justifies his departure from Comte’s historism by referring to Comte's own mental development, to the way in which Comte moved on from his objective sociology to the subjective method in politics and the philosophy of religion. He quotes Balzac's La recherche de l'absolu, showing how the brilliant realist had made positivist detachment appear ludicrous and contemptible, by representing a disciple of Lavoisier defining tears in purely chemical terminology as consisting merely of this and that variety of matter. In contrast with such an outlook, Mihailovskii champions the socio-psychological standpoint, rightly declaring that to do this is not abandon positivism.
Comte had demanded that we should avoid any tincture of enthusiasm or of a spirit of condemnation in our judgment of historical and above all of political facts; we should regard them, he declared, as simple facts of observation, comprehending each fact solely in its setting in relation to coexisting phenomena and in association with the antecedent and subsequent condition of human development. But Mihailovskii, while recognising that this positivist detachment is a demand of "pure rationality," regards it as impossible and unsound. "Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner," is a pretty saying, but wrongheaded. "Tout comprendre" must not be taken to imply that we are not to insist upon the fundamental opposition between good and evil. "Tout comprendre" is impossible; no one can understand everything, and therefore we must not forgive cverything. Besides, "tout comprendre" is impossible to a decent man; for example, certain meannesses are quite beyond his understanding. In a word, there is no justification for the demand that the historian should display a positivist detachment. Mihailovskii returns frequently to the exposition of these views, and they are especially to be found in the preface to his John the Terrible.
Plehanov's rejection of Mihailovskii's subjective method is based on the contention that this method suggests no other criterion than the personal wishes of the individual, that it proposes to replace scientific research by subjective caprice.
Indisputably there are historians and philosophers of history who are guided by caprice, but the objection is none the less fallacious. As a Marxist, Plehanov adopts the standpoint of purely objective history, the individual consciousness being eliminated by Engels and the other Marxists. Mihailovskii's views are clearer and more accurate, for he recognises that
