Page:The Czechoslovak Review, vol4, 1920.pdf/39

stand forth as models of “the correct and genuine incorporation of nihilism”, influenced the Russian reading public and through it the masses. The so-called national Russian disease “Oblomovstchina” is spoken of in connection with Dobroljubov who writing of Gončarov’s “Oblomov”, describes Oblomovism as “the issue of the old Russian darkness, but the errors were those of one already struggling towards the light.” Oblomov was the representative of the liberal nobles, inactive but longing for activity, “superfluous persons”.

Černyševskii who was a consistent fighter for the liberation of Russian women from “the yoke of so-called patriarchalism” in order to make them into “thinking beings” makes his hero answer Věra’s reproach of him for his theory of national egoism thus “The hand that holds the lancet must not flinch, for mere sympathy will not do the patient any good. This theory is prosaic, but it reveals the true motive of life, and only in the truth of life is poesy found.” In this quotation which Masaryk approves, he reveals his own convictions. One involuntarily recalls how Masaryk courageously and unflinchingly took a stand against the authenticity of the Queenscourt Manuscripts and, so to speak, cut out the cancer of a lie which would have gnawed at the very vitals of Czech literature had the “Question of the Manuscripts” remained unchallenged.

Again and again in commenting on the lives and principles of the Russian theorists, the author reveals his own ideas unreservedly and we get his philosophy with a vividness that explains, why Masaryk is himself the key to an understanding of the Czechoslovaks, just as he indicates that Dostoevskii is the key to Russia.

His comment is noteworthy with respects to Herzen’s theory, that society, like the individual, can overleap one or several stages of development, and that Russia need not develop organically, need not, that is to say, traverse all the stages of European development. Russia can take over as a heritage all the desirable acquirements of European evolution, just as Russia has introduced railways, though she did not herself discover them. Of these theories Masaryk disposes briefly thus, “It must be admitted that the analogy is a lame one, and that it displays the mir in a light which makes that institution seem anything but suitable to the socialism of the future.”

Bělinskii, too, had declared that “Russia often found it necessary to do in five years what the West had taken fifty years to accomplish.”

To this Masaryk replies “The truth of the assertion is questionable; and in so far as it is true, it merely indicates a lack of steadfastness and diligence.” That the “grasping at the summits” or any other method will make it possible for Russia to “skip certain stages of historical development; to pass without transition from a low stage to a much higher one,” Masaryk denies. He says, “Against the original sin of passivity it is contimually necessary to guard by the encouragement of activity, steadfastness and diligence. The task for the critical Russian thinker is, starting from what actually exists, to promote the attainment of the desirable aims by a process of organic development.”

When Marx discarded ethics, Černyševskii did not abandon morality, desiring rather to give ethics a “serious scientific foundation.”

Masaryk’s own prodigious energy and unexampled diligence is indirectly communicated to his readers in his indictment of Černyševskii for not accomplishing more in a literary way while incarcerated in Siberia, where he had the time and the facilities for valuable work, being constantly furnished with books and publications by his friends in Russia and Europe.

One of the Americans in the Czechoslovak Legion which fought in France related to the writer that when he was transferred to Prague, he was delegated to stand as night sentry near the building in which resided President Masaryk of the new Republic. It was not unusual, he said, to see the President at work until two or three o’clock into the morning. The immensity and permanence of the work accomplished by this rightly chosen leader of the Czechoslovak people is a challenge not only to his brother Slavs, the Russians, but to all nations to encourage “activity, steadfastness, diligence.”

From the last page of his remarkably clarifying study of the philosophy peculiar to the Russians who are always agitating the questions “Whither? and What is to be done?” we make this quotation. “The study of the Europeanisation of Russia, expanding as it does into a study of reciprocal cultural influence, suggests numerous and extremely interesting problems. The study of Russia will give the sociologist a clearer insight into the problem of cultural mutuality and cultural unification, a problem that is of such profound importance to human evolution.”

When one considers that Masaryk’s deductions and foreshadowings from the treasure house of rich literary and historical material which he has assembled in the thousand odd pages of this work were made previous to the beginning of the World War, the book having been published originally in 1912, we marvel, though we should not, knowing his keen penetrative method, at the accuracy and completeness of his diagnosis of Russia’s condition. For the reader who wishes a liberal education not only in things Russian, but in the progressive thought of the world, there is no work more fit for unqualified endorsement than Masaryk’s “The Spirit of Russia.”

The Spirit of Russia, studies in History, Literature and Philosophy, By Thomas Garrigue Masaryk, First President of the Czechoslovak Republic. Translated by Eden and Cedar Paul. Two Volumes 1919. The Macmillan Company, New York.