Page:The Spirit of Russia by T G Masaryk, volume 2.pdf/74

48

ERNYŠEVSKII'S true significance for the mental development of Russia, and above all for philosophy, is found in his materialism. Materialism has frequently proved revolutionary. This was manifest in the materialism that preceded and followed the French revolution; the statement is especially applicable to German materialism before and after 1848; Russian materialism at the same epoch, and still more in the sixties, had like significance. In Russia as elsewhere, materialism was an ultraradical negation of the theocratic view of the universe and of life; in Russia it was a philosophical revolution against the oppression of Nicholas and Alexander. This philosophical revolution was all the more energetic inasmuch as after the Crimean catastrophe, and still more, after the liberation of the peasantry, hopes of thoroughgoing reforms had been awakened.

The objection may perhaps be made that in his writings Černyševskii had but little to say concerning or against religion and the church. It may even be asserted that he assigned small importance to religion.

It is true that in his philosophy of history Černyševskii ignored religion and church. He considered, for example, that the Thirty Years' war was not a war of religion, that its aims were secular. Similarly the role he ascribed in history to the papacy was insignificant, whilst his polemic had little direct concern with theology and the church. Striking, too, was the way in which he adopted Feuerbach's metaphysical materialism without making any exhaustive use of the anti-theological side of the German philosopher's doctrine, the reduction of religion to anthropomorphism. We have learned, moreover, that when in Siberia he accused Feuerbach of being one-sided, on the ground that the German had treated only of the philosophy of religion.

None the less, Černyševskii's materialism and materialist anthropologism were directed against theology and theocracy. Objectively considered, the reaction in Russia was a theocratic reaction, and for this reason the stress laid upon metaphysical materialism involved a direct attack, not merely upon the state, but also and above all upon the church. We must not fail to take into account this energetic insistence upon materialism, and we have to remember that Černyševskii was not a