Intelligentsia
Letter to Ivan Orlov,24 Yalta, February 22,1899 I have no faith in our intelligentsia, for it is hypocritical, dishonest, hysterical, uncultured, and lazy. I have no faith in it even when it claims to be suffering and is protesting, for its oppressors issue from its very own loins. I do have faith in individuals. I see salvation in individuals—intellectuals and peasants alike—scattered here and there across Russia, for though they may be few, they have real strength. A prophet has no honor in his own land, and the individuals of whom I speak play an almost imperceptible role in our society. Though they do not dominate, their deeds are manifest. No matter what you might say or do, science is constantly moving forward, social awareness is growing, moral issues are becoming increasingly alarming, etc. etc. And all this takes place irrespective of procurators, engineers, and governors, irrespective of the intelligentsia en masse, and in spite of everything.
Sparrows on a Pile of Manure
Undated letter [1900?]25 I will be reproved for writing only about mediocre events,
for not having any positive heroes
We are leading a provincial life, the streets of our city are not even paved, our villages are poor, and our people are worn out. In our youth, we twitter like a bunch of sparrows on a pile of manure. At forty we are already old and starting to think about death. What sort of heroes are we?.
I only wanted to tell people honestly: look, look how badly you live, how boring your lives are. The important thing is that people should understand this; if they do understand this, they will certainly invent a different and a far better life. Man will become better only once we have shown him as he really is.
Keep Away from Politics
Letter to AleXei Suvorin, Nice, February 6, 1898 Bit by bit, people came to be persuaded that Dreyfus had in fact been condemned on the basis of a secret document that had not been shown either to the defendant or his attorney.26 . I am familiar with the trial from the stenographic record, which is totally different from the newspaper reports, and I have a clear understanding of Zola. The main thing here is that he is sincere, that is, he bases his judgments only on what he can actually see, and not, like others, on phantoms. Of course, even sincere people can make mistakes, but their mistakes cause less harm than premeditated insincerity, prejudice, or political motives. Suppose Dreyfus is guilty: Zola is still right because it is not the writer's job to accuse and to prosecute, but to rise to the defense even of the guilty once they have been condemned and are being punished. People will object, "What about politics? What about the interests of the state?" But great writers and artists should take an interest in politics only to the degree that is necessary for them to protect themselves. Even without them, there are enough accusers, prosecutors, and secret police to go around.
New and Old Talent on the Editorial Board
Letter to Nikolai Leykin, Moscow, September 2, 1887 The debut of fresh energies should be fully supported and indulged: this has been my long-standing position, and I want to reiterate it in the present instance. . The editorial board, in my view, should utilize fresh talent by first putting them to work on minor assignments. As far as I recall, Иber started out the normal way, i.e., small, and Chemodan began by drawing pictures for the rebus section.27.
As far as redoing the editorial board, revitalizing it, and so on, we have already discussed this in person and in writing. You write that we, the old contributors, keep chewing the same old cud. No, we have stayed exactly the same because we are incapable of changing our literary physiognomies; this is why it only seems we keep chewing the same old cud. We write too much and too often and so have managed to exhaust not our reading public, which keeps changing, but our selves; in another five years we will be totally repulsive, but just to ourselves. I happen to think that an influx of new energies would benefit the public little, but would benefit us a lot: we would gain the right to write as we feel like writing, and that would look a lot more like art than the present piecework we turn out, and we would be much happier with ourselves than we are now.
Refuse Censoring
Letter to Alexei Suvorin, Yalta, March 4, 1899 Here as everywhere else, there is much talk about the student disturbances and a great deal of outcry about the lack of coverage in the papers.28 Letters from St. Petersburg indicate that public sentiment is on the side of the students. Your columns on the disturbances failed to satisfy, but this could not be otherwise because it is impossible to pass judgment on the disorders in print when all mention of the facts is forbidden. The state forbade you to write, it forbids speaking the truth: this is arbitrary rule, and yet you write lightheartedly about the rights and prerogatives of the state in connection with this arbitrary rule. The mind simply cannot make sense of all this. You speak about the right of the state, but you are not viewing the matter from a legal point of view. When it comes to the state, rights and justice are identical to those of any juridical person. If the state unjustly alienates a piece of my land, I can sue it in court, and the court will restore to me what is mine by right. Should not the same be the case when the state takes up the knout to beat me? If it aggresses against me, should I not be able to protest a violation of my rights? The concept of the state should be founded on precise legal relations. If it is not, the state is a bogeyman, a hollow noise producing an imaginary fright.
part two: demonstration Good Shoes and a Notebook
This page intentionally left blank
THE PROJECT
A Change of Air
Travel to overcome inertia and do not expect to write.
Letter to Alexei Suvorin, March 9, 1890 I imagine the journey will be six months of constant physical and mental work, which is precisely what my sluggish nature requires. I need self-discipline. Granted, this journey might be nothing more than a frivolous, headstrong caprice, but tell me, what do I stand to lose? Time? Money? And what do I stand to gain—a lot of hardship? My time is worth nothing. I have no money to speak of. And as for hardship, I'll have twenty-five—maybe thirty—days on horseback, and the rest of the time I'll be sitting on the deck of a steamer or in my room writing letters to you. Even if I get nothing out of the journey, I cannot imagine not coming away without two or three days that will remain as joyous or bitter memories to the very end of my life.
Pay No Attention to Critics
No response to critics is needed. Listen to your own conscience.
Letter to Ivan Leontyev (Shcheglov), March 22, 1890 You write that you want to give me a sound scolding, "especially on ethical and aesthetic matters"; you say something vague about certain sins of mine that call for a friendly rebuke, and even threaten me with "influential newspaper critics." Is it possible that my ethics are out of line with the views of good people such as yourself, and to such an extent that I deserve to be scolded and brought to the attention of influential critics?.. .If my clear conscience can be trusted, I have never in word, deed, thought, in stories or in farces: coveted my neighbor's wife or servant or oxen or cattle; I have not stolen, played the hypocrite, flattered or toadied to the mighty; I have not blackmailed anyone or lived at anyone's expense. True: I have wasted my life in idleness; I have laughed without provocation; I have indulged in gluttony and defiled myself with drunkenness; I have dissipated myself in fornication. However, all this is my personal business and does not take away my right to consider myself neither more nor less moral than the common run of humanity..