

36 According to Kohn, Hans (Making of the French Mind [New York, 1955])Google Scholar it was Saint-Simon who first asserted the importance of the force of money in the development of industry and science and, therefore, in the shaping of modern society. Saint-Simon replaced the concept of “liberalism“—an attitude of sentiment—by the concept of “industrialism“— an attitude based on material interest.

37 Before the peasant reform Shchedrin is known to have sympathized with narodnicheslvo and with Slavophilism and their practical programs of reform. His idealization of the masses runs through all his Nevinnye rasskazy (of which Zaputannoe delo is one). In 1863, Shchedrin wrote in Sovremennik (V, the article “Nasha obshchestvennaja zhizn’ “) that the greatness of Russian history was due to the moral strength of the Russian people, a “moral strength … which begins nothing without a reason, which makes each of its enterprises fruitful, transforming them into flesh and blood;” this moral strength led to the peasant reform and will create others. Shchedrin's idealization of “narod” turned into a more practical and active attitude toward social questions, leading to satirization, for example, of the nobility for its inability to regard its servants as equally human as itself.

38 N. Shchedrin, op. tit., pp. 232-33.

39 Ibid., p. 204.

40 Ibid., p. 205.

41 Ibid., p. 209.

42 Ibid., p. 488.

43 Ibid., pp. 488-89.

44 Ibid., pp. 80-90.

45 See Ovsianiko-Kulikovskij, , Sobranie sochinenii (Petersburg, 1909-1911), VII, 300 and VIII, 2ffGoogle Scholar; V. P. Kranikhfeld, “M. E. Saltykov (N. Shchedrin),” Mir Bozhii, July (1904), ch. IX-XII; N. K. Mikhailovskij, “Shchderin,” Sochinenija N. K. Mikhailovskogo (Petersburg, 1897), V, 174ff.

46 In Mir Bozhii, July (1904), p. 241.

47 The authors themselves appear under different guises too: Nekrasov, for example, took the pseudonyms Perepel'skij, Pruzhynin, Bukhalov, Vikhrev, Borodavkin, Gribovnikov, and perhaps still others.

48 L. Mel'shin, N. A. Nekrasov (Kazan, 1922), p. 81.

49 A. I. Herzen, Byloe i dumy, ch. XII.

50 In Licinius, Christianity is regarded as a mystical, poetical and essentially Eastern religion—an idea alien to Utopian socialism but easily explicable by other influences on Herzen. For example, it is known that Wittberg, a mystic and socialist, visited Herzen in Viatka in 1835-36. Wittberg probably suggested this mystical concept of Christianity. (On Wittberg's influence on Herzen see Ivanov-Razumnik, A. I. Gercen [Petersburg, 1920], p. 81.) At any rate, Christianity as mysticism never appeared again in Herzen's work; what remained was the idea of Christian socialism.

51 See his articles in Poljarnaja zvezda and Kolokol.

52 Herzen's letters from Paris, November 5-8, 1848, to Granovskij, Korsh, Ketchcr, and Satin.

For an analysis of Herzen's liberalism see V. I. Semevskij's introduction to his M. V. Butashevich-Petrashevskij i Petrashevcy (Moscow, 1922), and Ivanov-Razumnik, A. 1. Gercen (Petersburg, 1920), pp. 7ff. For Herzen's failure to deal with the requirements of modern industrial civilization—a point of similarity with Fourier—see R. Hare, op. cit., pp. 272-73.

53 V. I. Semeskij, op. cit., p. 13.

54 Ivanov-Razumnik (ed.), A. I. Gercen, Sistematicheskaja khrestomatija (Berlin, 1923), p. 22.

55 R. Hare, op. cit., p. 220.

56 The fate of Utopian socialist communities is well described in D. D. Egbert, “Socialism and American Art,” in Egbert and Pearsons (eds.), Socialism and American Life (Princeton, 1952), II, 621-755.

57 Randall, J. H., The Making of the Modern Mind (Cambridge, 1940), p. 500 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 For Petrashevskij's allegiance to French Utopian socialism see T. A. Bogdanovich, Pervyi revoljucionnyi kruzhok (Petersburg, 1917), pp. 16 ff.

59 In his Karmannyi slovar’ inostrannykh slov (1845) Petrashevskij argued against a constitution for Russia because he believed the essence of man to be his personality, not his property. See Kuklin, G. A., Petrashevcy (Geneva, 1904), pp. 6, 7Google Scholar.

60 The Petrashevcy differed greatly among themselves in their actual political plans, but agreed on the program of strengthening the old peasant community as a social unit and nucleus for future socialism. For controversies about their political plans, see Bogdanovich, op. cit., and also Delo Petrashevcev, Akad. Nauk SSSR (Moscow-Leningrad, 1937), Vol. I.

61 Gogol, N. V., Mertvye dushi (New York, n. pub., 1944), II, 436 Google Scholar.

62 N. G. Chernyshevskij, Esteticheskie otnoshenija iskusstva k dejsivitel'nosti, A. N. Pypin (ed.), 2nd ed. (St. Petersburg, 1865).

63 Tolstoy, L. N., Chto takoe iskusstvo? (Moscow, 1911), p. 218 Google Scholar.

64 Dostoevsky, F. M., Zapiski iz podpol'ja, in Polnoe sobranie sochinenii F. M. Dostoevskago (St. Petersburg, 1905), III, 410Google Scholar.

65 Ibid., p. 334.