The Press Saturday, May 18, 1918. Literature and Revolution.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16215, 18 May 1918, Page 8

The Press Saturday, May 18, 1918. Literature and Revolution.

An interesting discussion has been going on in the "Literary Supplement" of "The Times" on the part played by Russian literature in sowing the seeds wliidh fructified in the Revolution. It is a sort of family controversy, as both controversialists ore associated with . "The Times." Mr' Wilton, the Correspondent of that journal at Petrograd, whose letters on the early stages of the Revolution made so vivid an impression, recently published a book going more fully into its spirit and character, as well as trying to trace the causes and influences which were mainly responsible for the genesis of the movement. The "Supplement," reviewing the book, after speaking of its merits, suggested that its weakest feature was its disregard of the "very "important part played by Russian "literature in undermining the autho"rity of the Tsardom and of the "Church, and preparing the way for " the subordination of patriotic feel"ing." And the Reviewer went on to single out Tolstoy as the literary force which was mainly responsible for disseminating the atmosphere which rendered the cataclysm possible. To this review Mr Wilton replied in a long letter in the following number. He maintained that among an illiterate people the influence of great writers could hav© been only indirect and exceedingly slow. "Our interest in Tol- " stoy obscures our vision. Tho litera- " ture that haß reallv inspired the Rus"sion Revolution is rather German " than Russian, Karl Marx rather than " Leo Tolstoy." To the unimportance of Russian literary influence, howevor, he had in his book noted two great exceptions—Turgenev and Dostoevsky. The former did more than any other man to remove the curse of serfdom. His "Memoirs of a Sportsman" was tho "Uncle Tom's Cabin" of the liberation movement. Dostoevsky, on the other hand, was the apostle of Despair and Nihilism, focussing tho disillusionment and reaction that came after the great reforms of Alexander 11. Was Tolstoy tho Rousseau of tho present Revolution, as the Reviewer had suggested ? Ho took tho view that he was not. Was there a single work of Tolstoy's that might be compared in its influence with tho "Contrat-Social?" Much of the former's influence was due to the accident of rank and social position, and his quixotic discarding of their privileges. Tolstoy tho Count was magnified into Tolstoy tho Prophet. And, as the spoilt child of intellectual Russia, he took himself seriously in the role of prophet. It became the fashion to occcpt imquestioningly the philosophko-religious vagaries that issued in bewildering confusion from his pen. He, in his later writings, was a babbling brook of negations; and the brook was mistaken in some quarters for a revolutionary torrent. But he was not of the stuff to inspire or direct

sucli a movement as the present. The vcrr peasants to -whom he gave his lands, and whom he treated with offusiro kindness, desecratcd his restingplace, and destroyed the "Tolstoy" popular library.

A week later the Reviewer returned to tho attack, expanding «nd reinforcing his former conclusions. He first disposed of the outworks of Mr Wilton's position, before proceeding to the main fortification. He admitted the

unique influence of Turcenov in preparing the ground for the emancipation of tho serfs; but considered the comparison to '"Uncle Tom's Cabin" inap-

propriate, seeing that it was their impartial moderation and absence of partisanship that made Turgencv's sketches so convincing and effective. As to Dostoevsky, JlO will not hear of his neing dubbed "the Apostle of ZS'ihil- ■' ism." Ho quotes the famous speech of Dostoevsky at the I'ushkin Festival, in which he said that ''to bn a Russian •' must signify simply this —to strive " towards bringing about a solution anil "an end to European conflicts ... to

"show to Europe a way of escape from " its anguish ... to instil in her " heart a brotherly lovo for all men's " brothers, and in tho end, perhaps, to " utter t!ie great and final word of " universal harmony, the fraternal and '• lasting concord of all peoples aceord"to the Gospel of Christ." As to tho' alleged impossibility of great writers like Tolstoy reaching tho illiterate masses, tho Hcviewer know Tolstoy well daring the eighties and nineties, when ho was devoting his best powers to the production of short stories, plays, and pamphlets, specially written for the common people, and intended (in his own words) to produco a philosophy " plain to every cabman." And certain portions of this teaching aimed directly at disintegrating the very bases of belief on which the old order rested, whereby he prepared the popular mind for the acceptanco of Bolshevik propaganda, greatly as lie himself would havo disapproved of much of thDt propaganda. As a few examples, there was tho powerful denunciation of tho rights of property in "What, then, must wo "l>o?"; there was "Ivan the Fool," vith its commendation of the nation that would- not supply soldiers or allow anyone to come to tablo that had not horny hands; there was "How "much land docs a man need?" ; there was "Patriotism and Government," an appeal to shako off the hypnotism of patriotism; there was tho "Letter to "a Non-Commissioned Officer," explaining that the enforcement of Army service is ,a fraud committed for the sake of those accustomed to live on the sweat and blood of other men; there ■was "Non-Acting," with its prediction that the oppressed will retake with violence and Tevenge all that of which they have been robbed. And the Heviewer goes on to say that ho had talked with Russian peasants whose ■whole outlook on life had been changcd by Tolstoy's -writings. He had *et thoughts and feelings flowing which had changed the face of Europe; which were not confined to Russia, hilt were working like yeast in England antt other countries; and it would be wise of England nob to repeat the mistake of refusing to recognise tho potency of his ideas -until it was too late. Some of these ideas are sound and unanswerable; others are unsound and ought to he answered.

This is the last stage of the controversy which has reached us; and we are bound to say that the Reviewer appears to have the better of it. He exhibits a deeper knowledge of tho facts and conditions, wherpas much of Mr "Wilton's argument is mere impressionism. The question is a profound and momentous one, opening up the whole problem of tho pervasive power of ideas, as contrasted with mere force, iii shaping the destinies of nations. To many people Tolstoy only the great novelist of "War ;.ud "Peace" and "Anna Karenina"; and Mr Wilton is evidently so obsessed with this earlier Tolstoy that he regards the later prophet and reformer period as a mere pose. This is to distort the whole perspective of the situation. It was only in this later period that Tolstoy felt himself really living for a purpose. He looked back with contempt not only on the fashionable dissipations of his youth, but on what wo now regard as his marvellous constructive power in pure literature. And there are various reasons why he, and not Dostoevsky or Turgenev, must, bo regarded as the supreme literary influence in moulding Russia for revolution. Two may be mentioned. in the first place, they were more purely literary artists than he was; they had idealism, but no power or disposition for hammering home definite revolutionary doctrines. In the second place, Dostoevsky died in 1881, and Turgenev in 1883, whereas Tolstoy lived and wrote till 1910; and in this interval of nearly thirty years the Russian reading public had increased more than fourfold.