NEW YORK
HARPER & BROTHERS, FRANKLIN SQUARE
1887
Copyright, 1887, by HARPER & BROTHERS.
_All rights reserved._
_LEO TOLSTOÏ._
When I read in the excellent essay of M. Ernest Dupuy that “Count Leo N.
Tolstoï was born on the 28th of August, 1828, at Yasnaya Polyana, a
village near Inla, in the government of Inla,” I have a sense of lunar
remoteness in him. It is as if these geographical expressions were
descriptive of localities in the ungazetteered regions of the moon; and
yet this far-fetched Russian nobleman is precisely the human being with
whom at this moment I find myself in the greatest intimacy; not because
I know him, but because I know myself through him; because he has
written more faithfully of the life common to all men, the universal
life which is the most personal life, than any other author whom I have
read. This merit the Russian novelists have each in some degree;
Tolstoï has it in pre-eminent degree, and that is why the reading of
“Peace and War,” “Anna Karenina,” “My Religion,” “Childhood, Boyhood,
and Youth,” “Scenes at the Siege of Sebastopol,” “The Cossacks,” “The
Death of Ivan Illitch,” “Katia,” and “Polikouchka,” forms an epoch for
thoughtful people. In these books you seem to come face to face with
human nature for the first time in fiction. All other fiction at times
_seems_ fiction; these alone seem the very truth always.
The facts of Tolstoï’s life, as one gathers them from the essays of M.
Dupuy and of M. Melchoir de Voguë, are briefly that he studied Oriental
languages and the law at the University of Kazan; then entered the army,
served in the Crimean war, resigned at its close; gave himself up to
society and literature in St. Petersburg; and finally left the capital
for his estates, where he has since lived the life of lowly usefulness
which he believes to be the true Christian life. The man whose career
was in camps, in courts, and in salons, now makes shoes for peasants,
and humbly seeks to instruct them and guide them by the little tales he
writes for them in the intervals of his great work of newly translating
the gospels. He married the daughter of a German physician of Moscow,
and his wife and children share his toils and ideals. Not much more is
known of the retirement of this very great man; but I heard that an
American traveller who lately passed a day with him found him steadfast
in the conviction that withdrew him from society--the conviction that
Jesus Christ came into the world to teach men how to live in it, and
that He meant literally what He said when He forbade us luxury, war,
litigation, unchastity, and hypocrisy. His latest book, “Que Faire,” is
a relentlessly searching statement of the facts and reasons which forced
this conviction upon him.
It is a sorrowful comment on our Christianity that this frank acceptance
of Christ’s message seems eccentric and even mad to the world. But it is
the “increasing purpose” which runs through all Tolstoï’s work from
first to last; it is what makes him great above all others who have
written fiction. It does not much matter where you begin with him; you
feel instantly that the man is mighty, and mighty through his
conscience; that he is not trying to surprise or dazzle you with his
art, but that he is trying to make you think clearly and feel rightly
about vital things with which “art” has often dealt with diabolical
indifference or diabolical malevolence.
I do not know how it is with others to whom these books of Tolstoï’s
have come, but for my own part I cannot think of them as literature in
the artistic sense at all. Some people complain to me, when I praise
them, that they are too long, too diffuse, too confused, that the
characters’ names are hard to pronounce, and that the life they portray
is very sad and not amusing. In the presence of these criticisms I can
only say that I find them nothing of the kind, but that each history of
Tolstoï’s is as clear, as orderly, as brief, as something I have lived
through myself; as for the names, they are necessarily Russian. It is
when some one tells me they are “pessimistic” that I really despair. I
have always supposed pessimism to be the doctrine of the prevalence of
evil, and these books perpetually teach me that the good prevails, and
always will prevail whenever men put self aside, and strive simply and
humbly to be good. We are all so besotted with dreams and vanities that
we have come to think that the right will accomplish itself
spectacularly, splendidly; but Tolstoï makes us know that it never can
do so. He teaches such of us as will hear him that the Right is the sum
of each man’s poor little personal effort to do right, and that the
success of this effort means daily, hourly self-renunciation,
self-abasement, the sinking of one’s pride in absolute squalor before
duty. This is not pleasant; the heroic ideal of righteousness is more
picturesque, more attractive; but is this not the truth? Let any one
try, and see! I cannot think of any service which imaginative literature
has done the race so great as that which Tolstoï has done in his
conception of Karenin at that crucial moment when the cruelly outraged
man sees that he cannot be good with dignity. This leaves all tricks of
fancy, all effects of art, immeasurably behind.
In fact, Tolstoï brings us back in his fiction, as in his life, to the
Christ ideal. “Except ye become as little children”--that is what he
says in every part of his work; and this work, so incomparably good
æsthetically, to my thinking, is still greater ethically. You will not
find its lessons put at you, any more than you will those of life. No
little traps are sprung for your surprise; no calcium light is thrown
upon this climax or that; no virtue or vice is posed for you; but if you
have ears to hear or eyes to see, listen and look, and you will have the
sense of inexhaustible significance.
I happened to begin with “The Cossacks”--that epic of nature, and of a
young man’s sorrowful, wandering desire to get into harmony with the
divine scheme of beneficence; then I read “Anna Karenina”--that most
tragical history of loss and ruin to brilliancy and loveliness, out of
which the good can alone save itself; then I came to “Peace and War,”
that great assertion of the sufficiency of common men in all crises, and
the insufficiency of heroes; I found some chapters of the “Scenes at the
Siege of Sebastopol,” and I read them with a yet keener sense of this
truth; “Childhood, Boyhood, and Youth” made me acquainted for the first
time in literature with the real heart of the young of our species; “The
Death of Ivan Illitch” expressed the horror and the stress of mortality,
with its final bliss, and made it a part of Nature as I never had
realized it before; “Polikouchka,” slight, broken, almost unconcluded,
was perfect and powerful and infinite in its scope of mercy and
sympathy.
I know very well that I do not speak of these books in measured terms; I
cannot. As yet my sense of obligation to them is so great that I neither
can make nor wish to make a close accounting with their author, and I am
not disposed to exploit them for the reader’s entertainment. As often as
I have tried to do this their æsthetic interest has escaped me. I have
been ashamed to tag them with the tattered old adjectives of praise, and
I have found myself thinking of them on their ethical side. But they
exist increasingly in English and in French, and the best way, the only
way, to get a due sense of them is to read them.