make the peasantry refrain from the inordinate use of strong drink as effectually as it makes them refrain during a great part of the year from animal food, and if it could instil into their minds a few simple moral principles as successfully as it has inspired them with a belief in the efficacy of the Sacraments, it would certainly confer on them an inestimable benefit.  But this is not to be expected.  The great majority of the parish priests are quite unfit for such a task, and the few who have aspirations in that direction rarely acquire a perceptible moral influence over their parishioners.  Perhaps more is to be expected from the schoolmaster than from the priest, but it will be long before the schools can produce even a partial moral regeneration.  Their first influence, strange as the assertion may seem, is often in a diametrically opposite direction.  When only a few peasants in a village can read and write they have such facilities for overreaching their “dark” neighbours that they are apt to employ their knowledge for dishonest purposes; and thus it occasionally happens that the man who has the most education is the greatest scoundrel in the Mir.  Such facts are often used by the opponents of popular education, but in reality they supply a good reason for disseminating primary education as rapidly as possible.  When all the peasants have learned to read and write they will present a less inviting field for swindling, and the temptations to dishonesty will be proportionately diminished.  Meanwhile, it is only fair to state that the common assertions about drunkenness being greatly on the increase are not borne out by the official statistics concerning the consumption of spirituous liquors.

After drunkenness, the besetting sin which is supposed to explain the impoverishment of the peasantry is incorrigible laziness.  On that subject I feel inclined to put in a plea of extenuating circumstances in favour of the muzhik.  Certainly he is very slow in his movements—­slower perhaps than the English rustic—­and he has a marvellous capacity for wasting valuable time without any perceptible qualms of conscience; but he is in this respect, if I may use a favourite phrase of the Social Scientists, “the product of environment.”  To the proprietors who habitually reproach him with time-wasting he might reply with a very strong tu quoque argument, and to all the other classes the argument might likewise be addressed.  The St. Petersburg official, for example, who writes edifying disquisitions about peasant indolence, considers that for himself attendance at his office for four hours, a large portion of which is devoted to the unproductive labour of cigarette smoking, constitutes a very fair day’s work.  The truth is that in Russia the struggle for life is not nearly so intense as in more densely populated countries, and society is so constituted that all can live without very strenuous exertion.  The Russians seem, therefore, to the traveller who comes from the