Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, 1821-1881; Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, 1821-1881 -- Criticism and interpretation
So this “world sympathy” exists together with and is strengthened by
an ardent nationalism--its natural complement in Dostoevsky’s mind.
He never wearies or flags in his protest against those that were
at that time called the “Progressists,” that is to say (I borrow
this definition from Strakhov), “the generation of politicians
which expected the advancement of Russian civilization to proceed
not from an organic development of the national character, but from
an overhasty assimilation of Western teachings.” “The Frenchman is
first and foremost a Frenchman, and an Englishman, an Englishman, and
their highest aim is to remain true to themselves. Therein lies their
strength.” He takes his stand against the “men who seek to uproot the
Russians,” and does not wait for Barrès to warn the young intellectual
“who tears himself away from society and disowns it, and does not ‘go
to the people,’ but loses himself in foreign parts, in ‘Europeanism,’
in the kingdom of the universal man who has never existed, and in
so doing breaks with the people, scorns it and misjudges it.” Like
Barrès dealing with “sickly Kantism,” he writes in the preface to
the review[24] he edits: “No matter how fertile an idea imported
from abroad, it can only strike root here, become acclimatized, and
prove of genuine use to us if our national life, spontaneously and
without pressure from without, made the idea grow up, naturally and
practically, to meet its own needs--needs which have been recognized
by practical experience. No nation on earth, no society with a certain
measure of stability has been developed to order, on the lines of a
programme imported from abroad.”
Here follows a remark I regret not to have found in Barrès: “The
capacity for separating oneself temporarily from one’s mother-earth
for the purposes of self-contemplation, all prejudices apart, is the
mark of a very strong personality, just as the power to look on the
foreigner with kindly eyes is one of nature’s highest and noblest
gifts.” And did Dostoevsky not seem to foresee how this doctrine was
to lead and blind us?--“It is impossible to undeceive a Frenchman and
prevent his believing himself the most important being in the wide
world. Besides, of the wide world he is pretty ignorant. And what is
more, he is not keen to be enlightened. This is a characteristic common
to the whole nation, and very typical.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account