The Light Shines in Darkness. Tolstoy Leo
I have. Yes. If there is any tea or coffee left, I will have some. [To Priest] Ah! you've brought the book back. Have you read it? I've been thinking about you all the way home.
Enter man-servant, who bows. Nicholas Ivánovich shakes hands with him. Alexándra Ivánovna shrugs her shoulders, exchanging glances with her husband.
ALEXÁNDRA IVÁNOVNA. Re-heat the , please.
NICHOLAS IVÁNOVICH. That's not necessary, Alína. I don't really want any, and I'll drink it as it is.
Missy, on seeing her father, leaves her croquet, runs to him, and hangs round his neck.
MISSY. Papa! Come with me.
NICHOLAS IVÁNOVICH [caressing her]. Yes, I'll come directly. Just let me eat something first. Go and play, and I'll soon come.
Exit Missy.
Nicholas Ivánovich sits down to the table, and eats and drinks eagerly.
ALEXÁNDRA IVÁNOVNA. Well, were they sentenced?
NICHOLAS IVÁNOVICH. Yes! They were. They themselves pleaded guilty. [To Priest] I thought you would not find Renan very convincing …
ALEXÁNDRA IVÁNOVNA. And you did not approve of the verdict?
NICHOLAS IVÁNOVICH [vexed]. Of course I don't approve of it. [To Priest] The main question for you is not Christ's divinity, or the history of Christianity, but the Church …
ALEXÁNDRA IVÁNOVNA. Then how was it? They confessed their guilt, et vous leur avez donné un démenti?23 They did not steal them – but only took the wood?
NICHOLAS IVÁNOVICH [who had begun talking to the priest, turns resolutely to Alexándra Ivánovna]. Alína, my dear, do not pursue me with pinpricks and insinuations.
ALEXÁNDRA IVÁNOVNA. But not at all …
NICHOLAS IVÁNOVICH. And if you really want to know why I can't prosecute the peasants about the wood they needed and cut down …
ALEXÁNDRA IVÁNOVNA. I should think they also need this .
NICHOLAS IVÁNOVICH. Well, if you want me to tell you why I can't agree with those people being shut up in prison, and being totally ruined, because they cut down ten trees in a forest which is considered to be mine …
ALEXÁNDRA IVÁNOVNA. Considered so by everybody.
PETER SEMYÓNOVICH. Oh dear! Disputing again.
NICHOLAS IVÁNOVICH. Even if I considered that forest mine, which I cannot do, we have 3000 acres of forest, with about 150 trees to the acre. In all, about 450,000 trees – is that correct? Well, they have cut down ten trees – that is, one 45-thousandth part. Now is it worth while, and can one really decide, to tear a man away from his family and put him in prison for that?
STYÓPA. Ah! but if you don't hold on to this one 45-thousandth, all the other trees will very soon be cut down also.
NICHOLAS IVÁNOVICH. But I only said that in answer to your aunt. In reality I have no right to this forest. Land belongs to everyone; or rather, it can't belong to anyone. We have never put any labour into this land.
STYÓPA. No, but you saved money and preserved this forest.
NICHOLAS IVÁNOVICH. How did I get my savings? What enabled me to save up? And I didn't preserve the forest myself! However, this is a matter which can't be proved to anyone who does not himself feel ashamed when he strikes at another man —
STYÓPA. But no one is striking anybody!
NICHOLAS IVÁNOVICH. Just as when a man feels no shame at taking toll from others' labour without doing any work himself, you cannot prove to him that he ought to be ashamed; and the object of all the Political Economy you learnt at the University is merely to justify the false position in which we live.
STYÓPA. On the contrary; science destroys all prejudices.
NICHOLAS IVÁNOVICH. However, all this is of no importance to me. What is important is that in Yefím's24 place I should have acted as he did, and I should have been desperate had I been imprisoned. And as I wish to do to others as I wish them to do to me – I cannot condemn him, but do what I can to save him.
PETER SEMYÓNOVICH. But, if one goes on that line, one cannot possess anything.
Alexándra Ivánovna and Styópa —
NICHOLAS IVÁNOVICH [smiling] I don't know which I am to reply to. [To Peter Semyónovich] It's true. One should not possess anything.
ALEXÁNDRA IVÁNOVNA. But if one should not possess anything, one can't have any clothes, nor even a crust of bread, but must give away everything, so that it's impossible to live.
NICHOLAS IVÁNOVICH. And it should be impossible to live as we do!
STYÓPA. In other words, we must die! Therefore, that teaching is unfit for life…
NICHOLAS IVÁNOVICH. No. It is given just that men may live. Yes. One should give everything away. Not only the forest we do not use and hardly ever see, but even our clothes and our bread.
ALEXÁNDRA IVÁNOVNA. What! And the children's too?
NICHOLAS IVÁNOVICH. Yes, the children's too. And not only our bread, but ourselves. Therein lies the whole teaching of Christ. One must strive with one's whole strength to give oneself away.
STYÓPA. That means to die.
NICHOLAS IVÁNOVICH. Yes, even if you gave your life for your friends, that would be splendid both for you and for others. But the fact is that man is not solely a spirit, but a spirit within a body; and the flesh draws him to live for itself, while the spirit of light draws him to live for God and for others: and the life in each of us is not solely animal, but is equipoised between the two. But the more it is a life for God, the better; and the animal will not fail to take care of itself.
STYÓPA. Why choose a middle course: an equipoise between the two? If it is right to do so – why not give away everything and die?
NICHOLAS IVÁNOVICH. That would be splendid. Try to do it, and it will be well both for you and for others.
ALEXÁNDRA IVÁNOVNA. No, that is not clear, not simple. C'est tiré par les cheveux.25
NICHOLAS IVÁNOVICH. Well, I can't help it, and it can't be explained by argument. However, that is enough.
STYÓPA. Yes, quite enough, and I also don't understand it. [Exit].
NICHOLAS IVÁNOVICH [turns to Priest] Well, what impression did the book make on you?
PRIEST [agitated] How shall I put it? Well, the historic part is insufficiently worked out, and it is not fully convincing, or let us say, quite reliable; because the materials are, as a matter of fact, insufficient. Neither the Divinity of Christ, nor His lack of Divinity, can be proved historically; there is but one proof…
During this conversation first the ladies and then Peter Semyónovich go out.
NICHOLAS IVÁNOVICH. You mean the Church?
PRIEST. Well, of course, the Church, and the evidence, let's say, of reliable men – the Saints for instance.
NICHOLAS IVÁNOVICH. Of course, it would be excellent if there existed a set of infallible people to confide in. It would be very desirable; but its desirability does not prove that they exist!
PRIEST. And I believe that just that is the proof. The Lord could not in fact have exposed His law to the possibility of mutilation or misinterpretation, but must in fact have left a guardian of His truth to prevent that truth being mutilated.
NICHOLAS IVÁNOVICH. Very well; but we first tried to prove the truth itself, and now we are trying to prove the reliability of the guardian of the truth.
PRIEST.
And you contradicted them.
Yefím was the peasant who had cut down the tree.
It's too fine spun.