No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Revolutionary Elitism in Černyševskij
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 January 2017
Extract
The post-war soviet campaign to celebrate Russian inventive genius has been carried even into fields where native preëminence is itself only a Russian invention. But there remains one field where one might hope to see Soviet assertiveness become still bolder, and that is in the study of the development of Russian revolutionary thought. It is true that in recent years increased attention has been paid in the Soviet Union to the Russian precursors of Marx. But boldness in this direction is obviously inhibited by a reluctance to let national vanity show disrespect toward the authority of Marx and Engels.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies 1954
References
1 The author wishes to acknowledge his obligation to the Russian Research Center of Harvard University for recently sponsoring his study of the pre-Revolutionary Russian intelligentsia, in the course of which the present article has been completed.
2 Steklov, Jurij M., N. G. Černysevskij, ego žzn’ i dejatel'nost’(2nd ed., Moscow, 1928), I, 176.Google Scholar
3 The debate between Steklov and Plekhanov can be traced throughout Steklov's two-volume work on Černysevškij. It was Steklov's first (1909) edition, which attacked Plekhanov's study of Černyševskij, that called forth Plekhanov's rejoinder, “Ešče o Černyševskom,” in Sovremennyj mir (1910).
4 Steklov, p. 426.
5 Ibid., p. 161.
6 Ibid., p. 164.
7 Ibid., p. 384.
8 Plekhanov, G. V., “N. G. Černyševskij” in Sočinenija (2nd ed., Moscow and Leningrad, 1923–1927), V, 230.Google Scholar
9 Ibid., Chapter 2, “Materialism in the Historical Views of Černyševskij,“ pp. 255 ff.
10 Ibid., p. 301.
11 Ibid., p. 292.
12 Ibid., p. 264.
13 “Antropologičeskij princip,” VI, 228. All references to Černyševskij's writings are from the Polnoe sočranie socinenij (10 vols., St. Petersburg, 1905–1906). Titles of articles are followed by volume and page references to this edition.
14 For instance, on page 214 of “The Anthropological Principle” the author writes that “the moral sciences have a theoretical answer for almost all the important questions of life,” although on page 216 he admits that “there has not yet been found an exact theoretical solution for very many extremely important moral questions.“
15 At times Cernysevskij suggests that man is neither good nor bad but that environment makes him one or the other; at other times he argues as if man were by nature good but subject to the often perverse influences of environment.
16 That these terms represent not decades but eras is clear from the fact that the Forties in Russian intellectual history often are extended to 1855, and the Sixties usually are meant to run from 1855 and are usually ended well before 1870, sometimes even as early as 1863.
17 Review of the works of Granovskij, II, 410, footnote 1.
18 “Antropologičeskij princip,” VI, 200.
19 Ibid., p. 209.
20 “Kharakter čelovečeskogo znanija,” X2, 1—15.
21 “Antropologičeskij princip,” p. 195.
22 For a discussion of this, see the author's article, “Art and Reality in Russian 'Realist’ Criticism,” in the March 1954 issue of The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism.
23 “Estetičeskie otnošenija iskusstva k dejstvitel'nosti,” X2, 159.
24 Review of Kulis edition of Gogol's works, III, 373.
25 Introduction to translation of Weber's World History, X2, 175.
26 “Antropologičeskij princip,” p. 211.
27 “Russkij čelovek na rendez-vous,” I, 95.
28 Ibid.
29 Review of Kulis edition of Gogol's works, III, 350.
30 “Očerki Gogolevskogo perioda russkoj literatury,” II, 122.
31 “O pričinakh padenija Rima,” VIII, 158.
32 By N. F. Annenkov, quoted in Steklov, II, 116.
33 “Antropologiceskij princip,” pp. 186–87.
34 Introduction to translation of Weber's World History, X2, 170.
35 Review of Kuliš edition of Gogol's works, III, 346.
36 1856 essay on Puskin's life and works, X2, 201.
37 The Origin of Russian Communism (London, 1937), p. 56.Google Scholar
38 Čto delaf? (Tucker, translation, Boston, 1886), p. 250.Google Scholar
39 Ibid., p. 76.
40 Ibid., p. 136.
41 Ibid., p. 71.
42 “Antropologičeskij princip,” p. 230.
43 Čto dela’?, p. 139.
44 Ibid., p. 100.
45 “Antropologičeskij princip,” p. 232.
46 Ibid., p. 235.
47 Čto delat’?, p. 222.
48 Ibid., p. 155.
49 Review of Guizot's History of Civilization in Europe, VI, 348.
50 “O pričinakh padenija Rima,” VIII, 168.
51 Review of Guizot's History of Civilization in Europe, VI, 348.
52 “Antropologičeskij princip,” p. 217.
53 Ibid.,p. 237.
54 Ibid., p. 238.
55 “Lessing,” III, 644–45. My italics.
56 Plekhanov, p. 288.
57 Čto delat'?, pp. 238–40.
58 Introduction to translation of Weber's World History, X2, 176.
59 Ibid.,p. 171.
60 See “Ne naČalo li peremeny?” VIII, 339ȓ59.
61 Review of the works of Granovskij, II, 405.