sible, though Žukovskii, with romanticist enthusiasm, was eager to bring the divine repose of the picture home to the understanding of his contemporaries.
As historian (and before all he was historian of literature) Bělinskii was unable to arrive at a unified result concerning the tasks of history and in especial those of the history of literature. Hegel's influence did not make itself felt in any consistent application of the dialectic method. Nor can we discover in BěIinskii's work unified and distinctly formulated theories regarding the motive forces of historical development. Bělinskii was neither sociological expert nor philosophical historian, although he took frequent occasion to express his views concerning the evolution of Russia. We have learned what he thought about the struggle towards culture and humanitarianism, and I may reiterate here that Peter's personality and Peter's reforms seemed to him a confirmation of his opinion regarding the historical importance of leading individualities. All his efforts were directed towards the intensification of Peter's great work, which Bělinskii regarded as the necessary civilising impulse coming from without.
Bělinskii's influence upon his contemporaries and upon the younger generations was enormous. Down to 1856, during the reaction that followed upon 1848, he could not be mentioned by name, and writers alluded to him only as "the critic of the forties" or "the critic of the Gogol epoch." Bělinskii directed the rising generation into the political and social path, and contrasted the freedom of democracy with the absolutism of theocracy. In this matter, of course, he was not alone; nor was he the first, for he was himself influenced by Bakunin and Herzen; but he had a remarkable understanding of the way in which men's minds could best be stirred despite the pressure of the Nicolaitan censorship. He felt democratically. Even though often enough he uttered complaints against the masses he had ever before his eyes the reading public and the difficult and responsible mission of the Russian author. His humanitarian teaching was necessarily directed towards readers and not towards illiterates, but he was well aware that in point of character the cultured man may be no higher than the uncultured. I may recall as typical the utterance: "The masses live without thinking, and live meanly; but to think without living—is that any better?"
From the very first, alike from friends and from opponents,
