merely to take over novelties from Europe, but to elaborate these acquisitions and to build upon the new foundation. Grigor'ev's "organic" criticism was a formulation of this task. The demand had been made before; Bělinskii in his ultimate phase had entered the same path, and had largely anticipated Grigor'ev'; almost all Grigor'ev's ideas may, separately considered, be deduced from Bělinskii; but Grigor'ev's peculiar service was the unified formulation of his fundamental idea, that of the organic.
Grigor'ev attempted with notable discernment to indicate the positively new in Russian literature. The false judgment which made him rank Ostrovskii beside Puškin, and the injustice he displayed towards Gogol, must not induce us to underestimate his own excellence and originality. He gave his approval to some of Turgenev's work (A Nobleman’s Retreat), and greatly esteemed that of Tolstoi. It was necessary that an attempt should be made to delimit the idea of nationality more precisely. Grigor'ev made such an attempt, and was guided in it by modern ideas, differing here from the slavophils, who built upon the foundations laid by the Greek fathers of the church.
Grigor'ev displayed moderation, too, in his attempts at synthesis. He had more approval for the westernisers than for the slavophils. He was extremely sympathetic towards Čaadaev, and he recognised Bělinskii's merits; but he condemned the extravagances of the westernisers and their negation of all that was Russian. He had full confidence, likewise, in Homjakov and Kirěevskii, though he considered their views extravagant. To the later slavophils, with their petty ideals, he was definitely opposed.
Since he himself had a strong mystical trend, Homjakov's and Kirěevskii's insistence upon the mystical factor was agreeable to him. His philosophy was largely based upon that of Schelling, whose influence was reinforced by Carlyle's. But in the case of his European teachers he effected a synthesis similar to that which he demanded for Russia; Schelling and Carlyle were rationalised by Hegel. He was especially adverse to the realists, and to the nihilists, with their positivist aridity. In this respect Dostoevskii appealed to him, and in co-operation with the latter he made the two reviews edited by the brothers Dostoevskii into an organ of antinihilism.
Grigor'ev's personal life, ill-regulated, romantic, and
