the participation of the French democrats in the February revolution, and refers to their action as utterly stupid owing to the lack of preparation. But he also tells us in this connection that circumstances may arise compelling us willy nilly to take part in such stupidity; that the rule "everything at the proper time" is an excellent one, but that we cannot always tell when the proper moment has arrived. When Černyševskii makes fun of those who expect a "thunderstorm in a bog," he may well be ironically condemning his own participation in the revolution.
If I am not mistaken, Černyševskii's adherents are much concerned because he made a mistaken diagnosis of the situation in 1861. It is considered comprehensible enough that Bakunin should have expected a rising of the Russian peasantry, but it is felt that Černyševskii's realism should have induced a different judgment of the then existing state of affairs, and should therefore have led to the formulation of a different policy.
I believe that Černyševskii did in fact make a mistake. He made many similar errors of judgment. In 1858, for example, he acclaimed Alexander II, no less warmly than had Herzen, as liberator and saviour of Russia; but the circumstances of the liberation of the peasantry wrought a change of mood, as is proved by the Unaddressed Letters (1862). These were published abroad and were directed to the tsar. It would not be anything extraordinary had Černyševskii changed his views regarding revolution. Moreover, a man may take part in an undertaking when he is extremely dubious about its results. To believe that all sceptics are persons with no capacity for action, is pure superstition.
I am of opinion, then, that Černyševskii had formed a false estimate of men and of conditions. I believe, further, that in Siberia Černyševskii came to recognise his mistake, and that this explains the peculiar passivity he displayed in Siberia in contrast with the activity that was typical of the days prior to his exile.
The poet Korolenko has written some reminiscences of Černyševskii, and these confirm my supposition. Černyševskii points out that practically all the political criminals atoning for their offences in Siberia are raw youths, and he says that he is ashamed to find himself in their company. The feeling, he continues, is all the more powerful since he recognises the
