even land, and only stones and dust? What is the significance of the
words "to earn a livelihood in the city," which are in such constant
use, both by those who earn the livelihood, and by those who furnish
it, as though it were something perfectly clear and comprehensible?

I recall the hundreds and thousands of city people, both those who
live well and the needy, with whom I have conversed on the reason why
they came hither: and all without exception said, that they had come
from the country to earn their living; that in Moscow, where people
neither sow nor reap,--that in Moscow there is plenty of every thing,
and that, therefore, it is only in Moscow that they can earn the
money which they require in the country for bread and a cottage and a
horse, and articles of prime necessity. But assuredly, in the
country lies the source of all riches; there only is real wealth,--
bread, and forests, and horses, and every thing. And why, above all,
take away from the country that which dwellers in the country need,--
flour, oats, horses, and cattle?

Hundreds of times did I discuss this matter with peasants living in
town; and from my discussions with them, and from my observations, it
has been made apparent to me, that the congregation of country people
in the city is partly indispensable because they cannot otherwise
support themselves, partly voluntary, and that they are attracted to
the city by the temptations of the city.

It is true, that the position of the peasant is such that, for the
satisfaction of his demands made on him in the country, he cannot
extricate himself otherwise than by selling the grain and the cattle
which he knows will be indispensable to him; and he is forced,
whether he will or no, to go to the city in order there to win back