THE CHIEF OF REBELS

"It is time that I ceased to fill the world," said the dying Victor

Hugo, and we recognise the truth of the saying, though with a smile. For

each generation must find its own way, nor would it be a consolation to

have even the greatest of ancient prophets living still. But yet there

breathes from the living a more intimate influence, for which an

immortality of fame cannot compensate. When men like Tolstoy die, the

world is colder as well as more empty. They have passed outside the

common dangers and affections of man's warm-blooded circle, lighted by

the sun and moon. Their spirit may go marching on; it may become

immortal and shine with an increasing radiance, perpetual as the sweet

influences of the Pleiades. But their place in the heavens is fixed. We

can no longer watch how they will meet the glorious or inglorious

uncertainties of the daily conflict. We can no longer make appeal for

their succour against the new positions and new encroachments of the

eternal adversary. The sudden splendour of action is no longer theirs,

and if we would know the loss implied in that difference, let us imagine

that Tolstoy had died before the summer of 1908, when he uttered his

overwhelming protest against the political massacres ordained by Russia.

In place of that protest, in place of the poignant indignation which

appealed to Stolypin's hangmen to fix their well-soaped noose around his

own old neck, since, if any were guilty, it was he--in place of the

shame and wrath that cried, "I cannot be silent!" we should have had

nothing but our own memory and regret, murmuring to ourselves, "If only

Tolstoy had been living now! But perhaps, for his sake, it is better he

is not."

And now that he is dead, and the world is chilled by the loss of its

greatest and most fiery personality, the adversary may breathe more

freely. As Tolstoy was crossing a city square--I suppose the "Red

Square" in Moscow--on the day when the Holy Synod of Russia

excommunicated him from the Church, he heard someone say, "Look! There

goes the devil in human form!" And for the next few weeks he continued

to receive letters clotted with anathemas, damnations, threats, and

filthy abuse. It was no wonder. To all thrones, dominions,

principalities, and powers, to all priests of established religions, to

the officials of every kind of government, to the Ministers, whether of

parliaments or despots, to all naval and military officers, to all

lawyers, judges, jurymen, policemen, gaolers, and executioners, to all

tax-collectors, speculators, and financiers, Tolstoy was, indeed, the

devil in human form. To them he was the gainsayer, the destroyer, the

most shattering of existent forces. And, in themselves, how large and

powerful a section of every modern State they are! They may almost be

called the Church and State incarnate, and they seldom hesitate to call

themselves so. But, against all their authorities, formulae, and

traditions, Tolstoy stood in perpetual rebellion. To him their

parchments and wigs, their cells and rods and hang-ropes, their mitres,

chasubles, vestments, incense, chantings, services, bells, and books

counted as so much trumpery. For him external law had no authority. If

it conflicted with the law of the soul, it was the soul's right and duty

to disregard or break it. Speaking of the law which ordained the

flogging of peasants for taxes, he wrote: "There is but one thing to

say--that no such law can exist; that no ukase, or insignia, or seals,

or Imperial commands can make a law out of a crime." Similarly, the

doctrines of the Church, her traditions, sacraments, rituals, and

miracles--all that appeared to him to conflict with human intelligence

and the law of his soul--he disregarded or denied. "I deny them all," he

wrote in his answer to the Holy Synod's excommunication (1901); "I

consider all the sacraments to be coarse, degrading sorcery,

incompatible with the idea of God or with the Christian teaching." And,

as the briefest statement of the law of his soul, he added:

"I believe in this: I believe in God, whom I understand

as Spirit, as Love, as the Source of all. I believe that he is

in me, and I in him. I believe that the will of God is most

clearly and intelligibly expressed in the teaching of the man

Jesus, whom to consider as God, and pray to I esteem the

greatest blasphemy. I believe that man's true welfare lies

in fulfilling God's will, and his will is that men should love

one another, and should consequently do to others as they wish

others to do to them--of which it is said in the Gospels that this

is the law and the prophets."

The world has listened to rebels against Church and State before, and

still it goes shuffling along as best it can under external laws and

governments, seeking from symbols, rituals, and miraculous manifestation

such spiritual consolation as it may imbibe. To such rebels the world,

after burning, hanging, and quartering them for several centuries, has

now become fairly well accustomed, though it still shoots or hangs them

now and then as a matter of habit. But Tolstoy's rebellion did not stop

at Church and State. He rebelled against all the ordinary proposals and

ideals of rebels themselves, and to him there was not very much to

choose between the Socialism of Marxists and the despotism of Tsars.

Liberals, Radicals, Social Democrats, Social Revolutionists, and all the

rest of the reforming or rebellious parties--what were they doing but

struggling to re-establish external laws, external governments,

officials, and authorities under different forms and different names? In

the Liberal movements of the day he took no part, and he had little

influence upon the course of revolution. He formed no party; no band of

rebels followed the orders of the rebel-in-chief; among all the groups

of the first Duma there was no Tolstoyan group, nor could there have

been any. When we touch government, he would say, we touch the devil,

and it is only by admitting compromise or corruption that men seek to

maintain or readjust the power of officials over body and soul. "It

seems to me," he wrote to the Russian Liberals in 1896,

"It seems to me now specially important to do what is

right quietly and persistently, not only without asking permission

from Government, but consciously avoiding participation

in it.... What can a Government do with a man who

will not publicly lie with uplifted hand, or will not send his

children to a school he thinks bad, or will not learn to kill

people, or will not take part in idolatry, or in coronations,

deputations, and addresses, or who says and writes what he

thinks and feels?... It is only necessary for all these good,

enlightened, and honest people whose strength is now wasted

in Revolutionary, Socialistic, or Liberal activity (harmful to

themselves and to their cause) to begin to act thus, and a nucleus

of honest, enlightened, and moral people would form around

them, united in the same thoughts and the same feelings.

Public opinion--the only power which subdues Governments--would

become evident, demanding freedom of speech, freedom

of conscience, justice, and humanity."

From a distance, the bustling politicians and reformers of happier lands

might regard this quietism or wise passiveness as a mere counsel of

despair, suitable enough as a shelter in the storm of Russia's tyranny,

but having little significance for Western men of affairs. Yet even so

they had not silenced the voice of this persistent rebel; for he rose in

equal rebellion against the ideals, methods, and standards of European

cities. Wealth, commerce, industrial development, inventions, luxuries,

and all the complexity of civilisation were of no more account to him

than the toys of kings and the tag-rag of the churches. Other rebels had

preached the gospel of pleasure to the poor, and had themselves acted on

their precepts. Other reformers, even religious reformers, had extolled

the delights of women, wine, and song. But here was a man despising

these as the things after which the Gentiles seek. Love intrigues,

banquets, wealthy establishments, operas, theatres, poetry, and

fashionable novels--what had they to do with the kingdom of God that is

within? He touched nothing from which he did not strip the adornment. He

left life bare and stern as the starry firmament, and he felt awe at

nothing, not even at the starry firmament, but only at the sense of

right and wrong in man. He did not summon the poor to rise against "the

idle rich," but he summoned the idle rich, the well-to-do, the gentry of

independent means, the comfortable annuitants, the sportsmen, the

writers and dramatists of pleasure, the artists of triviality, the

pretty rhymers, and the people who are too busy for thought, to rise

against themselves. It was a much harder summons to obey, and generally

they answered with a shrug and a mutter of "madness," "mere asceticism,"

or "a fanatic's intolerance."

Yet they could not choose but hear. Mr. Kipling, in agreement with an

earlier prophet, once identified rebellion with the sin of witchcraft,

and about Tolstoy there was certainly a witching power, a magic or

demonic attraction, that gave the hearer no peace. Perhaps more even

than from his imaginative strength, it arose from his whole-hearted

sincerity, always looking reality straight in the face, always refusing

compromise, never hesitating to follow where reason led. Compromise and

temporise and choose the line of least resistance, as we habitually do,

there still remains in most people a fibre that vibrates to that iron

sincerity. And so it was that, from the first, Tolstoy brought with him

a disturbing and incalculable magic--an upheaving force, like leaven

stirring in the dough, or like a sword in unconditioned and unchartered

peace.

Critics have divided his life into artistic and prophetic hemispheres;

they have accused him of giving up for man what was meant for artistic

circles. But the seas of both hemispheres are the same, and there was no

division in Tolstoy's main purpose or outlook upon life from first to

last. In his greatest imaginative works (and to me they appear the

highest achievement that the human imagination has yet accomplished in

prose)--in the struggles and perplexities and final solutions of

Petroff, Nekhludoff, and Levin; in the miserable isolation of Ivan

Ilyitch; in the resurrection of the prostitute Maslova; and in the

hardly endurable tragedy of Anna Karénin herself, there runs exactly the

same deep undercurrent of thought and exactly the same solution of

life's question as in the briefer and more definite statements of the

essays and letters. The greatest men are generally all of a piece, and

of no one is this more true than of Tolstoy. Take him where you please,

it is strange if after a few lines you are not able to say, "That is the

finger of Tolstoy; there is the widely sympathetic and compassionate

heart, so loving mankind that in all his works he has drawn hardly one

human soul altogether detested or contemptible. But at the same time

there is the man whose breath is sincerity, and to whom no compromise is

possible, and no mediocrity golden."

To the philosophers of the world his own solution may appear a simple

issue, indeed, out of all his questioning, struggles, and rebellions. It

was but a return to well-worn commandments. "Do not be angry, do not

lust, do not swear obedience to external authority, do not resist evil,

but love your enemies"--these commands have a familiar, an almost

parochial, sound. Yet in obedience to such simple orders the chief of

rebels found man's only happiness, and whether we call it obedience to

the voice of the soul or the voice of God, he would not have minded

much. "He lives for his soul; he does not forget God," said one peasant

of another in Levin's hearing; and Tolstoy takes those quiet words as

Levin's revelation in the way of peace. For him the soul, though finding

its highest joy of art and pleasure only in noble communion with other

souls, stood always lonely and isolated, bare to the presence of God.

The only submission possible, and the only possible hope of peace, lay

in obedience to the self thus isolated and bare. "O that thou hadst

hearkened unto my commandments!" cried the ancient poet, uttering the

voice that speaks to the soul in loneliness; "O that thou hadst

hearkened unto my commandments! Then had thy peace been as a river."

Essays in Rebellion · 第 27 / 95 题