Quote Analysis in How Much Land Does a Man Need?

Pahom’s desire for more land may seem illogical, given that his solution to being burdened with fines is to go into debt—that is, to live beyond his means in order to privately acquire more land like his peers. However, his thought process suggests that the Commune does not function in the best interest of its peasants through equal land distribution. Peasants were typically trapped into farming their plots of land in order to pay taxes or, as in Pahom’s situation, fines that were doled out by wealthier landowners.

Tolstoy’s depiction of the Evil One “sow[ing] discord among [the peasants],” which results in the division of land among each individual, could be perceived as a subtle denunciation of capitalism. Private property rights are integral to a capitalist economy that depends on the free trade of goods and services, all of which must be privately owned in order to be traded. Conversely, one of the core tenants of a political philosophy like communism is that all things—including land—are commonly owned. Here, the division of land seems to symbolize the division among the community, which is not in the best interest of the peasants as a group.

During the summer, Pahom’s cattle eat the grass from the “pasture-land,” which presumably does not cost Pahom anything. During the winter, however, there is no grass for the cattle to eat and therefore Pahom must buy the feed, or “fodder.” However, Pahom is so anxious about the taxes imposed upon him by the landowner’s steward in warmer months that he does not mind so much.

Though Pahom acknowledges that there is no need for him to abandon his land, his greed convinces him that he is still “too cramped to be comfortable.” Such is the consequence of accumulating wealth: the more Pahom owns, the less he feels like he truly possesses. Tolstoy possibly suggests that Pahom's feelings of being “cramped” or not owning enough stem from something else—and that buying up more land, or obtaining more wealth, cannot solve the cause of his unhappiness.

Pahom’s difficulties with the peasants exemplifies the gradual process of class division under the unequal distribution of wealth, in this case privately owned property. However, this particular translation depicts the peasants as participants in the harmful effects of class division in their petty mistreatment of Pahom—rather than portraying them as victims while Pahom, along with other landowners, are portrayed as villains. Ultimately, it is Pahom’s growing wealth and insistence on fining the peasants for trespassing that fosters resentment.

Though Tolstoy frequently shows the problems that can arise from private ownership of property, he does not present collective ownership of land as being superior. While each peasant has an equal right to the distribution of property by the Commune, they constantly disagree, often leading to lawsuits and lost labor. Pahom thinks the solution to his troubles is to own more land in order to make him “independent” and avoid “all this unpleasantness.” This suggests that inherent greed prevents any chance of harmonious collective ownership among the peasants.

Pahom is becoming increasingly dissatisfied, despite being thoroughly convinced that he would feel less “cramped” after moving his family to a new Commune that would give them more land. However, Pahom’s greed causes him to rent land in order to grow more crops. The process of renting other people’s land throughout the next several years intensifies his desire to purchase more.

Though Pahom assumes that the Bashkirs are ignorant, their amusement—expressed by laughter and shouting—suggests that they are aware of his greed. Further, they possibly seek to exploit Pahom’s obsession with acquiring more land to their advantage.

Pahom’s perception of the Bashkirs as ignorant is not simply because he disapproves of their work ethic. Rather, he looks down upon the Bashkirs because of their lack of interest in cultivating—and therefore profiting from—their land, which to Pahom makes them particularly easy to manipulate into giving it away. Tolstoy’s depiction of the Bashkirs, particularly through the translation of L. and A. Maud, calls into question the concept of a strong work ethic and suggests that it is connected to greed rather than strength of character.

Pahom continues to become more isolated as he increasingly gives into his quest. First, he removes himself from his community by acquiring more land and fining the peasants for trespassing—thus encouraging class division and general ill will. Then, he moves his family to a new Commune in order to possess more land. Now, he abandons his family in order to convince the Bashkirs to sell him land for less than it is likely worth.

Pahom foolishly ignores the warning in his dream, attributing it to his having a wild imagination: “‘What things one does dream.’” His desire for land and wealth has thus eroded any sense of insight or self-protection; instead, he is eager to mark off as much land as possible so that he can begin making a profit from it. Pahom’s refusal to consider the meaning behind his dream seems to represent the disconnect between a person and their capacity for reflection and rational thinking when the only priority is to increase one’s wealth.

Pahom’s dream establishes an unmistakable connection between private property ownership, often associated with greed throughout the story, and evil—in this case, submitting oneself to the devil’s temptation. Such a connection seems to hint at the ethical dilemmas posed by capitalism; specifically, the potentially universal hazards of the unequal distribution of wealth. Pahom seems to benefit from the accumulation of wealth, but his quest for land exacerbates the oppression of the working class—the peasants—and ultimately results in his own death.

According to this translation, Pahom’s “lopsided” land may actually be thinner—and therefore smaller—than it would have been if he had not been driven by greed to walk too far out of his way. Tolstoy therefore suggests that lusting after an abundance of wealth can ironically lead to obtaining less. Or, as Pahom’s wife pointed out at the beginning of the story, having more can lead to losing more.

Pahom’s greed continues to be increasingly at odds with his well-being. Despite feeling significant physical discomfort, he continues walking because the prospect of acquiring a smaller tract of land is unacceptable. Similar to “The Parable of the Rich Fool,” however, Pahom does not seem to understand that he cannot enjoy his wealth if he dies in the intense heat. Therefore, the phrase “An hour to suffer, a life-time to live” signals to readers that Pahom is likely about to meet his unfortunate fate.

Pahom’s interest in the Bashkirs’ land borders on lustful as he admires its “virgin soil,” which is “as black as the seed of a poppy.” The image of Pahom standing atop the hillock surveying the vast expanse of uncultivated land, which he seeks to obtain from the “ignorant” Bashkirs for an unfair price, seems suggestive of colonialism. Pahom, whose actions thus far seem to endorse capitalism and modernization, views the “virgin soil” before him as something he is entitled to—particularly because the Bashkirs, who he considers to be primitive and simplistic, apparently fall outside of the so-called progress that much of 19th-century Europe strove for at the time. Therefore, he seems to believe, however erroneously, that he is right to attempt to manipulate them out of their land.

It is both symbolic and bitterly ironic that Pahom’s servant, the last person left in his life, digs his grave with the spade (a symbol of greed) Pahom used to mark off land. Such a catastrophic conclusion to the story underscores the potentially fatal consequences of greed and pride. This lesson is made all the more grim by the irony that Pahom’s servant only needed “six feet [of land] from his head to his heels” to accommodate Pahom’s body, while Pahom was never satisfied with the amount of land he had. In this translation, the final line suggests that Pahom’s life might have been spared if he had simply claimed a reasonable amount of land—that is, only as much as he truly needed.

Despite being seemingly aware of his sinful greed, Pahom’s pride—which the Bible considers to be another sin—drives him forward. Here, his fate seems to align with the Rich Fool in Luke 12:13-21, whose life is demanded from him before he can enjoy the riches he hoarded. Pahom recognizes that he has “‘lost’” his life and wonders if God will allow him to live on all of the land he has “‘grasped.’” Yet, none of his reflections convince him to stop running.