New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-03-04
TOLSTOPS LAST BOOKS
A LAMENTABI.E DECLINE.

THE LONG EXILE, AND OTHER T sro srn, Trans.
iatsd from the Russian by NATHAN HASKELL Doh"'
Iomo. pp 362. Thomas Y. Crewell q co.
T. ,ras the private opinion Of His britannia
Ns.;sstv George the Third, communicated TO tho
s.;r author Of Evelina,' that - there was sad
-.nc !, Shakespeare So far His Majesty was
entirely respectable. 1t might be his misfortune
that he could not admire the Bard OF Avon, puo IL
was creditable to him that he should maintain DIS
own opinion. But he did not long continue 10
deserve even this credit, for he proccedco: L
know il is not to be said, but it's true. only Its
Shakespeare, and nobody dare abuse him" Inc
human inclination to hero-worship has suffered no
decline since those days. and if at present the
world allows Shakespeare to be abused by 'he
efbberng Baconian paradoxers, it seems inclined
TO erect the old tabu other and younger
writers Not the world either 1t is not far
70 hold il accountable for that eddy Of tendency
which perhaps ten years hence will be recognized
for what il is namely an abnormal growth IN no
way an indication Of healthy progress, but on the
contrary q direct product Of feeble lnteliectuai
health.
The rise of the Russian school of fiction ana
more especially the Tolstoi school, has inaeeo oee
an interesting and diverting spectacle " "o"iu
be exceedingly rash to assert that more hoH'cn''
has been written these subjects than OIL any
other of current vogue, because the amount OF
norsensc written continually upon a great variety
of subjects is really very considerable, ana tue
endeavor to proportion it would be dimcuiI anu
clearly not worth the trouble. From inc hrsD'
however the Russian cult has been marked Dy
singular and increasing enthusiasm, ana sihce
Count Tolsto appeared the eulogists have occh
hard put to it to maintain the desired plane Oh
laudatjon. lie has proved to be very difficult
hacOn
at his best unworthy Of admiration, but because ne
was man who did not know his own streng'h' "
primitive. uncultured man, evidently type OF
backward race in whom Western civilization had
as vet failed to penetrate The obvious usefulness
of this man lay in graphic description OF what ne
knew: that is. of what he had SEEN lie had
cift OF observation, and o peculiar naive me'hoo
~ internretation. His reflections were fresh,
though never profound He was sure to iali ihoo
crudi,y il he went far beyond the matter-oi-iac''
IN writing the stories which made his lame he
committed faults which would certainly have
swnmped any English, French or American Wrl,er'
His Peace and War and Anna karenlha are
Iboth fully twice as long as they should nave oech'
,ubev are often tedious, verbose TO somhoiehcy'
lOf the character drawing it has OFTEN 10 Dc saio
that while it may perhaps be wonderfully iaith-
mi IN Russian human nature, it resembles no
and other defects, however, go merits and beauties
sufficient to give life to the writings, anu hau
Tolstoi kept to this kind Of literary production ne
',yould probably have improved by pracuce' anu
eventually he might have come to deserve laise
proportion of the praise SO preMalufey anu III
temperstely showered upon him.
But he had O philanthropic side, and u de-
yeloped unduly His lack of eduettlon 'paihiuhy
revealed in such books as he has latteriy written
ON rel;o;ous and economic topics led him into the
odontion NJ diverse. crude and shallow falacles,
all Of which had been exploded ages previously;
and at the same time persuaded him that 1t was
his duty to hide his light under buShel oy re-
strcting the scope of his influence to the eHecu Oh
his personal deeds. Then followed the unpracu-
cal and futile experiment in peasant me- anu
such educational projects as could only MAKE 'hc
judicious grieve and lastly, fresh essays ID nteI'
ture upon the new and delusivc lines olili INC
Sisciples Of the Tostoi school stand gallantly to
their colors and nothing is more curious III the
whole singular Russian movement than the en-
thusiasm with which the translators OF the TWO
disastrous books before us usher their strange
nroteoes into the English-speaIng world. Ac-
cortlinc 10 them everything their author writes Is
snnerlafivelv excellent, and there is no room lor
choice between his magnificent creations ms
Is Amusing. because The Physiology of War Is
reollv a fantastic and essentially unsound WORK,
while the other volume contains absurdlties lall-
IRE to perceive which indicates a phenomenal
literary myopia. Count Tolstoi takes Napoleon
and the Russian Campaign as the text OF sllgu-
oularly wild argument, the gist OF when Is 'ha'
in war commanders do not fight battles that they
do not direct campaigns; that IN TACT al their
dispositions 90 for nothing; that stream OF teh-
deucy or destiny, Providence, or the indiVidaal
soldiers composing the armies are the cohtroLlhg
causes of victory or defeat; and that all history
is wrong and false in ascrbmg to any captain
leader Caesar or Napoleon the inspiration. the
yoliton. the initiative, of great conflicts or cam
paigps. Nothing is more striking in this argument
Than the real ehidishness which underies it. 1t is
maintained throughout by the most thoroughly
nucriIc ouibbles And though in the Russian
campaien there was more inconsequence than In
most because of the tremendous part played by the
deadly climate in the great tragedy, the contention
that Napoleon did not direct his armies; that
Koutousof did not restrain his; that the batue OF
Borodno, the burning of Moscow, and the suDse-
ouent retreat. were not humanity controlled events
the responsibility for which is as clearly liked as
ANYTHING in history, is most eXtIavagant.
This is the way Count Tolstoi reasons: 1t is
paradoxicai to assert that the massacre OF 81
Bartholomew was the work of Charles IN, because
he gave the order TO kill, and believed that the
killing was done at his command. Not less para
doxcal is it to affirm that the battle of Borodlno'
which cost the lives Of eighty thousand men, was
the work Of Napoleon, because he planned the
engagement, and gave the order to begln the al
tack sentiment Of human dignity, when 'enS
me that each Of us, if he be not more Of man
than Napoleon the Great is at least not less IMAM
he. directs me to solution of the problem Justified
of
cav rs though the fact were relevant: AT the
hattie Of Borodino Napoleon did not attack any
body or kill anybody That duty was performed
bv his soldiers. lie did cot ~ arr killing nm
self" And this is his wonderful explanation oil
the event: The soldiers Of the French Army, IN
going 10 the battle of Borodno to Kill Russian
soldiers. wore obeying not Napoleon's orders, but