Page:The Spirit of Russia by T G Masaryk, volume 2.pdf/52

26 these wishes, but, becoming wearied, desists when half way towards the goal. A lengthy period of arrest ensues, until at length the "optimates" get to work once more. In a brief period of noble stimulation (this is Černyševskii's euphemism for the revolution), extensive transformations ensue. Since these changes are effected somewhat hurriedly, we cannot expect that the new constructions will be beautiful. During the subsequent epoch of stagnation, the optimates are at work anew, and there succeeds a fresh period of active labour, followed again by slumber—and so on unceasingly.

The significance of this developmental process is more definitely represented as progress towards collectivism. The mir, we are told, was the primitive form of the economic and social organisation of society; next came private ownership; this will be replaced by collectivism. The change will take place in accordance with the law of historical evolution that society in its development returns to the primitive form, but the later manifestation will have a richer content than had the early one.

We have previously learned that Černyševskii's attention was drawn by Hegel to the concept of evolution. In What is to be Done we are told that work to promote the development of the individual and of society is the only true happiness. The evolutionary law formulated above was also taken from Hegel, but was modified in the sense of Vico's "ricorsi." Development, as we have seen, is a slow and gradual process. Černyševskii does not accept the notion of a definitive revolution; he considers that we never get more than approximations to the ideal.

This outlook is admirably expressed in What is to be Done. Černyševskii's characters display different stages of progress towards perfection, and we see how in capitalist society socialistic plans are being realised in varying degrees. Černyševskii shows us an entire gradation of characters, these being in a position to realise the correct principles, some to a greater and some to a lesser extent. All meet with his approval, but he esteems most highly the ideal figure of Rahmetov.

From time to time Černyševskii discusses individual factors of evolution. For example, he shows, in opposition to Buckle, that climatic conditions have little effect upon development. In another place he refutes the idea that the influence of racial qualities is decisive.