Page:The Spirit of Russia by T G Masaryk, volume 2.pdf/166

140 In addition to these influences, we have to consider Mihailovskii's acquaintanceship with the works of Rousseau, for this led the Russian towards socialism, towards the social collectivity, as contrasted with Proudhonian anarchism.

Russian literature exercised a notable influence upon Mihailovskii. I have already referred to Lavrov; but Mihailovskii learned also from Herzen, and still more from Černyševskii, whose anthropologism recurs as "humanitism." Mihailovskii was a consistent opponent of Pisarev and the latter's adherents, and sharply distinguished his own individualism from that of Pisarev. Nor did Mihailovskii forge Bělinskii. It is noteworthy that Mihailovskii was at an early date intimately associated with Nekrasov and Saltykov, becoming in 1868 a contributor to Nekrasov's periodical. At this time he was on friendly terms with several other Russian authors, amongst whom may be mentioned Eliseev and Šelgunov. Among the Russians who helped to form his mind, Mihailovskii refers to Nožin, who died prematurely in the year 1866, being then only twenty-three years old. The two men worked together for several years on the staff of the same journal. Nožin was involved in the trial of the Karakozovcy. Nožin was a zoologist. In a European journey he had made the acquaintance of Bakunin. His publicist ideas derived primarily from Proudhon, but he differed from his teacher in his view that the division of labour was injurious to individuality and was the cause of the unequal division of the product of labour. Nožin denied the reality of the Darwinian struggle for existence among the individuals of the same species, referring expressly to the phenomena of mutual aid. All these ideas recur in the work of Mihailovskii.

IHAILOVSKII was a sociologist, and in sociology was a follower of Comte, but he was distinguished from Comte, and was distinguished no less from Marx and the Marxists, by his insistence upon the "subjective method" in sociology.

In Russian literature, much has been said concerning Mihailovskii's and Lavrov's "subjective method." The Marxists, in particular, have fiercely attacked it, and one of Plehanov's principal writings is devoted to Mihailovskii and to a refutation of the subjective method.