and commission, whilst the master was always ready to assist them in difficulties, and commonly treated them in a kindly, familiar way.  As the old Russian proverb has it, “Where danger is, there too is kindly forgiveness.”  Karl Karl’itch, on the contrary, was the personification of uncompassionate, inflexible law.  Blind rage and compassionate kindliness were alike foreign to his system of government.  If he had any feeling towards the serfs, it was one of chronic contempt.  The word durak (blockhead) was constantly on his lips, and when any bit of work was well done, he took it as a matter of course, and never thought of giving a word of approval or encouragement.

When it became evident, in 1859, that the emancipation of the serfs was at hand, Karl Karl’itch confidently predicted that the country would inevitably go to ruin.  He knew by experience that the peasants were lazy and improvident, even when they lived under the tutelage of a master, and with the fear of the rod before their eyes.  What would they become when this guidance and salutary restraint should be removed?  The prospect raised terrible forebodings in the mind of the worthy steward, who had his employer’s interests really at heart; and these forebodings were considerably increased and intensified when he learned that the peasants were to receive by law the land which they occupied on sufferance, and which comprised about a half of the whole arable land of the estate.  This arrangement he declared to be a dangerous and unjustifiable infraction of the sacred rights of property, which savoured strongly of communism, and could have but one practical result:  the emancipated peasants would live by the cultivation of their own land, and would not consent on any terms to work for their former master.

In the few months which immediately followed the publication of the Emancipation Edict in 1861, Karl Karl’itch found much to confirm his most gloomy apprehensions.  The peasants showed themselves dissatisfied with the privileges conferred upon them, and sought to evade the corresponding duties imposed on them by the new law.  In vain he endeavoured, by exhortations, promises, and threats, to get the most necessary part of the field-work done, and showed the peasants the provision of the law enjoining them to obey and work as of old until some new arrangement should be made.  To all his appeals they replied that, having been freed by the Tsar, they were no longer obliged to work for their former master; and he was at last forced to appeal to the authorities.  This step had a certain effect, but the field-work was executed that year even worse than usual, and the harvest suffered in consequence.