time, some of them found a vitalizing cause in the hopes and aspirations of the new nationalism,—the Slavophile movement. We have already considered the national aspect of Slavophilism,—an assertion of racial and spiritual unity. As such, it led inevitably to the strong desire for a return to what was considered the peculiarly Russian social system: that of an idealized communism. In this way began the great struggle against serfdom and certain other conditions of "rural" life, and the masses found their way into literary consciousness. They became a necessary element of literature and thought, and fervent idealists preached the doctrine of "Pity" toward an enslaved people.
There is one other far-reaching effect of the Slavophile movement. The desire for a return to the communal mode of Russian life led to a close scrutiny of the existing order of things. In the name of Slavophilism, men challenged the non-Russian in the social structure, and, together with the populist appeal of "Back to the people," there was heard the cry "Back to the soil and the simple life." The demand was for the urgent necessity of fewer demands,—for simplification of life, for a great unloading of the burden of Western culture and non-Russian customs, for an escape from the complexities of civilization which were threatening the development of the truly Russian spirit.
To the reader of "modern" Russian literature, the ideas involved in this tendency toward simplification will at once suggest themselves. They form the chief "problems" of Goncharov, Turgeniev, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy,—of all the masters of Russia's golden age. In time, the trend toward simplification takes concrete form in a desire to become unified with the people. But always it presupposes a return to Nature, a vindication of the ethics of equality and fraternity. Its model is the original Christian brotherhood; its program is the writings of the Apostles; its hope is the purified agrarian community, and its guiding principle is love among men. One is tempted to add,—its apostle is Tolstoy.
We must remember, however, that all this is the constructive side, the affirmation, of the "simplifiers." They had aversions, as well, and strong antagonisms. They hated all movements that were not animated by ideals of love. Therefore, they were completely out of sympathy with those who viewed society as a war of classes, and who placed their hope in a violent struggle for the rights of man. The "simplifiers,"—whose aims were wholly moral and whose methods were purely pacific—felt that
