Page:The Spirit of Russia by T G Masaryk, volume 2.pdf/207

Rh The religious man has a clear and definite idea of what he wills to do; he believes, not only in what he wills to do, but in what he actually, does.

HILE still a student at the mining academy, Mihailovskii made his first literary venture by penning an analysis of the female types in Gončarov's books (1860), but he did not seriously engage in authorship until 1869. A general survey of his works subsequent to that date gives the following results. During the first years, to be precise, from 1869 to 1871, Mihailovskii's writings were of a predominantly scientific character. Some were essays upon themes of his own choice, but most of his scientific writings were critical notices of works by other authors, selected by Mihailovskii from the literature of the world as a vehicle for the conveyance of his own ideas and plans. The six-volume edition of his works contains about thirty-five lengthier essays, twenty-three of which deal with European and twelve with Russian authors. In the period from 1872 down to the beginning of January 1904, Mihailovskii wrote more or less connected accounts of the principal events in Russian life, of individual authors, and of literary trends. [sic] with occasional references to the drama and to graphic art,. [sic] Such essays, taking the form of "Literary and Journalistic Observations," "A Layman's Notes," "A Contemporary's Notes," "A Reader's Diary," and so on, bulk more largely than studies of a monographic nature. As far as such studies were produced during this period, they belong chiefly to the seventies. Mihailovskii never wrote a book, a work containing the systematic elaboration of some particular theme. By deliberate choice he remained a critic, but as he himself put it on one occasion, the critic is neither more nor less than the expounder of artistic creations. Mihailovskii himself, however, was likewise an expounder of-scientific creations.

If we compare Mihailovskii's style and his whole method of criticism with those of his predecessors, the contrast with Herzen and Bělinskii becomes obvious. Mihailovskii has more kinship with Černyševskii and Lavrov. His writing has a certain hardness, produces an impression of greyness, and yet we soon forget this as we go on reading, for we become enthralled by the contents, by the sturdiness, and by the