because he had discovered the possibility of a merry life without
labor, and that he had grown unused to work. And I, with the object
of benefiting and reclaiming him, had taken him to my house, where he
saw--what? My children,--both older and younger than himself, and of
the same age,--who not only never did any work for themselves, but
who made work for others by every means in their power, who soiled
and spoiled every thing about them, who ate rich, dainty, and sweet
viands, broke china, and flung to the dogs food which would have been
a tidbit to this lad. If I had rescued him from the abyss, and had
taken him to that nice place, then he must acquire those views which
prevailed in the life of that nice place; but by these views, he
understood that in that fine place he must so live that he should not
toil, but eat and drink luxuriously, and lead a joyous life. It is
true that he did not know that my children bore heavy burdens in the
acquisition of the declensions of Latin and Greek grammar, and that
he could not have understood the object of these labors. But it is
impossible not to see that if he had understood this, the influence
of my children's example on him would have been even stronger. He
would then have comprehended that my children were being educated in
this manner, so that, while doing no work now, they might be in a
position hereafter, also profiting by their diplomas, to work as
little as possible, and to enjoy the pleasures of life to as great an
extent as possible. He did understand this, and he would not go with
the peasant to tend cattle, and to eat potatoes and kvas with him,
but he went to the zoological garden in the costume of a savage, to
lead the elephant at thirty kopeks a day.

I might have understood how clumsy I was, when I was rearing my
children in the most utter idleness and luxury, to reform other
people and their children, who were perishing from idleness in what I