of religions harmony in modern man. Noteworthy is the manner wherein, along a devious route, Mihailovskii passed by way of Bourget to Dostoevskii, coming to essential agreement with the last-named. But it is likewise noteworthy that he did not directly consider Dostoevskii's analysis of the modern man in order to give his opinion thereon.
Let me repeat, however, that Mihailovskii was sufficiently positivist to regard religious feeling, in the sense in which he used the word, as thoroughly natural, for he would have nothing to do with mysticism. Instructive, in this connection, is the study of 1875 mentioned two or three pages back. He considered that weakness of character was exhibited even by the men all of whose thoughts and doings had been summarised by Ščedrin in the single word "devourers"! Even these clear-sighted and deliberate devourers were afraid to display their morality in all its nakedness, and concealed their motives behind moral flourishes. "So difficult do even such as these find it to be religious. Do I say 'religious'? Yes, for it is to be religious to pursue an aim with the whole soul, with the whole will, without any reserves." Mihailovskii concludes the passage with a lament that it is impossible to approximate to this religious ideal if a man has a wider and more complicated program than the "devourers," if he desire to recognise a wider circle of phenomena, and if he wish to take his stand in a more complex grouping of facts. Being an evolutionist, Mihailovskii assumes that religion is destined to undergo further evolution. Whereas Comte, led astray by Hume, had regarded religion as a surpassed historic phase, Mihailovskii holds rather with Spencer that religion is destined for further development. He understands Hume's view that religion is mere superstition, but does not agree with it. In so far as religion involves faith, it may at any given moment become superstition; but superstition can be replaced by knowledge; thereby religion is modified, not destroyed. Mihailovskii draws attention to the fact that men have found the designation faith or belief inadequate, and have therefore made use of the term religion. It is obvious that Mihailovskii felt that in his own epoch there was occurring a transition from the extant ecclesiastical religion to a higher religious form, but for his own part he was incompetent to determine the psychological characteristics of the transition and to formulate the elements of the new religion.
