pay as much as fifty roubles for a collection of his writings—though cheaper editions are now available.
Pisarev jettisoned all the literary and critical works of his predecessors, not even excepting the writings of Bělinskii, Černyševskii, and Dobroljubov. Čaadaev had at least retained approval for Peter, but Pisarev included in his iconoclasm Caadaev and all men of letters, together with the amiable Granovskii, whose writings and lectures were nothing but "futile Macaulayism." It is not surprising that even some of the radicals shared Antonovič's alarm; and as for the liberals, they were, on principle, opponents of Pisarev and his whole trend. Čaadaev had attacked theology and orthodoxy, and was therefore congenial to the liberals, but Pisarev renounced the liberal adversaries of theology and orthodoxy. He continually returned to the attack upon liberalism. He regarded a liberal as a pygmy, as a dwarf, or as a cow trying to gallop like a cavalry horse.[1]
At that time Saltykov agreed with Antonovič, and it was all the more natural that Katkov, the conservatives, and the reactionaries, should share Antonovič's views.
As a matter of course, the slavophils were opposed to Pisarev and the realists, were opposed to the man who had the audacity to speak of Ivan Kirěevskii as a Don Quixote. The počvenniki, too, were strongly adverse to Pisarev and to nihilism; it was in the počvennik circle that Dostoevskii began his life work against nihilism. Nor was it likely that the narodniki and the socialists would be pleased by Pisarev's views upon economics and history.
Herzen, though he had himself interpreted Bazarov and nihilism in a Byronic sense, was opposed to Pisarev and to the nihilism of the sixties. There remained, therefore, to support Pisarev none but the most radical among the radicals.
Antonovič's essay split the radical camp.
§ 109.
JUST as Herzen endeavoured to harmonise his proud and contemptuous individualism with socialism and with love
- ↑ The following are mentioned by Pisarev among his liberal opponents: Gromeka (wrote a polemic against Herzen in 1862, and in the same year condemned Černyševskii and his teaching); Dudyškin, the real editor of Otečestvennyja Zapiski; Zarin (the translator of Byron's plays), who in the same periodical attacked Černyševskii, Dobroljubov, and Pisarev.
