Page:The Spirit of Russia by T G Masaryk, volume 2.pdf/210

184 They can speak for others, they can live the inner life of others, can feel their way or think their way into the inner life of others. Mihailovskii considers that the artist possesses in a high degree that capacity for sympathy which every man ought to have, but of course the artist is likewise distinguished by his method of expression which differs from that of the non-artist, The aim of the critic must therefore be to report how the artist speaks for himself and for others, and to report for whom the artist is speaking. The critic must grasp the relationship between the artist and his object, and must show how this relationship is artistically displayed. Mihailovskii complains of Čehov that he applies his artistic apparatus in like manner to the swallow and to the suicide, to the fly and to the elephant, to tears and to water. Mihailovskii demands from the artist the same definiteness that he demands from others.

Mihailovskii will only recognise as a true artist one who does not speak for a class or group of socicty, but for the entire folk, for the workers. The idea of the folk is implied in every serious work of art. Starting from his view that society rests upon cooperation, he would like to introduce work as the measure of value into belles lettres and aesthetics no less than clsewhere. Tle thought is not elaborated, but enough is said to show what Mihailovskii demands from art, namely that it should pay at least as much attention to the idea of the folk as to the idea of love.

Mihailovskii frequently insists that the true artist should exhibit a sense of proportion, for he considers that the essential quality of artistic capacity is displayed in moderation. To give a concrete instance, he contends that Grigorovič and Lěskov lack a sense of proportion.

Art is per se social and ethical; ethics and aesthetics are intimately associated—although Mihailovskii recalls the fact that Cain and Abel were brothers, and yet one of them slew the other! Mihailovskii was not guilty of literary fratricide; his ethics and his socialism are guided by the old but beautiful and genuinely humane saying, nil humanum a me alienum puto; but the fact that he had no liking for the decadents and for their sexual erethism and abnormality may be ascribed, not merely to his socialist ethics, but also to his healthy virility.

From this outlook, Mihailovskii can best adjust his relations