the two; the characterisation of the period of transition, in especial, is purely Comtist. Hence Mihailovskii has to make use of Comte's terminology. The designations subjectivism, individualism, anarchism, scepticism, and metaphysics, are all taken bodily from Comte.
This close adhesion to the views of Comte leads us to the question how we are to apply to Russia Comte's subdivision of historical epochs. Mihailovskii is far too fond of speaking of the Catholic and feudal middle age of the west; he accepts the world-historical importance of Protestantism and the great revolution. But has the revolution, have Protestantism, feudalism, and Catholicism, the same world-wide significance for Russia? Comte considered that his classification into epochs was universally applicable, and he utilised it for the explanation of human evolution in its entirety. To Mihailovskii, however, fell the task of discovering how to apply the formula to Russia. On one occasion, referring to the relationship between Russia and western Europe, he said that the Russians disported themselves like a cook who had been given an old hat by her mistress. If we look to the philosophico-historical significance underlying the sarcasm, the meaning would seem be that Russia is following the same developmental course as the west. We shall learn, however, that Mihailovskii likewise defended the view that Russia might evolve differently from Europe. But, for this very reason, an exposition of thee universal validity of Comte's historical epochs might have been useful.
Mihailovskii assumes that the political problem, the question of political freedom, has been solved by the revolution; but that the question of social equality, the bread question, has not been solved. However, in his opinion, by 1840 the problem had become ripe for solution.
According to Mihailovskii, the complete freedom demanded by the revolution took the form of anarchy. Men rejected supernatural and theological traditions, and devoted themselves to observation and experiment, but economic freedom was not established in conjunction with theoretical freedom. Liberalism is inadequate. "Mankind," solemnly proclaiming the fights of man as the eighteenth century drew to its close, assumed the lineaments of the petty bourgeois, covetous and small minded. This bourgeois was an enthusiast for freedom thought, and demanded political freedom, but was a con-
