Resurrection by Leo Nikoleyevich Tolstoy (i love reading .TXT) 📖
- Author: Leo Nikoleyevich Tolstoy
- Performer: -
Book online «Resurrection by Leo Nikoleyevich Tolstoy (i love reading .TXT) 📖». Author Leo Nikoleyevich Tolstoy
however much time he might have. It was quite different now from
what it had been. Formerly he used to be obliged to look for an
occupation, the interest of which always centred in one person,
i.e., Dmitri Ivanovitch Nekhludoff, and yet, though every
interest of his life was thus centred, all these occupations were
very wearisome. Now all his occupations related to other people
and not to Dmitri Ivanovitch, and they were all interesting and
attractive, and there was no end to them. Nor was this all.
Formerly Dmitri Ivanovitch Nekhludoff’s occupations always made
him feel vexed and irritable; now they produced a joyful state of
mind. The business at present occupying Nekhludoff could be
divided under three headings. He himself, with his usual
pedantry, divided it in that way, and accordingly kept the papers
referring to it in three different portfolios. The first referred
to Maslova, and was chiefly that of taking steps to get her
petition to the Emperor attended to, and preparing for her
probable journey to Siberia.
The second was about his estates. In Panovo he had given the land
to the peasants on condition of their paying rent to be put to
their own communal use. But he had to confirm this transaction by
a legal deed, and to make his will, in accordance with it. In
Kousminski the state of things was still as he had first arranged
it, i.e., he was to receive the rent; but the terms had to be
fixed, and also how much of the money he would use to live on,
and how much he would leave for the peasants’ use. As he did not
know what his journey to Siberia would cost him, he could not
decide to lose this revenue altogether, though he reduced the
income from it by half.
The third part of his business was to help the convicts, who
applied more and more often to him. At first when he came in
contact with the prisoners, and they appealed to him for help, he
at once began interceding for them, hoping to lighten their fate,
but he soon had so many applications that he felt the
impossibility of attending to all of them, and that naturally led
him to take up another piece of work, which at last roused his
interest even more than the three first. This new part of his
business was finding an answer to the following questions: What
was this astonishing institution called criminal law, of which
the results were that in the prison, with some of the inmates of
which he had lately become acquainted, and in all those other
places of confinement, from the Peter and Paul Fortress in
Petersburg to the island of Sakhalin, hundreds and thousands of
victims were pining? What did this strange criminal law exist
for? How had it originated?
From his personal relations with the prisoners, from notes by
some of those in confinement, and by questioning the advocate and
the prison priest, Nekhludoff came to the conclusion that the
convicts, the so-called criminals, could be divided into five
classes. The first were quite innocent people, condemned by
judicial blunder. Such were the Menshoffs, supposed to be
incendiaries, Maslova, and others. There were not many of these;
according to the priest’s words, only seven per cent., but their
condition excited particular interest.
To the second class belong persons condemned for actions done
under peculiar circumstances, i.e., in a fit of passion, jealousy,
or drunkenness, circumstances under which those who judged them
would surely have committed the same actions.
The third class consisted of people punished for having committed
actions which, according to their understanding, were quite
natural, and even good, but which those other people, the men who
made the laws, considered to be crimes. Such were the persons who
sold spirits without a license, smugglers, those who gathered
grass and wood on large estates and in the forests belonging to
the Crown; the thieving miners; and those unbelieving people who
robbed churches.
To the fourth class belonged those who were imprisoned only
because they stood morally higher than the average level of
society. Such were the Sectarians, the Poles, the Circassians
rebelling in order to regain their independence, the political
prisoners, the Socialists, the strikers condemned for
withstanding the authorities. There was, according to
Nekhludoff’s observations, a very large percentage belonging to
this class; among them some of the best of men.
The fifth class consisted of persons who had been far more sinned
against by society than they had sinned against it. These were
castaways, stupefied by continual oppression and temptation, such
as the boy who had stolen the rugs, and hundreds of others whom
Nekhludoff had seen in the prison and out of it. The conditions
under which they lived seemed to lead on systematically to those
actions which are termed crimes. A great many thieves and
murderers with whom he had lately come in contact, according to
Nekhludoff’s estimate, belonged to this class. To this class
Nekhludoff also reckoned those depraved, demoralised creatures
whom the new school of criminology classify as the criminal type,
and the existence of which is considered to be the chief proof of
the necessity of criminal law and punishment. This demoralised,
depraved, abnormal type was, according to Nekhludoff, exactly the
same as that against whom society had sinned, only here society
had sinned not directly against them, but against their parents
and forefathers.
Among this latter class Nekhludoff was specially struck by one
Okhotin, an inveterate thief, the illegitimate son of a
prostitute, brought up in a doss-house, who, up to the age of 30,
had apparently never met with any one whose morality was above
that of a policeman, and who had got into a band of thieves when
quite young. He was gifted with an extraordinary sense of humour,
by means of which he made himself very attractive. He asked
Nekhludoff for protection, at the same time making fun of
himself, the lawyers, the prison, and laws human and divine.
Another was the handsome Fedoroff, who, with a band of robbers,
of whom he was the chief, had robbed and murdered an old man, an
official. Fedoroff was a peasant, whose father had been
unlawfully deprived of his house, and who, later on, when serving
as a soldier, had suffered much because he had fallen in love
with an officer’s mistress. He had a fascinating, passionate
nature, that longed for enjoyment at any cost. He had never met
anybody who restrained himself for any cause whatever, and had
never heard a word about any aim in life other than enjoyment.
Nekhludoff distinctly saw that both these men were richly endowed
by nature, but had been neglected and crippled like uncared-for
plants.
He had also met a tramp and a woman who had repelled him by their
dulness and seeming cruelty, but even in them he could find no
trace of the criminal type written about by the Italian school,
but only saw in them people who were repulsive to him personally,
just in the same way as some he had met outside the prison, in
swallow-tail coats wearing epaulettes, or bedecked with lace. And
so the investigation of the reasons why all these very different
persons were put in prison, while others just like them were
going about free and even judging them, formed a fourth task for
Nekhludoff.
He hoped to find an answer to this question in books, and bought
all that referred to it. He got the works of Lombroso, Garofalo,
Ferry, List, Maudsley, Tard, and read them carefully. But as he
read he became more and more disappointed. It happened to him as
it always happens to those who turn to science not in order to
play a part in it, nor to write, nor to dispute, nor to teach,
but simply for an answer to an every-day question of life.
Science answered thousands of different very subtle and ingenious
questions touching criminal law, but not the one he was trying to
solve. He asked a very simple question: “Why, and with what
right, do some people lock up, torment, exile, flog, and kill
others, while they are themselves just like those whom they
torment, flog, and kill?” And in answer he got deliberations as
to whether human beings had free will or not. Whether signs of
criminality could be detected by measuring the skulls or not.
What part heredity played in crime. Whether immorality could be
inherited. What madness is, what degeneration is, and what
temperament is. How climate, food, ignorance, imitativeness,
hypnotism, or passion act. What society is. What are its duties,
etc., etc.
These disquisitions reminded him of the answer he once got from a
little boy whom he met coming home from school. Nekhludoff asked
him if he had learned his spelling.
“I have,” answered the boy.
“Well, then, tell me, how do you spell ‘leg’?”
“A dog’s leg, or what kind of leg?” the boy answered, with a sly
look.
Answers in the form of new questions, like the boy’s, was all
Nekhludoff got in reply to his one primary question. He found
much that was clever, learned much that was interesting, but what
he did not find was an answer to the principal question: By what
right some people punish others?
Not only did he not find any answer, but all the arguments were
brought forward in order to explain and vindicate punishment, the
necessity of which was taken as an axiom.
Nekhludoff read much, but only in snatches, and putting down his
failure to this superficial way of reading, hoped to find the
answer later on. He would not allow himself to believe in the
truth of the answer which began, more and more often, to present
itself to him.
CHAPTER XXXI.
NEKHLUDOFF’S SISTER AND HER HUSBAND.
The gang of prisoners, with Maslova among them, was to start on
the 5th July. Nekhludoff arranged to start on the same day.
The day before, Nekhludoff’s sister and her husband came to town
to see him.
Nekhludoff’s sister, Nathalie Ivanovna Rogozhinsky, was 10 years
older than her brother. She had been very fond of him when he was
a boy, and later on, just before her marriage, they grew very
close to each other, as if they were equals, she being a young
woman of 25, he a lad of 15. At that time she was in love with
his friend, Nikolenka Irtenieff, since dead. They both loved
Nikolenka, and loved in him and in themselves that which is good,
and which unites all men. Since then they had both been depraved,
he by military service and a vicious life, she by marriage with a
man whom she loved with a sensual love, who did not care for the
things that had once been so dear and holy to her and to her
brother, nor even understand the meaning of those aspirations
towards moral perfection and the service of mankind, which once
constituted her life, and put them down to ambition and the wish
to show off; that being the only explanation comprehensible to
him.
Nathalie’s husband had been a man without a name and without
means, but cleverly steering towards Liberalism or Conservatism,
according to which best suited his purpose, he managed to make a
comparatively brilliant judicial career. Some peculiarity which
made him attractive to women assisted him when he was no longer
in his first youth. While travelling abroad he made Nekhludoff’s
acquaintance, and managed to make Nathalie, who was also no
longer a girl, fall in love with him, rather against her mother’s
wishes who considered a marriage with him to be a misalliance for
her daughter. Nekhludoff, though he tried to hide it from
himself, though he
Comments (0)