Russian literature -- 19th century -- History and criticism
This ideal he was not able to carry out in practice. His family,
his wife, opposed him: and he was not strong enough to face the
uncompromising and terrible sayings which speak of a man’s foes being
those of his own household, of father being divided against son, and
household against household, of the dead being left to bury their dead.
He put before him the ideal of the Christian saints, and of the early
Russian martyrs who literally acted upon the saying of Christ: “Whoso
leaveth not house and lands and children for My sake, is not worthy
of Me.” Tolstoy, instead of crushing the spider of property, shut his
eyes to it. He refused to handle money, or to have anything to do with
it; but this does not alter the fact that it was handled for him, so
that he retained its advantages, and this without any of the harassment
which arises from the handling of property. His affairs were, and still
are, managed for him; and he continued to live as he had done before.
No sane person would think of blaming Tolstoy for this. He was not by
nature a St. Francis; he was not by nature a Russian martyr, but the
reverse. What one does resent is not that his practice is inconsistent
with his teaching, but that his teaching is inconsistent with the
ideal which it professes to embody. He takes the Christian teaching,
and tells the world that it is the only hope of salvation, the only key
to the riddle of life. At the same time he neglects the first truth
on which that teaching is based, namely, that man must be born again;
he must humble himself and become as a little child. It is just this
final and absolute surrender that Tolstoy has been unable to make.
Instead of loving God through himself, and loving himself for the God
in him, he hates himself, and refuses to recognise the gifts that God
has given him. It is for this reason that he talks of all his great
work, with the exception of a few stories written for children, as
being worthless. It is for this reason that he ceased writing novels,
and attempted to plough the fields. And the cause of all this is simply
spiritual pride, because he was unwilling “to do his duty in that state
of life to which it had pleased God to call him.” Providence had made
him a novelist and a writer, and not a tiller of the fields. Providence
had made him not only a novelist, but perhaps the greatest novelist
that has ever lived; yet he deliberately turns upon this gift, and
spurns it, and spits upon it, and says that it is worth nothing.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account