all parts of Russia asking for help and advice? Who is visited every year by thousands of pilgrims? That is a very different thing from two palaces and 'have all things in common.'"
Views as distorted as these are very widespread among a certain class of Russians, who think that because Count Tolstoy does not go naked and starve to death, which would be the logical application of extreme Christianity, he is, therefore, a mere propagandist of rules of conduct which he knows it is impossible to observe. But to the question how far Tolstoy applies to his daily life the principles which he propagates the answer is really very simple. The dualism of Count Tolstoy’s mental equipment, which is the first thing noticed by a stranger, serves him in good turn here, and relieves him of the necessity of compounding with his conscience. For if, as an ethical teacher, he professes doctrines which, in the present state of things, it is impossible to apply consistently with efficiency as a worker and reformer, as a practical man he sees at once the limitations which must be placed upon these doctrines. He is content to observe his abstract rule of life as far as is consistent with the highest efficiency as a worker and an example. He sees that if he were to observe his doctrines literally he might attain M. Pobyedonostseff’s ideal of "the salvation of his own soul," but his value as a reactive force would be destroyed. And he prefers to risk the loss of his own soul by compounding with practical life rather than to destroy the special opportunities afforded by the position which he holds in the world. Thus we see him daily denying all government, yet approving or condemning on their individual merits the actions of governments; refusing to pay taxes, yet letting them be paid for him; despising industry, yet helping and sympathizing with industrial workmen; and rejecting the rights of property, yet sometimes taking for his own writings money which he knows he can employ to better purpose than those who would otherwise gain the profits, as he did with his novel "Resurrection," which was written for the purpose of raising funds to assist the emigrant Dukhobortsi. Everywhere the so-called teachings of Tolstoy are qualified by the necessities of his daily life. His rule of life is observed closely, but only when it does not diminish his power for practical good.
Thus Tolstoy as a practical man is quite ready to act as intermediary between the peasants on his property and the local officials, though he flatly denies the right of the first to resistance or of the second to existence. Indeed, it is plain that the root of his doctrine, "Resist not him that is evil," is with him little better than an ethical abstraction. The vituperative condemnation of wrongdoing can hardly be a part of "Resist not him that is evil." But Tolstoy is bitter in condemnation; and while he declares categorically that resistance can never be justified, he is the first to express sympathy with righteous revolt. It is quite true that in his articles and published letters he seldom commits himself to such sympathy. But these letters and articles are devoted to the abstract exposition of the underlying cause of political and social troubles. In his private conversation, regarding all questions from the practical point of view, he judges them in the light of their immediate rights and wrong. Thus, if you ask Count Tolstoy's opinion on the subject of a particular war, he will unhesitatingly give a judgment as to which side is in the right, and even express satisfaction at any success they may gain. But ten minutes afterward ask him whether there is any exception to his doctrine, "Resist not him that is evil," and he will answer unhesitatingly, "No."
This capacity for compromise in the application of extreme opinions, the rarest of all qualities among really convinced social reformers, shows itself admirably in his family life. It is quite true that Count Tolstoy lives, if not in palaces, at least in houses which are infinitely better than those of ninety-nine out of a hundred of his countrymen. It is no less certain that primitive as is his dress, it is sufficient, and that cannot be said of the clothing of most Russian peasants, while his food, if simple, is certainly better and more regular. Black coffee is not a prime necessity of life, neither are bicycles, but I have seen the count drinking coffee after dinner, and he bicycles and rides on horseback in the Moscow suburbs without any qualms of conscience. The fact is that Tolstoy, while retaining his convictions, has long passed the first ardor of the reformer. "Leave all and follow me," he has learned is not a practical doctrine, or, if it is practicable, it is incompatible with the greatest usefulness. Even Shelley, who was the greatest embodiment of white-hot propaganda which the last century produced, sometimes ate meat, and married two wives. And Tolstoy is quite ready to sacrifice an ounce of perfection for a pound of practical good. He has none of the egoism which would lead him to strive after the absolute realization of his own doctrines. Posterity has justified the judgment of Henri Quatre that a kingdom is worth a mass. And Tolstoy knows very well that an occasional deference to convention and the occupation of an eight-foot cubicle in a family mansion is a small price to pay for the devotion and assistance of his family, and the possession of funds for carrying on his work. His position may not be logical, but in the strug-
