and sobriety demanded by Herzen. Such was the main trend, such was the method of Černyševskii alike in individual questions and in the configuration of his general outlook. What is to be Done was an artistic embodiment of this trend and this method.
Černyševskii continued the literary work of Bělinskii. Whereas Herzen and Bakunin supplied the younger generation with revolutionary ardour, Černyševskii made that generation aware of the decisive importance of rationalist preeminence and reasonable conviction. In the section on Saint-Simonism in his analysis of the July monarchy, he demonstrated with true realistic calm how natural is the occurrence of political persecution, saying that as long as society retains its existing structure, innovators will have to suffer, innovators in science and art as well as innovators in politics. "This is inevitable while the present state of society continues." What must be, must be—Černyševskii accepted his own destiny with a dash of fatalism, accepted it as a logical development. This is plainly shown in many of his letters from Siberia and from Astrakhan. Černyševskii's adherents took science and its conclusions as the ultimate and highest authority. In the name of science, they held that the same logical sequence proved the necessity for revolution.
Černyševskii highly esteemed and never failed to recommend logical and scientific consistency and unity of outlook. He disliked eclecticism (see his polemic against Lavrov), and unquestionably this strengthened his hold on the younger generation, since he did not display the cataclysmic variations typical of Herzen and Bakunin.
Černyševskii did little to further the solution of philosophical and scientific problems. His influence was educative, and the importance of his work lay in its general trend and not in particular doctrines. It is true, as we learn in the letters from Siberia and Astrakhan, that Černyševskii's own view was that his authority in the scientific field was extensive. He believed that his contributions to science were to be of far-reaching significance, not merely in Russia and for Russia, for he imagined that in their French rendering they would influence European thought. In this matter he was mistaken.
I have previously pointed out that divergent views prevail in Russian literature concerning Černyševskii's importance and concerning the effect of his writings. His adherents
