Page:The American Review of Reviews - Volume 24.djvu/47

 BY R. E. C. LONG.

T is a very natural thing that the fortieth anniversary of the emancipation of the Russian serfs should be accompanied by disturbance. The "unfinished novel of 1861," as it has been called, has not only been left without its final chapters, but since the later years of the reign of Alexander II. it has been abridged and edited out of recognition. The discontent of the students is, of course, no new symptom. It is older even than the emancipation itself, and if its existence is explained by the general state of Russian society, the causes which force it into actual revolt are generally accidental. But the popular disturbances which accompanied the students' revolt are new phenomena. Hitherto Russia has produced martyred individuals in plenty. But, outside religious sectarianism, there have been few martyred causes. It is only now that we see the individual beginning to react upon the community. Thus we see the students supported by a working class whose fists and sticks were not long ago the chief instruments of repression, and a great number of educated Russians of all classes openly expressing their sympathy with both ; and, finally, we see Count Tolstoy entering upon the scene as an advocate of practical reforms, and as the mouthpiece of a class with whom he has often expressed an entire lack of sympathy. For he has always made it quite clear that he regards all government based on force, whether by a minority as in Russia, or by the majority as in western Europe, with equal aversion. And he has certainly no more sympathy with forcible protest than with forcible repression. Yet under the stress of circumstances Tolstoy has suddenly appeared on the scene as a champion of Russian Liberalism, which is, no less than the Russian Government, an embodiment of every idea which he abhors.

There are other circumstances which bring Tolstoy's name more prominently before us than it has been for some time past. The first is his excommunication by the Holy Synod, and the second the news that he is engaged upon a new novel which is to embody all his moral and social doctrines. Tolstoy's excommunication was not unexpected. While maintaining Christianity, he had cut himself off from the Church and the Church, claiming after its kind that it alone was Christian, cut him off from itself. The form of excommunication of the Russian Church is a very mild one, and Tolstoy at first held his peace. But it evoked very strong protests from his wife, who holds to the Church, and from the students, who have as little faith in the Church as Tolstoy himself, and much less faith in Christianity. The countess wrote a very vehement letter of protest to M. Pobyedonostseff, in which she showed plainly her concern at the step he had taken. The students behaved characteristically. They marched, to the number of five hundred, to the Kazan Cathedral, and demanded that they also might be excommunicated.

The excommunication was followed by a circular to the faithful, insisting that the count might still be saved if he repented. But Tolstoy was no longer thinking of his own salvation, but of the salvation of Russian society. His real reply to the Procurator was expressed in a letter to the Czar. It is one of the most notable of Tolstoy's productions, for it exhibits him publicly for the first time as an advocate of liberal reform. The measures which Tolstoy advocates have nothing whatever to do with the realization of Christian doctrine, which is the only social movement which he has hitherto expressed himself in sympathy with. They are measures which have been adopted long ago by other equally unchristian governments, and they do not mitigate in any way the underlying evil of reliance upon force which Tolstoy finds in all governments. The count's letter is a long one. But to show both its spirit and its practical nature, it is worth while to quote its most important passages :

Again murders, again street slaughters, again there will be executions, again terror, false accusations, threats, and spite on the one hand, and again hatred, the desire for vengeance, and readiness for self-sacrifice on the other. Again all Russian men have divided into two conflicting camps, and are committing and preparing to commit the greatest crimes. . . . Why should this be so? Why, when it is so easy to avoid it?

We address all of you men in power, from the Czar, members of the state council, ministers, to the relatives—uncles, brothers of the Czar, and those near to him, who are able to influence him by persuasion. We address you, not as our enemies, but as brothers who are, whether you will or not, necessarily connected with us in such a way that all sufferings which we undergo affect you also, and yet more oppressively; if you feel that you could have removed these sufferings and did not do so—act in such a way that this condition of things should cease. . . . The blame lies not on evil, turbulent men, but in you rulers, who do not wish to see anything at the present moment except your own