按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
by the softening influence of a state of society which； to a
certain extent； does away with the necessity for an uninterrupted
struggle for life。 The Russian novelists； conscious of what might
properly be expected of them； have more than once tried to give a
picture of the Russian 〃moujik〃 who is so unlike the French
〃paysan；〃 that petty owner of a small piece of land jealously
watched and guarded from the encroachments of his neighbour and
from those of the State。
The life…like characters drawn by our great author；
Tourgenieff； in his vivid 〃Sketches of a Sportsman〃 are； I
believe； the best illustrations that have ever been given of the
thoughts and feelings of our people …a people who； though rough
and rude； yet enjoy the great blessing of being unconscious of
the need of securing their individual happiness by a constant
struggle and by the pursuit of egotistic ends。 The reliance shown
by the Russian peasant on the community； his conviction that the
mir is always just and reasonable； and that truth is nowhere to
be found but in the unanimous opinion of the people have
certainly developed estimable qualities and have helped to make
the Russian moujik a communist。 That this is really the case； and
that his character has been modified by the system of the Great
Family； is proved by the fact that wherever a division of the
common property had taken place； wherever the peasant has been
reduced by his own will to depend entirely on his personal
industry for his success in life； he has become the pushing；
unscrupulous man whom the American novelist has rendered so
familiar to us。 Two great Russian writers； Mr Ouspensky and Mr
Slatovraczky； both equally unknown to the English public although
their popularity amongst my countrymen almost equals that of
Tourgenieffor Tolstoi； have recently published two widely
different accounts of the social and psychological condition of
our peasants。 Mr Ouspensky has spoken of the peasant as a
creature whose ethics almost entirely depend upon the regular
performance of agricultural labour。 As long as he remains a
proprietor his morals are sound； but let him once lose the piece
of land which he has made fruitful by the sweat of his brow he is
sure to fall into debauchery and vice。 Mr Slatovraczky has
depicted him as a kind of unselfish philosopher； who thinks that
the products of the earth are the common inheritance of all men；
and that the chief duty of a Christian is to help his neighbour；
sometimes even at his own expense。
Now； what may seem hardly credible is that both authors have
been applauded by the same public applauded； moreover； because
both were equally correct in their statements。 The key to the
mystery is to be found in the fact that it is a different life
which is pictured by each the first having chosen his hero
from among the members of a broken…up house community； the second
among those still living in common。 Our thoughts and feelings
being directly influenced by our social conditions； Mr
Ouspensky's hero presents to us all the features of a hard
worker； pursuing no other object than his own interests and
welfare； whilst Mr Slatovraczky's hero appears to be 〃a person
living not after the word of man but after the word of God；〃
caring for his fellow…creatures almost as much as for
himself。（4*）
There is exaggeration in the way in which both authors
represent the modern Russian moujik； for the sense of proportion
which was so highly valued by the ancients is not always
possessed by my countrymen； but even taking into account this
partiality for certain social forms and institutions； I believe
they have rendered us a real service by pointing out the intimate
correspondence that exists between the moral character of our
peasantry and their ancient mode of li。
I must； nevertheless； confess that morality； that at least
which is concerned with the relations between the sexes； has not
much to gain from the close packing under the same roof of
persons differing in sex and age。 I leave to Mr。 Anatole Leroy
Beaulieu the task of instructing you on this subject： 〃Chez un
peuple pauvre et chez des hommes grossiers；〃 says this acute
French observer； 〃tout n'est point profit et vertu sous le regime
patriarcal。 On sait combien de maux de toutes sortes derivent
dans les grandes villes d'occident； de l'etroitesse des logements
et de l'entassement des individus。 Les incony enients ne sont pas
moindres en Russie。 Quand une etroite izba （chaumiere） reunit
plusieurs generations et plusieurs menages； que durant les
longues nuits d'un long hiver les peres et les enfants； les
freres et leurs femmes couchent pele…mele autour du large poele；
il en resulte une sorte de promiscuite aussi malsaine pour l'ame
que pour le corps。 Chez le moujik； alors meme que les enfants
maries habitaient plusieurs izbas disposees autour de la meme
cour； l'autocratie domestique etait un danger pour l'integrite et
la chastete de la famille。 De meme que le proprietaire noble sur
les serves de ses domaines； le chef de maison s'arrogeait parfois
une sorte de droit du seigneur sur les femmes soumises a son
autorite。 Le chef； designe du surnom le Vieux； qui； grace a la
precocite des marriages； avait souvent a peine quarante ans；
prelevait sur ses belles filles un tribut que la jeunesse ou la
dependance de ses fils leur defendait de lui contester。 Il
n'etait point rare de voir ainsi le foyer domestique souillie par
l'autorite qui en devait maintenir la purete。（5*）
It may also certainly be question ed how far the loss of a
spirit of personal enterprise； and the removal of a strong
feeling of self…reliance ought to be considered beneficial。 I
have no doubt that if modern Russia produces on the minds of
foreign observers an impression as of a land of paupers； the
reason of it； or at least one of the reasons； is to be found in
the prevalence of these old communistic institutions。 We must not
forget that it is the principle of self…help that has created the
material growth of England and of the United States of America。
But in entering on these discussions I trench on very uncertain
ground。 The relative advantages and disadvantages of
individualism and of communism have furnished matter for warm
controversy from the time of Plato down to the time of Ruskin and
of Spencer； and we need not discuss them here。 I think it better
to state that the Russian peasant； at least in our time； is not
insensible to the advantages of individualism； as is well shown
by the fact that between two and three million divisions of House
Communities have been effected since the day when the liberated
serf obtained the right to make them。 If divisions of family
property were rare before 1861； the year of the abolition of
serfdom； the reason lies in the fact that the manorial lords and
the State were alike interested in the preservation of the system
of Undivided Households。 The natural responsibility of the
members for the payment of taxes and for the execution of those
various kinds of agricultural labour which serfs were bound to
perform on the lands of the manor； were advantages far too
precious to be easily abandoned。 It was；