his first novel, and Tolstoi (especially War and Peace) in his second. Some critics had gone so far as to speak of flat plagiarism.[1] It seems to me that Ropšin's critics were attempting in this way to evade the discussion of the main problem, and Plehanov would appear to hold the same view; yet he, too, evades the issue, sheltering like Černov behind the screen of objective history. But Plehanov has the advantage over Černov in that his program entitles him to appeal to objective historism.
Plehanov, however, makes one concession to ethics. He admits that "the need to provide an ethical justification for the struggle is no light matter." Ropšin's problem, as stated in the alternative that either we are always justified in killing or else are never justified—this, says Plehanov, "is indubitably a most serious question." But he goes on to show us how Ropšin's doubts, or those of his hero, originated. Ropšin strayed into the paths of subjectivism, instead of keeping along the straight road of historical objectivism. But subjectivism, as Plehanov and his congeners are never weary of telling us, leads to scepticism; and subjectivism has made of Ropšin a revolutionary Hamlet.
Plehanov therefore refers Ropšin to Hegel and to his "algebra of revolution." Hegel had shown how the historical process had evoked struggle in society and had prescribed the functions of that struggle. On one side is the divine right of the existing order; on the other is the equally divine right of the individual consciousness and of subjective freedom, which rises in revolt against the antiquated objective norms. Hence the conflict, a tragedy wherein the best men of the day often perish. "But though men perish in this tragedy, no one is to blame. As Hegel says, those on each side are right in their own eyes."
With this "algebra of revolution," with such phraseology, Plehanov expects to uproot and to abolish Ropšin's Hamletism! It is not enough that Ropšin's heroes should be willing to
- ↑ In the text an account has been given of Ropšin's chief philosophic predecessors. Certain supplementary details may be appended here. The saying that a man must lay down more than his life, that he must lay down his soul, is to be found in almost the identical words in Arcybašev's Ševyrev the Worker. I am not sure which of the two books was published first, and whether we have to do with borrowing or parallelism. (The Pale Horse was published in January 1909; Ševyrev the Worker was likewise issued in 1909 as the third volume of a collection entitled Zemlja.)
