Page:The Spirit of Russia by T G Masaryk, volume 2.pdf/75

Rh refugee, that he wrote under the eyes of the censor. It was impossible for him to express his opinions as freely as did Herzen and Bakunin, who emphasised Feuerbach's anthropomorphic explanation of religion.

Again, it was no longer necessary for Černyševskii to stress this explanation, since Herzen and Feuerbach had done it before him. For the very reason that Černyševskii had so warmly recommended Feuerbach's philosophy, Feuerbach was read in the original, and translations of his principal writings were freely disseminated (The Essence of Christianity in 1861, and The Essence of Religion in 1862). The influence of Feuerbach's works was reinforced by that of Renan's Life of Jesus, published in 1863.

Černyševskii's antitheological trend was manifest subjectively as well as objectively. I refer to the fact that, like Feuerbach, he had been trained for a theological career, and that materialism was a weapon for personal use against the views in which he had been brought up. At the university, before he had become acquainted with Feuerbach's works, he was still a believer, or at any rate he still accepted the conventional ethics of the church. Dobroljubov, too, had a theological training; like Černyševskii he belonged to a family of priests; to him, likewise, materialism and atheism were weapons for personal use against theology and the church. This is why both these writers make so much of materialism. This is why they are so insistent in their preaching of egoism and utilitarianism; this is why Černyševskii rejects the idea of sacrifice, herein directly conflicting with church doctrine. Černyševskii frequently inveighed against passivity and humility, which Herzen had so vigorously attacked as typical Christian virtues. Černyševskii, in fact, was fully aware of the import of his materialism.

It was impossible for him to say much that was openly directed against the church, but we can feel his hatred for religious and theocratic oppression. Černyševskii's nature differed widely from that of Bakunin, who always trumpeted his hatred from the housetops. Černyševskii was cooler, more reserved, more cautious, but not therefore less effective.

Special reference must here be made to one development of his teaching. Černyševskii came to stress philosophic ethics in proportion as he rejected ecclesiastical religion and the ethics of the church. Hume and Kant took the same course; Rh