It applies above all to Mihailovskii's endeavours to take a comprehensive view of latter day developments in Russia, for such a view cannot be attained without a study of the religious problems and endeavours of an epoch. Yet Mihailovskii, though, as we have seen, he thought the main weakness of the day was its lack of religion, did not undertake such an enquiry.
Positivism or positivist detachment cannot have been his reason for ignoring the matter, for he had early overcome this defect of positivism. Nor can I regard his ethical views, his utilitarianism, as the cause—all the less seeing that, despite his hostility to Kant, his utilitarianism had a distinctly rigorist flavour.
The objection may be made that Mihailovskii reduces religion essentially to morality (the question whether this is done with or without Kant may be left unconsidered), and that his analysis of the springs of moral conduct is therefore adequate. It is unquestionable that Mihailovskii's primary demand from religion was not for dogmas, but for strength of character, for definiteness. For him, nevertheless, religion was something more than, something different from; morality. In his Literary Reminiscences (1894) he alluded to various ethical systems, and made the following characteristic utterance: "Morality incontestably begins from the moment when man imposes any sort of bridle upon his ego, from the moment when he is willing to give up any of his wishes in the name of something which he regards as higher, as sacred, as inviolable. Until this moment comes, we have nothing but customs!"
By other socialists, Mihailovskii, for having used this image of the bridle, was accused of borrowing from Kant's rigorism. He defended himself, though not very vigorously. (He might have referred to his description of the execution of the last criminal!)
"I believe that I do not err in saying that the extant Russian realism is as remote from the ideal of religion as it is from a star in the heavens." The lack of religion was evident, not in Russia alone, but in France and throughout the world. Mihailovskii gave an account of Bourget's novel Le disciple, and accepted its analysis of the modern mental cleavage which takes the form of the paralysis of will by the analytical reason. He recurred to his diagnosis of the lack
