Page:The Spirit of Russia by T G Masaryk, volume 2.pdf/219

Rh Of the zemstvos, for example, adopting here slavophil ideas, he expects that they will discover the true relationship to the past, will re-establish the national life in its totality, and will awaken the creative energies of that life.

He was thinking not only of the English gentry (the English gentry of that day!), but also of the Russian nobles, whom he regarded as the born leaders of the common people. Mihailovskii tells us in his memoirs that in 1861 Katkov denounced Eliseev for desiring to protect the aristocracy of culture against the aristocracy of birth.

In June 1862, Katkov opened a campaign against Herzen and the "Kolokol"; after the Polish rising in 1863 he exploited national chauvinism for his own ends. During the revolt, Schédo-Ferroti (von Fircks) published a pamphlet entitled Que fera-t-on de la Pologne? in which he demanded that Poland, whilst remaining an integral part of Russia, should be granted local self-government. Katkov made this the text for a violent attack on the Poles, and while ostensibly aimed at Schédo-Ferroti, his onslaught was really directed at the liberal minister Golovnin.

Katkov was not slow to oppose Černyševskii and the realist movement. At first, indeed, he had collaborated with Černyševskii on the staff of the "Otečestvennyja Zapiski"; but in 1861, in his own review, Katkov published Jurkevič's anti-materialistic writing, and the "Russkii Věstnik" became the chief organ of the counternihilist movement. Turgenev's Fathers and Children was published by Katkov; Dostoevskii, despite his earlier polemic against Katkov, issued his antinihilist novels under Katkov's aegis; and Katkov was delighted to publish the novels of Kljušnikov, Krestovskii, and Markevič. To Katkov, literature was subservient to his political plans. [sic] Not for the sake of literature had he founded his review, but because he had formed a sound estimate of the political power of literature; and in view of the literary conditions prevailing at the close of the Nicolaitan period it was not difficult for him, aided by his collaborators (the name of Ostrovskii may be added to those already mentioned), to acquire literary influence. In 1862, writing in Dostoevskii's review "Vremja" (Time), Grigor'ev rightly pointed out that literature was to Katkov of no consequence, a mere means to an end. Katkov's disposition

Rh