Complete Works of Fyodor Dostoyevsky (602 page)

Oh, they forgave me everything, that is my outburst, and these were the people whom I had called “unseemly” to their faces!  That I love in people; that is what I call intelligence of the heart; anyway, this attracted me at once, to a certain degree, of course.  Versilov and I, for instance, talked together like the best of friends, but only to a certain point: if at times we became ever so little too expansive (and we were over-expansive at times) we pulled ourselves up at once as though a trifle ashamed of something.  There are cases when the victor cannot help feeling abashed before the vanquished, and just because he has gained the upper hand over him.  I was evidently the victor; and I was ashamed.

That morning, that is the one on which I got up again after my relapse, he came in to see me, and then I learned from him for the first time of their compact in regard to mother and Makar Ivanovitch.  He added that though the old man was better, the doctor would not answer for the future.  I promised him with my whole heart that I would be more careful of my behaviour in the future.  While Versilov was telling me all this I detected for the first time that he was most genuinely concerned about the old man, far more, indeed, than I could have expected from a man like him: and that he looked upon him as a being for some reason particularly precious to himself, not simply for mother’s sake.  This at once interested me and almost surprised me, and I must confess if it had not been for Versilov I should have overlooked and failed to appreciate a great deal in this old man, who has left one of the most lasting and original impressions on my mind.

Versilov seemed to be afraid of my attitude to Makar Ivanovitch, that is he distrusted my intelligence and my tact, and he was therefore particularly pleased afterwards when he discerned that I knew how to behave with a man of quite different ideas and conceptions, could, in fact, be broad-minded and make allowances.  I must confess, too (and I don’t think it’s humiliating to do so), that in this man of the people I found something absolutely new to me in regard to certain feelings and conceptions, something I had known nothing of, something far more serene and consolatory than my own previous ideas on those subjects.  It was none the less impossible sometimes to keep from being impatient at some positive superstitions in which he believed with the most revolting placidity and steadfastness.  But this, of course, was only due to his lack of education; his soul was rather happily constructed, so much so that I have never met a man superior in that respect.

2

What attracted one first of all, as I have observed already, was his extraordinary pure-heartedness and his freedom from amour- propre; one felt instinctively that he had an almost sinless heart.  He had “gaiety” of heart, and therefore “seemliness.”  The word “gaiety” he was very fond of and often used.  He sometimes showed an almost abnormal exaltation, an almost abnormal fervour, partly, I imagine, because the fever never really left him; but that did not mar his beautiful serenity.  There were contrasts in him, too: side by side with his marvellous simplicity (at times, to my vexation, he completely failed to detect irony) there was a sort of sly subtlety, most frequently apparent in controversy.  And he was fond of controversy, though at times only through caprice.  It was evident that he had been on foot over a great part of Russia, had heard a great deal; but I repeat, what he liked best of all was religious emotion, and therefore everything that led up to it, and he was fond of telling incidents that moved one to tenderness and reverence.

He was fond of telling stories in general.  I listened to many tales from him of his own wanderings and various legends of the lives of the “ascetics” of ancient times.  I’m not familiar with these stories, but I believe that he told them all wrong, adapting them for the most part from the traditions current among the peasantry.  It was simply impossible to accept some of his versions.  But together with evident distortions or even inventions there were continual flashes of something wonderfully complete, full of peasant feeling, and always touching. . . .  I recall, for instance, one long story out of the life of “Marya of Egypt.”  Of this “life” and of all such “lives” I had had no idea at all till then.  I frankly confess that it was almost impossible to hear the story without tears, not from tender feeling, but from a sort of strange ecstasy.  One felt something strange and burning like the parched sandy desert upon which the holy woman wandered among lions.  I don’t want to talk of this though, and, indeed, I am not competent to do so.

Apart from the tender feeling of his stories I particularly liked certain extremely original views on disputed questions of modern life.  He told me once, for instance, of something that had happened recently with a retired soldier; he had almost witnessed the incident.  A soldier had come home to his village from serving in the army and did not like going back to live with peasants, the peasants did not like him either.  The man went wrong, took to drinking, and robbed some one.  There was no strong evidence against him, but he was taken up and tried.  The lawyer was defending him successfully — there was no proof against him, but suddenly, after listening a long time, the prisoner suddenly stood up and interrupted him.  “No, you stop,” said be, and then he told the whole story “to the tiniest grain of dust”; he confessed his full guilt with tears and penitence.  The jury went out, were shut up to confer, and suddenly they all came back.  “No, not guilty!”  Every one shouted, and rejoiced, and the soldier stood rooted to the spot; he seemed turned into a post, and couldn’t make head or tail of it; he didn’t understand a word of the judge’s exhortation to him when he dismissed him.  The soldier came out to freedom and still couldn’t believe it.  He began to fret, sank into brooding, gave up eating and drinking, spoke to no one, and on the fifth day he took and hanged himself.  “That’s what it is to live with sin on the soul,” said Makar Ivanovitch in conclusion.  Of course that’s a foolish story, and there are masses of such stories nowadays in all the newspapers, but I liked his tone, and most of all some phrases of quite a new significance.  Describing, for instance, how the soldier was disliked by the peasants when he went back to the village, Makar Ivanovitch used the expression, “And we know what a soldier is: a soldier’s a peasant spoilt.”  Speaking afterwards of the lawyer who had almost won the case, he said:  “We know what a lawyer is: a lawyer’s a conscience for hire.”  Both these expressions he brought out without effort and almost without noticing them, and yet those two utterances revealed a complete and special attitude of mind on those subjects, not borrowed but peculiar to Makar Ivanovitch if not to the whole peasantry.  These judgments among the peasants in regard to certain subjects are sometimes really marvellous in their originality.

“And how do you look upon the sin of suicide, Makar Ivanovitch?” I asked him, apropos of the same story.

“Suicide is the greatest human sin,” he answered with a sigh, “but God alone is judge of it, for He alone knows all, every limit, every measure.  We must pray without ceasing for such sinners.  Whenever you hear of such a sin pray fervently at bedtime for the sinner; if only you breathe a sigh for him to God, even though you don’t know his name — the more acceptable will be your prayer for him.”

“But will my prayer be any help to him if he is condemned already?”

“How can you tell?  There are many, ah, many without faith who thereby confound those of little knowledge.  Heed them not, for they know not what foolishness they are speaking.  The prayer of the living for the condemned may still, in truth, benefit him.  So what a plight for him who has no one to pray for him.  Therefore, at your evening prayer say also at the end:  ‘Lord Jesus, have mercy on all those also who have none to pray for them.’  Very acceptable and pleasant will be this prayer.  Also for all living sinners—’Lord, who holdest all destinies in Thy hand, save all sinners that repent not! — that, too, is a good prayer.”

I promised him I would pray, feeling that I was giving him immense pleasure by this promise.  And his face did, in fact, beam with joy; but I hasten to add that in such cases he did not take up a superior attitude to me, as a monk speaking to a raw youth; on the contrary, he very often liked listening to me.  He was never weary in fact of hearing me talk on various subjects, realizing that though a “youth” I was immeasurably superior to him in education.  He was very fond, for instance, of talking of the life of hermits in the desert, and thought of the “desert” as something far above “pilgrimage.”  I hotly opposed him, laying stress on the egoism of these people, who had abandoned the world and all the services they might have rendered mankind, simply with the egoistic idea of their own salvation.  At first he didn’t quite understand; I suspect, indeed, he didn’t understand at all, but he zealously defended the “desert.”  “At first, of course, one grieves (that is when first one goes to dwell in the desert), but then each day one is more glad at heart, and at last one looks upon the face of God.”

Then I drew a picture to him of the useful activity in the world of the man of science, the doctor, or any friend of humanity, and roused him to real enthusiasm, for I spoke with warmth; he kept eagerly assenting to my words, “That’s so, dear, that’s so!  God bless you, your thoughts are true.”

But when I had finished he did not seem to agree entirely.

“To be sure, to be sure,” he sighed deeply, “but are there many who hold fast and are not led astray?  Though money be not their God, yet it is a demi-god — a great temptation, and then there’s the female sex, and then doubt and envy.  And so they will forget their great work, and will be absorbed in little things.  But in the desert a man strengthens himself for every great deed.  My dear, what is there in the world?” he exclaimed with intense feeling.  “But is it only a dream?  Take a grain of sand and sow it on a stone; when that yellow grain of sand of yours on the stone springs up, then your dream will come true in the world.  That’s a saying of ours.  Very different from Christ’s ‘Go and give all that thou hast to the poor and become the servant of all.’  Then thou wilt be a thousandfold richer than ever before; for not by bread alone, not by rich garments, not by pride, not by envy, wilt thou be happy, but by love multiplied immeasurably.  Not a little riches, not a hundred-thousand, not a million, but the whole world wilt thou gain!  Now we gather and have not enough and squander senselessly, but then there will be no orphans nor beggars, for all will be my people, all will be akin.  I have gained all, I have bought all, every one!  Now it is no uncommon thing for the rich and powerful to care nothing for the length of their days, and to be at a loss to invent a pastime; then thy days and thy hours will be multiplied a thousandfold, for thou wilt grudge the loss of a single minute, and wilt rejoice in every minute in gaiety of heart.  Then thou wilt attain wisdom, not from books alone, but wilt be face to face with God Himself; and the earth will shine more brightly than the sun, and there shall be no more sorrow nor sighing, nothing but one priceless Paradise. . . .”

It was these enthusiastic outbursts that I believe Versilov liked particularly.  He was in the room on this occasion.

“Makar Ivanovitch,” I interrupted suddenly, feeling immensely stirred myself (I remember that evening), “why, it’s communism, absolute communism, you’re preaching!”

And as he knew absolutely nothing of the doctrine of communism, and heard the word indeed for the first time, I began at once expounding to him all I knew on the subject.  I must confess my knowledge was scanty and confused, even now, in fact, it is not very ample.  But in spite of that I discoursed with great heat on what I did know.  To this day I recall with pleasure the extraordinary impression I made on the old man.  It was more than an impression.  It was really an overwhelming effect.  He was passionately interested, too, in the historical details, asking, “Where?  How?  Who arranged it?  Who said so?”  I have noticed, by the way, that that is characteristic of the Russian peasant.  If he is much interested he is not content with general ideas, but insists on having the most solid and exact facts.  It was just for such details that I was at a loss, and as Versilov was present I felt ashamed of my incompetence, and that made me hotter than ever.  In the end Makar Ivanovitch could do nothing but repeat with emotion, “Yes: yes!” though he had evidently lost the thread and did not understand.  I felt vexed, but Versilov interrupted the conversation and said it was bedtime.  We were all in the room and it was late.  But when he peeped into my room a few minutes later I asked him at once what he thought of Makar Ivanovitch, and what was his opinion of him?  Versilov laughed gaily (but not at my mistakes about communism — he did not mention them in fact).  I repeat again, he seemed absolutely devoted to Makar Ivanovitch, and I often caught a very attractive smile on his face when he was listening to the old man.  At the same time this smile did not prevent his criticising him.

“Makar Ivanovitch is above all not a peasant but a house-serf,” he pronounced with great readiness, “who has been a servant, born a servant, and of servants.  The house-serfs and servants used to share a very great deal in the interests of their masters’ private, spiritual, and intellectual life in the past.  Note that to this day Makar Ivanovitch is most interested in the life of the gentry and upper class.  You don’t know yet how much interest he takes in recent events in Russia.  Do you know that he is a great politician? Don’t feed him on honey, but tell him where anyone is fighting and whether we are going to fight.  In old days I used to delight him by such accounts.  He has the greatest respect for science, and of all sciences is fondest of astronomy.  At the same time he has worked out for himself something so independent that nothing you could do would shake it.  He has convictions, firm, fairly clear . . . and genuine.  Though he’s so absolutely uneducated he is often able to astound one by his surprising knowledge of certain ideas which one would never have expected to find in him.  He extols the ‘desert’ with enthusiasm, but nothing would induce him to retire to the desert or enter a monastery, because he is above all things a ‘tramp,’ as he was so charmingly called by Alexandr Semyonovitch (and by the way there’s no need for you to be angry with him). Well, and what more?  He’s something of an artist, many of his sayings are his own, though some are not.  He’s somewhat halting in his logic, and at times too abstract; he has moods of sentimentality, but of a thoroughly peasant kind, or rather moods of that tenderness universally found among peasants, which the people introduce so freely into their religious feelings.  As for his purity of heart and freedom from malice, I won’t discuss them; it’s not for you and me to begin upon that. . . .”