Page:The Spirit of Russia by T G Masaryk, volume 2.pdf/396

370 only to the weakly, not to the strong, and I am one of the strong. One who rejects the concept of duty as part of the religion of the master class cannot admit the need to recognise the idea of revolutionary duty. I am not, he says, a slave to conventionalities, but neither will I be a slave to party morality. I will seek new paths, on which I will march boldly forward.

Nestroev had frequent opportunities for the study of the new brigandage and its advocates; he was acquainted with the "revolutionary robbers" and the "gamins of the ideal." Such a lying and thievish mob-revolutionist once declared that he could not live a quiet life, and that he loved danger, for he enjoyed the sensations it brought. This individualist, of course, had long ago abandoned all ethical valuations. Why is lying dishonourable, he would ask. What is moral uncleanliness? And so on. His metaphysics culminated in the proposition: "What is man?—a piece of flesh and that's all." In view of such an interpretation and such a practical realisation of principles which he himself approves, Nestroev enquires whether the revolution, even should it prove victorious, can do any good when it contains such elements.

In Siberia, among persons of this type there were formed "proletarian communes" and groups of expropriators, dissenters being convinced with the knife.

The "dead house" and its abnormalities, concluded Nestroev, have a bad influence upon men. But in addition, his experiences as a refugee made Nestroev take serious if not positively pessimistic views. He found the commonness of human nature especially conspicuous among the refugees; the differences and oppositions of personal life were in glaring contrast with party principles; there was a great gulf fixed between the peaks and the plain.

In his preface to Nestroev's diary, Burcev expresses the hope that the work will restore to the Russian revolutionaries the prestige they enjoyed before the revolution of 1905–1906. In actual fact, Nestroev's criticism aims at distinguishing the true revolution from the false; but we are left enquiring, What is the criterion of true revolution?

This is the problem which disturbs Nestroev. Speaking