Page:The Spirit of Russia by T G Masaryk, volume 2.pdf/45

Rh interprets life, socio-political life above all. In What is to be Done he furnishes a practical example of his theory. Hence we can understand his definition of poesy as "Life, activity, and passion." It may be pointed out that the despised romanticists would be warranted in claiming this device as their own!

In his socio-political estimate of art and the artist, Černyševskii is thus in agreement with Plato, the ultra-materialist with the ultra-idealist—with the romanticist as Černyševskii would have to term him. Plato in his Republic subordinates art to "life," and this would be the course taken by Černyševskii. He, the socialist, would not allot to artists any material compensation for their artistic labours, and he would not permit the enjoyment of works of art until the individual could no longer busy himself upon the useful (1861).

It is from this standpoint that Černyševskii classifies particular artists, and especially poets. Like his teacher Bělinskii, he rates Schiller exceedingly high. Among Russian poets he is far fonder of Gogol than of Puškin. He considers Puškin rather a pure poet than a thinker; his work lacks body; and he has no definite outlook on life. Gogol, on the other hand, in his analysis of Russian life, gives expression to the most definite ethical aspiration, and this must be included among the influences proper to the poet. Černyševskii condemns Turgenev's Asja as an example of unpractical romanticism.

The aesthetic conceptions of Černyševskii and his school were unjustly censured as hostile to art by the opponents of this school, who were animated by a dread of materialism and utilitarianism. Černyševskii wrote several novels, and it was to elucidate the questions which seemed to him of most moment that he had recourse to art.

ERNYŠEVSKII abandoned his work as literary critic as soon as his disciple and friend Dobroljubov was able to take over this department in his periodical. An exposition must be given of the little that Černyševskii wrote concerning Dobroljubov as aestheticist and critic, and this not merely apropos of the friendly relationship between teacher and