‘I actually began writing a book on agriculture, but involuntarily, in concerning myself with the main tool of farming, the worker,’ Levin said, blushing, ‘I arrived at totally unexpected results.’
And carefully, as if testing the ground, Levin began to explain his view. He knew that Metrov had written an article against the commonly accepted political-economic theory, but how far he could expect him to be sympathetic to his new views he did not know and could not guess from the scholar’s calm and intelligent face.
‘But what do you see as the special properties of the Russian worker?’ asked Metrov. ‘His zoological properties, so to speak, or the conditions in which he finds himself?’
Levin saw that this question already implied a thought he disagreed with; but he continued to explain his own thought, which was that the Russian worker had a view of the land that differed completely from that of other peoples. And to prove this point he hastened to add that in his opinion this view of the Russian people came from their awareness of being called upon to populate the enormous unoccupied spaces of the east.
‘It is easy to be led into error by drawing conclusions about a people’s general calling,’ Metrov said, interrupting Levin. ‘The worker’s condition will always depend on his relation to the land and to capital.’
And not letting Levin finish his thought, Metrov began explaining to him the particularity of his own theory.
What the particularity of his theory was Levin did not understand, because he did not bother to understand; he saw that Metrov, just like the others, despite his article in which he refuted the teaching of the economists, still regarded the position of the Russian worker only from the point of view of capital, wages and income. Though he had to admit that in the greater part of Russia, the eastern part, income was still zero, that for nine-tenths of the Russian population of eighty million wages were only at subsistence level, and that capital did not exist otherwise than as the most primitive tools - he still regarded all workers from that point of view alone, though he disagreed with economists on many points and had his own new theory about wages, which he explained to Levin.
Levin listened reluctantly and began by objecting. He wanted to interrupt Metrov in order to tell him his thought, which in his opinion would make further explanations superfluous. But then, convinced that they looked at the matter so differently that they would never understand each other, he stopped contradicting and merely listened. Despite the fact that he was no longer interested in what Metrov was saying, he nevertheless experienced a certain satisfaction in listening to him. It flattered his vanity that such a learned man was telling him his thoughts so eagerly, with such attention and confidence in his knowledge of the subject, sometimes referring to whole aspects of the matter by a single allusion. He ascribed it to his own merit, unaware that Metrov, having talked about it with everyone around him, was especially eager to talk on the subject with each new person, and generally talked eagerly with everyone about the subject, which interested him but was as yet unclear to him.
‘We’re going to be late, though,’ said Katavasov, glancing at his watch, as soon as Metrov finished his explanation.
‘Yes, today there’s a meeting of the Society of Amateurs to commemorate Svintich’s fiftieth birthday,’2 Katavasov replied to Levin’s question. ‘Pyotr Ivanych and I intend to go. I promised to speak about his works on zoology. Come with us, it’s very interesting.’
‘Yes, in fact it’s time,’ said Metrov. ‘Come with us, and from there to my place, if you wish. I’d like very much to hear your work.’
‘No, really. It’s still so unfinished. But I’ll be glad to go to the meeting.’
‘Say, my friend, have you heard? They’ve proposed a separate opinion,’ said Katavasov, who was putting on his tailcoat in the other room.
And a conversation began on the university question.3
The university question was a very important event in Moscow that winter. Three old professors on the council had not accepted the opinion of the young ones; the young ones had proposed a separate opinion. That opinion, in the view of some, was terrible, and, in the view of others, was very simple and correct, and so the professors had split into two parties.
Some, including Katavasov, saw falsity, denunciation and deceit in the opposing side; the others - puerility and disrespect for authority. Levin, though he did not belong to the university, had already heard and talked about this matter several times since coming to Moscow and had formed his own opinion about it. He took part in the conversation, which continued outside as the three men walked to the old university building.
