As regards the essential definition of religion, Mihailovskii refers to his own expositions of the matter in 1875. These were interesting, all the more so, perhaps, because they were parenthetical, because they were the outcome of frequently recurring personal moods and doubts.
Mihailovskii had been disquieted, not for the first time as we shall learn, by the increasing frequency of suicide, and it occurred to him to compare our own epoch with that of the decay of Rome. In this comparison he was concerned more with differences than with resemblances, and was particularly struck with one phenomenon. Recalling the early Christians and their pagan opponents, he was filled with wonder at both parties, both the martyrs and their persecutors, being astonished at the splendid definiteness of all their doings. These people were perfectly clear as to their purposes, those of one side killing with unalloyed energy; and those who died being equally clear as to what they were dying for. This definiteness of view, said Mihailovskii, existed because both sides were religious, "It was religion which gave their feelings, their ideas, and their actions, the definiteness which our feelings, ideas, and actions lack; the lack of this definiteness in our dead-alive social life can be explained solely by this lack of religion. . . . By religion I understand a doctrine which connects the views concerning the universe prevailing at a given time, with the rules of individual life and social activity; this connection must be so firm that no one who professes the religious docirine can possibly disregard his moral convictions, any more than he can admit that 2×2 is a tallow candle." Mihailovskii complained of the indefiniteness of the age. Our views of what is were isolated; our views of what ought to be were isolated; similarly, our actions were isolated. This, exclaimed Mihailovskii, is our misfortune, the supreme misfortune of Russian social life. Kavelin had desired to overcome the moral weakness of the Russians by the elaboration of an independent Russian philosophy. But in opposition to Kavelin, Mihailovskii contended that this would not suffice. Philosophy might unify ideas of what is and what ought to be, but this unification would merely be effected in the sphere of thought, in the thoughts of a few men; it would not be effected in the sphere of life. Philosophy would not furnish that religious devotion to an idea which alone was competent to overcome moral weakness. It did
