essays against Cavour and in favour of Owen that he was here wholly dependent upon Černyševskii. Besides, his socialism was the fruit of personal experience. Dobroljubov was the embodiment of the poor raznočinec, was the man who in his own frame had had experience of the blessings of poverty.
Dobroljubov's opponents made malicious reference to a number of the critic's literary oversights, saying, for example, that in Béranger, for whom he had an enthusiasm, he had failed to detect the small-minded adherent of Napoleon. Dobroljubov did not contribute any strongly original ideas to the general stock, but he was an energetic literary propagandist, such as the time needed.
§ 99.
ČERNYSEVSKII was a practical politician rather than a theoretical sociologist. From 1859 onwards he published in his review a monthly survey of political events, devoting himself to the questions of the hour, but always attempting to give the discussion a wide general bearing. This endeavour is extremely characteristic of Černyševskii. I am unable to determine whether it was simply a manifestation of his own philosophic trend, or whether he was influenced here by regard for the risks of the censorship.
He never wrote any connected account of his views concerning the philosophy of history. His fundamental outlook upon historical development was, that history is the unfolding of culture, of reason. Progress, the developmental process, is conceived by him as a growth of the organism of man and of humanity, a growth which follows a rigidly determined course in the individual and in the species. For him this idea of organic growth is so self-evident that he does not attempt any proof of its truth. After he had made acquaintance with the work of Buckle, the idea of progress (in Buckle's sense) was conceived by him as the history of enlightenment.
Černyševskii formulated as follows his thoughts concerning the general scheme of historical development. The aspirations of the best men, or at least some of their desires, are after prolonged and arduous labour understood by society at large. Society then works for a time at the realisation of
