{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_43372/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_43372","id":"gutenberg_43372","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43372","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Russian literature -- Translations into English"],"text":"THE COMPLETE WORKS OF\n  COUNT TOLST\u00d3Y\n  VOLUME XX.\n\n  [Illustration: The Yellow Peril\n\n  _Photogravure after Original Design by Emperor William II._]\n\n\n\n\n  THE KINGDOM OF GOD\n  IS WITHIN YOU\n  CHRISTIANITY AND PATRIOTISM\n  MISCELLANIES\n\n  By COUNT LEV N. TOLST\u00d3Y\n\n  Translated from the Original Russian and Edited by\n  LEO WIENER\n  Assistant Professor of Slavic Languages at Harvard University\n\n  [Illustration: Tolstoy]\n\n  BOSTON--DANA ESTES &\n  COMPANY--PUBLISHERS\n\n\n\n\n  EDITION DE LUXE\n\n  Limited to One Thousand Copies,\n  of which this is\n  No. ____\n\n  _Copyright, 1905_\n  BY DANA ESTES & COMPANY\n\n  _Entered at Stationers' Hall_\n\n  Colonial Press: Electrotyped and Printed by\n  C. H. Simonds & Co., Boston, Mass., U. S. A.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n                                           PAGE\n\n  THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU            1\n\n  CHRISTIANITY AND PATRIOTISM               381\n\n  REASON AND RELIGION                       459\n\n  PATRIOTISM OR PEACE                       467\n\n  LETTER TO ERNEST HOWARD CROSBY            481\n\n\n  INTRODUCTIONS TO BOOKS\n\n  A. STOCKHAM'S TOKOLOGY                    499\n\n  AMIEL'S DIARY                             501\n\n  S. T. SEM\u00c9NOV'S PEASANT STORIES           506\n\n  WORKS OF GUY DE MAUPASSANT                509\n\n\n\n\nLIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS\n\n\n                                                PAGE\n\n  THE YELLOW PERIL (_p. 477_)         _Frontispiece_\n\n  WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON                           6\n\n  RUSSIAN PEASANTS AT MASS                        75\n\n  CHURCH OF VAS\u00cdLI THE BLESSED, MOSCOW            85\n\n  MAL\u00c9VANNIANS                                   395\n\n  ALEXANDER III.                                 449\n\n\n\n\n  THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS\n  WITHIN YOU\n\n  Or, Christianity Not as a Mystical Teaching but\n  as a New Concept of Life\n\n  1893\n\n\n\n\n  THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS\n  WITHIN YOU\n\n  Or, Christianity Not as a Mystical Teaching but\n  as a New Concept of Life\n\n     And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free\n     (John viii. 23).\n\n     And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill\n     the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul\n     and body in hell (Matt. x. 28).\n\n     Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men (1.\n     Cor. vii. 23).\n\n\nIn the year 1884 I wrote a book under the title, _My Religion_. In\nthis book I really expounded what my religion is.\n\nIn expounding my belief in Christ's teaching, I could not help but\nexpress the reason why I do not believe in the ecclesiastic faith,\nwhich is generally called Christianity, and why I consider it to be\na delusion.\n\nAmong the many deviations of this teaching of Christ, I pointed\nout the chief deviation, namely, the failure to acknowledge the\ncommandment of non-resistance to evil, which more obviously than\nany other shows the distortion of Christ's teaching in the church\ndoctrine.\n\nI knew very little, like the rest of us, as to what had been\ndone and preached and written in former days on this subject of\nnon-resistance to evil. I knew what had been said on this subject\nby the fathers of the church, Origen, Tertullian, and others, and\nI knew also that there have existed certain so-called sects of the\nMennonites, Herrnhuters, Quakers, who do not admit for a Christian\nthe use of weapons and who do not enter military service, but what\nhad been done by these so-called sects for the solution of this\nquestion was quite unknown to me.\n\nMy book, as I expected, was held back by the Russian censor, but,\npartly in consequence of my reputation as a writer, partly because\nit interested people, this book was disseminated in manuscripts and\nlithographic reprints in Russia and in translations abroad, and\ncalled forth, on the one hand, on the part of men who shared my\nviews, a series of references to works written on the subject, and,\non the other, a series of criticisms on the thoughts expressed in\nthat book itself.\n\nBoth, together with the historical phenomena of recent times, have\nmade many things clear to me and have brought me to new deductions\nand conclusions, which I wish to express.\n\nFirst I shall tell of the information which I received concerning\nthe history of the question of non-resistance to evil, then of\nthe opinions on this subject which were expressed by ecclesiastic\ncritics, that is, such as profess the Christian religion, and also\nby laymen, that is, such as do not profess the Christian religion;\nand finally, those deductions to which I was brought by both and by\nthe historical events of recent times.\n\n\nI.\n\nAmong the first answers to my book there came some letters from the\nAmerican Quakers. In these letters, which express their sympathy\nwith my views concerning the unlawfulness for Christianity of all\nviolence and war, the Quakers informed me of the details of their\nso-called sect, which for more than two hundred years has in fact\nprofessed Christ's teaching about non-resistance to evil, and which\nhas used no arms in order to defend itself. With their letters,\nthe Quakers sent me their pamphlets, periodicals, and books. From\nthese periodicals, pamphlets, and books which they sent me I\nlearned to what extent they had many years ago incontestably proved\nthe obligation for a Christian to fulfil the commandment about\nnon-resistance to evil and had laid bare the incorrectness of the\nchurch teaching, which admitted executions and wars.\n\nHaving proved, by a whole series of considerations and texts, that\nwar, that is, the maiming and killing of men, is incompatible with\na religion which is based on love of peace and good-will to men,\nthe Quakers affirm and prove that nothing has so much contributed\nto the obscuration of Christ's truth in the eyes of the pagans\nand impeded the dissemination of Christianity in the world as the\nnon-acknowledgment of this commandment by men who called themselves\nChristians,--as the permission granted to a Christian to wage war\nand use violence.\n\n\"Christ's teaching, which entered into the consciousness of men,\nnot by means of the sword and of violence,\" they say, \"but by means\nof non-resistance to evil, can be disseminated in the world only\nthrough humility, meekness, peace, concord, and love among its\nfollowers.\n\n\"A Christian, according to the teaching of God Himself, can be\nguided in his relations to men by peace only, and so there cannot\nbe such an authority as would compel a Christian to act contrary to\nGod's teaching and contrary to the chief property of a Christian in\nrelation to those who are near to him.\n\n\"The rule of state necessity,\" they say, \"may compel those to become\nuntrue to God's law, who for the sake of worldly advantages try\nto harmonize what cannot be harmonized, but for a Christian, who\nsincerely believes in this, that the adherence to Christ's teaching\ngives him salvation, this rule can have no meaning.\"\n\nMy acquaintance with the activity of the Quakers and with their\nwritings,--with Fox, Paine, and especially with Dymond's book\n(1827),--showed me that not only had the impossibility of uniting\nChristianity with violence and war been recognized long ago, but\nthat this incompatibility had long ago been proved so clearly and\nso incontestably that one has only to marvel how this impossible\nconnection of the Christian teaching with violence, which has been\npreached all this time by the churches, could have been continued.\n\nBesides the information received by me from the Quakers, I, at about\nthe same time, received, again from America, information in regard\nto the same subject from an entirely different source, which had\nbeen quite unknown to me before.\n\nThe son of William Lloyd Garrison, the famous champion for the\nliberation of the negroes, wrote to me that, when he read my book,\nin which he found ideas resembling those expressed by his father in\n1838, he, assuming that it might be interesting for me to know this,\nsent me the \"Declaration of Non-resistance,\" which his father had\nmade about fifty years ago.\n\n[Illustration: William Lloyd Garrison\n\n_Photogravure from Photograph_]\n\nThis declaration had its origin under the following conditions:\nWilliam Lloyd Garrison, in speaking before a society for the\nestablishment of peace among men, which existed in America in 1838,\nabout the measures for abolishing war, came to the conclusion that\nthe establishment of universal peace could be based only on the\nobvious recognition of the commandment of non-resistance to evil\n(Matt. v. 39) in all its significance, as this was understood by the\nQuakers, with whom Garrison stood in friendly relations. When he\ncame to this conclusion, he formulated and proposed to the society\nthe following declaration, which was then, in 1838, signed by many\nmembers.\n\n\nDECLARATION OF SENTIMENTS ADOPTED BY THE PEACE CONVENTION, HELD IN\nBOSTON IN 1838\n\n\"We, the undersigned, regard it as due to ourselves, to the cause\nwhich we love, to the country in which we live, and to the world, to\npublish a Declaration, expressive of the principles we cherish, the\npurposes we aim to accomplish, and the measures we shall adopt to\ncarry forward the work of peaceful and universal reformation.\n\n\"We cannot acknowledge allegiance to any human government....\nWe recognize but one King and Lawgiver, one Judge and Ruler of\nmankind....\n\n\"Our country is the world, our countrymen are all mankind. We love\nthe land of our nativity, only as we love all other lands. The\ninterests, rights, and liberties of American citizens are no more\ndear to us than are those of the whole human race. Hence we can\nallow no appeal to patriotism, to revenge any national insult or\ninjury....\n\n\"We conceive, that if a nation has no right to defend itself against\nforeign enemies, or to punish its invaders, no individual possesses\nthat right in his own case. The unit cannot be of greater importance\nthan the aggregate.... But if a rapacious and bloodthirsty soldiery,\nthronging these shores from abroad, with intent to commit rapine\nand destroy life, may not be resisted by the people or magistracy,\nthen ought no resistance to be offered to domestic troublers of the\npublic peace, or of private security....\n\n\"The dogma, that all the governments of the world are approvingly\nordained of God, and that the powers that be in the United States,\nin Russia, in Turkey, are in accordance with His will, is not less\nabsurd than impious. It makes the impartial Author of human freedom\nand equality unequal and tyrannical. It cannot be affirmed that the\npowers that be, in any nation, are actuated by the spirit, or guided\nby the example of Christ, in the treatment of enemies: therefore,\nthey cannot be agreeable to the will of God: and, therefore, their\noverthrow, by a spiritual regeneration of their subjects, is\ninevitable.\n\n\"We register our testimony, not only against all wars, whether\noffensive or defensive, but all preparations for war; against every\nnaval ship, every arsenal, every fortification; against the militia\nsystem and a standing army; against all military chieftains and\nsoldiers; against all monuments commemorative of victory over a\nforeign foe, all trophies won in battle, all celebrations in honour\nof military or naval exploits: against all appropriations for the\ndefence of a nation by force and arms on the part of any legislative\nbody; against every edict of government, requiring of its subjects\nmilitary service. Hence, we deem it unlawful to bear arms, or to\nhold a military office.\n\n\"As every human government is upheld by physical strength, and its\nlaws are enforced virtually at the point of the bayonet, we cannot\nhold any office which imposes upon its incumbent the obligation to\ndo right, on pain of imprisonment or death. We therefore voluntarily\nexclude ourselves from every legislative and judicial body, and\nrepudiate all human politics, worldly honours, and stations of\nauthority. If we cannot occupy a seat in the legislature, or on the\nbench, neither can we elect others to act as our substitutes in any\nsuch capacity.\n\n\"It follows that we cannot sue any man at law, to compel him by\nforce to restore anything which he may have wrongfully taken from us\nor others; but, if he has seized our coat, we shall surrender up our\ncloak, rather than subject him to punishment.\n\n\"We believe that the penal code of the old covenant, An eye for an\neye, and a tooth for a tooth, has been abrogated by Jesus Christ;\nand that, under the new covenant, the forgiveness, instead of the\npunishment of enemies, has been enjoined upon all His disciples, in\nall cases whatsoever. To extort money from enemies, or set them upon\na pillory, or cast them into prison, or hang them upon a gallows, is\nobviously not to forgive, but to take retribution....\n\n\"The history of mankind is crowded with evidences, proving that\nphysical coercion is not adapted to moral regeneration; that the\nsinful disposition of man can be subdued only by love; that evil\ncan be exterminated from the earth only by goodness; that it is not\nsafe to rely upon an arm of flesh ... to preserve us from harm; that\nthere is great security in being gentle, harmless, long-suffering,\nand abundant in mercy; that it is only the meek who shall inherit\nthe earth, for the violent, who resort to the sword, shall perish\nwith the sword. Hence, as a measure of sound policy, of safety\nto property, life, and liberty, of public quietude, and private\nenjoyment, as well as on the ground of allegiance to Him who is King\nof kings, and Lord of lords, we cordially adopt the non-resistance\nprinciple; being confident that it provides for all possible\nconsequences, will ensure all things needful to us, is armed with\nomnipotent power, and must ultimately triumph over every assailing\nfoe.\n\n\"We advocate no jacobinical doctrines. The spirit of jacobinism\nis the spirit of retaliation, violence, and murder. It neither\nfears God, nor regards man. We would be filled with the spirit of\nChrist. If we abide by our principles, it is impossible for us to\nbe disorderly, or plot treason, or participate in any evil work: we\nshall submit to every ordinance of man, for the Lord's sake; obey\nall the requirements of government, except such as we deem contrary\nto the commands of the gospel; and in no wise resist the operation\nof law, except by meekly submitting to the penalty of disobedience.\n\n\"But, while we shall adhere to the doctrines of non-resistance and\npassive submission to enemies, we purpose, in a moral and spiritual\nsense, to speak and act boldly in the cause of God; to assail\niniquity in high places and in low places; to apply our principles\nto all existing civil, political, legal, and ecclesiastical\ninstitutions; and to hasten the time when the kingdoms of this world\nshall become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall\nreign for ever.\n\n\"It appears to us as a self-evident truth, that, whatever the gospel\nis designed to destroy, any period of the world, being contrary to\nit, ought now to be abandoned. If, then, the time is predicted,\nwhen swords shall be beaten into ploughshares, and spears into\npruning-hooks, and men shall not learn the art of war any more,\nit follows that all who manufacture, sell, or wield these deadly\nweapons do thus array themselves against the peaceful dominion of\nthe Son of God on earth.\n\n\"Having thus briefly, but frankly, stated our principles and\npurposes, we proceed to specify the measures we propose to adopt, in\ncarrying our object into effect.\n\n\"We expect to prevail through the foolishness of preaching--striving\nto commend ourselves unto every man's conscience, in the sight of\nGod. From the press, we shall promulgate our sentiments as widely\nas practicable. We shall endeavour to secure the co\u00f6peration of\nall persons, of whatever name or sect.... Hence we shall employ\nlectures, circulate tracts and publications, form societies, and\npetition our State and national governments in relation to the\nsubject of universal peace. It will be our leading object to\ndevise ways and means for effecting a radical change in the views,\nfeelings, and practices of society respecting the sinfulness of war,\nand the treatment of enemies.\n\n\"In entering upon the great work before us, we are not unmindful\nthat, in its prosecution, we may be called to test our sincerity,\neven as in a fiery ordeal. It may subject us to insult, outrage,\nsuffering, yea, even death itself. We anticipate no small amount of\nmisconception, misrepresentation, calumny. Tumults may arise against\nus. The ungodly and the violent, the proud and pharisaical, the\nambitious and tyrannical, principalities and powers, and spiritual\nwickedness in high places, may combine to crush us. So they treated\nthe Messiah, whose example we are humbly striving to imitate....\nWe shall not be afraid of their terror, neither be troubled. Our\nconfidence is in the Lord Almighty, not in man. Having withdrawn\nfrom human protection, what can sustain us but that faith which\novercomes the world? We shall not think it strange concerning the\nfiery ordeal which is to try us, as though some strange thing had\nhappened unto us; but rejoice, inasmuch as we are partakers of\nChrist's sufferings. Wherefore, we commit the keeping of our souls\nto God, in well-doing, as unto a faithful Creator. 'For every one\nthat forsakes houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother,\nor wife, or children, or lands, for Christ's sake, shall receive an\nhundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.'\n\n\"Firmly relying upon the certain and universal triumph of the\nsentiments contained in this Declaration, however formidable may\nbe the opposition arrayed against them, in solemn testimony of our\nfaith in their divine origin, we hereby affix our signatures to\nit; commending it to the reason and conscience of mankind, giving\nourselves no anxiety as to what may befall us, and resolving, in the\nstrength of the Lord God, calmly and meekly to abide the issue.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nImmediately after this declaration Garrison founded a society of\nnon-resistance, and a periodical, called _The Non-Resistant_,\nin which was preached the doctrine of non-resistance in all its\nsignificance and with all its consequences, as it had been expressed\nin the \"Declaration.\" The information as to the later fate of the\nsociety and the periodical of non-resistance I received from the\nbeautiful biography of William Lloyd Garrison, written by his sons.\n\nThe society and the periodical did not exist long: the majority of\nGarrison's collaborators in matters of freeing the slaves, fearing\nlest the too radical demands, as expressed in _The Non-Resistant_,\nmight repel people from the practical work of the liberation of the\nnegroes, refused to profess the principle of non-resistance, as it\nhad been expressed in the \"Declaration,\" and the society and the\nperiodical ceased to exist.\n\nThis \"Declaration\" by Garrison, which so powerfully and so\nbeautifully expressed such an important profession of faith, ought,\nit seems, to have startled men and to have become universally known\nand a subject of wide discussion. But nothing of the kind happened.\nIt is not only unknown in Europe, but even among the Americans,\nwho so highly esteem Garrison's memory, this declaration is almost\nunknown.\n\nThe same ingloriousness has fallen to the share of another champion\nof non-resistance to evil, the American Adin Ballou, who lately\ndied, and who preached this doctrine for fifty years. How little is\nknown of what refers to the question of non-resistance may be seen\nfrom the fact that Garrison's son, who has written an excellent\nbiography of his father in four volumes, this son of Garrison, in\nreply to my question whether the society of non-resistance was\nstill in existence, and whether there were any followers of it,\nanswered me that so far as he knew the society had fallen to pieces,\nand there existed no followers of this doctrine, whereas at the time\nof his writing, there lived in Hopedale, Massachusetts, Adin Ballou,\nwho had taken part in Garrison's labours and had devoted fifty years\nof his life to the oral and printed propaganda of the doctrine of\nnon-resistance. Later on I received a letter from Wilson, a disciple\nand assistant of Ballou, and entered into direct communication with\nBallou himself. I wrote to Ballou, and he answered me and sent me\nhis writings. Here are a few extracts from them:\n\n\"Jesus Christ is my Lord and Master,\" says Ballou in one of\nthe articles,[1] in which he arraigns the inconsistency of the\nChristians who recognize the right of defence and war. \"I have\ncovenanted to forsake all and follow Him, through good and evil\nreport, until death. But I am nevertheless a Democratic-Republican\ncitizen of the United States, implicitly sworn to bear true\nallegiance to my country, and to support its Constitution, if need\nbe, with my life. Jesus Christ requires me to do unto others as I\nwould that others should do unto me. The Constitution of the United\nStates requires me to do unto twenty-seven hundred slaves\" (there\nwere slaves then, now we may put the working people in their place)\n\"the very contrary of what I would have them do unto me, viz.,\nassist to keep them in a grievous bondage.... But I am quite easy.\nI vote on. I help govern on. I am willing to hold any office I may\nbe elected to under the Constitution. And I am still a Christian.\nI profess on. I find no difficulty in keeping covenant both with\nChrist and the Constitution....\n\n  [1] In _The Non-Resistant_, Vol. i., No. 4, Hopedale, Milford,\n  Mass., Feb. 15, 1845.\n\n\"Jesus Christ forbids me to resist evil-doers by taking 'eye for\neye, tooth for tooth, blood for blood, and life for life.' My\ngovernment requires the very reverse, and depends, for its own\nself-preservation, on the halter, the musket, and the sword,\nseasonably employed against its domestic and foreign enemies.\nAccordingly, the land is well furnished with gibbets, prisons,\narsenals, train-bands, soldiers, and ships-of-war. In the\nmaintenance and use of this expensive life-destroying apparatus,\nwe can exemplify the virtues of forgiving our injurers, loving our\nenemies, blessing them that curse us, and doing good to those that\nhate us. For this reason, we have regular Christian chaplains to\npray for us, and call down the sins of God on our holy murderers....\n\n\"I see it all; and yet I insist that I am as good a Christian as\never. I fellowship all; I vote on; I help govern on; I profess on;\nand I glory in being at once a devoted Christian, and a no less\ndevoted adherent to the existing government. I will not give in\nto those miserable non-resistant notions. I will not throw away\nmy political influence, and leave unprincipled men to carry on\ngovernment alone....\n\n\"The Constitution says, 'Congress shall have power to declare\nwar.'... I agree to this. I endorse it. I swear to help carry\nit through.... What then, am I less a Christian? Is not war a\nChristian service? Is it not perfectly Christian to murder hundreds\nof thousands of fellow human beings; to ravish defenceless females,\nsack and burn cities, and exact all the other cruelties of war? Out\nupon these new-fangled scruples! This is the very way to forgive\ninjuries, and love our enemies! If we only do it all in true love,\nnothing can be more Christian than wholesale murder!\"\n\nIn another pamphlet, under the title, _How Many Does It Take?_[2]\nhe says, \"How many does it take to metamorphose wickedness into\nrighteousness? One man must not kill. If he does, it is murder.\nTwo, ten, one hundred men, acting on their own responsibility, must\nnot kill. If they do, it is still murder. But a state or nation\nmay kill as many as they please, and it is no murder. It is just,\nnecessary, commendable, and right. Only get people enough to agree\nto it, and the butchery of myriads of human beings is perfectly\ninnocent. But how many men does it take? This is the question. Just\nso with theft, robbery, burglary, and all other crimes.... But a\nwhole nation can commit it.... But how many does it take?\"[3]\n\n  [2] Not a pamphlet, but an article in _The Non-Resistant_, Vol. i.\n  No. 4, and very imperfectly quoted by Tolst\u00f3y.\n\n  [3] To this Tolst\u00f3y adds, on his own responsibility: \"Why must one,\n  ten, one hundred men not violate God's law, while very many may?\"\n\nHere is Ballou's catechism, composed for his flock (_The Catechism\nof Non-Resistance_[4]):\n\n  [4] Translated freely, with some omissions.--_Author's Note._ I fail\n  to find this _Catechism_ in any of Ballou's writings accessible\n  in and about Boston. The nearest approach to these questions and\n  answers is found scattered throughout his _Christian Non-Resistance,\n  in Its Important Bearings, Illustrated and Defended_, Philadelphia,\n  1846.\n\n_Q._ Whence originated the term \"non-resistance?\"\n\n_A._ From the injunction, \"Resist not evil,\" Matt. v. 39.\n\n_Q._ What does the term signify?\n\n_A._ It expresses a high Christian virtue, prescribed by Christ.\n\n_Q._ Is the word \"resistance\" to be taken in its widest meaning,\nthat is, as showing that no resistance whatever is to be shown to\nevil?\n\n_A._ No, it is to be taken in the strict sense of the Saviour's\ninjunction; that is, we are not to retaliate evil with evil. Evil is\nto be resisted by all just means, but never with evil.\n\n_Q._ From what can we see that Christ in such cases prescribed\nnon-resistance?\n\n_A._ From the words which He then used. He said, \"Ye have heard\nthat it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.\nBut I say unto you that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall\nsmite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if\nany man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him\nhave thy cloak also.\"\n\n_Q._ To whom does Jesus refer in the words, \"It has been said?\"\n\n_A._ To the patriarchs and prophets, to what they said,--to what\nis contained in the writings of the Old Testament, which the Jews\ngenerally call the Law and the Prophets.\n\n_Q._ What injunctions did Christ mean by \"It hath been said?\"\n\n_A._ Those injunctions by which Noah, Moses, and other prophets\nauthorize men to inflict personal injury on injurers, in order to\npunish and destroy evil.\n\n_Q._ Quote these precepts.\n\n_A._ Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for\nin the image of God made He man (Gen. ix. 6). He that smiteth a man,\nso that he die, shall be surely put to death, and if any mischief\nfollow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for\ntooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for\nwound, stripe for stripe (Ex. xxi. 12, 23-25).\n\nAnd he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. And if a\nman cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it\nbe done to him: breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as\nhe hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again\n(Lev. xxiv. 17, 19, 20).\n\nAnd the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the\nwitness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his\nbrother; then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done\nunto his brother: and thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go\nfor life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for\nfoot (Deut. xix. 18, 19, 21). These are the precepts of which Jesus\nis speaking.\n\nNoah, Moses, and the prophets taught that he who kills, maims, and\ntortures his neighbours does evil. To resist such evil and destroy\nit, the doer of evil is to be punished by death or maiming or some\npersonal injury. Insult is to be opposed to insult, murder to\nmurder, torture to torture, evil to evil. Thus taught Noah, Moses,\nand the prophets. But Christ denies it all. \"But I say unto you,\" it\nsays in the Gospel, \"that ye resist not evil, resist not an insult\nwith an insult, but rather bear the repeated insult from the doer\nof evil.\" What was authorized is prohibited. If we understand what\nkind of resistance they taught, we clearly see what we are taught by\nChrist's non-resistance.\n\n_Q._ Did the ancients authorize the resistance of insult with insult?\n\n_A._ Yes; but Jesus prohibited this. A Christian has under no\ncondition the right to deprive of life or to subject to insult him\nwho does evil to his neighbour.\n\n_Q._ May a man kill or maim another in self-defence?\n\n_A._ No.\n\n_Q._ May he enter a court with a complaint, to have his insulter\npunished?\n\n_A._ No; for what he is doing through others, he is in reality doing\nin his own person.\n\n_Q._ May he fight with an army against enemies, or against domestic\nrebels?\n\n_A._ Of course not. He cannot take any part in war or warlike\npreparations. He cannot use death-dealing arms. He cannot resist\ninjury with injury, no matter whether he be alone or with others,\nthrough himself or through others.\n\n_Q._ May he choose or fit out military men for the government?\n\n_A._ He can do nothing of the kind, if he wishes to be true to\nChrist's law.\n\n_Q._ May he voluntarily give money, to aid the government, which is\nsupported by military forces, capital punishment, and violence in\ngeneral?\n\n_A._ No, if the money is not intended for some special object, just\nin itself, where the aim and means are good.\n\n_Q._ May he pay taxes to such a government?\n\n_A._ No; he must not voluntarily pay the taxes, but he must also\nnot resist their collection. The taxes imposed by the government\nare collected independently of the will of the subjects. It is\nimpossible to resist the collection, without having recourse to\nviolence; but a Christian must not use violence, and so he must give\nup his property to the violence which is exerted by the powers.\n\n_Q._ May a Christian vote at elections and take part in a court or\nin the government?\n\n_A._ No; the participation in elections, in the court, or in the\ngovernment, is a participation in governmental violence.\n\n_Q._ In what does the chief significance of the doctrine of\nnon-resistance consist?\n\n_A._ In that it alone makes it possible to tear the evil out by the\nroot, both out of one's own heart and out of the neighbour's heart.\nThis doctrine forbids doing that by which evil is perpetuated and\nmultiplied. He who attacks another and insults him, engenders in\nanother the sentiment of hatred, the root of all evil. To offend\nanother, because he offended us, for the specious reason of removing\nan evil, means to repeat an evil deed, both against him and against\nourselves,--to beget, or at least to free, to encourage, the very\ndemon whom we claim we wish to expel. Satan cannot be driven out by\nSatan, untruth cannot be cleansed by untruth, and evil cannot be\nvanquished by evil.\n\nTrue non-resistance is the one true resistance to evil. It kills and\nfinally destroys the evil sentiment.\n\n_Q._ But, if the idea of the doctrine is right, is it practicable?\n\n_A._ It is as practicable as any good prescribed by the Law of\nGod. The good cannot under all circumstances be executed without\nself-renunciation, privation, suffering, and, in extreme cases,\nwithout the loss of life itself. But he who values life more than\nthe fulfilment of God's will is already dead to the one true life.\nSuch a man, in trying to save his life, shall lose it. Besides,\nin general, where non-resistance costs the sacrifice of one life,\nor the sacrifice of some essential good of life, resistance costs\nthousands of such sacrifices.\n\nNon-resistance preserves, resistance destroys.\n\nIt is incomparably safer to act justly than unjustly; to bear\nan insult than to resist it with violence,--it is safer even in\nrelation to the present life. If all men did not resist evil with\nevil, the world would be blessed.\n\n_Q._ But if only a few shall act thus, what will become of them?\n\n_A._ If only one man acted thus, and all the others agreed to\ncrucify him, would it not be more glorious for him to die in the\ntriumph of non-resisting love, praying for his enemies, than to live\nwearing the crown of C\u00e6sar, bespattered with the blood of the slain?\nBut one or thousands who have firmly determined not to resist evil\nwith evil, whether among the enlightened or among savage neighbours,\nare much safer from violence than those who rely on violence. A\nrobber, murderer, deceiver, will more quickly leave them alone than\nthose who resist with weapons. They who take the sword perish with\nthe sword, and those who seek peace, who act in a friendly manner,\ninoffensively, who forget and forgive offences, for the most part\nenjoy peace or, if they die, die blessed.\n\nThus, if all kept the commandment of non-resistance, it is evident\nthat there would be no offences, no evil deeds. If these formed a\nmajority, they would establish the reign of love and good-will, even\ntoward the ill-disposed, by never resisting evil with evil, never\nusing violence. If there were a considerable minority of these, they\nwould have such a corrective, moral effect upon society that every\ncruel punishment would be abolished, and violence and enmity would\nbe changed to peace and love. If there were but a small minority of\nthem, they would rarely experience anything worse than the contempt\nof the world, and the world would in the meantime, without noticing\nit, and without feeling itself under obligation, become wiser and\nbetter from this secret influence. And if, in the very worst case,\na few members of the minority should be persecuted to death, these\nmen, dying for the truth, would leave behind them their teaching,\nwhich is already sanctified by their martyr's death.\n\nPeace be with all who seek peace, and all-conquering love be the\nimperishable inheritance of every soul, which voluntarily submits to\nthe Law of Christ: \"Resist not evil.\" In the course of fifty years,\nBallou wrote and edited books dealing mainly with the question\nof non-resistance to evil. In these works, which are beautiful\nin their lucidity of thought and elegance of expression, the\nquestion is discussed from every possible side. He establishes the\nobligatoriness of this commandment for every Christian who professes\nthe Bible as a divine revelation. He adduces all the customary\nretorts to the commandment of non-resistance, both from the Old\nTestament and from the New, as, for example, the expulsion from\nthe temple, and so forth, and all these are overthrown; he shows,\nindependently of Scripture, the practical wisdom of this rule, and\nadduces all the objections which are usually made to it, and meets\nall these objections. Thus one chapter of a work of his treats of\nnon-resistance to evil in exclusive cases, and here he acknowledges\nthat, if there were cases when the application of non-resistance to\nevil were impossible, this would prove that the rule is altogether\nuntenable. In adducing these special cases, he proves that it is\nprecisely in them that the application of this rule is necessary and\nrational. There is not a single side of the question, either for his\nfollowers or for his adversaries, which is not investigated in these\nworks. I say all this, in order to show the unquestionable interest\nwhich such works ought to have for men who profess Christianity, and\nthat, therefore, one would think Ballou's activity ought to have\nbeen known, and the thoughts expressed by him ought to have been\naccepted or refuted; but there has been nothing of the kind.\n\nThe activity of Garrison the father, with his foundation of a\nsociety of non-resistants and his declaration, convinced me even\nmore than my relations with the Quakers, that the departure of state\nChristianity from Christ's law about non-resistance to evil is\nsomething that has been observed and pointed out long ago, and that\nmen have without cessation worked to arraign it. Ballou's activity\nstill more confirmed this fact to me. But the fate of Garrison and\nespecially of Ballou, who is not known to any one, in spite of\nhis fifty years of stubborn and constant work in one and the same\ndirection, has also confirmed to me the other fact, that there\nexists some kind of unexpressed but firm understanding as to passing\nall such attempts in silence.\n\nBallou died in August, 1890, and his obituary was given\nin an American periodical with a Christian tendency\n(_Religio-Philosophical Journal_, August 23d).\n\nIn this eulogistic obituary it says that Ballou was a spiritual\nguide of a community, that he delivered between eight and nine\nthousand sermons, married one thousand pairs, and wrote about five\nhundred articles, but not a word is said about the aim to which he\ndevoted all his life,--the word \"non-resistance\" is not even used.\n\nLike all that which the Quakers have been preaching for two hundred\nyears, like the activity of Garrison the father, the foundation of\nhis society and periodical, and his declaration, so Ballou's whole\nactivity does not seem to have existed at all.\n\nA striking example of such an ingloriousness of writings intended to\nelucidate non-resistance to evil, and to arraign those who do not\nrecognize this commandment, is found in the fate of the book by the\nBohemian Chelcick\u00fd, which has but lately become known and has so far\nnot yet been printed.\n\nSoon after the publication of my book in German, I received a letter\nfrom a professor of the Prague University, which informed me of the\nexistence of a still unpublished work by the Bohemian Chelcick\u00fd, of\nthe fifteenth century, by the name of _The Drawnet of Faith_. In\nthis work, as the professor wrote me, Chelcick\u00fd about four centuries\nago expressed the same view in regard to the true and the false\nChristianity, which I had expressed in my work, _My Religion_. The\nprofessor wrote to me that Chelcick\u00fd's work was for the first time\nto be published in Bohemian in the periodical of the St. Petersburg\nAcademy of Sciences. As I was unable to procure the work itself, I\ntried to become acquainted with what was known of Chelcick\u00fd, and\nsuch information I got from a German book sent me by the same Prague\nprofessor, and from P\u00fdpin's \"History of Bohemian Literature.\" This\nis what P\u00fdpin says:\n\n\"_The Drawnet of Faith_ is that teaching of Christ which is to draw\nman out from the dark depths of the sea of life and its untruths.\nTrue faith consists in believing in God's words; but now there has\ncome a time when men consider the true faith to be heresy, and so\nreason must show wherein the true faith consists, if one does not\nknow it. Darkness has concealed it from men, and they do not know\nChrist's true law.\n\n\"To explain this law, Chelcick\u00fd points out the original structure of\nChristian society, which, he says, is now regarded as rank heresy by\nthe Roman Church.\n\n\"This primitive church was his own ideal of a social structure,\nbased on equality, freedom, and brotherhood. Christianity, according\nto Chelcick\u00fd, still treasures these principles, and all that is\nnecessary is, that society should return to its pure teaching, and\nthen any other order, in which kings and popes are needed, would\nseem superfluous: in everything the law of love alone is sufficient.\n\n\"Historically Chelcick\u00fd refers the fall of Christianity to the\ntimes of Constantine the Great, whom Pope Sylvester introduced into\nChristianity with all the pagan customs and life. Constantine, in\nhis turn, invested the Pope with worldly wealth and power. Since\nthen both powers have been aiding one another and have striven after\nexternal glory. Doctors and masters and the clergy have begun to\ncare only for the subjugation of the whole world to their dominion,\nhave armed men against one another for the purpose of murdering and\nplundering, and have completely destroyed Christianity in faith\nand in life. Chelcick\u00fd absolutely denies the right to wage war and\nadminister capital punishment; every warrior and even 'knight' is\nonly an oppressor, malefactor, and murderer.\"\n\nThe same, except for some biographical details and excerpts from\nChelcick\u00fd's correspondence, is said in the German book.\n\nHaving thus learned the essence of Chelcick\u00fd's teaching, I with much\ngreater impatience waited for the appearance of _The Drawnet of\nFaith_ in the journal of the Academy. But a year, two, three years\npassed, and the book did not appear. Only in 1888 I learned that the\nprinting of the book, which had been begun, had come to a stop. I\ngot the proof-sheets of as much as had been printed, and I read the\nbook. The book is in every respect remarkable.\n\nThe contents are quite correctly rendered by P\u00fdpin. Chelcick\u00fd's\nfundamental idea is this, that Christianity, having united with the\npower in the time of Constantine and having continued to develop\nunder these conditions, has become absolutely corrupt and has ceased\nto be Christianity. The title \"The Drawnet of Faith,\" was given by\nChelcick\u00fd to his work, because, taking for his motto the verse of\nthe Gospel about calling the disciples to become fishers of men,\nChelcick\u00fd, continuing this comparison, says, \"Christ by means of\nHis disciples caught in His drawnet of faith the whole world, but\nthe larger fish, tearing the net, jumped out of it, and through the\nholes, which these larger fish had made, all the others went away,\nand the net was left almost empty.\"\n\nThe large fish that broke through the net are the rulers, emperors,\npopes, kings, who, in not renouncing their power, did not accept\nChristianity, but its semblance only.\n\nChelcick\u00fd taught what has been taught until the present by the\nMennonites and Quakers, and what in former years was taught by the\nBogomils, Paulicians, and many others. He teaches that Christianity,\nwhich demands from its followers meekness, humility, kindness,\nforgiveness of sins, the offering of the other cheek when one cheek\nhas been smitten, love of enemies, is incompatible with violence,\nwhich forms an indispensable condition of power.\n\nA Christian, according to Chelcick\u00fd's interpretation, can not only\nnot be a chief or a soldier, but cannot even take part in the\ngovernment, be a merchant or even a landowner; he can be only an\nartisan or an agriculturist.\n\nThis book is one of the extremely few that have survived the\nauto-da-f\u00e9s of books in which the official Christianity is\narraigned. All such books, which are called heretical, have been\nburned together with the authors, so that there are very few ancient\nworks which arraign the departure of official Christianity, and so\nthis book is especially interesting.\n\nBut besides being interesting, no matter how we look upon it, this\nbook is one of the most remarkable productions of thoughts, as\njudged by the depth of its contents, and the wonderful force and\nbeauty of the popular language, and its antiquity. And yet this book\nhas for more than four centuries remained unprinted, and continues\nto be unknown, except to learned specialists.\n\nOne would think that all these kinds of works, by the Quakers, and\nGarrison, and Ballou, and Chelcick\u00fd, which assert and prove, on the\nbasis of the Gospel, that our world comprehends Christ's teaching\nfalsely, ought to rouse interest, agitation, discussions, in the\nmidst of the pastors and of the flock.\n\nWorks of this kind, which touch on the essence of the Christian\nteaching, ought, it seems, to be analyzed and recognized as true, or\nto be rejected and overthrown.\n\nBut nothing of the kind has happened. One and the same thing\nis repeated with all these works. People of the most different\nviews, both those who believe and, what is most surprising, those\nwho are unbelieving liberals, seem to have an agreement to pass\nthem stubbornly in silence, and all that has been done by men to\nelucidate the true meaning of Christ's teaching remains unknown or\nforgotten.\n\nBut still more startling is the ingloriousness of two works, of\nwhich I learned also in connection with the appearance of my book.\nThese are Dymond's book _On War_, published for the first time in\nLondon, in 1824, and Daniel Musser's book _On Non-Resistance_,\nwritten in 1864. The ignorance about these two books is particularly\nremarkable, because, to say nothing of their worth, both books treat\nnot so much of the theory as of the practical application of the\ntheory to life, of the relation of Christianity to military service,\nwhich is particularly important and interesting now, in connection\nwith the universal liability to do military service.\n\nPeople will, perhaps, ask: \"What are the duties of a subject, who\nbelieves that war is incompatible with his religion, but of whom the\ngovernment demands a participation in military service?\"\n\nIt seems that this is a very living question, one, the answer\nto which is particularly important in connection with the\nmilitary service of the present time. All, or a vast majority of\nmen,--Christians,--all males, are called on to perform military\nservice. What must a man, as a Christian, answer in reply to this\ndemand? Dymond's answer is as follows:\n\n\"It is his duty, mildly and temperately, yet firmly, to refuse to\nserve.\n\n\"There are some persons, who, without any determinate process of\nreasoning, appear to conclude that responsibility for national\nmeasures attaches solely to those who direct them; that it is the\nbusiness of governments to consider what is good for the community,\nand that, in these cases, the duty of the subject is merged in the\nwill of the sovereign. Considerations like these are, I believe,\noften voluntarily permitted to become opiates of the conscience. 'I\nhave no part,' it is said, 'in the councils of the government, and\nam not therefore responsible for its crimes.' We are, indeed, not\nresponsible for the crimes of our rulers, but we are responsible for\nour own; and the crimes of our rulers are our own, if, whilst we\nbelieve them to be crimes, we promote them by our co\u00f6peration.\n\n\"But those who suppose that obedience in all things is required, or\nthat responsibility in political affairs is transferred from the\nsubject to the sovereign, reduce themselves to a great dilemma.\n\n\"It is to say that we must resign our conduct and our consciences to\nthe will of others, and act wickedly or well, as their good or evil\nmay preponderate, without merit for virtue, or responsibility for\ncrime.\"\n\nWhat is remarkable is this, that precisely the same is expressed in\nthe instruction to the soldiers, which they are made to learn by\nrote: it says there that only the general is responsible for the\nconsequences of his command. But this is not true. A man cannot\nshift the responsibility for his acts. And this may be seen from\nwhat follows:\n\n\"If the government direct you to fire your neighbour's property, or\nto throw him over a precipice, will you obey?[5] If you will not,\nthere is an end of the argument, for if you may reject its authority\nin one instance, where is the limit to rejection? There is no\nrational limit but that which is assigned by Christianity, and that\nis both rational and practicable.\n\n  [5] Tolst\u00f3y's translation from the English, which is generally\n  loose, here departs entirely from the text. Tolst\u00f3y writes: \"If a\n  chief direct you to kill your neighbour's child, or your father, or\n  your mother, will you obey?\"\n\n\"We think, then, that it is the business of every man, who believes\nthat war is inconsistent with our religion, respectfully, but\nsteadfastly, to refuse to engage in it. Let such as these remember\nthat an honourable and an awful duty is laid upon them. It is upon\ntheir fidelity, so far as human agency is concerned, that the cause\nof peace is suspended. Let them be willing to avow their opinions\nand to defend them. Neither let them be contented with words, if\nmore than words, if suffering also, is required. If you believe\nthat Jesus Christ has prohibited slaughter, let not the opinion or\nthe commands of a world induce you to join in it. By this 'steady\nand determinate pursuit of virtue,' the benediction which attaches\nto those who hear the sayings of God and do them, will rest upon\nyou, and the time will come when even the world will honour you, as\ncontributors to the work of human reformation.\"\n\nMusser's book is called _Non-Resistance Asserted; or, Kingdom of\nChrist and Kingdom of This World Separated_, 1864.[6]\n\n  [6] A thorough search through bibliographies, catalogues, and\n  libraries has failed to reveal such a book or such an author, and as\n  Tolst\u00f3y speaks above of the book as being written, it may be that\n  Tolst\u00f3y had a manuscript before him.\n\nThe book is devoted to the same question, which it analyzes in\nrelation with the demand made by the government of the United States\non its citizens as regards military service during that Civil War,\nand it has the same contemporary importance, in that it analyzes the\nquestion as to how and under what conditions men must and can refuse\nto do military service. In the introduction the author says:\n\n\"It is well known that in the United States there are many people\nwho consciously deny war. They are called 'non-resistant' or\n'defenceless' Christians. These Christians refuse to defend their\ncountry or to bear arms, or to engage, at the request of the\ngovernment, in war against its enemies. Until now this religious\ncause has been respected by the government, and those who professed\nit were excused from service. But with the beginning of our civil\nwar public opinion has been wrought up by this state of affairs.\nNaturally, people who consider it their duty to bear all the burdens\nand perils of a military life for the defence of their country feel\nharsh toward those who for a long time have with them enjoyed the\nprotection and the advantages of the government, but in time of\nnecessity and danger do not wish to share in bearing the labours and\ndangers in its defence. It is also natural for the condition of such\nmen to be considered irrational, monstrous, and suspicious.\n\n\"Many orators and writers,\" says the author, \"have raised their\nvoice against this state and have tried to prove the injustice of\nnon-resistance from common sense and from Scripture; and this is\nquite natural, and in many cases these authors are right,--they\nare right in relation to those persons who, declining the labours\nconnected with military service, do not decline the advantages\nwhich they receive from the governments,--but they are not right in\nrelation to the principle of non-resistance itself.\"\n\nFirst of all the author proves the obligatoriness of the rule of\nnon-resistance for every Christian in that it is clear and that it\nis given to a Christian beyond any possibility of misinterpretation.\n\"Judge yourselves whether it is right to obey man more than God,\"\nsaid Peter and John. Similarly every man who wants to be a Christian\nmust act in relation to the demand that he should go to war, since\nChrist has told him, \"Resist not evil with violence.\"\n\nWith this the author considers the question as to principle itself\ncompletely solved. The author analyzes in detail the other question\nas to whether persons, who do not decline the advantages which\nare obtained through the violence of government, have a right to\nrefuse to do military service, and comes to the conclusion that a\nChristian, who follows Christ's law and refuses to go to war, can\njust as little take part in any governmental affairs,--either in\ncourts or in elections,--nor can he in private matters have recourse\nto power, police or court. Then the book proceeds to analyze the\nrelation of the Old Testament to the New,--the significance of\ngovernment for non-Christians; there are offered objections to\nthe doctrine of non-resistance, and these are refuted. The author\nconcludes his book with the following:\n\n\"Christ chose His disciples in the world,\" he says. \"They do not\nexpect any worldly goods or worldly happiness, but, on the contrary,\neverlasting life. The spirit in which they live makes them satisfied\nand happy in every situation. If the world tolerates them, they are\nalways satisfied. But if the world will not leave them in peace,\nthey will go elsewhere, since they are wanderers on the earth and\nhave no definite place of abode. They consider that the dead can\nbury the dead,--they need but one thing, and that is to follow their\nteacher.\"\n\nWithout touching the question whether the duty of a Christian in\nrelation to war, as established in these two books, is correct\nor not, it is impossible not to see the practical importance and\nurgency of the solution of this question.\n\nThere are some people,--hundreds of thousands of Quakers,--and\nall our Spirit Wrestlers and Milkers, and people belonging to\nno definite sects, who assert that violence--and so military\nservice--is not compatible with Christianity, and therefore every\nyear several recruits in Russia refuse to do military service on\nthe basis of their religious convictions. What does the government\ndo? Does it excuse them? No. Does it compel them to serve, and, in\ncase of a refusal, punish them? No. In 1818 the government acted as\nfollows. Here is an excerpt, which is almost unknown in Russia, from\na diary by N. N. Murav\u00e9v-K\u00e1rski, which was not sanctioned by the\ncensor.\n\n\n     \"TIFLIS, October 2, 1818.\n\n     \"In the morning the commandant told me that lately five manorial\n     peasants from the Government of T\u00e1mbov had been sent to Georgia.\n     These men had been sent to the army, but they refused to serve;\n     they have been flogged several times and have been sent between\n     the rows, but they gladly undergo the most cruel torments and\n     are prepared for death, if only they can avoid serving. 'Send\n     us away,' they say, 'and do not touch us; we shall not touch\n     any one. All men are equal and the Tsar is just such a man as\n     we are. Why should we pay him tribute? Why should I subject my\n     life to danger in order to kill in war a man who has done me no\n     wrong? You may cut us into small pieces, but we will not change\n     our ideas, we will not put on the military cloak, and will\n     not eat rations. He who will pity us will give us an alms, but\n     we have nothing belonging to the Crown and we want nothing.'\n     Such are the words of these peasants, who assert that there is\n     a large number like them in Russia. They have four times been\n     taken before the Committee of Ministers, and it was finally\n     decided to refer the matter to the Tsar, who commanded that\n     they be sent to Georgia to mend their ways, and ordered the\n     commander-in-chief to report to him every month concerning the\n     gradual success in turning these peasants to the proper ideas.\"\n\nIt is not known how this improvement ended, just as nothing is known\nof the whole episode, which was kept a profound secret.\n\nThus the government acted seventy-five years ago,--thus it has acted\nin the vast majority of cases, which are always cautiously concealed\nfrom the people. Thus it acts even at present, except in relation to\nthe German Mennonites, who live in the Government of Khers\u00f3n, for\ntheir refusal to do military service is heeded and they are made to\nserve their time in connection with forestry work.\n\nIn the late cases of refusal to do military service in consequence\nof religious convictions, other than those of the Mennonites, the\nauthorities have acted as follows:\n\nAt first they use all means of violence employed in our time for\nthe purpose of \"mending\" them and bringing them back to \"the proper\nideas,\" and the whole matter is kept a profound secret. I know that\nin the case of one man in Moscow, who in 1884 refused to serve, they\nwrote up voluminous documents two months after his refusal, and\nthese were kept in the ministry as the greatest secret.\n\nThey generally begin by sending the one who refuses to the priests,\nwho, to their shame be it said, always admonish the person refusing.\nBut since the admonition, in the name of Christ, to renounce Christ\nis generally fruitless, the refusing person is after the admonition\nby the clergy sent to the gendarmes. The gendarmes, finding nothing\nof a political nature in the case, generally return him, and then\nthe refusing person is sent to the learned, to the physicians, and\ninto the insane asylum. In all these recommitments the refuser, who\nis deprived of his liberty, undergoes all kinds of humiliations and\nsufferings, like a condemned criminal. (This was repeated in four\ncases.) The physicians dismiss the refuser from the insane asylum,\nand then begin all kinds of secret, cunning measures, in order not\nto dismiss the refuser and thus encourage others to refuse like him,\nand at the same time not to leave him amidst the soldiers, lest the\nsoldiers might find out from him that the levy for military service\ndoes not at all take place in accordance with God's law, as they are\nassured, but contrary to it.\n\nThe most convenient thing for the government to do would be to\nhave the refuser executed, beaten to death with sticks, as they\nused to do of old, or executed in some other manner. But it is\nimpossible openly to execute a man for being true to a teaching\nwhich we all profess, and it is equally impossible to let a man\nalone, who refuses to serve. And so the government tries either\nthrough suffering to compel the man to renounce Christ, or in some\nway imperceptibly to get rid of the man, without having him publicly\nexecuted,--in some way to conceal this man's act and the man himself\nfrom other people. And so there begin all kinds of devices and\ncunning and tortures of this man. Either he is sent to some outlying\nregion, or he is provoked to commit some act of insubordination,\nand then he is tried for breach of discipline and is locked up in\nprison, in a disciplinary battalion, where he is freely tortured\nin secret, or he is declared insane and is locked up in an insane\nasylum. Thus one man was sent to Tashk\u00e9nt, that is, as though he\nwere transferred to the Tashk\u00e9nt army, another to Omsk, a third was\ntried for insubordination and sent to prison, and a fourth was put\ninto a lunatic asylum.\n\nEverywhere the same is repeated. Not only the government, but also\nthe majority of liberals, of freethinkers, as though by agreement,\ncarefully turn away from everything which has been said, written,\nand done by men to show the incompatibility of violence in its most\nterrible, rude, and lurid form, in the form of militarism, that\nis, the readiness to kill anybody, with the teaching, not only of\nChristianity, but even of humanitarianism, which society pretends to\nbe professing.\n\nThus the information which I received concerning the extent to which\nthe true significance of Christ's teaching has been elucidated and\nis being elucidated more and more, and concerning the attitude which\nthe highest ruling classes, not only in Russia, but also in Europe\nand in America, take toward this elucidation and execution of the\nteaching, convinced me that in these ruling classes there existed a\nconsciously hostile relation toward true Christianity, which found\nits expression mainly in the silence observed concerning all its\nmanifestations.\n\n\nII.\n\nThe same impression of a desire to conceal, to pass in silence, what\nI attempted so carefully to express in my book, has been produced on\nme by the criticisms upon it.\n\nWhen my book appeared, it was, as I had expected, prohibited, and\naccording to the law it ought to have been burned. But, instead of\nbeing burned, it was distributed among the officials, and it was\ndisseminated in a large number of written copies and lithographic\nreprints, and in translations printed abroad. Very soon there\nappeared criticisms upon the book, not only by the clergy, but also\nby the laity, which the government not only sanctioned, but even\nencouraged, so that the refutation of the book, which was assumed to\nbe unknown to any one, was made a theme for theological essays in\nthe academies.\n\nThe critics upon my books, both the Russian and the foreign critics,\ncan be divided into two classes: into the religious critics,--people\nwho consider themselves to be believers,--and lay critics, who are\nfreethinkers.\n\nI shall begin with the first:\n\nIn my book I accuse the church teachers of teaching contrary to\nChrist's commandments, which are clearly and definitely expressed in\nthe Sermon on the Mount, and especially contrary to the commandment\nabout non-resistance to evil, thus depriving Christ's teaching\nof all significance. The church teachers recognize the Sermon on\nthe Mount with the commandment about non-resistance to evil as a\ndivine revelation, and so, if they have found it necessary to write\nabout my book at all, they ought, it would seem, first of all to\nanswer this chief point of accusation and say outright whether\nthey consider the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount and of the\ncommandment about non-resistance to evil obligatory for a Christian,\nor not,--and they must not answer it as this is generally done, that\nis, by saying that, although on the one hand it cannot properly be\ndenied, on the other it cannot be affirmed, the more so that, and so\nforth,--but must answer it just as the question is put by me in my\nbook: did Christ actually demand from His disciples the fulfilment\nof what He taught in the Sermon on the Mount? and so, can a\nChristian, remaining a Christian, go to court, taking part in it and\ncondemning people, or seeking in it defence by means of violence,\nor can he not? Can a Christian, still remaining a Christian, take\npart in the government, using violence against his neighbours, or\nnot? And the chief question, which now, with the universal military\nservice, stands before all men,--can a Christian, remaining a\nChristian, contrary to Christ's injunction, make any promises as\nto future acts, which are directly contrary to the teaching, and,\ntaking part in military service, prepare himself for the murder of\nmen and commit it?\n\nThe questions are put clearly and frankly, and, it would seem, they\nought to be answered clearly and frankly. But nothing of the kind\nhas been done in all the criticisms upon my book, just as nothing of\nthe kind has been done in the case of all those arraignments of the\nchurch teachers for departing from Christ's law, with which history\nis filled since the time of Constantine.\n\nVery much has been said in reference to my book about how\nincorrectly I interpret this or that passage in the Gospel, how\nI err in not acknowledging the Trinity, the redemption, and the\nimmortality of the soul; very much has been said, but this one\nthing, which for every Christian forms the chief, essential question\nof life: how to harmonize what was clearly expressed in the\nteacher's words and is clearly expressed in the heart of every one\nof us,--the teaching about forgiveness, humility, renunciation, and\nlove of all men, of our neighbours and of our enemies,--with the\ndemand of military violence exerted against the men of one's own\nnation or another nation.\n\nEverything which may be called semblances of answers to this\nquestion may be reduced to the five following divisions. I have\ntried in this respect to collect everything I could, not only in\nreference to the criticisms upon my book, but also in reference to\nwhat has been written upon the subject in former times.\n\nThe first, the rudest way of answering, consists in the bold\nassertion that violence does not contradict Christ's teaching, and\nthat it is permitted and even prescribed by the Old and the New\nTestament.\n\nAssertions of this kind issue for the most part from people\nhigh up in the governmental or ecclesiastic hierarchy, who are,\ntherefore, quite convinced that no one will dare to contradict\ntheir assertions, and that if one actually dared to do so, they\nwould not hear these objections. These men have, in consequence of\ntheir intoxication with their power, for the most part to such an\nextent lost the concept of what that Christianity is, in the name\nof which they occupy their places, that everything of a Christian\nnature in Christianity presents itself to them as sectarian; but\neverything which in the writings of the Old and the New Testament\nmay be interpreted in an anti-Christian and pagan sense, they\nconsider to be the foundation of Christianity. In favour of their\nassertion that Christianity does not contradict violence, these\nmen with the greatest boldness generally bring forward the most\noffensive passages from the Old and the New Testament, and interpret\nthem in the most non-Christian manner: the execution of Ananias\nand Sapphira, the execution of Simon Magus, and so forth. They\nadduce all those words of Christ which may be interpreted as a\njustification of cruelty, such as the expulsion from the temple, \"It\nshall be more tolerable on that day for Sodom, than for that city,\"\nand so forth.\n\nAccording to the concepts of these men, the Christian government is\nnot in the least obliged to be guided by the spirit of humility,\nforgiveness of offences, and love of our enemies.\n\nIt is useless to refute such an assertion, because the men who\nassert this refute themselves, or rather, turn away from Christ,\ninventing their own Christ and their own Christianity in place of\nHim in whose name the church exists and also the position which\nthey occupy in it. If all men knew that the church preaches Christ\npunishing, and not forgiving, and warring, no one would be believing\nin this church, and there would be no one to prove what it is\nproving.\n\nThe second method is a little less rude. It consists in asserting\nthat, although Christ really taught to offer one's cheek and give up\na shirt, and this is a very high moral demand, there are malefactors\nin the world, and if these are not curbed by the exercise of\nforce, the whole world and all good men will perish. This proof I\nfound for the first time in John Chrysostom and I pointed out its\nincorrectness in my book, _My Religion_.\n\nThis argument is ungrounded, because, in the first place, if we\nallow ourselves to recognize any men as special malefactors (Raca),\nwe thus destroy the whole meaning of the Christian teaching,\naccording to which we are all equal and brothers, as the sons of\none heavenly Father; in the second place, because, even if God\npermitted the exertion of violence against malefactors, it is\nabsolutely impossible to find that safe and indubitable sign by\nwhich a malefactor may be unerringly told from one who is not,\nand so every man, or society of men, would recognize another as a\nmalefactor, which is the case now; in the third place, because even\nif it were possible unerringly to tell malefactors from those who\nare not malefactors, it would still not be possible in a Christian\nsociety to execute, or maim, or lock up these malefactors, because\nin Christian society there would be no one to do this, because every\nChristian, as a Christian, is enjoined not to use violence against a\nmalefactor.\n\nThe third method of answering is still shrewder than the previous\none. It consists in asserting that, although the commandment of\nnon-resistance to evil is obligatory for a Christian when the evil\nis directed against him personally, it ceases to be obligatory\nwhen the evil is directed against his neighbours, and that then a\nChristian is not only not obliged to fulfil the commandments, but\nis also obliged in the defence of his neighbours, contrary to the\ncommandment, to use violence against the violators.\n\nThis assertion is quite arbitrary, and in the whole of Christ's\nteaching no confirmation of such an interpretation can be found.\nSuch an interpretation is not only a limitation of the commandment,\nbut a direct negation and annihilation of it. If any man has a right\nto use violence when another is threatened by danger, then the\nquestion as to the use of violence reduces itself to the question\nof defining what constitutes a danger for another person. But if my\nprivate judgment decides the question of danger for another, then\nthere does not exist such a case of violence that it could not be\nexplained on the basis of a danger with which another is threatened.\nWizards were executed and burned, aristocrats and Girondists were\nexecuted, and so were their enemies, because those who were in power\nconsidered them to be dangerous for others.\n\nIf this important limitation, which radically undermines the meaning\nof the commandment, entered Christ's mind, there ought somewhere to\nbe mention made of it. But in all the preaching and the life of the\nteacher there is not only no such limitation, but, on the contrary,\nthere is expressed a particular caution against such a false and\noffensive limitation, which destroys the commandment. The mistake\nand the blunder of such a limitation is with particular clearness\nshown in the Gospel in connection with the judgment of Caiaphas, who\nmade this very limitation. He recognized that it was not good to\nexecute innocent Jesus, but he saw in Him danger, not for himself,\nbut for the whole nation, and so he said: \"It is expedient for us\nthat one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation\nperish not.\" And more clearly still was the negation of such a\nlimitation expressed in the words said to Peter when he attempted\nwith violence to resist the evil which was directed against Jesus\n(Matt. xxvi. 52). Peter was not defending himself, but his beloved\nand divine teacher. And Christ directly forbade him to do so, saying\nthat he who takes the sword shall perish with the sword.\n\nBesides, the justification of violence used against a neighbour\nfor the sake of defending another man against worse violence is\nalways incorrect, because in using violence against an evil which is\nnot yet accomplished, it is impossible to know which evil will be\ngreater,--whether the evil of my violence or of that against which\nI wish to defend my neighbour. We execute a criminal, thus freeing\nsociety from him, and we are positively unable to tell whether\nthe criminal would not have changed on the morrow and whether our\nexecution is not a useless cruelty. We lock up a man whom we suppose\nto be a dangerous member of society, but beginning with to-morrow\nthis man may cease to be dangerous, and his incarceration is futile.\nI see that a man whom I know to be a robber is pursuing a girl, and\nI have a gun in my hand,--I kill the robber and save the girl; the\nrobber has certainly been killed or wounded, but it is unknown to\nme what would happen if that were not the case. What an enormous\namount of evil must take place, as it actually does, as the result\nof arrogating to ourselves the right to prevent an evil that may\noccur! Ninety-nine hundredths of the evil of the world, from the\nInquisition to dynamite bombs and the executions and sufferings of\ntens of thousands of so-called political criminals, are based on\nthis reflection.\n\nThe fourth, still more refined answer to the question as to how a\nChristian should act toward Christ's commandment of non-resistance\nto evil consists in asserting that the commandment of non-resistance\nto evil is not denied by them, but is accepted like any other; but\nthat they do not ascribe to this commandment any special exclusive\nsignificance, as the sectarians do. To ascribe to this commandment\nan invariable condition of Christian life, as do Garrison, Ballou,\nDymond, the Quakers, the Mennonites, the Shakers, and as did the\nMoravian brothers, the Waldenses, Albigenses, Bogomils, Paulicians,\nis one-sided sectarianism. This commandment has neither more nor\nless significance than all the others, and a man who in his weakness\ntransgresses any one of the commandments about non-resistance\ndoes not cease to be a Christian, provided he believes correctly.\nThis subterfuge is very clever, and men who wish to be deceived\nare easily deceived by it. The subterfuge consists in reducing\nthe direct conscious negation of the commandment to an accidental\nviolation of the same. But we need only compare the relation of\nthe church teachers to this commandment and to others, which they\nactually recognize, in order that we may convince ourselves that\nthe relation of the church teachers to the commandments which they\nrecognize is quite different from their relation to this one.\n\nThey actually recognize the commandment against fornication, and so\nnever, under any condition, admit that fornication is not an evil.\nThe preachers of the church never point out any cases when the\ncommandment against fornication ought to be broken, and they always\nteach that we must avoid the offences which lead to the temptation\nof fornication. But this is not the case with the commandment about\nnon-resistance. All the church preachers know cases when this\ncommandment may be broken. And thus they teach men. And they not\nonly do not teach how to avoid these offences, of which the chief\none is the oath, but themselves commit them. The church preachers\nnever and under no condition preach the violation of any other\ncommandment; but in relation to the commandment of non-resistance\nthey teach outright that this prohibition must not be understood in\ntoo direct a sense, and not only that this commandment must not be\ncarried out at all times, but that there are conditions, situations,\nwhen directly the opposite should be done, that is, that we should\njudge, wage war, execute. Thus, in reference to the commandment\nabout non-resistance to evil, they in the majority of cases preach\nhow not to fulfil it. The fulfilment of this commandment, they\nsay, is very difficult and is characteristic only of perfection.\nBut how can it help but be difficult, when its breach is not\nonly not prohibited, but is also directly encouraged, when they\ndirectly bless the courts, prisons, guns, cannon, armies, battles?\nConsequently it is not true that this commandment is recognized\nby the church preachers as of equal significance with the other\ncommandments. The church preachers simply do not recognize it, and\nonly because they do not dare to confess it, try to conceal their\nfailure to recognize it.\n\nSuch is the fourth method of answers.\n\nThe fifth method, the most refined, most popular, and most powerful\none, consists in begging the question, in making it appear as though\nthe question had long ago been decided by some one in an absolutely\nclear and satisfactory manner, and as though it were not worth while\nto speak of it. This method is employed by more or less cultivated\necclesiastic writers, that is, such as feel the laws of logic to be\nobligatory for them. Knowing that the contradiction which exists\nbetween Christ's teaching, which we profess in words, and the whole\nstructure of our life cannot be solved with words, and that, by\ntouching it, we can only make it more obvious, they with greater or\nlesser agility get around it, making it appear that the question\nabout the connection of Christianity with violence has been decided\nor does not exist at all.[7]\n\n  [7] I know but one piece of writing, not a criticism in the strict\n  sense of the word, but an article which treats the same subject,\n  and which has my book in view, that departs from this common\n  definition. It is Tr\u00f3itski's pamphlet (Kaz\u00e1n) _The Sermon on the\n  Mount_. The author obviously recognizes Christ's teaching in its\n  real significance. He says that the commandment about non-resistance\n  to evil means what it does, and the same is true of the commandment\n  about swearing; he does not deny, as others do, the significance\n  of Christ's teaching, but unfortunately he does not make from this\n  recognition those inevitable deductions, which in our life beg for\n  recognition in connection with such a comprehension of Christ's\n  teaching. If it is not right to resist evil and to swear, every\n  man will naturally ask: \"How about military service?\" And to this\n  question the author gives no answer, though an answer is demanded.\n  And if it cannot be answered, it is best not to speak at all,\n  because silence produces error.--_Author's Note._\n\nThe majority of the ecclesiastic critics of my book employ this\nmethod. I could adduce dozens of such criticisms, in which without\nexception one and the same thing is repeated: they speak of\neverything but the chief subject of the book. As a characteristic\nexample of such criticisms, I shall quote an article by the famous,\nrefined English writer and preacher, Farrar, a great master, like\nmany learned theologians, of evasions and reticence. This article\nwas printed in the American periodical, _Forum_, in October, 1888.\n\nHaving conscientiously given a short review of my book, Farrar says:\n\n\"Tolst\u00f3y came to the conclusion that a coarse deceit was palmed\nupon the world when these words were held by civil society to\nbe compatible with war, courts of justice, capital punishment,\ndivorce, oaths, national prejudice, and indeed with most of the\ninstitutions of civil and social life. He now believes that the\nkingdom of God would come if all men kept these five commandments,\n... (1) Live in peace with all men; (2) be pure; (3) take no oaths;\n(4) never resist evil; (5) renounce national distinctions.\n\n\"Tolst\u00f3y,\" he says, \"rejects the divine inspiration of the Old\nTestament and of the epistles; he rejects all the dogmas of the\nchurch, that of the atonement by blood, that of the Trinity, that of\nthe descent of the Holy Ghost upon the apostles ... and recognizes\nonly the words and commandments of Christ.\n\n\"Is this interpretation of Christ a true one?\" he asks. \"Are all men\nbound, or is any man bound, to act as Tolst\u00f3y has taught, that is,\nto fulfil the five commandments of Christ?\"\n\nOne just hopes that in reply to this essential question, which\nalone could have urged the man to write an article on the book, he\nwill say that this interpretation of Christ's teaching is correct,\nor that it is not correct, and so will prove why, and will give\nanother, a correct interpretation to the words which I interpret\nincorrectly. But nothing of the kind is done. Farrar only expresses\nhis conviction that, \"though actuated by the noblest sincerity,\nTolst\u00f3y has been misled by partial and one-sided interpretations of\nthe meaning of the Gospel and the mind and will of Christ.\"\n\nNo explanation is given as to what this error consists in, but all\nthere is said, is:\n\n\"To enter into the proof of this is impossible in this article, for\nI have already exceeded the space at my command.\"\n\nAnd he concludes with an easy mind:\n\n\"Meanwhile the reader who feels troubled lest it should be his duty\nalso to forsake all conditions of his life, and to take up the\nposition and work of a common labourer, may rest for the present\non the principle, _Securus judicat orbis terrarum_. With few and\nrare exceptions,\" he continues, \"the whole of Christendom, from\nthe days of the apostles down to our own, has come to the firm\nconclusion that it was the object of Christ to lay down great\neternal principles, but not disturb the bases and revolutionize the\ninstitutions of all human society, which themselves rest on divine\nsanction as well as on inevitable conditions. Were it my object to\nprove how untenable is the doctrine of communism, based by Tolst\u00f3y\nupon the divine paradoxes (_sic!_), which can be interpreted on only\nhistorical principles in accordance with the whole method of the\nteaching of Jesus, it would require an ampler canvas than I have\nhere at my disposal.\"\n\nWhat a misfortune,--he has not any space! And, strange to say, space\nhas been lacking for fifteen centuries, to prove that Christ, whom\nwe profess, said something different from what He said. They could\nprove it, if they only wanted to. However, it does not pay to prove\nwhat everybody knows. It is enough to say: \"_Securus judicat orbis\nterrarum_.\"\n\nAnd such are, without exception, all the criticisms of the\ncultivated believers, who, therefore, do not understand the\nperilousness of their position. The only way out for them is the\nhope that, by using the authority of the church, of antiquity,\nof holiness, they may be able to confuse the reader and draw him\naway from the thought of reading the Gospel for himself and of\nconsidering the question with his own mind. And in this they are\nsuccessful. To whom, indeed, will it occur that all that which\nwith such assurance and solemnity is repeated from century to\ncentury by all these archdeacons, bishops, archbishops, most\nholy synods, and Popes, is a base lie and calumny, which they\nfoist on Christ in order to secure the money which they need for\nthe purpose of leading a life of pleasure, while sitting on\nthe backs of others,--a lie and a calumny, which is so obvious,\nespecially now that the only possibility of continuing this lie\nconsists in frightening men into belief by their assurance, their\nunscrupulousness? It is precisely the same that of late years has\ntaken place in the Recruiting Sessions: at the head of the table,\nwith the Mirror of Laws upon it, and beneath the full-sized portrait\nof the emperor, sit dignified old officials in their regalia,\nconversing freely and unreservedly, noting down, commanding,\ncalling out. Here also, with the cross over his breast and in\nsilk vestments, with his gray hair falling down straight over his\nscapulary, stands an imposing old man, the priest, in front of the\npulpit, on which lies a gold cross and a gold-trimmed Gospel.\n\nIv\u00e1n Petr\u00f3v is called out. A young man steps out. He is poorly\nand dirtily dressed and looks frightened, and the muscles of his\nface tremble, and his fugitive eyes sparkle, and in a faltering\nvoice, almost in a whisper, he says: \"I--according to the law I, a\nChristian--I cannot--\"\n\n\"What is he muttering there?\" impatiently asks the presiding\nofficer, half-closing his eyes and listening, as he raises his head\nfrom the book.\n\n\"Speak louder!\" shouts to him the colonel with the shining\nshoulder-straps.\n\n\"I--I--I--as a Christian--\"\n\nIt finally turns out that the young man refuses to do military\nservice, because he is a Christian.\n\n\"Talk no nonsense! Get your measure! Doctor, be so kind as to take\nhis measure. Is he fit for the army?\"\n\n\"He is.\"\n\n\"Reverend father, have him sworn in.\"\n\nNo one is confused; no one even pays any attention to what this\nfrightened, pitiable young man is muttering.\n\n\"They all mutter something, but we have no time: we have to receive\nso many recruits.\"\n\nThe recruit wants to say something again.\n\n\"This is against Christ's law.\"\n\n\"Go, go, we know without you what is according to the law,--but\nyou get out of here. Reverend father, admonish him. Next: Vas\u00edli\nNik\u00edtin.\"\n\nAnd the trembling youth is taken away. And to whom--whether the\njanitor, or Vas\u00edli Nik\u00edtin, who is being brought in, or any one else\nwho witnessed this scene from the side--will it occur that those\nindistinct, short words of the youth, which were at once put out\nof court by the authorities, contain the truth, while those loud,\nsolemn speeches of the self-possessed, calm officials and of the\npriest are a lie, a deception?\n\nA similar impression is produced, not only by the articles of a\nFarrar but by all those solemn sermons, articles, and books, which\nappear on all sides, the moment the truth peeps out and arraigns\nthe ruling lie. Immediately there begin long, clever, elegant\nconversations or writings about questions which touch closely upon\nthe subject with a shrewd reticence concerning the question itself.\n\nIn this consists the fifth and most effective means for removing\nthe contradiction in which the ecclesiastic Christianity has placed\nitself by professing Christ in words and denying His teaching in\nlife, and teaching the same to others.\n\nThose who justify themselves by the first method, asserting\noutright and rudely that Christ has permitted violence,--wars,\nmurder,--withdraw themselves from Christ's teaching; those who\ndefend themselves according to the second, the third, and the fourth\nmethods get themselves entangled, and it is easy to point out their\nuntruth; but these last, who do not discuss, who do not condescend\nto discuss, but hide themselves behind their greatness and make\nit appear that all this has been decided long ago by them, or by\nsomebody else, and that it no longer is subject to any doubt, seem\ninvulnerable, and they will be invulnerable so long as people will\nremain under the influence of hypnotic suggestion, which is induced\nin them by governments and churches, and will not shake it off.\n\nSuch was the attitude which the ecclesiastics, that is, those who\nprofess Christ's faith, assumed toward me. Nor could they have\nacted otherwise: they are bound by the contradiction in which they\nlive,--the faith in the divinity of the teacher and the unbelief\nin His clearest words,--from which they must in some way extricate\nthemselves, and so it was not possible to expect from them any free\nopinion concerning the essence of the question, concerning that\nchange in the lives of men which results from the application of\nChrist's teaching to the existing order. Such opinions I expected\nfrom the freethinking lay critics, who are in no way bound to\nChrist's teaching and who can look upon it without restraint. I\nexpected that the freethinking writers would look upon Christ not\nonly as the establisher of a religion of worship and personal\nsalvation (as which the ecclesiastics understand him), but, to\nexpress myself in their language, as a reformer, who destroys the\nold, and gives the new foundations of life, the reform of which is\nnot yet accomplished, but continues until the present.\n\nSuch a view of Christ and His teaching results from my book, but,\nto my surprise, out of the large number of criticisms upon my book,\nthere was _not one_, either Russian or foreign, which treated the\nsubject from the same side from which it is expounded in my book,\nthat is, which looked upon Christ's teaching as a philosophical,\nmoral, and social doctrine (again to speak in the language of the\nlearned). This was not the case in a single criticism.\n\nThe Russian lay critics, who understood my book in such a way\nthat all its contents reduced themselves to non-resistance to\nevil, and who understood the teaching about non-resistance to evil\nitself (apparently for convenience of refutal) as meaning that\nit prohibited any struggle against evil, furiously attacked this\nteaching and very successfully proved for the period of several\nyears that Christ's teaching was incorrect, since it taught us\nnot to resist evil. Their refutals of this supposed teaching of\nChrist were the more successful, since they knew in advance that\ntheir views could neither be overthrown nor corrected, because the\ncensorship, having failed to sanction the book itself, did not\nsanction the articles in its defence either.\n\nWhat is remarkable in connection with the matter is this, that\nwith us, where not a word may be said about the Holy Scripture\nwithout a prohibition by the censorship, the clearly and directly\nexpressed commandment of Matt. v. 39 has for several years been\nopenly contorted, criticized, condemned, and ridiculed in all the\nperiodicals.\n\nThe Russian lay critics, who evidently did not know all that had\nbeen done in the development of the question as to non-resistance\nto evil, and who at times even seemed to assume that I personally\ninvented the rule of not resisting evil with violence, attacked the\nidea itself, rejecting and contorting it, and with much fervour\nadvancing arguments which have long ago been analyzed from every\nside and rejected, proved that a man is obliged (with violence) to\ndefend all the insulted and the oppressed, and that, therefore, the\ndoctrine about not resisting evil with violence is immoral.\n\nThe whole significance of Christ's preaching presented itself to the\nRussian critics as though maliciously interfering with a certain\nactivity, which was directed against what they at a given moment\nconsidered to be an evil, so that it turned out that the principle\nof not resisting evil with violence was attacked by two opposite\ncamps,--by the conservatives, because this principle interfered\nwith their activity of resisting the evil which was produced by the\nrevolutionists, and with their persecutions and executions; and\nby the revolutionists, because this principle interfered with the\nresistance to the evil which was produced by the conservatives, and\nwith the overthrow of the conservatives. The conservatives were\nprovoked, because the doctrine of non-resistance to evil interfered\nwith the energetic suppression of the revolutionary elements,\nwho are likely to ruin the welfare of the nation; while the\nrevolutionists were provoked, because the doctrine of non-resistance\nto evil interfered with the overthrow of the conservatives, who were\nruining the well-being of the nation.\n\nWhat is remarkable is, that the revolutionists attacked the\nprinciple of non-resistance, although it is most terrible and most\ndangerous for every despotism, because ever since the beginning of\nthe world the opposite principle of the necessity of resisting evil\nwith violence has been lying at the basis of all violence, from the\nInquisition to the Schl\u00fcsselburg Fortress.\n\nBesides, the Russian critics pointed out that the application to\nlife of the commandment about non-resistance to evil would turn\nhumanity away from the path of civilization, on which it was\nmarching now; but the path of civilization, on which the European\ncivilization is marching, is, in their opinion, the one on which all\nhumanity must always march.\n\nSuch was the chief character of the Russian criticisms.\n\nThe foreign critics proceeded from the same bases, but their reviews\nof my book differed from those of the Russian critics not only in a\nlesser degree of irritability and a greater degree of culture, but\nalso in the essence of the matter.\n\nIn discussing my book and the Gospel teaching in general, as it is\nexpressed in the Sermon on the Mount, the foreign critics asserted\nthat such a teaching is really not Christian (Christian in their\nopinion is Catholicism and Protestantism), and that the doctrine\nof the Sermon on the Mount is only a series of very charming,\nimpracticable reveries \"_du charmant docteur_,\" as Renan used to\nsay, which were good enough for the na\u00efve and half-wild inhabitants\nof Galilee, who lived eighteen hundred years ago, and for the\nRussian peasants, Syut\u00e1ev and Bondar\u00e9v, and the Russian mystic,\nTolst\u00f3y, but can in no way be applied to the high degree of European\nculture.\n\nThe foreign lay critics tried, in a refined manner, without giving\nme any offence, to let me know that my opinion that humanity can\nbe guided by such a na\u00efve teaching as the Sermon on the Mount is\ndue partly to my ignorance, lack of acquaintance with history,\nlack of knowledge of all those vain attempts to realize in life\nthe principles of the Sermon on the Mount, which have been made in\nhistory, and have led to nothing, thanks to ignorance concerning the\nwhole significance of that high degree of culture on which European\ncivilization now stands, with its Krupp guns, smokeless powder, the\ncolonization of Africa, the government of Ireland, parliaments,\njournalism, strikes, constitutions, and Eiffel Tower.\n\nThus wrote Vog\u00fc\u00e9, and Leroy Beaulieu, and Matthew Arnold, and the\nAmerican writer Savage, and Ingersoll, a popular American preacher\nof free thought, and many others.\n\n\"Christ's teaching is no good, because it does not harmonize with\nour industrial age,\" na\u00efvely says Ingersoll, thus expressing with\nabsolute precision and na\u00efvet\u00e9 what the refined and cultured men\nof our time think about Christ's teaching. The teaching is no good\nfor our industrial age, as though the existence of the industrial\nage is something sacred which must not and cannot be changed. It is\nsomething like what drunkards would do, if, in response to advice\nabout how to get themselves into a sober state, they should reply\nthat the advice is out of place in connection with their present\nalcoholic state.\n\nThe discussions of all the lay writers, both Russian and foreign, no\nmatter how different their tone and the manner of their arguments\nmay be, in reality reduce themselves to one and the same strange\nmisunderstanding, namely, that Christ's teaching, one of the\nconsequences of which is non-resistance to evil, is useless to us,\nbecause it demands that our life be changed.\n\nChrist's teaching is useless, because, if it were put into practice,\nour life could not continue; in other words,--if we began to live\nwell, as Christ has taught us, we could not continue to live\nbadly, as we live and are accustomed to live. The question of\nnon-resistance to evil is not discussed, and the very mention of the\nfact that the demand for non-resistance to evil enters into Christ's\nteaching is considered a sufficient proof of the inapplicability of\nthe whole teaching.\n\nAnd yet, it would seem, it is indispensable to point out some kind\nof a solution to this question, because it lies at the foundation of\nnearly all affairs which interest us.\n\nThe question consists in this: how are we to harmonize the conflicts\nof men, when some consider an evil what others consider to be good,\nand vice versa? And so, to consider that an evil which I consider\nan evil, although my adversary may consider it good, is no answer.\nThere can be but two answers: either we have to find a true and\nindisputable criterion of what an evil is, or we must not resist\nevil with violence.\n\nThe first solution has been tried since the beginning of historical\ntimes, and, as we all know, has so far led to no satisfactory\nresults.\n\nThe second answer, not to resist with violence what we consider\nevil, so long as we have found no common criterion, was proposed by\nChrist.\n\nIt may be found that Christ's answer is not correct: it may be\npossible to put in its place another, better answer, by finding\na criterion which would indubitably and simultaneously for all\ndefine the evil; we may simply not recognize the essence of the\nquestion, as it is not recognized by the savage nations,--but it is\nimpossible, as the learned critics of the Christian teaching do, to\nmake it appear that such a question does not at all exist, or that\nthe relegation of the right to determine the evil and resist it with\nviolence to certain persons or assemblies of men (much less, if we\nare these men), solves the question; whereas we all know that such\na relegation does not at all solve the question, since there are\nsome people who do not recognize this right as belonging to certain\npeople or to assemblies of men.\n\nBut it is this recognition that what to us appears evil is evil,\nor an absolute failure to comprehend the question, which serves as\na foundation for the judgment of the lay critics concerning the\nChristian teaching, so that the opinions concerning my book, both of\nthe ecclesiastic and the lay critics, showed me that the majority of\nmen absolutely fail to comprehend, not only Christ's very teaching,\nbut even those questions to which it serves as an answer.\n\n\nIII.\n\nThus, both the information received by me after the publication of\nmy book, as to how the Christian teaching in its direct and true\nsense has without interruption been understood by the minority of\nmen, and the criticisms upon it, both the ecclesiastic and the lay\ncriticisms, which denied the possibility of understanding Christ's\nteaching in the direct sense, convinced me that, while, on the one\nhand, the true comprehension of this teaching never ceased for the\nminority, and became clearer and clearer to them, on the other hand,\nfor the majority, its meaning became more and more obscure, finally\nreaching such a degree of obscuration that men no longer comprehend\nthe simplest propositions, which are expressed in the Gospel in the\nsimplest words.\n\nThe failure to comprehend Christ's teaching in its true, simple,\nand direct sense in our time, when the light of this teaching has\npenetrated all the darkest corners of human consciousness; when,\nas Christ has said, that which He has spoken in the ear, they now\nproclaim upon the housetops; when this teaching permeates all the\nsides of human life,--the domestic, the economic, the civil, the\npolitical, and the international,--this failure to comprehend would\nbe incomprehensible, if there were no causes for it.\n\nOne of these causes is this, that both the believers and the\nunbelievers are firmly convinced that Christ's teaching has been\ncomprehended by them long ago, and so completely, indubitably, and\nfinally, that there can be no other meaning in it than the one they\nascribe to it. This cause is due to the duration of the tradition\nof the false comprehension, and so of the failure to understand the\ntrue teaching.\n\nThe most powerful stream of water cannot add a drop to a vessel that\nis full.\n\nIt is possible to explain the most intricate matters to a man of\nvery hard comprehension, so long as he has not formed any idea about\nthem; but it is impossible to explain the simplest thing to a very\nclever man, if he is firmly convinced that he knows, and, besides,\nincontestably knows, what has been transmitted to him.\n\nThe Christian teaching presents itself to the men of our world\nprecisely as such a teaching, which has for a long time and in a\nmost indubitable manner been known in its minutest details, and\nwhich cannot be comprehended in any other manner than it now is.\n\nChristianity is now understood by those who profess the church\ndoctrines as a supernatural, miraculous revelation concerning\neverything which is given in the symbol of faith, and by those\nwho do not believe, as an obsolete manifestation of humanity's\nneed of believing in something supernatural, as a historical\nphenomenon, which is completely expressed in Catholicism, Orthodoxy,\nProtestantism, and which has no longer any vital meaning for us.\nFor the believers the meaning of the teaching is concealed by the\nchurch, for unbelievers by science.\n\nI shall begin with the first:\n\nEighteen hundred years ago there appeared in the pagan Roman world\na strange, new teaching, which resembled nothing which preceded it,\nand which was ascribed to the man Christ.\n\nThis new teaching was absolutely new, both in form and in contents,\nfor the European world, in the midst of which it arose, and\nespecially in the Roman world, where it was preached and became\ndiffused.\n\nAmidst the elaborateness of the religious rules of Judaism,\nwhere, according to Isaiah, there was rule upon rule, and amidst\nthe Roman legislation, which was worked out to a great degree of\nperfection, there appeared a teaching which not only denied all\nthe divinities,--every fear of them, every divination and faith\nin them,--but also all human institutions and every necessity\nfor them. In the place of all the rules of former faiths, this\nteaching advanced only the model of an inner perfection of truth\nand of love in the person of Christ, and the consequences of this\ninner perfection, attainable by men,--the external perfection, as\npredicted by the prophets,--the kingdom of God, in which all men\nwill stop warring, and all will be taught by God and united in love,\nand the lion will lie with the lamb. In place of the threats of\npunishments for the non-compliance with the rules, which were made\nby the former laws, both religious and political, in place of the\nenticement of rewards for fulfilling them, this teaching called men\nto itself only by its being the truth. John vii. 17: \"If any man\nwants to know of this doctrine, whether it be of God, let him fulfil\nit.\" John viii. 46: \"If I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?\"\nWhy do you seek to kill a man who has told you the truth? The truth\nalone will free you. God must be professed in truth only. The whole\nteaching will be revealed and will be made clear by the spirit of\ntruth. Do what I say, and you will know whether what I say is true.\n\nNo proofs were given of the teaching, except the truth, except the\ncorrespondence of the teaching with the truth. The whole teaching\nconsisted in the knowledge of the truth and in following it, in a\ngreater and ever greater approximation to it, in matters of life.\nAccording to this teaching, there are no acts which can justify a\nman, make him righteous; there is only the model of truth which\nattracts all hearts, for the inner perfection--in the person of\nChrist, and for the outer--in the realization of the kingdom of\nGod. The fulfilment of the teaching is only in the motion along a\ngiven path, in the approximation to perfection,--the inner,--the\nimitation of Christ, and the outer,--the establishment of the\nkingdom of God. A man's greater or lesser good, according to this\nteaching, depends, not on the degree of perfection which he attains,\nbut on the greater or lesser acceleration of motion.\n\nThe motion toward perfection of the publican, of Zacch\u00e6us, of the\nharlot, of the robber on the cross, is, according to this teaching,\na greater good than the immovable righteousness of the Pharisee.\nA sheep gone astray is more precious than ninety-nine who have\nnot. The prodigal son, the lost coin which is found again, is more\nprecious, more loved by God than those who were not lost.\n\nEvery condition is, according to this teaching, only a certain step\non the road toward the unattainable inner and outer perfection, and\nso has no meaning. The good is only in the motion toward perfection;\nbut the stopping at any stage whatsoever is only a cessation of the\ngood.\n\n\"Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth,\" and \"No man,\nhaving put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the\nkingdom of God.\" \"Rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto\nyou; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.\"\n\n\"Be ye perfect as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect.\" \"Seek\nthe kingdom of God and His righteousness.\"\n\nThe fulfilment of the teaching is only in unceasing motion,--in the\nattainment of a higher and ever higher truth, and in an ever greater\nrealization of the same in oneself by means of an ever increasing\nlove, and outside of oneself by an ever greater realization of the\nkingdom of God.\n\nIt is evident that, having appeared in the midst of the Jewish and\nthe pagan world, this teaching could not have been accepted by\nthe majority of men, who lived a life entirely different from the\none which this teaching demanded; and that it could not even be\ncomprehended in its full significance by those who accepted it, as\nit was diametrically opposed to their former views.\n\nOnly by a series of misconceptions, blunders, one-sided\nexplanations, corrected and supplemented by generations of men,\nwas the meaning of the Christian teaching made more and more clear\nto men. The Christian world-conception affected the Jewish and the\npagan conceptions, and the Jewish and pagan conceptions affected\nthe Christian world-conception. And the Christian, as being vital,\npenetrated the reviving Jewish and pagan conceptions more and more,\nand stood forth more and more clearly, freeing itself from the false\nadmixture, which was imposed upon it. Men came to comprehend the\nmeaning better and better, and more and more realized it in life.\n\nThe longer humanity lived, the more and more was the meaning of\nChristianity made clear to it, as indeed it could not and cannot be\notherwise with any teaching about life.\n\nThe subsequent generations corrected the mistakes of their\npredecessors, and more and more approached the comprehension of\nits true meaning. Thus it has been since the earliest times of\nChristianity. And here, in the earliest times, there appeared men,\nwho began to assert that the meaning which they ascribed to the\nteaching was the only true one, and that as a proof of it served\nthe supernatural phenomena which confirmed the correctness of their\ncomprehension.\n\nIt was this that was the chief cause, at first, of the failure to\ncomprehend the teaching, and later, of its complete corruption.\n\nIt was assumed that Christ's teaching was not transmitted to men\nlike any other truth, but in a special, supernatural manner, so\nthat the truth of the comprehension of the teaching was not proved\nby the correspondence of what was transmitted with the demands of\nreason and of the whole human nature, but by the miraculousness of\nthe transmission, which served as an incontrovertible proof of the\ncorrectness of the comprehension. This proposition arose from a\nlack of comprehension, and its consequence was an impossibility of\ncomprehending.\n\nThis began with the very first times, when the teaching was still\nunderstood incompletely and often perversely, as we may see from the\ngospels and from the Acts. The less the teaching was understood, the\nmore obscurely did it present itself, and the more necessary were\nthe external proofs of its veracity. The proposition about not doing\nunto another what one does not wish to have done to oneself did\nnot need any proof by means of miracles, and there was no need for\ndemanding belief in this proposition, because it is convincing in\nitself, in that it corresponds to both man's reason and nature, but\nthe proposition as to Christ being God had to be proved by means of\nmiracles, which are absolutely incomprehensible.\n\nThe more obscure the comprehension of Christ's teaching was, the\nmore miraculous elements were mixed in with it; and the more\nmiraculous elements were mixed in, the more did the teaching deviate\nfrom its meaning and become obscure; and the more it deviated from\nits meaning and became obscure, the more strongly it was necessary\nto assert one's infallibility, and the less did the teaching become\ncomprehensible.\n\nWe can see from the gospels, the Acts, the epistles, how from the\nearliest times the failure to comprehend the teaching called forth\nthe necessity of proving its truth by means of the miraculous and\nthe incomprehensible.\n\nAccording to the Acts, this began with the meeting of the disciples\nat Jerusalem, who assembled to settle the question which had arisen\nas to baptizing or not baptizing the uncircumcised who were still\neating meats offered to idols.\n\nThe very putting of the question showed that those who were\ndiscussing it did not understand the teaching of Christ, who\nrejected all external rites--ablutions, purifications, fasts,\nSabbaths. It says directly that not the things which enter a man's\nmouth, but those which come out of his heart, defile him, and so the\nquestion as to the baptism of the uncircumcised could have arisen\nonly among men who loved their teacher, dimly felt His greatness,\nbut still very obscurely comprehended the teaching itself. And so it\nwas.\n\nIn proportion as the members of the assembly did not understand\nthe teaching, they needed an external confirmation of their\nincomplete understanding. And so, to solve the question, the very\nputting of which shows the failure to comprehend the teaching,\nthe strange words, \"It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to\nus,\" which were in an external manner to confirm the justice of\ncertain establishments, and which have caused so much evil, were,\nas described in the Book of Acts, for the first time pronounced at\nthis meeting, that is, it was asserted that the justice of what they\ndecreed was testified to by the miraculous participation of the Holy\nGhost, that is, of God, in this solution. But the assertion that\nthe Holy Ghost, that is, God, spoke through the apostles, had again\nto be proved. And for this it was necessary to assert that on the\nday of Pentecost the Holy Ghost came down in the shape of tongues\nof fire on those who asserted this. (In the description the descent\nof the Holy Ghost precedes the assembly, but the Acts were written\ndown much later than either.) But the descent of the Holy Ghost\nhad to be confirmed for those who had not seen the tongues of fire\n(though it is incomprehensible why a tongue of fire burning above\na man's head should prove that what a man says is an indisputable\ntruth), and there were needed new miracles, cures, resurrections,\nputting to death, and all those offensive miracles, with which the\nActs are filled, and which not only can never convince a man of the\ntruth of the Christian teaching, but can only repel him from it. The\nconsequence of such a method of confirmation was this, that the more\nthese confirmations of the truth by means of stories of miracles\nheaped up upon one another, the more did the teaching itself depart\nfrom its original meaning, and the less comprehensible did it become.\n\nThus it has been since the earliest times, and it has been\nincreasingly so all the time, until it logically reached in our\ntime the dogmas of the transubstantiation and of the infallibility\nof the Pope, or of the bishops, or of the writings, that is,\nsomething absolutely incomprehensible, which has reached the point\nof absurdity and the demand for a blind faith, not in God, not in\nChrist, not even in the teaching, but in a person, as is the case in\nCatholicism, or in several persons, as in Orthodoxy, or in a book,\nas in Protestantism. The more Christianity became diffused, and the\ngreater was the crowd of unprepared men which it embraced, the less\nit was understood, the more definitely was the infallibility of\nthe comprehension asserted, and the less did it become possible to\nunderstand the true meaning of the teaching. As early as the time of\nConstantine the whole comprehension of the teaching was reduced to a\nr\u00e9sum\u00e9, confirmed by the worldly power,--a r\u00e9sum\u00e9 of disputes which\ntook place in a council,--to a symbol of faith, in which it says, I\nbelieve in so and so, and so and so, and finally, in the one, holy,\ncatholic, and apostolic church, that is, in the infallibility of\nthose persons who call themselves the church, so that everything\nwas reduced to this, that a man no longer believes in God, nor in\nChrist, as they have been revealed to him, but in what the church\ncommands him to believe.\n\nBut the church is holy,--the church was founded by Christ. God\ncould not have left it to men to give an arbitrary interpretation\nto His teaching,--and so He established the church. All these\nexpositions are to such an extent unjust and bold that one feels\nsome compunction in overthrowing them.\n\nThere is nothing but the assertion of the churches to show that God\nor Christ founded anything resembling what the churchmen understand\nby church.\n\nIn the Gospel there is an indication against the church, as an\nexternal authority, and this indication is most obvious and clear in\nthat place where it says that Christ's disciples should not call any\none teachers and fathers. But nowhere is there anything said about\nthe establishment of what the churchmen call a church.\n\nIn the gospels the word \"church\" is used twice,--once, in the\nsense of an assembly of men deciding a dispute; the other time, in\nconnection with the obscure words about the rock, Peter, and the\ngates of hell. From these two mentions of the word \"church,\" which\nhas the meaning of nothing but an assembly, they deduce what we now\nunderstand by the word \"church.\"\n\nBut Christ could certainly not have founded a church, that is,\nwhat we now understand by the word, because neither in Christ's\nwords, nor in the conceptions of the men of that time, was there\nanything resembling the concept of a church, as we know it now, with\nits sacraments, its hierarchy, and, above all, its assertion of\ninfallibility.\n\nThe fact that men named what was formed later by the same word\nwhich Christ had used in respect to something else, does in no way\ngive them the right to assert that Christ established the one, true\nchurch.\n\nBesides, if Christ had really founded such an institution as\nthe church, on which the whole doctrine and the whole faith are\nbased, He would most likely have expressed this establishment in\nsuch definite and clear words, and would have given the one, true\nchurch, outside of the stories about the miracles, which are used\nin connection with every superstition, such signs as to leave no\ndoubts concerning its authenticity; there is nothing of the kind,\nbut there are now, as there have been, all kinds of institutions\nwhich, each of them, call themselves the one, true church.\n\nThe Catholic catechism says: \"_L'\u00e9glise est la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 de fid\u00e8les\n\u00e9tablie par notre Seigneur J\u00e9sus-Christ, r\u00e9pandue sur toute la terre\net soumise \u00e0 l'autorit\u00e9 des pasteurs l\u00e9gitimes, principalement notre\nSaint P\u00e8re--le Pape_,\" meaning by \"_pasteurs l\u00e9gitimes_\" a human\ninstitution, which has the Pope at its head and which is composed\nof certain persons who are connected among themselves by a certain\norganization.\n\nThe Orthodox catechism says: \"The church is a society, established\nby Jesus Christ upon earth, united among themselves into one whole\nby the one, divine teaching and the sacraments, under the guidance\nand management of the God-established hierarchy,\" meaning by\n\"God-established hierarchy\" the Greek hierarchy, which is composed\nof such and such persons, who are to be found in such and such\nplaces.\n\nThe Lutheran catechism says: \"The church is holy Christianity,\nor an assembly of all believers, under Christ, their chief, in\nwhich the Holy Ghost through the Gospel and the sacraments offers,\ncommunicates, and secures divine salvation,\" meaning, by this, that\nthe Catholic Church has gone astray and has fallen away, and that\nthe true tradition is preserved in Lutheranism.\n\nFor the Catholics the divine church coincides with the Roman\nhierarchy and the Pope. For the Greek Orthodox the divine church\ncoincides with the establishment of the Eastern and the Russian\nChurch.[8] For the Lutherans the divine church coincides with the\nassembly of men who recognize the Bible and Luther's catechism.\n\n  [8] Khomyak\u00f3v's definition of the church, which has some currency\n  among Russians, does not mend matters, if we recognize with\n  Khomyak\u00f3v that the Orthodox is the one true church. Khomyak\u00f3v\n  asserts that the church is an assembly of men (of all, both the\n  clergy and the congregation) united in love, and that the truth\n  is revealed only to those who are united in love (Let us love one\n  another, so that in agreement of thought, and so forth), and that\n  such a church is the one which, in the first place, recognizes\n  the Nicene symbol, and, in the second, after the division of the\n  churches, does not recognize the Pope and the new dogmas. But with\n  such a definition of the church there appears a still greater\n  difficulty in harmonizing, as Khomyak\u00f3v wants to, the church which\n  is united in love with the church which recognizes the Nicene symbol\n  and the justice of Photius. Thus Khomyak\u00f3v's assertion that this\n  church, which is united in love and so is holy, is the church as\n  professed by the Greek hierarchy, is still more arbitrary than the\n  assertions of the Catholics and of the ancient Orthodox. If we admit\n  the concept of the church in the sense which Khomyak\u00f3v gives to it,\n  that is, as an assembly of men united in love and in truth, then\n  everything a man can say in relation to this assembly is, that it is\n  very desirable to be a member of such an assembly, if such exists,\n  that is, to be in love and truth; but there are no external signs\n  by which it would be possible to count oneself or another in with\n  this holy assembly, or to exclude oneself from it, as no external\n  institution can correspond to this concept.--_Author's Note._\n\nSpeaking of the origin of Christianity, men who belong to one or the\nother of the existing churches generally use the word \"church\" in\nthe singular, as though there has been but one church. But this is\nquite untrue. The church, as an institution which asserts of itself\nthat it is in possession of the unquestionable truth, appeared only\nwhen it was not alone, but there were at least two of them.\n\nSo long as the believers agreed among themselves, and the assembly\nwas one, it had no need of asserting that it was the church. Only\nwhen the believers divided into opposite parties, which denied one\nanother, did there appear the necessity for each side to assert its\nauthenticity, ascribing infallibility to itself. The concept of the\none church arose only from this, that, when two sides disagreed and\nquarrelled, each of them, calling the other a heresy, recognized\nonly its own as the infallible church.\n\nIf we know that there was a church, which in the year 51 decided\nto receive the uncircumcised, this church made its appearance only\nbecause there was another church, that of the Judaizing, which had\ndecided not to receive the uncircumcised.\n\nIf there now is a Catholic Church, which asserts its infallibility,\nit does this only because there are the Gr\u00e6co-Russian, Orthodox,\nLutheran Churches, each of which asserts its own infallibility, and\nthus rejects all the other churches. Thus the one church is only a\nfantastic conception, which has not the slightest sign of reality.\n\nAs an actual, historical phenomenon there have existed only many\nassemblies of men, each of which has asserted that it is the one\nchurch, established by Christ, and that all the others, which call\nthemselves churches, are heresies and schisms.\n\nThe catechisms of the most widely diffused churches, the Catholic,\nthe Orthodox, and the Lutheran, say so outright.\n\nIn the Catholic catechism it says: \"_Quels sont ceux, qui sont hors\nde l'\u00e9glise? Les infid\u00e8les, les h\u00e9r\u00e9tiques, les schismatiques._\"\nAs schismatics are regarded the so-called Orthodox. The Lutherans\nare considered to be heretics; thus, according to the Catholic\ncatechism, the Catholics alone are in the church.\n\nIn the so-called Orthodox catechism it says: \"By the one church of\nChrist is meant nothing but the Orthodox, which remains in complete\nagreement with the \u0153cumenical church. But as to the Roman Church\nand the other confessions\" (the church does not even mention the\nLutherans and others), \"they cannot be referred to the one, true\nchurch, since they have themselves separated from it.\"\n\nAccording to this definition the Catholics and Lutherans are outside\nthe church, and in the church are only the Orthodox.\n\nBut the Lutheran catechism runs as follows: \"_Die wahre Kirche wird\ndaran erkannt, dass in ihr das Wort Gottes lauter und rein ohne\nMenschenzus\u00e4tze gelehrt und die Sacramente treu nach Christi\nEinsetzung gewahrt werden_.\"\n\nAccording to this definition, all those who have added anything to\nthe teaching of Christ and the apostles, as the Catholic and Greek\nChurches have done, are outside the church. And in the church are\nonly the Protestants.\n\nThe Catholics assert that the Holy Ghost has uninterruptedly\noperated in their hierarchy; the Orthodox assert that the same Holy\nGhost has operated in their hierarchy; the Arians asserted that the\nHoly Ghost operated in their hierarchy (this they asserted with as\nmuch right as the now ruling churches assert it); the Protestants of\nevery description, Lutherans, Reformers, Presbyterians, Methodists,\nSwedenborgians, Mormons, assert that the Holy Ghost operates only in\ntheir assemblies.\n\nIf the Catholics assert that the Holy Ghost during the division of\nthe Arian and of the Greek Churches left the apostatizing churches\nand remained only in the one, true church, the Protestants of\nevery denomination can with the same right assert that during the\nseparation of their church from the Catholic the Holy Ghost left the\nCatholic Church and passed over to the one which they recognize. And\nso they do.\n\nEvery church deduces its profession through an uninterrupted\ntradition from Christ and the apostles. And, indeed, every Christian\nconfession, arising from Christ, must have inevitably reached the\npresent generation through a certain tradition. But this does not\nprove that any one of these traditions, excluding all the others, is\nindubitably the correct one.\n\nEvery twig on the tree goes uninterruptedly back to the root; but\nthe fact that every twig comes from the same root does in no way\nprove that there is but one twig. The same is true of the churches.\nEvery church offers precisely the same proofs of its succession\nand even of the miracles in favour of its own authenticity; thus\nthere is but one strict and precise definition of what the church\nis (not as something fantastic, which we should like it to be, but\nas something which in reality exists), and this is: the church is\nan assembly of men, who assert that they, and they only, are in the\nfull possession of the truth.\n\nIt was these assemblies, which later on, with the aid of the support\nof the temporal power, passed into mighty institutions, that were\nthe chief impediments in the dissemination of the true comprehension\nof Christ's teaching.\n\nNor could it be otherwise: the chief peculiarity of Christ's\nteaching, as distinguished from all the former teachings, consisted\nin this, that the men who accepted it tried more and more to\nunderstand and fulfil the teaching, whereas the church doctrine\nasserted the full and final comprehension and fulfilment of this\nteaching.\n\nHowever strange it may seem to us people educated in the false\ndoctrine about the church as a Christian institution, and in the\ncontempt for heresy, it was only in what is called heresy that there\nwas true motion, that is, true Christianity, and it ceased to be\nsuch when it stopped its motion in these heresies and became itself\narrested in the immovable forms of the church.\n\nIndeed, what is a heresy? Read all the theological works which treat\nabout heresies, a subject which is the first to present itself for\ndefinition, since every theology speaks of the true teaching amidst\nthe surrounding false teachings, that is, heresies, and you will\nnowhere find anything resembling a definition of heresy.\n\nAs a specimen of that complete absence of any semblance of a\ndefinition of what is understood by the word \"heresy\" may serve\nthe opinion on this subject expressed by the learned historian\nof Christianity, E. de Pressens\u00e9, in his _Histoire du Dogme_,\nwith the epigraph, \"_Ubi Christus, ibi Ecclesia_\" (Paris, 1869).\nThis is what he says in his introduction: \"_Je sais que l'on nous\nconteste le droit de califier ainsi_,\" that is, to call heresies\n\"_les tendances qui furent si vivement combattues par les premiers\nP\u00e8res. La d\u00e9signation m\u00eame d'h\u00e9r\u00e9sie semble une atteinte port\u00e9e \u00e0\nla libert\u00e9 de conscience et de pens\u00e9e. Nous ne pouvons partager\nces scrupules, car ils n'iraient \u00e0 rien moins qu'\u00e0 enlever au\nchristianisme tout caract\u00e8re distinctif._\"\n\nAnd after saying that after Constantine the church actually misused\nits power in defining the dissenters as heretics and persecuting\nthem, he passes judgment on the early times and says:\n\n\"_L'\u00e9glise est une libre association; il y a tout profit \u00e0 se\ns\u00e9parer d'elle. La pol\u00e9mique contre l'erreur n'a d'autres resources\nque la pens\u00e9e et le sentiment. Un type doctrinal uniforme n'a pas\nencore \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9labor\u00e9; les divergences secondaires se produisent en\nOrient et en Occident avec une enti\u00e8re libert\u00e9, la th\u00e9ologie n'est\npoint li\u00e9e \u00e0 d'invariables formules. Si au sein de cette diversit\u00e9\napparait un fond commun de croyances, n'est-on pas en droit d'y\nvoir non pas un syst\u00e8me formul\u00e9 et compos\u00e9 par les repr\u00e9sentants\nd'une autorit\u00e9 d'\u00e9cole, mais la foi elle m\u00eame, dans son instinct\nle plus s\u00fbr et sa manifestation la plus spontan\u00e9e? Si cette m\u00eame\nunanimit\u00e9 qui se rev\u00e8le dans les croyances essentielles, se retrouve\npour repousser telles ou telles tendances, ne seront-nous pas en\ndroit de conclure que ces tendances \u00e9taient en d\u00e9saccord flagrant\navec les principes fondamentaux du christianisme? Cette pr\u00e9somption\nne se transformera-t-elle pas en certitude si nous reconnaissons\ndans la doctrine universellement repouss\u00e9e par l'\u00e9glise les traits\ncaract\u00e9ristiques de l'une des religions du pass\u00e9? Pour dire que\nle gnosticisme ou l'ebionitisme sont les formes l\u00e9gitimes de la\npens\u00e9e chr\u00e9tienne, il faut dire hardiment qu'il n'y a pas de pens\u00e9e\nchr\u00e9tienne, ni de caract\u00e8re specifique qui la fasse reconna\u00eetre.\nSous pr\u00e9texte de l'\u00e9largir on la dissent. Personne, au temps de\nPlaton, n'eut os\u00e9 de couvrir de son nom, une doctrine qui n'eut pas\nfait place \u00e0 la th\u00e9orie des id\u00e9es, et l'on eut excit\u00e9 les justes\nmoqueries de la Gr\u00e8ce, en voulant faire d'Epicure ou de Z\u00e9non un\ndisciple de l'Acad\u00e9mie. Reconnaissons donc que s'il existe une\nreligion et une doctrine qui s'appelle le christianisme elle peut\navoir ses h\u00e9r\u00e9sies._\"\n\nThe whole discussion of the author reduces itself to this, that\nevery opinion which is not in agreement with a code of dogmas\nprofessed by us at a given time is a heresy; but at a given time and\nin a given place people profess something, and this profession of\nsomething in some place cannot be a criterion of the truth.\n\nEverything reduces itself to this, that \"_Ubi Christus, ibi\nEcclesia_;\" but Christ is where we are. Every so-called heresy, by\nrecognizing as the truth what it professes, can in a similar manner\nfind in the history of the churches a consistent explanation of what\nit professes, using for itself all the arguments of De Pressens\u00e9 and\ncalling only its own confession truly Christian, precisely what all\nthe heresies have been doing.\n\nThe only definition of heresy (the word \u1f01\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 means\n_part_) is the name given by an assembly of men to every judgment\nwhich rejects part of the teaching, as professed by the assembly.\nA more particular meaning, which more frequently than any other is\nascribed to heresy, is that of an opinion which rejects the church\ndoctrine, as established and supported by the worldly power.\n\nThere is a remarkable, little known, very large work\n(_Unpartheyische Kirchen und Ketzer-Historia_, 1729), by Gottfried\nArnold, which treats directly on this subject and which shows all\nthe illegality, arbitrariness, senselessness, and cruelty of using\nthe word \"heresy\" in the sense of rejection. This book is an attempt\nat describing the history of Christianity in the form of a history\nof the heresies.\n\nIn the introduction the author puts a number of questions: (1)\nregarding those who make heretics (_von den Ketzermachern selbst_);\n(2) concerning those who were made heretics; (3) concerning the\nsubjects of heresy; (4) concerning the method of making heretics,\nand (5) concerning the aims and consequences of making heretics.\n\nIn connection with each of these points he puts dozens of questions,\nanswers to which he later gives from the works of well-known\ntheologians, but he chiefly leaves it to the reader himself to\nmake the deduction from the exposition of the whole book. I shall\nquote the following as samples of these questions, which partly\ncontain the answers. In reference to the fourth point, as to how\nheretics are made, he says in one of his questions (the seventh):\n\"Does not all history show that the greatest makers of heretics and\nthe masters of this work were those same wise men from whom the\nFather has hidden His secrets, that is, the hypocrites, Pharisees,\nand lawyers, or entirely godless and corrupt people?\" Questions 20\nand 21: \"And did not, in the most corrupt times of Christianity,\nthe hypocrites and envious people reject those very men who were\nparticularly endowed by God with great gifts, and who in the time\nof pure Christianity would have been highly esteemed? And, on\nthe contrary, would not these men, who during the decadence of\nChristianity elevated themselves above everything and recognized\nthemselves to be the teachers of the purest Christianity, have\nbeen recognized, in apostolic times, as the basest heretics and\nantichristians?\"\n\nExpressing in these questions this thought, among others, that the\nverbal expression of the essence of faith, which was demanded by the\nchurch, and a departure from which was considered a heresy, could\nnever completely cover the world-conception of the believer, and\nthat, therefore, the demand for an expression of faith by means of\nparticular words was the cause of heresy, he says, in Questions 21\nand 33:\n\n\"And if the divine acts and thoughts present themselves to a man as\nso great and profound that he does not find corresponding words in\nwhich to express them, must he be recognized as a heretic, if he is\nnot able precisely to express his ideas? And is not this true, that\nin the early times there was no heresy, because the Christians did\nnot judge one another according to verbal expressions, but according\nto the heart and acts, in connection with a complete liberty of\nexpression, without fear of being recognized as a heretic? Was it\nnot a very common and easy method with the church,\" he says in\nQuestion 21, \"when the clergy wanted to get rid of a person or ruin\nhim, to make him suspected as regards his doctrine and to throw over\nhim the cloak of heresy, and thus to condemn and remove him?\n\n\"Though it is true that amidst the so-called heretics there were\nerrors and sins, yet it is not less true and obvious from the\nnumberless examples here adduced\" (that is, in the history of the\nchurch and of heresy), he says farther on, \"that there has not been\na single sincere and conscientious man with some standing who has\nnot been ruined by the churchmen out of envy or for other causes.\"\n\nThus, nearly two hundred years ago, was the significance of heresy\nunderstood, and yet this conception continues to exist until the\npresent time. Nor can it fail to exist, so long as there is a\nconcept of the church. Heresy is the reverse of the church. Where\nthere is the church, there is also heresy. The church is an assembly\nof men asserting that they are in possession of the indisputable\ntruth. Heresy is the opinion of people who do not recognize the\nindisputableness of the church truth.\n\nHeresy is a manifestation of motion in the church, an attempt at\ndestroying the ossified assertion of the church, an attempt at a\nliving comprehension of the teaching. Every step of moving forward,\nof comprehending and fulfilling the teaching has been accomplished\nby the heretics: such heretics were Tertullian, and Origen, and\nAugustine, and Luther, and Huss, and Savonarola, and Chelcick\u00fd, and\nothers. Nor could it be otherwise.\n\nA disciple of Christ, whose teaching consists in an eternally\ngreater and greater comprehension of the teaching and in a greater\nand greater fulfilment of it, in a motion toward perfection,\ncannot, for the very reason that he is a disciple of Christ, assert\nconcerning himself or concerning any one else, that he fully\nunderstands Christ's teaching and fulfils it; still less can he\nassert this concerning any assembly.\n\nNo matter at what stage of comprehension and perfection a disciple\nof Christ may be, he always feels the insufficiency of his\ncomprehension and of his fulfilment, and always strives after a\ngreater comprehension and fulfilment. And so the assertion about\nmyself or about an assembly, that I, or we, possess the complete\ncomprehension of Christ's teaching, and completely fulfil it, is a\nrenunciation of the spirit of Christ's teaching.\n\nNo matter how strange this may seem, the churches, as churches, have\nalways been, and cannot help but be, institutions that are not only\nforeign, but even directly hostile, to Christ's teaching. With good\nreason Voltaire called the church \"_l'inf\u00e2me_;\" with good reason\nall, or nearly all, the Christian so-called sects have recognized\nthe church to be that whore of whom Revelation prophesies; with good\nreason the history of the church is the history of the greatest\ncruelties and horrors.\n\nThe churches, as churches, are not certain institutions which have\nat their base the Christian principle, though slightly deviated\nfrom the straight path, as some think; the churches, as churches,\nas assemblies, which assert their infallibility, are antichristian\ninstitutions. Between the churches, as churches, and Christianity\nthere is not only nothing in common but the name, but they are\ntwo absolutely divergent and mutually hostile principles. One is\npride, violence, self-assertion, immobility, and death; the other is\nmeekness, repentance, humility, motion, and life.\n\nIt is impossible at the same time to serve both masters,--one or the\nother has to be chosen.\n\nThe servants of the churches of all denominations have tried,\nespecially of late, to appear as advocates of motion in\nChristianity; they make concessions, wish to mend the abuses which\nhave stolen into the church, and say that for the sake of the\nabuses we ought not to deny the principle of the Christian church\nitself, which alone can unite all men and be a mediator between\nmen and God. But all this is not true. The churches have not only\nnever united, but have always been one of the chief causes of the\ndisunion of men, of the hatred of one another, of wars, slaughters,\ninquisitions, nights of St. Bartholomew, and so forth, and the\nchurches never serve as mediators between men and God, which is,\nindeed, unnecessary and is directly forbidden by Christ, who has\nrevealed the teaching directly to every man, and they put up dead\nforms in the place of God, and not only fail to reveal God to man,\nbut even conceal Him from them. Churches which have arisen from the\nfailure to comprehend, and which maintain this lack of comprehension\nby their immobility, cannot help persecuting and oppressing every\ncomprehension of the teaching. They try to conceal this, but this is\nimpossible, because every motion forward along the path indicated by\nChrist destroys their existence.\n\nAs one hears and reads the articles and sermons, in which the church\nwriters of modern times of all denominations speak of Christian\ntruths and virtues, as one hears and reads these clever discussions,\nadmonitions, confessions, which have been worked out by the ages,\nand which sometimes look very much as though they were sincere,\none is prepared to doubt that the churches could be hostile to\nChristianity: \"It certainly cannot be that these people, who\nhave produced such men as Chrysostom, F\u00e9nelon, Butler, and other\npreachers of Christianity, should be hostile to it.\" One feels like\nsaying: \"The churches may have deviated from Christianity, may be in\nerror, but cannot be hostile to it.\" But as one looks at the fruits,\nin order to judge the tree, as Christ has taught us to do, and sees\nthat their fruits have been evil, that the consequence of their\nactivity has been the distortion of Christianity, one cannot help\nbut feel that, no matter how good the men have been, the cause of\nthe churches in which they have taken part has not been Christian.\nThe goodness and the deserts of all these men, who served the\nchurches, were the goodness and the deserts of men, but not of the\ncause which they served. All these good men--like Francis d'Assisi\nand Francis de Lobes, our T\u00edkhon Zad\u00f3nski, Thomas \u00e0 Kempis, and\nothers--were good men, in spite of their having served a cause which\nis hostile to Christianity, and they would have been better and more\ndeserving still, if they had not succumbed to the error which they\nserved.\n\nBut why speak of the past, judge of the past, which may have been\nfalsely represented to us? The churches with their foundations and\nwith their activity are not a work of the past: the churches are now\nbefore us, and we can judge of them directly, by their activity,\ntheir influence upon men.\n\nIn what does the activity of the churches now consist? How do they\nact upon men? What do the churches do in our country, among the\nCatholics, among the Protestants of every denomination? In what\ndoes their activity consist, and what are the consequences of their\nactivity?\n\nThe activity of our Russian, so-called Orthodox, Church is in full\nsight. It is a vast fact, which cannot be concealed, and about which\nthere can be no dispute.\n\nIn what consists the activity of this Russian Church, this\nenormous, tensely active institution, which consists of an army of\nhalf a million, costing the nation tens of millions?\n\nThe activity of this church consists in using every possible means\nfor the purpose of instilling in the one hundred millions of the\nRussian population those obsolete, backward faiths, which now have\nno justification whatsoever, and which sometime in the past were\nprofessed by people that are alien to our nation, and in which\nhardly any one now believes, frequently even not those whose duty it\nis to disseminate these false doctrines.\n\nThe inculcation of these alien, obsolete formulas of the Byzantine\nclergy, which no longer have any meaning for the men of our time,\nabout the Trinity, the Holy Virgin, the sacraments, grace, and\nso forth, forms one part of the activity of the Russian Church;\nanother part of its activity consists in the activity of maintaining\nidolatry in the direct sense of the word,--worshipping holy relics\nand images, bringing sacrifices to them, and expecting from them\nthe fulfilment of their wishes. I shall not speak of what is spoken\nand written by the clergy with a shade of learning and liberalism\nin the clerical periodicals, but of what actually is done by the\nclergy over the breadth of the Russian land among a population of\none hundred million people. What do they carefully, persistently,\ntensely, everywhere without exception, teach the people? What is\ndemanded of them on the strength of the so-called Christian faith?\n\n[Illustration: Russian Peasants at Mass\n\n_Photogravure from Drawing by Carl Buddeus_]\n\nI will begin with the beginning, with the birth of a child: at\nthe birth of a child, the clergy teaches that a prayer has to be\nread over the mother and the child, in order to purify them, since\nwithout this prayer the mother who has given birth to a child\nis accursed. For this purpose the priest takes the child in his\nhands in front of the representations of the saints, which the\nmasses simply call gods, and pronounces exorcising words, and\nthus purifies the mother. Then it is impressed on the parents,\nand even demanded of them under threat of punishment in case of\nnon-fulfilment, that the child shall be baptized, that is, dipped\nthree times in water by the priest, in connection with which\nincomprehensible words are pronounced and even less comprehensible\nacts performed,--the smearing of various parts of the body with\noil, the shearing of the hair, and the blowing and spitting of the\nsponsors on the imaginary devil. All this is supposed to cleanse\nthe child and make him a Christian. Then the parents are impressed\nwith the necessity of giving the holy sacrament to the child, that\nis, of giving him under the form of bread and wine a particle of\nChrist's body to eat, in consequence of which the child will receive\nthe grace of Christ, and so forth. Then it is demanded that this\nchild, according to his age, shall learn to pray. To pray means to\nstand straight in front of the boards on which the faces of Christ,\nthe Virgin, the saints, are represented, and incline his head and\nhis whole body, and with his right hand, with fingers put together\nin a certain form, to touch his brow, shoulders, and stomach,\nand pronounce Church-Slavic words, of which all the children are\nparticularly enjoined to repeat, \"Mother of God, Virgin, rejoice!\"\netc. Then the pupil is impressed with the necessity of doing the\nsame, that is, crossing himself, in presence of any church or image;\nthen he is told that on holidays (holidays are days on which Christ\nwas born, though no one knows when that was, and circumcised, on\nwhich the Mother of God died, the cross was brought, the image was\ncarried in, a saintly fool saw a vision, etc.,) he must put on his\nbest clothes and go to church, buy tapers there and place them in\nfront of images of saints, hand in little notes and commemorations\nand loaves, that triangles may be cut in them, and then pray many\ntimes for the health and welfare of the Tsar and the bishops, and\nfor himself and his acts, and then kiss the cross and the priest's\nhand.\n\nBesides this prayer he is enjoined to prepare himself at least\nonce a year for the holy sacrament. To prepare himself for the\nholy sacrament means to go to church and tell the priest his sins,\non the supposition that his imparting his sins to a stranger will\ncompletely cleanse him of his sins, and then to eat from a spoon a\nbit of bread with wine, which purifies him even more. Then it is\nimpressed upon a man and a woman, who want their carnal intercourse\nto be sacred, that they must come to church, put on metallic crowns,\ndrink potions, to the sound of singing walk three times around a\ntable, and that then their carnal intercourse will become sacred and\nquite distinct from any other carnal intercourse.\n\nIn life people are impressed with the necessity of observing the\nfollowing rules: not to eat meat or milk food on certain days, on\nother certain days to celebrate masses for the dead, on holidays to\nreceive the priest and give him money, and several times a year to\ntake the boards with the representations out of the church and carry\nthem on sashes over fields and through houses. Before death a man is\nenjoined to eat from a spoon bread with wine, and still better, if\nhe has time, to have himself smeared with oil. This secures for him\nhappiness in the next world. After a man's death, his relatives are\nenjoined, for the purpose of saving the soul of the defunct, to put\ninto his hands a printed sheet with a prayer; it is also useful to\nhave a certain book read over the dead body and the name of the dead\nman pronounced several times in church.\n\nAll this is considered an obligatory faith for everybody.\n\nBut if one wants to care for his soul, he is taught, according to\nthis faith, that the greatest amount of blessedness is secured for\nthe soul in the world to come by contributing money for churches and\nmonasteries, by putting holy men thus under obligation to pray for\nhim. Other soul-saving measures, according to this faith, are the\nvisiting of monasteries and the kissing of miracle-working images\nand relics.\n\nAccording to this faith, miracle-working images and relics\nconcentrate in themselves particular holiness, strength, and grace,\nand nearness to these objects--touching, kissing them, placing\ntapers before them, crawling up to them--contributes very much to a\nman's salvation, and so do masses, which are ordered before these\nsacred objects.\n\nIt is this faith, and no other, which is called Orthodox, that is,\nthe right faith, and which has, under the guise of Christianity,\nbeen impressed upon the people for many centuries by the exercise\nof all kinds of force, and is now being impressed with particular\neffort.\n\nAnd let it not be said that the Orthodox teachers place the essence\nof the teaching in something else, and that these are only ancient\nforms which it is not considered right to destroy. That is not true:\nthroughout all of Russia, nothing but this faith has of late been\nimpressed upon the people with particular effort. There is nothing\nelse. Of something else they talk and write in the capitals, but\nonly this is being impressed on one hundred million of people, and\nnothing else. The churchmen talk of other things, but they enjoin\nonly this with every means at their command.\n\nAll this, and the worship of persons and images, is introduced\ninto theologies, into catechisms; the masses are carefully taught\nthis theoretically, and, being hypnotized practically, with every\nmeans of solemnity, splendour, authority, and violence, are made to\nbelieve in this, and are jealously guarded against every endeavour\nto be freed from these savage superstitions.\n\nIn my very presence, as I said in reference to my book, Christ's\nteaching and his own words concerning non-resistance to evil were\na subject of ridicule and circus jokes, and the churchmen not only\ndid not oppose this, but even encouraged the blasphemy; but allow\nyourself to say a disrespectful word concerning the monstrous idol,\nwhich is blasphemously carried about in Moscow by drunken persons\nunder the name of the Iberian Virgin, and a groan of indignation\nwill be raised by these same churchmen. All that is preached is the\nexternal cult of idolatry. Let no one say that one thing does not\ninterfere with the other, that \"these ought ye to have done, and not\nto have left the other undone,\" that \"all, therefore, whatsoever\nthey bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their\nworks: for they say, and do not\" (Matt. xxiii. 23, 3). This is\nsaid of the Pharisees, who fulfilled all the external injunctions\nof the law, and so the words, \"whatsoever they bid you observe,\nthat observe,\" refer to works of charity and of goodness, and the\nwords, \"but do ye not after their works, for they say, and do not,\"\nrefer to the execution of ceremonies and to the omission of good\nworks, and have precisely the opposite meaning to what the churchmen\nwant to ascribe to this passage, when they interpret it as meaning\nthat ceremonies are to be observed. An external cult and serving\ncharity and truth are hard to harmonize; for the most part one thing\nexcludes the other. Thus it was with the Pharisees, and thus it is\nnow with the church Christians.\n\nIf a man can save himself through redemption, sacraments, prayer, he\nno longer needs any good deeds.\n\nThe Sermon on the Mount, or the symbol of faith: it is impossible\nto believe in both. And the churchmen have chosen the latter: the\nsymbol of faith is taught and read as a prayer in the churches; and\nthe Sermon on the Mount is excluded even from the Gospel teachings\nin the churches, so that in the churches the parishioners never hear\nit, except on the days when the whole Gospel is read. Nor can it\nbe otherwise: men who believe in a bad and senseless God, who has\ncursed the human race and who has doomed His son to be a victim, and\nhas doomed a part of humanity to everlasting torment, cannot believe\nin a God of love. A man who believes in God-Christ, who will come\nagain in glory to judge and punish the living and the dead, cannot\nbelieve in Christ, who commands a man to offer his cheek to the\noffender, not to judge, but to forgive, and to love our enemies. A\nman who believes in the divine inspiration of the Old Testament and\nthe holiness of David, who on his death-bed orders the killing of\nan old man who has offended him and whom he could not kill himself,\nbecause he was bound by an oath (Book of Kings, ii. 3), and similar\nabominations, of which the Old Testament is full, cannot believe\nin Christ's moral law; a man who believes in the doctrine and the\npreaching of the church about the compatibility of executions and\nwars with Christianity, cannot believe in the brotherhood of men.\n\nAbove all else, a man who believes in the salvation of men through\nfaith, in redemption, or in the sacraments, can no longer employ\nall his strength in the fulfilment in life of the moral teaching of\nChrist.\n\nA man who is taught by the church the blasphemous doctrine about his\nnot being able to be saved by his own efforts, but that there is\nanother means, will inevitably have recourse to this means, and not\nto his efforts, on which he is assured it is a sin to depend. The\nchurch doctrine, any church doctrine, with its redemption and its\nsacraments, excludes Christ's teaching, and the Orthodox doctrine,\nwith its idolatry, does so especially.\n\n\"But the masses have always believed so themselves, and believe so\nnow,\" people will say to this. \"The whole history of the Russian\nmasses proves this. It is not right to deprive the masses of their\ntradition.\" In this does the deception consist. The masses at one\ntime, indeed, professed something like what the church professes\nnow, though it was far from being the same (among the masses,\nthere has existed, not only this superstition of the images, house\nspirits, relics, and the seventh Thursday after Easter, with its\nwreaths and birches, but also a deep moral, vital comprehension\nof Christianity, which has never existed in the whole church, and\nwas met with only in its best representatives); but the masses, in\nspite of all the obstacles, which the government and the church\nhave opposed to them, have long ago in their best representatives\noutlived this coarse stage of comprehension, which is proved by\nthe spontaneous birth of rationalistic sects, with which one meets\neverywhere, with which Russia swarms at the present time, and with\nwhich the churchmen struggle in vain. The masses move on in the\nconsciousness of the moral, vital side of Christianity. And it is\nhere that the church appears with its failure to support, and with\nits intensified inculcation of an obsolete paganism in its ossified\nform, with its tendency to push the masses back into that darkness,\nfrom which they are struggling with so much effort to get out.\n\n\"We do not teach the masses anything new, but only what they believe\nin, and that in a more perfect form,\" say the churchmen.\n\nThis is the same as tying up a growing chick and pushing it back\ninto the shell from which it has come.\n\nI have often been struck by this observation, which would be\ncomical, if its consequences were not so terrible, that men, taking\nhold of each other in a circle, deceive one another, without being\nable to get out of the enchanted circle.\n\nThe first question, the first doubt of a Russian who is beginning\nto think, is the question about the miracle-working images and,\nabove all, the relics: \"Is it true that they are imperishable, and\nthat they work miracles?\" Hundreds and thousands of men put these\nquestions to themselves and are troubled about their solution,\nespecially because the bishops, metropolitans, and all the\ndignitaries kiss the relics and the miracle-working images. Ask the\nbishops and the dignitaries why they do so, and they will tell you\nthat they do so for the sake of the masses, and the masses worship\nthe images and relics, because the bishops and dignitaries do so.\n\nThe activity of the Russian Church, in spite of its external\nveneer of modernness, learning, spirituality, which its members\nare beginning to assume in their writings, articles, clerical\nperiodicals, and sermons, consists not only in keeping the masses\nin that consciousness of rude and savage idolatry, in which they\nare, but also in intensifying and disseminating superstition\nand religious ignorance, by pushing out of the masses the vital\ncomprehension of Christianity, which has been living in them by the\nside of the idolatry.\n\nI remember, I was once present in the monastery bookstore of \u00d3ptin\nCloister, when an old peasant was choosing some religious books for\nhis grandson, who could read. The monk kept pushing the description\nof relics, holidays, miraculous images, psalters, etc., into his\nhands. I asked the old man if he had the Gospel. \"No.\" \"Give him the\nRussian Gospel,\" I said to the monk. \"That is not proper for him,\"\nsaid the monk.\n\nThis is in compressed form the activity of our church.\n\n\"But this is only true in barbarous Russia,\" a European or American\nreader will say. And such an opinion will be correct, but only in\nthe measure in which it refers to the government which aids the\nchurch in accomplishing its stultifying and corrupting influence in\nRussia.\n\nIt is true that nowhere in Europe is there such a despotic\ngovernment and one to such a degree in accord with the ruling\nchurch, and so the participation of the power in the corruption of\nthe masses in Russia is very strong; but it is not true that the\nRussian Church in its influence upon the masses in any way differs\nfrom any other church.\n\nThe churches are everything the same, and if the Catholic, the\nAnglican, and the Lutheran Churches have not in hand such an\nobedient government as is the Russian, this is not due to the\nabsence of any desire to make use of the same.\n\nThe church, as a church, no matter what it may be, Catholic,\nAnglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian,--every church, insomuch as it\nis a church, cannot help but tend toward the same as the Russian\nChurch,--toward concealing the true meaning of Christ's teaching\nand substituting in its place its own doctrine, which does not\nput a person under any obligations, excludes the possibility of\nunderstanding the true activity of Christ's teaching, and, above\nall else, justifies the existence of priests who are living at the\nexpense of the nation.\n\nHas Catholicism been doing anything else with its prohibition of the\nreading of the Gospel, and with its demand for unreasoning obedience\nto the ecclesiastic guides and the infallible Pope? Does Catholicism\npreach anything different from what the Russian Church preaches?\nWe have here the same external cult, the same relics, miracles,\nand statues, the miracle-working Notre-Dames, and processions. The\nsame elatedly misty judgments concerning Christianity in books and\nsermons, and, when it comes to facts, the same maintenance of a\ncoarse idolatry.\n\nAnd is not the same being done in Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and in\nevery Protestantism which has formed itself into a church? The same\ndemands from the congregation for a belief in dogmas which were\nexpressed in the fourth century and have lost all meaning for the\nmen of our time, and the same demand for idolatry, if not before\nrelics and images, at least before the Sabbath and the letter of\nthe Bible. It is still the same activity, which is directed upon\nconcealing the real demands of Christianity and substituting for\nthem externals, which do not put a man under any obligations, and\n\"cant,\" as the English beautifully define the occupation to which\nthey are particularly subject. Among the Protestants this activity\nis particularly noticeable, since they do not even have the excuse\nof antiquity. And does not the same take place in the modern\nRevivalism,--the renovated Calvinism, Evangelism,--out of which has\ngrown up the Salvation Army? Just as the condition of all the church\ndoctrines is the same in reference to Christ's teaching, so are also\ntheir methods.\n\nTheir condition is such that they cannot help but strain all their\nefforts, in order to conceal the teaching of Christ, whose name they\nuse.\n\nThe incompatibility of all the church confessions with Christ's\nteaching is such that it takes especial efforts to conceal this\nincompatibility from men. Indeed, we need but stop and think of\nthe condition of any adult, not only cultured, but even simple,\nman of our time, who has filled himself with conceptions, which\nare in the air, from the fields of geology, physics, chemistry,\ncosmography, history, when he for the first time looks consciously\nat the beliefs, instilled in him in childhood and supported by the\nchurches, that God created the world in six days; that there was\nlight before the sun; that Noah stuck all the animals into his ark,\nand so forth; that Jesus is the same God, the son, who created\neverything before this; that this God descended upon earth for\nAdam's sin; that He rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, and sits\non the right of the Father, and will come in the clouds to judge the\nworld, and so forth.\n\nAll these propositions, which were worked out by the men of the\nfourth century and had a certain meaning for the men of that time,\nhave no meaning for the men of the present. The men of our time may\nrepeat these words with their lips, but they cannot believe, because\nthese words, like the statements that God lives in heaven, that the\nheavens opened and a voice said something from there, that Christ\nrose from the dead and flew somewhere to heaven and will again come\nfrom somewhere in the clouds, and so forth, have no meaning for us.\n\nIt was possible for a man, who regarded the heaven as a finite, firm\nvault, to believe, or not, that God created the heaven, that heaven\nwas opened, that Christ flew to heaven; but for us these words have\nno meaning whatsoever. Men of our time can only believe that they\nmust believe so; but they cannot believe in what has no meaning for\nthem.\n\nBut if all these expressions are to have a figurative meaning and\nare emblems, we know that, in the first place, not all churchmen\nagree in this, but that, on the contrary, the majority insist on\nunderstanding Holy Scripture in a direct sense, and, secondly, that\nthese interpretations are varied and not confirmed by anything.\n\nBut even if a man wishes to make himself believe in the doctrine\nof the churches, as it is imparted,--the general diffusion of\nknowledge and of the Gospels, and the intercourse of men of various\ndenominations among themselves, form for this another, even more\ninsuperable obstacle.\n\nA man of our time need but buy himself a Gospel for three kopeks\nand read Christ's clear words to the woman of Samaria, which are\nnot subject to any other interpretation, about the Father needing\nno worshippers in Jerusalem, neither in this mountain, nor in that,\nworshippers in spirit and in truth, or the words about a Christian's\nbeing obliged to pray, not in temples, as the pagans do, and in\nthe sight of all, but in secret, that is, in his closet, or that a\ndisciple of Christ must not call any one father or teacher,--a man\nneeds but read these words, to become convinced that no ecclesiastic\npastors, who call themselves teachers in opposition to Christ's\nteaching, and who quarrel among themselves, form an authority,\nand that that which the churchmen teach us is not Christianity.\nBut more than that: if a man of our time continues to believe in\nmiracles and does not read the Gospel, his mere intercourse with men\nof other denominations and faiths, which has become so easy in our\ntime, will make him doubt in the authenticity of his faith. It was\nall very well for a man who never saw any men of another faith than\nhis own to believe that his own faith was the correct one; but a\nthinking man need only come in contact, as he now does all the time,\nwith equally good and equally bad men of various denominations,\nwhich condemn the doctrines of one another, in order to lose faith\nin the truth of the religion which he professes. In our time only a\nvery ignorant man or one who is quite indifferent to the questions\nof life, which are sanctified by religion, can stay in the church\nfaith.\n\n[Illustration: Church of Vasili the Blessed, Moscow\n\n_Photogravure from Drawing by E. Th\u00e9rond_]\n\nWhat cunning and what effort must be exerted by the churches, if, in\nspite of all these conditions which are subversive of faith, they\nare to continue building churches, celebrating masses, preaching,\nteaching, converting, and, above all, receiving for it a fat income,\nlike all these priests, pastors, intendants, superintendents,\nabbots, archdeacons, bishops, and archbishops.\n\nEspecial, supernatural efforts are needed. And such efforts, which\nare strained more and more, are used by the churches. With us,\nin Russia, they use (in addition to all other means) the simple,\ncoarse violence of the civil power, which is obedient to the church.\nPersons who depart from the external expression of faith and who\ngive expression to it are either directly punished or deprived of\ntheir rights; while persons who strictly adhere to the external\nforms of faith are rewarded and given rights.\n\nThus do the Orthodox; but even all other churches, without\nexception, use for this all such means, of which the chief is what\nnow is called hypnotization.\n\nAll the arts, from architecture to poetry, are put into action,\nto affect the souls of men and to stultify them, and this action\ntakes place without interruption. Particularly evident is this\nnecessity of the hypnotizing action upon men, in order to bring them\nto a state of stupefaction, in the activity of the Salvation Army,\nwhich uses new, unfamiliar methods of horns, drums, songs, banners,\nuniforms, processions, dances, tears, and dramatic attitudes.\n\nBut we are startled by them only because they are new methods. Are\nnot the old methods of the temples, with especial illumination,\nwith gold, splendour, candles, choirs, organs, bells, vestments,\nlackadaisical sermons, and so forth, the same?\n\nBut, no matter how strong this action of hypnotization may be,\nthe chief and most deleterious activity of the churches does not\nlie in this. The chief, most pernicious activity of the church\nis the one which is directed to the deception of the children,\nthose very children of whom Christ said that it will be woe to him\nwho shall offend one of these little ones. With the very first\nawakening of the child, they begin to deceive him and to impress\nupon him with solemnity what those who impress do not believe in\nthemselves, and they continue to impress him, until the deception,\nbecoming a habit, is engrafted on the child's nature. The child is\nmethodically deceived in the most important matter of life, and when\nthe deception has so grown up with his life that it is difficult to\ntear it away, there is revealed to him the whole world of science\nand of reality, which can in no way harmonize with the beliefs\ninstilled in him, and he is left to make the best he can out of\nthese contradictions.\n\nIf we should set ourselves the task of entangling a man in such a\nway that he should not be able with his sound reason to get away\nfrom the two opposite world-conceptions, which have been instilled\nin him since his childhood, we could not invent anything more\npowerful than what is accomplished in the case of every young man\nwho is educated in our so-called Christian society.\n\nWhat the churches do to people is terrible, but if we reflect\non their condition, we shall find that those men who form the\ninstitution of the churches cannot act otherwise. The churches are\nconfronted with a dilemma,--the Sermon on the Mount, or the Nicene\nCreed,--one excludes the other: if a man sincerely believes in the\nSermon on the Mount, the Nicene Creed, and with it the church and\nits representatives, inevitably lose all meaning and significance\nfor him; but if a man believes in the Nicene Creed, that is, in the\nchurch, that is, in those who call themselves its representatives,\nthe Sermon on the Mount will become superfluous to him. And so the\nchurches cannot help but use every possible effort to obscure the\nmeaning of the Sermon on the Mount and to attract people toward\nitself. Only thanks to the tense activity of the churches in this\ndirection has the influence of the churches held itself until now.\nLet a church for the shortest time arrest this action upon the\nmasses by means of hypnotizing them and deceiving the children, and\npeople will understand Christ's teaching. But the comprehension\nof the teaching destroys the churches and their significance. And\nso the churches do not for a moment interrupt the tense activity\nand hypnotization of the adults and the deception of the children.\nAnd it is this activity of the churches, which instils a false\ncomprehension of Christ's teaching in men, and serves as an obstacle\nin its comprehension for the majority of so-called believers.\n\n\nIV.\n\nNow I will speak of another putative comprehension of Christianity,\nwhich interferes with the correct comprehension of it,--the\nscientific comprehension.\n\nThe churchmen regard as Christianity that conception of it which\nthey have formed, and this comprehension of Christianity they regard\nas the one indubitably true one.\n\nThe men of science regard as Christianity only what the different\nchurches have been professing, and, assuming that these professions\nexhaust the whole significance of Christianity, they recognize it as\na religious teaching which has outlived its time.\n\nTo have it made clear how impossible it is with such a view to\nunderstand the Christian teaching, we must form an idea of the place\nwhich the religions in general and Christianity in particular have\nin reality occupied in the life of humanity, and of the significance\nwhich is ascribed to religion by science.\n\nAs an individual man cannot live without having a definite idea of\nthe meaning of his life, and always, though often unconsciously,\nconforms his acts to this meaning which he ascribes to his life,\neven so aggregates of men living under the same conditions,--nations\ncannot help but have a conception about the meaning of their\ncollective life and the activity resulting therefrom. And as\nan individual, entering into a new age, invariably changes his\ncomprehension of life, and a grown man sees its meaning in something\nelse than in what a child sees it, so an aggregate of people, a\nnation, inevitably, according to its age, changes its comprehension\nof life and the activity which results from it.\n\nThe difference between the individual and the whole of humanity in\nthis respect consists in this, that while the individual in the\ndetermination of the comprehension of life, proper to the new stage\nof life into which he enters, and in the activity which arises from\nit, makes use of the indications of men who have lived before him\nand who have already passed through the period of life upon which\nhe is entering, humanity cannot have these indications, because it\nall moves along an untrodden path, and there is no one who can tell\nhow life is to be understood, and how one is to act under the new\nconditions into which it is entering, and in which no one has lived\nbefore.\n\nAnd yet, as a married man with children cannot continue to\nunderstand life as he understood it when he was a child, so\nhumanity cannot in connection with all the various changes\nwhich have taken place,--the density of the population, and the\nestablished intercourse between the nations, and the improvement of\nthe means for struggling against Nature, and the accumulation of\nscience,--continue to understand life as before, but must establish\na new concept of life, from which should result the activity which\ncorresponds to that new condition into which it has entered or is\nabout to enter.\n\nTo this demand responds the peculiar ability of humanity to\nsegregate certain people who give a new meaning to the whole of\nhuman life,--a meaning from which results the whole new activity\nwhich is different from the preceding one. The establishment of the\nnew life-conception, which is proper for humanity under the new\nconditions into which it is entering, and of the activity resulting\nfrom it, is what is called religion.\n\nAnd so religion, in the first place, is not, as science thinks, a\nphenomenon which at one time accompanied the evolution of humanity,\nand later became obsolete, but is a phenomenon always inherent in\nthe life of humanity, and is in our time as inevitably inherent in\nhumanity as at any other time. In the second place, religion is\nalways a determination of the activity of the future, and not of the\npast, and so it is obvious that the investigation of past phenomena\ncan in no way include the essence of religion.\n\nThe essence of every religious teaching does not consist in the\ndesire to express the forces of Nature symbolically, or in the fear\nof them, or in the demand for the miraculous, or in the external\nforms of its manifestation, as the men of science imagine. The\nessence of religion lies in the property of men prophetically to\nforesee and point out the path of life, over which humanity must\ntravel, in a new definition of the meaning of life, from which also\nresults a new, the whole future activity of humanity.\n\nThis property of foreseeing the path on which humanity must travel\nis in a greater or lesser degree common to all men, but there have\nalways, at all times, been men, in whom this quality has been\nmanifested with particular force, and these men expressed clearly\nand precisely what was dimly felt by all men, and established a new\ncomprehension of life, from which resulted an entirely new activity,\nfor hundreds and thousands of years.\n\nWe know three such conceptions of life: two of them humanity has\nalready outlived, and the third is the one through which we are\nnow passing in Christianity. There are three, and only three, such\nconceptions, not because we have arbitrarily united all kinds of\nlife-conceptions into these three, but because the acts of men\nalways have for their base one of these three life-conceptions,\nbecause we cannot understand life in any other way than by one of\nthese three means.\n\nThe three life-conceptions are these: the first--the personal, or\nanimal; the second--the social, or the pagan; and the third--the\nuniversal, or the divine.\n\nAccording to the first life-conception, man's life is contained\nin nothing but his personality; the aim of his life is the\ngratification of the will of this personality. According to\nthe second life-conception, man's life is not contained in\nhis personality alone, but in the aggregate and sequence of\npersonalities,--in the tribe, the family, the race, the state;\nthe aim of life consists in the gratification of the will of this\naggregate of personalities. According to the third life-conception,\nman's life is contained neither in his personality, nor in the\naggregate and sequence of personalities, but in the beginning and\nsource of life, in God.\n\nThese three life-conceptions serve as the foundation of all past and\npresent religions.\n\nThe savage recognizes life only in himself, in his personal desires.\nThe good of his life is centred in himself alone. The highest\ngood for him is the greatest gratification of his lust. The prime\nmover of his life is his personal enjoyment. His religion consists\nin appeasing the divinity in his favour, and in the worship of\nimaginary personalities of gods, who live only for personal ends.\n\nA pagan, a social man, no longer recognizes life in himself alone,\nbut in the aggregate of personalities,--in the tribe, the family,\nthe race, the state,--and sacrifices his personal good for these\naggregates. The prime mover of his life is glory. His religion\nconsists in the glorification of the heads of unions,--of eponyms,\nancestors, kings, and in the worship of gods, the exclusive\nprotectors of his family, his race, his nation, his state.[9]\n\n  [9] The unity of this life-conception is not impaired by the\n  fact that so many various forms of life, as that of the tribe,\n  the family, the race, the state, and even the life of humanity,\n  according to the theoretical speculations of the positivists, are\n  based on this social, or pagan, life-conception. All these various\n  forms of life are based on the same concept that the life of the\n  personality is not a sufficient aim of life and that the meaning of\n  life can be found only in the aggregate of personalities.--_Author's\n  Note._\n\nThe man with the divine life-conception no longer recognizes life to\nconsist in his personality, or in the aggregate of personalities (in\nthe family, the race, the people, the country, or the state), but\nin the source of the everlasting, immortal life, in God; and to do\nGod's will he sacrifices his personal and domestic and social good.\nThe prime mover of his religion is love. And his religion is the\nworship in deed and in truth of the beginning of everything, of God.\n\nThe whole historical life of humanity is nothing but a gradual\ntransition from the personal, the animal life-conception, to the\nsocial, and from the social to the divine. The whole history of the\nancient nations, which lasted for thousands of years and which came\nto a conclusion with the history of Rome, is the history of the\nsubstitution of the social and the political life-conception for the\nanimal, the personal. The whole history since the time of imperial\nRome and the appearance of Christianity has been the history of the\nsubstitution of the divine life-conception for the political, and we\nare passing through it even now.\n\nIt is this last life-conception, and the Christian teaching which\nis based upon it and which governs our whole life and lies at\nthe foundation of our whole activity, both the practical and the\ntheoretical, that the men of so-called science, considering it\nin reference to its external signs only, recognize as something\nobsolete and meaningless for us.\n\nThis teaching, which, according to the men of science, is contained\nonly in its dogmatic part,--in the doctrine of the Trinity, the\nredemption, the miracles, the church, the sacraments, and so\nforth,--is only one out of a vast number of religions which have\narisen in humanity, and now, having played its part in history, is\noutliving its usefulness, melting in the light of science and true\nculture.\n\nWhat is taking place is what in the majority of cases serves as\na source of the coarsest human errors,--men who are standing on a\nlower level of comprehension, coming in contact with phenomena of a\nhigher order, instead of making efforts to understand them, instead\nof rising to the point of view from which they ought to look upon\na subject, judge it from their lower point of view, and that, too,\nwith greater daring and determination the less they understand what\nthey are talking about.\n\nFor the majority of scientific men, who view Christ's vital,\nmoral teaching from the lower point of the social conception of\nlife, this teaching is only a very indefinite, clumsy combination\nof Hindoo asceticism, Stoical and Neo-platonic teachings, and\nUtopian antisocial reveries, which have no serious significance\nfor our time, and its whole meaning is centred in its external\nmanifestations,--in Catholicism, Protestantism, the dogmas, the\nstruggle with the worldly power. In defining the significance of\nChristianity according to these phenomena, they are like deaf\npersons who should judge of the meaning and the worth of music\naccording to the appearance of the motions which the musicians make.\n\nThe result of it is this, that all these men, beginning with Comte,\nStrauss, Spencer, and Renan, who do not understand the meaning of\nChrist's sermons, who do not understand why they are uttered and\nfor what purpose, who do not even understand the question to which\nthey serve as an answer, who do not even take the trouble to grasp\ntheir meaning, if they are inimically inclined, deny outright the\nrationality of the teaching; but if they wish to be condescending to\nit, they correct it from the height of their grandeur, assuming that\nChrist wanted to say precisely what they have in mind, but did not\nknow how to say it. They treat his teaching as, in correcting the\nwords of an interlocutor, self-confident men generally speak to one\nwhom they regard as standing below them, \"Yes, what you mean to say\nis this.\" This correction is always made in the sense of reducing\nthe higher, divine life-conception to the lower, social conception.\n\nPeople generally say that the moral teaching of Christianity is\ngood, but exaggerated,--that, in order that it should be absolutely\ngood, we must reject from it what is superfluous, what does not fit\nin with our structure of life. \"For otherwise the teaching, which\ndemands too much, which cannot be carried out, is worse than one\nwhich demands from men what is possible and in conformity with their\nstrength,\" think and assert the wise interpreters of Christianity,\nrepeating what was long ago affirmed and still is affirmed, and\ncould not help but be affirmed, in relation to the Christian\nteaching, by those who, having failed to comprehend the teacher of\nit, crucified Him,--by the Jews.\n\nIt turns out that before the judgment of the learned of our time,\nthe Jewish law, A tooth for a tooth, and an eye for an eye,--the\nlaw of just retaliation, which was known to humanity five thousand\nyears ago,--is more useful than the law of love which eighteen\nhundred years ago was preached by Christ in place of this very law\nof justice.\n\nIt turns out that everything which has been done by the men who\ncomprehended Christ's teaching in a direct manner and lived in\nconformity with such a comprehension, everything which all true\nChristians, all Christian champions, have done, everything which now\ntransforms the world under the guise of socialism and communism,--is\nexaggeration, of which it is not worth while to speak.\n\nMen who have been educated in Christianity for eighteen centuries\nhave convinced themselves in the persons of their foremost men,\nthe scholars, that the Christian teaching is a teaching of dogmas,\nthat the vital teaching is a misconception, an exaggeration, which\nviolates the true legitimate demands of morality, which correspond\nto man's nature, and that the doctrine of justice, which Christ\nrejected and in the place of which he put his own teaching, is much\nmore profitable for us.\n\nThe learned consider the commandment of non-resistance to evil an\nexaggeration and even madness. If it be rejected, it would be much\nbetter, they think, without observing that they are not talking of\nChrist's teaching at all, but of what presents itself to them as\nsuch.\n\nThey do not notice that to say that Christ's commandment about\nnon-resistance to evil is an exaggeration is the same as saying\nthat in the theory of the circle the statement about the equality\nof the radii of a circle is an exaggeration. And those who say so\ndo precisely what a man, who did not have any conception as to\nwhat a circle is, would do if he asserted that the demand that all\nthe points on the circumference should be equally distant from the\ncentre is an exaggeration. To advise that the statement concerning\nthe equality of the radii in a circle be rejected or moderated is\nthe same as not understanding what a circle is. To advise that the\ncommandment about non-resistance to evil in the vital teaching of\nChrist be rejected or moderated means not to understand the teaching.\n\nAnd those who do so actually do not understand it at all. They do\nnot understand that this teaching is the establishment of a new\ncomprehension of life, which corresponds to the new condition into\nwhich men have been entering for these eighteen hundred years, and\nthe determination of the new activity which results from it. They\ndo not believe that Christ wanted to say what he did; or it seems\nto them that what he said in the Sermon on the Mount and in other\npassages He said from infatuation, from lack of comprehension, from\ninsufficient development.[10]\n\n  [10] Here, for example, is a characteristic judgment of the kind\n  in an article of an American periodical, _Arena_, October, 1890.\n  The article is entitled \"A New Basis of Church Life.\" In discussing\n  the significance of the Sermon on the Mount, and especially its\n  non-resistance to evil, the author, who is not obliged, like the\n  ecclesiastic writers, to conceal its meaning, says: \"Christ actually\n  preached complete communism and anarchy; but we must know how to\n  look upon Christ in His historical and psychologic significance.\"\n  [This sentence is not in the English article.--_Tr._] \"Devout common\n  sense must gradually come to look upon Christ as a philanthropic\n  teacher who, like every enthusiast who ever taught, went to an\n  Utopian extreme of His own philosophy. Every great agitation for the\n  betterment of the world has been led by men who beheld their own\n  mission with such absorbing intensity that they could see little\n  else. It is no reproach to Christ to say that He had the typical\n  reformer's temperament; that His precepts cannot be literally\n  accepted as a complete philosophy of life; and that men are to\n  analyze them reverently, but, at the same time, in the spirit of\n  ordinary, truth-seeking criticism,\" and so forth. Christ would have\n  liked to speak well, but He did not know how to express Himself as\n  precisely and clearly as we, in the spirit of criticism, and so we\n  will correct him. Everything He said about meekness, sacrifice,\n  poverty, the thoughtlessness for the morrow, He said by chance,\n  having been unable to express himself scientifically.--_Author's\n  Note._\n\nTherefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye\nshall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye\nshall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than\nraiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do\nthey reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth\nthem. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking\nthought can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought\nfor raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow;\nthey toil not, neither do they spin: and yet I say unto you, That\neven Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.\nWherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is,\nand to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall He not much more clothe\nyou, O ye of little faith? Therefore take no thought, saying, What\nshall we eat? or, What shall we drink, or, Wherewithal shall we be\nclothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for\nyour heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.\nBut seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and\nall these things shall be added unto you. Take therefore no thought\nfor the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things\nof itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof (Matt. vi.\n25-34).\n\nSell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax\nnot old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief\napproacheth, neither moth corrupteth. For where your treasure is\nthere will your heart be also (Luke xii. 33-34).\n\nGo and sell that thou hast, and follow me, and who hath not forsaken\nfather or mother, or children, or brethren, or fields, or house,\ncannot be my disciple.\n\nTurn away from thyself, take thy cross for every day, and come after\nme. My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me, and to do His\nwork. Not my will be done, but Thine; not what I want, but what Thou\nwantest, and not as I want, but as Thou wantest. The life is in\nthis, not to do one's will, but the will of God.\n\nAll these propositions seem to men who are standing on a lower\nlife-conception to be an expression of an ecstatic transport, which\nhas no direct applicability to life. And yet these propositions\njust as strictly result from the Christian conception of life as\nthe tenet about giving up one's labour for the common good, about\nsacrificing one's life in the defence of one's country, results from\nthe social conception.\n\nJust as a man of the social life-conception says to a savage, \"Come\nto your senses, bethink yourself! The life of your personality\ncannot be the true life, because it is wretched and transitory. Only\nthe life of the aggregate and of the sequence of personalities,\nof the tribe, the family, the race, the state, is continued and\nlives, and so a man must sacrifice his personality for the life of\nthe family, the state.\" Precisely the same the Christian teaching\nsays to a man of the aggregate, of the social conception of life.\n\"Repent, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5, that is, bethink yourselves, or\nelse you will perish. Remember that this carnal, personal life,\nwhich originated to-day and will be destroyed to-morrow, cannot be\nmade secure in any way, that no external measures, no arrangement of\nit, can add firmness and rationality to it. Bethink yourselves and\nunderstand that the life which you live is not the true life: the\nlife of the family, the life of society, the life of the state will\nnot save you from ruin.\" The true, rational life is possible for man\nonly in proportion as he can be a participant, not in the family or\nthe state, but in the source of life, the Father; in proportion as\nhe can blend his life with the life of the Father. Such indubitably\nis the Christian life-comprehension, which may be seen in every\nutterance of the Gospel.\n\nIt is possible not to share this life-conception; it is possible to\nreject it; it is possible to prove its inexactness and irregularity;\nbut it is impossible to judge of the teaching, without having\nfirst grasped the life-conception from which it results; still\nless possible is it to judge about a subject of a higher order\nfrom a lower point of view, to judge of the tower by looking at\nthe foundation. But it is precisely this that the learned men of\nour time are doing. They do so because they abide in an error,\nwhich is like the one of the churchmen, the belief that they are\nin possession of such methods of the study of the subject that, as\nsoon as these methods, called scientific, are used, there can be no\nlonger any doubt as to the correctness of the comprehension of the\nsubject under advisement.\n\nIt is this possession of an instrument of cognition, which\nthey deem infallible, that serves as the chief obstacle in the\ncomprehension of the Christian teaching by unbelievers and so-called\nscientific men, by whose opinion the vast majority of unbelievers,\nthe so-called cultured men, are guided. From this imaginary\ncomprehension of theirs arise all the errors of the scientific\nmen in respect to the Christian teaching, and especially two\nstrange misconceptions which more than any other impede the correct\ncomprehension of it.\n\nOne of these misconceptions is this, that the Christian vital\nteaching is impracticable, and so is either entirely unobligatory,\nthat is, need not be taken for a guide, or else must be modified\nand moderated to such an extent as to make it practicable in our\nsociety. Another misunderstanding is this, that the Christian\nteaching of love of God, and so the service of Him, is an obscure,\nmystical demand, which has no definite object of love, and so must\ngive way to a more precise and comprehensible teaching about loving\nmen and serving humanity.\n\nThe first misconception about the impracticableness of the teaching\nconsists in this, that the men of the social comprehension of\nlife, being unable to comprehend the method by means of which the\nChristian teaching guides men, and taking the Christian indications\nof perfection to be rules which determine life, think and say that\nit is impossible to follow Christ's teaching, because a complete\nfulfilment of this teaching destroys life.\n\n\"If a man fulfilled what was preached by Christ, he would destroy\nhis life; and if all men should fulfil it, the whole human race\nwould come to an end,\" they say.\n\n\"If we care not for the morrow, for what we shall eat and drink and\nbe clothed in; if we do not defend our lives; if we do not resist\nevil with force; if we give our lives for our friends, and observe\nabsolute chastity, no man, nor the whole human race, can exist,\"\nthey think and say.\n\nAnd they are quite correct, if we take the indications of\nperfection, as given by Christ, for rules, which every man is\nobliged to carry out, just as in the social teaching everybody is\nobliged to carry out the rule about paying the taxes, about taking\npart in court, etc.\n\nThe misconception consists in this, that Christ's teaching guides\nmen in a different way from the way those teachings guide which\nare based on a lower life-conception. The teachings of the social\nlife-conception guide only by demanding a precise execution of the\nrules or laws. Christ's teaching guides men by indicating to them\nthat infinite perfection of the Father in heaven, toward which it is\nproper for each man to strive voluntarily, no matter at what stage\nof perfection he may be.\n\nThe misconception of people who judge about the Christian teaching\nfrom the social point of view consists in this, that they,\nassuming that the perfection pointed out by Christ may be attained\ncompletely, ask themselves (even as they question themselves,\nassuming that the social laws will be fulfilled) what will happen\nwhen all this shall be fulfilled. This assumption is false, because\nthe perfection pointed out by Christ is infinite and can never be\nattained; and Christ gives His teaching with this in view, that\ncomplete perfection will never be attained, but that the striving\ntoward complete, infinite perfection will constantly increase\nthe good of men, and that this good can, therefore, be increased\ninfinitely.\n\nChrist does not teach angels, but men, who live an animal life,\nwho are moved by it. And it is to this animal force of motion that\nChrist seems to apply a new, a different force of the consciousness\nof divine perfection, and with this He directs the motion of life\nalong the resultant of two forces.\n\nTo assume that human life will go in the direction indicated by\nChrist is the same as assuming that a boatman, in crossing a rapid\nriver and directing his boat almost against the current, will move\nin that direction.\n\nChrist recognizes the existence of both sides of the parallelogram,\nof both the eternal, indestructible forces, of which man's life\nis composed,--the force of the animal nature and the force of the\nconsciousness of a filial relation to God. Without saying anything\nof the animal force, which, asserting itself, always remains equal\nto itself and exists outside of man's power, Christ speaks only of\nthe divine force, calling man to recognize it in the highest degree,\nto free it as much as possible from what is retarding it, and to\nbring it to the highest degree of tension.\n\nIn this liberation and increase of the force does man's true life,\naccording to Christ's teaching, consist. The true life, according\nto the previous conditions, consisted in the execution of rules, of\nthe law; according to Christ's teaching, it consists in the greatest\napproach to the divine perfection, as pointed out to every man and\ninwardly felt by him, in a greater and ever greater approach toward\nblending our will with the will of God, a blending toward which a\nman strives, and which would be a destruction of life as we know it.\n\nDivine perfection is the asymptote of the human life, toward which\nit always tends and approaches, and which can be attained by it only\nat infinity.\n\nThe Christian teaching seems to exclude the possibility of life only\nwhen men take the indication of the ideal to be a rule. It is only\nthen that the demands put forth by Christ's teaching appear to be\ndestructive of life. Without these demands the true life would be\nimpossible.\n\n\"Too much should not be demanded,\" people generally say, in\ndiscussing the demands of the Christian teaching. \"It is impossible\nto demand that we should not care for the future, as it says in\nthe Gospel; all that we should do is not to care too much. It is\nimpossible to give everything to the poor; but we should give a\ncertain, definite part to them. It is not necessary to strive after\nchastity; but debauchery should be avoided. We must not leave our\nwives and children; but we should not be too much attached to them,\"\nand so forth.\n\nBut to speak in this manner is the same as telling a man who is\ncrossing a rapid river, and who is directing his course against the\ncurrent, that it is impossible to cross the river by going against\nthe current, but that to cross it he should row in the direction he\nwishes to go.\n\nChrist's teaching differs from previous teachings in that it guides\nmen, not by external rules, but by the internal consciousness of\nthe possibility of attaining divine perfection. And in man's soul\nthere are not moderated rules of justice and of philanthropy, but\nthe ideal of the complete, infinite, divine perfection. Only the\nstriving after this perfection deflects the direction of man's life\nfrom the animal condition toward the divine, to the extent to which\nthis is possible in this life.\n\nIn order to land where you wish, you must direct your course much\nhigher up.\n\nTo lower the demands of the ideal means not only to diminish the\npossibility of perfection, but to destroy the ideal itself. The\nideal which operates upon people is not an invented one, but one\nwhich is borne in the soul of every man. Only this ideal of the\ncomplete, infinite perfection acts upon people and moves them to\nactivity. A moderated perfection loses its power to act upon men's\nsouls.\n\nChrist's teaching only then has force, when it demands full\nperfection, that is, the blending of God's essence, which abides in\nthe soul of every man, with the will of God,--the union of the son\nand the Father. Only this liberation of the son of God, who lives in\nevery man, from the animal, and his approximation to the Father form\nlife according to Christ's teaching.\n\nThe existence of the animal in man, of nothing but the animal, is\nnot the human life. Life according to the will of God alone is also\nnot the human life. The human life is the resultant from the animal\nand the divine lives, and the more this resultant approaches the\ndivine life, the more there is of life.\n\nLife, according to the Christian teaching, is a motion toward\ndivine perfection. No condition, according to this teaching, can\nbe higher or lower than another. Every condition, according to this\nteaching, is only a certain step, indifferent in itself, toward the\nunattainable perfection, and so in itself forms neither a greater\nnor a lesser degree of life. The increase of life, according to\nthis teaching, is only an acceleration of motion toward perfection,\nand so the motion toward perfection of the publican Zacch\u00e6us, of\nthe harlot, of the robber on the cross, forms a higher degree of\nlife than the immovable righteousness of the Pharisee. And so there\ncan be no obligatory rules for this teaching. A man who stands on\na lower step, in moving toward perfection, lives more morally and\nbetter, and better performs the teaching, than a man who stands\non a much higher stage of morality, but who does not move toward\nperfection.\n\nIn this sense the lost sheep is dearer to the Father than one which\nis not lost. The prodigal son, the lost coin which is found again,\nare dearer than those which were not lost.\n\nThe fulfilment of the teaching consists in the motion from oneself\ntoward God. It is evident that for such a fulfilment of the teaching\nthere can be no definite laws and rules. All degrees of perfection\nand all degrees of imperfection are equal before this teaching; no\nfulfilment of the laws constitutes a fulfilment of the teaching; and\nso, for this teaching there are, and there can be, no rules and no\nlaws.\n\nFrom this radical distinction of Christ's teaching as compared\nwith previous teachings, which are based on the social conception\nof life, there results the difference between the social and the\nChristian commandments. The social commandments are for the most\npart positive, prescribing certain acts, justifying men, giving\nthem righteousness. But the Christian commandments (the commandment\nof love is not a commandment in the strict sense of the word, but\nan expression of the very essence of the teaching)--the five\ncommandments of the Sermon on the Mount--are all negative, and\nthey all show only what men may not do at a certain stage of human\ndevelopment. These commandments are, as it were, signals on the\ninfinite road to perfection, toward which humanity walks, signals of\nthat stage of perfection which is possible at a given period of the\ndevelopment of humanity.\n\nIn the Sermon on the Mount Christ has expressed the eternal ideal\ntoward which it is proper for men to tend, and that degree of its\nattainment which can be reached even in our time.\n\nThe ideal consists in having no ill-will against any one, in calling\nforth no ill-will, in loving all; but the commandment, below which,\nin the attainment of this ideal, it is absolutely possible not to\ndescend, consists in not offending any one with a word. And this\nforms the first commandment.\n\nThe ideal is complete chastity, even in thought; the commandment\nwhich points out the degree of attainment, below which, in the\nattainment of this ideal, it is absolutely possible not to descend,\nis the purity of the marital life, the abstaining from fornication.\nAnd this forms the second commandment.\n\nThe ideal is not to care for the future, to live only in the\npresent; the commandment which points out the degree of the\nattainment, below which it is absolutely possible not to descend is\nnot to swear, not to promise anything to men. And this is the third\ncommandment.\n\nThe ideal is never, under any condition, to make use of violence;\nthe commandment which points out the degree below which it is\nabsolutely possible not to descend is not to repay evil with evil,\nbut to suffer insult, to give up one's cloak. And this is the fourth\ncommandment.\n\nThe ideal is to love our enemies, who hate us; the commandment which\npoints out the degree of the attainment, below which it is possible\nnot to descend, is to do no evil to our enemies, to speak well of\nthem, to make no distinction between them and our fellow citizens.\n\nAll these commandments are indications of what we are fully able not\nto do on the path of striving after perfection, of what we ought to\nwork over now, of what we must by degrees transfer into the sphere\nof habit, into the sphere of the unconscious. But these commandments\nfail to form a teaching, and do not exhaust it, and form only one of\nthe endless steps in the approximation toward perfection.\n\nAfter these commandments there must and will follow higher and\nhigher ones on the path to perfection, which is indicated by the\nteaching.\n\nAnd so it is the peculiarity of the Christian teaching that it makes\nhigher demands than those which are expressed in these commandments,\nbut under no condition minimizes the demands, either of the ideal\nitself, or of these commandments, as is done by people who judge\nthe teaching of Christianity free from the standpoint of the social\nconception of life.\n\nSuch is one misconception of the scientific men concerning the\nmeaning and significance of Christ's teaching; the other, which\nflows from the same source, consists in the substitution of the love\nand service of men, of humanity, for the Christian demand for loving\nGod and serving Him.\n\nThe Christian teaching of loving God and serving Him, and (only in\nconsequence of this love and this service) of the love and service\nof our neighbour, appears obscure, mystical, and arbitrary to the\nmen of science, and they completely exclude the demand of love of\nGod and of serving Him, assuming that the teaching about this love\nof men, of humanity, is much more intelligible and firm and better\ngrounded.\n\nThe men of science teach theoretically that the good and sensible\nlife is only the life of serving the whole of humanity, and in this\nalone do they see the meaning of the Christian teaching; to this\nteaching do they reduce the Christian teaching; for this their\nteaching do they seek a confirmation in the Christian teaching,\nassuming that their teaching and the Christian teaching are one and\nthe same.\n\nThis opinion is quite faulty. The Christian teaching, and that of\nthe positivists, communists, and all the preachers of a universal\nbrotherhood of men, which is based on the profitableness of such a\nbrotherhood, have nothing in common among themselves, and differ\nfrom one another more especially in this, that the Christian\nteaching has firm, clear foundations in the human soul, while the\nteaching of the love of humanity is only a theoretical deduction\nfrom analogy.\n\nThe teaching of the love of humanity alone has for its basis the\nsocial conception of life.\n\nThe essence of the social conception of life consists in the\ntransference of the meaning of our personal lives into the life of\nthe aggregate of personalities,--the tribe, the family, the race,\nthe state. This transference has taken place easily and naturally in\nits first forms, in the transference of the meaning of life from the\npersonality to the tribe, the family. But the transference to the\nrace or nation is more difficult and demands a special education for\nit; and the transference of the consciousness to the state forms the\nlimit of such a transference.\n\nIt is natural for any one to love himself, and every person loves\nhimself without any special incitement; to love my tribe, which\nsupports and defends me, to love my wife, the joy and helpmate of my\nlife, my children, the pleasure and hope of my life, and my parents,\nwho have given me life and an education, is natural: and this kind\nof love, though far from being as strong as the love of self, is met\nwith quite frequently.\n\nTo love one's race, one's nation, for the sake of oneself, of one's\npride, though not so natural, is still to be met with. The love of\none's nation, which is of the same race, tongue, and faith with\none, is still possible, though this sentiment is far from being as\nstrong as the love of self, or even of family and race; but the\nlove of a country, like Turkey, Germany, England, Austria, Russia,\nis almost an impossible thing, and, in spite of the intensified\neducation in this direction, is only assumed and does not exist in\nreality. With this aggregate there ends for man the possibility of\ntransferring his consciousness and of experiencing in this fiction\nany immediate sensation. But the positivists and all the preachers\nof a scientific brotherhood, who do not take into consideration the\nweakening of the sentiment in proportion as the subject is widened,\ncontinue the discussion theoretically along the same direction:\n\"If,\" they say, \"it was more advantageous for the personality to\ntransfer its consciousness to the tribe, the family, and then to the\nnation, the state, it will be still more advantageous to transfer\nthe consciousness to the whole aggregate of humanity, and for all\nto live for humanity, just as individuals live for the family, the\nstate.\"\n\nTheoretically it really comes out that way.\n\nSince the consciousness and the love of personality are transferred\nto the family, from the family to the race, the nation, the\nstate, it would be quite logical for men, to save themselves from\nstruggle and calamities, which are due to the division of humanity\ninto nations and states, most naturally to transfer their love to\nhumanity. This would seem to be the most logical thing, and this is\ntheoretically advocated by men, who do not observe that love is a\nsentiment which one may have, but cannot preach, and that, besides,\nfor love there must be an object, whereas humanity is not an object,\nbut only a fiction.\n\nThe tribe, the family, even the state, are not invented by men, but\nwere formed naturally like a swarm of bees or ants, and actually\nexist. A man who loves his family for the sake of his animal\npersonality, knows whom he loves: Anna, Mary, John, Peter, and so\nforth. A man who loves a race and is proud of it, knows that he\nloves the whole race of the Guelphs, or all the Ghibellines; he who\nloves the state knows that he loves France as far as the Rhine and\nthe Pyrenees, and its capital, Paris, and its history, and so forth.\nBut what does a man love, when he loves humanity? There is the\nstate, the nation; there is the abstract conception--man; but there\nis not, and there cannot be, a real conception of humanity.\n\nHumanity? Where is the limit of humanity? Where does it end and\nwhere does it begin? Does humanity stop short of a savage, an idiot,\nan alcoholic, an insane person? If we are going to draw a line of\ndemarcation for humanity, so as to exclude the lower representatives\nof the human race, where are we going to draw it? Are we going to\nexclude the negroes, as the Americans do, and the Hindoos, as some\nEnglish do, and the Jews, as some do? But if we are going to include\nall men without exception, why include men only, and not the higher\nanimals, many of whom stand higher than the lower representatives of\nthe human race?\n\nWe do not know humanity as an external object,--we do not know its\nlimits. Humanity is a fiction, and it cannot be loved. It would\nindeed be very convenient, if men could love humanity just as they\nlove the family; it would be very convenient, as the communists talk\nof doing, to substitute the communal for the competitive tendency\nof human activity, and the universal for the individual, so that\nevery man may be for all, and all for every man, only there are no\nmotives whatever for it. The positivists, the communists, and all\nthe preachers of the scientific brotherhood preach the widening of\nthat love which men have for themselves and for their families and\nfor the state, so as to embrace all humanity, forgetting that the\nlove which they advocate is the personal love, which, by spreading\nout thinner, could extend to the family; which, by spreading out\nstill thinner, could extend to the natural country of birth, which\ncompletely vanishes as soon as it reaches an artificial state, as\nAustria, Turkey, England, and which we are not even able to imagine,\nwhen we come to humanity, an entirely mystical subject.\n\n\"Man loves himself (his animal life), loves his family, loves even\nhis country. Why should he not love also humanity? How nice that\nwould be! By the way, this is precisely what Christianity teaches.\"\n\nThus think the preachers of the positivist, communistic, socialistic\nbrotherhoods. It would indeed be very nice, but it cannot be,\nbecause love which is based on the personal and the social\nconception of life cannot go beyond the state.\n\nThe error of judgment consists in this, that the social\nlife-conception, on which is based the love of family and of\ncountry, is built on the love of personality, and that this love,\nbeing transferred from the personality to the family, the race, the\nnationality, the state, keeps growing weaker and weaker, and in the\nstate reaches its extreme limit, beyond which it cannot go.\n\nThe necessity for widening the sphere of love is incontestable; but\nat the same time this very necessity for its widening in reality\ndestroys the possibility of love and proves the insufficiency of the\npersonal, the human love.\n\nAnd here the preachers of the positivist, communistic, socialistic\nbrotherhoods, to succour the human love, which has proved\ninsufficient, propose the Christian love,--in its consequences\nalone, and not in its foundations: they propose the love of humanity\nalone, without the love of God.\n\nBut there can be no such love. There exists no motive for it.\nChristian love results only from the Christian conception of life,\naccording to which the meaning of life consists in the love of God\nand in serving Him.\n\nBy a natural progression, from the love of self to the love of\nfamily, of the race, of the nation, of the state, the social\nconception of life has brought men to the consciousness of the\nnecessity for a love of humanity, which has no limits and blends\nwith everything in existence,--to something which evokes no\nsensations in man; it has brought them to a contradiction, which\ncannot be solved by the social conception of life.\n\nOnly the Christian teaching in all its significance, by giving a\nnew meaning to life, solves it. Christianity recognizes the love of\nself, and of the family, and of the nation, and of humanity,--not\nonly of humanity, but of everything living, of everything in\nexistence; it recognizes the necessity for an endless widening of\nthe sphere of love; but the object of this love it does not find\noutside of self, or in the aggregate of personalities,--in the\nfamily, the race, the state, humanity, in the whole external world,\nbut in oneself, in one's personality,--which, however, is a divine\npersonality, the essence of which is the same love, to the necessity\nof widening which the animal personality was brought, in saving\nitself from the consciousness of its perdition.\n\nThe difference between the Christian teaching and what preceded it\nis this, that the preceding social teaching said: \"Live contrary\nto your nature (meaning only the animal nature), subordinate it\nto the external law of the family, the society, the state;\" but\nChristianity says: \"Live in accordance with your nature (meaning the\ndivine nature), subordinating it to nothing,--neither to your own,\nnor to anybody else's animal nature,--and you will attain what you\nare striving after by subordinating your external nature to external\nlaws.\"\n\nThe Christian teaching takes man back to the primitive consciousness\nof self, not of self--the animal, but of self--God, the divine\nspark, of self--the son of God, of just such a God as the Father\nhimself, but included in an animal integument. And the recognition\nof self as this son of God, whose chief quality is love, satisfies\nalso all those demands for the widening of the sphere of love, to\nwhich the man of the social conception of life was brought. There,\nwith a greater and ever greater widening of the sphere of love for\nthe salvation of the personality, love was a necessity and was\napplied to certain objects,--self, the family, society, humanity;\nwith the Christian conception of life, love is not a necessity and\nis not adapted to anything, but is an essential quality of man's\nsoul. Man does not love because it is advantageous for him to love\nthis man or these men, but because love is the essence of his\nsoul,--because he cannot help loving.\n\nThe Christian teaching consists in pointing out to man that the\nessence of his soul is love, that his good is derived not from the\nfact that he will love this or that man, but from the fact that he\nwill love the beginning of everything, God, whom he recognizes in\nhimself through love, and so will love everybody and everything.\n\nIn this does the fundamental difference between the Christian\nteaching and the teaching of the positivists and of all the\ntheorists of the non-Christian universal brotherhood consist.\n\nSuch are the two chief misconceptions concerning the Christian\nteaching, from which originate the majority of the false opinions in\nregard to it. One is, that, like the preceding teachings, Christ's\nteaching inculcates rules, which men are obliged to follow, and\nthat these rules are impracticable; the other is, that the whole\nsignificance of Christianity consists in the teaching about the\nadvantageous cohabitation of humanity, as one family, for which,\nwithout mentioning the love of God, it is necessary only to follow\nthe rule of love toward humanity.\n\nThe false opinion of the scientific men, that the teaching of\nthe supernatural forms the essence of the Christian teaching, and\nthat Christ's vital teaching is impracticable, together with the\nmisconception which arises from this false opinion, forms the second\ncause why Christianity is not understood by the men of our time.\n\n\nV.\n\nThere are many causes for the failure to comprehend Christ's\nteaching. One cause lies in this, that men assume that they\nunderstand the teaching, when they decide, as the churchmen do,\nthat it was transmitted to us in a supernatural manner; or, as the\nscientific men do, that they understand it, when they have studied a\npart of those external phenomena in which it is expressed. Another\ncause of a failure to comprehend lies in the misconceptions as to\nthe impracticability of the teaching and as to this, that it ought\nto give way to the teaching about the love of humanity; but the\nchief cause which has engendered all these misconceptions is this,\nthat Christ's teaching is considered to be such as can be accepted,\nor not, without changing one's life.\n\nThe men who are accustomed to the existing order of things, who love\nit and are afraid to change it, try to comprehend the teaching as a\ncollection of revelations and rules, which may be accepted, without\nchanging their lives, whereas Christ's teaching is not merely a\nteaching about rules which a man may follow, but the elucidation\nof a new meaning of life, which determines the whole, entirely new\nactivity of humanity for the period upon which it is entering.\n\nHuman life moves, passes, like the life of the individual, and every\nage has its corresponding life-conception, and this life-conception\nis inevitably accepted by men. Those men who do not consciously\naccept the life-conception proper for their age are brought to it\nunconsciously. What takes place with the change of views on life\nin the case of individuals, takes place also with the change of the\nviews on life in the case of nations and of all humanity. If a man\nwith a family continues to be guided in his activity by a childish\ncomprehension of life, his life will become so hard for him that\nhe will involuntarily seek another comprehension of life, and will\ngladly accept the one which is proper for his age.\n\nThe same is now taking place in our humanity in the transition from\nthe pagan conception of life to the Christian, which is now going\non. The social man of our time is brought by life itself to the\nnecessity of renouncing the pagan conception of life, which is no\nlonger proper for the present age of humanity, and of submitting\nto the demands of the Christian teaching, the truths of which, no\nmatter how distorted and misinterpreted they may be, are still known\nto him and alone furnish a solution to those contradictions in which\nhe is losing himself.\n\nIf the demands of the Christian teaching seem strange and even\nperilous to the man of the social life-conception, the demands of\nthe social teaching anciently seemed just as incomprehensible and\nperilous to a savage, when he did not yet fully comprehend them and\nwas unable to foresee their consequences.\n\n\"It is irrational for me to sacrifice my peace or even my life,\"\nsays the savage, \"in order to defend something incomprehensible,\nintangible, conventional,--the family, the race, the country,\nand, above all else, it is dangerous to give myself over to the\ndisposition of a foreign power.\"\n\nBut the time came when the savage, on the one hand, comprehended,\nhowever dimly, the significance of the social life, the significance\nof its prime mover,--the public approval or condemnation,--glory;\non the other hand, when the sufferings of his personal life became\nso great that he no longer continued to believe in the truth of his\nformer conception of life, and accepted the social, the political\nteaching and submitted to it.\n\nThe same now takes place with the social, the political man.\n\n\"It is irrational for me,\" says the social man, \"to sacrifice\nmy good, the good of my family, my country, for the fulfilment\nof the conditions of some higher law, which demands from me the\nrenunciation of the most natural and the best sentiments of love\nfor myself, my family, my country, and, above all, it is dangerous\nto reject the security of life, which is given by the political\nstructure.\"\n\nBut the time comes when, on the one hand, the dim consciousness in\nhis soul of a higher law of love for God and for his neighbour, and,\non the other, the sufferings which arise from the contradictions of\nlife, compel him to reject the social life-conception and to accept\nthe new, Christian conception of life, which is offered to him, and\nwhich solves all the contradictions and removes the sufferings of\nhis life. And this time has now come.\n\nTo us, who thousands of years ago experienced the transition from\nthe animal, personal life-conception to the social one, it seems\nthat that transition was necessary and natural, and this, the one\nthrough which we have been passing these eighteen hundred years,\nis arbitrary, unnatural, and terrible. But that only seems so to\nus, because the other transition is already accomplished, and its\nactivity has already passed into the subconscious, while the present\ntransition is not yet accomplished, and we have to accomplish it\nconsciously.\n\nThe social life-conception entered into the consciousness of men\nthrough centuries and millenniums, passed through several forms, and\nhas now passed for humanity into the sphere of the subconscious,\nwhich is transmitted through heredity, education, and habit, and so\nit seems natural to us. But five thousand years ago it seemed to\nmen just as unnatural and terrible as now the Christian teaching\nseems to us in its true meaning.\n\nIt now seems to us that the demands of the Christian teaching\nfor a universal brotherhood, abolition of nationalities, absence\nof property, the apparently so strange non-resistance to evil,\nare impossible demands. But just so strange, thousands of years\nago, seemed the demands, not only of the state, but also of the\nfamily, as, for example, the demand that the parents should support\ntheir children, and the young--the old, and that husband and wife\nshould be true to one another. Still more strange, even senseless,\nseemed the political demands,--that the citizens should submit to\nthe powers that be, pay taxes, go to war in the defence of their\ncountry, and so forth. It now seems to us that all such demands are\nsimple, intelligible, natural, and have nothing mystical or even\nstrange about them; but five or three thousand years ago, these\ndemands seemed impossible.\n\nThe social life-conception served as a basis for religions for the\nvery reason that, when it manifested itself to men, it seemed to\nthem quite unintelligible, mystical, and supernatural. Now, since we\nhave outlived this phase of the life of humanity, we understand the\nrational causes of the union of men in families, communes, states;\nbut in antiquity the demands for such a union were manifested in the\nname of the supernatural, and were confirmed by it.\n\nThe patriarchal religion deified the families, races, nations: the\npolitical religions deified kings and states. Even now the majority\nof the men of little culture, such as our peasants, who call the\nTsar an earthly God, submit to the social laws, not from a rational\nconsciousness of their necessity, not because they have a conception\nof the idea of the state, but from a religious sentiment.\n\nEven so now the Christian teaching represents itself to the men\nof the social, or pagan, world-conception in the form of a\nsupernatural religion, whereas in reality there is in it nothing\nmysterious, or mystical, or supernatural; it is nothing but the\nteaching about life, which corresponds to that stage of the material\ndevelopment, to that age, in which humanity is, and which must\ntherefore inevitably be accepted by it.\n\nThe time will come, and is already at hand, when the Christian\nfoundations of life, equality, brotherhood of men, community of\npossession, non-resistance to evil, will become as natural and\nas simple as the foundations of the family, the social, and the\npolitical life now appear to us.\n\nNeither man nor humanity can in their motion turn back. The\nsocial, family, and political life-conceptions have been outlived\nby men, and it is necessary to go ahead and accept the higher\nlife-conception, which indeed is being done now.\n\nThis motion takes place from two sides, consciously, in consequence\nof spiritual causes, and unconsciously, in consequence of material\ncauses.\n\nJust as the individual seldom changes his life merely in accordance\nwith the indications of reason, but as a rule, in spite of the new\nmeaning and the new aims indicated by reason, continues to live\nhis former life and changes it only when his life becomes entirely\ncontradictory to his consciousness, and, therefore, agonizing, so\nalso humanity, having come through its religious guides to know the\nnew meaning of life, the new aims, toward which it must tend, even\nafter this knowledge continues for a long time, in the case of the\nmajority of men, to live the previous life, and is guided to the\nacceptance of a new life-conception only through the impossibility\nof continuing the former life.\n\nIn spite of the demands for the change of life, as cognized and\nexpressed by the religious guides and accepted by the wisest men,\nthe majority of men, in spite of the religious relation to these\nguides, that is, the faith in their teaching, continue in the more\ncomplex life to be guided by the previous teaching, just as a man of\na family would act, if, knowing how he ought to live at his age, he\nshould from habit and frivolity continue to live a child's life.\n\nIt is this that takes place in the matter of the transition of\nhumanity from one age to another, such as is now going on. Humanity\nhas outgrown its social, political age, and has entered upon a new\none. It knows the teaching which ought to be put at the foundation\nof the life of this new age, but from inertia continues to hold on\nto the previous forms of life. From this lack of correspondence\nbetween the life-conception and the practice of life there arises a\nseries of contradictions and sufferings, which poison our life and\ndemand its change.\n\nWe need only to compare the practice of life with its theory, in\norder that we may be frightened at the crying contradiction of the\nconditions of life and of our consciousness, in which we live.\n\nOur whole life is one solid contradiction to everything we know\nand consider necessary and right. This contradiction is in\neverything,--in the economic, the political, the international life.\nAs though forgetting what we know, and for a time putting aside what\nwe believe in (we cannot help but believe, because this constitutes\nour only foundations of life), we do everything contrary to what our\nconscience and our common sense demand of us.\n\nIn economic, political, and international relations we are guided by\nthose foundations which were useful to men three and five thousand\nyears ago, and which directly contradict our present consciousness\nand those conditions of life in which we now are.\n\nIt was well enough for a man of antiquity to live amidst a division\nof men into slaves and masters, when he believed that this division\nwas from God, and that it could not be otherwise. But is a similar\ndivision possible in our day?\n\nA man of the ancient world could consider himself in the right to\nuse the benefits of this world to the disadvantage of other men,\ncausing them to suffer for generations, because he believed that men\nare born of various breeds, noble and base, of the generation of\nJapheth and of Ham. Not only the greatest sages of the world, the\nteachers of humanity, Plato, Aristotle, justified the existence of\nslaves and proved the legality of it, but even three centuries ago\nmen who wrote of the imaginary society of the future, of Utopia,\ncould not imagine it without slaves.\n\nThe men of antiquity, and even of the Middle Ages, believed,\nbelieved firmly, that men are not equal, that only the Persians,\nonly the Greeks, only the Romans, only the French were real men. But\nthose men who in our time champion aristocratism and patriotism do\nnot believe, cannot believe, in what they say.\n\nWe all know, and we cannot help but know, even if we have never\nheard or read this thought clearly expressed and have never\nexpressed it ourselves, we, having imbibed this consciousness, which\nis borne in the Christian atmosphere, know with our whole heart, and\nwe cannot help but know, that fundamental truth of the Christian\nteaching, that we all are the sons of one Father, all of us, no\nmatter where we may live or what language we may speak,--that we are\nall brothers and are subject only to the law of love, which by our\ncommon Father is implanted in our hearts.\n\nNo matter what the manner of thought and degree of culture of a\nman of our time may be, be he a cultured liberal of any shade\nwhatever, be he a philosopher of any camp, be he a scientific man,\nan economist, of any school, be he an uncultured, even a religious\nman of any confession of faith,--every man of our time knows that\nall men have the same right to life and to the benefits of this\nworld, that no man is better or worse than any one else, that all\nmen are equal. Everybody knows this with absolute certainty and\nwith his whole being, and at the same time not only sees all about\nhim the division of men into two castes: one, which is working, is\noppressed, in need, in suffering, and the other, idle, oppressing,\nand living in luxury and pleasure,--he not only sees this, but\ninvoluntarily from one side or another takes part in this division\nof men, which his reason rejects, and he cannot help but suffer from\nthe consciousness of such a contradiction and from participation in\nit.\n\nBe he master or slave, a man of our time cannot help but experience\na constant agonizing contradiction between his consciousness and\nreality, and sufferings which arise from it.\n\nThe working masses, the great majority of people, suffering from\nthe constant, all-absorbing, senseless, dawnless labour and\nsufferings, suffer most of all from the consciousness of the crying\ncontradiction between what exists and what ought to be, as the\nresult of everything which is professed by them and by those who\nhave placed them in this position and maintain them in it.\n\nThey know that they are in slavery, and are perishing in want and\ndarkness, in order to serve the lust of the minority, which keeps\nthem in slavery. They know this and give expression to it. And this\nconsciousness not only increases their sufferings, but even forms\nthe essence of their sufferings.\n\nThe ancient slave knew that he was a slave by nature, but our\nworkman, feeling himself to be a slave, knows that he should not\nbe a slave, and so experiences the torments of Tantalus, eternally\nwishing for and not receiving what not only could, but even should\nbe. The sufferings of the working classes which result from the\ncontradiction between what is and what ought to be, are increased\ntenfold by the envy and hatred which result from them.\n\nA workman of our time, even though his work may be lighter than\nthat of an ancient slave and he may have attained an eight-hour\nwork-day and a wage of three dollars per day, will not cease\nsuffering, because, in manufacturing articles which he will not make\nuse of, and working, not for himself and at his pleasure, but from\nnecessity, for whims of luxurious and idle people in general and for\nthe enrichment of one man, the rich owner of the factory or plant,\nin particular, he knows that all this is taking place in a world in\nwhich not only they have accepted the scientific proposition that\nonly work is wealth, that the exploitation of other men's labour\nis unjust, illegal, amenable to punishment by law, but also they\nprofess Christ's teaching, according to which all are brothers, and\na man's worth and merit consists only in serving his neighbour, and\nnot in making use of him.\n\nHe knows all this, and he cannot help but suffer torments from this\ncrying contradiction between what ought to be and what actually\nexists. \"From all the data and from everything which I know all\nmen profess,\" the labouring man says to himself, \"I ought to be\nfree, equal to all other men, and loved; but I am a slave,--I am\nhumiliated and hated.\" And he himself hates and seeks for means\nto save himself from this position, to throw off his foe, who is\npressing down on him, and himself to get on top of him. They say,\n\"The working men are not right in their desire to take the place of\nthe capitalists, nor the poor in their desire to take the place of\nthe rich.\" This is not true: the working men and the poor would be\nin the wrong, if they wished for it in a world in which slaves and\nmasters, the rich and the poor, are established by God; but they\nwish for it in a world in which is professed the Gospel teaching,\nthe first proposition of which is the filial relation of men to God,\nand so the brotherhood and equality of all men. And no matter how\nmuch men may try, it is impossible to conceal the fact that one of\nthe first conditions of a Christian life is love, not in words, but\nin work.\n\nIn a still greater contradiction and in still greater sufferings\nlives the man of the so-called cultured class. Every such man, if he\nbelieves in anything, believes, if not in the brotherhood of men,\nat least in humanitarianism; if not in humanitarianism, at least in\njustice; if not in justice, at least in science,--and with all that\nknows that his whole life is built on conditions which are quite\nthe reverse of all that, of all the tenets of Christianity, and\nhumanity, and justice, and science.\n\nHe knows that all the habits in which he is brought up, and the\ndeprivation of which would be a torment for him, can be gratified\nonly by the painful, often perilous labour of oppressed working men,\nthat is, by the most palpable, coarse violation of those principles\nof Christianity, humanitarianism, justice, and even science (I\nmean the demands of political economy), which he professes. He\nprofesses the principles of brotherhood, humanitarianism, justice,\nscience, and yet lives in such a way that he needs that oppression\nof the labouring men which he denies, and even in such a way that\nhis whole life is an exploitation of this oppression, and not only\ndoes he live in this way, but also he directs his activity to the\nmaintenance of this order of things, which is directly opposed to\neverything in which he believes.\n\nWe are all brothers, and yet every morning my brother or my sister\ncarries out my vessel. We are all brothers, and I need every morning\nmy cigar, sugar, a mirror, and so forth, objects in the manufacture\nof which my brothers and my sisters, who are my equals, have been\nlosing their health, and I employ these articles and even demand\nthem. We are all brothers, and I live by working in a bank, or in\na business house, or a shop, in order to make all the wares which\nmy brothers need more expensive for them. We are all brothers,\nand yet I live by receiving a salary for arraigning, judging, and\npunishing a thief or a prostitute, whose existence is conditioned\nby the whole composition of my life, and who, I know myself, ought\nnot to be punished, but corrected. We are all brothers, and I live\nby receiving a salary for collecting the taxes from poor working\nmen, to be used for the luxury of the idle and the rich. We are all\nbrothers, and I receive a salary for preaching to people what is\nsupposed to be the Christian religion, in which I do not believe\nmyself, and which deprives them of the possibility of finding out\nthe real faith. I receive a salary as a priest, a bishop, for\ndeceiving people in what is the most important matter for them. We\nare all brothers, but I give to the poor my pedagogical, medical,\nliterary labours for money only. We are all brothers, but I receive\na salary for preparing myself to commit murder, studying how to\nkill, or making a gun, powder, fortresses.\n\nThe whole life of our higher classes is one solid contradiction,\nwhich is the more agonizing, the more sensitive man's conscience is.\n\nThe man with a sensitive conscience cannot help but suffer, if he\nlives this life. There is one means by which he can free himself\nfrom this suffering,--it consists in drowning his conscience; but\neven if such men succeed in drowning their conscience, they cannot\ndrown their terror.\n\nInsensitive people of the higher, the oppressing classes, and those\nwho have drowned their consciences, if they do not suffer from\ntheir consciences, suffer from fear and hatred. Nor can they help\nbut suffer. They know of that hatred against them which exists,\nand cannot help but exist, among the labouring classes; and they\nknow that the working men know that they are deceived and outraged,\nand they are beginning to organize for the purpose of throwing off\nthe oppression and retaliating upon the oppressors. The higher\nclasses see the unions, strikes, the First of May, and they feel the\ncalamity which is threatening them, and this terror poisons their\nlife. They feel the calamity which is threatening them, and the\nterror which they experience passes into a feeling of self-defence\nand hatred. They know that if they weaken for a moment in their\nstruggle with the slaves oppressed by them, they will themselves\nperish, because the slaves are enraged, and this rage is growing\nwith every day of the oppression. The oppressors cannot stop\noppressing, even if they should wish to do so. They know that they\nthemselves will perish, the moment they stop or even weaken in their\noppressions. And they do oppress, in spite of their seeming concern\nfor the welfare of the labouring people, for an eight-hour day,\nfor the prohibition to employ children and women, for pensions and\nrewards. All this is a deception or a provision for eliciting work\nfrom the slave; but the slave remains a slave, and the master, who\ncould not live without the slave, is less than ever prepared to free\nhim.\n\nThe ruling classes are, in relation to the workingmen, in the\nposition of a man who is astride a man whom he holds down and does\nnot let go of, not so much because he does not want to let go of\nhim, as because he knows that he need but for a moment let go of the\nsubdued man, and the subdued man will cut his throat, because the\nsubdued man is enraged and has a knife in his hand. And so, whether\nthey be sensitive or not, our wealthy classes cannot enjoy the good\nthings which they have taken from the poor, as the ancients did, who\nbelieved in their right. Their whole life and all their pleasures\nare poisoned by rebukes of conscience or by terror.\n\nSuch is the economical contradiction. More striking still is the\npolitical contradiction.\n\nAll men are above all else educated in the habits of obedience to\nthe laws of the state. The whole life of the men of our time is\ndetermined by the law of the state. A man marries or gets a divorce,\neducates his children, even professes a faith (in many states) in\naccordance with the law. What is this law, which determines the\nwhole life of men? Do the men believe in this law? Do they consider\nit to be true? Not in the least. In the majority of cases, the men\nof our time do not believe in the justice of this law, despise it,\nand yet obey it. It was all very well for the men of antiquity to\ncarry out their laws. They believed firmly that their law (which for\nthe most part was also religious) was the one true law which all men\nmust obey. But we? We know, and we cannot help but know, that the\nlaw of our state is not only not the one eternal law, but that it\nis only one of many laws of various countries, equally imperfect,\nand frequently and palpably false and unjust, and widely discussed\nin the newspapers. It was all very well for a Jew to submit to his\nlaws, when he had no doubt but that they were written by God's\nfinger; or, for a Roman, when he thought that the nymph Egeria had\nwritten his laws; or even when they believed that the kings who gave\nthe laws were the anointed of the Lord, or even that the legislative\nbodies had a desire to find the best laws, and were able to do so.\nBut we know how laws are made; we have all been behind the scenes;\nwe all know that laws are the results of greed, deception, the\nstruggle of parties,--that in them there is and there can be no true\njustice. And so the men of our time cannot believe that obedience to\ncivil or political laws would satisfy the demands of the rationality\nof human nature. Men have known for a long time that it is not\nsensible to obey a law of the correctness of which there can be any\ndoubt, and so they cannot help but suffer, if they obey a law the\nrationality and obligatoriness of which they do not acknowledge.\n\nA man cannot help but suffer, when his whole life is determined in\nadvance by laws which he must obey under the menace of punishment,\nand in the rationality and justice of which he does not believe,\nand the unnaturalness, cruelty, injustice of which he clearly\nrecognizes. We recognize the uselessness of custom-houses and\nimport duties, and we must pay the duties; we recognize the\nuselessness of the expenses for the support of royal courts and\nmany governmental offices; we recognize the harmfulness of the\nchurch propaganda, and we must contribute to the support of these\ninstitutions; we recognize the cruelty and unscrupulousness of\nthe penalties imposed by courts of justice, and we must take part\nin them; we recognize the irregularity and harmfulness of the\ndistribution of land-ownership, and we must submit to it; we do not\nrecognize the indispensableness of armies and of war, and must bear\nterrible burdens for the maintenance of armies and the waging of\nwars, and so forth.\n\nBut these contradictions are as nothing in comparison with the\ncontradiction which has now arisen among men in their international\nrelations, and which, under threat of ruining both human reason and\nhuman life, demands a solution. This is the contradiction between\nthe Christian conscience and war.\n\nWe are all Christian nations, who live the same spiritual life, so\nthat every good, fruitful thought, which springs up in one corner\nof the earth, is at once communicated to the whole Christian world,\nevoking similar sensations of joy and pride, independently of\nnationality; we, who not only love the thinkers, benefactors, poets,\nscholars of other nations, but also pride ourselves on the exploit\nof a Damien, as though it were our own; we, who just love the men of\nother nationalities,--the French, the Germans, the Americans, the\nEnglish; we, who not only respect their qualities, but rejoice when\nwe meet them, who give them a smile of recognition, who not only\ncould not regard a war with them as something to be proud of, but\nwho could not even think without horror that any disagreement may\narise between these men and us,--we are all called to take part in\nmurder, which must inevitably take place, to-morrow, if not to-day.\n\nIt was all very well for a Jew, a Greek, a Roman not only to\ndefend the independence of his nation by means of murder, but by\nthe means of murder also to cause other nations to submit to him,\nfor he believed firmly that his nation was the one true, good, kind\nnation, which was loved by God, and that all the other nations were\nPhilistines, barbarians. Even the men of the Middle Ages and the men\nof the end of the last and the beginning of this century could have\nbelieved so. But we, no matter how much we may be teased to do so,\ncan no longer believe in this, and this contradiction is so terrible\nfor the men of our time that it is impossible to live, if we do not\ndestroy it.\n\n\"We live in a time which is full of contradictions,\" Count\nKom\u00e1rovski, professor of international law, writes in his learned\ntreatise. \"In the press of all countries there is constantly shown\na universal tendency toward peace, toward its necessity for all\nnations. In the same sense express themselves the representatives\nof governments, as private individuals and as official organs,\nin parliamentary debates, in diplomatic exchanges of opinion,\nand even in international treaties. At the same time, however,\nthe governments annually increase the military forces of their\ncountries, impose new taxes, make loans, and leave to future\ngenerations, as a legacy, the obligation to bear the blunders of\nthe present senseless politics. What a crying contradiction between\nwords and deeds!\n\n\"Of course, the governments, to justify these measures, point to\nthe exclusively defensive character of all these expenditures\nand armaments, but none the less it remains a puzzle for every\nunbiassed man, whence we are to expect attacks, since all the\ngreat powers unanimously in their politics pursue the one aim of\ndefence. In reality this looks as though each of these powers\nwaited every moment to be attacked by another, and these are the\nconsequences,--universal distrust and a preternatural endeavour of\none power to surpass the force of the others. Such an emulation\nin itself increases the danger of war: the nations cannot for any\nlength of time stand the intensified arming, and sooner or later\nwill prefer war to all the disadvantages of the present condition\nand constant menace. Thus the most insignificant cause will be\nsufficient to make the fire of a universal war flame up in the\nwhole of Europe. It is incorrect to think that such a crisis can\ncure us of the political and economical calamities which oppress\nus. Experience from the wars which have been waged in recent years\nteaches us that every war has only sharpened the hostility of\nthe nations, increased the burden and the unendurableness of the\npressure of militarism, and made the politico-economic condition of\nEurope more hopeless and complex.\"\n\n\"Modern Europe keeps under arms an active army of nine millions\nof men,\" writes Enrico Ferri, \"and fifteen millions of reserves,\nexpending on them four milliards of francs per year. By arming\nitself more and more, it paralyzes the sources of the social and\nthe individual welfare, and may easily be compared to a man who, to\nprovide himself with a gun, condemns himself to an\u00e6mia, at the same\ntime wasting all his strength for the purpose of making use of the\nvery gun with which he is providing himself, and under the burden of\nwhich he will finally fall.\"\n\nThe same was said by Charles Butt,[11] in his speech which he\ndelivered in London before the Association for the Reform and\nCodification of the Law of Nations, July 26, 1887. After pointing\nout the same nine millions and over of the active armies and\nseventeen millions of reserves, and the enormous expenses of the\ngovernments for the support of these armies and equipments, he says:\n\"But this forms only a small part of the actual cost, for besides\nthe figures mentioned, which constitute merely the war budgets of\nthe nations, we have to take into account the enormous loss to\nsociety by the withdrawal of so many able-bodied men ... from the\noccupations of productive industry, together with the prodigious\ncapital invested in all warlike preparations and appliances, and\nwhich is absolutely unproductive.... One necessary result of the\nexpenditure on wars and preparations for war is the steady growth of\nnational debts.... The aggregate national debts of Europe, by far\nthe larger proportion of which has been contracted for war purposes,\namount at the present time to \u00a34,680,000,000.\"\n\n  [11] Not Charles Butt, but Henry Richard.\n\nThe same Kom\u00e1rovski says in another place: \"We are living in a\nhard time. Everywhere do we hear complaints as to the slackness\nof business and industry and in general as to the bad economic\nconditions: people point out the hard conditions of the life of the\nlabouring classes and the universal impoverishment of the masses.\nBut, in spite of it, the governments, in their endeavour to maintain\ntheir independence, reach the extreme limits of madness. Everywhere\nthey invent new taxes and imposts, and the financial oppression\nof the nations knows no limits. If we look at the budgets of the\nEuropean states for the last one hundred years, we shall first of\nall be struck by their constantly progressive and rapid growth. How\ncan we explain this extraordinary phenomenon, which sooner or later\nthreatens us with inevitable bankruptcy?\n\n\"This is incontestably due to the expenditures caused by the\nmaintenance of an army, which swallow one-third and even one-half\nof the budgets of the European states. What is most lamentable in\nconnection with it is this, that no end can be foreseen to this\nincrease of the budgets and impoverishment of the masses. What is\nsocialism, if not a protest against this abnormal condition, in\nwhich the greater part of the population of our part of the world\nfinds itself?\"\n\n\"We ruin ourselves,\" says Frederic Passy, in a note read at the\nlast Congress (1890) of Universal Peace, at London, \"in preparing\nthe means for taking part in the mad butcheries of the future, or\nin paying the interests of debts bequeathed to us by the mad and\nculpable butcheries of the past. We die of starvation, in order to\nbe able to kill one another off.\"\n\nFarther on, speaking of how France looks upon this subject, he says:\n\"We believe that one hundred years after the _Declaration of the\nrights of man and of a citizen_ it is time to recognize the rights\nof nations and to renounce for ever all these enterprises of force\nand violence, which, under the name of conquests, are real crimes\nagainst humanity, and which, whatever the ambition of the sovereigns\nor the pride of the races ... weaken even those who seem to profit\nfrom them.\"\n\n\"I am always very much surprised at the way religion is carried on\nin this country,\" says Sir Wilfrid Lawson, at the same Congress.\n\"You send a boy to the Sunday school, and you tell him, 'My dear\nboy, you must love your enemies; if any boy strikes you, don't\nstrike him again; try to reform him by loving him.' Well, the boy\nstays in the Sunday school till he is fourteen or fifteen years\nof age, and then his friends say, 'Put him in the army.' What has\nhe to do in the army? Why, not to love his enemies, but whenever\nhe sees an enemy to run him through the body with a bayonet. That\nis the nature of all religious teaching in this country. I do not\nthink that that is a very good way of carrying out the precepts of\nreligion. I think if it is a good thing for the boy to love his\nenemy, it is a good thing for the man to love his enemy.\"\n\nAnd farther: \"The nations of Europe ... keep somewhere about\ntwenty-eight millions of armed men to settle quarrels by killing one\nanother, instead of by arguing. That is what the Christian nations\nof the world are doing at this moment. It is a very expensive way\nalso; for this publication which I saw made out that since the\nyear 1872 these nations had spent the almost incredible amount of\n\u00a31,500,000,000 of money in preparing, and settling their quarrels\nby killing one another. Now it seems to me that with that state\nof things one of two positions must be accepted: either that\nChristianity is a failure or, that those who profess to expound\nChristianity have failed in expounding it properly.\"\n\n\"Until our ironclads are withdrawn, and our army disbanded, we are\nnot entitled to call ourselves a Christian nation,\" says Mr. J.\nJowet Wilson.\n\nIn a discussion which arose in connection with the question of the\nobligatoriness of Christian pastors to preach against war, Mr. G. D.\nBartlett said, among other things: \"If I understand the Scriptures,\nI say that men are only playing with Christianity when they ignore\nthis question,\" that is, say nothing about war. \"I have lived a\nlongish life, I have heard many sermons, and I can say without any\nexaggeration that I never heard universal peace recommended from\nthe pulpit half a dozen times in my life.... Some twenty years\nago I happened to stand in a drawing-room where there were forty\nor fifty people, and I dared to moot the proposition that war was\nincompatible with Christianity. They looked upon me as an arrant\nfanatic. The idea that we could get on without war was regarded as\nunmitigated weakness and folly.\"\n\nIn the same sense spoke the Catholic Abb\u00e9 Defourny: \"One of the\nfirst precepts of this eternal law which burns in the consciences of\nmen is the one which forbids taking the life of one's like, shedding\nhuman blood without just cause, and without being constrained by\nnecessity. It is one of those laws which are most indelibly engraved\nin the human heart.... But if it is a question of war, that is, of\nthe shedding of human blood in torrents, the men of the present\ndo not trouble themselves about a just cause. Those who take part\nin it do not think of asking themselves whether these innumerable\nmurders are justifed or not, that is, if the wars, or what goes by\nthat name, are just or iniquitous, legal or illegal, permissible or\ncriminal ... whether they violate, or not, the primordial law which\nprohibits homicide and murder ... without just cause. But their\nconscience is mute in this matter.\n\n\"War has ceased for them to be an act which has anything to do with\nmorality. They have no other joy, in the fatigue and perils of the\ncamp, than that of being victorious, and no other sadness than\nthat of being vanquished.... Do not tell me that they serve their\ncountry. A long time ago a great genius told you these words, which\nhave become proverbial, 'Reject justice, and what are the empires\nbut great societies of brigands?' And are not a band of brigands\nthemselves small empires? Brigands themselves have certain laws or\nconventions by which they are ruled. There, too, they fight for the\nconquest of booty and for the honour of the band.... The principle\nof the institution\" (he is talking of the establishment of an\ninternational tribunal) \"is this, that the European nations should\nstop being a nation of thieves, and the armies gangs of brigands and\nof pirates, and, I must add, of slaves. Yes, the armies are gangs of\nslaves, slaves of one or two rulers, or one or two ministers, who\ndispose of them tyrannically, without any other guarantee, we know,\nthan a nominal one.\n\n\"What characterizes the slave is this, that he is in the hands of\nhis master like a chattel, a tool, and no longer a man. Just so it\nis with a soldier, an officer, a general, who march to murder and\nto death without any care as to justice, by the arbitrary will of\nministers.... Thus military slavery exists, and it is the worst of\nslaveries, particularly now, when by means of enforced military\nservice it puts the chain about the necks of all free and strong men\nof the nations, in order to make of them tools of murder, killers\nby profession, butchers of human flesh, for this is the only _opus\nservile_ for which they are chained up and trained....\n\n\"Rulers, to the number of two or three ... united into a secret\ncabinet, deliberate without control and without minutes which are\nintended for publicity ... consequently without any guarantee for\nthe conscience of those whom they send out to be killed.\"\n\n\"The protests against the heavy arming do not date from our day,\"\nsays Signor E. T. Moneta. \"Listen to what Montesquieu wrote in his\ntime.\n\n\"'France' (you may substitute the word 'Europe') 'will be ruined\nby the military. A new malady has spread through Europe; it has\ninfected our princes and has made them keep a disproportionate\nnumber of troops. It has its exacerbations, and it necessarily\nbecomes contagious, because, as soon as one state increases what\nit calls its troops, the others suddenly increase theirs, so that\nnothing is gained by it but the common ruin.\n\n\"'Every monarch keeps on a war footing all the troops which he might\nneed in case his people were in danger of being exterminated, and\nthis state of tension, of all against all, is called peace. As a\nresult, Europe is so ruined that if private individuals were in the\ncondition in which the powers are in this part of the world, the\nrichest of them would not have anything to live on. We are poor with\nthe riches and the commerce of the whole universe.'\n\n\"This was written almost 150 years ago; the picture seems to be\nmade for to-day. One single thing has changed,--the system of\ngovernment. In the time of Montesquieu, and also afterward, they\nused to say that the cause for the maintenance of great armies lay\nin the absolute kings, who waged war in the hope of finding in the\nconquests the means for enriching their private budgets and passing\ndown to history in the aureole of glory.\n\n\"Then they said, 'Oh, if the peoples could choose themselves those\nwho have the right to refuse the governments soldiers and money, for\nthen the politics of war would come to an end.'\n\n\"We have to-day representative governments in nearly all of Europe,\nand none the less the expenditures for war and for its preparation\nare increased in a frightful proportion.\n\n\"Evidently the folly of the princes has passed down to the governing\nclasses. At the present time they no longer make war because a\nprince was disrespectful to a courtesan, as such things happened\nin the time of Louis XIV., but by exaggerating the respectable\nsentiments, like that of the national dignity and of patriotism, by\nexciting public opinion against a neighbouring nation, there will\ncome a day when it will be sufficient to say, though the information\nmay not be true, that the ambassador of your government was not\nreceived by the chief of a state, in order to make break forth the\nmost terrible and disastrous of wars ever seen.\n\n\"At the present time Europe keeps under arms more soldiers than\nthere were in the time of Napoleon's great wars. All citizens,\nwith few exceptions, are obliged on our continent to pass several\nyears in the barracks. They build fortresses, construct arsenals\nand ships, constantly manufacture arms, which after awhile have to\nbe replaced by others, because science, which ought always to be\ndirected toward the well-being of men, unfortunately lends its aid\nto works of destruction, invents at every instant new engines for\nkilling great masses of men as rapidly as possible.\n\n\"And in order to maintain so many soldiers and to make such vast\npreparations for murder, they spend yearly hundreds of millions,\nthat is, what would be sufficient for the education of the people,\nfor the execution of the greatest works of public utility, and would\nfurnish the means for solving pacifically the social question.\n\n\"Europe, therefore, finds itself, in spite of the scientific\nconquests, in a condition as though it were still living in the\nworst times of the ferocious Middle Ages. All men complain of\nthis situation, which is not yet war, but which is not peace\neither, and everybody would like to get out of it. The chiefs of\ngovernments protest that they want peace, and it is a matter of\nemulation between them as to who will make the most solemn pacific\ndeclarations. But on the same day, or the day following, they\npresent to the legislative chambers propositions for increasing\nthe standing army, and they say that it is for the purpose of\nmaintaining and assuring peace that they take so many precautions.\n\n\"But it is not the kind of peace we like; nor are the nations\ndeceived. True peace has reciprocal confidence for its basis, while\nthese enormous preparations betray a profound distrust, if not a\nconcealed hostility, between the states. What would we say of a\nman who, wishing to prove his sentiments of friendship for his\nneighbour, should invite him to discuss some question with him,\nwhile he himself is holding a revolver in his hand? It is this\nflagrant contradiction between the pacific declarations and the\nwarlike policy of the governments that all good citizens want to see\nstopped at any price and as quickly as possible.\"\n\nThey marvel why annually sixty thousand suicides are committed in\nEurope, and those only the ones that are recorded, which excludes\nRussia and Turkey; but what we ought to marvel at is not that there\nare so many suicides, but so few. Every man of our time, if he\ngrasps the contradiction between his consciousness and his life,\nis in a very desperate condition. To say nothing of all the other\ncontradictions between life and consciousness, which fill the life\nof a man of our time, the contradiction between this last military\ncondition, in which Europe is, and the Christian profession of\nEurope is enough to make a man despair, doubt the rationality of\nhuman nature, and put an end to his life in this mad and beastly\nworld. This contradiction, the military contradiction, which is the\nquintessence of all others, is so terrible that a man can live and\ntake part in it only by not thinking of it, by being able to forget\nit.\n\nHow is this? We are all Christians,--we not only profess love of\none another, but actually live one common life, the pulse of our\nlife beats with the same beats, we aid one another, learn from one\nanother, more and more approach one another, for a common joy!\nIn this closer union lies the meaning of the whole of life,--and\nto-morrow some maddened head of a government will say something\nfoolish, another man like him will answer him, and I shall go,\nmaking myself liable to be killed, to kill men who not only have\ndone me no harm, but whom I love. And this is not a distant\naccident, but what we are preparing ourselves for, and it is not\nonly a possible, but even an inevitable event.\n\nIt is enough to understand this clearly, in order to lose our mind\nand shoot ourselves. And it is precisely what happens with especial\nfrequency among the military. We need but think for a moment, in\norder that we may come to the necessity of such an ending. It is\nonly thus that we can explain that terrible tension with which the\nmen of our time incline to intoxicate themselves with wine, tobacco,\nopium, cards, the reading of newspapers, travelling, all kinds of\nspectacles, and amusements. All these things are done like serious,\nimportant affairs. They are indeed important affairs. If there\nexisted no external means for dimming their consciences, one-half of\nthe men would at once shoot themselves, because to live contrary to\none's reason is a most intolerable state, and all men of our time\nare in such a state. All men of our time live in a constant crying\ncontradiction between consciousness and life. These contradictions\nare expressed in the economic and political relations, but most\nstartling is this contradiction between the recognition of the law\nof the brotherhood of men, as professed by Christians, and the\nnecessity, in which all men are placed by the universal military\nservice, of being prepared for hostility, for murder,--of being at\nthe same time a Christian and a gladiator.\n\n\nVI.\n\nThe removal of the contradiction between life and consciousness\nis possible in two ways,--by a change of life or by a change of\nconsciousness, and in the choice of one of the two there can be no\ndoubt.\n\nA man may stop doing what he considers bad, but he cannot stop\nconsidering bad what is bad.\n\nEven so the whole of humanity may stop doing what it considers bad,\nbut is powerless, not only to change, but even for a time to retard\nthe all-elucidating and expanding consciousness of what is bad and\nwhat, therefore, ought not to be. It would seem that the choice\nbetween the change of life and that of the consciousness ought to be\nclear and above doubt.\n\nAnd so, it would seem, it is indispensable for the Christian\nhumanity of our time to renounce the pagan forms of life, which it\ncondemns, and to build up its life on the Christian foundations,\nwhich it professes.\n\nBut so it would be, if there did not exist the law of inertia, which\nis as invariable in the lives of men and nations as in inanimate\nbodies, and which is for men expressed by the psychological law, so\nwell stated in the Gospel with the words, \"and did not walk toward\nthe light, because their deeds were evil.\" This law consists in\nthis, that the majority of men do not think in order to know the\ntruth, but in order to assure themselves that the life which they\nlead, and which is agreeable and habitual to them, is the one which\ncoincides with the truth.\n\nSlavery was contrary to all the moral principles which were preached\nby Plato and Aristotle, and yet neither the one nor the other saw\nthis, because the negation of slavery destroyed all that life which\nthey lived. The same happens in our world.\n\nThe division of men into two castes, like the violence of the state\nand of the army, is repugnant to all those moral principles by which\nour world lives, and at the same time the leading men of culture of\nour time do not seem to see it.\n\nThe majority, if not all, of the cultured people of our time\nunconsciously try to maintain the previous social concept of life\nwhich justifies their position, and to conceal from themselves\nand from men its inadequacy, and, above all, the necessity of the\ncondition of the Christian life-conception, which destroys the whole\nstructure of the existing life. They strive to maintain the orders\nthat are based on the social life-conception, but themselves do\nnot believe in it, because it is obsolete, and it is impossible to\nbelieve in it any longer.\n\nAll literature, the philosophic, the political, and that of the\n_belles-lettres_, of our time is striking in this respect. What a\nwealth of ideas, forms, colours, what erudition, elegance, abundance\nof thoughts, and what total absence of serious contents, and even\nwhat fear of every definiteness of thought and of its expression!\nCircumlocutions, allegories, jests, general, extremely broad\nreflections, and nothing simple, clear, pertinent to the matter,\nthat is, to the question of life.\n\nBut it is not enough that they write and say graceful vapidities;\nthey even write and say abominable, vile things, they in the most\nrefined manner adduce reflections which take men back to primeval\nsavagery, to the foundations, not only of pagan, but even of animal\nlife, which we outlived as far back as five thousand years ago.\n\nIt can, indeed, not be otherwise. In keeping shy of the Christian\nlife-conception, which for some impairs only the habitual order, and\nfor others both the habitual and the advantageous order, men cannot\nhelp but return to the pagan concept of life, and to the teachings\nwhich are based on them. In our time they not only preach patriotism\nand aristocratism, as it was preached two thousand years ago, but\nthey even preach the coarsest epicurism, animality, with this one\ndifference, that the men who then preached it believed in what they\npreached, while now the preachers themselves do not believe in what\nthey say, and they cannot believe, because what they preach no\nlonger has any meaning. It is impossible to remain in one place,\nwhen the soil is in motion. If you do not go ahead, you fall behind.\nAnd, though it is strange and terrible to say so, the cultured\npeople of our time, the leaders, with their refined reflections, in\nreality are dragging society back, not even to the pagan state, but\nto the state of primeval savagery.\n\nIn nothing may this direction of the activity of the leading men of\nour time be seen so clearly as in their relation to the phenomenon\nin which in our time the whole inadequacy of the social concept of\nlife has been expressed in a concentrated form,--in their relation\nto war, to universal armaments, and to universal military service.\n\nThe indefiniteness, if not the insincerity, of the relation of\nthe cultured men of our time to this phenomenon is striking. The\nrelation to this matter in our cultured society is threefold: some\nlook upon this phenomenon as something accidental, which arose\nfrom the peculiar political condition of Europe, and consider it\ncorrigible, without the change of the whole structure of life, by\nmeans of external, diplomatic, international measures; others look\nupon this phenomenon as upon something terrible and cruel, but\ninevitable and fatal, like a disease or death; others again calmly\nand coolly look upon war as an indispensable, beneficent, and\ntherefore desirable phenomenon.\n\nThese people look differently at the matter, but all of them\ndiscuss war as an incident which is quite independent of the will\nof men who take part in it, and so do not even admit that natural\nquestion, which presents itself to every simple man, \"Must I take\npart in it?\" According to the opinion of all these men, these\nquestions do not even exist, and every person, no matter how he\nhimself may look upon war, must in this respect slavishly submit to\nthe demands of the government.\n\nThe relation of the first, of those who see a salvation from wars in\ndiplomatic, international measures, is beautifully expressed in the\nresult of the last Congress of Peace in London, and in an article\nand letters concerning war by prominent authors in No. 8 of the\n_Revue des Revues_ for 1891.\n\nHere are the results of the Congress: having collected the personal\nor written opinions from learned men all over the world, the\nCongress began by a Te Deum in the Cathedral, and ended with a\ndinner with speeches, having for the period of five days listened\nto a large number of speeches, and having arrived at the following\nresolutions:\n\n1. \"The Congress affirms its belief that the brotherhood of man\ninvolves as a necessary consequence a brotherhood of nations, in\nwhich the true interests of all are acknowledged to be identical.\n\n2. \"The Congress recognizes the important influence which\nChristianity exercises upon the moral and political progress of\nmankind, and earnestly urges upon ministers of the Gospel, and other\nteachers of religion and morality, the duty of setting forth the\nprinciples of Peace and Good-will, and recommends that the third\nSunday in December in each year be set apart for that purpose.\n\n3. \"This Congress expresses its opinion that all teachers of history\nshould call the attention of the young to the grave evils inflicted\non mankind in all ages by war, and to the fact that such war has\nbeen waged, as a rule, for most inadequate causes.\n\n4. \"The Congress protests against the use of military exercises\nin connection with the physical exercises of school, and suggests\nthe formation of brigades for saving life rather than any of\na quasi-military character; and it urges the desirability of\nimpressing on the Board of Examiners, who formulate the questions\nfor examination, the propriety of guiding the minds of children into\nthe principles of Peace.\n\n5. \"The Congress holds that the doctrine of the universal rights\nof man requires that aboriginal and weaker races shall be guarded\nfrom injustice and fraud when brought into contact with civilized\npeoples, alike as to their territories, their liberties, and their\nproperty, and that they shall be shielded from the vices which are\nso prevalent among the so-called advanced races of men. It further\nexpresses its conviction that there should be concert of action\namong the nations for the accomplishment of these ends. The Congress\ndesires to express its hearty appreciation of the conclusions\narrived at by the late Anti-Slavery Conference, held in Brussels,\nfor the amelioration of the condition of the peoples of Africa.\n\n6. \"The Congress believes that the warlike prejudices and traditions\nwhich are still fostered in the various nationalities, and the\nmisrepresentations by leaders of public opinion in legislative\nassemblies, or through the press, are not infrequently indirect\ncauses of war. The Congress is therefore of opinion that these evils\nshould be counteracted by the publication of accurate statements\nand information that would tend to the removal of misunderstanding\namong nations, and recommends to the Inter-Parliamentary Committee\nthe importance of considering the question of commencing an\ninternational newspaper, which should have such a purpose as one of\nits primary objects.\n\n7. \"The Congress proposes to the Inter-Parliamentary Conference\nthat the utmost support should be given to every project for the\nunification of weights and measures, of coinage, tariffs, postal\nand telegraphic arrangements, means of transport, etc., which would\nassist in constituting a commercial, industrial, and scientific\nunion of the peoples.\n\n8. \"The Congress, in view of the vast moral and social influence\nof woman, urges upon every woman throughout the world to sustain\nthe things that make for peace; as otherwise she incurs grave\nresponsibilities for the continuance of the systems of war and\nmilitarism.\n\n9. \"This Congress expresses the hope that the Financial Reform\nAssociation, and other Similar Societies in Europe and America,\nshould unite in convoking at an early date a Conference to consider\nthe best means of establishing equitable commercial relations\nbetween states by the reduction of import duties. The Congress feels\nthat it can affirm that the whole of Europe desires Peace, and is\nimpatiently waiting for the moment when it shall see the end of\nthose crushing armaments which, under the plea of defence, become in\ntheir turn a danger, by keeping alive mutual distrust, and are at\nthe same time the cause of that economic disturbance which stands in\nthe way of settling in a satisfactory manner the problems of labour\nand poverty, which should take precedence of all others.\n\n10. \"The Congress, recognizing that a general disarmament would be\nthe best guarantee of Peace, and would lead to the solution, in the\ngeneral interest, of those questions which must now divide states,\nexpresses the wish that a Congress of Representatives of all the\nstates of Europe may be assembled as soon as possible, to consider\nthe means of accepting a gradual general disarmament.\n\n11. \"The Congress, considering the timidity of the single Powers\nor other causes might delay indefinitely the convocation of the\nabove-mentioned Congress, is of opinion that the Government which\nshould first dismiss any considerable number of soldiers would\nconfer a signal benefit on Europe and mankind, because it would\noblige other Governments, urged on by public opinion, to follow its\nexample, and by the moral force of this accomplished fact, would\nhave increased rather than diminished the condition of its national\ndefence.\n\n12. \"This Congress, considering the question of disarmament, as\nwell as the Peace question generally, depends upon public opinion,\nrecommends the Peace Societies here represented, and all friends of\nPeace, to carry on an active propaganda among the people, especially\nat the time of Parliamentary elections, in order that the electors\nshould give their vote to those candidates who have included in\ntheir programme Peace, Disarmament, and Arbitration.\n\n13. \"The Congress congratulates the friends of Peace on the\nresolution adopted by the International American Conference\nat Washington in April last, by which it was recommended that\narbitration should be obligatory in all controversies concerning\ndiplomatic and consular privileges, boundaries, territories,\nindemnities, right of navigation, and the validity, construction,\nand enforcement of treaties, and in all other cases, whatever\ntheir origin, nature, or occasion, except only those which, in the\njudgment of any of the nations involved in the controversy, may\nimperil its independence.\n\n14. \"The Congress respectfully recommends this resolution to the\nattention of the statesmen of Europe, and expresses the ardent\ndesire that treaties in similar terms be speedily entered into\nbetween the other nations of the world.\n\n15. \"The Congress expresses its satisfaction at the adoption\nby the Spanish Senate, on June 16th last, of a project of law\nauthorizing the Government to negotiate general or special treaties\nof arbitration for the settlement of all disputes, except those\nrelating to the independence and internal government of the state\naffected; also at the adoption of resolutions to a like effect by\nthe Norwegian Storthing, and by the Italian Chamber, on July 11th.\n\n16. \"The Congress addresses official communications to the principal\nreligious, political, commercial, labour, and peace organizations\nin civilized countries, requesting them to send petitions to\ngovernmental authorities of their respective countries, praying\nthat measures be taken for the formation of suitable tribunals for\nthe adjudicature of any international questions, so as to avoid the\nresort to war.\n\n17. \"Seeing (_a_) that the object pursued by all Peace Societies is\nthe establishment of juridical order between nations; (_b_) that\nneutralization by international treaties constitutes a step toward\nthis juridical state, and lessens the number of districts in which\nwar can be carried on; the Congress recommends a larger extension\nof the rule of neutralization, and expresses the wish: (_a_) that\nall treaties which at present assure to a certain state the benefit\nof neutrality remain in force, or, if necessary, be amended in a\nmanner to render the neutrality more effective, either by extending\nneutralization to the whole of the state, of which a part only may\nbe neutralized, or by ordering the demolition of fortresses which\nconstitute rather a peril than a guarantee of neutrality; (_b_) that\nnew treaties, provided they are in harmony with the wishes of the\npopulation, be concluded for the establishment of the neutralization\nof other states.\n\n18. \"The Sub-Committee of the Congress recommends:\n\n\"I. That the next Congress be held immediately before or immediately\nafter the next session of the Inter-Parliamentary Conference, and at\nthe same place.\n\n\"II. That the question of an international Peace Emblem be postponed\n_sine die_.\n\n\"III. The adoption of the following resolution:\n\n\"(_a_) Resolved, that we express our satisfaction at the formal and\nofficial overtures of the Presbyterian Church in the United States\nof America, addressed to the highest representatives of each church\norganization in Christendom, inviting the same to unite with itself\nin a general conference, the object of which shall be to promote\nthe substitution of international arbitration for war; (_b_) that\nthis Congress, assembled in London from the 14th to the 19th July,\ndesires to express its profound reverence for the memory of Aurelio\nSaffi, the great Italian jurist, a member of the Committee of the\nInternational League of Peace and Liberty.\n\n\"IV. That the Memorial to the various Heads of Civilized States,\nadopted by this Congress and signed by the President, should so\nfar as practicable be presented to each power, by an influential\ndeputation.\n\n\"V. That the Organization Committee be empowered to make the needful\nverbal emendations in the papers and resolutions presented.\n\n\"VI. That the following resolutions be adopted:\n\n\"(_a_) A resolution of thanks to the Presidents of the various\nsittings of the Congress; (_b_) a resolution of thanks to the\nChairman, the Secretary, and the Members of the Bureau of the\nCongress; (_c_) a resolution of thanks to the conveners and members\nof Sectional Committees; (_d_) a resolution of thanks to Rev.\nCannon Scott Holland, Rev. Doctor Reuen, and Rev. J. Morgan Gibbon,\nfor their pulpit addresses before the Congress, and that they be\nrequested to furnish copies of the same for publication; and also\nto the Authorities of St. Paul's Cathedral, the City Temple, and\nStamford Hill Congregational Church for the use of those buildings\nfor public services; (_e_) a letter of thanks to Her Majesty for\npermission to visit Windsor Castle; (_f_) and also a resolution of\nthanks to the Lord Mayor and Lady Mayoress, to Mr. Passmore Edwards,\nand other friends, who had extended their hospitality to the members\nof the Congress.\n\n19. \"This Congress places on record a heartfelt expression of\ngratitude to Almighty God for the remarkable harmony and concord\nwhich have characterized the meetings of the Assembly, in which so\nmany men and women of varied nations, creeds, tongues, and races\nhave gathered in closest co\u00f6peration, and in the conclusion of the\nlabours of the Congress; it expresses its firm and unshaken belief\nin the ultimate triumph of the cause of Peace and of the principles\nwhich have been advocated at these meetings.\"\n\nThe fundamental idea of the Congress is this, that it is necessary,\nin the first place, to diffuse by all means possible the conviction\namong men that war is very unprofitable for people and that peace\nis a great good, and in the second, to act upon the governments,\nimpressing them with the superiority of the international tribunal\nover wars, and, therefore, the advantages and the necessity of\ndisarmament. To attain the first end, the Congress turns to the\nteachers of history, to the women, and to the clergy with the advice\nthat the evil of war and the good of peace be preached to men on\nevery third Sunday in December; to attain the second end, the\nCongress addresses the governments, proposing that they disarm and\nsubstitute arbitration for war.\n\nTo preach the evil of war and the good of peace to men! But the evil\nof war and the good of peace are so well known to men that, so long\nas we have known men, the best greeting has been, \"Peace be with\nyou.\" What need is there, then, in preaching?\n\nNot only the Christians, but all the pagans thousands of years ago\nknew the evil of war and the good of peace,--consequently the advice\ngiven to the preachers of the Gospel to preach on the evil of war\nand the good of peace on every third Sunday in December is quite\nsuperfluous.\n\nA Christian cannot help but preach this at all times, on all the\ndays of his life. If Christians and preachers of Christianity do not\ndo so, there must be causes for this, and so long as these causes\nare not removed, no advice will be effective. Still less effective\ncan be the advice given to the governments, to dismiss the armies\nand substitute international tribunals for them. The governments\nthemselves know very well all the difficulty and burdensomeness of\ncollecting and maintaining armies, and if, in spite of it, they\ncontinue with terrible efforts and tension to collect and maintain\narmies, they obviously cannot do otherwise, and the advice of the\nCongress cannot change anything. But the learned do not want to see\nthis, and all hope to find a combination by which the governments,\nwho produce the wars, will limit themselves.\n\n\"Is it possible to be freed from war?\" writes a learned man in the\n_Revue des Revues_. \"All admit that when it breaks loose in Europe,\nits consequences will be like a great incursion of the barbarians.\nIn a forthcoming war the existence of whole nationalities will be at\nstake, and so it will be sanguinary, desperate, cruel.\n\n\"It is these considerations, combined with those terrible implements\nof war which are at the disposal of modern science, that are\nretarding the moment of the declaration of war and are maintaining\nthe existing temporary order of things, which might be prolonged for\nan indefinite time, if it were not for those terrible expenses that\noppress the European nations and threaten to bring them to no lesser\ncalamities than those which are produced by war.\n\n\"Startled by this idea, the men of the various countries have sought\nfor a means for stopping or at least mitigating the consequences of\nthe terrible slaughter which is menacing us.\n\n\"Such are the questions that are propounded by the Congress soon to\nbe held in Rome and in pamphlets dealing with disarmament.\n\n\"Unfortunately it is certain that with the present structure of the\nmajority of the European states, which are removed from one another\nand are guided by various interests, the complete cessation of war\nis a dream with which it would be dangerous to console ourselves.\nStill, some more reasonable laws and regulations, accepted by all,\nin these duels of the nations might considerably reduce the horrors\nof war.\n\n\"Similarly Utopian would be the hope of disarmament, which is almost\nimpossible, from considerations of a national character, which are\nintelligible to our readers.\" (This, no doubt, means that France\ncannot disarm previous to avenging its wrongs.) \"Public opinion\nis not prepared for the adoption of projects of disarmament, and,\nbesides, the international relations are not such as to make their\nadoption possible.\n\n\"Disarmament, demanded by one nation of another, is tantamount to a\ndeclaration of war.\n\n\"It must, however, be admitted that the exchange of views between\nthe interested nations will to a certain extent aid in the\ninternational agreement and will make possible a considerable\ndiminution of the military expenses, which now oppress the European\nnations at the expense of the solution of social questions, the\nnecessity of which is felt by every state individually, threatening\nto provoke an internal war in the effort to avert one from without.\n\n\"It is possible at least to assume a diminution of the enormous\nexpenses which are needed in connection with the present business\nof war, which aims at the possibility of seizing the adversary's\npossessions within twenty-four hours and giving a decisive battle a\nweek after the declaration of war.\"\n\nWhat is needed is, that states should not be able to attack other\nstates and in twenty-four hours to seize the possessions of others.\n\nThis practical idea was expressed by Maxime du Camp, and to this the\nconclusion of the article is reduced.\n\nM. du Camp's propositions are these:\n\n\"(1) A diplomatic congress ought to meet every year.\n\n\"(2) No war can be declared sooner than two months after the\nincident provoking it. (The difficulty will be to determine which\nincident it is that provokes the war, because with every war there\nare a very large number of such incidents, and it would be necessary\nto decide from which incident the two months are to be counted.)\n\n\"(3) War cannot be declared before it is submitted to the vote of\nthe nations preparing for it.\n\n\"Military action cannot begin sooner than a month after the\ndeclaration of war.\"\n\n\"War cannot be begun ... must ...\" and so forth.\n\nBut who will see to it that war cannot be begun? Who will see to\nit that men must do so and so? Who will compel the power to wait\nuntil the proper time? All the other powers need just as much to\nbe moderated and placed within bounds and compelled. Who will do\nthe compelling? and how?--Public opinion.--But if there is a public\nopinion which can compel a power to wait for a given time, the same\npublic opinion can compel the power not to begin the war at all.\n\nBut, they reply to all this, we can have such a balance of forces,\n_ponderation des forces_, that the powers will support one another.\nThis has been tried and is being tried even now. Such were the Holy\nAlliance, the League of Peace, and so forth.\n\n\"But if all should agree to it?\" we are told. If all should agree to\nit, there would be no war, and there would be no need for supreme\ntribunals and courts of arbitration.\n\n\"Arbitration will take the place of war. The questions will be\ndecided by a court of arbitration. The _Alabama_ question was\ndecided by a court of arbitration, it was proposed to have the\nquestion about the Caroline Islands submitted to the arbitration of\nthe Pope. Switzerland, and Belgium, and Denmark, and Holland,--all\nhave declared that they prefer the decisions of a court of\narbitration to war.\" Monaco, it seems, also declared itself in this\nway. What is a pity is, that Germany, Russia, Austria, France have\nnot yet made such declarations.\n\nIt is wonderful how men can deceive themselves.\n\nThe governments will decide to submit their differences to a court\nof arbitration and so will disband their armies. The differences\nbetween Russia and Poland, between England and Ireland, between\nAustria and Bohemia, between Turkey and the Slavs, between France\nand Germany will be decided by voluntary consent.\n\nThis is the same as though it should be proposed that merchants and\nbankers should not sell anything at a higher price than at what\nthey have bought the articles, should busy themselves with the\ndistribution of wealth without profit, and should abolish the money\nwhich has thus become useless.\n\nBut commerce and the banking industry consist in nothing but selling\nat a higher price than that at which the purchases are made, and\nso the proposition that articles should not be sold except at a\npurchase price, and that money should be abolished, is tantamount to\na proposition that they should abolish themselves. The same is true\nof the governments. The proposition made to the governments that\nno violence be used, and that the differences be decided on their\nmerits, is a proposition that the government as such should abolish\nitself, and to this no government can consent.\n\nLearned men gather in societies (there are many such societies,\nmore than a hundred of them), congresses are called (lately such\nmet at Paris and London, and one will soon meet at Rome), speeches\nare made, people dine, make toasts, publish periodicals, which\nare devoted to the cause, and in all of them it is proved that\nthe tension of the nations, who are compelled to support millions\nof troops, has reached the utmost limit, and that this armament\ncontradicts all the aims, properties, and desires of all the\nnations, but that, if a lot of paper is covered with writing, and a\nlot of speeches are made, it is possible to make all people agree\nand to cause them not to have any opposing interests, and then there\nwill be no war.\n\nWhen I was a little fellow, I was assured that to catch a bird it\nwas just necessary to pour some salt on its tail. I went out with\nthe salt to the birds, and immediately convinced myself that, if I\ncould get near enough to pour the salt on a bird's tail, I could\ncatch it, and I understood that they were making fun of me.\n\nIt is the same that must be understood by those who read books and\npamphlets on courts of arbitration and disarmament.\n\nIf it is possible to pour salt on a bird's tail, this means that it\ndoes not fly, and that there is no need of catching it. But if a\nbird has wings and does not want to be caught, it does not allow any\none to pour salt on its tail, because it is the property of a bird\nto fly. Even so the property of a government does not consist in\nbeing subjected, but in subjecting, and a government is a government\nonly in so far as it is able, not to be subjected, but to subject,\nand so it strives to do so, and can never voluntarily renounce its\npower; but the power gives it the army, and so it will never give up\nthe army and its use for purposes of war.\n\nThe mistake is based on this, that learned jurists, deceiving\nthemselves and others, assert in their books that the government\nis not what it is,--a collection of one set of men, doing violence\nto another,--but, as science makes it out to be, a representation\nof the aggregate of citizens. The learned have for so long a time\nassured others of this fact that they have come themselves to\nbelieve in it, and they often think seriously that justice can be\nobligatory for the governments. But history shows that from C\u00e6sar\nto Napoleon, both the first and the third, and Bismarck, the\ngovernment has by its essence always been a justice-impairing force,\nas, indeed, it cannot be otherwise. Justice cannot be obligatory\nfor a man or for men, who keep in hand deceived men, drilled for\nviolence,--the soldiers,--and by means of them rule others. And so\nthe governments cannot agree to the diminution of the number of\nthese drilled men, who obey them and who form all their strength and\nsignificance.\n\nSuch is the relation of one set of learned men to the contradiction\nwhich weighs heavily on our world, and such are the means for its\nsolution. Tell these men that the question is only in the personal\nrelation of every man to the moral, religious question, now standing\nbefore all, of the legitimacy and illegitimacy of his participation\nin the universal military service, and these savants will only shrug\ntheir shoulders, and will not even deign to give you an answer,\nor pay attention to you. The solution of the question for them\nconsists in reading addresses, writing books, choosing presidents,\nvice-presidents, secretaries, and meeting and talking, now in this\ncity, and now in that. From these talks and writings there will, in\ntheir opinion, come this result, that the governments will cease\ndrafting soldiers, on whom their whole power is based, but will\nlisten to their speeches and will dismiss their soldiers, will\nremain defenceless, not only against their neighbours, but even\nagainst their subjects,--like robbers who, having bound defenceless\nmen, for the purpose of robbing them, upon hearing speeches about\nthe pain caused to the bound men by the rope, should immediately set\nthem free.\n\nBut there are people who believe in it, who busy themselves with\npeace congresses, deliver addresses, write little books; and the\ngovernments, of course, express their sympathy with this, let it\nappear that they are supporting this, just as they make it appear\nthat they are supporting a temperance society, whereas they for the\nmost part live by the drunkenness of the masses; just as they make\nit appear that they are supporting education, whereas their strength\nis based on ignorance; just as they make it appear that they are\nsupporting the liberty of the constitution, whereas their strength\nis based only on the absence of a constitution; just as they make it\nappear that they are concerned about the betterment of the labouring\nclasses, whereas it is on the oppression of the labourer that their\nexistence is; just as they make it appear that they are supporting\nChristianity, whereas Christianity destroys every government.\n\nTo be able to do this, they have long ago worked out such provisions\nfor temperance, that drunkenness is not impaired; such provisions\nfor education, that ignorance is not only not interfered with,\nbut is even strengthened; such provisions for liberty and for the\nconstitution, that despotism is not impeded; such provisions for the\nlabourers, that they are not freed from slavery; such Christianity\nas does not destroy, but maintains the governments.\n\nNow they have also added their concern about peace. The governments,\nsimply the kings, who travel about with their ministers, of their\nown accord deciding the questions as to whether they shall begin\nthe slaughter of millions this year or next, know full well that\ntheir talks about peace will not keep them, whenever they feel like\nit, from sending millions to slaughter. The kings even listen with\npleasure to these talks, encourage them, and take part in them.\n\nAll this is not only harmless, but even useful to the governments,\nin that it takes people's minds away from the most essential\nquestion, as to whether each individual man, who is called to become\na soldier, should perform the universal military service or not.\n\n\"Peace will soon be established, thanks to alliances and congresses\nand in consequence of books and pamphlets, but in the meantime go,\nput on uniforms, and be prepared to oppress and torture yourselves\nfor our advantage,\" say the governments. And the learned authors of\ncongresses and of writings fully agree to this.\n\nThis is one relation, the most advantageous one for the governments,\nand so it is encouraged by all wise governments.\n\nAnother relation is the tragic relation of the men who assert that\nthe contradiction between the striving and love for peace and the\nnecessity of war is terrible, but that such is the fate of men.\nThese for the most part sensitive, gifted men see and comprehend the\nwhole terror and the whole madness and cruelty of war, but by some\nstrange turn of mind do not see and do not look for any issue from\nthis condition, and, as though irritating their wound, enjoy the\ndesperate plight of humanity.\n\nHere is a remarkable specimen of such a relation to war, by a famous\nFrench author (Maupassant). As he looks from his yacht at the\nexercises and target-shooting of the French soldiers, the following\nideas come to him:\n\n\"War! When I but think of this word, I feel bewildered, as though\nthey were speaking to me of sorcery, of the Inquisition, of a\ndistant, finished, abominable, monstrous, unnatural thing.\n\n\"When they speak to us of cannibals, we smile proudly, as we\nproclaim our superiority to these savages. Who are the savages, the\nreal savages? Those who struggle in order to eat those whom they\nvanquish, or those who struggle to kill, merely to kill?\n\n\"The little soldiers of the rank and file who are running down there\nare destined for death, like flocks of sheep, whom a butcher drives\nbefore him on the highway. They will fall in a plain, their heads\ncut open by a sword-stroke, or their chests pierced by bullets; and\nthese are young men who might have worked, produced, been useful.\nTheir fathers are old and poor; their mothers, who have loved them\nfor twenty years and adored them as only mothers can, will learn in\nsix months or, perhaps, in a year that their son, their child, their\ngrandchild, who had been reared with so much love, was thrown into\na hole, like a dead dog, after he had been eviscerated by a ball,\ntrampled underfoot, crushed, mashed into pulp by the charges of\ncavalry. Why did they kill her boy, her fine boy, her only hope, her\npride, her life? She does not know. Yes, why?\n\n\"War! To fight! To butcher! To massacre people! And to-day, at our\nperiod of the world, with our civilization, with the expansion of\nscience and the degree of philosophy which we deem the human genius\nto have attained, we have schools in which they teach how to kill;\nto kill at a great distance, with perfection, a lot of people at the\nsame time,--to kill poor innocent fellows, who have the care of a\nfamily and are under no judicial sentence.\n\n\"And what is most startling is the fact that the people do not rise\nagainst the governments! What difference is there really between the\nmonarchies and the republics? It is most startling that society does\nnot rise in a body and revolt at the very mention of the word 'war.'\n\n\"Oh, we shall always live under the burden of the ancient and odious\ncustoms, criminal prejudices, and savage ideas of our barbarous\nancestors, because we are beasts, and shall remain beasts, who are\ndominated by instinct and do not change.\n\n\"Would not any other man than Victor Hugo have been disgraced, if he\nsent forth this cry of deliverance and truth?\n\n\"'To-day force is called violence and is about to be judged; war is\nsummoned to court. Civilization, at the instigation of the human\nrace, institutes proceedings and prepares the great criminal brief\nof the conquerors and captains. The nations are coming to understand\nthat the increase of an offence cannot be its diminution; that\nif it is a crime to kill, killing much cannot be an extenuating\ncircumstance; that if stealing is a disgrace, forcible seizing\ncannot be a glory. Oh, let us proclaim these absolute verities,--let\nus disgrace war!'\n\n\"Vain fury and indignation of a poet! War is honoured more than ever.\n\n\"A versatile artist in these matters, a gifted butcher of men, Mr.\nvon Moltke, one day spoke the following words to some delegates of\npeace:\n\n\"'War is sacred and divinely instituted; it is one of the sacred\nlaws of the world; it nurtures in men all the great and noble\nsentiments,--honour, disinterestedness, virtue, courage,--and, to be\nshort, keeps men from falling into the most hideous materialism.'\n\n\"Thus, uniting into herds of four hundred thousand men, marching\nday and night without any rest, not thinking of anything, nor\nstudying anything, nor learning anything, nor reading anything, not\nbeing useful to a single person, rotting from dirt, sleeping in\nthe mire, living like the brutes in a constant stupor, pillaging\ncities, burning villages, ruining peoples, then meeting another\nconglomeration of human flesh, rushing against it, making lakes\nof blood and fields of battered flesh, mingled with muddy and\nblood-stained earth and mounds of corpses, being deprived of arms\nor legs, or having the skull crushed without profit to any one, and\ndying in the corner of a field, while your old parents, your wife,\nand your children are starving,--that's what is called not to fall\ninto the most hideous materialism.\n\n\"The men of war are the scourges of the world. We struggle against\nNature, against ignorance, against obstacles of every sort, in order\nto make our miserable life less hard. Men, benefactors, savants\nuse their existence in order to work, to find what may help, may\nsuccour, may ease their brothers. They go with vim about their\nuseful business, accumulate discovery upon discovery, increasing\nthe human spirit, expanding science, giving every day a sum of new\nknowledge to the intelligence of man, giving every day well-being,\nease, and force to their country.\n\n\"War arrives. In six months the generals destroy twenty years of\neffort, of patience, and of genius.\n\n\"This is what is called not to fall into the most hideous\nmaterialism.\n\n\"We have seen what war is. We have seen men turned into brutes,\nmaddened, killing for the sake of pleasure, of terror, of bravado,\nof ostentation. Then, when law no longer exists, when law is dead,\nwhen every notion of right has disappeared, we have seen men shoot\ninnocent people who are found on the road and who have roused\nsuspicion only because they showed fear. We have seen dogs chained\nnear the doors of their masters killed, just to try new revolvers on\nthem; we have seen cows lying in the field shot to pieces, for the\nsake of pleasure, only to try a gun on them, to have something to\nlaugh at.\n\n\"This is what is called not to fall into the most hideous\nmaterialism.\n\n\"To enter a country, to kill a man who is defending his home, simply\nbecause he wears a blouse and has no cap on his head, to burn the\nhabitations of wretched people who have no bread, to smash the\nfurniture, to steal some of it, to drink the wine which is found\nin the cellars, to rape the women who are found in the streets, to\nburn millions of dollars' worth of powder, and to leave behind them\nmisery and the cholera,--this is what is called not to fall into the\nmost hideous materialism.\n\n\"What have the men of war done to give evidence of even a little\nintelligence? Nothing. What have they invented? Cannon and guns.\nThat is all.\n\n\"What has Greece left to us? Books, marbles. Is she great because\nshe has conquered, or because she has produced?\n\n\"Is it the invasion of the Persians that kept her from falling into\nthe most hideous materialism?\n\n\"Is it the invasions of the barbarians that saved Rome and\nregenerated her?\n\n\"Was it Napoleon I. who continued the great intellectual movement\nwhich was begun by the philosophers at the end of the last century?\n\n\"Oh, well, if the governments arrogate to themselves the right to\nkill the nations, there is nothing surprising in the fact that the\nnations now and then take upon themselves the right to do away with\nthe governments.\n\n\"They defend themselves. They are right. Nobody has the absolute\nright to govern others. This can be done only for the good of the\ngoverned. Whoever rules is as much obliged to avoid war as a captain\nof a boat is obliged to avoid a shipwreck.\n\n\"When a captain has lost his boat, he is judged and condemned, if he\nis found guilty of negligence or even of incapacity.\n\n\"Why should not the governments be judged after the declaration of\na war? If the nations understood this, if they themselves sat in\njudgment over the death-dealing powers, if they refused to allow\nthemselves to be killed without reason, if they made use of their\nweapons against those who gave them to them for the purpose of\nmassacring, war would be dead at once! But this day will not come!\"\n(_Sur l'Eau_, pp. 71-80.)\n\nThe author sees all the horror of war; he sees that its cause is\nin this, that the governments, deceiving people, compel them to\ngo out to kill and die without any need; he sees also that the\nmen composing the armies might turn their weapons against the\ngovernments and demand accounts from them. But the author thinks\nthat this will never happen, and that, therefore, there is no\nway out of this situation. He thinks that the business of war is\nterrible, but that it is inevitable and that the demands of the\ngovernments that the soldiers shall go and fight are as inevitable\nas death, and that, since the governments will always demand it,\nthere will always exist wars.\n\nThus writes a talented, sincere author, who is endowed with that\npenetration into the essence of the matter which forms the essence\nof the poetical genius. He presents to us all the cruelty of the\ncontradiction between men's conscience and their activity, and,\nwithout solving it, seems to recognize that this contradiction must\nexist and that in it consists the tragedy of life.\n\nAnother, not less gifted author (E. Rod), describes the cruelty and\nmadness of the present situation in still more glaring colours, and\nsimilarly, recognizing the tragical element in it, does not offer or\nforesee any way out of it.\n\n\"What good is there in doing anything? What good is there in\nundertaking anything?\" he says. \"How can we love men in these\ntroubled times, when the morrow is but a menace? Everything we have\nbegun, our maturing ideas, our incepted works, the little good which\nwe shall have been able to do,--will it not all be carried away by\nthe coming hurricane? Everywhere the earth is trembling under our\nfeet, and the clouds that are gathering upon our horizon will not\npass by us.\n\n\"Oh, if it were only the Revolution, with which we are frightened,\nthat we had to fear! As I am incapable of imagining a more\ndetestable society than is ours, I have more mistrust than fear\nfor the one which will succeed it. If I were to suffer from the\ntransformation, I should console myself with the thought that\nthe executioners of to-day are the victims of yesterday, and the\nexpectation of what is better would make me put up with what is\nworse. But it is not this distant peril that frightens me,--I see\nanother, nearer, above all, a more cruel peril, more cruel, because\nit has no excuse, because it is absurd, because no good can result\nfrom it. Every day men weigh the chances of war for the morrow, and\nevery day they are more merciless.\n\n\"Thought staggers before the catastrophe which appears at the end of\nthe century as the limit of the progress of our era,--but we must\nget used to it: for twenty years all the forces of science have\nbeen exhausting themselves to invent engines of destruction, and\nsoon a few cannon-shots will suffice to annihilate a whole army;\nthey no longer arm, as formerly, a few thousands of poor devils,\nwhose blood was paid for, but whole nations, who go out to cut each\nothers' throats; they steal their time, in order later more surely\nto steal their lives; to prepare them for the massacre, their hatred\nis fanned, by pretending that they are hated. And good people are\ntricked, and we shall see furious masses of peaceful citizens,\ninto whose hands the guns will be placed by a stupid order, rush\nagainst one another with the ferocity of wild animals, God knows\nfor the sake of what ridiculous incident of the border or of what\nmercantile colonial interests! They will march, like sheep, to the\nslaughter,--but knowing whither they are going, knowing that they\nare leaving their wives, knowing that their children will be hungry,\nand they will go with anxious fear, but none the less intoxicated\nby the sonorous, deceptive words that will be trumpeted into their\nears. They will go without revolt, passive and resigned, though they\nare the mass and the force, and could be the power, if they wished\nand if they knew how to establish common sense and brotherhood in\nthe place of the savage trickeries of diplomacy. They will go, so\ndeceived, so duped, that they will believe the carnage to be a duty,\nand will ask God to bless their sanguinary appetites. They will go,\ntrampling on the crops which they have sown, burning the cities\nwhich they have built, with enthusiastic songs, joyous cries, and\nfestive music. And their sons will erect statues to those who shall\nhave massacred them better than any one else!\n\n\"The fate of a whole generation depends on the hour at which some\nsombre politician will give the signal, which will be followed. We\nknow that the best among us will be mowed down and that our work\nwill be destroyed in the germ. We know this, and we tremble from\nanger, and we are unable to do anything. We are caught in the net\nof offices and red tape, which it would take too violent an effort\nto break. We belong to the laws which we have called into life\nto protect us, but which oppress us. We are only things of this\nAntinomian abstraction, the state, which makes every individual a\nslave in the name of the will of all, who, taken separately, would\nwant the very opposite of what they are compelled to do.\n\n\"If it were only one generation that is to be sacrificed! But there\nare other interests as well.\n\n\"All these salaried shouters, these ambitious exploiters of the evil\npassions of the masses and the poor in spirit, who are deceived by\nthe sonority of words, have to such an extent envenomed the national\nhatreds that the war of to-morrow will stake the existence of a\nrace: one of the elements which have constituted the modern world is\nmenaced,--he who will be vanquished must disappear morally,--and,\nwhatever it be, we shall see a force annihilated, as if there were\none too many for the good! We shall see a new Europe formed, on\nbases that are so unjust, so brutal, so bloody, so soiled with a\nmonstrous blotch, that it cannot help but be worse than that of\nto-day,--more iniquitous, more barbarous, more violent.\n\n\"One feels oneself oppressed by a terrible discouragement. We are\ntossing about in a blind alley, with guns trained on us from all\nthe roofs. Our work is that of sailors going through their last\nexercise before the ship goes down. Our pleasures are those of the\ncondemned criminal, who fifteen minutes before his execution is\noffered a choice morsel. Anguish paralyzes our thought, and the\nbest effort of which it is capable is to calculate--by spelling out\nthe vague discourses of ministers, by twisting the sense of the\nwords uttered by sovereigns, by contorting the words ascribed to\ndiplomats and reported by the newspapers at the uncertain risk of\ntheir information--whether it is to-morrow or the day after, this\nyear or next year, that we shall be crushed. We should, indeed, seek\nin vain in history for a more uncertain epoch, one which is so full\nof anxieties\" (E. Rod, _Le Sens de la Vie_, pp. 208-213).\n\nIt is pointed out that the power is in the hands of those who are\nruining themselves, in the hands of the separate individuals forming\nthe mass; it is pointed out that the source of evil is in the state.\nIt would seem clear that the contradiction of the consciousness and\nof life has reached the limit beyond which it is impossible to go\nand after which its solution must ensue.\n\nBut the author does not think so. He sees in this the tragedy of\nhuman life, and, having pointed out all the terror of the situation,\nconcludes that human life must take place in this terror.\n\nSuch is the second relation to war of those men who see something\nfatal and tragical in it.\n\nThe third relation is that of men who have lost their conscience,\nand so their common sense and human feeling.\n\nTo this class belong Moltke, whose opinion is quoted by Maupassant,\nand the majority of military men, who are educated in this cruel\nsuperstition, who live by it, and so are often na\u00efvely convinced\nthat war is not only an inevitable, but even a useful matter. Thus,\njudge also non-military, so-called learned, cultured, refined people.\n\nHere is what the famous Academician, Dousset, writes in the number\nof the _Revue des Revues_ in which the letters about war are\ncollected, in reply to the editor's inquiry as to his views on war:\n\n     \"DEAR SIR:--When you ask the most peaceable of Academicians\n     whether he is an advocate of war, his answer is ready in\n     advance: unfortunately, dear sir, you yourself regard as a dream\n     the peaceful thoughts which at the present time inspire our\n     magnanimous countrymen.\n\n     \"Ever since I have been living in the world, I have heard many\n     private people express their indignation against this terrifying\n     habit of international slaughter. All men recognize and deplore\n     this evil; but how is it to be mended? People have very often\n     tried to abolish duels,--this seemed so easy! But no! All the\n     efforts made for the attainment of this end have done no good\n     and never will do any good.\n\n     \"No matter how much may be said against war and against duelling\n     at all the congresses of the world, above all arbitrations,\n     above all treaties, above all legislations, will eternally stand\n     man's honour, which has ever demanded duelling, and the national\n     advantages, which will eternally demand war.\n\n     \"I none the less with all my heart hope that the Congress\n     of Universal Peace will succeed in its very grave and very\n     honourable problem.\n\n     \"Receive the assurance, etc.\n\n     \"K. DOUSSET.\"\n\nThe meaning is this, that men's honour demands that people should\nfight, and the advantages of the nations demand that they should\nruin and destroy one another, and that the attempts at stopping war\nare only worthy of smiles.\n\nSimilar is the opinion of another famous man, Jules Claretie:\n\n     \"Dear Sir,\" he writes: \"For an intelligent man there can exist\n     but one opinion in respect to the question of peace and war.\n\n     \"Humanity was created that it should live, being free to\n     perfect and better (its fate) its condition by means of peaceful\n     labour. The universal agreement, for which the Universal\n     Congress of Peace is asking and which it preaches, may present\n     but a beautiful dream, but it is in any case the most beautiful\n     dream of all. Man has always before him the promised land of\n     the future,--the harvest will mature, without fear of harm from\n     grenades and cannon-wheels.\n\n     \"But.... Yes, but! Since the world is not ruled by philosophers\n     and benefactors, it is fortunate that our soldiers protect our\n     borders and our hearths, and that their arms, correctly aimed,\n     appear to us, perhaps, as the very best guarantee of this peace,\n     which is so fervently loved by all of us.\n\n     \"Peace is given only to the strong and the determined.\n\n     \"Receive the assurance, etc.\n\n     \"J. CLARETIE.\"\n\nThe meaning of this is, that it does no harm to talk of what no one\nintends to do, and what ought not to be done at all. But when it\ncomes to business, we must fight.\n\nHere is another recent expression of opinion concerning war, by the\nmost popular novelist of Europe, E. Zola:\n\n\"I consider war a fatal necessity, which appears inevitable to us\nin view of its close connection with human nature and the whole\nworld-structure. I wish war could be removed for the longest\npossible time; none the less the moment will arrive when we shall\nbe compelled to fight. I, at the present moment, am placing myself\non the universal point of view, and in no way have any reference\nto our difference with Germany, which presents itself only as an\ninsignificant incident in the history of humanity. I say that war\nis indispensable and useful, because it appears to humanity as one\nof the conditions of its existence. We everywhere meet with war,\nnot only among various tribes and nations, but also in domestic\nand private life. It appears as one of the chief elements of\nprogress, and every step forward, which humanity has taken, has been\naccompanied by bloodshed.\n\n\"People used to speak, and even now speak, of disarmament, but\ndisarmament is something impossible, and even if it were possible,\nwe should be obliged to reject it. Only an armed nation appears\npowerful and great. I am convinced that a universal disarmament\nwould bring with it something like a moral fall, which would find\nits expression in universal impotence, and would be in the way of\na progressive advancement of humanity. A martial nation has always\nenjoyed virile strength. Military art has brought with it the\ndevelopment of all the other arts. History testifies to that. Thus,\nin Athens and in Rome, commerce, industry, and literature never\nreached such development as at the time when these cities ruled\nover the then known world by force of arms. To take an example from\ntimes nearer to us, let us recall the age of Louis XIV. The wars\nof the great king not only did not retard the progress of the arts\nand sciences, but, on the contrary, seemed to aid and foster their\ndevelopment.\"\n\nWar is a useful thing!\n\nBut best of all in this sense is the opinion of the most talented\nwriter of this camp, the opinion of the Academician Vog\u00fc\u00e9. Here is\nwhat he writes in an article about the exhibition, in visiting the\nmilitary department:\n\n\"In the Esplanade des Invalides, amidst exotic and colonial\nbuildings, one structure of a more severe style rises in the\npicturesque bazaar; all these representatives of the terrestrial\nglobe adjoin the Palace of War. A superb subject of antitheses for\nhumanitarian rhetorics! Indeed, it does not let pass an occasion\nfor deploring such juxtaposition and for asserting that this will\nkill that (_ceci tuera cela_),[12] that the union of the nations\nthrough science and labour will conquer the martial instincts. We\nshall not keep it from fondling the hope of the chimera of a golden\nage, which, if it should be realized, would soon become an age of\nmire. All history teaches us that blood is needed to speed and\nconfirm the union of the nations. The natural sciences have in our\ntime confirmed the mysterious law which was revealed to Joseph de\nMaistre by the inspiration of his genius and the consideration of\nprimitive dogmas; he saw how the world redeems its hereditary falls\nby a sacrifice; the sciences show us how the world is perfected by\nstruggle and by compulsory selection; this is the assertion from two\nsides of the same decree, written out in different expressions. The\nassertion is naturally not a pleasant one; but the laws of the world\nare not established for our pleasure,--they are established for our\nperfection. Let us, then, enter into this unavoidable, indispensable\nPalace of War; and we shall have occasion to observe in what manner\nthe most stubborn of our instincts, without losing anything of its\nforce, is transformed, in submitting to the different demands of\nhistoric moments.\"\n\n  [12] Words from Victor Hugo's novel, _Notre Dame_, in regard to\n  printing, which will kill architecture.--_Author's Note._\n\nThis idea, that the proof of the necessity of war is to be found in\ntwo expressions of Maistre and Darwin, two great thinkers according\nto his opinion, pleases Vog\u00fc\u00e9 so much that he repeats it.\n\n     \"Dear Sir,\" he writes to the editor of the _Revue des Revues:_\n     \"You ask for my opinion in regard to the success of the\n     Universal Congress of Peace. I believe, with Darwin, that a\n     violent struggle is a law of Nature, by which all beings are\n     ruled.\n\n     \"Like Joseph de Maistre, I believe that it is a divine law,--two\n     different appellations for one and the same thing. If, past all\n     expectation, some particle of humanity, say the whole civilized\n     West, succeeded in arresting the action of this law, other,\n     more primitive nations would apply it against us. In these\n     nations the voice of Nature would vanquish the voice of human\n     reason, and they would act with success, because the assurance\n     of peace--I do not say 'peace' itself, but the 'full assurance\n     of peace'--would evoke in men corruption and fall, which act\n     more destructively than the most terrible war. I find that for\n     that criminal law, war, it is necessary to do the same as for\n     all the other criminal laws,--to mitigate them, to try to make\n     them unnecessary, and to apply them as rarely as possible. But\n     the whole of history teaches us that it is impossible to abolish\n     these laws, so long as there are left in the world two men,\n     money, and a woman between them.\n\n     \"I should be very happy, if the Congress could prove the\n     contrary to me. But I doubt whether it will be able to overthrow\n     history, the law of Nature, and the law of God.\n\n     \"Accept the assurance, etc.\n\n     \"E. M. VOG\u00dc\u00c9.\"\n\nThe idea is this, that history, man's nature, and God show us that,\nso long as there shall be two men and between them bread, money, and\na woman, there will be war; that is, that no progress will bring men\nto get away from the one conception of life, where it is impossible\nwithout quarrelling to divide the bread, the money (the money is\nvery good here), and the woman.\n\nHow strange the people are that assemble in congresses, to talk\nabout how to catch birds by throwing salt on their tails, though\nthey cannot help but know that it is impossible to do so; queer\nare those who, like Maupassant, Rod, and many others, see clearly\nthe whole horror of war, the whole contradiction which arises from\nthis, that men do not do what they ought to do, what is advantageous\nand necessary for them to do, deplore the tragedy of life, and do\nnot see that all this tragedy will stop as soon as men will cease\nto discuss what they ought not to discuss, and will begin not to\ndo what is painful for them to do, what displeases and disgusts\nthem. These people are queer, but those who, like Vog\u00fc\u00e9 and\nothers, professing the law of evolution, recognize war not only as\nunavoidable, but even as useful, and so as desirable, are strange\nand terrible with their moral perversion. The others at least\nsay that they hate the evil and love the good, but these simply\nrecognize that there is no good and no evil.\n\nAll the talk about establishing peace, in the place of eternal war,\nis a harmful sentimental rodomontade of babblers. There is a law of\nevolution, from which it follows that I must live and act badly.\nWhat is to be done? I am an educated man, and I know the law of\nevolution, and so I will act badly.\n\n\"_Entrons au palais de la guerre._\" There is a law of evolution, and\nso there is nothing bad, nor good, and we must live for nothing but\nour personal life, leaving everything else to the law of evolution.\nThis is the last expression of refined culture, and at the same time\nof that obscuration of consciousness with which all the cultured\nclasses of our time are occupied.\n\nThe desire of the cultured classes in one way or another to maintain\ntheir favourite ideas and their life, which is based upon them, has\nreached its utmost limits. They lie, deceive themselves and others\nin the most refined way, if only they can in some way obscure and\ndrown their consciences.\n\nInstead of changing the life in accord with the consciousness,\nthey try in every manner possible to obscure and drown their\nconsciousness. But the light shines even in the dark, and so it is\nbeginning to shine in our time.\n\n\nVII.\n\nThe cultured people of the higher classes try to drown the\nconsciousness of the necessity of changing the present order of\nthings, which is becoming all the time clearer and clearer; but\nlife, continuing to develop and to become more complex in the former\ndirection and intensifying the contradictions and sufferings of men,\nbrings them to that last limit, beyond which it is impossible to\ngo. Such a last limit, beyond which it is impossible to go, is the\nuniversal military service.\n\nPeople generally think that universal military service and the ever\nincreased arming, which is connected with it, and the consequent\nincrease of taxation and of state debts among all the nations, are\nan accidental phenomenon, due to some political condition of Europe,\nand may also be removed by some political considerations, without an\ninternal change of life.\n\nThis is quite erroneous. Universal military service is nothing but\nan inner contradiction which, having been carried to its utmost\nlimits and having at a certain stage of material development become\nobvious, has stolen its way into the social concept of life.\n\nThe social concept of life consists in this very fact, that the\nmeaning of life is transferred from the individual to the aggregate,\nand its consequence is transferred to the tribe, the family, the\nrace, or the state.\n\nFrom the social concept of life it follows that, in so far as the\nmeaning of life is contained in the aggregate of individuals, the\nindividuals themselves voluntarily sacrifice their interests for\nthe interests of the aggregate. Thus it has always been in reality\nin the case of certain forms of the aggregate, in the family or the\ntribe, independently of which preceded, or in the race, or even\nin the patriarchal state. In consequence of the habit, which is\ntransmitted by education and confirmed by religious influences, the\nindividuals have without compulsion blended their interests with the\ninterests of the aggregate and have sacrificed their own interests\nfor the common interest.\n\nBut the more societies became complex, the greater they grew,\nespecially the more frequently conquests were the causes why men\nunited into societies, the more frequently did individuals strive\nafter attaining their ends to the disadvantage of the common good,\nand the more frequently was there felt the need of the exercise\nof power, that is, of violence, for the sake of curbing these\ninsubmissive individuals.\n\nThe defenders of the social concept of life generally try to mix up\nthe concept of power, that is, of violence, with that of spiritual\ninfluence, but this admixture is quite impossible.\n\nA spiritual influence is an action upon a man, such that in\nconsequence of it the very desires of a man are changed and coincide\nwith what is demanded of him. A man who submits to a spiritual\ninfluence acts in accordance with his desires. But power, as this\nword is generally understood, is a means for compelling a man to\nact contrary to his wishes. A man who submits to power does not act\nas he would wish, but as the power compels him to act. Now what\ncan compel a man to do, not what he wishes, but what he does not\nwish, is physical violence, or a threat of using such, that is, the\ndeprivation of liberty, beating, maiming, or executable menaces that\nsuch actions will be carried out. In this has power always consisted.\n\nIn spite of the unceasing efforts made by men in power to conceal\nthis and to ascribe a different meaning to power, power is the\napplication of a rope, a chain, by which a man will be bound and\ndragged along, or of a whip, with which he will be flogged, or of a\nknife, an axe, with which they will cut off his hands, feet, ears,\nhead,--an application of these means, or a threat that they will be\nused. Thus it was in the time of Nero and of Dzhingis-Khan, and thus\nit is even now, in the most liberal of governments, in the republic\nof America and in that of France. If men submit to power, they do\nso only because they are afraid that in case they do not submit\nthese actions will be applied to them. All governmental demands,\nthe payment of taxes, the execution of public works, the submission\nto punishments imposed upon one, exile, penalties, and so forth,\nto which men seem voluntarily to submit, have always had bodily\nviolence, or a threat that such will be used, for their base.\n\nThe basis of power is bodily violence.\n\nThe possibility of exerting bodily violence against people is first\nof all given by an organization of armed men in which all the armed\nmen act in agreement, submitting to one will. Such assemblies of\narmed men, who submit to one will, are formed by the army. The army\nhas always stood at the base of power. Power is always found in\nthe hands of those who command an army, and all potentates--from\nthe Roman C\u00e6sars to the Russian and German emperors--are more than\nanything else concerned about the army, knowing that if the army is\nwith them, the power will remain in their hands.\n\nIt is this formation and increase of the army, which is necessary\nfor the support of power, that has introduced a decomposing\nprinciple into the social concept of life.\n\nThe end of power and its justification consists in the limitation\nof those men who might wish to attain their interests to the\ndisadvantage of the interests of the aggregate. But whether the\npower has been acquired by the formation of a new power, by\ninheritance, or by election, men who possess power by means of an\narmy have in no way differed from other men, and so have, like\nother men, been prone not to subordinate their interests to those\nof the aggregate, but, on the contrary, having in their hands the\npossibility of doing so, have been more prone than any one else to\nsubordinate the common interests to their own. No matter how much\nmen have devised means for depriving men in power of the possibility\nof subordinating the common interests to their own, or for\nentrusting the power only into the hands of infallible men, there\nhave so far been discovered no means for doing either.\n\nAll methods employed, either of divine sanction, or of election, or\nof heredity, or of suffrage, or of assemblies, or of parliaments, or\nof senates, have proved ineffective. All men know that not one of\nthese methods attains the aim of entrusting the power into none but\ninfallible hands, or of preventing its being misused. All know that,\non the contrary, men in power, be they emperors, ministers, chiefs\nof police, policemen, become, by the very fact of having power, more\nprone to commit immoralities, that is, to subordinate the common\ninterests to their own, than men who have no power, as indeed it\ncould not be otherwise.\n\nThe social concept of life justified itself only so long as all men\nvoluntarily sacrificed their interests to the common interests; but\nthe moment there appeared men who did not voluntarily sacrifice\ntheir interests, and power was needed, that is, violence, for the\npurpose of limiting these individuals, the decomposing principle\nof power, that is, violence exerted by one set of people against\nanother, entered into the social concept of life and the structure\nwhich is based upon it.\n\nFor the power of one set of men over another to attain its end of\nlimiting men who strove after their individual interests to the\ndisadvantage of those of the aggregate, it was necessary to have\nthe power vested in the hands of infallible men, as is assumed to\nbe the case by the Chinese, and as has been assumed in the Middle\nAges and at the present time by men who believe in the sanctity\nof anointment. It was only under this condition that the social\nstructure received its justification.\n\nBut since this does not exist, and men in power, on the contrary,\nby the very fact of their possession of power, are never saintly,\nthe social structure, which is based on power, should not have any\njustification.\n\nEven if there was a time when, with a certain low level of morality\nand with the universal tendency of men to exert violence against\neach other, the existence of the power which limited this violence\nwas advantageous, that is, when the violence of the state was not\nso great as that exerted by individuals against each other, it is\nimpossible to overlook the fact that such a superiority of the state\nover its absence could not be permanent. The more the tendency of\nindividuals to exert violence was diminished, the more the manners\nwere softened, and the more the power was corrupted in consequence\nof its unrestraint, the more did this superiority grow less and less.\n\nIn this change of the relation between the moral development of the\nmasses and the corruption of the governments does the whole history\nof the last two thousand years consist.\n\nIn the simplest form the case was like this: men lived by tribes,\nfamilies, races, and waged war, committed acts of violence, and\ndestroyed and killed one another. These cases of violence took\nplace on a small and on a large scale: individual struggled with\nindividual, tribe with tribe, family with family, race with race,\nnation with nation. Larger, more powerful aggregates conquered the\nweaker, and the larger and the more powerful the aggregate of people\nbecame, the less internal violence took place in it, and the more\nsecure did the continuance of the life of the aggregate seem to be.\n\nThe members of the tribe or of the family, uniting into one\naggregate, war less among themselves, and the tribe and the family\ndo not die, like one man, but continue their existence; between the\nmembers of one state, who are subject to one power, the struggle\nseems even weaker, and the life of the state seems even more secure.\n\nThese unions into greater and ever greater aggregates did not\ntake place because men consciously recognized such unions as more\nadvantageous to themselves, as is described in the story about the\ncalling of the Varangians, but in consequence, on the one hand, of\nnatural growth, and on the other, of struggle and conquests.\n\nWhen the conquest is accomplished, the power of the conqueror\nactually puts an end to internecine strife, and the social concept\nof life receives its justification. But this confirmation is only\ntemporary. Internal strifes cease only in proportion as the pressure\nof the power is exerted upon individuals who heretofore have been\nwarring against one another. The violence of internal struggle,\nwhich is destroyed by the power, is conceived in the power itself.\nThe power is in the hands of just such people as all men are, that\nis, of such as are always or frequently prepared to sacrifice the\ncommon good for the sake of their personal good, with this one\ndifference, that these men do not have the tempering force of the\ncounter-action of the violated, and are subjected to the full\ncorrupting influence of power. Thus the evil of violence, passing\nover into the hands of power, keeps growing more and more, and\nin time comes to be greater than the one which it is supposed to\ndestroy, whereas in the members of society the proneness to violence\nkeeps weakening more and more, and the violence of power grows less\nand less necessary.\n\nThe governmental power, even if it destroys inner violence,\ninvariably introduces new forms of violence into the lives of\nmen, and this grows greater and greater in proportion with its\ncontinuance and intensification.\n\nThus, although the violence is less perceptible in the state than\nthe violence of the members of society against one another, since it\nis not expressed by struggle, but by submission, the violence none\nthe less exists and for the most part in a much more powerful degree\nthan before.\n\nThis cannot be otherwise, because the possession of power not only\ncorrupts men, but the purpose or even unconscious tendency of the\nviolators will consist in bringing the violated to the greatest\ndegree of weakening, since, the weaker the violated man is, the less\neffort will it take to suppress him.\n\nFor this reason the violence which is exerted against him who is\nviolated keeps growing to the farthest limit which it can attain\nwithout killing the hen that is laying the golden eggs. But if\nthis hen does not lay, as in the case of the American Indians,\nthe Fijians, the Negroes, it is killed, in spite of the sincere\nprotestations of the philanthropists against such a mode of action.\n\nThe best confirmation of this is found in the condition of the\nlabouring classes of our time, who in reality are nothing but\nsubjugated people.\n\nIn spite of all the hypocritical endeavours of the higher classes\nto alleviate the condition of the working people, all the working\npeople of our world are subject to an invariable iron law, according\nto which they have only as much as they need to be always incited\nby necessity to work and to have the strength for working for their\nmasters, that is, for the conquerors.\n\nThus it has always been. In proportion with the duration and\nincrease of power, its advantages have always been lost for those\nwho subjected themselves to it, and its disadvantages have been\nincreased.\n\nThus it has been independently of those forms of government under\nwhich the nations have lived. The only difference is this, that\nin a despotic form of government the power is concentrated in a\nsmall number of violators, and the form of the violence is more\npronounced; in the constitutional monarchies and republics, as in\nFrance and in America, the power is distributed among a larger\nnumber of violators, and its forms are less pronounced; but the\nmatter of violence, with which the disadvantages of the power are\ngreater than its advantages, and its process, which brings the\nviolated to the extreme limit of weakening to which they can be\nbrought for the advantage of the violators, are always one and the\nsame.\n\nSuch has been the condition of all the violated, but before this\nthey did not know it, and in the majority of cases they believed\nna\u00efvely that governments existed for their good; that without\ngovernment they would perish; that the thought that men could live\nwithout governments was a blasphemy which ought not even be uttered;\nthat this was for some reason a terrible doctrine of anarchism, with\nwhich is connected the conception of everything terrible.\n\nMen believed, as in something absolutely proved and so needing no\nfurther proofs, that, since until now all the nations have developed\nin a governmental form, this form was for ever an indispensable\ncondition of the development of humanity.\n\nThus it went on for hundreds and for thousands of years, and the\ngovernments, that is, men in power, have tried, and now try more and\nmore, to keep the nations in this error.\n\nThus it was in the time of the Roman emperors, and thus it is at\npresent. In spite of the fact that the idea of the uselessness\nand even harm of the governmental violence more and more enters\ninto the consciousness of men, this would last for ever, if the\ngovernments were not obliged to increase the armies for the purpose\nof maintaining their power.\n\nPeople generally think that the armies are increased by the\ngovernments for the purpose of defending the states against\nother states, forgetting the fact that armies are needed by the\ngovernments for the purpose of protecting themselves against their\nown crushed and enslaved subjects.\n\nThis has always been indispensable, and has become more and more\nnecessary in proportion as culture has been developed among the\nnations, in proportion as the intercourse among the men of the same\nand of different nations has been increased, and it has become\nparticularly indispensable now in connection with the communistic,\nsocialistic, anarchistic, and universal movements among the\nlabouring classes. The governments feel this, and so increase their\nmain force of the disciplined army.[13]\n\n  [13] The fact that in America there exist abuses of power, in spite\n  of the small number of troops, not only does not contradict, but\n  even supports this proposition. In America there is a smaller army\n  than in other countries, and so there is nowhere a lesser oppression\n  of the oppressed classes, and nowhere can we foresee so soon the\n  abolition of the abuses of power and of the power itself. But in\n  America itself there have of late, in proportion as the labouring\n  classes become more unified, been heard voices asking more and more\n  frequently for an increase of the army, although America is not\n  threatened by any external attack. The higher ruling classes know\n  that fifty thousand soldiers will soon be insufficient, and, no\n  longer depending on Pinkerton's army, they feel that the security\n  of their position lies only in an increase of the army.--_Author's\n  Note._\n\nAnswering lately to a question why money was needed for the increase\nof the wages of under-officers, the German chancellor declared\nfrankly in the German Reichstag that there was a need of reliable\nunder-officers, in order to fight against socialism. Caprivi only\nsaid in the hearing of all what everybody knows, though it is\ncarefully concealed from the nations; he explained why guards of\nSwiss and Scotchmen were hired out to French kings and Popes, and\nwhy in Russia they carefully shuffle up the recruits in such a\nway that the regiments which are located in the centre are made up\nof recruits from the outlying districts, while the regiments in\nthe outlying districts are completed by soldiers from the centre\nof Russia. The meaning of Caprivi's speech, translated into simple\nlanguage, is this, that money was not needed for counteracting the\nforeign enemies, but for bribing the under-officers, so as to make\nthem willing to act against the oppressed labouring masses.\n\nCaprivi accidentally gave utterance to what everybody knows, or\nfeels, if he does not know, namely, that the existing structure\nof life is such as it is, not because it naturally must be such,\nbecause the nation wants it to be such, but because it is maintained\nas such by the violence of the governments, by the army with its\nbribed under-officers, officers, and generals.\n\nIf a labouring man has no land, no chance of making use of the\nright, so natural for every man, to obtain from the land his own\nmeans of support and those of his family, this is not so because\nthe nation wants it to be so, but because certain men, the owners\nof land, are granted the right to admit, or not to admit, the\nlabouring people to it. And this unnatural order of things is\nmaintained by means of the army. If the immense wealth, accumulated\nby the labouring people, is not considered as belonging to all men,\nbut to an exclusive number of men; if the power to collect taxes\nfrom labour and to use the money for anything they may see fit is\nentrusted to a few men; if a few men are permitted to select the\nmethod of the religious and civil instruction and education of the\nchildren; if strikes of the labourers are opposed and strikes of the\ncapitalists are encouraged; if a few men are granted the right to\ncompose laws, which all must obey, and to dispose of men's property\nand life,--all this does not take place because the nation wants it\nso, but because the governments and the ruling classes want it so,\nand by means of bodily violence establish it so.\n\nEvery person who does not know this will find it out in every\nattempt at not conforming or at changing this order of things.\nTherefore armies are first of all indispensable to the governments\nand the ruling classes, in order to maintain the order of things\nwhich not only does not result from the necessity of the nation,\nbut is frequently opposed to it and is advantageous only to the\ngovernment and to the ruling classes.\n\nEvery government needs armies, first of all, in order to keep its\nsubjects in submission, and to exploit their labours. But the\ngovernment is not alone; side by side with it there is another\ngovernment, which exploits its subjects by means of the same\nviolence, and which is always ready to take away from another\ngovernment the labours of its already enslaved subjects. And so\nevery government needs an army, not only for internal use, but also\nfor the protection of its booty against neighbouring ravishers.\nEvery government is in consequence of this involuntarily led to\nthe necessity of increasing its army in emulation with the other\ngovernments; but the increasing of armies is contagious, as\nMontesquieu remarked 150 years ago.\n\nEvery increase of an army in a state, directed against its subjects,\nbecomes dangerous even for its neighbours, and evokes an increase in\nthe neighbouring states.\n\nThe armies have reached their present millions not merely because\nthe neighbours threatened the states; this resulted above all from\nthe necessity of crushing all attempts at revolt on the part of\nthe subjects. The increase of armies arises simultaneously from\ntwo causes, which provoke one another: armies are needed against\ndomestic enemies and for the purpose of defending one's position\nagainst one's neighbours. One conditions the other. The despotism of\na government always increases with the increase and strengthening of\narmies and external successes, and the aggressiveness of governments\nis increased with the intensification of the internal despotism.\n\nIn consequence of this, the European governments, in emulating\none another in the greater and ever greater increase of the army,\narrived at the inevitable necessity of the universal military\nservice, since the universal military service was a means for\nobtaining in time of war the greatest quantity of soldiers at the\nleast expense. Germany was the first to hit upon this plan, and\nthe moment one government did it, all the others were obliged to\ndo the same. The moment this happened, it happened that all the\ncitizens were put under arms for the purpose of maintaining all that\ninjustice which was committed against them; what happened was that\nall the citizens became oppressors of themselves.\n\nThe universal military service was an inevitable logical necessity,\nat which it was impossible not to arrive; at the same time it is the\nlast expression of the inner contradiction of the social concept of\nlife, which arose at a time when violence was needed in order to\nmaintain it. In the universal military service this contradiction\nbecame obvious. Indeed, the meaning of the social concept of life\nconsists in this, that a man, recognizing the cruelty of the\nstruggle of individuals among themselves and the perishableness of\nthe individual himself, transfers the meaning of his life to the\naggregate of individuals; but in the universal military service it\nturns out that men, having brought all the sacrifices demanded of\nthem, in order to free themselves from the cruelty of the struggle\nand the insecurity of life, are, after all the sacrifices which they\nhave made, again called to bear all those dangers from which they\nthought they had freed themselves, and, besides, that aggregate,\nthe state, in the name of which the individuals renounced their\nadvantages, is again subjected to the same danger of destruction to\nwhich the individual himself was subjected before.\n\nThe governments were to have freed men from the cruelty of the\nstruggle of individuals and to have given them the assurance of the\ninviolability of the order of the state life; but, instead, they\nimpose upon the individuals the necessity of the same struggle,\nexcept that the struggle with the nearest individuals is transferred\nto the struggle with the individuals of other states, and they leave\nthe same danger of the destruction of the individual and of the\nstate.\n\nThe establishment of the universal military service is like what\nwould happen if a man were to brace up a dilapidated house: the\nwalls bend inwards--supports are put up; the ceiling is sagging\ndown--other supports are put up; boards hang down between the\nsupports--some more supports are put up. A point is finally reached\nwhen the supports indeed hold the house together, but it is\nimpossible to live in the house because there are so many supports.\n\nThe same is true of the universal military service. It destroys all\nthose advantages of the social life which it is called to preserve.\n\nThe advantages of the social life consist in the security of\nproperty and labour and in the co\u00f6peration in the aggregate\nperfection of life,--the universal military service destroys all\nthat.\n\nThe taxes which are collected from the masses for war preparations\nswallow the greater share of the production of labour which the army\nis supposed to protect.\n\nThe tearing away of the men from the habitual course of life impairs\nthe possibility of the work itself.\n\nThe menaces of a war that is likely to break out at any time make\nall the perfections of the social life useless and in vain.\n\nIf a man was formerly told that if he did not submit to the power\nof the state he would be subjected to the attacks of evil men, of\nexternal and internal enemies; that he would be compelled himself\nto struggle with them and to subject himself to being killed;\nthat therefore it would be advantageous for him to bear certain\nprivations, in order to free himself from these calamities,--he was\nable to believe it all, because the sacrifices which he made for\nthe state were only private sacrifices and gave him the hope for\na peaceful life in an imperishable state, in the name of which he\nmade these sacrifices. But now, when these sacrifices have not only\nincreased tenfold, but the advantages promised to him are absent, it\nis natural for any one to imagine that his submission to power is\nquite useless.\n\nBut not in this alone lies the fatal significance of the universal\nmilitary service, as a manifestation of that contradiction which\nis contained in the social concept of life. The main manifestation\nof this contradiction consists in the fact that with the universal\nmilitary service every citizen, upon becoming a soldier, becomes a\nsupporter of the state structure, and a participant in everything\nwhich the government does and the legality of which he does not\nrecognize.\n\nThe governments assert that the armies are needed mainly for the\npurpose of external defence; but that is not true. They are needed\nfirst of all against their subjects, and every man who does military\nservice involuntarily becomes a participant in all the violence\nwhich the state exerts over its own subjects.\n\nTo convince himself that every man who does his military service\nbecomes a participant in such deeds of the government as he does\nnot acknowledge and cannot acknowledge, let a man only remember\nwhat is being done in every state in the name of order and of the\ngood of the nation, things which the army appears as the executor\nof. All the struggles of dynasties and of the various parties, all\nthe executions, which are connected with these disturbances, all\nthe suppressions of revolts, all the employment of military force\nfor the dispersion of popular crowds, the suppression of strikes,\nall the extortions of taxes, all the injustice of the distribution\nof the ownership of land, all the oppressions of labour,--all this\nis produced, if not directly by the armies, at least by the police,\nwhich is supported by the armies. He who does military service\nbecomes a participant in all these matters, which in some cases\nare doubtful to him and in many cases are directly opposed to his\nconscience. Some people do not wish to leave the land which they\nhave been working for generations; people do not wish to disperse,\nas they are commanded to do by the government; people do not want\nto pay the taxes which are exacted of them; people do not wish to\nrecognize the obligatoriness for them of laws which they have not\nmade; people do not wish to be deprived of their nationality,--and\nI, by doing military service, am obliged to come and beat these\npeople. Being a participant in these deeds, I cannot help but\nask myself whether these deeds are good, and whether I ought to\ncontribute to their execution.\n\nUniversal military service is for the government the last degree of\nviolence, which is necessary for the support of the whole structure;\nand for the subjects it is the extreme limit of the possibility of\ntheir obedience. It is that keystone which holds the walls and the\nextraction of which causes the building to cave in.\n\nThe time came when the growing abuses of the governments and their\nstrifes among themselves had this effect, that from every subject\nthere were demanded, not only material, but also moral sacrifices,\nwhen every man had to stop and ask himself, \"Can I make these\nsacrifices? And in the name of what must I make these sacrifices?\nThese sacrifices are demanded in the name of the state. In the name\nof the state they demand of me the renunciation of everything which\nmay be dear to man, of peace, of family, of security, of human\ndignity. What is that state in the name of which such terrible\nsacrifices are demanded of me? And why is it so indispensably\nnecessary?\"\n\n\"The state,\" we are told, \"is indispensably necessary, in the first\nplace, because without the state, I and all of us would not be\nprotected against violence and the attack of evil men; in the second\nplace, without the state all of us would be savages, and would have\nno religious, nor educational, nor mercantile institutions, nor\nroads of communication, nor any other public establishments; and, in\nthe third place, because without the state we should be subject to\nenslavement by neighbouring nations.\"\n\n\"Without the state,\" we are told, \"we should be subject to violence\nand to the attacks of evil men in our own country.\"\n\nBut who among us are these evil men, from the violence and attacks\nof whom the state and its army save us? If three, four centuries\nago, when men boasted of their military art and their accoutrements,\nwhen it was considered a virtue to kill men, there existed such\nmen, there are none now, for no men of the present time use or\ncarry weapons, and all, professing the rules of philanthropy and\nof compassion for their neighbours, wish the same as we,--the\npossibility of a calm and peaceful life. There now are no longer\nthose particular violators against whom the state should defend us.\nBut if, by the people, from whose attack the state saves us, we are\nto understand those men who commit crimes, we know that they are\nnot some especial beings, like rapacious animals among the sheep,\nbut just such people as we are, who are just as disinclined to\ncommit crimes as those against whom they commit them. We know now\nthat threats and punishments cannot diminish the number of such\nmen, and that it is only the change of surroundings and the moral\ninfluence upon people that diminish it. Thus the explanation of the\nnecessity of governmental violence for the purpose of defending men\nagainst violators may have had a basis three or four centuries ago,\nbut has none at the present time. Now the contrary would be more\ncorrect, namely, that the activity of the governments, with their\nmorality which has fallen behind the common level, with their cruel\nmethods of punishments, of prisons, of hard labour, of gallows,\nof guillotines, rather contributes to the brutalization of the\nmasses than to the softening of their manners, and so rather to the\nincrease than to the diminution of the number of violators.\n\n\"Without the state,\" they also say, \"there would not be all those\ninstitutions of education, of learning, of religion, of roads of\ncommunication, and others. Without the state men would not be able\nto establish the public things which are indispensable for all men.\"\nBut this argument, too, could have a basis only several centuries\nago.\n\nIf there was a time when men were so disunited among themselves\nand the means for a closer union and for the transmission of\nthought were so little worked out that they could not come to any\nunderstanding nor agree upon any common mercantile, or economical,\nor cultural matter without the medium of the state, there now no\nlonger exists such a disunion. The widely developed means for\ncommunion and for the transmission of thought have had this effect,\nthat, for the formation of societies, assemblies, corporations,\ncongresses, learned, economic, or political institutions, the men of\nour time can get along without any government, and the governments\nin the majority of cases are more likely to interfere with the\nattainment of these ends than to co\u00f6perate with it.\n\nBeginning with the end of the last century, almost every forward\nstep of humanity has not only not been encouraged by the government,\nbut has always been retarded by it. Thus it was with the abolition\nof corporal punishment, of torture, of slavery, and with the\nestablishment of the freedom of the press and of assemblies. In\nour time the power of the state and the governments not only fail\nto co\u00f6perate with, but are distinctly opposed to, all that activity\nby means of which men work out new forms of life. The solutions of\nlabouring, agronomic, political, religious questions are not only\nnot encouraged, but directly interfered with by the power of the\nstate.\n\n\"Without the state and the government, the nations would be enslaved\nby their neighbours.\"\n\nIt is hardly necessary to retort to this last argument. The retort\nis found in itself.\n\nThe governments, so we are told, are necessary with their armies\nfor the purpose of defending us against our neighbours, who might\nenslave us. But this is what all the governments say of one another,\nand at the same time we know that all the European nations profess\nthe same principles of freedom and of brotherhood, and so are in no\nneed of defending themselves against one another. But if protection\nagainst barbarians is meant, then one-thousandth of all the armies\nnow under arms would suffice. Thus the contrary to what is asserted\nis what actually happens: the power of the state, far from saving\nus from the attacks of our neighbours, on the contrary causes the\ndanger of the attacks.\n\nThus a man, who by means of his military service is placed under\nthe necessity of thinking about the significance of the state, in\nthe name of which the sacrifice of his peace, his security, and his\nlife is demanded of him, cannot help but see clearly that for these\nsacrifices there no longer exists any basis in our time.\n\nBut it is not only by theoretical reflections that any man may see\nthat the sacrifices demanded of him by the state have no foundation\nwhatever; even by reflecting practically, that is, by weighing all\nthose hard conditions in which a man is placed by the state, no\none can fail to see that for him personally the fulfilment of the\ndemands of the state and his submission to military service is in\nthe majority of cases more disadvantageous than a refusal to do\nmilitary service.\n\nIf the majority of men prefer submission to insubmission, this is\nnot due to any sober weighing of the advantages and disadvantages,\nbut because the men are attracted to submission by means of the\nhypnotization to which they are subjected in the matter. In\nsubmitting, men only surrender themselves to those demands which are\nmade upon them, without reflection, and without making any effort of\nthe will; for insubmission there is a need of independent reflection\nand of effort, of which not every man is capable. But if, excluding\nthe moral significance of submission and insubmission, we should\nconsider nothing but the advantages, insubmission would in general\nalways be more advantageous to us than submission.\n\nNo matter who I may be, whether I belong to the well-to-do,\noppressing classes, or to the oppressed labouring classes, the\ndisadvantages of insubmission are less than the disadvantages of\nsubmission, and the advantages of insubmission are greater than the\nadvantages of submission.\n\nIf I belong to the minority of oppressors, the disadvantages of\ninsubmission to the demands of the government will consist in this,\nthat I, refusing to comply with the demands of the government,\nshall be tried and at best shall be discharged or, as they do\nwith the Mennonites, shall be compelled to serve out my time at\nsome unmilitary work; in the worst case I shall be condemned to\ndeportation or imprisonment for two or three years (I speak from\nexamples that have happened in Russia), or, perhaps, to a longer\nterm of incarceration, or to death, though the probability of such a\npenalty is very small.\n\nSuch are the disadvantages of insubmission; but the disadvantages\nof submission will consist in this: at best I shall not be sent\nout to kill men, and I myself shall not be subjected to any great\nprobability of crippling or death, but shall only be enlisted as a\nmilitary slave,--I shall be dressed up in a fool's garments; I shall\nbe at the mercy of every man above me in rank, from a corporal to\na field-marshal; I shall be compelled to contort my body according\nto their desire, and, after being kept from one to five years, I\nshall be left for ten years in a condition of readiness to appear\nat any moment for the purpose of going through all these things\nagain. In the worst case I shall, in addition to all those previous\nconditions of slavery, be sent to war, where I shall be compelled\nto kill men of other nations, who have done me no harm, where I\nmay be crippled and killed, and where I may get into a place, as\nhappened at Sevastopol and as happens in every war, where men are\nsent to certain death; and, what is most agonizing, I may be sent\nout against my own countrymen, when I shall be compelled to kill my\nbrothers for dynastic or other reasons, which are entirely alien to\nme. Such are the comparative disadvantages.\n\nThe comparative advantages of submission and of insubmission are\nthese:\n\nFor him who has not refused, the advantages will consist in this,\nthat, having submitted to all the humiliations and having executed\nall the cruelties demanded of him, he may, if he is not killed,\nreceive red, golden, tin-foil decorations over his fool's garments,\nand he may at best command hundreds of thousands of just such\nbestialized men as himself, and be called a field-marshal, and\nreceive a lot of money.\n\nBut the advantages of him who refuses will consist in this, that he\nwill retain his human dignity, will earn the respect of good men,\nand, above all else, will know without fail that he is doing God's\nwork, and so an incontestable good to men.\n\nSuch are the advantages and the disadvantages on both sides for\na man from the wealthy classes, for an oppressor; for a man of\nthe poor, working classes the advantages and disadvantages will\nbe the same, but with an important addition of disadvantages. The\ndisadvantages for a man of the labouring classes, who has not\nrefused to do military service, will also consist in this, that, by\nentering upon military service, he by his participation and seeming\nconsent confirms the very oppression under which he is suffering.\n\nBut it is not the reflections as to how much the state which men\nare called upon to support by their participation in the military\nservice is necessary and useful to men, much less the reflections\nas to the advantages or disadvantages accruing to each man from his\nsubmission or insubmission to the demands of the government, that\ndecide the question as to the necessity of the existence or the\nabolition of the state. What irrevocably and without appeal decides\nthis question is the religious consciousness or conscience of every\nindividual man, before whom, in connection with the universal\nmilitary service, involuntarily rises the question as to the\nexistence or non-existence of the state.\n\n\nVIII.\n\nPeople frequently say that if Christianity is a truth, it ought to\nhave been accepted by all men at its very appearance, and ought at\nthat very moment to have changed the lives of men and made them\nbetter. But to say this is the same as saying that if the seed is\nfertile, it must immediately produce a sprout, a flower, and a fruit.\n\nThe Christian teaching is no legislation which, being introduced\nby violence, can at once change the lives of men. Christianity is\nanother, newer, higher concept of life, which is different from the\nprevious one. But the new concept of life cannot be prescribed; it\ncan only be freely adopted.\n\nNow the new life-conception can be acquired only in two ways: in a\nspiritual (internal) and an experimental (external) way.\n\nSome people--the minority--immediately, at once, by a prophetic\nfeeling divine the truth of the teaching, abandon themselves to it,\nand execute it. Others--the majority--are led only through a long\npath of errors, experiences, and sufferings to the recognition of\nthe truth of the teaching and the necessity of acquiring it.\n\nIt is to this necessity of acquiring the teaching in an experimental\nexternal way that the whole mass of the men of the Christian world\nhave now been brought.\n\nSometimes we think: what need was there for that corruption of\nChristianity which even now more than anything else interferes\nwith its adoption in its real sense? And yet this corruption of\nChristianity, having brought men to the condition in which they now\nare, was a necessary condition for the majority of men to be able\nto receive it in its real significance.\n\nIf Christianity had been offered to men in its real, and not its\ncorrupted, form, it would not have been accepted by the majority\nof men, and the majority of men would have remained alien to it,\nas the nations of Asia are alien to it at the present time. But,\nhaving received it in its corrupted form, the nations who received\nit were subjected to its certain, though slow, action, and by a long\nexperimental road of errors and of sufferings resulting therefrom\nare now brought to the necessity of acquiring it in its true sense.\n\nThe corruption of Christianity and its acceptance in its corrupted\nform by the majority of men was as indispensable as that a seed, to\nsprout, should be for a time concealed by the earth.\n\nThe Christian teaching is a teaching of the truth and at the same\ntime a prophecy.\n\nEighteen hundred years ago the Christian teaching revealed to men\nthe truth of how they should live, and at the same time predicted\nwhat human life would be if men would not live thus, but would\ncontinue to live by those principles by which they had lived\nheretofore, and what it would be if they should accept the Christian\nteaching and should carry it out in life.\n\nIn imparting in the Sermon on the Mount the teaching which was to\nguide the lives of men, Christ said:\n\n\"Therefore, whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them,\nI will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:\nand the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew,\nand beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon\na rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth\nthem not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house\nupon the sand: and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the\nwinds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was\nthe fall of it\" (Matt. vii. 24-27).\n\nNow, after eighteen hundred years, the prophecy has been fulfilled.\nBy not following Christ's teaching in general and its manifestation\nin public life as non-resistance to evil, men involuntarily came to\nthat position of inevitable ruin which was promised by Christ to\nthose who would not follow His teaching.\n\nPeople frequently think that the question of non-resistance to\nevil is an invented question, a question which it is possible to\ncircumvent. It is, however, a question which life itself puts before\nall men and before every thinking man, and which invariably demands\na solution. For men in their public life this question has, ever\nsince the Christian teaching has been preached, been the same as\nthe question for a traveller which road to take, when he comes to\na fork on the highway on which he has been walking. He must go on,\nand he cannot say, \"I will not think, and I will continue to walk\nas before.\" Before this there was one road, and now there are two\nof them, and it is impossible to walk as before, and one of the two\nroads must inevitably be chosen.\n\nEven so it has been impossible to say, ever since Christ's teaching\nwas made known to men, \"I will continue to live as I lived before,\nwithout solving the question as to resisting or not resisting evil\nby means of violence.\" It is inevitably necessary at the appearance\nof every struggle to solve the question, \"Shall I with violence\nresist that which I consider to be an evil and violence, or not?\"\n\nThe question as to resisting or not resisting evil by means of\nviolence appeared when there arose the first struggle among men,\nsince every struggle is nothing but a resistance by means of\nviolence to what each of the contending parties considers to be an\nevil. But the men before Christ did not see that the resistance by\nmeans of violence to what each considers to be an evil, only because\nhe regards as an evil what another regards as a good, is only\none of the means of solving the struggle, and that another means\nconsists in not at all resisting evil by means of violence.\n\nPrevious to Christ's teaching it appeared to men that there was but\none way of solving a struggle, and that was by resisting evil with\nviolence, and so they did, each of the contending parties trying to\nconvince himself and others that what each of them considered to be\nan evil was a real, absolute evil.\n\nAnd so since most remote times men have endeavoured to discover\nsuch definitions of evil as would be obligatory for all men, and as\nsuch were given out the statutes of law which, it was assumed, were\nreceived in a supernatural manner, or the injunctions of men or of\nassemblies of men, to whom is ascribed the quality of infallibility.\nMen have employed violence against other men and have assured\nthemselves and others that they have employed this violence against\nthe evil, which was acknowledged by all men.\n\nThis means has been employed since remote antiquity, especially by\nthose men who usurped the power, and men for a long time did not see\nthe irrationality of this means.\n\nBut the longer men lived, the more complex their relations became,\nthe more obvious did it become that it was irrational by means of\nviolence to resist that which is by every one regarded as an evil,\nthat the struggle was not diminished by doing so, and that no human\ndefinitions could succeed in making that which was considered to be\nevil by one set of men considered such by others.\n\nEven at the time of the appearance of Christianity, in the place\nwhere it made its appearance, in the Roman Empire, it was clear for\nthe majority of men that what by Nero and Caligula was considered\nto be an evil which ought to be resisted with violence could not be\nconsidered an evil by other men. Even then men began to understand\nthat human laws which were given out as being divine had been\nwritten by men, that men could not be infallible, no matter with\nwhat external grandeur they might be vested, and that erring men\ncould not become infallible simply because they came together and\ncalled themselves a senate or some such name. This was even then\nfelt and understood by many, and it was then that Christ preached\nHis teaching, which did not consist simply in this, that evil ought\nnot to be resisted by means of violence, but in the teaching of the\nnew comprehension of life, a part, or rather an application of which\nto public life was the teaching about the means for abolishing the\nstruggle among all men, not by obliging only one part of men without\na struggle to submit to what would be prescribed to them by certain\nauthorities, but by having no one, consequently even not those (and\npre\u00ebminently not those) who rule, employ violence against any one,\nand under no consideration.\n\nThe teaching was at that time accepted by but a small number of\ndisciples; but the majority of men, especially all those who ruled\nover men, continued after the nominal acceptance of Christianity to\nhold to the rule of violently resisting that which they considered\nto be evil. Thus it was in the time of the Roman and the Byzantine\nemperors, and so it continued even afterward.\n\nThe inadequacy of the principle of defining with authority what is\nevil and resisting it with violence, which was already obvious in\nthe first centuries of Christianity, became even more obvious during\nthe decomposition of the Roman Empire into many states of equal\nright, with their mutual hostilities and the inner struggles which\ntook place in the separate states.\n\nBut men were not prepared to receive the solution which was given by\nChrist, and the former means for the definition of the evil, which\nhad to be resisted by establishing laws which, being obligatory for\nall, were carried out by the use of force, continued to be applied.\nThe arbiter of what was to be considered an evil and what was to be\nresisted by means of force was now the Pope, now the emperor, now\nthe king, now an assembly of the elect, now the whole nation. But\nboth inside and outside the state there always existed some men who\ndid not recognize the obligatoriness for themselves either of the\ninjunctions which were given out to be the commands of the divinity,\nor of the decrees of men who were vested with sanctity, or of the\ninstitutions which purported to represent the will of the people,\nand these men, who considered to be good what the existing powers\nregarded as evil, fought against the powers, using the same violence\nwhich was directed against themselves.\n\nMen who were vested with sanctity regarded as evil what men and\ninstitutions that were vested with civil power considered to be\ngood, and vice versa, and the struggle became ever more acute. And\nthe more such people held to this method for solving their struggle,\nthe more obvious did it become that this method was useless, because\nthere is and there can be no such external authority for the\ndefinition of evil as would be recognized by all men.\n\nThus it lasted for eighteen hundred years, and it reached the\npresent point,--the complete obviousness of the fact that there\nis and there can be no external definition of evil which would be\nobligatory for all men. It reached such a point that men ceased\nto believe in the possibility of finding this common definition\nwhich would be obligatory for all men, and even in the necessity of\nputting forward such a definition. It came to such a pass that the\nmen in power stopped proving that that which they considered to be\nan evil was an evil, and said outright that they considered that an\nevil which did not please them; and the men who obeyed the power\nbegan to obey it, not because they believed that the definitions\nof evil given by this power were correct, but only because they\ncould not help but obey. Nice is added to France, Lorraine to\nGermany, Bohemia to Austria; Poland is divided; Ireland and India\nare subjected to English rule; war is waged against China and the\nAfricans; the Americans expel the Chinese, and the Russians oppress\nthe Jews; the landowners use the land which they do not work, and\nthe capitalists make use of the labours of others, not because\nthis is good, useful, and needful to men and because the contrary\nis evil, but because those who are in power want it to be so. What\nhas happened is what happens now: one set of men commit acts of\nviolence, no longer in the name of resisting evil, but in the name\nof their advantage or whim, while another set submit to violence,\nnot because they assume, as was the case formerly, that violence is\nexerted against them in the name of freeing them from evil and for\ntheir good, but only because they cannot free themselves from this\nviolence.\n\nIf a Roman, a man of the Middle Ages, a Russian, as I remember him\nto have been fifty years ago, was incontestably convinced that the\nexisting violence of the power was necessary in order to free him\nfrom evil, that taxes, levies, serf law, prisons, whips, knouts,\nhard labour, capital punishment, militarism, wars, must exist,--it\nwill be hard now to find a man who either believes that all acts of\nviolence free any one from anything, or even does not see clearly\nthat the majority of all those cases of violence to which he is\nsubject and in which he partly shares are in themselves a great and\nuseless evil.\n\nThere is now no such a man who does not see, not only the\nuselessness, but even the insipidity, of collecting taxes from the\nlabouring classes for the purpose of enriching idle officials; or\nthe senselessness of imposing punishments upon corrupt and weak\npeople in the shape of deportation from one place to another, or\nin the form of imprisonment in jails, where they live in security\nand idleness and become more corrupted and weakened; or, not the\nuselessness and insipidity, but simply the madness and cruelty of\nmilitary preparations and wars, which ruin and destroy the masses\nand have no explanation and justification,--and yet these cases of\nviolence are continued and even maintained by the very men who see\ntheir uselessness, insipidity, and cruelty, and suffer from them.\n\nIf fifty years ago a rich idle man and an ignorant labouring man\nwere both equally convinced that their condition of an eternal\nholiday for the one and of eternal labour for the other was ordained\nby God Himself, it is now, not only in Europe, but even in Russia,\nthanks to the migration of the populace, and the dissemination of\nculture and printing, hard to find either a rich or a poor man who,\nfrom one side or another, has not been assailed by doubts of the\njustice of such an order of things. Not only do the rich know that\nthey are guilty even because they are rich, and try to redeem their\nguilt by offering contributions to art and science, as formerly they\nredeemed their sins by means of contributions to the churches, but\neven the greater half of the working people recognize the present\norder as being false and subject to destruction or change. One set\nof religious people, of whom there are millions in Russia, the\nso-called sectarians, recognize this order as false and subject to\ndestruction on the basis of the Gospel teaching as taken in its real\nmeaning; others consider it to be false on the basis of socialistic,\ncommunistic, anarchistic theories, which now have penetrated into\nthe lower strata of the working people.\n\nViolence is now no longer maintained on the ground that it is\nnecessary, but only that it has existed for a long time, and has\nbeen so organized by men to whom it is advantageous, that is, by\ngovernments and the ruling classes, that the men who are in their\npower cannot tear themselves away from it.\n\nThe governments in our time--all governments, the most despotic\nand the most liberal--have become what Herzen so aptly called\nDzhingis-Khans with telegraphs, that is, organizations of violence,\nwhich have nothing at their base but the coarsest arbitrary will,\nand yet use all those means which science has worked out for the\naggregate social peaceful activity of free and equal men, and which\nthey now employ for the enslavement and oppression of men.\n\nThe governments and the ruling classes do not now lean on the\nright, not even on the semblance of justice, but on an artificial\norganization which, with the aid of the perfections of science,\nencloses all men in the circle of violence, from which there is no\npossibility of tearing themselves away. This circle is now composed\nof four means of influencing men. All those means are connected and\nsustain one another, as the links in the ring of a united chain.\n\nThe first, the oldest, means is the means of intimidation. This\nmeans consists in representing the existing state structure (no\nmatter what it may be,--whether a free republic or the wildest\ndespotism) as something sacred and invariable, and so in inflicting\nthe severest penalties for any attempt at changing it. This means,\nhaving been used before, is even now used in an unchanged form\nwherever there are governments: in Russia--against the so-called\nnihilists; in America--against the anarchists; in France--against\nthe imperialists, monarchists, communists, and anarchists. The\nrailways, telegraphs, photographs, and the perfected method of\nremoving people, without killing them, into eternal solitary\nconfinement, where, hidden from men, they perish and are forgotten,\nand many other modern inventions, which governments employ more\nfreely than any one else, give them such strength that as soon\nas the power has fallen into certain hands, and the visible and\nthe secret police, and the administration, and all kinds of\nprosecutors, and jailers, and executioners are earnestly at work,\nthere is no possibility of overthrowing the government, no matter\nhow senseless or cruel it may be.\n\nThe second means is that of bribery. It consists in taking the\nwealth away from the labouring classes in the shape of monetary\ntaxes, and distributing this wealth among the officials, who for\nthis remuneration are obliged to maintain and strengthen the\nenslavement of the masses.\n\nThese bribed officials, from the highest ministers to the lowest\nscribes, who, forming one continuous chain of men, are united by the\nsame interest of supporting themselves by the labours of the masses,\nand grow wealthier in proportion as they more humbly do the will of\ntheir governments, always and everywhere, stopping short before no\nmeans, in all branches of activity, in word and deed, defend the\ngovernmental violence, upon which their very well-being is based.\n\nThe third means is what I cannot call by any other name than the\nhypnotization of the people. This means consists in retarding the\nspiritual development of men and maintaining them with all kinds\nof suggestions in a concept of life which humanity has already\noutlived, and on which the power of the governments is based. This\nhypnotization is at the present time organized in the most complex\nmanner, and, beginning its action in childhood, continues over\nmen to their death. This hypnotization begins at early youth in\ncompulsory schools which are established for the purpose, and in\nwhich the children are instilled with world-conceptions which were\npeculiar to their ancestors and are directly opposed to the modern\nconsciousness of humanity. In countries in which there is a state\nreligion, the children are taught the senseless blasphemies of\necclesiastical catechisms, in which the necessity of obeying the\npowers is pointed out; in republican governments they are taught\nthe savage superstition of patriotism, and the same imaginary\nobligation of obeying the authorities. At a more advanced age, this\nhypnotization is continued by encouraging the religious and the\npatriotic superstitions.\n\nThe religious superstition is encouraged by means of the institution\nof churches, processions, monuments, festivities, from the money\ncollected from the masses, and these, with the aid of painting,\narchitecture, music, incense, but chiefly by the maintenance of the\nso-called clergy, stupefy the masses: their duty consists in this,\nthat with their representations, the pathos of the services, their\nsermons, their interference in the private lives of the people,--at\nbirths, marriages, deaths,--they bedim the people and keep them in\nan eternal condition of stupefaction. The patriotic superstition is\nencouraged by means of public celebrations, spectacles, monuments,\nfestivities, which are arranged by the governments and the ruling\nclasses on the money collected from the masses, and which make\npeople prone to recognize the exclusive importance of their own\nnation and the grandeur of their own state and rulers, and to\nbe ill inclined toward all other nations and even hate them. In\nconnection with this, the despotic governments directly prohibit the\nprinting and dissemination of books and the utterance of speeches\nwhich enlighten the masses, and deport or incarcerate all men who\nare likely to rouse the masses from their lethargy; besides, all\ngovernments without exception conceal from the masses everything\nwhich could free them, and encourage everything which could corrupt\nthem, such as the authorship of books which maintain the masses\nin the savagery of their religious and patriotic superstitions,\nall kinds of sensuous amusements, spectacles, circuses, theatres,\nand even all kinds of physical intoxications, such as tobacco,\nand brandy, which furnish the chief income of states; they even\nencourage prostitution, which is not only acknowledged, but even\norganized by the majority of governments. Such is the third means.\n\nThe fourth means consists in this, that with the aid of the three\npreceding means there is segregated, from the men so fettered\nand stupefied, a certain small number of men, who are subjected\nto intensified methods of stupefaction and brutalization, and\nare turned into involuntary tools of all those cruelties and\nbestialities which the governments may need. This stupefaction and\nbrutalization is accomplished by taking the men at that youthful\nage when they have not yet had time to form any firm convictions\nin regard to morality, and, having removed them from all natural\nconditions of human life, from home, family, native district,\nrational labour, locking them all up together in narrow barracks,\ndressing them up in peculiar garments, and making them, under the\ninfluence of shouts, drums, music, glittering objects, perform daily\nexercises specially invented for the purpose, and thus inducing\nsuch a state of hypnosis in them that they cease to be men, and\nbecome unthinking machines, which are obedient to the command of the\nhypnotizer. These hypnotized, physically strong young men (all young\nmen, on account of the present universal military service), who are\nprovided with instruments of murder, and who are always obedient to\nthe power of the governments and are prepared to commit any act of\nviolence at their command, form the fourth and chief means for the\nenslavement of men.\n\nWith this means the circle of violence is closed.\n\nIntimidation, bribery, hypnotization, make men desirous to become\nsoldiers; but it is the soldiers who give the power and the\npossibility for punishing people, and picking them clean (and\nbribing the officials with the money thus obtained), and for\nhypnotizing and enlisting them again as soldiers, who in turn afford\nthe possibility for doing all this.\n\nThe circle is closed, and there is no way of tearing oneself away\nfrom it by means of force.\n\nIf some men affirm that the liberation from violence, or even its\nweakening, may be effected, should the oppressed people overthrow\nthe oppressing government by force and substitute a new one for\nit, a government in which such violence and enslavement would not\nbe necessary, and if some men actually try to do so, they only\ndeceive themselves and others by it, and thus fail to improve men's\ncondition, and even make it worse. The activity of these men only\nintensifies the despotism of the governments. The attempts of these\nmen at freeing themselves only give the governments a convenient\nexcuse for strengthening their power, and actually provoke its\nstrengthening.\n\nEven if we admit that, in consequence of an unfortunate concurrence\nof events in the government, as, for example, in France in the year\n1870, some governments may be overthrown by force and the power pass\ninto other hands, this power would in no case be less oppressive\nthan the former one, and, defending itself against the infuriated\ndeposed enemies, would always be more despotic and cruel than the\nformer, as indeed has been the case in every revolution.\n\nIf the socialists and communists consider the individualistic,\ncapitalistic structure of society to be an evil, and the\nanarchists consider the government itself to be an evil, there are\nalso monarchists, conservatives, capitalists, who consider the\nsocialistic, communistic, and anarchistic order to be evil; and all\nthese parties have no other means than force for the purpose of\nuniting men. No matter which of these parties may triumph, it will\nbe compelled, for the materialization of its tenets, as well as\nfor the maintenance of its power, not only to make use of all the\nexisting means of violence, but also to invent new ones. Other men\nwill be enslaved, and men will be compelled to do something else;\nbut there will be, not only the same, but even a more cruel form of\nviolence and enslavement, because, in consequence of the struggle,\nthe hatred of men toward one another will be intensified, and at the\nsame time new means of enslavement will be worked out and confirmed.\n\nThus it has always been after every revolution, every attempt at a\nrevolution, every plot, every violent change of government. Every\nstruggle only strengthens the means of the enslavement of those who\nat a given time are in power.\n\nThe condition of the men of our Christian world, and especially the\ncurrent ideals themselves prove this in a striking manner.\n\nThere is left but one sphere of human activity which is not usurped\nby the governmental power,--the domestic, economic sphere, the\nsphere of the private life and of labour. But even this sphere,\nthanks to the struggle of the communists and socialists, is slowly\nbeing usurped by the governments, so that labour and rest, the\ndomicile, the attire, the food of men will by degrees be determined\nand directed by the governments, if the wishes of the reformers are\nto be fulfilled.\n\nThe whole long, eighteen-centuries-old course of the life of\nthe Christian nations has inevitably brought them back to the\nnecessity of solving the question, so long evaded by them, as to the\nacceptance or non-acceptance of Christ's teaching, and the solution\nof the question resulting from it as regards the social life,\nwhether to resist or not to resist evil with violence, but with\nthis difference, that formerly men could accept the solution which\nChristianity offered, or not accept it, while now the solution has\nbecome imperative, because it alone frees them from that condition\nof slavery in which they have become entangled as in a snare.\n\nBut it is not merely the wretchedness of men's condition that brings\nthem to this necessity.\n\nSide by side with the negative proof of the falseness of the\npagan structure, there went the positive proof of the truth of the\nChristian teaching.\n\nThere was a good reason why, in the course of eighteen centuries,\nthe best men of the whole Christian world, having recognized the\ntruths of the teaching by means of an inner, spiritual method,\nshould have borne witness to them before men, in spite of all\nthreats, privations, calamities, and torments. With this their\nmartyrdom these best men have put the stamp of truthfulness upon the\nteaching and have transmitted it to the masses.\n\nChristianity penetrated into the consciousness of humanity, not\nmerely by the one negative way of proving the impossibility\nof continuing the pagan life, but also by its simplification,\nelucidation, liberation from the dross of superstitions, and\ndissemination among all the classes of people.\n\nEighteen hundred years of the profession of Christianity did not\npass in vain for the men who accepted it, even though only in an\nexternal manner. These eighteen centuries have had this effect that,\ncontinuing to live a pagan life, which does not correspond to the\nage of humanity, men have not only come to see clearly the whole\nwretchedness of the condition in which they are, but believe in the\ndepth of their hearts (they live only because they believe) in this,\nthat the salvation from this condition is only in the fulfilment\nof the Christian teaching in its true significance. As to when and\nhow this salvation will take place, all men think differently, in\naccordance with their mental development and the current prejudices\nof their circle; but every man of our world recognizes the fact that\nour salvation lies in the fulfilment of the Christian teaching.\nSome believers, recognizing the Christian teaching as divine, think\nthat the salvation will come when all men shall believe in Christ,\nand the second advent shall approach; others, who also recognize\nthe divinity of Christ's teaching, think that this salvation will\ncome through the church, which, subjecting all men to itself, will\neducate in them Christian virtues and will change their lives.\nOthers again, who do not recognize Christ as God, think that the\nsalvation of men will come through a slow, gradual progress, when\nthe foundations of the pagan life will slowly give way to the\nfoundations of liberty, equality, fraternity, that is, to Christian\nprinciples; others again, who preach a social transformation, think\nthat the salvation will come when men by a violent revolution\nshall be compelled to adopt community of possession, absence of\ngovernment, and collective, not individual, labour, that is, the\nmaterialization of one of the sides of the Christian teaching.\n\nIn one way or another, all men of our time in their consciousness\nnot only reject the present obsolete pagan order of life, but\nrecognize, frequently not knowing it themselves and regarding\nthemselves as enemies of Christianity, that our salvation lies only\nin the application of the Christian teaching, or of a part of it, in\nits true meaning, to life.\n\nFor the majority of men, as its teacher has said, Christianity could\nnot be realized at once, but had to grow, like an immense tree, from\na small seed. And so it grew and has spread, if not in reality, at\nleast in the consciousness of the men of our time.\n\nNow it is not merely the minority of men, who always comprehended\nChristianity internally, that recognizes it in its true meaning, but\nalso that vast majority of men which on account of its social life\nseems to be so far removed from Christianity.\n\nLook at the private life of separate individuals; listen to those\nvaluations of acts, which men make in judging one another; listen,\nnot only to the public sermons and lectures, but also to those\ninstructions which parents and educators give to their charges, and\nyou will see that, no matter how far the political, social life of\nmen, which is united through violence, is from the realization of\nChristian truths in private life, it is only the Christian virtues\nthat are by all and for all, without exception and indubitably,\nconsidered to be good, and that the anti-Christian vices are by all\nand for all, without exception and indubitably, considered to be\nbad. Those are considered to be the best of men who renounce and\nsacrifice their lives in the service of humanity and who sacrifice\nthemselves for others; those are considered to be the worst who are\nselfish, who exploit the misery of their neighbours for their own\npersonal advantage.\n\nIf by some, who have not yet been touched by Christianity, are\nrecognized the non-Christian ideals, force, valour, wealth, these\nare ideals which are not experienced and shared by all men, and\ncertainly not by men who are considered to be the best.\n\nThe condition of our Christian humanity, if viewed from without,\nwith its cruelty and its slavery, is really terrible. But if we look\nupon it from the side of its consciousness, an entirely different\nspectacle is presented to us.\n\nThe whole evil of our life seems to exist for no other reason than\nthat it was done long ago, and the men who have done it have not yet\nhad time to learn how not to do it, though none of them wish to do\nit.\n\nAll this evil seems to exist for some other reason, which is\nindependent of the consciousness of men.\n\nNo matter how strange and contradictory this may seem, all the men\nof our time despise the very order of things which they help to\nmaintain.\n\nI think it is Max M\u00fcller who tells of the surprise of an Indian\nconverted to Christianity, who, having grasped the essence of the\nChristian teaching, arrived in Europe and saw the life of the\nChristians. He could not recover from his astonishment in the\npresence of the reality, which was the very opposite of what he had\nexpected to find among the Christian nations.\n\nIf we are not surprised at the contradiction between our beliefs,\nconvictions, and acts, this is due only to the fact that the\ninfluences which conceal this contradiction from men act also\nupon us. We need only look upon our life from the standpoint of\nthe Indian, who understood Christianity in its real significance,\nwithout any compromises and adaptations, and upon those savage\nbestialities, with which our life is filled, in order that we may be\nfrightened at the contradictions amidst which we live, frequently\nwithout noticing them.\n\nWe need but think of warlike preparations, mitrailleuses,\nsilver-plated bullets, torpedoes,--and the Red Cross; of the\nconstruction of prisons with solitary cells, of the experiments at\nelectrocution,--and of the benevolent cares for the imprisoned; of\nthe philanthropic activity of rich men,--and of their lives, which\nare productive of those very poor whom they benefit. And these\ncontradictions do not result, as may appear, because people pretend\nto be Christians, when in reality they are pagans, but, on the\ncontrary, because people lack something, or because there is some\nforce which keeps them from being what they already feel themselves\nto be in their consciousness and what they actually wish to be.\nThe men of our time do not pretend to hate oppression, inequality,\nthe division of men, and all kinds of cruelty, not only toward\nmen, but also toward animals,--they actually do hate all this,\nbut they do not know how to destroy it all, and they have not the\ncourage to part with what maintains all this and seems to them to be\nindispensable.\n\nIndeed, ask any man of our time privately, whether he considers\nit laudable or even worthy of a man of our time to busy himself\nwith collecting taxes from the masses, who frequently are\npoverty-stricken, receiving for this work a salary which is entirely\nout of proportion with his labour, this money to be used for the\nconstruction of cannon, torpedoes, and implements for murdering\nmen, with whom we wish to be at peace, and who wish to be at peace\nwith us; or for a salary to devote all his life to the construction\nof these implements of murder; or to prepare himself and others to\ncommit murder. And ask him whether it is laudable and worthy of a\nman, and proper for a Christian, to busy himself, again for money,\nwith catching unfortunate, erring, frequently ignorant, drunken men\nfor appropriating to themselves other people's possessions in much\nsmaller quantities than we appropriate things to ourselves, and for\nkilling men differently from what we are accustomed to kill men, and\nfor this to put them in prisons, and torment, and kill them, and\nwhether it is laudable and worthy of a man and a Christian, again\nfor money, to preach to the masses, instead of Christianity, what is\nwell known to be insipid and harmful superstitions; and whether it\nis laudable and worthy of a man to take from his neighbour, for the\nsake of his own lust, what his neighbour needs for the gratification\nof his prime necessities, as is done by the large landowners; or\nto compel him to perform labour above his strength, which ruins\nhis life, in order to increase his own wealth, as is done by\nmanufacturers, by owners of factories; or to exploit men's want for\nthe purpose of increasing his wealth, as is done by merchants. And\neach of them taken privately, especially in speaking of another,\nwill tell you that it is not. And yet this same man, who sees all\nthe execrableness of these acts, who is himself not urged by any\none, will himself voluntarily, and frequently without the monetary\nadvantage of a salary, for the sake of childish vanity, for the\nsake of a porcelain trinket, a ribbon, a piece of lace, which he is\npermitted to put on, go into military service, become an examining\nmagistrate, a justice of the peace, a minister, a rural officer, a\nbishop, a sexton, that is, he will take an office in which he is\nobliged to do things the disgrace and execrableness of which he\ncannot help but know.\n\nI know many of these men will self-conceitedly prove that\nthey consider their positions not only legitimate, but even\nindispensable; they will say in their defence that the power is from\nGod, that political offices are necessary for the good of humanity,\nthat wealth is not contrary to Christianity, that the rich young\nman was told to give up his wealth only if he wished to be perfect,\nthat the now existing distribution of wealth and commerce must be so\nand is advantageous for everybody, and so forth. But, no matter how\nthey may try to deceive themselves and others, all these men know\nthat what they do is contrary to everything they believe in, and in\nthe name of which they live, and in the depth of their hearts, when\nthey are left alone with their consciences, they think with shame\nand pain of what they are doing, especially if the execrableness\nof their activity has been pointed out to them. A man of our time,\nwhether he professes the divinity of Christ or not, cannot help but\nknow that to take part, whether as a king, a minister, a governor,\nor a rural officer, in the sale of a poor family's last cow for\ntaxes, with which to pay for cannon or the salaries and pensions\nof luxuriating, idle, and harmful officials; or to have a share in\nputting the provider of a family into prison, because we ourselves\nhave corrupted him, and let his family go a-begging; or to take\npart in the plunders and murders of war; or to help substitute\nsavage and idolatrous superstitions for Christ's law; or to detain\na trespassing cow of a man who has no land of his own; or to deduct\na sum from the wages of a factory hand for an article which he\naccidentally ruined; or to extort a double price from a poor fellow,\nonly because he is in need,--a man of our time cannot help but know\nthat all these things are disgraceful and execrable, and that they\nshould not be done. They all know it: they know that what they do is\nbad, and they would not be doing it under any consideration, if they\nwere able to withstand those forces which, closing their eyes to\nthe criminality of their acts, draw them on to committing them.\n\nIn nothing is the degree of the contradiction which the lives of\nthe men of our time have reached so striking, as in that phenomenon\nwhich forms the last means and expression of violence,--in the\nuniversal military service.\n\nOnly because this condition of universal arming and military\nservice has come step by step and imperceptibly, and because for\nits maintenance the governments employ all means in their power for\nintimidating, bribing, stupefying, and ravishing men, we do not see\nthe crying contradiction between this condition and those Christian\nfeelings and thoughts, with which all the men of our time are really\npermeated.\n\nThis contradiction has become so habitual to us that we do not even\nsee all the terrifying senselessness and immorality of the acts, not\nonly of the men who voluntarily choose the profession of killing\nas something honourable, but even of those unfortunate men who\nagree to perform military duty, or even of those who in countries\nwhere military service is not introduced, voluntarily give up\ntheir labours to hire soldiers and prepare them to commit murder.\nAll these men, be they Christians or men who profess humanity and\nliberalism, certainly know that, in committing these crimes, they\nbecome the participants, and, in personal military service, the\nactors, in the most senseless, aimless, cruel of murders, and yet\nthey commit them.\n\nBut more than this: in Germany, whence comes the universal military\nservice, Caprivi said openly, what before was carefully concealed,\nthat the men who had to be killed were not merely the foreigners,\nbut the working people, from whom come the majority of the soldiers.\nAnd this confession did not open men's eyes, did not frighten them.\nEven after this, as before, they continue to go like sheep to the\nenlistment and to submit to everything demanded of them.\n\nAnd this is not enough: lately the German Emperor stated more\ndefinitely the significance and the calling of a soldier, when\ndistinguishing, thanking, and rewarding a soldier for having shot a\ndefenceless prisoner, who had attempted to run away. In thanking and\nrewarding the man for an act which has always been regarded as the\nlowest and basest by men who stand on the lowest stage of morality,\nWilliam showed that the chief duty of a soldier, the one most valued\nby the authorities, consisted in being an executioner, not one like\nthe professional executioners, who kill only condemned criminals,\nbut one who kills all those innocent men whom he is ordered by his\nsuperiors to kill.\n\nBut more than this: in 1891 this same William, the _enfant terrible_\nof the political power, who expresses what others think, in speaking\nwith some soldiers, said the following in public, and the next day\nthousands of newspapers reprinted these words:\n\n\"Recruits! In the sight of the altar and the servant of God you\nswore allegiance to me. You are still too young to understand the\ntrue meaning of everything which is said here, but see to this, that\nyou first of all follow the commands and instructions given you.\nYou have sworn allegiance to me; this, children of my guard, means\nthat you are now my soldiers, that you have surrendered your souls\nand bodies to me. For you there now exists but one enemy, namely,\nthe one who is my enemy. With the present socialistic propaganda it\nmay happen that I will command you to shoot at your own relatives,\nyour brothers, even parents,--which God forfend,--and then you are\nobliged without murmuring to do my commands.\"\n\nThis man expresses what all wise men know, but carefully conceal.\nHe says frankly that men who serve in the army serve him and his\nadvantage, and must be prepared for his advantage to kill their\nbrothers and fathers.\n\nHe expresses frankly and with the coarsest of words all the horror\nof the crime for which the men who enter into military service are\nprepared, all that abyss of degradation which they reach, when they\npromise obedience. Like a bold hypnotizer, he tests the degree of\nthe hypnotized man's sleep: he puts the glowing iron to his body,\nthe body sizzles and smokes, but the hypnotized man does not wake.\n\nThis miserable, ill man, who has lost his mind from the exercise of\npower, with these words offends everything which can be holy for a\nman of our time, and men,--Christians, liberals, cultured men of our\ntime,--all of them, are not only not provoked by this insult, but\neven do not notice it. The last, extreme trial, in its coarsest,\nmost glaring form, is offered to men, and men do not even seem to\nnotice that this is a trial, that they have a choice. It looks as\nthough it seemed to them that there was not even any choice, and\nthat there was but the one path of slavish obedience. One would\nthink that these senseless words, which offend everything which\na man of our time considers to be sacred, ought to have provoked\npeople, but nothing of the kind took place. All the young men of\nall Europe are year after year subjected to this trial, and with\nthe rarest exceptions they all renounce everything which is and can\nbe sacred to a man, they all express their readiness to kill their\nbrothers, even their fathers, at the command of the first erring man\nwho is clad in a red livery embroidered with gold, and all they ask\nis when and whom to kill. And they are ready.\n\nEvery savage has something sacred for which he is prepared to\nsuffer and for which he will make no concessions. But where is this\nsacredness for a man of our time? He is told, \"Go into slavery to\nme, into a slavery in which you have to kill your own father,\" and\nhe, who very frequently is a learned man, who has studied all\nthe sciences in a university, submissively puts his neck into the\nyoke. He is dressed up in a fool's attire, is commanded to jump,\nto contort his body, to bow, to kill,--and he does everything\nsubmissively. And when he is let out, he returns briskly to his\nformer life and continues to talk of man's dignity, liberty,\nequality, and fraternity.\n\n\"Yes, but what is to be done?\" people frequently ask, in sincere\nperplexity. \"If all should refuse, it would be well; otherwise I\nalone shall suffer, and no one will be helped by it.\"\n\nAnd, indeed, a man of the social concept of life cannot refuse. The\nmeaning of his life is the good of his personality. For the sake of\nhis personality it is better for him to submit, and he submits.\n\nNo matter what may be done to him, no matter how he may be tortured\nand degraded, he will submit, because he can do nothing himself,\nbecause he has not that foundation in the name of which he could\nby himself withstand the violence; but those who govern men will\nnever give them a chance to unite. It is frequently said that the\ninvention of terrible implements of murder will abolish war and\nthat war will abolish itself. That is not true. As it is possible\nto increase the means for the slaughter of men, so it is possible\nto increase the means for subjugating the men of the social concept\nof life. Let them be killed by the thousand, by the million, and be\ntorn to pieces,--they will none the less go to the slaughter like\nsenseless cattle, because they are driven with a goad; others will\ngo, because for this they will be permitted to put on ribbons and\ngalloons, and they will even be proud of it.\n\nAnd it is in connection with such a contingent of men, who are so\nstupefied that they promise to kill their parents, that the public\nleaders--the conservatives, liberals, socialists, anarchists--talk\nof building up a rational and moral society. What rational\nand moral society can be built up with such men? Just as it is\nimpossible to build a house with rotten and crooked logs, no matter\nhow one may transpose them, so it is impossible with such people to\nconstruct a rational and moral society. Such people can only form\na herd of animals which is directed by the shouts and goads of the\nshepherds. And so it is.\n\nAnd so, on the one hand, Christians by name, who profess liberty,\nequality, and fraternity, are side by side with that prepared in the\nname of liberty for the most slavish and degraded submission, in the\nname of equality for the most glaring and senseless divisions of men\nby external signs alone into superiors and inferiors, their allies\nand their enemies, and in the name of fraternity for the murder of\nthese brothers.[14]\n\n  [14] The fact that some nations, the English and the Americans, have\n  not yet any universal military service (though voices in its favour\n  are already heard), but only the enlistment and hire of soldiers,\n  does in no way change the condition of slavery in which the citizens\n  stand relative to the governments. Here everybody has to go himself\n  to kill and be killed; there everybody has to give his labours for\n  the hire and preparation of murderers.--_Author's Note._\n\nThe contradictions of consciousness and the resulting wretchedness\nof life have reached the extremest point, beyond which it is\nimpossible to go. The life which is built up on the principles of\nviolence has reached the negation of those very principles in the\nname of which it was built up. The establishment of society on the\nprinciples of violence, which had for its aim the security of the\npersonal, domestic, and social good, has led men to a complete\nnegation and destruction of this good.\n\nThe first part of the prophecy has been fulfilled in respect to men\nand their generations, who did not accept the teaching, and their\ndescendants have now been brought to the necessity of experiencing\nthe justice of its second part.\n\n\nIX.\n\nThe condition of the Christian nations in our time has remained\nas cruel as it was in the times of paganism. In many relations,\nespecially in the enslavement of men, it has become even more cruel\nthan in the times of paganism.\n\nBut between the condition of the men of that time and of our time\nthere is the same difference that there is for the plants between\nthe last days of autumn and the first days of spring. There, in\nthe autumnal Nature, the external lifelessness corresponds to the\ninternal condition of decay; but here, in the spring, the external\nlifelessness is in the sharpest contradiction to the condition of\nthe internal restoration and the change to a new form of life.\n\nThe same is true of the external resemblance between the previous\npagan life and the present one: the external condition of men in the\ntimes of paganism and in our time is quite different.\n\nThere the external condition of cruelty and slavery was in full\nagreement with the internal consciousness of men, and every\nforward movement increased this agreement; but here the external\ncondition of cruelty and slavery is in complete disagreement with\nthe Christian consciousness of men, and every forward step only\nincreases this disagreement.\n\nWhat is taking place is, as it were, useless sufferings,--something\nresembling childbirth. Everything is prepared for the new life, but\nthe life itself has not made its appearance.\n\nThe situation seems to be without an issue, and it would be so, if\nthe individual man, and so all men, were not given the possibility\nof another, higher conception of life, which at once frees him from\nall those fetters which, it seemed, bound him indissolubly.\n\nSuch is the Christian concept of life, which was pointed out to\nhumanity eighteen hundred years ago.\n\nA man need only make this life-concept his own, in order that\nthe chains which seemed to have fettered him so indissolubly may\nfall off of themselves, and that he may feel himself quite free,\nsomething the way a bird would feel free when it expanded its wings\nin a place which is fenced in all around.\n\nPeople speak of the liberation of the Christian church from the\nstate, of granting or not granting liberty to Christians. In these\nthoughts and expressions there is some terrible misconception.\nLiberty cannot be granted to a Christian or to Christians, or taken\nfrom them. Liberty is a Christian's inalienable property.\n\nWhen people speak of granting liberty to Christians, or taking\nit from them, it is evident that they are not speaking of real\nChristians, but of men who call themselves Christians. A Christian\ncannot be anything else but free, because the attainment of the end\nwhich he has set before himself cannot be retarded or detained by\nany one or anything.\n\nA man need but understand his life as Christianity teaches him to\nunderstand it, that is, understand that life does not belong to him,\nhis personality, or the family, or the state, but to Him who sent\nhim into this life; that, therefore, he must not fulfil the law of\nhis personality, his family, or the state, but the unlimited law of\nHim from whom he has come, in order that he may feel himself quite\nfree from every human power and may even stop seeing this power as\nsomething which may be oppressive for any one.\n\nA man need but understand that the aim of his life is the\nfulfilment of God's law, in order that this law, taking for him the\nplace of all other laws and subjugating him to itself, by this very\nsubjugation may deprive all the human laws in his eyes of all their\nobligatoriness and oppression.\n\nA Christian is freed from every human power in that he considers\nfor his life and for the lives of others the divine law of love,\nwhich is implanted in the soul of every man and is brought into\nconsciousness by Christ, as the only guide of his life and of that\nof other men.\n\nA Christian may submit to external violence, may be deprived of his\nbodily freedom, may not be free from his passions (he who commits a\nsin is a slave of sin), but he cannot help but be free, in the sense\nof not being compelled by some danger or external threat to commit\nan act which is contrary to his consciousness.\n\nHe cannot be compelled to do this, because the privations and\nsufferings which are produced by violence, and which form a mighty\ntool against the men of the social concept of life, have no\ncompulsory force with him. The privations and sufferings which take\nfrom the men of the social concept of life the good for which they\nlive, cannot impair the Christian's good, which consists in the\nfulfilment of God's will; they can only strengthen him, when they\nassail him in the performance of this will.\n\nAnd so a Christian, in submitting to the internal, divine law,\ncannot only not perform the prescription of the external law, when\nit is not in accord with the divine law of love as recognized by\nhim, as is the case in the demands set forth by the government,\nbut cannot even recognize the obligation of obeying any one or\nanything,--he cannot recognize what is called the subject's\nallegiance. For a Christian the promise of allegiance to any\ngovernment--that very act which is regarded as the foundation of the\npolitical life--is a direct renunciation of Christianity, because a\nman who unconditionally promises in advance to submit to laws which\nare made and will be made by men, by this very promise in a very\ndefinite manner renounces Christianity, which consists in this, that\nin all problems of life he is to submit only to the divine law of\nlove, of which he is conscious in himself.\n\nIt was possible with the pagan world-conception to promise to do\nthe will of the civil authorities, without violating the will of\nGod, which consisted in circumcision, the Sabbath, praying at set\ntimes, abstaining from a certain kind of food, and so forth. One did\nnot contradict the other. But the Christian profession differs in\nthis very thing from the pagan, in that it does not demand of a man\ncertain external negative acts, but places him in another relation\nto man from what he was in before, a relation from which may result\nthe most varied acts, which cannot be ascertained in advance, and\nso a Christian cannot promise to do another person's will, without\nknowing in what the demands of this will may consist, and cannot\nobey the variable human laws; he cannot even promise to do anything\ndefinite at a certain time or to abstain from anything at a certain\ntime, because he cannot know what at any time that Christian law of\nlove, the submission to which forms the meaning of his life, may\ndemand of him. In promising in advance unconditionally to fulfil the\nlaws of men, a Christian would by this very promise indicate that\nthe inner law of God does not form for him the only law of his life.\n\nFor a Christian to promise that he will obey men or human laws is\nthe same as for a labourer who has hired out to a master to promise\nat the same time that he will do everything which other men may\ncommand him to do. It is impossible to serve two masters.\n\nA Christian frees himself from human power by recognizing over\nhimself nothing but God's power, the law of which, revealed to him\nby Christ, he recognizes in himself, and to which alone he submits.\n\nAnd this liberation is not accomplished by means of a struggle, not\nby the destruction of existing forms of life, but only by means of\nthe changed comprehension of life. The liberation takes place in\nconsequence of this, in the first place, that a Christian recognizes\nthe law of love, which was revealed to him by his teacher, as\nquite sufficient for human relations, and so regards all violence\nas superfluous and illegal, and, in the second place, that those\nprivations, sufferings, threats of sufferings and privations, with\nwhich the public man is brought to the necessity of obeying, present\nthemselves to a Christian, with his different concept of life, only\nas inevitable conditions of existence, which he, without struggling\nagainst them by exercising violence, bears patiently, like diseases,\nhunger, and all other calamities, but which by no means can serve as\na guide for his acts. What serves as a guide for a Christian's acts\nis only the divine principle that lives within him and that cannot\nbe oppressed or directed by anything.\n\nA Christian acts according to the word of the prophecy applied to\nhis teacher, \"He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man\nhear His voice in the streets; a bruised reed shall He not break,\nand smoking flax shall He not quench, till He send forth judgment\nunto victory\" (Matt. xii. 19-20).\n\nA Christian does not quarrel with any one, does not attack any one,\nnor use violence against one; on the contrary, he himself without\nmurmuring bears violence; but by this very relation to violence he\nnot only frees himself, but also the world from external power.\n\n\"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free\"\n(John viii. 32). If there were any doubt as to Christianity being\ntruth, that complete freedom, which cannot be oppressed by anything,\nand which a man experiences the moment he makes the Christian\nlife-conception his own, would be an undoubted proof of its truth.\n\nIn their present condition men are like bees which have just swarmed\nand are hanging down a limb in a cluster. The position of the bees\non the limb is temporary, and must inevitably be changed. They\nmust rise and find a new home for themselves. Every one of the\nbees knows that and wishes to change its position and that of the\nothers, but not one is able to do so before the others are going to\ndo so. They cannot rise all at once, because one hangs down from\nthe other, keeping it from separating itself from the swarm, and so\nall continue to hang. It would seem that the bees could not get out\nof this state, just as it seems to worldly men who are entangled in\nthe snare of the social world-conception. But there would be no way\nout for the bees, if each of the bees were not separately a living\nbeing, endowed with wings. So there would also be no way out for\nmen, if each of them were not a separate living being, endowed with\nthe ability of acquiring the Christian concept of life.\n\nIf every bee which can fly did not fly, the rest, too, would not\nmove, and the swarm would never change its position. And as one\nbee need but open its wings, rise up, and fly away, and after it a\nsecond, third, tenth, hundredth, in order that the immovable cluster\nmay become a freely flying swarm of bees, so one man need but\nunderstand life as Christianity teaches him to understand it, and\nbegin to live accordingly, and a second, third, hundredth, to do so\nafter him, in order that the magic circle of the social life, from\nwhich there seemed to be no way out, be destroyed.\n\nBut people think that the liberation of all men in this manner is\ntoo slow, and that it is necessary to find and use another such\na means, so as to free all at once; something like what the bees\nwould do, if, wishing to rise and fly away, they should find that\nit was too long for them to wait for the whole swarm to rise one\nafter another, and should try to find a way where every individual\nbee would not have to unfold its wings and fly away, but the whole\nswarm could fly at once wherever it wanted. But that is impossible:\nso long as the first, second, third, hundredth bee does not unfold\nits wings and fly, the swarm, too, will not fly away or find the new\nlife. So long as every individual man does not make the Christian\nlife-conception his own, and does not live in accordance with it,\nthe contradiction of the human life will not be solved and the new\nform of life will not be established.\n\nOne of the striking phenomena of our time is that preaching of\nslavery which is disseminated among the masses, not only by the\ngovernments, which need it, but also by those men who, preaching\nsocialistic theories, imagine that they are the champions of liberty.\n\nThese people preach that the improvement of life, the bringing of\nreality in agreement with consciousness, will not take place in\nconsequence of personal efforts of separate men, but of itself, in\nconsequence of a certain violent transformation of society, which\nwill be inaugurated by somebody. What is preached is that men do\nnot have to go with their own feet whither they want and have to\ngo, but that some kind of a floor will be put under their feet, so\nthat, without walking, they will get whither they have to go. And\nso all their efforts must not be directed toward going according to\none's strength whither one has to go, but toward constructing this\nimaginary floor while standing in one spot.\n\nIn the economic relation they preach a theory, the essence of which\nconsists in this, that the worse it is, the better it is, that the\nmore there shall be an accumulation of capital, and so an oppression\nof the labourer, the nearer will the liberation be, and so every\npersonal effort of a man to free himself from the oppression of\ncapital is useless; in the relation of the state, they preach that\nthe greater the power of the state, which according to this theory\nhas to take in the still unoccupied field of the private life, the\nbetter it will be, and that, therefore, the interference of the\ngovernments in the private life has to be invoked; in the political\nand international relations they preach that the increase of the\nmeans of destruction, the increase of the armies, will lead to the\nnecessity of disarmament by means of congresses, arbitrations, and\nso forth. And, strange to say, the obstinacy of men is so great that\nthey believe in these theories, although the whole course of life,\nevery step in advance, betrays its incorrectness.\n\nMen suffer from oppression, and to save themselves from this\noppression, they are advised to invent common means for the\nimprovement of their situation, to be applied by the authorities,\nwhile they themselves continue to submit to them. Obviously, nothing\nresults from it but a strengthening of the power, and consequently\nthe intensification of the oppression.\n\nNot one of the errors of men removes them so much from the end which\nthey have set for themselves as this one. In order to attain the end\nwhich they have set before themselves, men do all kinds of things,\nonly not the one, simple thing which all have to do. They invent\nthe most cunning of ways for changing the situation which oppresses\nthem, except the one, simple one that none of them should do that\nwhich produces this situation.\n\nI was told of an incident which happened with a brave rural judge\nwho, upon arriving at a village where the peasants had been riotous\nand whither the army had been called out, undertook to settle the\nriot in the spirit of Nicholas I., all by himself, through his\npersonal influence. He sent for several wagon-loads of switches,\nand, collecting all the peasants in the corn-kiln, locked himself\nup with them, and so intimidated the peasants with his shouts, that\nthey, obeying him, began at his command to flog one another. They\ncontinued flogging one another until there was found a little fool\nwho did not submit and shouted to his companions to stop flogging\none another. It was only then that the flogging stopped, and the\nrural judge ran away from the kiln. It is this advice of the fool\nthat the men of the social order do not know how to follow, for\nthey flog one another without cessation, and men teach this mutual\nflogging as the last word of human wisdom.\n\nIndeed, can we imagine a more striking example of how men flog\nthemselves than the humbleness with which the men of our time carry\nout the very obligations which are imposed upon them and which lead\nthem into servitude, especially the military service? Men obviously\nenslave themselves, suffer from this slavery, and believe that it\nmust be so, that it is all right and does not interfere with the\nliberation of men, which is being prepared somewhere and somehow, in\nspite of the ever increasing and increasing slavery.\n\nIndeed, let us take a man of our time, whoever he be (I am not\nspeaking of a true Christian, but of a man of the rank and file of\nour time), cultured or uncultured, a believer or unbeliever, rich\nor poor, a man of a family or a single man. Such a man of our time\nlives, doing his work or enjoying himself, employing the fruits of\nhis own labour or those of others for his own sake or for the sake\nof those who are near to him, like any other man, despising all\nkinds of oppressions and privations, hostility, and sufferings. The\nman lives peacefully; suddenly people come to him, who say: \"In the\nfirst place, promise and swear to us that you will slavishly obey us\nin everything which we shall prescribe to you, and that everything\nwe shall invent, determine, and call a law you will consider an\nindubitable truth and will submit to; in the second place, give\npart of your earnings into our keeping: we shall use this money for\nkeeping you in slavery and preventing you from forcibly opposing\nour decrees; in the third place, choose yourself and others as\nimaginary participants in the government, knowing full well that the\ngovernment will take place entirely independently of those stupid\nspeeches which you will utter to your like, and that it will take\nplace according to our will, in whose hands is the army; in the\nfourth place, appear at a set time in court and take part in all\nthose senseless cruelties which we commit against the erring men,\nwhom we ourselves have corrupted, in the shape of imprisonments,\nexiles, solitary confinements, and capital punishments. And finally,\nin the fifth place, besides all this, though you may be in the\nmost friendly relations with people belonging to other nations, be\nprepared at once, when we command you, to consider such of these\nmen as we shall point out to you your enemies, and to co\u00f6perate\npersonally or by hiring others in the ruin, pillage, and murder\nof their men, women, children, old people, and, perhaps, your own\ncountrymen, even your parents, if we want it.\"\n\nWhat could any man of our time who is not stupefied answer to such\ndemands?\n\n\"Why should I do all this?\" every spiritually healthy man, we should\nthink, ought to say. \"Why should I promise to do all that which I\nam commanded to do, to-day by Salisbury, to-morrow by Gladstone,\nto-day by Boulanger, to-morrow by a Chamber of just such Boulangers,\nto-day by Peter III., to-morrow by Catherine, day after to-morrow\nby Pugach\u00e9v, to-day by the crazy King of Bavaria, to-morrow by\nWilliam? Why should I promise to obey them, since I know them to\nbe bad or trifling men, or do not know them at all? Why should I\nin the shape of taxes give them the fruits of my labours, knowing\nthat the money will be used for bribing the officials, for prisons,\nchurches, armies, for bad things and my own enslavement? Why should\nI flog myself? Why should I go, losing my time and pulling the\nwool over my eyes, and ascribing to the violators a semblance of\nlegality, and take part in the government, when I know full well\nthat the government of the state is in the hands of those in whose\nhands is the army? Why should I go into courts and take part in the\ntorture and punishments of men for having erred, since I know, if\nI am a Christian, that the law of revenge has given way to the law\nof love, and, if I am a cultured man, that punishments do not make\nmen who are subjected to them better, but worse? And why should I,\nabove all, simply because the keys of the temple at Jerusalem will\nbe in the hands of this bishop and not of that, because in Bulgaria\nthis and not that German will be prince, and because English and not\nAmerican merchants will catch seals, recognize as enemies the men of\na neighbouring nation, with whom I have heretofore lived at peace\nand wish to live in love and concord, and why should I hire soldiers\nor myself go and kill and destroy them, and myself be subjected to\ntheir attack? And why, above all else, should I co\u00f6perate personally\nor by the hiring of a military force in the enslavement and murder\nof my own brothers and fathers? Why should I flog myself? All this\nI do not need, and all this is harmful for me, and all this on all\nsides of me is immoral, abominable. So why should I do it all? If\nyou tell me that without it I shall fare ill at somebody's hands,\nI, in the first place, do not foresee anything so bad as that which\nyou cause me if I listen to you; in the second place, it is quite\nclear to me that, if you do not flog yourself, nobody is going to\nflog us. The government is the kings, the ministers, the officials\nwith their pens, who cannot compel me to do anything like what the\nrural judge compelled the peasants to do: those who will take me\nforcibly to court, to prison, to the execution are not the kings\nand the officials with their pens, but those very people who are in\nthe same condition in which I am. It is just as useless and harmful\nand disagreeable for them to be flogged as it is for me, and so in\nall probability, if I open their eyes, they not only must do me no\nviolence, but must even do as I do.\n\n\"In the third place, even if it should happen that I must suffer for\nit, it still is more advantageous for me to be exiled or shut up in\na prison, while defending common sense and the good, which shall\ntriumph, if not to-day, certainly to-morrow, or in a very short\ntime, than to suffer for a foolish thing and an evil, which sooner\nor later must come to an end. And so it is even in this case more\nadvantageous for me to risk being deported, locked up in a prison,\nor even executed, than through my own fault to pass my whole life\nas a slave to other bad men, than to be ruined by an enemy making\nan incursion and stupidly to be maimed or killed by him, while\ndefending a cannon, or a useless piece of land, or a stupid rag\nwhich they call a flag.\n\n\"I do not want to flog myself, and I won't. There is no reason why I\nshould. Do it yourselves, if you are so minded, but I won't.\"\n\nIt would seem that not only the religious or moral feeling, but\nthe simplest reflection and calculation would make a man of our\ntime answer and act in this manner. But no: the men of the social\nlife-conception find that it is not right to act in this manner, and\nthat it is even harmful to act thus if we wish to obtain the end of\nthe liberation of men from slavery, and that it is necessary for\nus, as in the case of the rural judge and the peasants, to continue\nto flog one another, consoling ourselves with the thought that the\nfact that we prattle in Chambers and assemblies, form labour-unions,\nparade the streets on the first of May, form plots, and secretly\ntease the government which flogs us,--that all this will have the\neffect of freeing us very soon, though we are enslaving ourselves\nmore and more.\n\nNothing so much impedes the liberation of men as this remarkable\ndelusion. Instead of directing all his forces to the liberation of\nhimself, to the change of his world-conception, every man seeks for\nan external aggregate means for freeing himself, and thus fetters\nhimself more and more.\n\nIt is as though men should affirm that, in order to fan a fire, it\nis not necessary to make every coal catch fire, but to place the\ncoals in a certain order.\n\nIn the meantime it has been getting more and more obvious of late\nthat the liberation of all men will take place only through the\nliberation of the individual men. The liberation of individual\npersons in the name of the Christian life-conception from the\nenslavement of the state, which used to be an exclusive and\nimperceptible phenomenon, has of late received a significance which\nis menacing to the power of state.\n\nIf formerly, in the days of Rome, in the Middle Ages, it happened\nthat a Christian, professing his teaching, refused to take part in\nsacrifices, to worship the emperors and gods, or in the Middle Ages\nrefused to worship the images, to recognize the papal power, these\nrefusals were, in the first place, accidental; a man might have been\nput to the necessity of professing his faith, and he might have\nlived a life without being placed in this necessity. But now all\nmen without exception are subject to these trials. Every man of our\ntime is put to the necessity of recognizing his participation in the\ncruelties of the pagan life, or rejecting it. And, in the second\nplace, in those days the refusals to worship the gods, the images,\nthe Pope, did not present any essential phenomena for the state: no\nmatter how many men worshipped the gods, the images, or the Pope,\nthe state remained as strong as ever. But now the refusal to comply\nwith the non-Christian demands of governments undermines the power\nof state to the root, because all the power of the state is based on\nthese non-Christian demands.\n\nThe worldly powers were led by the course of life to the proposition\nthat for their own preservation they had to demand from all men\nsuch acts as could not be performed by those who professed true\nChristianity.\n\nAnd so in our time every profession of true Christianity by a\nseparate individual most materially undermines the power of the\ngovernment and inevitably leads to the emancipation of all men.\n\nWhat importance can there be in such phenomena as the refusals of\na few dozens of madmen, as they are called, who do not wish to\nswear to the government, or pay taxes, or take part in courts and\nmilitary service? These men are punished and removed, and life\ncontinues as of old. It would seem that there is nothing important\nin these phenomena, and yet it is these very phenomena that more\nthan anything else undermine the power of the state and prepare the\nemancipation of men. They are those individual bees which begin\nto separate from the swarm and fly about, awaiting what cannot be\ndelayed,--the rising of the whole swarm after them. The governments\nknow this, and are afraid of these phenomena more than of all\nsocialists, communists, anarchists, and their plots with their\ndynamite bombs.\n\nA new reign begins: according to the general rule and customary\norder all the subjects are ordered to swear allegiance to the new\ngovernment. A general order is sent out, and everybody is called\nto the cathedral to swear. Suddenly one man in Perm, another in\nT\u00fala, a third in Moscow, a fourth in Kal\u00faga declare that they will\nnot swear, and they base their refusal, every one of them, without\nhaving plotted together, on one and the same reason, which is, that\nthe oath is prohibited by the Christian law, and that, even if it\nwere not prohibited, they could not, according to the spirit of the\nChristian law, promise to commit the evil acts which are demanded of\nthem in the oath, such as denouncing all those who will violate the\ninterests of the government, defending their government with weapons\nin their hands, or attacking its enemies. They are summoned before\nthe rural judges or chiefs, priests, or governors, are admonished,\nimplored, threatened, and punished, but they stick to their\ndetermination and do not swear. Among millions of those who swear,\nthere are a few dozens who do not. And they are asked:\n\n\"So you have not sworn?\"\n\n\"We have not.\"\n\n\"Well, nothing happened?\"\n\n\"Nothing.\"\n\nAll the subjects of a state are obliged to pay taxes. And all pay;\nbut one man in Kh\u00e1rkov, another in Tver, a third in Sam\u00e1ra, refuse\nto pay their taxes, all of them repeating, as though by agreement,\none and the same thing. One says that he will pay only when he is\ntold what the money taken from him will be used for: if for good\nthings, he says, he will himself give more than is asked of him;\nbut if for bad things, he will not give anything voluntarily,\nbecause, according to Christ's teaching, which he follows, he cannot\ncontribute to evil deeds. The same, though with different words, is\nsaid by the others, who do not voluntarily pay their taxes. From\nthose who possess anything, the property is taken by force, but\nthose who have nothing to give are left alone.\n\n\"Well, you did not pay the taxes?\"\n\n\"I did not.\"\n\n\"Well, and nothing happened to you?\"\n\n\"Nothing.\"\n\nPassports are established. All who remove themselves from their\nplace of abode are obliged to take them and pay a revenue for them.\nSuddenly on all sides appear men who say that it is not necessary\nto take passports and that it is not right to recognize one's\ndependence on a government which lives by violence, and they take\nno passports and pay no revenue. Again it is impossible to make\nthese people carry out what is demanded of them. They are locked\nup in prisons and let out again, and they continue to live without\npassports.\n\nAll the peasants are obliged to serve as hundred-men, ten-men, and\nso forth. Suddenly a peasant refuses in Kh\u00e1rkov to perform this\noffice, explaining his refusal by this, that, according to the\nChristian law which he professes, he cannot bind, lock up, and lead\na man from one place to another. The same is asserted by a peasant\nin Tver, in T\u00e1mbov. The peasants are cursed, beaten, locked up, but\nthey stick to their determination and do not do what is contrary to\ntheir faith. And they are no longer chosen as hundred-men, and that\nis the end of it.\n\nAll the citizens must take part in court proceedings in the capacity\nof jurymen. Suddenly the greatest variety of men, wheelwrights,\nprofessors, merchants, peasants, gentlemen, as though by agreement,\nall refuse to serve, not for causes which are recognized by the law,\nbut because the court itself, according to their conviction, is an\nillegal, non-Christian thing, which ought not to exist. These men\nare fined, without being allowed publicly to express the motives of\ntheir refusal, and others are put in their places. The same is done\nto those who on the same grounds refuse to be witnesses at court.\nAnd nothing more happens.\n\nAll men of twenty-one years of age are obliged to draw lots.\nSuddenly one young man in Moscow, another in Tver, a third in\nKh\u00e1rkov, a fourth in Kiev, appear, as though by previous agreement,\nin court, and declare that they will neither swear nor serve,\nbecause they are Christians. Here are the details of one of the\nfirst cases (since then these refusals have become more and more\nfrequent), with which I am acquainted.[15] In all the other cases\napproximately the same was done. A young man of medium culture\nrefuses in the Moscow Council to serve. No attention is paid to his\nwords, and he is ordered to pronounce the words of the oath, just\nlike the rest. He refuses, pointing out the definite place in the\nGospel where taking an oath is prohibited. No attention is paid to\nhis arguments, and they demand that he fulfil their command, but\nhe does not do so. Then it is assumed that he is a sectarian and\nso understands Christianity incorrectly, that is, not in the way\nthe clergy in the government pay understand it, and so the young\nman is sent under convoy to the priests, to be admonished. The\npriests begin to admonish the young man, but their admonitions in\nthe name of Christ to renounce Christ have apparently no effect\nupon the young man, and he is sent back to the army, having been\ndeclared incorrigible. The young man still refuses to take the oath\nand openly declines to fulfil his military duties. This case is\nnot provided for in the laws. It is impossible to admit a refusal\nto do the will of the authorities, and it is equally impossible to\nrate this as a case of simple disobedience. In a consultation the\nmilitary authorities determine to get rid of the troublesome young\nman by declaring him to be a revolutionist, and send him under guard\ninto the office of the secret police. The police and the gendarmes\nexamine the young man, but nothing of what he says fits in with the\ncrimes dealt with in their departments, and there is absolutely no\nway of accusing him of revolutionary acts, or of plotting, since\nhe declares that he does not wish to destroy anything, but, on the\ncontrary, rejects all violence, and conceals nothing, but seeks\nan opportunity for saying and doing in a most open manner what he\nsays and does. And the gendarmes, though no laws are binding on\nthem, like the clergy, find no cause for an accusation and return\nthe young man to the army. Again the chiefs confer and decide to\nenlist the young man in the army, though he refuses to take the\noath. He is dressed up, entered on the lists, and sent under guard\nto the place where the troops are distributed. Here the chief of\nthe section into which he enters again demands of the young man the\nfulfilment of military duties, and he again refuses to obey, and\nin the presence of other soldiers gives the cause for his refusal,\nsaying that, as a Christian, he cannot voluntarily prepare himself\nto commit murder, which was prohibited even by the laws of Moses.\n\n  [15] All the details of this and the preceding cases are\n  authentic.--_Author's Note._\n\nThe case takes place in a provincial city. It evokes interest and\neven sympathy, not only among outsiders, but also among officers,\nand so the superiors do not dare to apply the usual disciplinary\nmeasures for a refusal to serve. However, for decency's sake the\nyoung man is locked up in prison, and an inquiry is sent to the\nhigher military authority, requesting it to say what is to be done.\nFrom the official point of view a refusal to take part in military\nservice, in which the Tsar himself serves and which is blessed by\nthe church, presents itself as madness, and so they write from St.\nPetersburg that, since the young man is, no doubt, out of his mind,\nno severe measures are to be used against him, but he is to be sent\nto an insane asylum, where his mental health is to be investigated\nand he is to be cured. He is sent there in the hope that he will\nstay there, just as happened ten years before with another young\nman, who in Tver refused to do military service and who was tortured\nin an insane asylum until he gave in. But even this measure does not\nsave the military authorities from the inconvenient young man. The\ndoctors examine him, are very much interested in him, and, finding\nin him no symptoms whatever of any mental trouble, naturally return\nhim to the army. He is received, and, pretending that his refusal\nand motives are forgotten, they again propose to him that he go to\nthe exercises; but he again, in the presence of other soldiers,\nrefuses, and gives the cause for his refusal. This case more and\nmore attracts the attention of the soldiers and the inhabitants of\nthe town. Again they write to St. Petersburg, and from there comes\nthe decision that the young man be transferred to the army at the\nfrontier, where it is in a state of siege, and where he may be shot\nfor refusing to serve, and where the matter may pass unnoticed,\nsince in that distant country there are few Russians and Christians,\nand mostly natives and Mohammedans. And so they do. The young man\nis attached to the troops located in the Transcaspian Territory,\nand with criminals he is despatched to a chief who is known for his\ndetermination and severity.\n\nDuring all this time, with all these transportations from one place\nto another, the young man is treated rudely: he is kept cold,\nhungry, and dirty, and his life in general is made a burden for him.\nBut all these tortures do not make him change his determination. In\nthe Transcaspian Territory, when told to stand sentry with his gun,\nhe again refuses to obey. He does not refuse to go and stand near\nsome haystacks, whither he is sent, but he refuses to take his gun,\ndeclaring that under no condition would he use violence against any\none. All this takes place in the presence of other soldiers. It is\nimpossible to let such a case go unpunished, and the young man is\ntried for violation of discipline. The trial takes place, and the\nyoung man is sentenced to incarceration in a military prison for\ntwo years. He is again sent by \u00e9tapes with other criminals to the\nCaucasus and is shut up in a prison, where he falls a prey to the\nuncontrolled power of the jailer. There he is tormented for one year\nand six months, but he still refuses to change his decision about\ntaking up arms, and he explains to all those with whom he comes in\ncontact why he does not do so, and at the end of his second year\nhe is discharged before the expiration of his term, by counting,\ncontrary to the law, his time in prison as part of his service, only\nto get rid of him as quickly as possible.\n\nJust like this man, as though having plotted together, act other men\nin various parts of Russia, and in all those cases the mode of the\ngovernment's action is as timid, indefinite, and secretive. Some of\nthese men are sent to insane asylums, others are enlisted as scribes\nand are transferred to service in Siberia, others are made to serve\nin the forestry department, others are locked up in prisons, and\nothers are fined. Even now a few such men who have refused are\nsitting in prisons, not for the essential point in the case, the\nrejection of the legality of the government's action, but for the\nnon-fulfilment of the private demands of the government. Thus an\nofficer of the reserve, who did not keep the authorities informed\nof his residence and who declared that he would not again serve as\na military man, was lately, for not fulfilling the commands of the\nauthorities, fined thirty roubles, which, too, he refused to pay\nvoluntarily. Thus several peasants and soldiers, who lately refused\nto take part in military exercises and take up arms, were locked up\nfor disobedience and contempt.\n\nAnd such cases of refusing to comply with the government demands\nwhich are contrary to Christianity, especially refusals to do\nmilitary service, have of late occurred not in Russia alone, but\neven elsewhere. Thus, I know that in Servia men of the so-called\nsect of Nazarenes constantly refuse to do military service, and the\nAustrian government has for several years been vainly struggling\nwith them, subjecting them to imprisonment. In the year 1885 there\nwere 130 such refusals. In Switzerland, I know men were incarcerated\nin the Chillon Fortress in the year 1890 for refusing to do military\nservice, and they did not change their determination in consequence\nof their imprisonment. Such refusals have also happened in Prussia.\nI know of an under-officer of the Guard, who in 1891 declared to the\nauthorities in Berlin that as a Christian he would not continue to\nserve, and, in spite of all admonitions, threats, and punishments,\nhe stuck to his decision. In France there has of late arisen in the\nsouth a community of men, who bear the name of Hinschists (this\ninformation is received from the _Peace Herald_, July, 1891), the\nmembers of which on the basis of the Christian profession refuse to\ndo military service, and at first were inscribed in hospitals, but\nnow, having increased in numbers, are subjected to punishments for\ndisobedience, but still refuse to take up arms.\n\nThe socialists, communists, anarchists, with their bombs, riots,\nand revolutions, are by no means so terrible to the governments\nas these scattered people, who from various sides refuse to do\nmilitary service,--all of them on the basis of the same well-known\nteaching. Every government knows how and why to defend itself\nagainst revolutionists, and they have means for it, and so are not\nafraid of these external enemies. But what are the governments to do\nagainst those men who point out the uselessness, superfluity, and\nharmfulness of all governments, and do not struggle with them, but\nonly have no use for them, get along without them, and do not wish\nto take part in them?\n\nThe revolutionists say, \"The governmental structure is bad for this\nand that reason,--it is necessary to put this or that in its place.\"\nBut a Christian says, \"I know nothing of the governmental structure,\nabout its being good or bad, and do not wish to destroy it for the\nvery reason that I do not know whether it is good or bad, but for\nthe same reason I do not wish to sustain it. I not only do not\nwish to, but even cannot do so, because what is demanded of me is\ncontrary to my conscience.\"\n\nWhat is contrary to a Christian's conscience is all obligations of\nstate,--the oath, the taxes, the courts, the army. But on all these\nobligations the state is founded.\n\nThe revolutionary enemies struggle with the state from without; but\nChristianity does not struggle at all,--it inwardly destroys all the\nfoundations of government.\n\nAmong the Russian people, where, especially since the time of Peter\nI., the protest of Christianity against the government has never\nceased, where the structure of life is such that men have gone\naway by whole communities to Turkey, to China, to uninhabitable\nlands, and not only are in no need of the government, but always\nlook upon it as an unnecessary burden, and only bear it as a\ncalamity, be it Turkish, Russian, or Chinese,--among the Russian\npeople there have of late been occurring more and more frequently\ncases of the Christian conscious emancipation of separate\nindividuals from submission to the government. And now especially\nthese manifestations are very terrible to the government, because\nthose who refuse frequently do not belong to the so-called lower\nuncultured classes, but to the people with a medium or higher\neducation, and because these men no longer base their refusals on\nsome mystical exclusive beliefs, as was the case formerly, nor\nconnect them with some superstition or savage practices, as is the\ncase with the Self-Consumers and Runners, but put forth the simplest\nand clearest truths, which are accessible to all men and recognized\nby them all.\n\nThus they refuse to pay their taxes voluntarily, because the taxes\nare used for acts of violence, for salaries to violators and\nmilitary men, for the construction of prisons, fortresses, cannon,\nwhile they, as Christians, consider it sinful and immoral to take\npart in these things. Those who refuse to take the common oath\ndo so because to promise to obey the authorities, that is, men\nwho are given to acts of violence, is contrary to the Christian\nteaching; they refuse to take their oath in courts, because the\noath is directly forbidden in the Gospel. They decline to serve\nin the police, because in connection with these duties they\nhave to use force against their own brothers and torment them,\nwhereas a Christian may not do so. They decline to take part in\ncourt proceedings, because they consider every court proceeding a\nfulfilment of the law of revenge, which is incompatible with the\nChristian law of forgiveness and love. They decline to take part\nin all military preparations and in the army, because they do not\nwish to be and cannot be executioners, and do not want to prepare\nthemselves for the office of executioner.\n\nAll the motives of these refusals are such that, no matter how\ndespotic a government may be, it cannot punish them openly.\nTo punish them for such refusals, a government must itself\nirretrievably renounce reason and the good; whereas it assures men\nthat it serves only in the name of reason and of the good.\n\nWhat are the governments to do against these men?\n\nIndeed, the governments can kill off, for ever shut up in prisons\nand at hard labour their enemies, who wish by the exercise of\nviolence to overthrow them; they can bury in gold half of the\nmen, such as they may need, and bribe them; they can subject to\nthemselves millions of armed men, who will be ready to destroy all\nthe enemies of the governments. But what can they do with men who,\nnot wishing to destroy anything, nor to establish anything, wish\nonly for their own sakes, for the sake of their lives, to do nothing\nwhich is contrary to the Christian law, and so refuse to fulfil\nthe most common obligations, which are most indispensable to the\ngovernments?\n\nIf they were revolutionists, who preach violence and murder, and\nwho practise all these things, it would be easy to oppose them:\npart of them would be bribed, part deceived, part frightened into\nsubjection; and those who could not be bribed, or deceived, or\nfrightened, would be declared malefactors and enemies of society,\nwould be executed or locked up, and the crowd would applaud the\naction of the government. If they were some horrible sectarians who\npreached a peculiar faith, it would be possible, thanks to those\nsuperstitions of falsehood, which by them are mixed in with their\ndoctrine, to overthrow whatever truth there is in their faith. But\nwhat is to be done with men who preach neither revolution, nor any\nspecial religious dogmas, but only, because they do not wish to harm\nany one, refuse to take the oath of allegiance, to pay taxes, to\ntake part in court proceedings, in military service, and in duties\non which the whole structure of the government is based? What is\nto be done with such men? It is impossible to bribe them: the very\nrisk which they take shows their unselfishness. Nor can they be\ndeceived by claiming that God wants it so, because their refusal\nis based on the explicit, undoubted law of God, which is professed\nby the very men who wish to make them act contrary to it. Still\nless is it possible to intimidate them with threats, because the\nprivations and sufferings to which they are subjected for their\nfaith only strengthen their desire, and because it says distinctly\nin their law that God must be obeyed more than men, and that they\nshould not fear those who may ruin their bodies, but that which may\nruin both their bodies and their souls. Nor can they be executed or\nlocked up for ever. These men have a past, and friends, and their\nmanner of thinking and acting is known; all know them as meek, good,\npeaceful men, and it is impossible to declare them to be malefactors\nwho ought to be removed for the safety of society. The execution of\nmen who by all men are recognized to be good will only call forth\ndefenders of the refusal and commentators on it; and the causes of\nthe refusal need but be made clear, in order that it may become\nclear to all men that the causes which make these Christians refuse\nto comply with the demands of the state are the same for all other\nmen, and that all men ought to have done so long ago.\n\nIn the presence of the refusals of the Christians the governments\nare in a desperate plight. They see that the prophecy of\nChristianity is being fulfilled,--it tears asunder the fetters of\nthe fettered and sets free the men who lived in slavery, and they\nsee that this liberation will inevitably destroy those who keep\nothers in slavery. The governments see this; they know that their\nhours are numbered, and are unable to do anything. All they can do\nfor their salvation is to defer the hour of their ruin. This they\ndo, but their situation is none the less desperate.\n\nThe situation of the governments is like the situation of a\nconqueror who wants to save the city that is fired by its own\ninhabitants. He no sooner puts out the fire in one place than it\nbegins to burn in two other places; he no sooner gives way to the\nfire and breaks off what is burning in a large building, than even\nthis building begins to burn from two sides. These individual fires\nare still rare, but having started with a spark, they will not stop\nuntil everything is consumed.\n\nAnd just as the governments find themselves in such unprotected\nstraits in the presence of men who profess Christianity, and when\nbut very little is wanting for this force, which seems so powerful\nand which was reared through so many centuries, to fall to pieces,\nthe public leaders preach that it is not only unnecessary, but even\nharmful and immoral, for every individual to try and free himself\nfrom slavery. It is as though some people, to free a dammed up\nriver, should have all but cut through a ditch, when nothing but an\nopening is necessary for the water to flow into this ditch and do\nthe rest, and there should appear some people who would persuade\nthem that, rather than let off the water, they should construct\nabove the river a machine with buckets, which, drawing the water up\non one side, would drop it into the same river from the other side.\n\nBut the matter has gone too far: the governments feel their\nindefensibleness and weakness, and the men of the Christian\nconsciousness are awakening from their lethargy and are beginning to\nfeel their strength.\n\n\"I brought the fire upon earth,\" said Christ, \"and how I long for it\nto burn up!\"\n\nAnd this fire is beginning to burn up.\n\n\nX.\n\nChristianity in its true meaning destroys the state. Thus it was\nunderstood from the very beginning, and Christ was crucified for\nthis very reason, and thus it has always been understood by men who\nare not fettered by the necessity of proving the justification of\nthe Christian state. Only when the heads of the states accepted the\nexternal nominal Christianity did they begin to invent all those\nimpossible finely spun theories, according to which Christianity was\ncompatible with the state. But for every sincere and serious man of\nour time it is quite obvious that true Christianity--the teaching of\nhumility, of forgiveness of offences, of love--is incompatible with\nthe state, with its magnificence, its violence, its executions, and\nits wars. The profession of true Christianity not only excludes the\npossibility of recognizing the state, but even destroys its very\nfoundations.\n\nBut if this is so, and it is true that Christianity is incompatible\nwith the state, there naturally arises the question: \"What is more\nnecessary for the good of humanity, what more permanently secures\nthe good of men, the political form of life, or its destruction and\nthe substitution of Christianity in its place?\"\n\nSome men say that the state is most necessary for humanity, that\nthe destruction of the political form would lead to the destruction\nof everything worked out by humanity, that the state has been and\ncontinues to be the only form of the development of humanity, and\nthat all that evil which we see among the nations who live in the\npolitical form is not due to this form, but to the abuses, which\ncan be mended without destruction, and that humanity, without\nimpairing the political form, can develop and reach a high degree\nof well-being. And the men who think so adduce in confirmation of\ntheir opinion philosophic, historic, and even religious arguments,\nwhich to them seem incontrovertible. But there are men who assume\nthe opposite, namely, that, as there was a time when humanity\nlived without a political form, this form is only temporary, and\nthe time must arrive when men shall need a new form, and that this\ntime has arrived even now. And the men who think so also adduce\nin confirmation of their opinion philosophic, and historic, and\nreligious arguments, which also seem incontrovertible to them.\n\nIt is possible to write volumes in the defence of the first opinion\n(they have been written long ago, and there is still no end to\nthem), and there can be written much against it (though but lately\nbegun, many a brilliant thing has been written against it).\n\nIt is impossible to prove, as the defenders of the state claim, that\nthe destruction of the state will lead to a social chaos, mutual\nrapine, murder, and the destruction of all public institutions, and\nthe return of humanity to barbarism; nor can it be proved, as the\nopponents of the state claim, that men have already become so wise\nand good that they do not rob or kill one another, that they prefer\npeace to hostility, that they will themselves without the aid of the\nstate arrange everything they need, and that therefore the state\nnot only does not contribute to all this, but, on the contrary,\nunder the guise of defending men, exerts a harmful and bestializing\ninfluence upon them. It is impossible to prove either the one or\nthe other by means of abstract reflections. Still less can it be\nproved by experience, since the question consists in this, whether\nthe experiment is to be made or not. The question as to whether the\ntime has come for abolishing the state, or not, would be insoluble,\nif there did not exist another vital method for an incontestable\nsolution of the same.\n\nQuite independently of anybody's reflections as to whether the\nchicks are sufficiently matured for him to drive the hen away from\nthe nest and let the chicks out of their eggs, or whether they are\nnot yet sufficiently matured, the incontestable judges of the case\nwill be the chicks themselves, when, unable to find enough room in\ntheir eggs, they will begin to pick them with their bills, and will\nthemselves come out of them.\n\nThe same is true of the question whether the time for destroying the\npolitical form and for substituting another form has come, or not.\nIf a man, in consequence of the higher consciousness matured in him,\nis no longer able to comply with the demands of the state, no longer\nfinds room in it, and at the same time no longer is in need of the\npreservation of the political form, the question as to whether\nmen have matured for the change of the political form, or not, is\ndecided from an entirely different side, and just as incontestably\nas for the chick that has picked its shell, into which no power\nin the world can again return it, by the men themselves who have\noutgrown the state and who cannot be returned to it by any power in\nthe world.\n\n\"It is very likely that the state was necessary and even now is\nnecessary for all those purposes which you ascribe to it,\" says the\nman who has made the Christian life-conception his own, \"but all I\nknow is that, on the one hand, I no longer need the state, and, on\nthe other, I can no longer perform those acts which are necessary\nfor the existence of the state. Arrange for yourselves what you need\nfor your lives: I cannot prove either the common necessity, or the\ncommon harm of the state; all I know is what I need and what not,\nwhat I may do and what not. I know for myself that I do not need any\nseparation from the other nations, and so I cannot recognize my\nexclusive belonging to some one nation or state, and my subjection\nto any government; I know in my own case that I do not need all\nthose government offices and courts, which are the product of\nviolence, and so I cannot take part in any of them; I know in my own\ncase that I do not need to attack other nations and kill them, nor\ndefend myself by taking up arms, and so I cannot take part in wars\nand in preparations for them. It is very likely that there are some\npeople who cannot regard all that as necessary and indispensable. I\ncannot dispute with them,--all I know concerning myself, but that\nI know incontestably, is that I do not need it all and am not able\nto do it. I do not need it, and I cannot do it, not because I, my\npersonality, do not want it, but because He who has sent me into\nlife, and has given me the incontestable law for guidance in my\nlife, does not want it.\"\n\nNo matter what arguments men may adduce in proof of the danger\nof abolishing the power of the state and that this abolition may\nbeget calamities, the men who have outgrown the political form can\nno longer find their place in it. And, no matter what arguments\nmay be adduced to a man who has outgrown the political form, about\nits indispensableness, he cannot return to it, cannot take part\nin the affairs which are denied by his consciousness, just as the\nfull-grown chicks can no longer return into the shell which they\nhave outgrown.\n\n\"But even if this is so,\" say the defenders of the existing order,\n\"the abolition of the violence of state would be possible and\ndesirable only if all men became Christians. So long as this is not\nthe case, so long as among men who only call themselves Christians\nthere are men who are no Christians, evil men, who for the sake\nof their personal lust are prepared to do harm to others, the\nabolition of the power of state would not only fail to be a good\nfor all the rest, but would even increase their wretchedness. The\nabolition of the political form of life is undesirable, not only\nwhen there is a small proportion of true Christians, but even when\nall shall be Christians, while in their midst or all about them,\namong other nations, there shall remain non-Christians, because the\nnon-Christians will with impunity rob, violate, kill the Christians\nand make their life miserable. What will happen will be that the\nevil men will with impunity rule the good and do violence to them.\nAnd so the power of state must not be abolished until all the bad,\nrapacious men in the world are destroyed. And as this will not\nhappen for a long time to come, if at all, this power, in spite of\nthe attempts of individual Christians at emancipating themselves\nfrom the power of state, must be maintained for the sake of the\nmajority of men.\" Thus speak the defenders of the state. \"Without\nthe state the evil men do violence to the good and rule over them,\nbut the power of state makes it possible for the good to keep the\nevil in check,\" they say.\n\nBut, in asserting this, the defenders of the existing order of\nthings decide in advance the justice of the position which it is\nfor them to prove. In saying that without the power of state the\nevil men would rule over the good, they take it for granted that\nthe good are precisely those who at the present time have power,\nand the bad the same who are now subjugated. But it is precisely\nthis that has to be proved. This would be true only if in our world\ntook place what really does not take place, but is supposed to take\nplace, in China, namely, that the good are always in power, and\nthat, as soon as at the helm of the government stand men who are\nnot better than those over whom they rule, the citizens are obliged\nto depose them. Thus it is supposed to be in China, but in reality\nthis is not so, and cannot be so, because, in order to overthrow\nthe power of the violating government, it is not enough to have the\nright to do so,--one must also have the force. Consequently this\nis only assumed to be so even in China; but in our Christian world\nthis has never even been assumed. In our world there is not even any\nfoundation for assuming that better men or the best should rule, and\nnot those who have seized the power and retain it for themselves and\nfor their descendants. Better men are absolutely unable to seize the\npower and to retain it.\n\nIn order to get the power and retain it, it is necessary to love\npower; but love of power is not connected with goodness, but with\nqualities which are the opposite of goodness, such as pride,\ncunning, cruelty.\n\nWithout self-aggrandizement and debasement of others, without\nhypocrisy, deceit, prisons, fortresses, executions, murders, a power\ncan neither arise nor maintain itself.\n\n\"If the power of state be abolished, the more evil men will rule\nover the less evil ones,\" say the defenders of the state. But if\nthe Egyptians subjugated the Jews, the Persians the Egyptians, the\nMacedonians the Persians, the Romans the Greeks, the barbarians\nthe Romans, is it possible that all those who have subjugated were\nbetter than those whom they subjugated?\n\nAnd similarly, in the transference of the power in one state from\none set of persons to another, has the power always passed into the\nhands of those who were better? When Louis XVI. was deposed, and\nRobespierre and later Napoleon ruled, who did rule? Better or worse\nmen? And when did better men rule, when men from Versailles or from\nthe Commune were in power? or when Charles I. or Cromwell was at the\nhead of the government? or when Peter III. was Tsar or when he was\nkilled, and the sovereign was Catherine for one part of Russia and\nPugach\u00e9v for the other? Who was then evil and who good?\n\nAll men in power assert that their power is necessary in order that\nthe evil men may not do violence to the good, meaning by this that\nthey are those same good men, who protect others against the evil\nmen.\n\nBut to rule means to do violence, and to do violence means to do\nwhat the other man, on whom the violence is exerted, does not wish\nto have done to him, and what, no doubt, he who exerts the violence\nwould not wish to have done to himself; consequently, to rule means\nto do to another what we do not wish to have done to ourselves, that\nis, to do evil.\n\nTo submit means to prefer suffering to violence. But to prefer\nsuffering to violence means to be good, or at least less evil than\nthose who do to another what they do not wish to have done to\nthemselves.\n\nAnd so all the probabilities are in favour of the fact that not\nthose who are better than those over whom they rule, but, on the\ncontrary, those who are worse, have always been and even now are in\npower. There may also be worse men among those who submit to the\npower, but it cannot be that better men should rule over worse men.\n\nThis was impossible to assume in case of the pagan inexact\ndefinition of goodness; but with the Christian lucid and exact\ndefinition of goodness and evil, it is impossible to think so. If\nmore or less good men, more or less bad men, cannot be distinguished\nin the pagan world, the Christian conception of good and evil has\nso clearly defined the symptoms of the good and the evil, that they\ncan no longer be mistaken. According to Christ's teaching the good\nare those who humble themselves, suffer, do not resist evil with\nforce, forgive offences, love their enemies; the evil are those who\nexalt themselves, rule, struggle, and do violence to people, and\nso, according to Christ's teaching, there is no doubt as to where\nthe good are among the ruling and the subjugated. It even sounds\nridiculous to speak of ruling Christians.\n\nThe non-Christians, that is, those who base their lives on the\nworldly good, must always rule over Christians, over those who\nassume that their lives consist in the renunciation of this good.\n\nThus it has always been and it has become more and more definite,\nin proportion as the Christian teaching has been disseminated and\nelucidated.\n\nThe more the true Christianity spread and entered into the\nconsciousness of men, the less it was possible for Christians to be\namong the rulers, and the easier it grew for non-Christians to rule\nover Christians.\n\n\"The abolition of the violence of state at a time when not all men\nin society have become true Christians would have this effect, that\nthe bad would rule over the good and would with impunity do violence\nto them,\" say the defenders of the existing order of life.\n\n\"The bad will rule over the good and will do violence to them.\"\n\nBut it has never been different, and it never can be. Thus it has\nalways been since the beginning of the world, and thus it is now.\nThe bad always rule over the good and always do violence to them.\nCain did violence to Abel, cunning Jacob to trustful Esau, deceitful\nLaban to Jacob; Caiaphas and Pilate ruled over Christ, the Roman\nemperors ruled over a Seneca, an Epictetus, and good Romans who\nlived in their time. John IV. with his opr\u00edchniks, the drunken\nsyphilitic Peter with his fools, the harlot Catherine with her\nlovers, ruled over the industrious religious Russians of their time\nand did violence to them. William rules over the Germans, Stambulov\nover the Bulgarians, Russian officials over the Russian people. The\nGermans ruled over the Italians, now they rule over Hungarians and\nSlavs; the Turks have ruled over Greeks and Slavs; the English rule\nover Hindoos; the Mongolians rule over the Chinese.\n\nThus, whether the political violence be abolished or not, the\ncondition of the good men who are violated by the bad will not be\nchanged thereby.\n\nIt is absolutely impossible to frighten men with this, that the bad\nwill rule over the good, because what they are frightened with is\nprecisely what has always been and cannot be otherwise.\n\nThe whole pagan history of humanity consists of only those cases\nwhen the worse seized the power over the less bad, and, having\nseized it, maintained it by cruelties and cunning, and, proclaiming\nthemselves as guardians of justice and defenders of the good against\nthe bad, ruled over the good. As to the rulers' saying that, if it\nwere not for their power, the worse would do violence to the good,\nit means only this, that the violators in power do not wish to cede\nthis power to other violators, who may wish to take it from them.\nBut, in saying this, the rulers only give themselves away. They say\nthat their power, that is, violence, is necessary for the defence of\nmen against some other violators, or such as may still appear.[16]\n\n  [16] Comically striking in this respect is the na\u00efve assertion of\n  the Russian authorities in doing violence to other nationalities,\n  the Poles, Baltic Germans, Jews. The Russian government practises\n  extortion on its subjects, for centuries has not troubled itself\n  about the Little Russians in Poland, nor about the Letts in the\n  Baltic provinces, nor about the Russian peasants who have been\n  exploited by all manner of men, and suddenly it becomes a defender\n  of the oppressed against the oppressors, those very oppressors whom\n  it oppresses.--_Author's Note._\n\nThe exercise of violence is dangerous for the very reason that, as\nsoon as it is exercised, all the arguments adduced by the violators\ncan, not only with the same, but even with greater force, be applied\nagainst them. They speak of the past, and more frequently of the\nimaginary future of violence, but themselves without cessation\ncommit acts of violence. \"You say that men used to rob and kill\nothers, and you are afraid that men will rob and kill one another,\nif your power does not exist. That may be so or not, but your\nruining thousands of men in prisons, at hard labour, in fortresses,\nin exile; your ruining millions of families with your militarism,\nand destroying millions of people physically and morally, is not\nimaginary, but real violence, against which, according to your\nown statement, people ought to fight by exercising violence.\nConsequently, those evil men, against whom, according to your own\nreflection, it is absolutely necessary to exercise violence, are you\nyourselves,\" is what the violated ought to say to the violators, and\nthe non-Christians have always spoken and thought and acted in this\nmanner. If the violated are worse than those who exercise violence,\nthey attack them and try to overthrow them, and, under favourable\nconditions, do overthrow them, or, what is most usual, enter the\nranks of the violators and take part in their acts of violence.\n\nThus the very thing with which the defenders of the state frighten\nmen, that, if there did not exist a violating power, the bad\nwould be ruling over the good, is what without cessation has been\naccomplished in the life of humanity, and so the abolition of\npolitical violence can in no case be the cause of the increase of\nthe violence of the bad over the good.\n\nWhen the violence of the government is destroyed, acts of violence\nwill, probably, be committed by other men than before; but the sum\nof the violence will in no case be increased, simply because the\npower will pass from the hands of one set of men into those of\nanother.\n\n\"The violence of state will be stopped only when the bad men in\nsociety shall be destroyed,\" say the defenders of the existing\norder, meaning by this that, since there will always be bad men,\nviolence will never come to a stop. That would be true only if what\nthey assume actually existed, namely, that the violators are better,\nand that the only means for the emancipation of men from evil is\nviolence. In that case violence could, indeed, never be stopped.\nBut as this is not the case, and the very opposite is true, namely,\nthat it is not the better men who exercise violence against the\nbad, but the bad who do violence to the good, and that outside of\nviolence, which never puts a stop to evil, there is another means\nfor the abolition of violence, the assertion that violence will\nnever stop is not correct. Violence grows less and less, and must\nevidently stop, but not, as the defenders of the existing order\nimagine, because men who are subject to violence will in consequence\nof the influence exerted upon them by the governments become better\nand better (in consequence of this they will, on the contrary,\nalways become worse), but because, since all men are constantly\ngrowing better and better, even the worst men in power, growing less\nand less evil, will become sufficiently good to be incapable of\nexercising violence.\n\nThe forward movement of humanity takes place, not in this way, that\nthe best elements of society, seizing the power and using violence\nagainst those men who are in their power, make them better, as the\nconservatives and revolutionists think, but, in the first and chief\nplace, in that all men in general unswervingly and without cessation\nmore and more consciously acquire the Christian life-conception, and\nin the second place, in that, even independently of the conscious\nspiritual activity of men, men unconsciously, in consequence of the\nvery process of seizure of power by one set of men and transference\nto another set, and involuntarily are brought to a more Christian\nrelation to life. This process takes place in the following manner:\nthe worst elements of society, having seized the power and being in\npossession of it, under the influence of the sobering quality which\nalways accompanies it, become less and less cruel and less able to\nmake use of the cruel forms of violence, and, in consequence of\nthis, give place to others, in whom again goes on the process of\nsoftening and, so to speak, unconscious Christianization.\n\nWhat takes place in men is something like the process of boiling.\nAll the men of the majority of the non-Christian life-conception\nstrive after power and struggle to obtain it. In this struggle the\nmost cruel and coarse, and the least Christian elements of society,\nby doing violence to the meeker, more Christian people, who are more\nsensible to the good, rise to the higher strata of society. And\nhere with the men in this condition there takes place what Christ\npredicted, saying: \"Woe unto you that are rich, that are full now,\nand when all are glorified.\" What happens is that men in power,\nwho are in possession of the consequences of power,--of glory and\nwealth,--having reached certain different aims, which they have set\nto themselves in their desires, recognize their vanity and return to\nthe position which they left. Charles V., John IV., Alexander I.,\nhaving recognized all the vanity and evil of power, renounced it,\nbecause they saw all its evil and were no longer able calmly to make\nuse of violence as of a good deed, as they had done before.\n\nBut it is not only a Charles and an Alexander who travel on this\nroad and recognize the vanity and evil of power: through this\nunconscious process of softening of manners passes every man who has\nacquired the power toward which he has been striving, not only every\nminister, general, millionaire, merchant, but also every head of an\noffice, who has obtained the place he has been ten years waiting\nfor, every well-to-do peasant, who has laid by a hundred or two\nhundred roubles.\n\nThrough this process pass not only separate individuals, but also\naggregates of men, whole nations.\n\nThe temptations of power and of everything which it gives, of\nwealth, honours, luxurious life, present themselves as a worthy aim\nfor the activity of men only so long as the power is not attained;\nbut the moment a man attains it, they reveal their emptiness and\nslowly lose their force of attraction, like clouds, which have form\nand beauty only from a distance: one needs but enter them, in order\nthat that which seemed beautiful in them should disappear.\n\nMen who have attained power and wealth, frequently the very men who\nhave gained them, more frequently their descendants, stop being so\nanxious for power and so cruel in attaining it.\n\nHaving through experience, under the influence of Christianity,\nlearned the vanity of the fruits of violence, men, at times in\none, at others in a few generations, lose those vices which are\nevoked by the passion for power and wealth, and, becoming less\ncruel, do not hold their position, and are pushed out of power\nby other, less Christian, more evil men, and return to strata of\nsociety lower in position, but higher in morality, increasing the\naverage of the Christian consciousness of all men. But immediately\nafter them other, worse, coarser, less Christian elements of\nsociety rise to the top, again are subjected to the same process as\ntheir predecessors, and again in one or a few generations, having\nexperienced the vanity of the fruits of violence and being permeated\nby Christianity, descend to the level of the violated, and again\nmake place for new, less coarse violators than the preceding ones,\nbut coarser than those whom they oppress. Thus, despite the fact\nthat the power remains externally the same that it was, there is\nwith every change of men in power a greater increase in the number\nof men who by experience are brought to the necessity of accepting\nthe Christian life-conception, and with every change the coarsest,\nmost cruel, and least Christian of all enter into the possession of\nthe power, but they are such as are constantly less coarse and cruel\nand more Christian than their predecessors.\n\nViolence selects and attracts the worst elements of society, works\nthem over, and, improving and softening them, returns them to\nsociety.\n\nSuch is the process by means of which Christianity, in spite of\nthe violence which is exercised by the power of the state and which\nimpedes the forward movement of humanity, takes possession of men\nmore and more. Christianity is penetrating into the consciousness of\nmen, not only despite the violence exerted by the power, but even by\nmeans of it.\n\nAnd thus the assertion of the defenders of the political structure\nthat, if the violence of the state be abolished, the evil men will\nrule over the good, not only does not prove that this (the ruling\nof the bad over the good) is dangerous, for it is precisely what is\ntaking place now, but, on the contrary, proves that the violence\nof the state, which gives the bad a chance to rule over the good,\nis the very evil which it is desirable to destroy, and which is\ncontinuously destroyed by life itself.\n\n\"But even if it were true that the violence of the state will come\nto an end when those who are in power shall become Christian enough\nto renounce the power of their own choice, and there shall no longer\nbe found any men who are prepared to take their places, and if it is\ntrue that this process is taking place,\" say the defenders of the\nexisting order, \"when will that be? If eighteen hundred years have\npassed and there are still so many volunteers who are ready to rule,\nand so few who are ready to submit, there is no probability that\nthis will happen very soon, or ever at all.\n\n\"If there are, as there have been among all men, such as prefer to\nrefuse power rather than to use it, the supply of men who prefer\nruling to submitting is so great that it is hard to imagine the time\nwhen it shall be exhausted.\n\n\"For this process of the Christianization of all men to take place,\nfor all men one after another to pass over from the pagan concept of\nlife to the Christian, and voluntarily renounce power and wealth,\nand for no one to desire to make use of them, it is necessary that\nnot only all those rude, semisavage men, who are entirely incapable\nof adopting Christianity and following it, and of whom there are\nalways such a great number amidst every Christian society, but also\nall savage and non-Christian nations in general, of whom there are\nso many outside the Christian society, should be made Christian. And\nso, even if we admit that the process of Christianization will some\nday be accomplished in the case of all men, we must assume, judging\nfrom how much the matter has advanced in eighteen hundred years,\nthat this will happen in several times eighteen hundred years,--and\nso it is impossible and useless to think now of the impossible\nabolition of power, and all we should think of is that the power\nshould be vested in the best of hands.\"\n\nThus retort the defenders of the existing order. And this reflection\nwould be quite correct if the transition of men from one concept of\nlife to another took place only by force of the one process where\nevery man learns individually and one after another by experience\nthe vanity of power, and by an inner way reaches the Christian\ntruths.\n\nThis process takes place without cessation, and by this way men one\nafter another pass over to the side of Christianity.\n\nBut men pass over to the side of Christianity not by this inner path\nalone; there is also an external method, with which the gradualness\nof this transition is destroyed.\n\nThe transition of men from one structure of life to another does not\nalways take place in the manner in which the sand is poured out from\nan hour-glass,--one kernel of sand after another, from the first\nto the last,--but rather like water pouring into a vessel that is\nimmerged in the water, when it at first admits the water evenly and\nslowly at one side, and then, from the weight of the water already\ntaken in, suddenly dips down fast and almost all at once receives\nall the water which it can hold.\n\nThe same occurs with societies of men at the transition from one\nconcept, and so from one structure of life, to another. It is only\nat first that one after another slowly and gradually receives the\nnew truth by an inner way and follows it through life; but after a\ncertain diffusion it is no longer received in an internal manner,\nnor gradually, but all at once, almost involuntarily.\n\nAnd so there is no truth in the reflection of the defenders of the\nexisting order that, if in the course of eighteen hundred years only\na small part of mankind has passed over to the side of Christianity,\nit will take several times eighteen hundred years before the rest\nof humanity will pass over to its side; there is no truth in it,\nbecause with this reflection no attention is paid to any other than\nthe internal attainment of the truth, and the transition from one\nform of life to another.\n\nThis other method of attaining a newly revealed truth and transition\nto a new structure of life consists in this, that men do not attain\nthe truth simply because they perceive it with a prophetic feeling\nor experience of life, but also because at a certain stage of the\ndissemination of the truth all men who stand on a lower stage of\ndevelopment accept it all at once, out of confidence in those who\nhave accepted it in an internal way, and apply it to life.\n\nEvery new truth, which changes the composition of human life and\nmoves humanity forward, is at first accepted by only a very small\nnumber of men, who understand it in an internal way. The rest, who\nout of confidence had accepted the previous truth, on which the\nexisting order is based, always oppose the dissemination of the new\ntruth.\n\nBut since, in the first place, men do not stand still, but\nincessantly move forward, comprehending the truth more and more,\nand approaching it with their lives, and, in the second place, all\nof them, through their age, education, and race, are predisposed to\na gradation of men, from those who are most capable to comprehend\nnewly revealed truths in an internal way to those who are least\ncapable to do so, the men who stand nearest to those who have\nattained the truth in an internal way one after another, at first\nafter long periods of time, and then more and more frequently,\npass over to the side of the new truth, and the number of men who\nrecognize the new truth grows larger and larger, and the truth grows\nall the time more and more comprehensible.\n\nThe greater the number of men who attain the truth and the more the\ntruth is comprehensible, the more confidence is evoked in the rest\nof the men, who in their ability to comprehend stand on a lower\nstage, and the easier does the attainment of the truth grow for\nthem, and the greater is the number who make the truth their own.\nThus the movement keeps accelerating and accelerating, expanding and\nexpanding, like a snowball, until there germinates a public opinion\nwhich is in accord with the new truth, and the remaining mass of men\nno longer singly, but in a body, under the pressure of this force,\npasses over to the side of the new truth, and a new structure of\nlife is established, which is in agreement with this truth.\n\nMen who pass over to the side of a new truth which has reached a\ncertain degree of dissemination always do so all at once, in a mass,\nand they are like that ballast with which every vessel is laden all\nat once for its stable equilibrium and regular course. If there\nwere no ballast, the vessel would not stay in the water, and would\nbe changing its course with the least change in conditions. This\nballast, though at first it seems to be superfluous and even to\nretard the ship's motion, is a necessary condition of its regular\nmotion.\n\nThe same is true of that mass of men who, not one by one, but\nalways all together, under the influence of a new public opinion,\npass over from one concept of life to another. By its inertia this\nmass always retards the rapid, frequent transitions, unverified by\nhuman wisdom, from one structure of life to another, and for a long\ntime retains every truth which, verified by a long experience of a\nstruggle, has entered into the consciousness of humanity.\n\nAnd so there is no truth in the reflection that, if only a small,\na very small, part of humanity has attained the Christian truth in\nthe course of eighteen centuries, the whole of humanity will attain\nit only in many, many times eighteen hundred years, that is, that\nit is so far away that we of the present time need not even think\nof it. It is untrue, because the men who stand on a lower stage of\ndevelopment, those very nations and people whom the defenders of the\nexisting order represent as a hindrance for the realization of the\nChristian structure of life, are the same people who always at once,\nin a mass, pass over to the side of a truth which is accepted by\npublic opinion.\n\nTherefore the change in the life of humanity, the one in consequence\nof which men in power will renounce the power and among the men\nwho submit to power there will not be found such as are desirous\nof seizing it, will not arrive when all men one after another\nto the very last shall have consciously attained the Christian\nlife-conception, but when there arises a definite, easily\ncomprehensible Christian public opinion which will conquer all that\ninert mass that is unable by an internal way to attain the truths\nand so is always subject to the effect of public opinion.\n\nBut public opinion to arise and be diffused does not need hundreds\nand thousands of years, and has the property of acting infectiously\nupon people and with great rapidity embracing large numbers of men.\n\n\"But if it is even true,\" the defenders of the existing order will\nsay, \"that public opinion, at a certain stage of its definiteness\nand lucidity, is able to make the inert mass of men outside the\nChristian societies,--the non-Christian nations,--and corrupt and\ncoarse men, who live within the societies, submit to it, what are\nthe symptoms that this Christian public opinion has arisen and may\ntake the place of violence?\n\n\"It is not right for us to take the risk and reject violence,\nby which the existing order is maintained, and to depend on the\nimpalpable and indefinite force of public opinion, leaving it to the\nsavage men outside and inside the societies with impunity to rob,\nkill, and in every way violate the Christians.\n\n\"If with the aid of the power we with difficulty eddy away from the\nnon-Christian elements, which are ever ready to inundate us and\ndestroy all the progress of the Christian civilization, is there,\nin the first place, a probability that public opinion can take the\npart of this force and make us secure, and, in the second, how are\nwe to find that moment when public opinion has become so strong\nthat it can take the place of the power? To remove the power and to\ndepend for our self-defence on nothing but public opinion means to\nact as senselessly as would a man who in a menagerie would throw\naway his weapons and let out all the lions and tigers from their\ncages, depending on the fact that the animals in the cages and in\nthe presence of heated rods appeared tame.\n\n\"And so the men who have the power, who by fate or by God are placed\nin the position of the ruling, have no right to risk the ruin of all\nthe progress of civilization, only because they would like to make\nan experiment as to whether public opinion can take the place of the\nprotection of power, and so must not give up their power.\"\n\nThe French writer, Alphonse Karr, now forgotten, has said\nsomewhere, when speaking of the impossibility of abolishing capital\npunishment, \"_Que Messieurs les assassins commencent par nous donner\nl'exemple_,\" and many times after that have I heard the repetition\nof this joke by men who thought that with these words they gave a\nconclusive and clever argument against the abolition of capital\npunishment. And yet it is impossible more lucidly to express\nall that falseness of the argument of those who think that the\ngovernments cannot give up their power so long as men are capable of\nit, than by this very joke.\n\n\"Let the assassins,\" say the defenders of the violence of state,\n\"set us the example, by abolishing murder, and then we shall abolish\nit.\" But the assassins say the same, only with greater right. The\nassassins say, \"Let those who have undertaken to teach and guide us\nset us the example of abolishing murder, and then we will follow\nthem.\" And they do not say so for a joke, but in all seriousness,\nbecause such indeed is the state of affairs.\n\n\"We cannot desist from violence, because we are on all sides\nsurrounded by violators.\"\n\nNothing in our day interferes more than this false consideration\nwith the forward motion of humanity and the establishment among it\nof that structure of life which is already proper for its present\nconsciousness.\n\nThe men in power are convinced that it is only violence that moves\nand guides men, and so they boldly use violence for the maintenance\nof the present order of things. But the existing order is not\nmaintained through violence, but through public opinion, the effect\nof which is impaired by violence.\n\nThus the activity of violence weakens and impairs precisely what it\nintends to maintain.\n\nViolence, in the best case, if it does not pursue only the personal\nends of men in power, always denies and condemns by the one\nimmovable form of the law what for the most part has been denied and\ncondemned before by public opinion, but with this difference, that,\nwhile public opinion denies and condemns all acts which are contrary\nto the moral law, embracing in its condemnation the most varied\npropositions, the law which is supported by violence condemns and\npersecutes only a certain, very narrow order of acts, thus, as it\nwere, justifying all the acts of the same order which have not\nentered into its definition. Public opinion has ever since the time\nof Moses considered avarice, debauchery, and cruelty to be evil,\nand has condemned them; and this public opinion denies and condemns\nevery kind of a manifestation of avarice,--not only the acquisition\nof another man's property by means of violence, deceit, and cunning,\nbut also a cruel usufruct of the same; it condemns every kind of\ndebauchery, be it fornication with a concubine, or a slave, a\ndivorced wife, or even one's own wife; it condemns every cruelty\nwhich is expressed in assaults, in bad treatment, in the murder, not\nonly of men, but also of animals. But the law, which is based on\nviolence, prosecutes only certain forms of avarice, such as theft,\nrascality, and certain forms of debauchery and cruelty, such as the\nviolation of marital fidelity, murders, crippling,--therefore, as\nit were, permitting all those phases of avarice, debauchery, and\ncruelty which do not fit in with the narrow definition, which is\nsubject to misinterpretations.\n\nBut not only does violence distort public opinion,--it also\nproduces in men that pernicious conviction that men are not moved\nby spiritual force, which is the source of every forward movement\nof humanity, but by violence,--that very action which not only does\nnot bring people nearer to truth, but always removes them from it.\nThis delusion is pernicious in that it compels men to neglect the\nfundamental force of their life,--their spiritual activity,--and to\ntransfer all their attention and energy to the superficial, idle,\nand for the most part harmful, activity of violence.\n\nThis delusion is like the one men would be in if they wished to make\na locomotive move by turning its wheels with their hands, forgetting\nentirely that the prime cause of its motion is the expansion of\nsteam and not the motion of the wheels. Men who would turn the\nwheels with their hands and with levers would produce nothing but\na semblance of motion, in the meantime bending the wheels and\ninterfering with the possibility of the locomotive's real motion.\n\nIt is this that men do when they want to move men by means of\nexternal violence.\n\nMen say that a Christian life without violence cannot be\nestablished, because there are savage nations outside of Christian\nsociety,--in Africa, in Asia (some people represent the Chinese as\nsuch a peril for our civilization),--and there are such savage,\ncorrupt, and, according to the new theory of heredity, confirmed\ncriminals amidst Christian societies; and that violence is needed\nfor the purpose of keeping either from destroying our civilization.\n\nBut those savage men, outside and within the societies, with whom we\nfrighten ourselves and others, have never submitted to violence, and\nare not even now conquered by it.\n\nNations have never subjugated other nations by violence alone.\nIf a nation which subjugated another stood on a lower stage of\ndevelopment, there was always repeated the phenomenon that it did\nnot introduce its structure of life by means of violence, but,\non the contrary, always submitted to the structure of life which\nexisted in the conquered nation. If a nation, crushed by force, is\nsubjugated or close to subjugation, it is so only through public\nopinion, and by no means through violence, which, on the contrary,\nprovokes the nation more and more.\n\nIf men have ever been subjugated by whole nations to a new religious\nconfession, and by whole nations have been baptized or have passed\nover to Mohammedanism, these transformations did not take place\nbecause men in power compelled them to do so (violence has, on the\ncontrary, more frequently encouraged the movements in the opposite\ndirection), but because public opinion compelled them to do so; but\nthe nations that were compelled by force to accept the faiths of\ntheir conquerors have never accepted them.\n\nThe same is true in respect to those savage elements which exist\nwithin the societies: it is not the increase nor the decrease of the\nseverity of punishments, nor the change of prisons, nor the increase\nof the police, that diminish or increase the number of crimes,--it\nis changed only in consequence of the change in public opinion. No\nseverities have eradicated duels and vendettas in some countries.\nNo matter how much the Circassians may be punished for theft, they\ncontinue to steal out of bravado, because not one maiden will marry\na man who has not shown his daring, by stealing a horse, or at least\na sheep. If men shall stop fighting duels and Circassians shall stop\nstealing, this will not be so because they are afraid of punishment\n(the fear of being punished only increases the charm of the daring),\nbut because public opinion will be changed. The same is true in all\nother crimes. Violence can never destroy what is accepted by public\nopinion. On the contrary, public opinion need only be diametrically\nopposed to violence to destroy its every action, as has always been\nthe case with every martyrdom.\n\nWe do not know what would happen if no violence were exerted against\nhostile nations and criminal elements of society. But that the\nemployment of violence at the present time does not subjugate either\nof them, that we know from protracted experience.\n\nIndeed, how can we subjugate by force the nations whose whole\neducation, all whose traditions, even religious teaching, leads\nthem to see the highest virtue in a struggle with their enslavers\nand in striving after liberty? And how are we forcibly to eradicate\ncrimes in the midst of our societies, when what by the governments\nare considered to be crimes are considered to be virtues by public\nopinion. It is possible by means of violence to destroy such\nnations and such men, as is indeed done, but it is impossible to\nsubjugate them.\n\nThe judge of everything, the fundamental force which moves men and\nnations, has always been the one invisible, impalpable force,--the\nresultant of all the spiritual forces of a certain aggregate of men\nand of all humanity, which is expressed in public opinion.\n\nViolence only weakens this force, retards, and distorts it, and puts\nin its place another activity, which is not only not useful, but\neven harmful for the forward movement of humanity.\n\nTo subjugate to Christianity all the wild people outside the\nChristian world,--all the Zulus, Manchurians, and Chinese, whom\nmany consider to be wild,--and the savages within the Christian\nworld, there is one, only one means,--the dissemination among these\nnations of a Christian public opinion, which is established only\nthrough a Christian life, Christian acts, Christian examples. And so\nin order to conquer the nations which have remained unconquered by\nChristianity, the men of our time, who possess one, and only one,\nmeans for this purpose, do precisely the opposite of what might\nattain their end.\n\nTo conquer to Christianity the wild nations, who do not touch us\nand who do not in any way provoke us to oppress them, we--instead\nof leaving them first of all alone, and, in case of necessity or\nof a wish to get in closer relations with them, acting upon them\nonly through a Christian relation to them, through the Christian\nteaching as proved by truly Christian acts of suffering, humility,\nabstinence, purity, brotherhood, love--begin by this, that we open\namong them new markets for our commerce, with nothing but our\nadvantage in view, seize their land, that is, rob them, sell them\nwine, tobacco, opium, that is, corrupt them, and establish among\nthem our order, teach them violence and all its methods, that is,\nthe following of nothing but the animal law of struggle, below\nwhich no man can descend, and we do everything which can be done\nin order to conceal from them whatever of Christianity there is in\nus. And after that we send to them about two dozen missionaries,\nwho prattle some hypocritical ecclesiastic absurdities and, in the\nshape of incontrovertible proofs of the impossibility of applying\nthe Christian truths to life, adduce these our experiments at the\nChristianization of the savages.\n\nThe same is true of the so-called criminals, who live within our\nsocieties. To subjugate these men to Christianity, there is but\none, the only way,--the Christian public opinion, which can be\nestablished among these men only by means of the true Christian\nteaching, confirmed by a true, Christian example of life.\n\nAnd so, to preach this Christian teaching and confirm it by a\nChristian example, we establish among these people agonizing\nprisons, guillotines, gallows, capital punishments, preparations\nfor murder, for which we use all our strength; we establish for\nthe common people idolatrous doctrines, which are to stupefy them;\nwe establish the governmental sale of intoxicants,--wine, tobacco,\nopium; we establish even prostitution; we give the land to those who\ndo not need it; we establish spectacles of senseless luxury amidst\nwretchedness; we destroy every possibility of every semblance of\na Christian public opinion; we cautiously destroy the established\nChristian public opinion,--and then we quote these very men, who\nhave carefully been corrupted by ourselves, and whom we lock up,\nlike wild beasts, in places from which they cannot get away, and in\nwhich they grow more bestial still, or whom we kill, as examples\nof the impossibility of acting upon them otherwise than through\nviolence.\n\nWhat takes place is like what happens when conscientious ignorant\nphysicians place a patient who has been cured by the force of Nature\nunder most unhygienic conditions and stuff him full of poisonous\nmedicines, and then claim that it was only thanks to their hygiene\nand care that the patient did not die, whereas the sick man would\nhave been well long ago, if they had left him alone.\n\nViolence, which is put forth as the instrument for maintaining the\nChristian structure of life, not only does not produce this effect,\nbut, on the contrary, prevents the social structure from being what\nit could and should be. The social structure is such as it is, not\nthanks to violence, but in spite of it.\n\nAnd so there is no truth in the assertion of the defenders of\nthe existing order, that, if violence barely keeps the evil\nnon-Christian elements of humanity from attacking us, the abolition\nof violence and the substitution of public opinion for it will\nnot protect humanity. It is not true, because violence does not\nprotect humanity, but, on the contrary, deprives humanity of the\none possibility of a true protection through the establishment and\ndiffusion of the Christian public opinion as regards the existing\norder of life. Only with the abolition of violence will Christian\npublic opinion cease to be corrupt, and receive the possibility\nof an unimpeded diffusion, and men will not direct their strength\ntoward what they do not need, but toward the one spiritual force\nwhich moves them.\n\n\"But how can we reject the visible, palpable protection of the\npoliceman with his revolver, and depend on something invisible,\nimpalpable,--the public opinion? Does it still exist, or not? Above\nall else, we know the order of things in which we live. Be it good\nor bad, we know its defects and are used to it; we know how to act,\nwhat to do under present conditions; but what will happen when we\nreject them and depend on something invisible, impalpable, and\nentirely unknown?\" And the uncertainty upon which men enter, when\nrejecting the known order of things, seems terrible to them.\n\nIt is all very well to be afraid of the uncertainty, when our\nposition is firm and secure; but our position is not only not\nsecure,--we know for certain that we are standing on the brink of\nperdition.\n\nIf we have to be afraid of something, let us be afraid of what is\nreally terrible, and not of what we only imagine to be terrible.\n\nIn our fear to make an effort to tear ourselves away from the\nconditions which ruin us, only because the future is not quite\ncertain to us, we resemble the passengers of a sinking ship, who,\nfor fear of stepping into a boat which is to take them to the shore,\nretreat to their cabins and refuse to come out from them; or those\nsheep which, out of fear of the fire which has enveloped the whole\nyard, press close under the penthouses and do not walk through the\nopen gates.\n\nHow can we, who are standing on the threshold of a war of\ninner revolutions, which is terrifying by its wretchedness and\ndestructiveness, and in comparison with which, as those who are\npreparing it say, the terrors of the year '93 will be play, speak\nof a danger which is threatened us by the Dahomeans, the Zulus,\netc., who live far, far away, and do not think of attacking us, and\nby those few thousands of robbers, thieves, and murderers, whom we\nourselves have stupefied and corrupted, and whose number is not\nat all diminishing as the result of all our courts, prisons, and\ncapital punishments?\n\nBesides, this fear of the abolition of the visible protection of\nthe policeman is pre\u00ebminently a fear of city people, that is, of\npeople who live under abnormal and artificial conditions. Men who\nlive under normal conditions of life, not amidst cities, but amidst\nNature, struggling with it, live without this protection and know\nhow little violence can protect them against the actual dangers with\nwhich they are surrounded. In this fear there is something morbid,\nwhich depends mainly on those false conditions under which many of\nus live and have grown up.\n\nAn alienist told me how one summer day he was accompanied by his\ninsane patients as far as the gate of the hospital which he was\nleaving. \"Come with me to the city,\" the doctor proposed to them.\nThe patients agreed to it, and a small crowd followed the doctor.\nBut the farther they proceeded along the street, where took place\nthe free motion of sound men, the more did they feel timid, and\nthe more did they press close to the doctor, retarding his walk.\nFinally, they all began to ask him to take them back to the\nhospital, to their senseless, but habitual mode of life, to their\nguards, their blows, their long sleeves, their solitary cells.\n\nEven thus men press close and hanker after their senseless structure\nof life, their factories, courts, prisons, capital punishments,\nwars, though Christianity calls them to freedom, to the free,\nrational life of the future, the imminent age.\n\nMen say, \"By what shall we be made secure, when the existing order\nis destroyed? What will the new orders be which will take the place\nof those of the present time, and in what will they consist? So long\nas we do not know how our life will be composed, we shall not move\non or budge from our place.\"\n\nThis demand is what the explorer of new countries might put forth,\nin demanding a detailed description of the country into which he is\nentering.\n\nIf the life of the individual man, in passing from one age to\nanother, were fully known to him, he would have no reason for\nliving. The same is true of the life of humanity: if it had a\nprogramme of the life which awaits it as it enters upon its new age,\nthis would be the surest symptom that it is not living, does not\nmove on, but is whirling about in one spot.\n\nThe conditions of the new structure of life cannot be known to us,\nbecause they have to be worked out by ourselves. In this alone does\nlife consist, namely, in recognizing the unknown and conforming our\nactivity to this new cognition.\n\nIn this does the life of every individual and the life of human\nsocieties and of humanity consist.\n\n\nXI.\n\nThe condition of Christian humanity, with its prisons, hard labour,\ngallows, with its factories, accumulations of capital, with\nits taxes, churches, saloons, houses of ill fame, ever growing\narmaments, and millions of stupefied men, who are ready, like\nchained dogs, to thrust themselves upon those the masters may set\nthem on, would be terrible if it were the product of violence,\nwhereas it is above all the product of public opinion. But what is\nestablished by public opinion not only can be, but actually is,\ndestroyed by it.\n\nHundreds of millions in money, tens of millions of disciplined men,\nimplements of destruction of wonderful power, with an organization\nwhich of late has been carried to the highest degree of perfection,\nwith a whole army of men whose calling it is to deceive and\nhypnotize the masses, and all this, by means of electricity, which\nannihilates space, subjected to men, who not only consider such a\nstructure of society to be advantageous for them, but even such\nthat without it they would inevitably perish, and who, therefore,\nuse every effort of their minds in order to maintain it,--what an\ninvincible force, one would think!\n\nAnd yet, one needs but get a conception of what it all tends to and\nwhat no one can keep back,--that among men there will be established\na Christian public opinion, with the same force and universality\nas the pagan public opinion, and that it will take the place of\nthe pagan one, that the majority of men will be just as ashamed of\nall participation in violence and its exploitation as men are now\nashamed of rascality, stealing, beggary, cowardice, and immediately\nthis complex and apparently powerful structure of life falls of its\nown accord, without any struggle. It is not necessary for anything\nnew to enter into the consciousness of men, but only for the mist to\ndisappear, which conceals from men the true meaning of some acts of\nviolence, in order that this may happen and the growing Christian\npublic opinion should get the better of the obsolescent pagan public\nopinion, which admitted and justified acts of violence. All that\nis needed is that men should feel as much ashamed of doing acts of\nviolence, of taking part in them, and exploiting them, as it is now\na disgrace to pass for a rascal, a thief, a coward, a beggar. And it\nis precisely this that is beginning to happen. We do not notice it,\njust as men do not notice any motion, when they move together with\neverything surrounding them.\n\nIt is true, the structure of life in its main features remains as\nviolent in nature as it was one hundred years ago, and not only the\nsame, but in some relations, especially in the preparations for war\nand in the wars themselves, it appears to be even more cruel; but\nthe germinating Christian public opinion, which at a certain stage\nof its development is to change the whole pagan structure of life,\nis beginning to be active. The dried-up tree stands apparently as\nfirm as before,--it even looks firmer, because it is rougher,--but\nit is already weakened at the pith and is getting ready to fall.\nThe same is true of the present structure of life, which is based\non violence. The external condition of men is the same: some are\nthe violators, as before, and others are the violated; but the view\nof the violators and the violated upon the meaning and worth of the\nposition of either has changed.\n\nThe violating people, that is, those who take part in the\ngovernment, and those who make use of the violence, that is, the\nrich, no longer represent, as formerly, the flower of society and\nthe ideal of human well-being and grandeur, toward which all the\nviolated used to strive. Now very frequently it is not so much the\nviolated who strive after the position of the violators and try to\nimitate them, as the violators, who frequently of their own free\nwill renounce the advantages of their position, choose the condition\nof the violated, and try in simplicity of life to emulate the\nviolated.\n\nTo say nothing of the now openly despised occupations and offices,\nsuch as those of spies, agents of secret police, usurers,\nsaloon-keepers, a large number of occupations of violators,\nwhich formerly used to be considered respectable, such as those\nof policemen, courtiers, members of courts, the administration,\nthe clergy, the military, monopolists, bankers, not only are\nnot considered by all to be desirable, but are even condemned\nby a certain most respectable circle of men. There are now men\nwho voluntarily renounce these positions, which heretofore were\nconsidered to be above reproach, and who prefer less advantageous\npositions, which are not connected with violence.\n\nIt is not only men of the state, but also rich men, who, not from a\nreligious feeling, as used to be the case, but only from a peculiar\nsensitiveness for the germinating public opinion, refuse to receive\ntheir inherited fortunes, considering it just to use only so much as\nthey earn by their own labour.\n\nThe conditions of the participant in the government and of the rich\nman no longer present themselves, as they presented themselves\nformerly and even now present themselves among the non-Christian\nnations, as unquestionably honourable and worthy of respect and as\ndivine blessings. Very sensitive, moral men (they are for the most\npart the most highly cultured) avoid these conditions and prefer\nmore modest ones, which are independent of violence.\n\nThe best young men, at an age when they are not yet corrupted\nby life and when they choose a career, prefer the activities of\nphysicians, technologists, teachers, artists, writers, even simply\nof agriculturists, who live by their own labour, to positions in\ncourts, in the administration, in the church, and in the army, which\nare paid by the government, or the positions of men who live on\ntheir own incomes.\n\nThe majority of monuments which are now erected are no longer in\ncommemoration of men of state, of generals, and less certainly not\nof the rich, but of the learned, of artists, of inventors, of men\nwho have not only had nothing in common with the governments, or\nwith the authorities, but who frequently have struggled against\nthem. It is not so much men of state and rich men, as learned men\nand artists, who are extolled in poetry, represented in plastic art,\nand honoured with festive jubilees.\n\nThe best men of our time tend toward these most honoured positions,\nand so the circle from which the men of state and the rich come is\ngrowing smaller and smaller, so that in intellect, culture, and\nespecially in moral qualities, the men who now stand at the head of\ngovernments, and the rich no longer represent, as in olden times,\nthe flower of society, but, on the contrary, stand below the average.\n\nAs in Russia and in Turkey, so in America and in France, no matter\nhow much the governments may change their officials, the majority\nof them are selfish and venal men, who stand on so low a level of\nmorality that they do not satisfy even those low demands of simple\nintegrity which the governments make upon them. We now frequently\nget to hear the na\u00efve regrets of men of state, because the best men\nby some strange accident, as they think, are always in the hostile\ncamp. It is as though men should complain that by a strange accident\nit is always men with little refinement, who are not particularly\ngood, that become hangmen.\n\nThe majority of rich men, similarly, in our time are no longer\ncomposed of the most refined and cultured men of society, as used\nto be the case, but of coarse accumulators of wealth, who are\ninterested only in their enrichment, for the most part by dishonest\nmeans, or of degenerating descendants of these accumulators, who not\nonly do not play any prominent part in society, but in the majority\nof cases are subject to universal contempt.\n\nNot only is the circle of men, from which the servants of the\ngovernment and the rich men are chosen, growing all the time\nsmaller and smaller, and more and more debased, but these men\nthemselves no longer ascribe to the positions which they hold their\nformer significance, and frequently, being ashamed of them, to\nthe disadvantage of the cause which they serve, neglect to carry\nout what by their position they are called upon to do. Kings and\nemperors have the management of hardly anything, hardly ever have\nthe courage to make internal changes and to enter into new external\npolitical conditions, but for the most part leave the solution of\nthese questions to state institutions or to public opinion. All\ntheir duties reduce themselves to being the representatives of state\nunity and supremacy. But even this duty they are performing worse\nand worse. The majority of them not only do not keep themselves\nin their former inaccessible grandeur, but, on the contrary, are\nbecoming more and more democratized, and even keep low company,\nthrowing off their last external prestige, that is, violating\nprecisely what they are called upon to maintain.\n\nThe same takes place among the military. The military men of the\nhigher ranks, instead of encouraging the coarseness and cruelty of\nthe soldiers, which are necessary for their business, themselves\ndisseminate culture among the military, preach humanitarianism,\nand frequently themselves share the socialistic convictions of\nthe masses, and reject war. In the late plots against the Russian\ngovernment, many of those mixed up with them were army men. The\nnumber of these military plotters is growing larger and larger. Very\nfrequently it happens, as was the case lately, that the soldiers,\nwho are called upon to pacify the inhabitants, refuse to shoot at\nthem. Military bravado is directly condemned by army men themselves,\nand frequently serves as a subject for ridicule.\n\nThe same is true of judges and prosecuting attorneys: judges,\nwhose duty it is to judge and sentence criminals, manage the\nproceedings in such a way as to discharge them, so that the Russian\ngovernment, to have men sentenced that it wants to have sentenced,\nnever subjects them to common courts, but turns them over to\nso-called military courts, which represent but a semblance of\ncourts. The same is true of prosecuting attorneys, who frequently\nrefuse to prosecute, and, instead of prosecuting, circumvent the\nlaw, defending those whom they should prosecute. Learned jurists,\nwho are obliged to justify the violence of power, more and more\ndeny the right to punish, and in its place introduce theories of\nirresponsibility, and even not of the correction, but of the cure of\nthose whom they call criminals.\n\nJailers and superintendents of hard-labour convicts for the most\npart become defenders of those whom they are supposed to torture.\nGendarmes and spies constantly save those whom they are supposed to\nruin. Clerical persons preach toleration, often also the negation\nof violence, and the more cultured among them try in their sermons\nto avoid the lie which forms the whole meaning of their position\nand which they are called upon to preach. Executioners refuse to\ncarry out their duties, so that in Russia capital punishment can\nfrequently not be carried out for want of executioners, since, in\nspite of the advantages held out to make hard-labour convicts become\nexecutioners, there is an ever decreasing number of such as are\nwilling to take up the duty. Governors, rural judges and officers,\ncollectors of taxes, publicans, pitying the people, frequently\ntry to find excuses for not collecting the taxes from them. Rich\nmen cannot make up their minds to use their wealth for themselves\nalone, but distribute it for public purposes. Landowners erect on\ntheir lands hospitals and schools, and some of them even renounce\nthe ownership of land and transfer it to the agriculturists, or\nestablish communes on it. Manufacturers build hospitals, schools,\nhouses for their workmen, and establish savings-banks and pensions;\nsome establish companies, in which they take an equal share with\nother shareholders. Capitalists give part of their capital for\npublic, educational, artistic, philanthropic institutions. Unable to\npart from their wealth during their lifetime, many of them will it\naway after their death in favour of public institutions.\n\nAll these phenomena might appear accidental, if they did not all\nreduce themselves to one common cause, just as it might seem\naccidental that the buds should swell on some of the trees in\nspring, if we did not know that the cause of it is the common\nspring, and that, if the buds have begun to swell on some of the\ntrees, the same no doubt will happen with all of the trees.\n\nThe same is true in the manifestation of the Christian public\nopinion as regards the significance of violence and of what is\nbased upon it. If this public opinion is already influencing some\nvery sensitive men, and causes them, each in his own business, to\nrenounce the privileges which violence grants, or not to use them,\nit will continue to act on others, and will act until it will change\nthe whole activity of men and will bring them in agreement with that\nChristian consciousness which is already living among the leading\nmen of humanity.\n\nAnd if there now are rulers who do not have the courage to undertake\nanything in the name of their own power, and who try as much as\npossible to resemble, not monarchs, but the simplest mortals, and\nwho show their readiness to renounce their prerogatives and to\nbecome the first citizens of their republics; and if there are now\narmy men who understand all the evil and sinfulness of war and do\nnot wish to shoot at men belonging to another nation, or to their\nown; and judges and prosecuting attorneys, who do not wish to\nprosecute and condemn criminals; and clergymen, who renounce their\nlie; and publicans, who try as little as possible to perform what\nthey are called upon to perform; and rich men, who give up their\nwealth,--the same will inevitably happen with other governments,\nother army men, other members of the court, clergymen, publicans,\nand rich men. And when there shall be no men to hold these\npositions, there will be none of these positions and no violence.\n\nBut it is not by this road alone that public opinion leads men to\nthe abolition of the existing order and the substitution of another\nfor it. In proportion as the positions of violence become less and\nless attractive, and there are fewer and fewer men willing to occupy\nthem, their uselessness becomes more and more apparent.\n\nIn the Christian world there are the same rulers and governments,\nthe same courts, the same publicans, the same clergy, the same rich\nmen, landowners, manufacturers, and capitalists, as before, but\nthere is an entirely different relation of men toward men and of the\nmen themselves toward their positions.\n\nIt is still the same rulers, the same meetings, and chases, and\nfeasts, and balls, and uniforms, and the same diplomats, and talks\nabout alliances and wars; the same parliaments, in which they\nstill discuss Eastern and African questions, and alliances, and\nbreaches of relations, and Home Rule, and an eight-hour day. And\nthe ministries give way to one another in the same way, and there\nare the same speeches, the same incidents. But men who see how one\narticle in a newspaper changes the state of affairs more than\ndozens of meetings of monarchs and sessions of parliaments, see more\nand more clearly that it is not the meetings and rendezvous and the\ndiscussions in the parliaments that guide the affairs of men, but\nsomething independent of all this, which is not centred anywhere.\n\nThere are the same generals, and officers, and soldiers, and guns,\nand fortresses, and parades, and man\u0153uvres, but there has been\nno war for a year, ten, twenty years, and, besides, one can depend\nless on the military for the suppression of riots, and it is getting\nclearer and clearer that, therefore, generals, and officers, and\nsoldiers are only members of festive processions,--objects of\namusement for rulers, large, rather expensive corps-de-ballet.\n\nThere are the same prosecutors and judges, and the same proceedings,\nbut it is getting clearer and clearer that, since civil cases are\ndecided on the basis of all kinds of considerations except that of\njustice, and since criminal cases have no sense, because punishments\nattain no purpose admitted even by the judges, these institutions\nhave no other significance than that of serving as a means for\nsupporting men who are not fit for anything more useful.\n\nThere are the same clergymen, and bishops, and churches, and\nsynods, but it is becoming clearer and clearer to all men that\nthese men have long ago ceased to believe in what they preach, and\nthat, therefore, they cannot convince any one of the necessity of\nbelieving in what they themselves do not believe.\n\nThere are the same collectors of taxes, but they are becoming less\nand less capable of taking away by force people's property, and it\nis becoming clearer and clearer that people can without collectors\nof taxes collect all that is necessary by subscribing it voluntarily.\n\nThere are the same rich men, but it is becoming clearer and clearer\nthat they can be useful only in proportion as they cease to be\npersonal managers of their wealth and give to society all, or at\nleast a part, of their fortunes.\n\nWhen all this shall become completely clear to all, it will be\nnatural for men to ask themselves, \"But why should we feed and\nmaintain all these kings, emperors, presidents, and members of all\nkinds of Chambers and ministries, if nothing results from all their\nmeetings and discussions? Would it not be better, as some jester\nsaid, to make a queen out of rubber?\"\n\n\"And what good to us are the armies, with their generals, and music,\nand cavalry, and drums? What good are they when there is no war\nand no one wants to conquer any one, and when, even if there is a\nwar, the other nations do not let us profit from it, and the troops\nrefuse to shoot at their own people?\"\n\n\"And what good are judges and prosecutors who in civil cases do not\ndecide according to justice and in criminal cases know themselves\nthat all punishments are useless?\"\n\n\"And of what use are collectors of taxes who unwillingly collect the\ntaxes, while what is needed is collected without them?\"\n\n\"And of what use is the clergy, which has long ago ceased to believe\nin what it preaches?\"\n\n\"And of what use is capital in private hands, when it can be of use\nonly by becoming the common possession?\"\n\nAnd having once asked themselves this, people cannot help but come\nto the conclusion that they ought not to support all these useless\ninstitutions.\n\nBut not only will the men who support these institutions arrive at\nthe necessity of abolishing them,--the men themselves who occupy\nthese positions will simultaneously or even earlier be brought to\nthe necessity of giving up their positions.\n\nPublic opinion more and more condemns violence, and so men, more\nand more submitting to public opinion, are less and less desirous\nof holding their positions, which are maintained by violence, and\nthose who hold these positions are less and less able to make use of\nviolence.\n\nBut by not using violence, and yet remaining in positions which are\nconditioned by violence, the men who occupy these positions become\nmore and more useless. And this uselessness, which is more and\nmore felt by those who maintain these positions and by those who\nhold them, will finally be such that there will be found no men to\nmaintain them and none who would be willing to hold them.\n\nOnce I was present in Moscow at some discussions about faith, which,\nas usual, took place during Quasimodo week near a church in Hunter's\nRow. About twenty men were gathered on the sidewalk, and a serious\ndiscussion on religion was going on. At the same time there was\nsome kind of a concert in the adjoining building of the Assembly\nof Noblemen, and an officer of police, noticing a crowd of people\ngathered near the church, sent a mounted gendarme to order them to\ndisperse. The officer had personally no desire that they should\ndisperse. The crowd of twenty men were in nobody's way, but the\nofficer had been standing there the whole morning, and he had to do\nsomething. The gendarme, a young lad, with his right arm jauntily\nakimbo and clattering sword, rode up to us and shouted commandingly,\n\"Scatter! What are you doing there?\" Everybody looked at the\ngendarme, and one of the speakers, a modest man in a long coat, said\ncalmly and kindly: \"We are talking about something important, and\nthere is no reason why we should scatter. Young man, you had better\nget down and listen to what we are talking about,--it will do you\ngood,\" and turning away, he continued his discourse. The gendarme\nmade no reply, wheeled his horse around, and rode off.\n\nThe same thing must happen in all matters of violence. The officer\nfeels ennui, he has nothing to do; the poor fellow is placed in a\nposition where he must command. He is deprived of all human life,\nand all he can do is to look and command, to command and look,\nthough his commands and his watching are of no earthly use. In\nsuch a condition all those unfortunate rulers, ministers, members\nof parliaments, governors, generals, officers, bishops, clergymen,\neven rich men are now partly and soon will be completely. They\ncan do nothing else but command, and they command and send their\nmessengers, as the officer sends his gendarme, to be in people's\nway, and since the people whom they trouble turn to them with\nthe request that they be left alone, they imagine that they are\nindispensable.\n\nBut the time is coming, and will soon be here, when it shall be\nquite clear for all men that they are not any good and are only in\nthe way of people, and the people whom they bother will say to them\nkindly and meekly, as that man in the long overcoat, \"Please, do not\nbother us.\" And all the messengers and senders will have to follow\nthat good advice, that is, stop riding with arms akimbo among the\npeople, bothering them, and get down from their hobbies, take off\ntheir attire, listen to what people have to say, and, joining them,\ntake hold with them of the true human work.\n\nThe time is coming, and will inevitably come, when all the\ninstitutions of violence of our time will be destroyed in\nconsequence of their too obvious uselessness, silliness, and even\nindecency.\n\nThe time must come, when with the men of our world, who hold\npositions that are given by violence, will happen what happened with\nthe king in Andersen's fable, \"The New Royal Garment,\" when a small\nchild, seeing the naked king, na\u00efvely called out, \"Behold, he is\nnaked!\" and all those who had seen it before, but had not expressed\nit, could no longer conceal it.\n\nThe point of the fable is this, that to the king, a lover of new\ngarments, there come some tailors who promise to make him an\nextraordinary garment. The king hires the tailors, and they begin to\nsew, having informed him that the peculiarity of their garment is\nthis, that he who is useless in his office cannot see the garments.\n\nThe courtiers come to see the work of the tailors, but they see\nnothing, as the tailors stick their needles into empty space. But,\nmindful of the condition, all the courtiers say that they see the\ngarment, and they praise it. The king does the same. The time\narrives for the procession, when the king is to appear in his new\ngarment. The king undresses himself and puts on his new garments,\nthat is, he remains naked, and goes naked through the city. But,\nmindful of the condition, no one dares to say that there are no\ngarments, until a small child calls out, \"Behold, he is naked!\"\n\nThe same thing must happen with all those who from inertia hold\noffices which have long ago become useless, when the first man who\nis not interested (as the proverb has it, \"One hand washes the\nother\"), in concealing the uselessness of these institutions, will\npoint out their uselessness and will na\u00efvely call out, \"But, good\npeople, they have long ago ceased to be good for anything.\"\n\nThe condition of Christian humanity, with its fortresses, guns,\ndynamite, cannon, torpedoes, prisons, gallows, churches, factories,\ncustom-houses, palaces, is indeed terrible; but neither fortresses,\nnor cannon, nor guns shoot themselves at any one, prisons do not\nthemselves lock any one up, the gallows does not hang any one, the\nchurches do not of themselves deceive any one, the custom-houses\nhold no one back, palaces and factories do not erect and maintain\nthemselves, but everything is done by men. But when men understand\nthat this ought not to be done, there will be none of these things.\n\nMen are already beginning to understand this. If not all men\nunderstand it as yet, the leaders among men do, those after whom\nfollow all other men. And what the leaders have once come to\nunderstand, they can never stop understanding, and what the leaders\nhave come to understand, all other men not only can, but inevitably\nmust understand.\n\nThus the prediction that the time will come when all men shall be\ninstructed by God, shall stop warring, shall forge the swords into\nploughshares and the spears into pruning-hooks, that is, translating\ninto our language, when all the prisons, fortresses, barracks,\npalaces, churches, shall remain empty, and all the gallows, guns,\ncannon, shall remain unused, is no longer a dream, but a definite,\nnew form of life, toward which humanity is moving with ever\nincreasing rapidity.\n\nBut when shall this be?\n\nEighteen hundred years ago Christ answered this question by saying\nthat the end of the present world, that is, of the pagan structure\nof the world, would come when the calamities of men should be\nincreased to their farthest limit and at the same time the gospel of\nthe kingdom of God, that is, the possibility of a new, violenceless\nstructure of the world, should be preached in all the world (Matt.\nxxiv. 3-28).\n\n\"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, but my Father only\" (Matt.\nxxiv. 36), is what Christ says, for it may come any time, at any\nmoment, even when we do not expect it.\n\nIn reply to the question when this hour shall arrive, Christ says\nthat we cannot know it; but for the very reason that we do not know\nthe time of its coming, we should not only be at all times prepared\nto meet it, as must be the goodman watching the house, and the\nvirgins with their lamps going forth to meet the bridegroom, but\nalso we should work with all our strength for the coming of that\nhour, as the servants had to work for the talents given to them\n(Matt. xxiv. 43; xxv. 1-30). In reply to the question when this\nhour should come, Christ admonished all men to work with all their\nstrength for its quicker coming.\n\nThere can be no other answer. People can nowise know when the day\nand the hour of the kingdom of God shall arrive, because the coming\nof that hour depends on no one but the men themselves.\n\nThe answer is the same as that of the sage, who in reply to the\nquestion of a passer-by, how far it was to the city, answered, \"Go.\"\n\nHow can we know how far it is to the goal toward which humanity\nis moving, since we do not know how humanity, on whom it depends\nwhether to go or not, to stop, to temper the motion, or to\naccelerate it, will move toward that goal?\n\nAll we can know is, what we, who compose humanity, must do, and what\nnot, in order that the kingdom of God may come. That we all know.\nAnd every one need but begin to do what we must do, and stop doing\nwhat we must not do; every one of us need only live by all that\nlight which is within us, in order that the promised kingdom of God,\ntoward which the heart of every man is drawn, may come at once.\n\n\nXII.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\n                                   1\n\nI had ended this two years' labour, when, on the ninth of September,\nI happened to travel on a train to a locality in the Governments\nof T\u00fala and Ryaz\u00e1n, where the peasants had been starving the year\nbefore, and were starving still more in the present year. At one of\nthe stations the train in which I was travelling met a special train\nwhich, under the leadership of the governor, was transporting troops\nwith guns, cartridges, and rods for the torture and killing of those\nvery famine-stricken peasants.\n\nThe torturing of the peasants with rods for the purpose of enforcing\nthe decision of the authorities, although corporal punishment was\nabolished by law thirty years ago, has of late been applied more and\nmore freely in Russia.\n\nI had heard of it, had even read in newspapers of the terrible\ntortures of which the Governor of N\u00edzhni-N\u00f3vgorod, Bar\u00e1nov, is said\nto have boasted, of the tortures which had taken place in Chern\u00edgov,\nTamb\u00f3v, Sar\u00e1tov, Astrakh\u00e1n, Or\u00e9l, but not once had I had a chance to\nsee men in the process of executing these deeds.\n\nHere I saw with my own eyes good Russians, men who are permeated\nwith the Christian spirit, travelling with guns and rods, to kill\nand torture their starving brothers.\n\nThe cause that brought them out was the following:\n\nIn one of the estates of a wealthy landowner the peasants had\nraised a forest on a pasture which they owned in common with the\nproprietor (had raised, that is, had watched it during its growth),\nand had always made use of it, and so regarded this forest as\ntheir own, at least as a common possession; but the proprietor,\nappropriating to himself this forest, began to cut it down. The\npeasants handed in a complaint. The judge of the first instance\nirregularly (I say \"irregularly,\" using the word employed by the\nprosecuting attorney and the governor, men who ought to know the\ncase) decided the case in favour of the proprietor. All the higher\ncourts, among them the senate, though they could see that the case\nhad been decided irregularly, confirmed the decision, and the forest\nwas adjudged to the proprietor. The proprietor began to cut down the\nforest, but the peasants, unable to believe that such an obvious\ninjustice could be done them by a higher court, did not submit to\nthe decree, and drove away the workmen who were sent to cut down the\nforest, declaring that the forest belonged to them, and that they\nwould petition the Tsar, but would not allow the proprietor to cut\ndown the forest.\n\nThe case was reported to St. Petersburg, whence the governor was\nordered to enforce the decree of the court. The governor asked for\ntroops, and now the soldiers, armed with bayonets, ball-cartridges,\nand, besides, a supply of rods, purposely prepared for this occasion\nand carried in a separate car, were travelling to enforce this\ndecree of the higher authorities.\n\nThe enforcement of the decree of the higher authorities is\naccomplished by means of killing, of torturing men, or by means of\na threat of doing one or the other, according as to whether any\nopposition is shown or not.\n\nIn the first case, if the peasants show any opposition, the\nfollowing takes place in Russia (the same things happen wherever\nthere are a state structure and property rights): the chief makes a\nspeech and demands submission. The excited crowd, generally deceived\nby its leaders, does not understand a word that the representative\nof the power says in official book language, and continues to be\nagitated. Then the chief declares that if they do not submit and\ndisperse, he will be compelled to have recourse to arms. If the\ncrowd does not submit even then, the chief commands his men to load\ntheir guns and shoot above the heads of the crowd. If the crowd does\nnot disperse even then, he commands the soldiers to shoot straight\ninto the crowd, at haphazard, and the soldiers shoot, and in the\nstreet fall wounded and killed men, and then the crowd generally\nruns away, and the troops at the command of the chiefs seize those\nwho present themselves to them as the main rioters, and lead them\naway under guard.\n\nAfter that they pick up the blood-stained, dying, maimed, killed,\nand wounded men, frequently also women and children; the dead are\nburied, and the maimed are sent to the hospital. But those who are\nconsidered to be the plotters are taken to the city and tried by a\nspecial military court. If on their part there was any violence,\nthey are sentenced to be hanged. Then they put up a gallows and with\nthe help of ropes choke to death a few defenceless people, as has\nmany times been done in Russia and as is being done, and must be\ndone where the public structure is based on violence. Thus they do\nin case of opposition.\n\nIn the second case, when the peasants submit, there takes place\nsomething special and peculiarly Russian. What happens is this:\nthe governor arrives at the place of action, makes a speech to the\npeople, rebuking them for their disobedience, and either stations\ntroops in the farms of the village, where the soldiers, quartering\nat times as much as a month at a time, ruin the peasants, or,\nsatisfied with threatening them, graciously pardons the people and\nreturns home, or, which happens more frequently than anything else,\nannounces to them that the instigators ought to be punished, and\narbitrarily, without trial, selects a certain number of men, who are\ndeclared to be the instigators and in his presence are subjected to\ntortures.\n\nIn order to give an idea as to how these things are done, I will\ndescribe an affair which took place at Or\u00e9l and received the\napproval of the higher authorities.\n\nWhat happened in Or\u00e9l was this: just as here, in the Government of\nT\u00fala, a proprietor wanted to take away some property from certain\npeasants, and the peasants opposed him, just as they did here. The\npoint was that the landed proprietor wanted without the consent\nof the peasants to keep the water in his mill-pond at so high a\nlevel that their fields were inundated. The peasants objected. The\nproprietor entered a complaint before the County Council chief. The\nCounty Council chief illegally (as was later declared by the court)\ndecided the case in favour of the proprietor, by permitting him to\nraise the water. The proprietor sent his workmen to raise the ditch\nthrough which the water ran down. The peasants were provoked by\nthis irregular decision, and called out their wives, to prevent the\nproprietor's workmen from raising the ditch. The women went to the\ndam, overturned the carts, and drove off the workmen. The proprietor\nentered a complaint against the women for taking the law into their\nhands. The County Council chief ordered one woman from each peasant\nfarm in the whole village to be locked up (\"in the cold room\"). The\ndecision could not well be carried out; since there were several\nwomen on each farm, it was impossible to determine which of them was\nliable to arrest, and so the police did not carry out the decree.\nThe proprietor complained to the governor of the inactivity of the\npolice, and the governor, without looking into the matter, gave the\nrural chief the strict order immediately to enforce the decision\nof the County Council chief. Obeying the higher authorities, the\nrural chief arrived in the village and, with a disrespect for men\nwhich is characteristic of the Russian authorities, commanded the\npolicemen to seize one woman from each house. But since there\nwas more than one woman in each house, and it was impossible to\ntell which one of them was subject to incarceration, there began\nquarrels, and opposition was shown. In spite of these quarrels\nand this opposition, the rural chief commanded that one woman, no\nmatter who she be, be seized in each house and led to a place of\nconfinement. The peasants began to defend their wives and mothers,\ndid not give them up, and upon this occasion beat the police and the\nrural chief. There appeared the first terrible crime,--an assault\non the authorities,--and this new crime was reported to the city.\nAnd so the governor, like the Governor of T\u00fala, arrived on a special\ntrain with a battalion of soldiers, with guns and rods, having made\nuse of the telegraph, of telephones, and of the railway, and brought\nwith him a learned doctor, who was to watch the hygienic conditions\nof the flogging, thus fully personifying Dzhingis Khan with the\ntelegraphs, as predicted by Herzen.\n\nNear the township office stood the troops, a squad of policemen\nwith red cords, to which is attached the revolver, official persons\nfrom among the peasants, and the accused. Round about stood a crowd\nof one thousand people or more. Upon driving up to the township\noffice, the governor alighted from his carriage, delivered a speech\npreviously prepared, and called for the guilty and for a bench.\nThis command was not understood at first. But a policeman, whom the\ngovernor always took with him, and who attended to the preparation\nof the tortures, which had more than once been employed in the\nGovernment, explained that what was meant was a bench for flogging.\nA bench was brought, the rods, which had been carried on the train,\nwere piled up, and the executioners were called for. These had\nbeen previously chosen from among the horse-thieves of the village,\nbecause the soldiers refused to perform this duty.\n\nWhen everything was ready, the governor commanded the first of the\ntwelve men pointed out by the proprietor as the most guilty to\nstep forward. The one that came out was the father of a family, a\nrespected member of society of about forty years of age, who had\nbravely defended the rights of society and so enjoyed the respect of\nthe inhabitants. He was led up to the bench, his body was bared, and\nhe was ordered to lie down.\n\nThe peasant tried to beg for mercy, but when he saw that this was\nuseless, he made the sign of the cross and lay down. Two policemen\nrushed forward to hold him down. The learned doctor stood near\nby, ready to offer learned medical aid. The prisoners, spitting\ninto their hands, swished the rods and began to strike. However,\nit turned out that the bench was too narrow and that it was too\ndifficult to keep the writhing, tortured man upon it. Then the\ngovernor ordered another bench to be brought and to be cleated\nto the first. Putting their hands to their visors and muttering:\n\"Yes, your Excellency,\" some men hurriedly and humbly fulfilled the\ncommands; meanwhile the half-naked, pale, tortured man, frowning\nand looking earthward, waited with trembling jaws and bared legs.\nWhen the second bench was attached, he was again put down, and\nthe horse-thieves began to beat him again. The back, hips, and\nthighs, and even the sides of the tortured man began more and more\nto be covered with wales and bloody streaks, and with every blow\nthere were heard dull sounds, which the tortured man was unable to\nrepress. In the surrounding crowd were heard the sobs of the wives,\nmothers, children, relatives of the tortured man and of all those\nwho were selected for the punishment.\n\nThe unfortunate governor, intoxicated by his power, thought that\nhe could not do otherwise, and, bending his fingers, counted the\nblows, and without stopping smoked cigarettes, to light which\nseveral officious persons hastened every time to hand him a lighted\nmatch. When fifty blows had been dealt, the peasant stopped crying\nand stirring, and the doctor, who had been educated in a Crown\ninstitution for the purpose of serving his Tsar and country with\nhis scientific knowledge, walked over to the tortured man, felt his\npulse, listened to the beating of his heart, and announced to the\nrepresentative of power that the punished man had lost consciousness\nand that according to the data of science it might be dangerous to\nhis life to continue the punishment. But the unfortunate governor,\nwho was now completely intoxicated by the sight of blood, commanded\nthe men to go on, and the torture lasted until they had dealt\nseventy blows, to which number it for some reason seemed to him\nnecessary to carry the number of the blows. When the seventieth blow\nwas dealt, the governor said, \"Enough! The next!\" And the disfigured\nman, with his swollen back, was lifted up and carried away in a\nswoon, and another was taken up. The sobs and groans of the crowd\nbecame louder; but the representative of the governmental power\ncontinued the torture.\n\nThus they flogged the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh,\neighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth man,--each man receiving\nseventy blows. All of them begged for mercy, groaned, cried.\nThe sobs and groans of the mass of women grew louder and more\nheartrending, and the faces of the men grew gloomier and gloomier;\nbut the troops stood all about them, and the torture did not stop\nuntil the work was accomplished in the measure which for some\nreason appeared indispensable to the caprice of the unfortunate,\nhalf-drunken, deluded man, called a governor.\n\nNot only were officials, officers, soldiers present, but with their\npresence they took part in this matter and kept this order of the\nfulfilment of the state act from being impaired on the part of the\ncrowd.\n\nWhen I asked one of the governors why these tortures are committed\non men, when they have already submitted and troops are stationed in\nthe village, he replied to me, with the significant look of a man\nwho has come to know all the intricacies of state wisdom, that this\nis done because experience has shown that if the peasants are not\nsubjected to torture they will again counteract the decrees of the\npower, while the performance of the torture in the case of a few men\nfor ever confirms the decrees of the authorities.\n\nAnd so now the Governor of T\u00fala was travelling with his officials,\nofficers, and soldiers, in order to perform just such a work. In\njust the same manner, that is, by means of murder or torture, were\nto be carried out the decree of the higher authorities, which\nconsisted in this, that a young fellow, a landed proprietor, who had\nan income of one hundred thousand roubles per year, was to receive\nanother three thousand roubles, for a forest which he had in a\nrascally manner taken away from a whole society of hungry and cold\npeasants, and be able to spend this money in two or three weeks in\nthe restaurants of Moscow, St. Petersburg, or Paris. It was to do\nsuch a deed that the men whom I met were travelling.\n\nFate, as though on purpose, after my two years' tension of thought\nin one and the same direction, for the first time in my life brought\nme in contact with this phenomenon, which showed me with absolute\nobviousness in practice what had become clear to me in theory,\nnamely, that the whole structure of our life is not based, as men\nwho enjoy an advantageous position in the existing order of things\nare fond of imagining, on any juridical principles, but on the\nsimplest, coarsest violence, on the murder and torture of men.\n\nMen who own large tracts of land or have large capitals, or who\nreceive large salaries, which are collected from the working people,\nwho are in need of the simplest necessities, as also those who,\nas merchants, doctors, artists, clerks, savants, coachmen, cooks,\nauthors, lackeys, lawyers, live parasitically about these rich\npeople, are fond of believing that those prerogatives which they\nenjoy are not due to violence, but to an absolutely free and regular\nexchange of services, and that these prerogatives are not only not\nthe result of assault upon people, and the murder of them, like what\ntook place this year in Or\u00e9l and in many other places in Russia, and\ncontinually takes place in all of Europe and of America, but has\neven no connection whatsoever with these cases of violence. They\nare fond of believing that the privileges which they enjoy exist in\nthemselves and take place and are due to a voluntary agreement among\npeople, while the violence exerted against people also exists in\nitself and is due to some universal and higher juridical, political,\nand economical laws. These men try not to see that they enjoy the\nprivileges which they enjoy only by dint of the same thing which now\nwould force the peasants, who raised the forest and who were very\nmuch in need of it, to give it up to the rich proprietor, who took\nno part in the preservation of the forest and had no need of it,\nthat is, that they would be flogged or killed if they did not give\nup this forest.\n\nAnd yet, if it is quite clear that the Or\u00e9l mill began to bring\ngreater returns to the proprietor, and that the forest, which\nthe peasants raised, is turned over to the proprietor, only in\nconsequence of assaults or murders, or the threat of them, it must\nbe just as clear that all the other exclusive rights of the rich,\nwhich deprive the poor of their prime necessities, are based on the\nsame thing. If the peasants, who are in need of the land for the\nsupport of their families, do not plough the land which adjoins\ntheir very farms, while this land, which is capable of supporting\nsomething like one thousand families, is in the hands of one man,--a\nRussian, Englishman, Austrian, or some large landed proprietor,--who\ndoes not work on this land, and if the merchant, buying up the corn\nfrom the needy agriculturists, can securely keep this corn in his\ngranaries, amidst starving people, and sell it at three times its\nprice to the same agriculturists from whom he bought it at one-third\nits present worth, it is evident that this takes place from the same\ncauses. And if one man cannot buy cheap goods, which are sold to\nhim from beyond a conventional line called a border, without paying\ncustoms dues to people who had no share whatsoever in the production\nof the goods; and if people cannot help but give up their last cow\nfor taxes, which are distributed by the government to officials and\nare used for the maintenance of soldiers who will kill these very\ntaxpayers, it would seem to be obvious that even this does not take\nplace in consequence of some abstract rights, but in consequence\nof the same that happened in Or\u00e9l and that now may happen in the\nGovernment of T\u00fala, and periodically in one form or another takes\nplace in the whole world, wherever there is a state structure and\nthere are the rich and the poor.\n\nBecause not all human relations of violence are accompanied by\ntortures and murders, the men who enjoy the exclusive prerogatives\nof the ruling classes assure themselves and others that the\nprivileges which they enjoy are not due to any tortures or murders,\nbut to other mysterious common causes, abstract rights, and so\nforth. And yet, it would seem, it is clear that, if people, though\nthey consider this to be an injustice (all working people now do),\ngive the main portion of their work to the capitalist, the landed\nproprietor, and pay taxes, though they know that bad use is made\nof them, they do so first of all, not because they recognize any\nabstract rights, of which they have never heard, but only because\nthey know that they will be flogged and killed, if they do not do so.\n\nBut if there is no occasion to imprison, flog, and kill men, every\ntime the rent for the land is collected by the landed proprietor,\nand the man in need of corn pays to the merchant who has cheated him\na threefold price, and the factory hand is satisfied with a wage\nwhich represents proportionately half the master's income, and if a\npoor man gives up his last rouble for customs dues and taxes, this\nis due to the fact that so many men have been beaten and killed for\ntheir attempts to avoid doing what is demanded of them, that they\nkeep this well in mind. As the trained tiger in the cage does not\ntake the meat which is placed under his mouth, and does not lie\nquiet, but jumps over a stick, whenever he is ordered to do so,\nnot because he wants to do so, but because he remembers the heated\niron rod or the hunger to which he was subjected every time he did\nnot obey,--even so men who submit to what is not advantageous for\nthem, what even is ruinous to them, do so because they remember what\nhappened to them for their disobedience.\n\nBut the men who enjoy prerogatives which are the result of old\nviolence, frequently forget, and like to forget, how these\nprerogatives were obtained. We need, however, only think of history,\nnot the history of the successes of various dynasties of rulers, but\nreal history, the history of the oppression of the majority by a\nsmall number of men, to see that the bases of all the prerogatives\nof the rich over the poor have originated from nothing but switches,\nprisons, hard labour, murders.\n\nWe need but think of that constant, stubborn tendency of men to\nincrease their well-being, which guides the men of our time, to\nbecome convinced that the prerogatives of the rich over the poor\ncould not and cannot be maintained in any other way.\n\nThere may be oppressions, assaults, prisons, executions, which\nhave not for their purpose the preservation of the prerogatives of\nthe wealthy classes (though this is very rare), but we may boldly\nsay that in our society, for each well-to-do, comfortably living\nman, there are ten who are exhausted by labour, who are envious and\ngreedy, and who frequently suffer with their whole families,--all\nthe prerogatives of the rich, all their luxury, all that superfluity\nwhich the rich enjoy above the average labourer, all that is\nacquired and supported only by tortures, incarcerations, and\nexecutions.\n\n                                   2\n\nThe train which I came across the ninth of September, and which\ncarried soldiers, with their guns, cartridges, and rods, to the\nstarving peasants, in order to secure to the rich proprietor the\nsmall forest, which he had taken from the peasants and which the\npeasants were in dire need of, showed me with striking obviousness\nto what extent men have worked out the ability of committing\nacts which are most revolting to their convictions and to their\nconscience, without seeing that they are doing so.\n\nThe special train with which I fell in consisted of one car of the\nfirst class for the governor, the officials, and the officers, and\nof several freight-cars, which were cram-full of soldiers.\n\nThe dashing young soldiers, in their clean new uniforms, stood\ncrowding or sat with dangling legs in the wide-open doors of the\nfreight-cars. Some smoked, others jostled one another, jested,\nlaughed, displaying their teeth; others again cracked pumpkin seeds,\nspitting out the shells with an air of self-confidence. Some of them\nwere running up and down the platform, toward the water-barrel, in\norder to get a drink, and, upon meeting an officer, tempered their\ngait, went through the stupid gesture of putting their hands to\ntheir brows, and with serious faces, as though they were doing\nnot only something sensible, but even important, walked past them,\nseeing them off with their eyes, and then raced more merrily,\nthumping with their feet on the planks of the platform, laughing,\nand chattering, as is characteristic of healthy, good lads, who in\ngood company travel from one place to another.\n\nThey were travelling to slay their hungry fathers and grandfathers,\nas though going to some very jolly, or at least very usual, piece of\nwork.\n\nThe same impression was conveyed by the officials and officers in\ngala-uniform, who were scattered on the platform and in the hall\nof the first class. At the table, which was covered with bottles,\ndressed in his semi-military uniform, sat the governor, the chief\nof the expedition, eating something, and speaking calmly about the\nweather with an acquaintance whom he had met, as though the matter\nwhich he was about to attend to were so simple and so common that\nit could not impair his calm and his interest in the change of the\nweather.\n\nAt some distance away from the table, not partaking of any food,\nsat a general of gendarmes, with an impenetrable, but gloomy look,\nas though annoyed by the tedious formality. On all sides moved and\nchattered officers, in their beautiful, gold-bedecked uniforms:\none, sitting at the table, was finishing a bottle of beer; another,\nstanding at the buffet, munched at an appetizing patty, shaking\noff the crumbs, which had lodged on the breast of his uniform, and\nthrowing the money on the table with a self-confident gesture; a\nthird, vibrating both legs, was walking past the cars of our train,\nogling the feminine faces.\n\nAll these men, who were on their way to torture or kill hungry,\ndefenceless men, the same that fed them, had the appearance of men\nwho know conclusively that they are doing what is right, and even\nare proud, \"stuck up,\" at what they are doing.\n\nWhat is this?\n\nAll these men are one half-hour's ride away from the place where, to\nsecure to a rich fellow some three thousand useless roubles, which\nhe has taken away from a whole community of starving peasants, they\nmay be compelled to perform the most terrible acts that one can\nimagine, may begin, just as in Or\u00e9l, to kill or to torture innocent\nmen, their brothers, and they calmly approach the place and time\nwhere and when this may happen.\n\nIt is impossible to say that these men, all these officials,\nofficers, and soldiers, do not know what awaits them, because they\nprepared themselves for it. The governor had to give his orders\nconcerning the rods, the officials had to purchase birch switches,\nto haggle for them, and to enter this item as an expense. The\nmilitary gave and received and executed commands concerning the\nball-cartridges. All of them know that they are on the way to\ntorture and, perhaps, to kill their famished brothers, and that they\nwill begin to do this, perhaps, within an hour.\n\nIt would be incorrect to say that they do this from conviction,--as\nis frequently said and as they themselves repeat,--from the\nconviction that they do this because it is necessary to maintain\nthe state structure, in the first place, because all these men\nhave hardly ever even thought of the state structure and of its\nnecessity; in the second place, they can in no way be convinced that\nthe business in which they take part maintains the state, instead\nof destroying it, and, in the third place, in reality the majority\nof these men, if not all, will not only never sacrifice their peace\nand pleasure for the purpose of supporting the state, but will even\nnever miss a chance of making use, for their peace and pleasure, of\neverything they can, even though it be to the disadvantage of the\nstate. Consequently they do not do so for the sake of the abstract\nprinciple of the state.\n\nWhat is it, then?\n\nI know all these men. If I do not know them personally, I know\napproximately their characters, their past, their manner of thought.\nAll of them have mothers, and some have wives and children. They\nare, for the most part, good-hearted, meek, frequently tender\nmen, who despise every cruelty, to say nothing of the murder of\nmen, and many of them would be incapable of killing or torturing\nanimals; besides, they are all people who profess Christianity\nand consider violence exerted against defenceless men a low and\ndisgraceful matter. Not one of these men would be able for the sake\nof his smallest advantage to do even one-hundredth part of what the\nGovernor of Or\u00e9l did to those people; and any of them would even be\noffended, if it were assumed that in his private life he would be\ncapable of doing anything like it.\n\nAnd yet, here they are, within half an hour's ride from the place,\nwhere they may be led inevitably to the necessity of doing it.\n\nWhat is it, then?\n\nBut, besides these people who are travelling on the train, and who\nare ready to commit murder and tortures, how could those people with\nwhom the whole matter began,--the proprietor, the superintendent,\nthe judges, and those who from St. Petersburg prescribed this matter\nand by their commands are taking part in it,--how could these\nmen, the minister, the emperor, also good men, who are professing\nthe Christian religion, have undertaken and ordered such a thing,\nknowing its consequences? How can even those who do not take part\nin this matter, the spectators, who are provoked at every special\ncase of violence or at the torture of a horse, admit the performance\nof so terrible a deed? How can they help being provoked at it,\nstanding on the road, and shouting, \"No, we shall not allow hungry\npeople to be killed and flogged for not giving up their property,\nwhich has been seized from them by force\"? But not only does no one\ndo so,--the majority of men, even those who were the instigators\nof the whole thing, like the superintendent, the proprietor, the\njudges, and those who were the participants in it and who gave the\norders, like the governor, the minister, the emperor, are calm,\nand do not even feel any pangs of conscience. Just as calm are\napparently all those men who are travelling to commit this evil deed.\n\nThe spectators, too, it seemed, who were not in any way interested\nin the matter, for the most part looked with sympathy, rather than\nwith disapproval, upon the men who were getting ready for this\nexecrable deed. In the same car with me there was travelling a\nmerchant, a lumber dealer from the peasant class, and he loudly\nproclaimed his sympathy for those tortures to which the peasants\nwere about to be subjected: \"It is not right not to obey the\nauthorities,\" he said; \"that's what the authorities are for. Just\nwait, they will have their fleas driven out of them,--they won't\nthink of rioting after that. Serves them right.\"\n\nWhat is it, then?\n\nIt is equally impossible to say that all these men--the instigators,\nparticipants, abettors of this matter--are such rascals that,\nknowing all the baseness of what they are doing, they, either for a\nsalary, or for an advantage, or out of fear of being punished, do\na thing which is contrary to their convictions. All these men know\nhow, in certain situations, to defend their convictions. Not one\nof these officials would steal a purse, or read another person's\nletter, or bear an insult without demanding satisfaction from the\ninsulter. Not one of these officers would have the courage to cheat\nat cards, not to pay his card debts, to betray a friend, to run away\nfrom the field of battle, or to abandon his flag. Not one of these\nsoldiers would have the courage to spit out the sacrament or to eat\nmeat on Good Friday. All these men are prepared to bear all kinds\nof privations, sufferings, and dangers, rather than do something\nwhich they consider to be bad. Consequently, there is in these men\na counteracting force, whenever they have to do something which is\ncontrary to their convictions.\n\nStill less is it possible to say that all these men are such beasts\nthat it is proper and not at all painful for them to do such things.\nWe need but have a talk with these men, to see that all of them, the\nproprietor, the judges, the minister, the Tsar, the governor, the\nofficers, and the soldiers not only in the depth of their hearts do\nnot approve of such deeds, but even suffer from the consciousness of\ntheir part in them, when they are reminded of the significance of\nthis matter. They simply try not to think of it.\n\nWe need but have a talk with them, with all the participants in this\nmatter, from the proprietor to the last policeman and soldier, to\nsee that all of them in the depth of their hearts know that this is\na bad thing and that it would be better not to take part in it, and\nthat they suffer from it.\n\nA lady of liberal tendencies, who was travelling on the same train\nwith us, upon noticing the governor and the officers in the hall of\nthe first class, and learning of the purpose of their journey, began\non purpose in a loud voice, so as to be heard, to curse the orders\nof our time and to put to shame the men who were taking part in this\nmatter. All persons present felt ill at ease. Nobody knew whither\nto look, but no one dared to answer her. The passengers looked as\nthough it were not worth while to reply to such empty talk. But it\nwas evident from the faces and fugitive eyes that all felt ashamed.\nThis also I noticed in the case of the soldiers. They, too, knew\nthat the business for which they were travelling was a bad one, but\nthey did not wish to think of what awaited them.\n\nWhen the lumber dealer began insincerely, as I thought, merely to\nshow his culture, to speak of how necessary such measures were, the\nsoldiers who heard it turned away from him, as though they did not\nhear him, and frowned.\n\nAll these men, both those who, like the proprietor, the\nsuperintendent, the minister, the Tsar, participated in the\nperformance of this act, and those who are just now travelling on\nthe train, and even those who, without taking part in this matter,\nlook on at the accomplishment of it, know every one of them that\nthis is a bad business, and are ashamed of the part which they are\ntaking in it and even of their presence during its execution.\n\nWhy, then, have they been doing and tolerating it?\n\nAsk those who, like the proprietor, started this matter, and those\nwho, like the judges, handed down a formally legal, but obviously\nunjust decision, and those who ordered the enforcement of the\ndecree, and those who, like the soldiers, the policemen, and the\npeasants, will with their own hands carry it into execution,--who\nwill beat and kill their brothers,--all of them, the instigators,\nand the accomplices, and the executors, and the abettors of these\ncrimes, and all will give you essentially the same answer.\n\nThe men in authority, who provoked the matter and co\u00f6perated in\nit and directed it, will say that they are doing what they are\ndoing because such matters are necessary for the maintenance of\nthe existing order; and the maintenance of the existing order is\nnecessary for the good of the country and of humanity, for the\npossibility of a social life and a forward movement of progress.\n\nThe men from the lower spheres, the peasants and the soldiers,\nthose who will be compelled with their own hands to exercise the\nviolence, will say that they are doing what they are doing because\nthis is prescribed by the higher authorities, and that the higher\nauthorities know what they are doing. That the authorities consist\nof the very men who ought to be the authorities and that they know\nwhat they are doing, presents itself to them as an incontestable\ntruth. If these lower executors even admit the possibility of an\nerror or delusion, they admit it only in the case of the lower\nauthorities; but the highest power, from whom all this proceeds,\nseems to them to be unquestionably infallible.\n\nThough explaining the motives for their activities in a different\nmanner, both the rulers and the ruled agree in this, that they do\nwhat they do because the existing order is precisely the one which\nis indispensable and which must exist at the present time, and\nwhich, therefore, it is the sacred duty of every person to maintain.\n\nOn this recognition of the necessity, and so of the unchangeableness\nof the existing order, is based the reflection, which has always\nbeen adduced by all the participants in state violence in their\njustification, that, since the present order is unchangeable, the\nrefusal of a single individual to perform the duties imposed upon\nhim will not change the essence of the matter, and will have no\nother effect than that in place of the person refusing there will\nbe another man, who may perform the duty less well, that is, more\ncruelly, more harmfully for those men against whom the violence is\npractised.\n\nThis conviction that the existing order is indispensable, and\nso unchangeable, and that it is the sacred duty of every man to\nmaintain it, is what gives to good people and, in private life, to\nmoral people the possibility of participating with a more or less\ncalm conscience in such affairs as the one which took place in Or\u00e9l\nand the one which the people who were travelling in the T\u00fala train\nwere getting ready to act in.\n\nBut on what is this conviction based?\n\nIt is naturally agreeable and desirable for the proprietor to\nbelieve that the existing order is indispensable and unchangeable,\nbecause it is this very existing order which secures for him the\nincome from his hundreds and thousands of desyat\u00ednas, thanks to\nwhich he leads his habitual idle and luxurious life.\n\nNaturally enough, the judge, too, readily believes in the necessity\nof the order in consequence of which he receives fifty times as much\nas the most industrious labourer. This is just as comprehensible\nin the case of the supreme judge, who receives a salary of six or\nmore thousand, and in the case of all the higher officials. Only\nwith the present order can he, as a governor, prosecutor, senator,\nmember of various councils, receive his salary of several thousands,\nwithout which he would at once perish with all his family, because,\nexcept by the position which he holds, he would not be able, with\nhis ability, industry, and knowledge, to earn one hundredth part\nof what he is getting. In the same situation are the minister, the\nemperor, and every higher authority, but with this difference,\nthat, the higher they are and the more exclusive their position is,\nthe more indispensable it is for them to believe that the existing\norder is the only possible order, because outside of it they not\nonly cannot get an equal position, but will have to stand much\nlower than the rest of mankind. A man who voluntarily hires himself\nout as a policeman at a salary of ten roubles, which he can easily\nget in any other position, has little need of the preservation of\nthe existing order, and so can get along without believing in its\nunchangeableness. But a king or an emperor, who in his position\nreceives millions; who knows that all around him there are thousands\nof men who are willing to depose him and take his place; who knows\nthat in no other position will he get such an income and such\nhonours; who in the majority of cases, with a more or less despotic\nrule, knows even this, that, if he should be deposed, he would\nbe tried for everything he did while in possession of his power,\ncannot help but believe in the unchangeableness and sacredness of\nthe existing order. The higher the position which a man occupies,\nthe more advantageous and, therefore, the more unstable it is, and\nthe more terrible and dangerous a fall from it is, the more does a\nman who holds that position believe in the unchangeableness of the\nexisting order, and with so much greater peace of mind can such a\nman, as though not for himself, but for the support of the existing\norder, do bad and cruel deeds.\n\nThus it is in the case of all the men of the ruling classes who hold\npositions that are more advantageous than those which they could\nhold without the existing order,--beginning with the lowest police\nofficials and ending with the highest authorities. All these men\nmore or less believe in the unchangeableness of the existing order,\nbecause, above all else, it is advantageous for them.\n\nBut what is it that compels the peasants, the soldiers, who stand on\nthe lowest rung of the ladder, who have no profit from the existing\norder, who are in a condition of the most abject submission and\nhumiliation, to believe that the existing order, in consequence of\nwhich they are in a most disadvantageous and humble state, is the\nvery order which must be, and which, therefore, must be maintained,\neven by performing the basest and most unconscionable acts for it.\n\nWhat is it that compels these men to make the false reflection that\nthe existing order is invariable and, therefore, must be maintained,\nwhereas it is evident that, on the contrary, it is unchangeable only\nbecause it is maintained as such?\n\nWhat is it that compels the men who were but yesterday taken from\nthe plough, and who are dressed up in these monstrous, indecent\ngarments with blue collars and gilt buttons, to travel with guns and\nswords, in order to kill their hungry fathers and brothers? They\ncertainly have no advantages, and are in no danger of losing the\nposition which they hold, because their condition is worse than the\none from which they are taken.\n\nThe men of the higher ruling classes, the proprietors, ministers,\nkings, officers, take part in these matters, thus supporting the\nexisting order, because it is advantageous for them. Besides, these\nfrequently good, meek men feel themselves able to take part in these\nthings for this other reason, that their participation is limited to\ninstigations, decrees, and commands. None of these men in authority\ndo themselves those things which they instigate, determine upon, and\norder to be done. For the most part they do not even see how all\nthose terrible things which they provoke and prescribe are carried\nout.\n\nBut the unfortunate people of the lower classes, who derive no\nadvantage from the existing order, who, on the contrary, in\nconsequence of this order are held in the greatest contempt, why do\nthey, who, for the maintenance of this order, with their own hands\ntear people away from their families, who bind them, who lock them\nup in prisons and at hard labour, who watch and shoot them, do all\nthese things?\n\nWhat is it that compels these men to believe that the existing order\nis unchangeable and that it is necessary to maintain it?\n\nAll violence is based only on them, on those men who with their own\nhands beat, bind, lock up, kill. If these men did not exist,--these\nsoldiers and policemen,--the armed men in general, who are prepared\non command to commit violence and to kill all those whom they are\ncommanded to kill, not one of the men who sign the decrees for\nexecutions, life imprisonment, hard labour, would ever have the\ncourage himself to hang, lock up, torture to death one thousandth\npart of those whom now, sitting quietly in their studies, they order\nto be hung and to be tortured in every way, only because they do\nnot see it and it is not done by them, but somewhere far away by\nobedient executors.\n\nAll those injustices and cruelties which have entered into the\ncurriculum of the existing life, have entered there only because\nthere exist these people, who are always prepared to maintain these\ninjustices and cruelties. If these men did not exist, there would\nnot be any one to offer violence to all these enormous masses of\nviolated people, and those who give orders would never even dare\neither to command or even to dream of what they now command with so\nmuch self-assurance. If there were no people who would be ready at\nthe command of those whom they obey to torture or to kill him who\nis pointed out to them, no one would ever dare to affirm, what is\nwith so much self-confidence asserted by the non-working landowners,\nthat the land which surrounds the peasants, who are dying for lack\nof land, is the property of a man who does not work on it, and that\nthe supply of corn, which has been garnered in a rascally manner,\nought to be kept intact amidst a starving population, because the\nmerchant needs some profit, and so forth. If there were no men who\nwould be ready at the will of the authorities to torture and kill\nevery person pointed out to them, it could never occur to a landed\nproprietor to take away from the peasants a forest which had been\nraised by them, nor to the officials to consider legal the payment\nto them of salaries, which are collected from the hungry masses,\nfor oppressing them, to say nothing of executing men, or locking\nthem up, or exiling them, because they overthrow the lie and preach\nthe truth. All this is demanded and done only because these ruling\npeople are firmly convinced that they have always at hand submissive\npeople, who will be ready to carry any of their demands into\nexecution by means of tortures and murders.\n\nThe only reason why they commit deeds like those committed by all\nthe tyrants from Napoleon down to the last commander of a company,\nwho shoots into a crowd, is because they are stupefied by the power\nbehind them, consisting of subservient men who are ready to do\nanything they are commanded. The whole strength, therefore, lies in\nthe men who with their hands do acts of violence, in the men who\nserve with the police, among the soldiers, more especially among the\nsoldiers, because the police do their work only when they have an\narmy behind them.\n\nWhat is it, then, that has led these good men, who derive no\nadvantage from it, who are compelled with their hands to do all\nthese terrible things, men on whom the whole matter depends, into\nthat remarkable delusion that assures them that the existing\ndisadvantageous, pernicious, and for them painful order is the one\nwhich must be?\n\nWho has led them into this remarkable delusion?\n\nThey have certainly not assured themselves that they must do what is\nnot only painful, disadvantageous, and pernicious to them and their\nwhole class, which forms nine-tenths of the whole population, and\nwhat is even contrary to their conscience.\n\n\"How are you going to kill men, when in God's law it says, 'Thou\nshalt not kill'?\" I frequently asked soldiers, and, by reminding\nthem of what they did not like to think about, I always made them\nfeel awkward and embarrassed. Such a soldier knew that there was\nan obligatory law of God, \"Thou shalt not kill,\" and he knew that\nthere was an obligatory military service, but it had never occurred\nto him that there was any contradiction there. The sense of the\ntimid answers that I always received to this question consisted\napproximately in this, that murder in war and the execution of\ncriminals at the command of the government were not included in\nthe common prohibition of murders. But when I told them that no\nsuch limitation was made in God's law, and reminded them of the\ndoctrine of brotherhood, of the forgiveness of offences, of love,\nwhich are obligatory for all Christians and which could in no way be\nharmonized with murder, the men of the people generally agreed with\nme, and on their side put the question to me as to how it happened\nthat the government, which, according to their ideas, could not\nerr, commanded the armies, when necessary, to go to war, and ordered\nthe execution of prisoners. When I answered them that the government\nacted incorrectly when it commanded these things to be done, my\ninterlocutors became even more embarrassed, and either broke off the\nconversation or grew provoked at me.\n\n\"There must be such a law. I guess the bishops know better than we,\"\nI was told by a Russian soldier. And, having said this, the soldier\napparently felt his conscience eased, being fully convinced that\nhis guides had found a law, the same under which his ancestors had\nserved, and the kings and the kings' heirs, and millions of people,\nand he himself served, and that what I was telling him was some\npiece of cunning or cleverness, like a riddle.\n\nAll the men of our Christian world know, know firmly, from\ntradition, and from revelation, and from the irrefutable voice of\nconscience, that murder is one of the most terrible crimes which\na man can commit, as the Gospel says, and that this sin cannot be\nlimited to certain men, that is, that it is a sin to kill some men,\nbut not a sin to kill others. All know that if the sin of murder is\na sin, it is always a sin, independently of what men are the victims\nof it, just like the sin of adultery and thieving and any other;\nat the same time men have seen, since childhood, since youth, that\nmurder is not only admitted, but even blessed by all those whom\nthey are accustomed to respect as their spiritual guides, ordained\nby God; they see that their worldly guides with calm assurance\ninstitute murders, bear arms of murder, of which they are proud, and\ndemand of all, in the name of the civil and even the divine law,\nthat they shall take part in murder. Men see that there is here some\ncontradiction, and, being unable to solve it, they involuntarily\nassume that this contradiction is due only to their ignorance. The\nvery coarseness and obviousness of the contradiction sustains them\nin this conviction. They cannot imagine that their enlighteners,\nlearned men, should be able with such confidence to preach two such\nseemingly contradictory propositions,--the obligatoriness for every\none of the law and of murder. A simple, innocent child, and later\na youth, cannot imagine that men who stand so high in his opinion,\nwhom he considers to be either holy or learned, should for any\nreason be deceiving him so unscrupulously. But it is precisely this\nthat has been done to him all the time. This is accomplished, in the\nfirst place, by impressing all the labouring people, who have not\nthemselves any time to solve moral and religious questions, from\nchildhood, and up to old age, by example and direct teaching, with\nthe idea that tortures and murders are compatible with Christianity,\nand that, for certain purposes of state, tortures and murders are\nnot only admissible, but even peremptory; in the second place, by\nimpressing some of them, who are chosen by enlistment or levy, with\nthe idea that the performance of tortures and murders with their\nown hands forms a sacred duty and even an act which is valorous and\nworthy of praise and of reward.\n\nThe common deception, which is disseminated among all men, consists\nin this, that in all the catechisms, or the books which have taken\ntheir place and which are now the subject of obligatory instruction\nfor the children, it says that violence, that is, tortures,\nimprisonments, and executions, as also murders in civil or external\nwars for the purpose of maintaining and defending the existing order\nof the state (whatever it be, autocratic, monarchical, a convention,\na consulship, an empire of either Napoleon or of Boulanger, a\nconstitutional monarchy, a commune, or a republic), is quite\nlegitimate, and does not contradict either morality or Christianity.\n\nThis it says in all the catechisms or books used in the schools. And\nmen are so convinced of it that they grow up, live, and die in this\nconviction, without doubting it even once.\n\nThis is one deception, a common deception, which is practised on\nall men; there is another, a private deception, which is practised\non soldiers or policemen, who are chosen in one way or another and\nwho perform the tortures and the murders which are needed for the\nsupport and the defence of the existing order.\n\nIn all the military codes it says in so many words what in the\nRussian military code is expressed as follows: \"(Art. 87) Precisely\nand without discussion to carry out the commands of the authorities\nmeans to carry out precisely the command given by the authorities,\nwithout discussing whether it is good or bad, and whether it\nis possible to carry it out. The chief himself answers for the\nconsequences of a command given out by him. (Art. 88) The subject\nmay refuse to carry out the commands of his superior only when he\nsees clearly that by carrying out his superior's command he\"--one\ninvoluntarily imagines that what will follow is \"when he sees\nclearly that by carrying out his superior's command he violates the\nlaw of God;\" but that is not at all the case: \"when he sees clearly\nthat he is violating the oath of allegiance and fidelity, and his\nservice to the emperor.\"\n\nIt says that a man, being a soldier, must carry out all the commands\nof his chief without any exception whatever, which for a soldier\nmainly means murder, and so must violate all divine and human laws,\nexcept his fidelity and service to him who at the given moment\nhappens to be in power.\n\nThus it says in the Russian military code, and precisely the same,\nthough in different words, is said in all the military codes,\nas indeed it cannot be otherwise, because in reality upon this\ndeception of emancipating men from their obedience to God or to\ntheir conscience, and of substituting for this obedience the\nobedience to the accidental superior, is all the power of the army\nand the state based.\n\nSo it is this on which is founded that strange conviction of the\nlower classes that the existing order, which is pernicious for them,\nis as it ought to be, and that they are, therefore, obliged to\nsupport it with tortures and murders.\n\nThis conviction is based on a conscious deception, which is\npractised upon them by the upper classes.\n\nNor can it be otherwise. To compel the lower, most numerous classes\nof men to oppress and torment themselves, committing with this\nsuch acts as are contrary to their conscience, it was necessary to\ndeceive these lower, most numerous classes. And so it was done.\n\nThe other day I again saw an open practice of this shameless deceit,\nand I was again surprised to see with what boldness and freedom it\nwas practised.\n\nIn the beginning of November, as I was passing through T\u00fala, I again\nsaw at the gate of the County Council Office the familiar dense\ncrowd of people, from which proceeded drunken shouts and the pitiful\nwail of mothers and of wives. This was a levy of recruits.\n\nAs upon other occasions, I was unable to drive past this spectacle:\nit attracts me as by some evil charm. I again entered among the\ncrowd, stood, looked, asked questions, and marvelled at the freedom\nwith which this most terrible crime is perpetrated in broad daylight\nand in a populous city.\n\nAs in former years, the elders in all the villages of Russia, with\nits one hundred millions of inhabitants, on the first of November\nselected from lists a given number of lads, frequently their own\nsons, and took them to the city.\n\nOn the way the recruits went on an uninterrupted spree, in which\nthey were not interfered with by their elders, who felt that going\nto such a mad business as the one to which the recruits were going,\nabandoning their wives and mothers and renouncing everything\nholy to them, in order to become somebody's senseless instruments\nof murder, was too painful a matter, if they did not intoxicate\nthemselves with liquor.\n\nAnd so they travelled, drinking, cursing, singing, fighting, and\nmaiming themselves. The nights they passed in inns. In the morning\nthey again became drunk and gathered in front of the County Council\nOffice.\n\nOne part of them, in new short fur coats, with knitted shawls about\ntheir necks, with moist drunken eyes or with savage self-encouraging\nshouts, or quiet and dejected, crowd at the gate amidst weeping\nmothers and wives, waiting for their turns (I fell in with them\non the very day of the levy, that is, when those who were sent\nup were to be examined); another part at this time crowds in the\nwaiting-room of the Office.\n\nIn the Office they are busy working. The door is opened, and the\njanitor calls Peter S\u00eddorov. Peter S\u00eddorov is startled, makes the\nsign of the cross, and enters into a small room with a glass door.\nHere the prospective recruits undress themselves. A naked recruit, a\ncompanion of Peter S\u00eddorov, just accepted, comes in from the Office,\nwith trembling jaws, and puts on his clothes. Peter S\u00eddorov has\nheard and sees by his face that he is accepted. Peter S\u00eddorov wants\nto ask him something, but he is told to hurry and undress himself as\nquickly as possible. He throws off his fur coat, pulls off his boots\nwith his feet, takes off his vest, draws his shirt over his head,\nand with protruding ribs, naked, with shivering body, and emitting\nan odour of liquor, tobacco, and perspiration, with bare feet,\nenters into the Office, without knowing what to do with his bared\nmuscular arms.\n\nIn the Office there hangs in full sight and in a large gilt frame\nthe portrait of the emperor in a uniform with a sash, and in the\ncorner a small portrait of Christ in a shirt and a crown of thorns.\nIn the middle of the room there stands a table covered with green\ncloth, upon which lie papers and stands a triangular thing with an\neagle, which is called the Mirror of Laws. Around the table sit the\nchiefs, with confident, calm looks. One of them smokes, another\nexamines some papers. The moment S\u00eddorov has entered, a janitor\ncomes up to him, and he is put on the measuring-scale, receives\na knock under his chin, and has his legs straightened out. There\nwalks up a man with a cigarette. It is the doctor, and he, without\nlooking into the recruit's face, but somewhere past him, loathingly\ntouches his body, and measures and feels, and tells the janitor to\nopen the recruit's mouth wide, and commands him to breathe and to\nsay something. Somebody makes some notes. Finally, without looking\nonce into his eyes, the doctor says, \"Able-bodied! Next!\" and with a\nfatigued expression again seats himself at the table. Again soldiers\npush the lad and hurry him off. He somehow manages in his hurry to\npull the shirt over him, after missing the sleeves, somehow puts on\nhis trousers and leg-rags, draws on his boots, looks for his shawl\nand cap, grasps his fur coat, and is led into the hall, where he\nis placed behind a bench. Beyond this bench wait all the accepted\nrecruits. A village lad, like him, but from a distant Government, a\nfull-fledged soldier with a gun, with a sharp bayonet attached to\nit, keeps watch on him, ready to run the bayonet through him, if he\nshould think of running away.\n\nMeanwhile the crowd of fathers, mothers, wives, pushed by the\npolicemen, press close to the gate, to find out who is accepted,\nand who not. There appears one of the rejected, and he announces\nthat Peter has been accepted, and there is heard the wail of\nPeter's wife, for whom the word \"accepted\" means a separation of\nfour or five years, and the life of a soldier's wife as a cook, in\ndebauchery.\n\nBut just then a long-haired man in a special attire, which\ndistinguishes him from all other men, drives up and, getting down\nfrom the carriage, walks up to the house of the County Council\nOffice. The policemen clear a path for him through the crowd. \"The\nfather has come to administer the oath.\" And this father, who has\nbeen assured that he is a special, exclusive servant of Christ, who\nfor the most part does not himself see the deception under which he\nis, enters into the room where the accepted recruits are waiting,\nputs on a gold-embroidered apron, draws his hair out from underneath\nit, opens the very Gospel in which taking an oath is prohibited,\nlifts up a cross, the very cross on which Christ was crucified for\nnot doing what this His imaginary servant orders to be done, and\nputs it on the pulpit, and all these defenceless and deceived lads\nrepeat after him the lie which he pronounces boldly and by habit.\nHe reads, and they repeat after him: \"I promise and swear by the\nAlmighty God, before His holy Gospel ... etc., to defend, that is,\nto kill all those whom I am commanded to kill, and to do everything\nI am ordered to do by those people whom I do not know, and who need\nme for nothing else but that I should commit the evil deeds by which\nthey are kept in their positions, and by which they oppress my\nbrothers.\" All the accepted recruits senselessly repeat these wild\nwords, and the so-called \"father\" drives away with the consciousness\nof having correctly and scrupulously done his duty, and all these\ndeceived lads think that all those insipid, incomprehensible words,\nwhich they have just pronounced, have now, for the whole time of\ntheir military service, freed them from their human obligations and\nhave bound them to new, more obligatory military obligations.\n\nAnd this is done publicly, and no one will shout to the deceivers\nand to the deceived: \"Bethink yourselves and scatter, for this is\nthe basest and meanest lie, which ruins not only our bodies, but\nalso our souls.\"\n\nNo one does so; on the contrary, when all are accepted, and it\nbecomes necessary to let them out, the military chief, as though to\nscorn them, enters with self-confident, majestic mien into the hall\nwhere the deceived, drunken lads are locked up, and boldly exclaims\nto them in military fashion, \"Your health, boys! I congratulate\nyou on your Tsar's service.\" And the poor fellows (somebody has\ninstructed them what to do) babble something with an unaccustomed,\nhalf-intoxicated tongue to the effect that they are glad of it.\n\nIn the meantime, the crowd of fathers, mothers, and wives stand\nat the door and wait. The women look with tearful, arrested eyes\nthrough the door. And the door opens, and out come, staggering,\nand with a look of bravado, the accepted recruits,--Petr\u00fakha, and\nVany\u00fakha, and Mak\u00e1r,--trying not to look at their relatives. The\nwail of the mothers and wives is heard. Some embrace one another\nand weep; others try to look brave; others again console their\npeople. Mothers and wives, knowing that now they will be orphaned\nfor three, four, or five years, without a supporter, wail and lament\nat the top of their voices. The fathers do not speak much, and only\npitifully smack their tongues and sigh, knowing that now they will\nno longer see their helpers, whom they have raised and instructed,\nand that there will return to them, not those peaceful, industrious\nagriculturists that they have been, but generally debauched,\ndandyish soldiers, who are no longer used to a simple life.\n\nAnd now the whole crowd take up seats in their sleighs and start\ndown the street, in the direction of inns and restaurants, and\nstill louder are heard, interfering with one another, songs, sobs,\ndrunken shouts, the laments of the mothers and wives, the sounds of\nthe accordion, and curses. All make for saloons and restaurants,\nthe revenue from which goes to the government, and they abandon\nthemselves to intoxication, which drowns in them the percepted\nconsciousness of the illegality of what is being done to them.\n\nFor two or three weeks they live at home, and for the most part are\nhaving a good time, that is, are out on a spree.\n\nOn a set day they are collected, and driven like cattle to one\nplace, and are taught military methods and exercises. They are\ninstructed by just such deceived and bestialized men as they, who\nentered the service two or three years ago. The means of instruction\nare deception, stupefaction, kicks, v\u00f3dka. And not a year passes but\nthat spiritually sound, bright, good fellows are turned into just\nsuch wild beings as their teachers.\n\n\"Well, and if the prisoner, your father, runs away?\" I asked a young\nsoldier.\n\n\"I can run the bayonet through him,\" he replied, in the peculiar,\nsenseless voice of a soldier. \"And if he 'removes himself,' I must\nshoot,\" he added, apparently proud of his knowledge of what to do\nwhen his father \"removes himself.\"\n\nWhen he, the good young man, is brought to a condition lower than\nan animal, he is such as those who use him as an instrument of\nviolence want him to be. He is all ready: the man is lost, and a new\ninstrument of violence has been created.\n\nAnd all this takes place every year, every autumn, everywhere, in\nthe whole of Russia, in broad daylight, in a populous city, in the\nsight of all men, and the deception is so clever, so cunning, that\nall see it and in the depth of their hearts know all its baseness,\nall its terrible consequences, and are unable to free themselves\nfrom it.\n\n                                   3\n\nWhen the eyes shall be opened to this terrible deception which is\npractised on men, one must marvel how preachers of the religion\nof Christianity and morality, educators of youth, simply good,\nintelligent parents, who always exist in every society, can preach\nany doctrine of morality amidst a society in which all the churches\nand governments openly acknowledge that tortures and murders form an\nindispensable condition of the life of all men, and that amidst all\nmen there must always be some special men, who are prepared to kill\ntheir brothers, and that every one of us may be such.\n\nHow can children and youths be taught and men in general be\nenlightened, to say nothing of the enlightenment in the Christian\nspirit, how can they be taught any morality by the side of the\ndoctrine that murder is indispensable for the maintenance of the\ncommon, consequently of our own, well-being, and so is legitimate,\nand that there are men (any of us may be these men) whose duty it\nis to torture and kill our neighbours and to commit all kinds of\ncrime at the will of those who have the power in their hands? If\nit is possible and right to torture and kill and commit all kinds\nof crimes by the will of those who have the power in their hands,\nthere is, and there can be, no moral teaching, but there is only the\nright of the stronger. And so it is. In reality, such a teaching,\nwhich for some men is theoretically justified by the theory of the\nstruggle for existence, does exist in our society.\n\nReally, what kind of a moral teaching can there be, which would\nadmit murder for any purposes whatsoever? This is as impossible as\nany mathematical doctrine, which would admit that two is equal to\nthree.\n\nWith the admission of the fact that two is equal to three there may\nbe a semblance of mathematics, but there can be no real mathematical\nknowledge. With the admission of murder in the form of executions,\nwars, self-defence, there may be a semblance of morality, but no\nreal morality. The recognition of the sacredness of every man's life\nis the first and only foundation of all morality.\n\nThe doctrine of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for\na life was put aside by Christianity for the very reason that this\ndoctrine is only a justification of immorality, only a semblance\nof justice, and is devoid of sense. Life is a quantity which has no\nweight and no measure and which cannot be equalized to any other,\nand so the destruction of one life for another can have no meaning.\nBesides, every social law is a law which has for its purpose the\nimprovement of human life. But in what way can the destruction\nof the lives of a few individuals improve the lives of men? The\ndestruction of life is not like its improvement, but an act of\nsuicide.\n\nThe destruction of another man's life for the purpose of preserving\njustice is like what a man would do who, to mend the calamity which\nconsists in his having lost one arm, should for the sake of justice\ncut off his other arm.\n\nBut, to say nothing of the sin of deception, with which the most\nterrible crime presents itself to men as their duty; to say nothing\nof the terrible crime of using Christ's name and authority for the\npurpose of legalizing what is most denied by this same Christ, as is\ndone in the case of the oath; to say nothing of the offence by means\nof which not only the bodies, but even the souls of \"these little\nones\" are ruined; to say nothing of all that, how can men, even in\nview of their personal security, men who think highly of their forms\nof life, their progress, admit the formation among them of that\nterrible, senseless, cruel, pernicious force which is established by\nevery organized government that rests on the army? The most cruel\nand terrible of robber bands is not so terrible as such a state\norganization. Every leader of robbers is none the less limited in\nhis power, because the men who form his band retain at least a\nsmall part of their human liberty and may oppose the performance\nof acts contrary to their conscience. But for men forming a part\nof a regularly organized government with an army, with discipline\ncarried to the point to which it is at the present time, there are\nno barriers whatsoever. There are no crimes so terrible that they\nwould not be committed by men forming a part of the government\nand of the army, by the will of him who accidentally (Boulanger,\nPugach\u00e9v, Napoleon) may stand at its head.\n\nFrequently, when I see, not only the levies of recruits, the\nmilitary exercises, the man\u0153uvres, but also the policemen with\nloaded revolvers, the sentries standing with guns and adjusted\nbayonets; when I hear (as I do in the Kham\u00f3vniki, where I live) for\nwhole days the whistling and the pinging of bullets striking the\ntarget; and when I see, in the very city where every attempt at\nself-help and violence is prohibited, where there is a prohibition\nagainst the sale of powder, medicines, fast driving, unlicensed\nmedical practice, and so forth, when I see in this same city\nthousands of disciplined men, who have been taught to commit murder\nand who are subject to one man,--I ask myself: \"How can the men who\nthink so highly of their security bear all this?\" To say nothing of\nthe harmfulness and immorality, nothing can be more dangerous than\nthis. How can all men, I do not say Christians, Christian pastors,\nbut all philanthropists, moralists, all those men who value their\nlives, their security, their well-being, quietly look on? This\norganization will certainly act in the same way, no matter in whose\nhands it may be: to-day, let us say, this power is in the hands of\nan endurable ruler; to-morrow a Biron, an Elizabeth, a Catherine, a\nPugach\u00e9v, a Napoleon the First, a Napoleon the Third may usurp it.\nAnd again, the man in whose hands is the power, and who to-day may\nbe endurable, may to-morrow turn into a beast, or his place may be\ntaken by an insane or half-witted heir of his, as was the case with\nthe King of Bavaria and Paul.\n\nAnd not only these higher rulers, but also all those minor\nsatraps, who are distributed everywhere like so many Bar\u00e1novs,\nchiefs of police, even rural officers, commanders of companies,\nunder-officers, may commit terrible crimes before there has been\ntime to depose them, as happens constantly.\n\nInvoluntarily one asks himself: \"How can men permit such things to\nhappen, if not for the sake of higher considerations of state, at\nleast for the sake of their security?\"\n\nThe answer to this question is this, that it is not all men who\npermit this to happen (one part of them,--the great majority of\nmen,--the deceived and the subjected, cannot help but permit\nanything to be done), but those who with such an organization hold\nan advantageous position; they permit it, because for them the\nrisk of suffering, because at the head of the government or the\narmy there may be a senseless or cruel man, is always less than\nthe disadvantages to which they would be subjected in case of the\ndestruction of the organization itself.\n\nThe judge, policeman, governor, officer will hold his position\nequally under Boulanger, or a republic, or Pugach\u00e9v or Catherine;\nbut he will certainly lose his position, if the existing order,\nwhich secures for him his advantageous position, falls to pieces.\nAnd so all these men are not afraid of who will stand at the\nhead of the organization of violence,--they adapt themselves to\nanybody,--but only of the destruction of the organization itself,\nand so they always support it, often unconsciously.\n\nOne often marvels why free men, who are not urged to it by anything,\nthe so-called flower of society, enter the army, in Russia, in\nEngland, Germany, Austria, even France, and why they seek an\nopportunity for becoming murderers. Why do parents, moral men, send\ntheir children to institutions which prepare them for military\nmatters? Why do mothers buy their children helmets, guns, swords as\ntheir favourite toys? (The children of peasants never play soldier.)\nWhy do good men, and even women, who are in no way connected\nwith military affairs, go into ecstasies over the exploits of a\nSkobel\u00e9vski and of others, and why do they take so much pains to\npraise them? Why do men, who are not urged to do so, who do not\nreceive any salary for it, like the marshals of nobility in Russia,\ndevote whole months of assiduous work to performing a physically\nhard and morally agonizing piece of business,--the reception of\nrecruits? Why do all the emperors and kings wear military costumes,\nattend man\u0153uvres and parades, distribute rewards to soldiers,\nerect monuments to generals and conquerors? Why do free, wealthy men\nconsider it an honour to perform lackeys' duties to crowned heads,\nwhy do they humble themselves, and flatter them, and pretend that\nthey believe in the special grandeur of these persons? Why do men,\nwho have long ago stopped believing in the medi\u00e6val superstitions\nof the church, and who are unable to believe in them, seriously and\ninvariably pretend that they believe, thus maintaining the offensive\nand blasphemous religious institution? Why is the ignorance of the\nmasses so zealously guarded, not only by the governments, but also\nby the free men from the higher classes? Why do they with such fury\nattack every attempt at destroying the religious superstitions, and\nevery true enlightenment of the masses? Why do men,--historians,\nnovelists, poets,--who can certainly receive nothing for their\nflattery, describe as heroes long deceased emperors, kings, or\ngenerals? Why do men who call themselves learned devote their whole\nlives to the formation of theories, from which it follows that\nviolence which is exerted by the power against the nation is not\nviolence, but some especial right?\n\nOne often marvels why, for what reason a lady of the world or an\nartist, who, it would seem, is interested neither in social, nor in\nmilitary questions, condemns labour strikes and preaches war, and\nalways definitely attacks one side and defends the other?\n\nBut one marvels at this only so long as one does not know that\nthis is all done so because all the men of the ruling classes feel\ninstinctively what it is that maintains and what destroys the\norganization under which they can enjoy the privileges they are\nenjoying.\n\nThe lady of the world has not even made the reflection that, if\nthere are no capitalists, and no armies to defend them, her husband\nwill have no money, and she will have no salon and no costumes; and\nthe artist has not made the reflection as to this, that he needs the\ncapitalists, who are protected by the armies, to buy his pictures;\nbut the instinct, which in this case takes the place of reason,\nguides them unerringly. It is precisely the same instinct that with\nfew exceptions guides all those men who support all those political,\nreligious, economic establishments, which are advantageous to them.\n\nBut can the men of the upper classes maintain this order of things,\nonly because it is advantageous for them? These men cannot help but\nsee that this order of things is in itself irrational, no longer\ncorresponds to the degree of men's consciousness, not even to public\nopinion, and is full of dangers. The men of the ruling classes--the\nhonest, good, clever men among them--cannot help but suffer from\nthese internal contradictions, and cannot help but see the dangers\nwith which this order threatens them. Is it possible the men of\nthe lower classes, all the millions of these people, can with a\ncalm conscience perform all these obviously bad acts, tortures, and\nmurders, which they are compelled to perform, only because they are\nafraid of punishment? Indeed, that could not have been, and neither\nthe men of the one class nor of the other could help but see the\nirrationality of their activity, if the peculiarity of the state\nstructure did not conceal from them the whole unnaturalness and\nirrationality of the acts committed by them.\n\nThis irrationality is concealed by the fact that in the commission\nof each of these acts there are so many instigators, accomplices,\nabettors, that not one of the men taking part in it feels himself to\nbe morally responsible.\n\nMurderers compel all the persons who are present at a murder\nto strike the dead victim, so that the responsibility may be\ndistributed among the largest possible number of men. The same\nthing, having assumed definite forms, has established itself in\nthe structure of the state in the commission of all those crimes,\nwithout the constant commission of which no state organization is\nthinkable. The rulers of the state always try to draw as large\na number of citizens as possible into the greatest possible\nparticipation in all the crimes committed by them and indispensable\nfor them.\n\nOf late this has found a most lucid expression in the drafting of\nthe citizens into the courts in the form of jurors, into the armies\nin the form of soldiers, and into the local government and into the\nlegislative assembly in the form of electors and representatives.\n\nIn the structure of the state, in which, as in a basket made of\nrods, all the ends are so concealed that it is not possible to find\nthem, the responsibility for crimes committed is so concealed from\nmen that they, in committing the most awful deeds, do not see their\nown responsibility in them.\n\nIn olden times the tyrants were blamed for the commission of evil\ndeeds, but in our time most awful crimes, unthinkable even in the\ntime of a Nero, are committed, and there is no one to blame.\n\nSome men demanded, others decreed, others again confirmed, others\nproposed, others reported, others prescribed, others executed.\nWomen, old men, innocent people, are killed, hanged, flogged to\ndeath, as lately happened in Russia in the Y\u00fazov Plant, and as\nhappens everywhere in Europe and in America, in the struggle with\nanarchists and all kinds of violators of the existing order;\nhundreds, thousands of men will be shot to death, killed, and\nhanged, or, as is done in wars, millions of men will be killed or\nruined, or, as is constantly done, the souls of men are ruined in\nsolitary confinement, in the debauched condition of militarism,--and\nno one is to blame.\n\nOn the lowest stage of the social ladder, soldiers with guns,\npistols, swords, torture and kill men, and with the same tortures\nand murders compel men to enter the army, and are fully convinced\nthat the responsibility for these acts is taken from them by those\nauthorities who prescribe these acts to them.\n\nOn the highest stage, kings, presidents, ministers, Chambers,\nprescribe these tortures and murders and the enlistment of soldiers,\nand are fully convinced that, since they are put into their places\nby God, or since the society which they rule over demands from them\nprecisely what they prescribe, they cannot be blamed.\n\nIn the middle between the two are the intermediate persons, who\norder the tortures and murders and the enlistment of soldiers, and\nthey are fully convinced that their responsibility has been taken\nfrom them, partly by the commands from above, and partly because the\nsame orders are demanded of them by all those who stand on the lower\nstages.\n\nThe administrative and the executive powers, which lie at the two\nextremes of the structure of the state, meet like two ends that are\nunited into a ring, and one conditions and maintains the other and\nall the intervening links.\n\nWithout the conviction that there exists such a person, or such a\nnumber of persons, who take upon themselves the responsibility for\nthe acts committed, not one soldier would be able to raise his hands\nfor the purpose of torturing or killing. Without the conviction\nthat this is demanded by the whole nation, not one emperor, king,\npresident, not one assembly would be able to prescribe these same\ntortures and murders. Without the conviction that there are persons\nwho stand above him and take upon themselves the responsibility for\nhis act, and men who stand below him and demand the fulfilment of\nsuch acts for their own good, not one of the men who stand on the\nstages intermediate between the ruler and the soldier would be able\nto commit those acts which he is committing.\n\nThe structure of the state is such that, no matter on what rung of\nthe social ladder a man may stand, his degree of irresponsibility\nis always one and the same: the higher he stands, the more is he\nsubjected to the influence of the demand for orders from below and\nthe less he is subjected to the influence of the prescriptions from\nabove, and vice versa.\n\nThus, in the case before me, every one who had taken part in the\nmatter was the more under the influence of the demand for orders\nfrom below and the less under the influence of prescriptions from\nabove, the higher his position was, and vice versa.\n\nBut not only do all men who are connected with the structure of\nthe state shift their responsibility for deeds committed upon\nothers: the peasant who is drafted into the army, upon the nobleman\nor merchant who has become an officer; and the officer, upon the\nnobleman who holds the position of governor; and the governor, upon\nthe son of an official or nobleman who occupies the position of\nminister; and the minister, upon a member of the imperial house who\nholds the position of emperor; and the emperor again, upon all these\nofficials, noblemen, merchants, and peasants; not only do men in\nthis manner free themselves from the consciousness of responsibility\nfor acts committed by them,--they even lose the moral consciousness\nof their responsibility for this other reason, that, uniting into a\npolitical structure, they so constantly, continuously, and tensely\nconvince themselves and others that they are not all identical men,\nbut men who differ from one another as does \"one star from another,\"\nthat they begin themselves sincerely to believe so. Thus they\nconvince one set of men that they are not simple men, identical with\nothers, but a special kind of men, who have to be honoured, while\nthey impress others with the idea that they stand beneath all other\nmen and so must unflinchingly submit to what they are commanded to\ndo by their superiors.\n\nOn this inequality and exaltation of one class of men and the\nannihilation of the other is mainly based the inability of men to\nsee the irrationality of the existing order and its cruelty and\ncriminality, and of that deception which is practised by some and to\nwhich the others submit.\n\nSome, those who are impressed with the idea that they are\nvested with some supernatural significance and grandeur, are so\nintoxicated by this imaginary grandeur that they stop seeing\ntheir responsibility in the acts committed by them; the other\nmen, who, on the contrary, are impressed with the idea that they\nare insignificant creatures, who must in everything submit to the\nhigher, in consequence of this constant condition of humiliation\nfall into a strange condition of intoxication of servility, and\nunder the influence of their intoxication also fail to see the\nsignificance of their acts, and lose the consciousness of their\nresponsibility for them. The intermediate people, who, partly\nsubmitting to the higher, and partly considering themselves to\nbe superior, succumb simultaneously to the intoxication of power\nand that of servility, and so lose the consciousness of their\nresponsibility.\n\nWe need but look in any country at a superior chief, intoxicated by\nhis grandeur, accompanied by his staff, all of them on magnificently\ncaparisoned horses, in special uniforms and signs of distinction, as\nhe, to the sound of the harmonious and festive music produced by\nwind-instruments, rides past a line of soldiers stiffened up from a\nsense of servility and presenting arms,--we need but look at him, in\norder that we may understand that at these moments the highest chief\nand the soldier and all the intermediate persons, being in a state\nof intoxication, are equally capable of committing acts which they\nwould not think of committing under other circumstances.\n\nBut the intoxication experienced by men under such phenomena as\nare parades, imperial receptions, church solemnities, coronations,\nis a temporary and acute condition; there are also other, chronic,\nconstant conditions of intoxication, which are equally experienced\nby all men who have any power, from the power of the emperor to that\nof a policeman in the street, and by men who submit to power and who\nare in a condition of intoxication through servility, and who in\njustification of this their condition always ascribe, as has always\nshown itself in the case of slaves, the greatest significance and\ndignity to him whom they obey.\n\nOn this deception of the inequality of men and the resulting\nintoxication of power and of servility is pre-eminently based the\nability of men united into a political structure to commit, without\nexperiencing any pangs of conscience, acts which are contrary to\ntheir conscience.\n\nUnder the influence of such an intoxication, both of power and of\nservility, men present themselves to themselves and to others, not\nas what they are in reality,--men,--but as especial, conventional\nbeings,--noblemen, merchants, governors, judges, officers,\nkings, ministers, soldiers, who no longer are subject to common\nhuman obligations, but, above all else, and before all human, to\nnobiliary, commercial, gubernatorial, judicial, military, royal,\nministerial obligations.\n\nThus, the proprietor who litigated concerning the forest did what he\ndid only because he did not present himself to himself as a simple\nman, like any of the peasants who were living by his side, but as a\nlarge landed proprietor and a member of the gentry, and so, under\nthe influence of the intoxication of power, he felt himself insulted\nby the pretensions of the peasants. It was only for this reason\nthat, without paying any attention to the consequences which might\narise from his demand, he handed in the petition requesting the\nrestitution of his imaginary right.\n\nSimilarly, the judges who irregularly adjudged the forest to the\nproprietor did so only because they do not imagine themselves to\nbe simple men, just like all other men, and so under obligation in\nall cases to be guided only by what is the truth, but under the\nintoxication of power they imagine themselves to be the guardians of\njustice, who cannot err; but under the influence of the intoxication\nof servility they imagine themselves to be men who are obliged to\ncarry out certain words which are written in a certain book and\nare called the law. As just such conventional persons, and not as\nwhat they are in reality, present themselves, under the influence\nof the intoxication of power and of servility, to themselves and to\nothers, all the other participants in this matter, from the highest\nrepresentatives of power, who sign their approval on documents, from\nthe marshal, who drafts recruits at the levy of soldiers, and the\npriest, who deceives them, to the last soldier, who is now getting\nready to shoot at his brothers. They all did what they did, and\nare preparing themselves to do what awaits them, only because they\npresent themselves to themselves and to others, not as what they are\nin reality,--men who are confronted with the question as to whether\nthey should take part in a matter which is condemned by their\nconscience, or not,--but as different conventional persons,--one,\nas an anointed king, a special being, who is called upon to care\nfor the well-being of one hundred million men; another, as a\nrepresentative of nobility; a third, as a priest, who with his\nordainment has received a special grace; a fourth, as a soldier,\nwho is obliged by his oath to fulfil without reflection what he is\ncommanded to do.\n\nOnly under the influence of the intoxication of power and servility,\nwhich result from their imaginary positions, can all these men do\nwhat they do.\n\nIf all these men did not have a firm conviction that the callings of\nkings, ministers, governors, judges, noblemen, landed proprietors,\nmarshals, officers, soldiers, are something actually in existence\nand very important, not one of these men would think without terror\nand disgust of participating in the acts which he is committing now.\n\nThe conventional positions, which were established hundreds of years\nago, which have been recognized through the ages, and which are now\nrecognized by all men about us, and which are designated by especial\nnames and particular attires, and which, besides, are maintained by\nmeans of every kind of magnificence and effects on the outer senses,\nare to such a degree instilled in people that they, forgetting the\nhabitual conditions of life, common to all, begin to look upon\nthemselves and upon all men only from this conventional point of\nview, and are guided by nothing but this conventional point of view\nin the valuation of other men's acts.\n\nThus a mentally sound old man, for no other reason than that some\ntrinket or fool's dress is put over him, some keys on his buttocks,\nor a blue ribbon, which is proper only for a dressed-up little girl,\nand that he is on that occasion impressed with the idea that he is\na general, a chamberlain, a Cavalier of St. Andrews, or some such\nsilliness, suddenly becomes self-confident, proud, and even happy;\nor, on the contrary, because he loses or does not receive a desired\ntrinket or name, becomes so sad and unhappy that he even grows\nsick. Or, what is even more startling, an otherwise mentally sound,\nfree, and even well-to-do young man, for no other reason than that\nhe calls himself, and others call him, an investigating magistrate\nor County Council chief, seizes an unfortunate widow away from her\nminor children, and locks her up, or has her locked up in a prison,\nleaving her children without a mother, and all that because this\nunfortunate woman secretly trafficked in liquor and thus deprived\nthe Crown of twenty-five roubles of revenue, and he does not feel\nthe least compunction about it. Or, what is even more startling, an\notherwise intelligent and meek man, only because a brass plate or\na uniform is put on him and he is told that he is a watchman or a\ncustoms soldier, begins to shoot with bullets at men, and neither\nhe nor those who surround him consider him blameworthy for it, and\nwould even blame him if he did not shoot; I do not even speak of the\njudges and jurors, who sentence to executions, and of the military,\nwho kill thousands without the least compunction, only because they\nhave been impressed with the idea that they are not simply men, but\njurors, judges, generals, soldiers.\n\nSuch a constant, unnatural, and strange condition of men in the\nlife of the state is generally expressed in words as follows: \"As a\nman I pity him, but as a watchman, judge, general, governor, king,\nsoldier, I must kill or torture him,\" as though there can exist a\ngiven position, acknowledged by men, which can make void duties\nwhich are imposed upon each of us by a man's position.\n\nThus, for example, in the present case, men are travelling to commit\nmurder and tortures on hungry people, and they recognize that in the\ndispute between the peasants and the proprietor the peasants are\nin the right (all men in authority told me so), and know that the\npeasants are unfortunate, poor, and hungry; the proprietor is rich\nand does not inspire sympathy, and all these men none the less are\non their way to kill the peasants, in order thus to secure three\nthousand roubles to the proprietor, for no other reason than that\nthese men at this moment do not consider themselves to be men, but\na governor, a general of gendarmes, an officer, a soldier, and\nthink that not the eternal demands of their consciences, but the\naccidental, temporary demands of their positions as officers and\nsoldiers are binding on them.\n\nHowever strange this may seem, the only explanation for this\nremarkable phenomenon is this, that these men are in the same\nposition as those hypnotized persons who are commanded to imagine\nand feel themselves in certain conventional positions, and to act\nlike those beings whom they represent; thus, for example, when\na hypnotized person receives the suggestion that he is lame, he\nbegins to limp, or that he is blind, he does not see, or that he is\nan animal, he begins to bite. In this state are not only the men\nwho are travelling on this train, but also all men who preferably\nperform their social and their political duties, to the disadvantage\nof their human duties.\n\nThe essence of this condition is this, that the men under the\ninfluence of the one idea suggested to them are not able to reflect\nupon their acts, and so do, without any reflection, what is\nprescribed to them in correspondence with the suggested idea, and\nwhat they are led up to through example, advice, or hints.\n\nThe difference between those who are hypnotized by artificial means\nand those who are under the influence of the political suggestion\nconsists in this, that to the artificially hypnotized their\nimaginary condition is suggested at once, by one person, and for\nthe briefest space of time, and so the suggestion presents itself\nto us in a glaring form, which sets us to wondering, while to the\nmen who act under the political suggestion their imaginary position\nis suggested by degrees, slowly, imperceptibly, from childhood,\nat times not only in a certain number of years, but through whole\ngenerations, and, besides, is not suggested by one person, but by\nall those who surround them.\n\n\"But,\" I shall be told, \"in all societies the majority of men,--all\nthe children, all the women, who are absorbed in the labour of\npregnancy, child-bearing, and nursing, all the enormous masses of\nthe working people, who are placed under the necessity of tense\nand assiduous physical labour, all the mentally weak by nature,\nall abnormal men with a weakened spiritual activity in consequence\nof nicotine, alcohol, and opium poisoning, or for some other\nreason,--all these men are always in such a condition that, not\nbeing able to reason independently, they submit either to those men\nwho stand on a higher stage of rational consciousness, or to family\nand political traditions, to what is called public opinion, and in\nthis submission there is nothing unnatural or contradictory.\"\n\nAnd, indeed, there is nothing unnatural in it, and the ability of\nunthinking people to submit to the indications of men standing on\na higher stage of consciousness is a constant property of men,\nthat property in consequence of which men, submitting to the same\nrational principles, are able to live in societies: some,--the\nminority,--by consciously submitting to the same rational\nprinciples, on account of their agreement with the demands of their\nreason; the others,--the majority,--by submitting unconsciously\nto the same principles, only because these demands have become\nthe public opinion. Such a subjection of the unthinking to public\nopinion presents nothing unnatural so long as the public opinion is\nnot split up.\n\nBut there are times when the higher truth, as compared with the\nformer degree of the consciousness of the truth, which at first\nis revealed to a few men, in passing by degrees from one set to\nanother, embraces such a large number of men that the former public\nopinion, which is based on a lower stage of consciousness, begins\nto waver, and the new is ready to establish itself, but is not\nyet established. There are times, resembling spring, when the old\npublic opinion has not yet been destroyed and the new is not yet\nestablished, and when men begin to criticize their own acts and\nthose of others on the basis of the new consciousness, and yet in\nlife, from inertia, from tradition, continue to submit to principles\nwhich only in former times formed the higher degree of rational\nconsciousness, but which now are already in an obvious contradiction\nto it. And then the men, feeling, on the one hand, the necessity of\nsubmitting to the new public opinion, and not daring, on the other,\nto depart from the former, find themselves in an unnatural, wavering\nstate. It is in such a condition that, in relation to the Christian\ntruths, are not only the men on this train, but also the majority of\nthe men of our time.\n\nIn the same condition are equally the men of the higher classes, who\nenjoy exclusive, advantageous positions, and the men of the lower\nclasses, who without opposition obey what they are commanded to obey.\n\nSome, the men of the ruling classes, who no longer possess any\nrational explanation for the advantageous positions held by them,\nare put to the necessity, for the purpose of maintaining these\npositions, of suppressing in themselves the higher rational\nfaculties of love and of impressing upon themselves the necessity\nfor their exclusive position; the others, the lower classes, who are\noppressed by labour and purposely stupefied, are in a constant state\nof suggestion, which is unflinchingly and constantly produced on\nthem by the men of the higher classes.\n\nOnly thus can be explained those remarkable phenomena with which our\nlife is filled, and as a striking example of which there presented\nthemselves to me my good, peaceful acquaintances, whom I met on\nSeptember 9th, and who with peace of mind were travelling to commit\na most beastly, senseless, and base crime. If the consciences of\nthese men had not been in some way put to sleep, not one of them\nwould be able to do one hundredth part of what they are getting\nready to do, and, in all probability, will do.\n\nIt cannot be said that they do not have the conscience which\nforbids them to do what they are about to do, as there was no such\nconscience in men four hundred, three hundred, two hundred, one\nhundred years ago, when they burned people at the stake, tortured\npeople, and flogged them to death; it exists in all these men, but\nit is put to sleep in them,--in some, the ruling men, who are in\nexclusive, advantageous positions, by means of auto-suggestion, as\nthe psychiaters call it; in the others, the executors, the soldiers\nby a direct, conscious suggestion, hypnotization, produced by the\nupper classes.\n\nThe conscience is in these men put to sleep, but it exists in them,\nand through the auto-suggestion and suggestion, which hold sway over\nthem, it already speaks in them and may awaken any moment.\n\nAll these men are in a condition resembling the one a hypnotized\nman would be in, if it were suggested to him and he were commanded\nto do an act which is contrary to everything which he considers\nrational and good,--to kill his mother or child. The hypnotized man\nfeels himself bound by the suggestion induced in him, and it seems\nto him that he cannot stop; at the same time, the nearer he comes to\nthe time and the place of the commission of the crime, the stronger\ndoes the drowned voice of the conscience rise in him, and he begins\nto show more and more opposition and to writhe, and wants to wake\nup. And it is impossible to say in advance whether he will do the\nsuggested act, or not, and what it is that will win, the rational\nconsciousness or the irrational suggestion. Everything depends on\nthe relative strength of the two.\n\nPrecisely the same is now taking place in all the men on this train,\nand in general in all the men who in our time commit political acts\nof violence and exploit them.\n\nThere was a time when men, who went out for the purpose of torturing\nand killing people, for the purpose of setting an example, did not\nreturn otherwise than having performed the act for which they had\ngone out, and, having performed the act, they were not tormented\nby repentance and doubt, but, having flogged men to death, calmly\nreturned home to their family, and petted their children,--jested,\nlaughed, and abandoned themselves to quiet domestic pleasures.\nIt did not then occur even to those who gained by these acts of\nviolence, to the landed proprietors and the rich men, that the\nadvantages which they enjoyed had any direct connection with these\ncruelties. But now it is not so: men know already, or are very near\nto knowing, what they are doing, and for what purpose they are\ndoing what they are doing. They may shut their eyes and cause their\nconsciences to be inactive, but with eyes unshut and consciences\nunimpaired they--both those who commit the acts and those who gain\nby them--no longer can fail to see the significance which these acts\nhave. It happens that men understand the significance of what they\nhave done only after they have performed the act; or it happens\nthat they understand it before the very act. Thus the men who had\nin charge the tortures in N\u00edzhni-N\u00f3vgorod, Sar\u00e1tov, Or\u00e9l, Y\u00fazov\nPlant, understood the significance of what they did only after\nthe commission of the act, and now they are tormented with shame\nbefore public opinion and before their consciences. Both those who\nordered the tortures and those who executed them are tormented. I\nhave spoken with soldiers who have executed such acts, and they have\nalways cautiously evaded all conversation about it; when they spoke,\nthey did so with perplexity and terror. Cases happen when men come\nto their senses immediately before the commission of the act. Thus\nI know a case of a sergeant, who during a pacification was beaten\nby two peasants, and who reported accordingly, but who the next\nday, when he saw the tortures to which the peasants were subjected,\nbegged the commander of the company to tear up the report and to\ndischarge the peasants who had beaten him. I know a case when the\nsoldiers, who were commanded to shoot some men, declined to obey;\nand I know many cases where the commanders refused to take charge\nof tortures and murders. Thus it happens that the men who establish\nviolence and those who commit acts of violence at times come to\ntheir senses long before the commission of the act suggested to\nthem, at others before the very act, and at others again after the\nact.\n\nThe men who are travelling on this train have gone out to torture\nand kill their brothers, but not one of them knows whether he will\ndo what he has set out to do, or not. No matter how hidden for each\nof them is the responsibility in this matter, no matter how strong\nthe suggestion may be, in all these men, that they are not men,\nbut governors, rural judges, officers, soldiers, and that, as such\nbeings, they may violate their human obligations, the nearer they\napproach the place of their destination, the stronger will the doubt\nrise in them whether they should do what they have started out to\ndo, and this doubt will reach the highest degree when they reach the\nvery moment of the execution.\n\nThe governor, in spite of all the intoxication of the surrounding\ncircumstance, cannot help but reflect for a moment, when he has\nto give his last decisive command concerning the murder or the\ntorture. He knows that the case of the Governor of Or\u00e9l provoked\nthe indignation of the best men of society, and he himself, under\nthe influence of the public opinion of those circles to which he\nbelongs, has more than once expressed his disapproval of it; he\nknows that the prosecutor, who was to have gone with them, refused\noutright to take part in this business, because he considered it\ndisgraceful; he knows also that changes may take place in the\ngovernment at any time, and that in consequence of them that which\nwas a desert to-day may to-morrow be the cause of disfavour; he\nknows, too, that there is a press, if not in Russia, at least\nabroad, which may describe this matter and so disgrace him for life.\nHe already scents that new public opinion which is making void what\nthe former public opinion demanded. Besides, he cannot be absolutely\nsure that at the last moment the executors will obey him. He wavers,\nand it is impossible to foretell what he will do.\n\nThe same thing, in a greater or lesser measure, is experienced by\nall the officials and officers who are travelling with him. They\nall know in the depth of their hearts that the deed which is to be\ndone is disgraceful, that participation in it lowers and defiles\na man in the eyes of a few men, whose opinion they already value.\nThey know that it is a shame to appear after the torture or murder\nof defenceless men in the presence of their fianc\u00e9es or wives, whom\nthey treat with a show of tenderness. Besides, like the governor,\nthey are in doubt whether the soldiers are sure to obey them. And,\nno matter how unlike it is to the self-confident look with which\nall these ruling men now move in the station and up and down the\nplatform, they all in the depth of their hearts suffer and even\nwaver. It is for this very reason that they assume this confident\ntone, in order to conceal their inner wavering. And this sensation\nincreases in proportion as they come nearer to the place of action.\n\nHowever imperceptible this may be, and however strange it may\nappear, all this mass of young soldiers, who seem so subservient, is\nin the same state.\n\nThey are all of them no longer the soldiers of former days, men who\nhave renounced their natural life of labour, and who have devoted\ntheir lives exclusively to dissipation, rapine, and murder, like\nsome Roman legionaries or the warriors of the Thirty-Years War, or\neven the late soldiers of twenty-five years of service; they are,\nfor the most part, men who have but lately been taken away from\ntheir families, all of them full of recollections of that good,\nnatural, and sensible life from which they have been taken away.\n\nAll these lads, who for the most part come from the country, know\nwhat business is taking them out on the train; they know that the\nproprietors always offend their brothers, the peasants, and that\ntherefore the same thing is taking place here. Besides, the greater\nhalf of these men know how to read books, and not all books are\nthose in which the business of war is lauded,--there are also those\nin which its immorality is pointed out. Amidst them frequently\nserve freethinking companions,--volunteer soldiers,--and just such\nliberal young officers, and into their midst has been thrown the\nseed of doubt as to the unconditional legality and valour of their\nactivity. It is true, all of them have passed through that terrible,\nartificial drill, worked out by ages, which kills all independence\nin a man, and they are so accustomed to mechanical obedience that\nat the words of command, \"Fire by company! Company, fire!\" and so\nforth, their guns rise mechanically and the habitual motions take\nplace. But \"Fire!\" will not mean now having fun while shooting at a\ntarget, but killing their tormented, offended fathers and brothers,\nwho--here they are--are standing in crowds, with their women and\nchildren in the street, and shouting and waving their hands. Here\nthey are,--one of them, with a sparse beard, in a patched caftan and\nin bast shoes, just like their own fathers at home in the Government\nof Kaz\u00e1n or of Ryaz\u00e1n; another, with a gray beard and stooping\nshoulders, carrying a large stick, just like their father's father,\ntheir grandfather; another, a young lad in boots and red shirt,\nexactly as the soldier who is now to shoot at him was a year ago.\nAnd here is a woman in bast shoes and linen skirt, just like mother\nat home----\n\nAre they really going to shoot at them?\n\nGod knows what each soldier will do during this last moment. One\nslightest indication as to its not being right, above all as to\nthe possibility of not doing it, one such word, one hint, will be\nsufficient, in order to stop them.\n\nAll men who are travelling on this train will, when they proceed\nto execute the deed for which they have set out, be in the same\nposition in which a hypnotized person would be, who has received the\nsuggestion to chop a log, and, having walked up to what has been\npointed out to him as a log and having raised the axe to strike,\nsuddenly sees or is told that it is not a log, but his sleeping\nbrother. He may perform the act suggested to him, and he may wake up\nbefore its performance. Even so all these men may awaken, or not. If\nthey do not, as terrible a deed as the one in Or\u00e9l will be done, and\nin other men the auto-suggestion and the suggestion under which they\nact will be increased; if they awaken, such a deed will not only not\nbe performed, but many others, upon finding out the turn which the\naffair has taken, will be freed from that suggestion in which they\nare, or at least will approach such a liberation.\n\nBut if not all men travelling on this train shall awaken and refrain\nfrom doing the deed which has been begun, if only a few of them\nshall do so and shall boldly express to other men the criminality\nof this affair, these few men even may have the effect of awakening\nall the other men from the suggestion, under which they are, and the\nproposed evil deed will not take place.\n\nMore than that: if only a few men, who do not take part in this\naffair, but are only present at the preparations for the same, or\nwho have heard of similar acts previously committed, will not remain\nindifferent, but will frankly and boldly express their disgust with\nthe participants in these matters, and will point out to them their\nwhole senselessness, cruelty, and criminality, even that will not\npass unnoticed.\n\nEven so it was in the present case. A few persons, participants and\nnon-participants in this affair, who were free from suggestion,\nneeded but at the time when they were getting ready for this affair\nboldly to express their indignation with tortures administered in\nother places, and their disgust and contempt for those men who\ntook part in them; in the present T\u00fala affair a few persons needed\nbut to express their unwillingness to take part in it; the lady\npassenger and a few other persons at the station needed but in the\npresence of those who were travelling on the train to express their\nindignation at the act which was about to be committed; one of the\nregimental commanders, a part of whose troops were demanded for the\npacification, needed but to express his opinion that the military\ncannot be executioners,--and thanks to these and certain other,\nseemingly unimportant, private influences exerted against people\nunder suggestion, the affair would take a different turn, and the\ntroops, upon arriving on the spot, would not commit any tortures,\nbut would cut down the forest and give it to the proprietor. If\nthere should not be in certain men any clear consciousness as to\ntheir doing wrong, and if there should be, in consequence of this,\nno mutual influence of men in this sense, there would take place the\nsame as in Or\u00e9l. But if this consciousness should be even stronger,\nand so the amount of the interactions even greater than what it was,\nit is very likely that the governor and his troops would not even\ndare to cut down the forest, in order to give it to the proprietor.\nIf this consciousness had been even stronger and the amount of\ninteractions greater, it is very likely the governor would not even\nhave dared to travel to the place of action. If the consciousness\nhad been stronger still and the amount of interactions even\ngreater, it is very likely that the minister would not have made up\nhis mind to prescribe, and the emperor to confirm such a decree.\n\nEverything, consequently, depends on the force with which the\nChristian truth is cognized by every individual man.\n\nAnd so, it would seem, the activity of all the men of our time, who\nassert that they wish to continue to the welfare of humanity, should\nbe directed to the increase of the lucidity of the demands of the\nChristian truth.\n\n                                   4\n\nBut, strange to say, those very men, who in our time assert more\nthan any one else that they care for the amelioration of human life,\nand who are regarded as the leaders in public opinion, affirm that\nit is not necessary to do that, and that for the amelioration of\nthe condition of men there exist other, more efficacious means.\nThese men assert that the amelioration of human life does not take\nplace in consequence of the internal efforts of the consciousness\nof individual men and the elucidation and profession of the truth,\nbut in consequence of the gradual change of the common external\nconditions of life, and that the profession by every individual\nman of the truth which is not in conformity with the existing\norder is not only useless, but even harmful, because on the part\nof the power it provokes oppressions, which keep these individuals\nfrom continuing their useful activity in the service of society.\nAccording to this doctrine, all the changes in human life take place\nunder the same laws under which they take place in the life of the\nanimals.\n\nThus, according to this doctrine, all the founders of religions,\nsuch as Moses and the prophets, Confucius, Lao-tse, Buddha,\nChrist, and others preached their teachings, and their followers\naccepted them, not because they loved truth, elucidated it to\nthemselves, and professed it, but because the political, social,\nand, above all, economic conditions of the nations among whom these\nteachings appeared and were disseminated were favourable for their\nmanifestation and diffusion.\n\nAnd so the chief activity of a man wishing to serve society and\nameliorate the condition of humanity must according to this\ndoctrine be directed, not to the elucidation of the truth and its\nprofession, but to the amelioration of the external political,\nsocial, and, above all else, economic conditions. Now the change of\nthese political, social, and economic conditions is accomplished\npartly by means of serving the government and of introducing into it\nliberal and progressive principles, partly by contributing to the\ndevelopment of industry and the dissemination of socialistic ideas,\nand chiefly by the diffusion of scientific education.\n\nAccording to this teaching it is not important for a man to profess\nin life the truth that has been revealed to him, and so inevitably\nbe compelled to realize it in life, or at least not to do acts which\nare contrary to the professed truth; not to serve the government\nand not to increase its power, if he considers this power to be\ndeleterious; not to make use of the capitalistic structure, if he\nconsiders this structure to be irregular; not to show any respect\nfor various ceremonies, if he considers them to be a dangerous\nsuperstition; not to take part in the courts, if he considers\ntheir establishment to be false; not to serve as a soldier; not\nto swear; in general, not to lie, not to act as a scoundrel, but,\nwithout changing the existing forms of life, and submitting to them,\ncontrary to his opinion, he should introduce liberalism into the\nexisting institutions; co\u00f6perate with industry, the propaganda of\nsocialism, the advancement of what is called the sciences, and the\ndiffusion of culture. According to this theory is it possible,\nthough remaining a landed proprietor, a merchant, a manufacturer,\na judge, an official, receiving a salary from the government, a\nsoldier, an officer, to be, withal, not only a humane man, but even\na socialist and revolutionist.\n\nHypocrisy, which formerly used to have a religious foundation in\nthe doctrine about the fall of the human race, about redemption,\nand about the church, in this teaching received in our time a new\nscientific foundation, and so has caught in its net all those men\nwho from the degree of their development can no longer fall back on\nthe religious hypocrisy. Thus, if formerly only a man who professed\nthe ecclesiastic religious doctrine could, considering himself with\nit pure from every sin, take part in all kinds of crimes committed\nby the government, and make use of them, so long as he at the same\ntime fulfilled the external demands of his profession, now all men,\nwho do not believe in the church Christianity, have the same kind of\na worldly scientific basis for recognizing themselves as pure, and\neven highly moral men, in spite of their participation in the evil\ndeeds of the state and of their making use of them.\n\nThere lives--not in Russia alone, but anywhere you please, in\nFrance, England, Germany, America--a rich landed proprietor, and\nfor the right which he gives to certain people living on his land,\nto draw their sustenance from it, he fleeces these for the most\npart hungry people to their fullest extent. This man's right to the\npossession of the land is based on this, that at every attempt of\nthe oppressed people at making use of the lands which he considers\nhis own, without his consent, there arrive some troops which subject\nthe men who have seized the lands to tortures and extermination. One\nwould think that it is evident that a man who lives in this manner\nis an egotistical being and in no way can call himself a Christian\nor a liberal. It would seem to be obvious that the first thing\nsuch a man ought to do, if he only wants in some way to come near\nto Christianity or to liberalism, would be to stop plundering and\nruining men by means of his right to the land, which is supported\nby murders and tortures practised by the government. Thus it would\nbe if there did not exist the metaphysics of hypocrisy, which says\nthat from a religious point of view the possession or non-possession\nof the land is a matter of indifference as regards salvation, and\nthat from the scientific point of view the renunciation of the\nownership of land would be a useless personal effort, and that\nthe co\u00f6peration with the good of men is not accomplished in this\nmanner, but through the gradual change of external forms. And so\nthis man, without the least compunction, and without any misgivings\nas to his being believed, arranges an agricultural exhibition, or a\ntemperance society, or through his wife and children sends jackets\nand soup to three old women, and in his family, in drawing-rooms,\ncommittees, the press, boldly preaches the Gospel or humane love of\none's neighbour in general, and of that working agricultural class\nin particular which he constantly torments and oppresses. And the\nmen who are in the same condition with him believe him, praise him,\nand with him solemnly discuss the questions as to what measures\nshould be used for the amelioration of the condition of the working\nmasses, on the spoliation of whom their life is based, inventing\nfor the purpose all kinds of means, except the one without which no\namelioration of the people's condition is possible, of ceasing to\ntake away from these people the land, which is necessary for their\nmaintenance.\n\nA most striking example of such hypocrisy is to be found in the\nmeasures taken last year by the Russian landed proprietors in the\nstruggle with the famine, which they themselves had produced, and\nwhich they immediately set out to exploit, when they not only\nsold the corn at the highest possible price, but even sold to the\nfreezing peasants as fuel the potato-tops at five roubles per\ndesyat\u00edna.\n\nOr there lives a merchant, whose whole commerce, like any commerce,\nis based on a series of rascalities, by means of which, exploiting\nthe ignorance and need of men, articles are bought of them below\ntheir value, and, again exploiting the ignorance, need, and\ntemptation of men, are sold back at prices above their value. It\nwould seem to be obvious that a man whose activity is based on\nwhat in his own language is called rascality, so long as these\nsame acts are performed under different conditions, ought to be\nashamed of his position, and is by no means able, continuing to be a\nmerchant, to represent himself as a Christian or a liberal. But the\nmetaphysics of hypocrisy says to him that he may pass for a virtuous\nman, even though continuing his harmful activity: a religious man\nneed only be believed, but a liberal has only to co\u00f6perate with\nthe change of external conditions,--the progress of industry.\nAnd so this merchant, who frequently, in addition, performs a\nwhole series of direct rascalities, by selling bad wares for good\nones, cheating in weights and measures, or trading exclusively in\narticles which are pernicious to the people's health (such as wine\nor opium), boldly considers himself, and is considered by others,\nso long as he in business does not directly cheat his fellows in\ndeception, that is, his fellow merchants, to be a model of honesty\nand conscientiousness. If he spends one-thousandth of the money\nstolen by him on some public institution, a hospital, a museum, an\ninstitution of learning, he is also regarded as a benefactor of\nthose very people on the deception and corruption of whom all his\nfortune is based; but if he contributes part of his stolen money to\na church and for the poor, he is regarded even as a model Christian.\n\nOr there lives a manufacturer, whose whole income consists of\nthe pay which is taken away from the workmen, and whose whole\nactivity is based on compulsory, unnatural labour, which ruins whole\ngenerations of men; it would seem to be obvious that first of all,\nif this man professes any Christian or liberal principles, he must\nstop ruining human lives for the sake of his profit. But according\nto the existing theory, he is contributing to industry, and he must\nnot--it would even be injurious to men and to society--stop his\nactivity. And here this man, the cruel slaveholder of thousands\nof men, building for those who have been crippled while working\nfor him little houses with little gardens five feet square, and a\nsavings-bank, and a poorhouse, and a hospital, is fully convinced\nthat in this way he has more than paid for all those physically\nand mentally ruined lives of men, for which he is responsible, and\nquietly continues his activity, of which he is proud.\n\nOr there lives a head of a department, or some civil, clerical,\nmilitary servant of the state, who serves for the purpose of\nsatisfying his ambition or love of power, or, what is most common,\nfor the purpose of receiving a salary, which is collected from the\nmasses that are emaciated and exhausted with labour (taxes, no\nmatter from whom they come, always originate in labour, that is, in\nthe labouring people), and if he, which is extremely rare, does not\ndirectly steal the government's money in some unusual manner, he\nconsiders himself and is considered by others like him to be a most\nuseful and virtuous member of society.\n\nThere lives some judge, prosecutor, head of a department, and he\nknows that as the result of his sentence or decree hundreds and\nthousands of unfortunate people, torn away from their families,\nare lingering in solitary confinement, at hard labour, going mad\nand killing themselves with glass, or starving to death; he knows\nthat these thousands of people have thousands of mothers, wives,\nchildren, who are suffering from the separation, are deprived of\nthe possibility of meeting them, are disgraced, vainly implore\nforgiveness or even alleviation of the fates of their fathers, sons,\nhusbands, brothers,--and the judge or head of a department is so\nhardened in his hypocrisy that he himself and his like and their\nwives and relatives are firmly convinced that he can with all this\nbe a very good and sensitive man. According to the metaphysics of\nhypocrisy, it turns out that he is doing useful public work. And\nthis man, having ruined hundreds, thousands of men, who curse him,\nand who are in despair, thanks to his activity, believing in the\ngood and in God, with a beaming, benevolent smile on his smooth\nface, goes to mass, hears the Gospel, makes liberal speeches, pets\nhis children, preaches to them morality, and feels meek of spirit in\nthe presence of imaginary sufferings.\n\nAll these men and those who live on them, their wives, teachers,\nchildren, cooks, actors, jockeys, and so forth, live by the blood\nwhich in one way or another, by one class of leeches or by another,\nis sucked out of the working people; thus they live, devouring each\nday for their pleasures hundreds and thousands of work-days of the\nexhausted labourers, who are driven to work by the threat of being\nkilled; they see the privations and sufferings of these labourers,\nof their children, old men, women, sick people; they know of the\npenalties to which the violators of this established spoliation are\nsubjected, and they not only do not diminish their luxury, do not\nconceal it, but impudently display before these oppressed labourers,\nwho for the most part hate them, as though on purpose to provoke\nthem, their parks, castles, theatres, chases, races, and at the\nsame time assure themselves and one another that they are all very\nmuch concerned about the good of the masses, whom they never stop\ntreading underfoot; and on Sundays they dress themselves in costly\nattire and drive in expensive carriages into houses especially built\nfor the purpose of making fun of Christianity, and there listen to\nmen especially trained in this lie, who in every manner possible, in\nvestments and without vestments, in white neckties, preach to one\nanother the love of men, which they all deny with their whole lives.\nAnd, while doing all this, these men so enter into their parts that\nthey seriously believe that they actually are what they pretend to\nbe.\n\nThe universal hypocrisy, which has entered into the flesh and blood\nof all the classes of our time, has reached such limits that nothing\nof this kind ever fills any one with indignation. Hypocrisy with\ngood reason means the same as acting, and anybody can pretend,--act\na part. Nobody is amazed at such phenomena as that the successors\nof Christ bless the murderers who are lined up and hold the guns\nwhich are loaded for their brothers; that the priests, the pastors\nof all kinds of Christian confessions, always, as inevitably as\nthe executioners, take part in executions, with their presence\nrecognizing the murder as compatible with Christianity (at an\nelectrocution in America, a preacher was present).\n\nLately there was an international prison exhibition in St.\nPetersburg, where implements of torture were exhibited, such as\nmanacles, models of solitary cells, that is, worse implements of\ntorture than knouts and rods, and sensitive gentlemen and ladies\nwent to look at all this, and they enjoyed the sight.\n\nNor is any one surprised at the way the liberal science proves, by\nthe side of the assumption of equality, fraternity, liberty, the\nnecessity of an army, of executions, custom-houses, the censorship,\nthe regulation of prostitution, the expulsion of cheap labour,\nand the prohibition of immigration, and the necessity and justice\nof colonization, which is based on the poisoning, plundering, and\ndestruction of whole tribes of men who are called savage, and so\nforth.\n\nPeople talk of what will happen when all men shall profess what\nis called Christianity (that is, various mutually hostile\nprofessions); when all shall be well fed and well clothed; when all\nshall be united with one another from one end of the world to the\nother by means of telegraphs and telephones, and shall communicate\nwith one another by means of balloons; when all the labourers shall\nbe permeated with social teachings, and the labour-unions shall\nhave collected so many millions of members and of roubles; when all\nmen shall be cultured, and all shall read the papers and know the\nsciences.\n\nBut of what use or good can all these improvements be, if people\nshall not at the same time speak and do what they consider to be the\ntruth?\n\nThe calamities of men are certainly due to their disunion, and the\ndisunion is due to this, that men do not follow the truth, which\nis one, but the lies, of which there are many. The only means for\nthe union of men into one is the union in truth; and so, the more\nsincerely men strive toward the truth, the nearer they are to this\nunion.\n\nBut how can men be united in truth, or even approach it, if they not\nonly do not express the truth which they know, but even think that\nit is unnecessary to do so, and pretend that they consider to be the\ntruth what they do not regard as the truth.\n\nAnd so no amelioration of the condition of men is possible, so long\nas men will pretend, that is, conceal the truth from themselves, so\nlong as they do not recognize that their union, and so their good,\nis possible only in the truth, and so will not place the recognition\nand profession of the truth, the one which has been revealed to\nthem, higher than anything else.\n\nLet all those external improvements, of which religious and\nscientific men may dream, be accomplished; let all men accept\nChristianity, and let all those ameliorations, which all kinds of\nBellamys and Richets wish for, take place, with every imaginable\naddition and correction--but let with all that the same hypocrisy\nremain as before; let men not profess the truth which they know,\nbut continue to pretend that they believe in what they really do\nnot believe, and respect what they really do not respect, and the\ncondition of men will not only remain the same, but will even grow\nworse and worse. The more people shall have to eat, the more there\nshall be of telegraphs, telephones, books, newspapers, journals, the\nmore means will there be for the dissemination of discordant lies\nand of hypocrisy, and the more will men be disunited and, therefore,\nwretched, as is indeed the case at present.\n\nLet all these external changes take place, and the condition of\nhumanity will not improve. But let each man at once in his life,\naccording to his strength, profess the truth, as he knows it, or let\nhim at least not defend the untruth, which he does, giving it out\nas the truth, and there would at once, in this present year 1893,\ntake place such changes in the direction of the emancipation of men\nand the establishment of truth upon earth as we do not dare even to\ndream of for centuries to come.\n\nFor good reason Christ's only speech which is not meek, but\nreproachful and cruel, was directed to the hypocrites and against\nhypocrisy. What corrupts, angers, bestializes, and, therefore,\ndisunites men, is not thieving, nor spoliation, nor murder, nor\nfornication, nor forgery, but the lie, that especial lie of\nhypocrisy which in the consciousness of men destroys the distinction\nbetween good and evil, deprives them of the possibility of avoiding\nthe evil and seeking the good, deprives them of what forms the\nessence of the true human life, and so stands in the way of every\nperfection of men.\n\nMen who do not know the truth and who do evil, awakening in others\na sympathetic feeling for their victims and a contempt for their\nacts, do evil only to those whom they injure; but the men who know\nthe truth and do the evil, which is concealed under hypocrisy, do\nevil to themselves and to those whom they injure, and to thousands\nof others who are offended by the lie, with which they attempt to\nconceal the evil done by them.\n\nThieves, plunderers, murderers, cheats, who commit acts that are\nrecognized as evil by themselves and by all men, serve as an example\nof what ought not to be done, and deter men from evil. But the\nmen who commit the same act of thieving, plundering, torturing,\nkilling, mantling themselves with religious and scientific liberal\njustifications, as is done by all landed proprietors, merchants,\nmanufacturers, and all kinds of servants of the government of our\ntime, invite others to emulate their acts, and do evil, not only\nto those who suffer from it, but also to thousands and millions of\nmen, whom they corrupt, by destroying for these men the difference\nbetween good and evil.\n\nOne fortune acquired by the trade in articles necessary for the\nmasses or by corrupting the people, or by speculations on 'Change,\nor by the acquisition of cheap land, which later grows more\nexpensive on account of the popular want, or by the establishment\nof plants ruining the health and the life of men, or by civil\nor military service to the state, or by any means which pamper\nto the vices of men--a fortune gained by such means, not only\nwith the consent, but even with the approval of the leaders of\nsociety, corrupts people incomparably more than millions of thefts,\nrascalities, plunderings, which are committed outside the forms\nrecognized by law and subject to criminal prosecution.\n\nOne execution, which is performed by well-to-do, cultured men,\nnot under the influence of passion, but with the approval and\nco\u00f6peration of Christian pastors, and presented as something\nnecessary, corrupts and bestializes men more than hundreds and\nthousands of murders, committed by uncultured labouring men,\nespecially under the incitement of passion. An execution, such as\nZhuk\u00f3vski proposed to arrange, when men, as Zhuk\u00f3vski assumed,\nwould even experience a religious feeling of meekness of spirit,\nwould be the most corrupting action that can be imagined. (See Vol.\nVI. of Zhuk\u00f3vski's _Complete Works_.)\n\nEvery war, however short its duration, with its usual accompanying\nlosses, destruction of the crops, thieving, admissible debauchery,\nlooting, murders, with the invented justifications of its necessity\nand its justice, with the exaltation and eulogizing of military\nexploits, of love of flag and country, with the hypocritical cares\nfor the wounded, and so forth, corrupts in one year more than do\nmillions of robberies, incendiarisms, murders, committed in the\ncourse of hundreds of years by individual men under the influence of\nthe passions.\n\nOne luxurious life, running temperately within the limits of\ndecency, on the part of one respectable, so-called virtuous, family,\nwhich, none the less, spends on itself the products of as many\nlabouring days as would suffice for the support of thousands of\npeople living in misery side by side with this family, corrupts\npeople more than do thousands of monstrous orgies of coarse\nmerchants, officers, labouring men, who abandon themselves to\ndrunkenness and debauchery, who for fun break mirrors, dishes, and\nso forth.\n\nOne solemn procession, Te Deum, or sermon from the ambo or pulpit,\ndealing with a lie in which the preachers themselves do not believe,\nproduces incomparably more evil than do thousands of forgeries and\nadulterations of food, and so forth.\n\nWe talk of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. But the hypocrisy of the\nmen of our time far surpasses the comparatively innocent hypocrisy\nof the Pharisees. They had at least an external religious law, in\nthe fulfilment of which they could overlook their obligations in\nrelation to their neighbours, and, besides, these obligations were\nat that time not yet clearly pointed out; in our time, in the first\nplace, there is no such religious law which frees men from their\nobligations to their neighbours, to all their neighbours without\nexception (I do not count those coarse and stupid men who even now\nthink that sacraments or the decision of the Pope can absolve one\nfrom sins): on the contrary, that Gospel law, which we all profess\nin one way or another, directly points out these obligations, and\nbesides these obligations, which at that time were expressed in dim\nwords by only a few prophets, are now expressed so clearly that they\nhave become truisms, which are repeated by gymnasiasts and writers\nof feuilletons. And so the men of our time, it would seem, cannot\npossibly pretend that they do not know these their obligations.\n\nThe men of our time, who exploit the order of things which is\nsupported by violence, and who at the same time assert that they\nare very fond of their neighbours, and entirely fail to observe\nthat they are with their whole lives doing evil to these their\nneighbours, are like a man who has incessantly robbed people, and\nwho, being finally caught with his knife raised over his victim, who\nis calling for aid in a desperate voice, should assert that he did\nnot know that what he was doing was unpleasant for him whom he was\nrobbing and getting ready to kill. Just as this robber and murderer\ncannot deny what is obvious to all men, so, it would seem, it is\nimpossible for the men of our time, who live at the expense of the\nsufferings of oppressed men, to assure themselves and others that\nthey wish for the good of those men whom they rob incessantly, and\nthat they did not know in what manner they acquire what they use as\ntheir own.\n\nIt is impossible for us to believe that we do not know of those one\nhundred thousand men in Russia alone, who are always locked up in\nprisons and at hard labour, for the purpose of securing our property\nand our peace; and that we do not know of those courts, in which\nwe ourselves take part, and which in consequence of our petitions\nsentence the men who assault our property or endanger our security\nto imprisonment, deportation, and hard labour, where the men, who\nare in no way worse than those who sentence them, perish and are\ncorrupted; that we do not know that everything we have we have only\nbecause it is acquired and secured for us by means of murders and\ntortures. We cannot pretend that we do not see the policeman who\nwalks in front of the windows with a loaded revolver, defending\nus, while we eat our savoury dinner or view a new performance, or\nthose soldiers who will immediately go with their guns and loaded\ncartridges to where our property will be violated.\n\nWe certainly know that if we shall finish eating our dinner, or\nseeing the latest drama, or having our fun at a ball, at the\nChristmas tree, at the skating, at the races, or at the chase, we\ndo so only thanks to the bullet in the policeman's revolver and in\nthe soldier's gun, which will at once bore a hole through the hungry\nstomach of the dispossessed man who, with watering mouth, is staying\naround the corner and watching our amusements, and is prepared to\nviolate them the moment the policeman with the revolver shall go\naway, or as soon as there shall be no soldier in the barracks ready\nto appear at our first call.\n\nAnd so, just as a man caught in broad daylight in a robbery can in\nno way assure all men that he did not raise his hand over the man\nabout to be robbed by him, in order to take his purse from him, and\ndid not threaten to cut his throat, so we, it would seem, cannot\nassure ourselves and others that the soldiers and policemen with\nthe revolvers are all about us, not in order to protect us, but\nto defend us against external enemies, for the sake of order, for\nornament, amusement, and parades; and that we did not know that men\ndo not like to starve, having no right to make a living off the\nland on which they live, do not like to work underground, in the\nwater, in hellish heat, from ten to fourteen hours a day, and in\nthe night, in all kinds of factories and plants, for the purpose\nof manufacturing articles for our enjoyment. It would seem to be\nimpossible to deny that which is so obvious. And yet it is precisely\nwhat is being done.\n\nThough there are among the rich some honest people,--fortunately I\nmeet more and more of them, especially among the young and among\nwomen,--who, at the mention of how and with what their pleasures are\nbought, do not try to conceal the truth, and grasp their heads and\nsay, \"Oh, do not speak of it. If it is so, it is impossible to go on\nliving;\" though there are such sincere people, who, unable to free\nthemselves from their sin, none the less see it, the vast majority\nof the men of our time have so entered into their r\u00f4le of hypocrisy,\nthat they boldly deny what is so startlingly obvious to every seeing\nperson.\n\n\"All this is unjust,\" they say; \"nobody compels the people to work\nfor the proprietors and in factories. This is a question of free\nagreement. Large possessions and capital are indispensable, because\nthey organize labour and give work to the labouring classes; and\nthe work in the factories and plants is not at all as terrible as\nyou imagine it to be. If there are some abuses in the factories,\nthe government and society will see to it that they be removed and\nthat the work be made still more easy and even more agreeable for\nthe labourers. The working people are used to physical labour, and\nso far are not good for anything else. The poverty of the masses\nis not at all due to the ownership of land, nor to the oppression\nof capital, but to other causes: it is due to the ignorance, the\ncoarseness, the drunkenness of the masses. We, the men of state,\nwho are counteracting this impoverishment by wise enactments, and\nwe, the capitalists, who are counteracting it by the dissemination\nof useful inventions, we, the clergy, by religious instruction,\nand we, the liberals, by the establishment of labour-unions,\nthe increase and diffusion of knowledge, in this manner, without\nchanging our position, increase the welfare of the masses. We do not\nwant all men to be poor, like the poor, but want them to be rich,\nlike the rich. The statement that men are tortured and killed to\ncompel them to work for the rich is nothing but sophistry; troops\nare sent out against the masses only when they, misunderstanding\ntheir advantages, become riotous and disturb the peace, which is\nnecessary for the common good. Just as much do we need the curbing\nof malefactors, for whom are intended the prisons, gallows, and hard\nlabour. We should ourselves like to do away with them, and we are\nworking in this direction.\"\n\nThe hypocrisy of our time, which is supported from two sides, by\nthe quasi-religion and the quasi-science, has reached such a point\nthat, if we did not live in the midst of it, we should not be able\nto believe that men could reach such a degree of self-deception.\nThe people have in our time reached the remarkable state when their\nhearts are so hardened that they look and do not see, that they\nlisten and do not hear or understand.\n\nMen have long been living a life which is contrary to their\nconsciousness. If it were not for hypocrisy, they would not be\nable to live this life. This order of life, which is contrary to\ntheir consciousness, is continued only because it is hidden under\nhypocrisy.\n\nThe more the distance is growing between reality and the\nconsciousness of men, the more does hypocrisy expand, but there are\nlimits even to hypocrisy, and it seems to me that in our time we\nhave reached that limit.\n\nEvery man of our time, with the Christian consciousness, which is\ninvoluntarily acquired by him, finds himself in a situation which\nis exactly like that of a sleeping man, who sees in his sleep that\nhe must do what he knows even in his sleep is not right for him\nto do. He knows this in the very depth of his heart, and yet, as\nthough unable to change his position, he cannot stop and cease\ndoing what he knows he ought not to do. And, as happens in sleep,\nhis condition, becoming more and more agonizing, finally reaches\nthe utmost degree of tension, and then he begins to doubt the\nreality of what presents itself to him, and he makes an effort of\nconsciousness, in order to break the spell that holds him fettered.\n\nIn the same condition is the average man of our Christian world.\nHe feels that everything which is done by himself and about him\nis something insipid, monstrous, impossible, and contrary to his\nconsciousness, that this condition is becoming more and more\nagonizing, and has reached the utmost limit of tension.\n\nIt cannot be: it cannot be that the men of our time, with our\nChristian consciousness of the dignity of man, the equality of\nmen, which has permeated our flesh and blood, with our need for a\npeaceful intercourse and union among the nations, should actually be\nliving in such a way that every joy of ours, every comfort, should\nbe paid for by the sufferings, the lives of our brothers, and that\nwe, besides, should every moment be within a hair's breadth of\nthrowing ourselves, like wild beasts, upon one another, nation upon\nnation, mercilessly destroying labour and life, for no other reason\nthan that some deluded diplomatist or ruler has said or written\nsomething stupid to another deluded diplomatist or ruler like\nhimself.\n\nIt cannot be. And yet every man of our time sees that it is\nprecisely what is being done, and that the same thing awaits him.\nThe state of affairs is getting more and more agonizing.\n\nAs the man in his sleep does not believe that what presents itself\nto him as reality is actually real, and wants to awaken to the\nother, the actual reality, so also the average man of our time\ncannot in the depth of his heart believe that the terrible state in\nwhich he is, and which is getting worse and worse, is the reality,\nand he wants to awaken to the actual reality, the reality of the\nconsciousness which already abides in him.\n\nAnd as the man asleep needs but make an effort of his consciousness\nand ask himself whether it is not a dream, in order that what to\nhim appeared as such a hopeless state may be at once destroyed, and\nhe may awaken to a calm and joyous reality, even so the modern man\nneeds only make an effort of his consciousness, needs only doubt in\nthe reality of what his own and the surrounding hypocrisy presents\nto him, and ask himself whether it is not all a deception, in order\nthat he may immediately feel himself at once passing over, like the\nawakened man, from the imaginary, terrible world to the real, to the\ncalm and joyous reality.\n\nThis man need not perform any acts or exploits, but has only to make\nan internal effort of consciousness.\n\n                                   5\n\nCannot man make this effort?\n\nAccording to the existing theory, indispensable for hypocrisy, man\nis not free and cannot change his life.\n\n\"Man cannot change his life, because he is not free; he is not free,\nbecause all of his acts are conditioned by previous causes. No\nmatter what a man may do, there always exist these or those causes,\nfrom which the man has committed these or those acts, and so man\ncannot be free and himself change his life,\" say the defenders of\nthe metaphysics of hypocrisy. They would be absolutely right, if\nman were an unconscious being, immovable in relation to truth; that\nis, if, having once come to know the truth, he always remained on\nthe selfsame stage of his cognition. But man is a conscious being,\nrecognizing a higher and still higher degree of the truth, and so,\nif a man is not free in the commission of this or that act, because\nfor every act there exists a cause, the very causes of these acts,\nwhich for conscious man consist in his recognizing this or that\ntruth as an adequate cause for his action, are within man's power.\n\nThus man, who is not free in the commission of these or those\nacts, is free as regards the basis for his acts, something as the\nengineer of a locomotive, who is not free as regards the change of\nan accomplished or actual motion of the locomotive, is none the less\nfree in determining beforehand its future motions.\n\nNo matter what a conscious man may do, he acts in this way or that,\nand not otherwise, only because he either now recognizes that the\ntruth is that he ought to act as he does, or because he formerly\nrecognized it, and now from inertia, from habit, acts in a manner\nwhich now he recognizes to be false.\n\nIn either case the cause of his act was not a given phenomenon, but\nthe recognition of a given condition as the truth and, consequently,\nthe recognition of this or that phenomenon as an adequate cause of\nhis act.\n\nWhether a man eats or abstains from food, whether he works or rests,\nruns from danger or is subject to it, if he is a conscious man, he\nacts as he does only because he now considers this to be proper and\nrational: he considers the truth to consist in his acting this way,\nand not otherwise, or he has considered it so for a long time.\n\nThe recognition of a certain truth or the non-recognition of it\ndoes not depend on external causes, but on some others, which are\nin man himself. Thus with all the external, apparently advantageous\nconditions for the recognition of truth, one man at times does\nnot recognize it, and, on the contrary, another, under all the\nmost unfavourable conditions, without any apparent cause, does\nrecognize it. As it says in the Gospel: \"No man can come to me,\nexcept the Father draw him\" (John vi. 44), that is, the recognition\nof the truth, which forms the cause of all the phenomena of human\nlife, does not depend on external phenomena, but on some internal\nqualities of man, which are not subject to his observation.\n\nAnd so a man, who is not free in his acts, always feels himself free\nin what serves as the cause of his actions,--in the recognition\nor non-recognition of the truth, and feels himself free, not only\nindependently of external conditions taking place outside him, but\neven of his own acts.\n\nThus a man, having under the influence of passion committed an act\nwhich is contrary to the cognized truth, none the less remains free\nin its recognition or non-recognition, that is, he can, without\nrecognizing the truth, regard his act as necessary and justify\nhimself in its commission, and can, by recognizing the truth,\nconsider his act bad and condemn it in himself.\n\nThus a gambler or a drunkard, who has not withstood temptation\nand has succumbed to his passion, remains none the less free to\nrecognize his gambling or his intoxication either as an evil or as\nan indifferent amusement. In the first case, he, though not at once,\nfrees himself from his passion, the more, as he the more sincerely\nrecognizes the truth; in the second, he strengthens his passion and\ndeprives himself of every possibility of liberation.\n\nEven so a man, who could not stand the heat and ran out of a\nburning house without having saved his companion, remains free (by\nrecognizing the truth that a man must serve the lives of others at\nthe risk of his own life) to consider his act bad, and so to condemn\nhimself for it, or (by not recognizing this truth) to consider his\nact natural, and necessary, and to justify himself in it. In the\nfirst case, in recognizing the truth, he, in spite of his departure\nfrom it, prepares for himself a whole series of self-sacrificing\nacts, which inevitably must result from such a recognition; in the\nsecond case, he prepares a whole series of egotistical acts, which\nare opposed to the first.\n\nNot that a man is always free to recognize every truth, or not.\nThere are truths which have long ago been recognized by a man\nhimself or have been transmitted to him by education and tradition,\nand have been taken by him on faith, the execution of which has\nbecome to him a habit, a second nature; and there are truths\nwhich present themselves to him indistinctly, in the distance.\nA man is equally unfree in the non-recognition of the first and\nthe recognition of the second. But there is a third class of\ntruths, which have not yet become for man an unconscious motive\nfor his activity, but which at the same time have already revealed\nthemselves to him with such lucidity that he cannot evade them,\nand must inevitably take up this or that relation to them, by\nrecognizing or not recognizing them. It is in relation to these same\ntruths that man's freedom is manifested.\n\nEvery man finds himself in his life in relation to truth in the\nposition of a wanderer who walks in the dark by the light of a\nlantern moving in front of him: he does not see what is not yet\nilluminated by the lantern, nor what he has passed over and what is\nagain enveloped in darkness, and it is not in his power to change\nhis relation to either; but he sees, no matter on what part of the\npath he may stand, what is illuminated by the lantern, and it is\nalways in his power to select one side of the road on which he is\nmoving, or the other.\n\nFor every man there always are truths, invisible to him, which\nhave not yet been revealed to his mental vision; there are other\ntruths, already outlived, forgotten, and made his own; and there\nare certain truths which have arisen before him in the light of his\nreason and which demand his recognition. It is in the recognition\nor non-recognition of these truths that there is manifested what we\ncognize as our freedom.\n\nThe whole difficulty and seeming insolubility of the question about\nman's freedom is due to this, that the men who decide this question\npresent man to themselves as immovable in relation to truth.\n\nMan is unquestionably not free, if we represent him to ourselves as\nimmovable, if we forget that the life of man and of humanity is only\na constant motion from darkness to the light, from the lower stage\nof the truth to the higher, from a truth which is mixed with errors\nto a truth which is more free from them.\n\nMan would not be free, if he did not know any truth, and he would\nnot be free and would not even have any idea about freedom, if the\nwhole truth, which is to guide him in his life, were revealed to him\nin all its purity, without any admixture of errors.\n\nBut man is not immovable in relation to truth, and every individual\nman, as also all humanity, in proportion to its movement in life,\nconstantly cognizes a greater and ever greater degree of the truth,\nand is more and more freed from error. Therefore men always are in a\nthreefold relation to truth: one set of truths has been so acquired\nby them that these truths have become unconscious causes of their\nactions, others have only begun to be revealed to them, and the\nthird, though not yet made their own, are revealed to them with such\na degree of lucidity that inevitably, in one way or another, they\nmust take up some stand in relation to them, must recognize them, or\nnot.\n\nIt is in the recognition or non-recognition of these truths that man\nis free.\n\nMan's freedom does not consist in this, that he can, independently\nof the course of his life and of causes already existing and acting\nupon him, commit arbitrary acts, but in this, that he can, by\nrecognizing the truth revealed to him and by professing it, become a\nfree and joyous performer of the eternal and infinite act performed\nby God or the life of the world, and can, by not recognizing the\ntruth, become its slave and be forcibly and painfully drawn in a\ndirection which he does not wish to take.\n\nTruth not only indicates the path of human life, but also reveals\nthat one path, on which human life can proceed. And so all men will\ninevitably, freely or not freely, walk on the path of life: some,\nby naturally doing the work of life destined for them, others, by\ninvoluntarily submitting to the law of life. Man's freedom is in\nthis choice.\n\nSuch a freedom, within such narrow limits, seems to men to be so\ninsignificant that they do not notice it: some (the determinists)\nconsider this portion of freedom to be so small that they do not\nrecognize it at all; others, the defenders of complete freedom,\nhaving in view their imaginary freedom, neglect this seemingly\ninsignificant degree of freedom. The freedom which is contained\nbetween the limits of the ignorance of the truth and of the\nrecognition of a certain degree of it does not seem to men to be\nany freedom, the more so since, whether a man wants to recognize\nthe truth which is revealed to him or not, he inevitably will be\ncompelled to fulfil it in life.\n\nA horse that is hitched with others to a wagon is not free not to\nwalk in front of the wagon; and if it will not draw, the wagon will\nstrike its legs, and it will go whither the wagon goes, and will\npull it involuntarily. But, in spite of this limited freedom, it is\nfree itself to pull the wagon or be dragged along by it. The same is\ntrue of man.\n\nWhether this freedom is great or not, in comparison with that\nfantastic freedom which we should like to have, this freedom\nunquestionably exists, and this freedom is freedom, and in this\nfreedom is contained the good which is accessible to man.\n\nNot only does this freedom give the good to men, but it is also the\none means for the accomplishment of the work which is done by the\nlife of the world.\n\nAccording to Christ's teaching, the man who sees the meaning of\nlife in the sphere in which it is not free, in the sphere of\nconsequences, that is, of acts, has not the true life. According\nto the Christian teaching, only he has the true life who has\ntransferred his life into that sphere in which it is free, into the\nsphere of causes, that is, of the cognition and the recognition\nof the truth which is revealing itself, of its profession, and so\ninevitably of its consequent fulfilment as the wagon's following the\nhorse.\n\nIn placing his life in carnal things, a man does that work which\nis always in dependence on spatial and temporal causes, which are\noutside of him. He himself really does nothing,--it only seems to\nhim that he is doing something, but in reality all those things\nwhich it seems to him he is doing are done through him by a higher\npower, and he is not the creator of life, but its slave; but in\nplacing his life in the recognition and profession of the truth\nthat is revealed to him, he, by uniting with the source of the\nuniversal life, does not do personal, private works, which depend\non conditions of space and time, but works which have no causes and\nthemselves form causes of everything else, and have an endless,\nunlimited significance.\n\nBy neglecting the essence of the true life, which consists in the\nrecognition and profession of the truth, and by straining their\nefforts for the amelioration of their lives upon external acts, the\nmen of the pagan life-conception are like men on a boat, who, in\norder to reach their goal, should put out the boiler, which keeps\nthem from distributing the oarsmen, and, instead of proceeding under\nsteam and screw, should try in a storm to row with oars that do not\nreach to the water.\n\nThe kingdom of God is taken by force and only those who make an\neffort get hold of it,--and it is this effort of the renunciation\nof the change of the external conditions for the recognition and\nprofession of truth which is the effort by means of which the\nkingdom of God is taken and which must and can be made in our time.\n\nMen need but understand this: they need but stop troubling\nthemselves about external and general matters, in which they are\nnot free, and use but one hundredth part of the energy, which\nthey employ on external matters, on what they are free in, on the\nrecognition and profession of the truth which stands before them, on\nthe emancipation of themselves and of men from the lie and hypocrisy\nwhich conceal the truth, in order that without effort and struggle\nthere should at once be destroyed that false structure of life which\ntorments people and threatens them with still worse calamities, and\nthat there should be realized that kingdom of God or at least that\nfirst step of it, for which men are already prepared according to\ntheir consciousness.\n\nJust as one jolt is sufficient for a liquid that is saturated with\nsalt suddenly to become crystallized, thus, perhaps, the smallest\neffort will suffice for the truth, which is already revealed to men,\nto take hold of hundreds, thousands, millions of men,--for a public\nopinion to be established to correspond to the consciousness, and,\nin consequence of its establishment, for the whole structure of\nthe existing life to be changed. And it depends on us to make this\neffort.\n\nIf every one of us would only try to understand and recognize the\nChristian truth which surrounds us on all sides in the most varied\nforms, and begs for admission into our souls; if we only stopped\nlying and pretending that we do not see that truth, or that we wish\nto carry it out, only not in what it first of all demands of us; if\nwe only recognized the truth which calls us and boldly professed it,\nwe should immediately see that hundreds, thousands, millions of men\nare in the same condition that we are in, that they see the truth,\njust as we do, and that, like us, they are only waiting for others\nto recognize it.\n\nIf men only stopped being hypocritical, they would see at once\nthat the cruel structure of life, which alone binds them and which\npresents itself to them as something firm, indispensable, and\nsacred, as something established by God, is shaking already and is\nholding only by that lie of hypocrisy by means of which we and our\nlike support it.\n\nBut if this is so, if it is true that it depends on us to destroy\nthe existing order of life, have we the right to destroy it, without\nknowing clearly what we shall put in its place? What will become of\nthe world, if the existing order of things shall be destroyed?\n\n\"What will be there, beyond the walls of the world which we leave\nbehind?\" (Herzen's words.)\n\n\"Terror seizes us,--the void, expanse, freedom.... How can we\ngo, without knowing whither? How can we lose, without seeing any\nacquisition?\n\n\"If Columbus had reflected thus, he would never have weighed anchor.\nIt is madness to sail the sea without knowing the way, to sail\nthe sea no one has traversed before, to make for a country, the\nexistence of which is a question. With this madness he discovered\na new world. Of course, if the nations could move from one _h\u00f4tel\ngarni_ into another, a better one, it would be easier, but\nunfortunately there is no one to arrange the new quarters. In the\nfuture it is worse than on the sea,--there is nothing,--it will be\nwhat circumstances and men make it.\n\n\"If you are satisfied with the old world, try to preserve it,--it\nis very decrepit and will not last long; but if it is unbearable\nfor you to live in an eternal discord between convictions and life,\nto think one thing and do another, come out from under the whited\nmedi\u00e6val vaults at your risk. I know full well that this is not\neasy. It is not a trifling matter to part from everything a man is\naccustomed to from the day of his birth, with what he has grown up\nwith from childhood. Men are prepared for terrible sacrifices, but\nnot for those which the new life demands of them. Are they prepared\nto sacrifice modern civilization, their manner of life, their\nreligion, the accepted conventional morality? Are they prepared to\nbe deprived of all the fruits which have been worked out with such\nefforts, of the fruits we have been boasting of for three centuries,\nto be deprived of all the comforts and charms of our existence,\nto prefer wild youth to cultured debility, to break up their\ninherited palace from the mere pleasure of taking part in laying the\nfoundation for the new house, which will, no doubt, be built after\nus?\" (Herzen, Vol. V., p. 55.)\n\nThus spoke almost half a century ago a Russian author, who with his\npenetrating mind even at that time saw very clearly what now is\nseen by the least reflecting man of our time,--the impossibility of\ncontinuing life on its former foundations, and the necessity for\nestablishing some new forms of life.\n\nFrom the simplest, lowest, worldly point of view it is already clear\nthat it is madness to remain under the vault of a building, which\ndoes not sustain its weight, and that it is necessary to leave it.\nIndeed, it is hard to imagine a state which is more wretched than\nthe one in which is now the Christian world, with its nations armed\nagainst each other, with the ever growing taxes for the support\nof these ever growing armaments, with the hatred of the labouring\nclass against the rich, which is being fanned more and more, with\nDamocles's sword of war hanging over all, and ready at any moment to\ndrop down, and inevitably certain to do so sooner or later.\n\nHardly any revolution can be more wretched for the great mass of\nthe people than the constantly existing order, or rather disorder,\nof our life, with its habitual sacrifices of unnatural labour,\npoverty, drunkenness, debauchery, and with all the horrors of an\nimminent war, which is in one year to swallow up more victims than\nall the revolutions of the present century.\n\nWhat will happen with us, with all humanity, when each one of us\nshall perform what is demanded of him by God through the conscience\nwhich is implanted in him? Will there be no calamity, because,\nfinding myself entirely in the power of the Master, I in the\nestablishment built up and guided by Him shall do what He commands\nme to do, but what seems strange to me, who do not know the final\nends of the Master?\n\nBut it is not even this question as to what will happen that\ntroubles men, when they hesitate to do the Master's will: they are\ntroubled by the question as to how they could live without those\nconditions of their life which they have become accustomed to, and\nwhich we call science, art, civilization, culture. We feel for\nourselves personally the whole burden of the present life, we even\nsee that the order of this life, if continued, will inevitably cause\nour ruin; but, at the same time, we want the conditions of this our\nlife, which have grown out of it, our arts, sciences, civilizations,\ncultures, to remain unharmed in the change of our life. It is as\nthough a man living in an old house, suffering from the cold and\nthe inconveniences of this house, and knowing, besides, that this\nhouse is about to fall in, should consent to its rebuilding only on\ncondition that he should not come out of it: a condition which is\nequal to a refusal to rebuild the house. \"What if I leave the house,\nfor a time am deprived of all comforts, and the new house will not\nbe built at all or will be built in such a way that it will lack\nwhat I am used to?\"\n\nBut, if the material is on hand and the builders are there, all the\nprobabilities are in favour of the new house being better than the\nold one, and at the same time there is not only a probability, but\neven a certainty, that the old house will fall in and will crush\nthose who are left in it. Whether the former, habitual conditions of\nlife will be retained, whether they will be destroyed, or whether\nentirely new ones, better ones, will arise, it is inevitably\nnecessary to leave the old conditions of our life, which have become\nimpossible and pernicious, and to go ahead and meet the future\nconditions.\n\n\"The sciences, arts, civilizations, and cultures will disappear!\"\n\nAll these are only different manifestations of the truth, and\nthe imminent change is to take place only in the name of an\napproximation to truth and its realization. How, then, can the\nmanifestations of the truth disappear in consequence of its\nrealization? They will be different, better, and higher, but they\nwill by no means be destroyed. What will be destroyed in them is\nwhat is false; but what there was of truth in them will only blossom\nout and be strengthened.\n\n                                   6\n\nCome to your senses, men, and believe in the Gospel, in the teaching\nof the good. If you shall not come to your senses, you will all\nperish, as perished the men who were killed by Pilate, as perished\nthose who were crushed by the tower of Siloam, as perished millions\nand millions of men, slayers and slain, executioners and executed,\ntormentors and tormented, and as foolishly perished that man who\nfilled up his granaries and prepared himself to live for a long\ntime, and died the same night on which he wanted to begin his new\nlife. \"Come to your senses and believe in the Gospel,\" Christ\nsaid eighteen hundred years ago, and says now with even greater\nconvincingness, through the utter wretchedness and irrationality of\nour life, predicted by Him and now an accomplished fact.\n\nNow, after so many centuries of vain endeavours to make our life\nsecure by means of the pagan institution of violence, it would seem\nto be absolutely obvious to everybody that all the efforts which\nare directed toward this end only introduce new dangers into our\npersonal and social life, but in no way make it secure.\n\nNo matter what we may call ourselves; what attires we may put on;\nwhat we may smear ourselves with, and in the presence of what\npriests; how many millions we may have; what protection there may\nbe along our path; how many policemen may protect our wealth; how\nmuch we may execute the so-called revolutionary malefactors and\nanarchists; what exploits we ourselves may perform; what kingdoms we\nmay found, and what fortresses and towers we may erect, from that of\nBabel to that of Eiffel,--we are all of us at all times confronted\nby two inevitable conditions of our life, which destroy its whole\nmeaning: (1) by death, which may overtake any of us at any moment,\nand (2) by the impermanency of all the acts performed by us, which\nare rapidly and tracklessly destroyed. No matter what we may do,\nwhether we found kingdoms, build palaces, erect monuments, compose\npoems, it is but for a short time, and everything passes, without\nleaving a trace. And so, no matter how much we may conceal the fact\nfrom ourselves, we cannot help but see that the meaning of our life\ncan be neither in our personal, carnal existence, which is subject\nto inevitable sufferings and inevitable death, nor in any worldly\ninstitution or structure.\n\nWhoever you, the reader of these lines, may be, think of your\ncondition and of your duties,--not of the condition of landowner,\nmerchant, judge, emperor, president, minister, priest, soldier,\nwhich people temporarily ascribe to you, nor of those imaginary\nduties, which these positions impose upon you, but of that\nreal, eternal condition of existence, which by somebody's will\nafter a whole eternity of non-existence has issued forth from\nunconsciousness, and at any moment by somebody's will may return to\nwhere you come from. Think of your duties,--not of your imaginary\nduties as a landowner to your estate, of a merchant to your capital,\nof an emperor, minister, official to the state,--but of those real\nduties of yours, which result from your real condition of existence,\nwhich is called into life and is endowed with reason and love. Are\nyou doing what is demanded of you by Him who has sent you into the\nworld, and to whom you will very soon return? Are you doing what\nHe is demanding of you? Are you doing what is right, when, being a\nlandowner, manufacturer, you take away the productions of labour\nfrom the poor, building up your life on this spoliation, or when,\nbeing a ruler, a judge, you do violence to people and sentence\nthem to capital punishment, or when, being a soldier, you prepare\nyourself for wars, and wage war, plunder, and kill?\n\nYou say that the world is constructed that way, that this is\nunavoidable, that you are not doing this of your own will, but that\nyou are compelled to do so. But is it possible that the aversion\nfor human sufferings, for tortures, for the killing of men should\nbe so deeply implanted in you; that you should be so imbued with\nthe necessity for loving men and the still more potent necessity of\nbeing loved by them; that you should clearly see that only with the\nrecognition of the equality of all men, with their mutual service,\nis possible the realization of the greatest good which is accessible\nto men; that your heart, your intellect, the religion professed\nby you should tell you the same; that science should tell you the\nsame,--and that, in spite of it, you should be by some very dim,\ncomplex considerations compelled to do what is precisely opposed to\nit? that, being a landowner or a capitalist, you should be compelled\nto construct all your life on the oppression of the masses? or that,\nbeing an emperor or a president, you should be compelled to command\ntroops, that is, to be the leader and guide of murderers? or that,\nbeing a government official, you should be compelled by violence to\ntake from poor people their hard-earned money, in order to use it\nyourself and give it to the rich? or that, being a judge, a juror,\nyou should be compelled to sentence erring men to tortures and to\ndeath, because the truth has not been revealed to them? or that,--a\nthing on which all the evil of the world is chiefly based,--you,\nevery young man, should be compelled to become a soldier and,\nrenouncing your own will and all human sentiments, should promise,\nat the will of men who are alien to you, to kill all those men whom\nthey may command you to kill?\n\nIt cannot be.\n\nEven though men tell you that all this is necessary for the\nmaintenance of the existing structure of life; that the existing\norder, with its wretchedness, hunger, prisons, executions, armies,\nwars, is indispensable for society; that, if this order should be\nimpaired, there would come worse calamities,--it is only those\nto whom this structure of life is advantageous that tell you\nthis, while those--and there are ten times as many of them--who\nare suffering from this structure of life think and say the very\nopposite. You yourself know in the depth of your heart that this\nis not true, that the existing structure of life has outlived its\ntime and soon must be reconstructed on new principles, and that,\ntherefore, there is no need to maintain it, while sacrificing human\nsentiments.\n\nAbove all else, even if we admit that the existing order is\nnecessary, why do you feel yourself obliged to maintain it, while\ntrampling on all better human sentiments? Who has engaged you as a\nnurse to this decaying order? Neither society, nor the state, nor\nany men have ever asked you to maintain this order, by holding the\nplace of landowner, merchant, emperor, priest, soldier, which you\nnow hold; and you know full well that you took up your position,\nnot at all with the self-sacrificing purpose of maintaining an order\nof life which is indispensable for the good of men, but for your\nown sake,--for the sake of your greed, love of glory, ambition,\nindolence, cowardice. If you did not want this position, you would\nnot be doing everything it is necessary for you to do all the\ntime, in order to keep your place. Just try to stop doing those\ncomplex, cruel, tricky, and mean things, which you are doing without\ncessation in order to keep your place, and you will immediately\nlose it. Just try, while being a ruler or an official, to stop\nlying, committing base acts, taking part in acts of violence, in\nexecutions; being a priest, to stop deceiving; being a soldier, to\nstop killing; being a landowner, a manufacturer, to stop protecting\nyour property by means of the courts and of violence,--and you will\nat once lose the position which, you say, is imposed upon you, and\nwhich, you say, weighs heavily upon you.\n\nIt cannot be that a man should be placed against his will in a\nposition which is contrary to his consciousness.\n\nIf you are in this position, it is not because that is necessary for\nanybody, but because you want it. And so, knowing that this position\nis directly opposed to your heart, your reason, your faith, and even\nto science, in which you believe, you cannot help but meditate on\nthe question as to whether you are doing right by staying in this\nposition and, above all, by trying to justify it.\n\nYou might be able to risk making a mistake, if you had time to see\nand correct your mistake, and if that in the name of which you\nshould take your risk had any importance. But when you know for\ncertain that you may vanish any second, without the slightest chance\nof correcting the mistake, either for your own sake or for the sake\nof those whom you will draw into your error, and when you know,\nbesides, that, no matter what you may do in the external structure\nof the world, it will disappear very soon, and just as certainly as\nyou yourself, without leaving any trace, it is obvious to you that\nyou have no reason to risk such a terrible mistake.\n\nThis is all so simple and so clear, if only we did not with\nhypocrisy bedim the truth which is revealed to us.\n\n\"Share with others what you have, do not amass any wealth, do not\nglorify yourself, do not plunder, do not torture, do not kill any\none, do not do unto others what you do not wish to have done to\nyourself,\" was said, not eighteen hundred, but five thousand years\nago, and there could be no doubt as to the truth of this law, if\nthere were no hypocrisy: it would have been impossible, if not to\ndo so, at least not to recognize that we ought always to do so, and\nthat he who does not do so is doing wrong.\n\nBut you say that there also exists a common good, for which it is\npossible and necessary to depart from these rules,--for the common\ngood it is right to kill, torture, rob. It is better for one man\nto perish, than that a whole nation should perish, you say, like\nCaiaphas, and you sign one, two, three death-warrants, load your\ngun for that man who is to perish for the common good, put him in\nprison, take away his property. You say that you do these cruel\nthings, because you feel yourself to be a man of society, the state,\nunder obligation to serve it and to carry out its laws, a landowner,\na judge, an emperor, a soldier. But, besides your belonging to a\ncertain state, and the obligations resulting therefrom, you also\nbelong to the infinite life of the world and to God, and have\ncertain obligations resulting from this relation.\n\nAnd as your duties, which result from your belonging to a certain\nfamily, a certain society, are always subordinated to the higher\nduties, which result from your belonging to the state, so also your\nobligations, which result from your belonging to the state, must\nnecessarily be subordinated to the duties which result from your\nbelonging to the life of the world, to God.\n\nAnd as it would be senseless to cut down the telegraph-posts, in\norder to provide fuel for the family or society, and to increase\nits well-being, because this would violate the laws which preserve\nthe good of the state, so it would be senseless, for the purpose of\nmaking the state secure and increasing its well-being, to torture,\nexecute, kill a man, because this violates the unquestionable laws\nwhich preserve the good of the world.\n\nYour obligations, which result from your belonging to the state,\ncannot help but be subordinated to the higher eternal duty, which\nresults from your belonging to the infinite life of the world, or to\nGod, and cannot contradict them, as Christ's disciples said eighteen\nhundred years ago: \"Whether it be right in the sight of God to\nhearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye\" (Acts iv. 19), and,\n\"We ought to obey God rather than men\" (Acts v. 29).\n\nYou are assured that, in order not to violate the constantly\nchanging order, which was yesterday established by some men in some\ncorner of the world, you must commit acts of torture and murder\nseparate men, who violate the eternal, invariable order of the\nuniverse, which was established by God, or by reason. Can that be?\n\nAnd so you cannot help but meditate on your position as a landowner,\nmerchant, judge, emperor, president, minister, priest, soldier,\nwhich is connected with oppression, violence, deception, tortures,\nand murders, and you cannot help but recognize their illegality.\n\nI do not say that, if you are a landowner, you should at once give\nyour land to the poor; if you are a capitalist, you should at once\ngive your money, your factory to the labourers; if you are a king, a\nminister, an official, a judge, a general, you should at once give\nup your advantageous position; if you are a soldier (that is, occupy\na position on which all violence is based), you should, in spite of\nall the dangers of a refusal to obey, at once throw up your position.\n\nIf you do so, you will do the very best possible; but it may\nhappen--and this is most likely--that you will not have the strength\nto do so: you have connections, a family, inferiors, superiors; you\nmay be under such a strong influence of temptations that you will\nnot be able to do so,--but you are always able to recognize the\ntruth as a truth, and to stop lying. Do not assert that you remain a\nlanded proprietor, a manufacturer, a merchant, an artist, a writer,\nbecause this is useful for men; that you are serving as a governor,\na prosecutor, a king, not because that gives you pleasure and you\nare used to it, but for the good of humanity; that you continue to\nbe a soldier, not because you are afraid of punishment, but because\nyou consider the army indispensable for the security of human life;\nyou can always keep from lying thus to yourself and to men, and you\nare not only able, but even must do so, because in this alone, in\nthe liberation of oneself from the lie and in the profession of the\ntruth, does the only good of your life consist.\n\nYou need but do this, and your position will inevitably change of\nits own accord. There is one, only one thing in which you are free\nand almighty in your life,--everything else is beyond your power.\nThis thing is, to recognize the truth and to profess it.\n\nSuddenly, because just such miserable, erring people like\nyourself have assured you that you are a soldier, emperor, landed\nproprietor, rich man, priest, general, you begin to do evil, which\nis obviously and unquestionably contrary to your reason and heart:\nyou begin to torture, rob, kill men, to build up your life on\ntheir sufferings, and, above all, instead of doing the one work of\nyour life,--recognizing and professing the truth which is known to\nyou,--you carefully pretend that you do not know it, and conceal it\nfrom yourself and from others, doing thus what is directly opposed\nto the one thing to which you have been called.\n\nAnd under what conditions do you do that? You, who are likely to die\nat any moment, sign a sentence of death, declare war, go to war, sit\nin judgment, torture, fleece the labourers, live luxuriously among\nthe poor, and teach weak, trustful people that this must be so, and\nthat in this does the duty of men consist, and you are running the\nchance that, at the moment that you are doing this, a bacterium or\na bullet will fly into you, and you will rattle in your throat and\ndie, and will for ever be deprived of the possibility of correcting\nand changing the evil which you have done to others and, above all,\nto yourself, losing for nothing the life which is given to you but\nonce in a whole eternity, without having done the one thing which\nyou ought unquestionably to have done.\n\nHowever simple and old this may be, and however much we may have\nstupefied ourselves by hypocrisy and the auto-suggestion resulting\nfrom it, nothing can destroy the absolute certainty of that simple\nand clear truth that no external efforts can safeguard our life,\nwhich is inevitably connected with unavoidable sufferings and which\nends in still more unavoidable death, that may come to each of us at\nany moment, and that, therefore, our life can have no other meaning\nthan the fulfilment, at any moment, of what is wanted from us by\nthe power that sent us into life and gave us in this life one sure\nguide,--our rational consciousness.\n\nAnd so this power cannot want from us what is irrational and\nimpossible,--the establishment of our temporal, carnal life, the\nlife of society or of the state. This power demands of us what alone\nis certain and rational and possible,--our serving the kingdom of\nGod, that is, our co\u00f6peration in the establishment of the greatest\nunion of everything living, which is possible only in the truth,\nand, therefore, the recognition of the truth revealed to us, and\nthe profession of it, precisely what alone is always in our power.\n\n\"Seek ye the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these\nthings shall be added unto you.\" The only meaning of man's life\nconsists in serving the world by co\u00f6perating in the establishment of\nthe kingdom of God; but this service can be rendered only through\nthe recognition of the truth, and the profession of it, by every\nseparate individual.\n\n\"The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: neither shall they\nsay, Lo here! or, Lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is\nwithin you.\"\n\n_Y\u00e1snaya Poly\u00e1na, May 14, 1893._\n\n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND PATRIOTISM\n\n1894\n\n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND PATRIOTISM\n\n\nThe Franco-Russian celebrations which took place in France, in the\nmonth of October of last year, provoked in me, as no doubt in many\nother people, at first a feeling of amusement, then of perplexity,\nand at last of indignation, which I intended to express in a\nshort article in a periodical; but, the more I dwelt on the chief\ncauses of this strange phenomenon, the more did I arrive at the\nconsiderations which I now offer to my readers.\n\n\nI.\n\nRussians and Frenchmen have lived for many centuries, knowing one\nanother, entering with one another at times into friendly, more\noften, I am sorry to say, into very hostile relations, which have\nbeen provoked by their governments; suddenly, because two years\nago a French squadron arrived at Kronstadt, and the officers of\nthe squadron, upon landing, ate and drank a lot of wine in various\nplaces, hearing and uttering upon these occasions many lying and\nstupid words, and because, in the year 1893, a similar Russian\nsquadron arrived at Toulon, and the officers of the Russian squadron\nate and drank a lot in Paris, hearing and uttering upon that\noccasion more lying and stupid words than before, it happened that\nnot only the men who ate, drank, and talked, but even those who\nwere present, and even those who were not present, but only heard\nand read of it in newspapers, all these millions of Russians and\nFrenchmen suddenly imagined that they somehow were particularly in\nlove with one another, that is, that all the French loved all the\nRussians, and all the Russians loved all the French.\n\nThese sentiments were last October expressed in France in a most\nunusual manner.\n\nHere is the way the reception of the Russian sailors is described in\nthe _Rural Messenger_, a newspaper which collects its information\nfrom all the others:\n\n\"At the meeting of the Russian and French vessels, both, besides the\nsalvos of guns, greeted one another with hearty, ecstatic shouts,\n'Hurrah,' 'Long live Russia,' 'Long live France!'\n\n\"These were joined by bands of music (which came on many private\nsteamers), playing the Russian hymn, 'God save the Tsar,' and the\nFrench Marseillaise; the public on the private vessels waved their\nhats, flags, handkerchiefs, and bouquets; on many barques there were\npeasants with their wives and children, and they all had bouquets in\ntheir hands, and even the children waved the bouquets and shouted\nat the top of their voices, '_Vive la Russie!_' Our sailors, upon\nseeing such national transport, were unable to restrain their\ntears....\n\n\"In the harbour all the ships-of-war which were then at Toulon were\ndrawn out in two lines, and our squadron passed between them; in\nfront was the ironclad of the admiralty, and this was followed by\nthe rest. There ensued a most solemn minute.\n\n\"On the Russian ironclad, fifteen salvos were fired in honour of\nthe French squadron, and a French ironclad replied with double\nthe number, with thirty salvos. From the French vessels thundered\nthe sounds of the Russian hymn. The French sailors climbed up on\nthe sail-yards and masts; loud exclamations of greeting proceeded\nuninterruptedly from the two squadrons and from the private\nvessels; the caps of the sailors, the hats and handkerchiefs of\nthe public,--all were thrown up triumphantly in honour of the dear\nguests. On all sides, on the water and on the shore, there boomed\none common call, 'Long live Russia! Long live France!'\n\n\"In conformity with naval law, Admiral Avel\u00e1n and the officers of\nhis staff landed, in order to greet the local authorities. On the\nquay the Russian sailors were met by the chief marine staff of\nFrance and the superior officers of the port of Toulon. There ensued\na universal friendly hand-shaking, accompanied by the boom of cannon\nand the ringing of bells. A band of marine music played the hymn\n'God save the Tsar,' drowned by the thunderous shouts of the public,\n'Long live the Tsar! Long live Russia!' These exclamations blended\ninto one mighty sound, which drowned the music and the salvos from\nthe guns.\n\n\"Eye-witnesses declare that at this moment the enthusiasm of the\ninnumerable mass of people reached its highest limits, and that it\nis impossible to express in words with what sensations the hearts\nof all those present were filled. Admiral Avel\u00e1n, with bared head,\nand accompanied by Russian and French officers, directed his steps\nto the building of the Marine Office, where the French minister of\nmarine was waiting for him.\n\n\"In receiving the admiral, the minister said: 'Kronstadt and Toulon\nare two places which bear witness to the sympathy between the\nRussian and the French nations; you will everywhere be met as dear\nfriends. The government and all of France welcome you upon your\narrival and that of your companions, who represent a great and noble\nnation.'\n\n\"The admiral replied that he was not able to express all his\ngratitude. 'The Russian squadron and all of Russia,' he said, 'will\nremember the reception you have given us.'\n\n\"After a short conversation, the admiral, saying good-bye to the\nminister, a second time thanked him for the reception, and added, 'I\ndo not want to part from you before pronouncing those words which\nare imprinted in all Russian hearts: \"Long live France!\"'\" (_Rural\nMessenger_, 1893, No. 41.)\n\nSuch was the meeting at Toulon. In Paris the meeting and the\ncelebrations were more remarkable still.\n\nHere is the way the meeting in Paris was described in the\nnewspapers: \"All eyes were directed to the Boulevard des Italiens,\nwhence the Russian sailors were to appear. Finally the boom of\na whole hurricane of exclamations and applauses is heard in the\ndistance. The boom grows stronger and more audible. The hurricane is\napparently approaching. A mighty motion takes place on the square.\nPolicemen rush forward to clear a path toward the Cercle Militaire,\nbut this is by no means an easy task. There is an incredible crush\nand pressure in the crowd.... Finally the head of the procession\nappears in the square. At the same moment a deafening shout, '_Vive\nla Russie! Vive les Russes!_' rises over it. All bare their heads,\nthe public, packed close in the windows, on the balconies, perched\neven on the roofs, wave handkerchiefs, flags, and hats, applaud\nmadly, and from the windows of the upper stories throw clouds of\nsmall many-coloured cockades. A whole sea of handkerchiefs, hats,\nand flags surges above the heads of the crowd in the square: '_Vive\nla Russie! Vive les Russes!_' shouts this mass of one hundred\nthousand people, trying to get a look at the dear guests, extending\ntheir hands to them, and in every way expressing their sympathies\"\n(_New Time_).\n\nAnother correspondent writes that the transport of the crowd\nbordered on delirium. A Russian publicist, who was in Paris at\nthat time, describes this entrance of the sailors in the following\nmanner: \"They tell the truth,--it was an incident of world-wide\nimport, wondrous, touching, soul-stirring, making the heart quiver\nwith that love which discerns the brothers in men, and which\ndetests bloodshed and concomitant acts of violence, the tearing\naway of the children from their beloved mother. I have been in\nsome kind of an intoxication for several hours. I felt so strange,\nand even so weak, as I stood at the station of the Lyons Railway,\namong the representatives of the French administration in their\ngold-embroidered uniforms, among the members of the municipality\nin full dress, and heard the shouts, '_Vive la Russie! Vive le\nCzar!_' and our national hymn, which was played several times in\nsuccession. Where am I? What has happened? What magic stream has\nunited all this into one feeling, into one mind? Does one not feel\nhere the presence of the God of love and brotherhood, the presence\nof something higher, something ideal, which descends upon men only\nin lofty moments? The heart is so full of something beautiful and\npure and exalted, that the pen is not able to express it all. Words\npale before what I saw, what I felt. It is not transport,--the word\nis too banal,--it is something better than transport. It is more\npicturesque, profounder, more joyous, more varied. It is impossible\nto describe what happened at the Cercle Militaire, when Admiral\nAvel\u00e1n appeared on the balcony of a second story. Words will not\ntell anything here. During the Te Deum, when the choristers sang\nin the church 'Save, O Lord, thy people,' there burst through the\nopen door the solemn sounds of the Marseillaise, which was played in\nthe street by an orchestra of wind-instruments. There was something\nastounding and inexpressible in the impression conveyed\" (_New\nTime_, October, 1893).\n\n\nII.\n\nAfter arriving in France, the Russian sailors for two weeks went\nfrom one celebration to another, and in the middle or at the end of\nevery celebration they ate, drank, and talked; and the information\nas to what they ate and drank on Wednesday and where and what on\nFriday, and what was said upon that occasion, was wired home and\nconveyed to the whole of Russia. The moment some Russian captain\ndrank the health of France, this at once became known to the whole\nworld, and the moment the Russian admiral said, \"I drink to fair\nFrance!\" these words were immediately borne over the whole world.\nBut more than that: the scrupulousness of the newspapers was such\nthat they reported not only the toasts, but even many dinners, with\nthe cakes and appetizers which were used at these dinners.\n\nThus it said in one issue of a newspaper that the dinner was \"an\nartistic production:\"\n\n      \"Consomm\u00e9 de volailles, petits p\u00e2t\u00e9s\n        Mousse de hommard parisienne\n        Noisette de b\u0153uf \u00e0\u00a0la b\u00e9arnaise\n            Faisans \u00e0\u00a0la P\u00e9rigord\n      Casseroles de truffes au champagne\n    Chaufroid de volailles \u00e0\u00a0la Toulouse\n               Salade russe\n        Croute de fruits toulonaise\n              Parfait \u00e0\u00a0l'ananas\n                Desserts\"\n\nIn the next number it said:\n\n\"In a culinary sense the dinner left nothing to be desired. The menu\nconsisted of the following:\n\n    \"Potage livonien et St. Germain\n          Z\u00e9phyrs Nantua\n      Esturgeon brais\u00e9 moldave\n    Selle de daguet grand veneur,\"\n\nand so forth.\n\nThe next number described another menu. With every menu a\ndetailed description was given of the wines which the f\u00eated men\nconsumed,--such and such \"voodka\" such and such _Bourgogne vieux,\nGrand Mo\u00ebt_, and so forth. In an English paper there was an account\nof all the intoxicants consumed by the celebrators. This amount is\nso enormous that it is doubtful if all the drunkards of Russia and\nof France could have drunk so much in so short a time.\n\nThey reported also the speeches which were made by the celebrators,\nbut the menus were more varied than the speeches. The speeches\nconsisted invariably of the same words in all kinds of combinations\nand permutations. The meaning of these words was always one and the\nsame: \"We love one another tenderly, we are in transport, because we\nhave so suddenly fallen in love with one another. Our aim is not war\nand not _revanche_, and not the return of provinces taken, but only\n_peace_, the benefaction of _peace_, the security of _peace_, the\nrest and _peace_ of Europe. Long live the Emperor of Russia and the\nempress,--we love them and we love _peace_. Long live the president\nof the republic and his wife,--we love them, too, and we love\n_peace_. Long live France, Russia, their fleets, and their armies.\nWe love the army, too, and _peace_, and the chief of the squadron.\"\nThe speeches generally ended, as in couplets, with the words,\n\"Toulon, Kronstadt,\" or \"Kronstadt, Toulon.\" And the names of these\nplaces, where so much food was eaten and so many kinds of wine were\nconsumed, were pronounced like words reminding one of the loftiest,\nmost valorous of acts of the representatives of both nations, words\nafter which there was nothing else to be said, because everything\nwas comprehensible. \"We love one another, and we love peace.\nKronstadt, Toulon!\" What else can be added to this? Especially with\nthe accompaniment of solemn music, playing simultaneously two hymns,\none--praising the Tsar and asking God for all kinds of benefactions\nfor him, and the other--cursing all kings and promising their ruin.\n\nThe men who expressed their sentiments of love particularly well\nreceived decorations and rewards; other men for the same services,\nor simply out of a superabundance of feelings, were given the\nstrangest and most unexpected presents,--thus the Emperor of Russia\nreceived from the French squadron some kind of a golden book, in\nwhich, I think, nothing was written, and if there was, it was\nsomething that nobody needed to know, and the chief of the Russian\nsquadron received, among other presents, a still more remarkable\nobject, an aluminum plough, covered with flowers, and many other\njust as unexpected presents.\n\nBesides, all these strange acts were accompanied by still stranger\nreligious ceremonies and public prayers, which, it would seem, the\nFrench had long ago outlived. Since the days of the Concordat there\nhad hardly been offered so many prayers as in that short time. All\nthe French suddenly became unusually pious, and carefully hung up\nin the rooms of the Russian sailors those very images which they\nhad just as carefully removed from their schools, as being harmful\ntools of superstition, and they kept praying all the time. Cardinals\nand bishops everywhere prescribed prayers, and themselves prayed,\nuttering the strangest prayers. Thus the Bishop of Toulon at the\nlaunching of the ironclad _Joriguiberi_ prayed to the God of peace,\nmaking people feel, however, that, if it came to a pinch, he could\naddress also the God of war.\n\n\"What her fate will be,\" said the bishop, in reference to the\nironclad, \"God alone knows. No one knows whether she will belch\nforth death from her appalling bosom. But if, invoking now the God\nof peace, we should later have occasion to invoke the God of war, we\nare firmly convinced that the _Joriguiberi_ will go forth side by\nside with the mighty boats whose crews have this day entered into\nsuch a close fraternal union with our own. Far from us be such a\nprospect, and may the present festivity leave nothing but a peaceful\nrecollection, like the recollection of the _Grand Duke Constantine_,\nwhich was present here (in 1857) at the launching of the ship\n_Quirinal_, and may the friendship of France and of Russia make\nthese two nations the guardians of peace.\"\n\nIn the meantime tens of thousands of telegrams flew from Russia to\nFrance, and from France to Russia. French women greeted Russian\nwomen. Russian women expressed their gratitude to the French women.\nA troupe of Russian actors greeted some French actors, and the\nFrench actors informed them that they harboured deeply in their\nhearts the greeting of the Russian actors. Some Russian candidates\nfor judicial positions, who served in a Circuit Court of some town\nor other, expressed their enthusiasm for the French nation. General\nSo and So thanked Madame So and So, and Madame So and So assured\nGeneral So and So of her sentiments for the Russian nation; Russian\nchildren wrote verses of welcome to French children, and the French\nchildren answered in verse and in prose; the Russian minister of\neducation assured the French minister of education of the sentiments\nof sudden love for the French, which were experienced by all the\nchildren, scholars, and authors subject to his ministry; members\nof a society for the protection of animals expressed their ardent\nattachment for the French, and so did the Council of the City of\nKaz\u00e1n.\n\nThe canon of the eparchy of Arras informed his Worship, the chief\npriest of the Russian court clergy, that he could affirm that deep\nin the hearts of all the French cardinals and archbishops there was\nimprinted a love for Russia and his Majesty Alexander III. and his\nmost august family, and that the Russian and French clergy professed\nalmost the selfsame religion and equally honoured the Virgin; to\nwhich his Worship, the chief priest, replied that the prayers of\nthe French clergy for the most august family re\u00ebchoed joyfully in\nthe hearts of the whole Russian Tsar-loving family, and that, since\nthe Russian people also worshipped the Holy Virgin, it could count\non France in life and in death. Almost the same information was\nvouchsafed by different generals, telegraph operators, and dealers\nin groceries. Everybody congratulated somebody on something and\nthanked somebody for something.\n\nThe excitement was so great that the most unusual acts were\ncommitted, but no one observed their unusual character, and all, on\nthe contrary, approved of them, went into ecstasies over them, and,\nas though fearing lest they should be too late, hastened to commit\nsimilar acts, so as not to fall behind the rest. If protests were\nexpressed in words and in writing and in printing against these mad\nacts, pointing out their irrationality, such protests were concealed\nor squelched.[17]\n\n  [17] Thus I know of the following protest of students, sent to\n  Paris, which was not accepted by a single newspaper:\n\n       \"OPEN LETTER TO THE FRENCH STUDENTS\n\n       \"Lately a group of Moscow students of law, with the university\n       authorities at their head, took it upon themselves to speak in\n       behalf of all the student body of Moscow University in respect\n       to the Toulon festivities.\n\n       \"We, the representatives of the association of student\n       societies, protest in the most emphatic manner possible both\n       against the arrogation of this group and substantially against\n       the exchange of civilities between it and the French students.\n       We, too, look with ardent love and profound respect upon France,\n       and we do so, because we see in it a great nation, which\n       formerly used to appear before the whole world as the herald and\n       proclaimer of great ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity;\n       and which was also the first in the matter of bold endeavour for\n       the materialization of these great ideals,--and the best part\n       of the Russian youth has always been ready to welcome France as\n       the leading champion for the best future of humanity; but we do\n       not consider such festivities as those of Kronstadt and Toulon a\n       suitable occasion for such civilities.\n\n       \"On the contrary, these festivities signal a sad but, let us\n       hope, temporary phenomenon,--the disloyalty of France to its\n       former great historic r\u00f4le: the country, which once called the\n       whole world to break the fetters of despotism and offered its\n       fraternal aid to every nation that revolted for the sake of\n       its freedom, now burns incense before the Russian government,\n       which systematically trigs the normal, organic, and vital\n       growth of the national life, and mercilessly crushes, without\n       stopping at anything, all the strivings of Russian society\n       toward the light, toward freedom, and toward independence. The\n       Toulon manifestations are one of the acts of that drama which\n       is presented by the antagonism--the creation of Napoleon III.\n       and Bismarck--between two great nations, France and Germany.\n       This antagonism keeps all of Europe under arms, and makes the\n       Russian absolutism, which has always been the stay of despotism\n       and arbitrariness against freedom, of the exploiters against\n       the exploited, the executor of the political destinies of the\n       world. A sensation of anguish for our country, of pity for the\n       blindness of a considerable part of French society, such are the\n       sensations evoked in us by these festivities.\n\n       \"We are fully convinced that the young generation of France\n       will not be carried away by the national Chauvinism, and that,\n       prepared to struggle for that better social structure toward\n       which humanity is marching, it will know how to render to\n       itself an account of the present events and to take the proper\n       stand about them; we hope that our fervent protest will find a\n       sympathetic echo in the hearts of the French youth.\n\n       \"The union council of twenty-four united Moscow student\n       societies.\"--_Author's Note._\n\nTo say nothing of all the millions of work-days which were wasted\non these festivities, of the wholesale drunkenness of all the\nparticipants, which was encouraged by all the powers, to say nothing\nof the insipidity of the speeches made, the maddest and most cruel\nthings were done, and no one paid any attention to them.\n\nThus several dozens of men were crushed to death, and no one found\nit necessary to mention this fact. One correspondent wrote that a\nFrenchman told him at a ball that now there could hardly be found\na woman in Paris who would not be false to her duties, in order\nto satisfy the wishes of some Russian sailor--and all this passed\nby unnoticed, as something that ought to be. There occurred cases\nof distinct madness. Thus one woman, dressing herself in a garment\nof the colours of the Franco-Russian flags, waited for the sailors\nand, exclaiming, \"_Vive la Russie!_\" jumped from the bridge into the\nriver and was drowned.\n\nWomen in general played in these festivities a prominent part and\neven guided the men. Besides throwing flowers and all kinds of\nribbons, and offering presents and addresses, French women made for\nthe Russian sailors and kissed them; some of them for some reason\nbrought their children to them, to be kissed by them, and when the\nRussian sailors complied with their wish, all persons present went\ninto ecstasies and wept.\n\nThis strange excitement was so infectious that, as one correspondent\ntells, an apparently absolutely sound Russian sailor, after two days\nof contemplation of what took place around him, in the middle of the\nday jumped from the ship into the sea and, swimming, shouted, \"_Vive\nla France!_\" When he was taken aboard and asked why he had done so,\nhe replied that he had made a vow that in honour of France he would\nswim around the ship.\n\nThus the undisturbed excitement grew and grew, like a ball of\nrolling wet snow, and finally reached such dimensions that not\nonly the persons present, not only predisposed, weak-nerved, but\neven strong, normal men fell a prey to the general mood and became\nabnormally affected.\n\nI remember how I, absent-mindedly reading one of these descriptions\nof the solemnity of the reception of the sailors, suddenly felt a\nfeeling, akin to meekness of spirit, even a readiness for tears,\ncommunicated to me, so that I had to make an effort to overcome this\nfeeling.\n\n[Illustration: Mal\u00e9vannians\n\n_Photogravure from Photograph_]\n\n\nIII.\n\nLately Sik\u00f3rski, a professor of psychiatry, described in the _K\u00edev\nUniversity Record_ the psychopathic epidemic, as he calls it, of\nthe Mal\u00e9vannians, as manifested in a few villages of Vasilk\u00f3v\nCounty of the Government of K\u00edev. The essence of this epidemic,\nas Mr. Sik\u00f3rski, the investigator of it, says, consisted in this,\nthat certain persons of these villages, under the influence of\ntheir leader, by the name of Mal\u00e9vanny, came to imagine that the\nend of the world was at hand, and so, changing their whole mode\nof life, began to distribute their property, to dress up, and to\neat savoury food, and stopped working. The professor found the\ncondition of these men to be abnormal. He says: \"Their unusual good\nnature frequently passed into exaltation, a joyous condition, which\nwas devoid of external motives. They were sentimentally disposed:\nexcessively polite, talkative, mobile, with tears of joy appearing\neasily and just as easily disappearing. They sold their necessaries,\nin order to provide themselves with umbrellas, silk kerchiefs, and\nsimilar objects, and at that the kerchiefs served them only as\nornaments for their toilet. They ate many sweet things. They were\nalways in a cheerful mood, and they led an idle life,--visited one\nanother, walked together.... When the obviously absurd character of\ntheir refusal to work was pointed out to them, one every time heard\nin reply the stereotyped phrase, 'If I want to, I shall work, and if\nI do not want to, why should I compel myself?'\"\n\nThe learned professor considers the condition of these men a\npronounced case of a psychopathic epidemic, and, advising the\ngovernment to take certain measures against its spread, ends his\ncommunication with the words: \"Mal\u00e9vannism is the wail of a morbidly\nsick population and a supplication to be freed from liquor and to\nhave education and sanitary conditions improved.\"\n\nBut if Mal\u00e9vannism is the wail of a morbidly sick population and\na supplication to be freed from liquor and from harmful social\nconditions, then this new disease, which has appeared in Paris\nand has with alarming rapidity embraced a great part of the\ncity population of France and almost the whole of governmental\nand cultured Russia, is just such an alarming wail of a morbid\npopulation and just such a supplication to be freed from liquor and\nfrom false social conditions.\n\nAnd if we must admit that the psychopathic suffering of Mal\u00e9vannism\nis dangerous, and that the government has done well to follow\nthe professor's advice and remove the leaders of Mal\u00e9vannism by\nconfining some of them in lunatic asylums and monasteries and by\ndeporting others to distant places, how much more dangerous must be\nconsidered to be this new epidemic, which appeared in Toulon and\nParis and from there spread over the whole of France and of Russia,\nand how much more necessary it is, if not for the government, at\nleast for society, to take decisive measures against the spread of\nsuch epidemics!\n\nThe resemblance between the diseases is complete. There is the same\ngood nature, passing into causeless and joyful exaltation, the\nsame sentimentality, excessive politeness, talkativeness, the same\nconstant tears of meekness of spirit, which come and go without\ncause, the same festive mood, the same walking for pleasure and\nvisiting one another, the same dressing up in the best clothes, the\nsame proneness for sweet food, the same senseless talks, the same\nidleness, the same singing and music, the same leadership of the\nwomen, and the same clownish phase of _attitudes passionelles_,\nwhich Mr. Sik\u00f3rski has noticed in the case of the Mal\u00e9vannians;\nthat is, as I understand this word, those different, unnatural\nposes, which men assume during solemn meetings, receptions, and\nafter-dinner speeches.\n\nThe resemblance is complete. The only difference is this,--and the\ndifference is very great for the society in which these phenomena\nare taking place,--that there it is the aberration of a few dozen\npeaceful, poor village people, who live on their small means and,\ntherefore, cannot exert any violence on their neighbours, and who\ninfect others only by the personal and oral transmission of their\nmood, while here it is the aberration of millions of people, who\npossess enormous sums of money and means for exerting violence\nagainst other people,--guns, bayonets, fortresses, ironclads,\nmelinite, dynamite, and who, besides, have at their command the\nmost energetic means for the dissemination of their madness, the\npost, the telegraph, an enormous number of newspapers, and all kinds\nof publications, which are printed without cessation and carry\nthe infection to all the corners of the globe. There is also this\ndifference, that the first not only do not get themselves drunk,\nbut even do not use any intoxicating liquor, while the second are\nconstantly in a state of semi-intoxication, which they never stop\nmaintaining in themselves. And so for a society in which these\nphenomena are taking place, there is the same difference between\nthe K\u00edev epidemic, during which, according to Mr. Sik\u00f3rski's\ninformation, it does not appear that they commit any violence or\nmurders, and the one which made its appearance in Paris, where in\none procession twenty women were crushed to death, as there is\nbetween a piece of coal, which has leaped out of the stove and\nis glowing on the floor without igniting it, and a fire which is\nalready enveloping the door and walls of the house. In the worst\ncase the consequences of the K\u00edev epidemic will consist in this,\nthat the peasants of one millionth part of Russia will spend what\nthey have earned by hard labour, and will be unable to pay the\nCrown taxes; but the consequences from the Toulon-Paris epidemic,\nwhich is embracing men who are in possession of a terrible power,\nof vast sums of money, and of implements of violence and of the\ndissemination of their madness, can and must be terrible.\n\n\nIV.\n\nWe can with pity listen to the delirium of a feeble, defenceless,\ncrazy old man, in his cap and cloak, and even not contradict him,\nand even jestingly agree with him; but when it is a whole crowd of\nsound insane people, who have broken away from their confinement,\nand these people bristle from head to foot with sharp daggers,\nswords, and loaded revolvers, and madly flourish these death-dealing\nweapons, we can no longer agree with them, and we cannot be at rest\neven for a minute. The same is true of that condition of excitement,\nprovoked by the French celebrations, in which Russian and French\nsociety finds itself at the present time.\n\nIt is true, in all the speeches, in all the toasts, pronounced\nat these celebrations, in all the articles concerning these\ncelebrations, they never stopped talking of the importance of\neverything which was taking place for the guarantee of peace. Even\nthe advocates of war did not speak of hatred of those who snatch\naway provinces, but of some kind of a love which somehow hates.\n\nBut we know of the slyness of all men who are mentally diseased, and\nit is this most persistent repetition of our not wanting war, but\npeace, and the reticence regarding that of which all think, that\nform a most menacing phenomenon.\n\nIn answering a toast at a dinner given in the Palace of the\nElys\u00e9es, the Russian ambassador said: \"Before drinking a toast to\nwhich will respond from the depth of their hearts, not only those\nwho are within these walls, but even those--and, that, too, with\nequal force--whose hearts near by and far away, at all the points\nof great, fair France, as also in all of Russia, at the present\nmoment are beating in unison with ours,--permit me to offer to\nyou the expression of our profoundest gratitude for the words of\nwelcome which were addressed by you to our admiral, whom our Tsar\nhas charged with the mission of paying back your visit at Kronstadt.\nConsidering the high importance which you enjoy, your words\ncharacterize the true significance of the magnificent _peaceful_\nfestivities, which are celebrated with such wonderful unanimity,\nloyalty, and sincerity.\"\n\nThe same unjustifiable mention of peace is found in the speech\nof the French president: \"The ties of love, which unite Russia\nand France,\" he said, \"and which two years ago were strengthened\nby touching manifestations, of which our fleet was the object at\nKronstadt, become tighter and tighter with every day, and the\nhonourable exchange of our amicable sentiments must inspire all\nthose who take to heart the benefactions of peace, confidence, and\nsecurity,\" and so forth.\n\nBoth speeches quite unexpectedly and without any cause refer to the\nbenefactions of peace and to peaceful celebrations.\n\nThe same occurs in the telegrams which were exchanged between the\nEmperor of Russia and the President of France. The Emperor of Russia\ntelegraphed:\n\n\"_Au moment o\u00f9 l'escadre russe quitte la France, il me tient \u00e0\nc\u0153ur de vous exprimer combien je suis touch\u00e9 et reconnaissant\nde l'accueil chaleureux et splendide, que mes marins ont trouv\u00e9\npartout sur le sol fran\u00e7ais. Les t\u00e9moignages de vive sympathie qui\nse sont manifest\u00e9s encore une fois avec tant d'\u00e9loquence, joindront\nun nouveau lien \u00e0 ceux qui unissent les deux pays et contribueront,\nje l'esp\u00e8re, \u00e0 l'affermissement de la paix g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, objet de leurs\nefforts et de leurs v\u0153ux les plus constants_,\" etc.\n\nThe President of France in his reply telegraphed as follows:\n\n\"_La d\u00e9p\u00eache dont je remercie votre Majest\u00e9 m'est parvenue au moment\nou je quittais Toulon pour rentrer \u00e0 Paris. La belle escadre sur\nlaquelle j'ai eu la vive satisfaction de saluer le pavillon russe\ndans les eaux fran\u00e7aises, l'accueil cordial et spontan\u00e9 que vos\nbraves marins ont rencontr\u00e9 partout en France affirment une fois\nde plus avec \u00e9clat les sympathies sinc\u00e8res qui unissent nos deux\npays. Ils marquent en m\u00eame temps une foi profonde dans l'influence\nbienfaisante que peuvent exercer ensemble deux grandes nations\ndevou\u00e9es \u00e0 la cause de la paix._\"\n\nAgain there is in both telegrams a gratuitous mention of peace,\nwhich has nothing in common with the celebrations of the sailors.\n\nThere is not one speech, not one article, in which mention is not\nmade of this, that the aim of all these past orgies is the peace\nof Europe. At a dinner, which is given by the representatives of\nthe Russian press, everybody speaks of peace. Mr. Zola, who lately\nwrote about the necessity and even usefulness of war, and Mr. Vog\u00fc\u00e9,\nwho more than once expressed the same idea, do not say one word\nabout war, but speak only of peace. The meetings of the Chambers\nare opened with speeches respecting the past celebrations, and the\norators affirm that these festivities are the declaration of the\npeace of Europe.\n\nIt is as though a man, coming into some peaceful society, should go\nout of his way on every occasion to assure the persons present that\nhe has not the slightest intention of knocking out anybody's teeth,\nsmashing eyes, or breaking arms, but means only to pass a peaceable\nevening. \"But nobody has any doubts about that,\" one feels like\nsaying to him. \"But if you have such base intentions, at least do\nnot dare speak of them to us.\"\n\nIn many articles, which were written about these celebrations, there\nis even a direct and na\u00efve expression of pleasure, because during\nthe festivities no one gave utterance to what by tacit consent it\nhad been decided to conceal from everybody, and what only one\nincautious man, who was immediately removed by the police, dared to\nshout, giving expression to the secret thought of all, namely, \"_A\nbas l'Allemagne!_\" Thus children are frequently so happy at having\nconcealed their naughtiness, that their very joy gives them away.\n\nWhy should we so rejoice at the fact that no mention was made of\nwar, if we indeed are not thinking of it?\n\n\nV.\n\nNo one is thinking of war, but yet milliards are wasted on military\npreparations, and, millions of men are under arms in Russia and in\nFrance.\n\n\"But all this is being done for the security of peace. _Si vis\npacem, para bellum. L'empire c'est la paix, la republique c'est la\npaix._\"\n\nBut if it is so, why are the military advantages of our alliance\nwith France in case of a war with Germany explained, not only in all\nthe periodicals and newspapers published for the so-called cultured\npeople, but also in the _Rural Messenger_, a newspaper published\nby the Russian government for the masses, by means of which these\nunfortunate masses, deceived by the government, are impressed\nwith this, that \"to be friendly with France is also useful and\nprofitable, because, if, beyond all expectation, the above-mentioned\npowers (Germany, Austria, Italy) should decide to violate the\npeace with Russia, Russia, though able with God's aid to protect\nitself and handle a very powerful alliance of adversaries, would\nnot find this to be an easy task, and for a successful struggle\ngreat sacrifices and losses would be needed,\" and so forth (_Rural\nMessenger_, No. 43, 1893).\n\nAnd why do they in all the French colleges teach history from a\ntext-book composed by Mr. Lavisse, twenty-first edition, 1889, in\nwhich the following passage is found:\n\n\"_Depuis que l'insurrection de la Commune a \u00e9t\u00e9 vaincue, la France\nn'a plus \u00e9t\u00e9 troubl\u00e9e. Au lendemain de la guerre, elle s'est\nremise au travail. Elle a pay\u00e9 aux Allemands sans difficult\u00e9\nl'\u00e9norme contribution de guerre de cinq milliards. Mais la France\na perdu sa renomm\u00e9e militaire pendant la guerre de 1870. Elle a\nperdu une partie de son territoire. Plus de quinze cents mille\nhommes, qui habitaient nos departements du Haut Rhin, du Bas Rhin\net de la Moselle, et qui \u00e9taient de bons Fran\u00e7ais, ont \u00e9t\u00e9 oblig\u00e9s\nde devenir Allemands. Ils ne sont pas resign\u00e9s \u00e0 leur sort. Ils\nd\u00e9testent l'Allemagne; ils esp\u00e8rent toujours redevenir Fran\u00e7ais.\nMais l'Allemagne tient \u00e0 sa conqu\u00eate, et c'est un grand pays, dont\ntous les habitants aiment sinc\u00e8rement leur patrie et dont les\nsoldats sont braves et disciplin\u00e9s. Pour reprendre \u00e0 l'Allemagne ce\nqu'elle nous a pris, il faut que nous soyons de bons citoyens et de\nbons soldats. C'est pour que vous deveniez de bons soldats, que vos\nma\u00eetres vous apprennent l'histoire de la France. L'histoire de la\nFrance montre que dans notre pays les fils ont toujours veng\u00e9 les\nd\u00e9sastres de leurs p\u00e8res. Les Fran\u00e7ais du temps de Charles VII. ont\nveng\u00e9 leurs p\u00e8res vaincus \u00e0 Cr\u00e9cy, \u00e0 Poitiers, \u00e0 Azincourt. C'est \u00e0\nvous, enfants \u00e9l\u00e8ves aujourd'hui dans nos \u00e9coles, qu'il appartient\nde venger vos p\u00e8res, vaincus \u00e0 S\u00e9dan et \u00e0 Metz. C'est votre devoir,\nle grand devoir de votre vie. Vous devez y penser toujours,_\" etc.\n\nAt the foot of the page there is a whole series of questions, to\ncorrespond to the articles. The questions are as follows: \"What\ndid France lose when she lost part of her territory? How many\nFrenchmen became German with the loss of this territory? Do the\nFrench love Germany? What must we do, in order to regain what was\ntaken away from us by Germany?\" In addition to these there are\nalso \"_R\u00e9flexions sur le Livre VII._,\" in which it says that \"the\nchildren of France must remember our defeats of 1870,\" that \"they\nmust feel on their hearts the burden of this memory,\" but that \"this\nmemory must not discourage them: it should, on the contrary, incite\nthem to bravery.\"\n\nThus, if in official speeches peace is mentioned with great\npersistency, the masses, the younger generations, yes, all the\nRussians and Frenchmen in general, are imperturbably impressed with\nthe necessity, legality, profitableness, and even virtue of war.\n\n\"We are not thinking of war,--we are concerned only about peace.\"\n\nOne feels like asking \"_Qui, diable, trompe-t-on ici?_\" if it were\nnecessary to ask this, and if it were not quite clear who the\nunfortunate cheated are.\n\nThe cheated are the same eternally deceived, stupid, labouring\nmasses, the same who with their callous hands have built all these\nships, and fortresses, and arsenals, and barracks, and guns, and\nsteamboats, and quays, and moles, and all these palaces, halls,\nand platforms, and triumphal arches; and have set and printed all\nthese newspapers and books; and have secured and brought all those\npheasants, and ortolans, and oysters, and wines, which are consumed\nby all those men, whom they, again, have nurtured and brought up\nand sustained,--men who, deceiving the masses, prepare the most\nterrible calamities for them; the same good-natured, stupid masses,\nwho, displaying their sound, white teeth, have grinned in childish\nfashion, na\u00efvely enjoying the sight of all the dressed-up admirals\nand presidents, of the flags fluttering above them, the fireworks,\nthe thundering music, and who will hardly have time to look around,\nwhen there shall be no longer any admirals, nor presidents, nor\nflags, nor music, but there will be only a wet, waste field,\nhunger, cold, gloom, in front the slaying enemy, behind the goading\nauthorities, blood, wounds, sufferings, rotting corpses, and a\nsenseless, useless death.\n\nAnd the men like those who now are celebrating at the festivities\nin Toulon and Paris, will be sitting, after a good dinner, with\nunfinished glasses of good wine, with a cigar between their teeth,\nin a dark cloth tent, and will with pins mark down the places on\nthe map where so much food for cannon, composed of the masses,\nshould be left, in order to seize such and such a fortress, and in\norder to obtain such or such a ribbon or promotion.\n\n\nVI.\n\n\"But there is nothing of the kind, and there are no warlike\nintentions,\" we are told. \"All there is, is that two nations feeling\na mutual sympathy are expressing this sentiment to one another.\nWhat harm is there in this, that the representatives of a friendly\nnation were received with especial solemnity and honour by the\nrepresentatives of the other nation? What harm is there in it, even\nif it be admitted that the alliance may have the significance of a\nprotection against a dangerous neighbour, threatening the peace of\nEurope?\"\n\nThe harm is this, that all this is a most palpable and bold lie, an\nunjustifiable, bad lie. The sudden outburst of an exclusive love of\nthe Russians for the French, and of the French for the Russians, is\na lie; and our hatred for the Germans, our distrust of them, which\nis understood by it, is also a lie. And the statement that the aim\nof all these indecent and mad orgies is the guarantee of European\npeace, is a still greater lie.\n\nWe all know that we have experienced no particular love for\nthe French, neither before, nor even now, even as we have not\nexperienced any hostile feeling toward the Germans.\n\nWe are told that Germany has some intentions against Russia, that\nthe Triple Alliance threatens the peace of Europe and us, and that\nour alliance with France balances the forces, and so guarantees the\npeace. But this assertion is so obviously absurd, that it makes one\nfeel ashamed to give it a serious denial. For this to be so, that\nis, for the alliance to guarantee peace, it is necessary that the\nforces be mathematically even. If now the excess is on the side of\nthe Franco-Russian alliance, the danger is still the same. It is\neven greater, because, if there was a danger that William, who stood\nat the head of the European alliance, would violate the peace, there\nis a much greater danger that France, which cannot get used to the\nloss of her provinces, will do so. The Triple Alliance was called a\nleague of peace, but for us it was a league of war. Even so now the\nFranco-Russian alliance cannot present itself as anything else than\nwhat it is,--a league of war.\n\nAnd then, if peace depends on the balance of the powers, how are\nthe units to be determined, between whom the balance is to be\nestablished? Now the English say that the alliance between Russia\nand France menaces them, and that they must, therefore, form another\nalliance. And into how many units of alliances must Europe be\ndivided, in order that there be a balance? If so, then every man\nstronger than another in society is already a danger, and the others\nmust form into alliances, to withstand him.\n\nThey ask, \"What harm is there in this, that France and Russia have\nexpressed their mutual sympathies for the guarantee of peace?\"\nWhat is bad is, that it is a lie, and a lie is never spoken with\nimpunity, and does not pass unpunished.\n\nThe devil is a slayer of men and the father of lies. And the lies\nalways lead to the slaying of men,--in this case more obviously than\never.\n\nIn just the same manner as now, the Turkish war was preceded by a\nsudden outburst of love of our Russians for their brothers, the\nSlavs, whom no one had known for hundreds of years, while the\nGermans, the French, the English have always been incomparably\nnearer and more closely related to us than Montenegrins, Servians,\nor Bulgarians. And there began transports, receptions, and\nfestivities, which were fanned by such men as Aks\u00e1kov and Katk\u00f3v,\nwho are mentioned now in Paris as models of patriotism. Then, as\nnow, they spoke of nothing but the mutual sudden outburst of love\nbetween the Russians and the Slavs. In the beginning they ate and\ndrank in Moscow, even as now in Paris, and talked nonsense to one\nanother, becoming affected by their own exalted sentiments, spoke of\nunion and peace, and did not say anything about the chief thing, the\nintentions against Turkey. The newspapers fanned the excitement, and\nthe government by degrees entered into the game. Servia revolted.\nThere began an exchange of diplomatic notes and the publication of\nsemiofficial articles; the newspapers lied more and more, invented\nand waxed wroth, and the end of it all was that Alexander II., who\nreally did not want any war, could not help but agree to it, and we\nall know what happened: the destruction of hundreds of thousands of\ninnocent people and the bestialization and dulling of millions.\n\nWhat was done in Toulon and in Paris, and now continues to be done\nin the newspapers, obviously leads to the same, or to a still more\nterrible calamity. Just so all kinds of generals and ministers will\nat first, to the sounds of \"God save the Tsar\" and the Marseillaise\ndrink the health of France, of Russia, of the various regiments of\nthe army and the navy; the newspapers will print their lies; the\nidle crowd of the rich, who do not know what to do with their powers\nand with their time, will babble patriotic speeches, fanning hatred\nagainst Germany, and no matter how peaceful Alexander III. may be,\nthe conditions will be such that he will be unable to decline a war\nwhich will be demanded by all those who surround him, by all the\nnewspapers, and, as always seems, by the public opinion of the whole\nnation. And before we shall have had time to look around, there will\nappear in the columns of the newspapers the usual, ominous, stupid\nproclamation:\n\n\"By God's grace, we, the most autocratic great Emperor of all\nRussia, the King of Poland, the Grand Duke of Finland, etc., etc.,\ninform all our faithful subjects that for the good of these dear\nsubjects, entrusted to us by God, we have considered it our duty\nbefore God to send them out to slaughter. God be with them,\" and so\nforth.\n\nThe bells will be rung, and long-haired men will throw\ngold-embroidered bags over themselves and will begin to pray for the\nslaughter. And there will begin again the old, well-known, terrible\ndeed. The newspaper writers, who under the guise of patriotism stir\npeople up to hatred and murder, will be about, in the hope of double\nearnings. Manufacturers, merchants, purveyors of military supplies,\nwill bestir themselves joyfully, expecting double profits. All kinds\nof officials will bestir themselves, foreseeing a chance to steal\nmore than they usually do. The military authorities will bestir\nthemselves, for they will receive double salaries and rations, and\nwill hope to get for the killing of people all kinds of trifles,\nwhich they value very much,--ribbons, crosses, galloons, stars. Idle\ngentlemen and ladies will bestir themselves, inscribing themselves\nin advance in the Red Cross, preparing themselves to dress the\nwounds of those whom their own husbands and brothers will kill, and\nimagining that they are thus doing a most Christian work.\n\nAnd, drowning in their hearts their despair by means of songs,\ndebauches, and v\u00f3dka, hundreds of thousands of simple, good people,\ntorn away from peaceful labour, from their wives, mothers, children,\nwill march, with weapons of murder in their hands, whither they will\nbe driven. They will go to freeze, to starve, to be sick, to die\nfrom diseases, and finally they will arrive at the place where they\nwill be killed by the thousand, and they will kill by the thousand,\nthemselves not knowing why, men whom they have never seen and who\nhave done them and can do them no harm.\n\nAnd when there shall be collected so many sick, wounded, and killed\nthat nobody will have the time to pick them up, and when the air\nshall already be so infected by this rotting food for cannon that\neven the authorities will feel uncomfortable, then they will stop\nfor awhile, will somehow manage to pick up the wounded, will haul\noff and somewhere throw into a pile the sick, and will bury the\ndead, covering them with lime, and again they will lead on the whole\ncrowd of the deceived, and will continue to lead them on in this\nmanner until those who have started the whole thing will get tired\nof it, or until those who needed it will get what they needed.\n\nAnd again will men become infuriated, brutalized, and bestialized,\nand love will be diminished in the world, and the incipient\nChristianization of humanity will be delayed for decades and for\ncenturies. And again will the people, who gain thereby, begin to\nsay with assurance that, if there is a war, this means that it is\nnecessary, and again they will begin to prepare for it the future\ngenerations, by corrupting them from childhood.\n\n\nVII.\n\nAnd so, when there appear such patriotic manifestations as were the\nToulon celebrations, which, though still at a distance, in advance\nbind the wills of men and oblige them to commit those customary\nmalefactions which always result from patriotism, every one who\nunderstands the significance of these celebrations cannot help\nbut protest against everything which is tacitly included in them.\nAnd so, when the journalists say in print that all the Russians\nsympathize with what took place at Kronstadt, Toulon, and Paris;\nthat this alliance for life and death is confirmed by the will\nof the whole nation; and when the Russian minister of education\nassures the French ministers that his whole company, the Russian\nchildren, the learned, and the authors, share his sentiments; or\nwhen the commander of the Russian squadron assures the French that\nthe whole of Russia will be grateful to them for their reception;\nand when the chief priests speak for their flocks and assure the\nFrench that their prayers for the life of the most august house\nhave re\u00ebchoed joyfully in the hearts of the Russian _Tsar-loving_\nnation; and when the Russian ambassador in Paris, who is considered\nto be the representative of the Russian nation, says after a dinner\nof _ortolans \u00e0 la soubise et logop\u00e9des glac\u00e9s_, with a glass of\nchampagne _Grand Mo\u00ebt_ in his hand, that all Russian hearts are\nbeating in unison with his heart, which is filled with a sudden\noutburst of exclusive love for fair France (_la belle France_),--we,\nthe people who are free from the stultification, consider it our\nsacred duty, not only for our own sakes, but also for the sake of\ntens of millions of Russians, in the most emphatic manner to protest\nagainst it and to declare that our hearts do not beat in unison with\nthe hearts of the journalists, ministers of education, commanders of\nsquadrons, chief priests, and ambassadors, but, on the contrary, are\nfull to the brim with indignation and loathing for that harmful lie\nand that evil which they consciously and unconsciously disseminate\nwith their acts and their speeches. Let them drink _Mo\u00ebt_ as much as\nthey please, and let them write articles and deliver addresses in\ntheir own name, but we, all the Christians, who recognize ourselves\nas such, cannot admit that we are bound by everything that these men\nsay and write. We cannot admit it, because we know what is concealed\nbeneath all these drunken transports, speeches, and embraces, which\ndo not resemble the confirmation of peace, as we are assured, but\nrather those orgies and that drunkenness to which evil-doers abandon\nthemselves when they prepare themselves for a joint crime.\n\n\nVIII.\n\nAbout four years ago,--the first swallow of the Toulon spring,--a\ncertain French agitator in favour of a war with Germany came to\nRussia for the purpose of preparing the Franco-Russian alliance,\nand he visited us in the country. He arrived at our house when we\nwere working in the mowing. At breakfast, as we returned home, we\nmade the acquaintance of the guest, and he immediately proceeded to\ntell us how he had fought, had been in captivity, had run away from\nit, and how he had made a patriotic vow, of which he was apparently\nproud, that he would not stop agitating a war against Germany until\nthe integrity and glory of France should be re\u00ebstablished.\n\nIn our circle all the convictions of our guest as to how necessary\nan alliance between Russia and France was for the re\u00ebstablishment of\nthe former borders of France and its might and glory, and for making\nus secure against the malevolent intentions of Germany, were of no\navail to him. In reply to his arguments that France could not be at\npeace so long as the provinces taken from it were not returned to\nit, we said that similarly Prussia could not be at rest, so long as\nit had not paid back for Jena, and that, if the French \"_revanche_\"\nshould now be successful, the Germans would have to pay them back,\nand so on without end.\n\nIn reply to his arguments that the French were obliged to save\ntheir brothers, who had been torn away from them, we said that the\ncondition of the inhabitants, of the majority of the inhabitants, of\nthe working people in Alsace-Lorraine, was hardly any worse under\nGerman rule than it had been under France, and that, because some\nAlsatians preferred to belong to France rather than to Germany,\nand he, our guest, found it desirable to reestablish the glory of\nFrench arms, it was not worth while, either to begin those terrible\ncalamities which result from war, or even to sacrifice one single\nhuman life.\n\nIn reply to his arguments that it was all very well for us to\nspeak thus, since we had not experienced the same, and that we\nshould be speaking differently, if we had the Baltic provinces and\nPoland taken away from us, we said that even from the political\nstandpoint the loss of Poland and of the Baltic provinces could not\nbe a calamity for us, but might rather be considered an advantage,\nsince it would diminish the necessity for a military force and the\nexpenses of state; and from the Christian point of view we never\ncould permit a war, since a war demanded the killing of men, whereas\nChristianity not only forbade every murder, but even demanded\nthat we do good to all men, considering all, without distinction\nof nationalities, as our brothers. The Christian state, we said,\nwhich enters upon war, to be consistent, must not only haul down\nthe crosses from the churches, turn all the churches into buildings\nfor different purposes, give the clergy other offices, and, above\nall, prohibit the Gospel, but must also renounce all the demands\nof morality which result from the Christian law. \"_C'est \u00e0 prendre\nou \u00e0 laisser_,\" we said. But until Christianity was abolished, it\nwould be possible to entice men to war only by cunning and deceit,\nas indeed is being done nowadays. We see this cunning and deception,\nand so cannot submit to it. As there was no music, no champagne,\nnothing intoxicating about us, our guest only shrugged his shoulders\nand with customary French amiability remarked that he was very\nthankful for the fine reception accorded to him in our house, but\nthat he was sorry that his ideas were not treated in the same way.\n\n\nIX.\n\nAfter this conversation we went to the mowing, and there he, in\nthe hope of finding more sympathy for his ideas among the masses,\nasked me to translate to the peasant Prok\u00f3fi, an old, sickly man,\nwith an enormous rupture, who none the less stuck to his work,\nand was my companion in the mowing, his plan of attacking the\nGermans, which was to squeeze the Germans, who were between the\nFrench and the Russians, from both sides. The Frenchman gave an\nocular demonstration of this to Prok\u00f3fi, by touching from two sides\nProk\u00f3fi's sweaty hempen shirt with his white fingers. I recall\nProk\u00f3fi's good-naturedly scornful surprise, when I explained to him\nthe Frenchman's words and gestures. The proposition to squeeze the\nGermans from both sides was apparently taken by Prok\u00f3fi as a joke,\nfor he would not admit the idea that a grown man and a scholar\nshould calmly and when he was sober talk of the desirability of war.\n\n\"Well, if we squeeze the German from both sides,\" he replied\njestingly to what he thought was a joke, \"he will have no place to\ngo to. We must give him room.\"\n\nI translated this to my guest.\n\n\"_Dites lui que nous aimons les Russes_,\" he said.\n\nThese words obviously startled Prok\u00f3fi even more than the\nproposition to squeeze the German, and provoked a certain sentiment\nof suspicion.\n\n\"Who is he?\" Prok\u00f3fi asked me, with mistrust, indicating my guest\nwith his head.\n\nI told him that he was a Frenchman, a rich man.\n\n\"What is his business?\" Prok\u00f3fi asked me.\n\nWhen I explained to him that he had come to invite the Russians to\nform an alliance with France in case of a war with Germany, Prok\u00f3fi\napparently became quite dissatisfied, and, turning to the women, who\nwere sitting near a haycock, he shouted at them in a strong voice,\nwhich involuntarily betrayed the feelings which this conversation\nhad provoked in him, that they should go and rake up the unraked hay.\n\n\"Come now, you crows! Have you fallen asleep? Come! Much time we\nhave to squeeze the German! We have not finished the mowing yet, and\nit looks likely that we shall be mowing on Wednesday,\" he said. And\nthen, as though fearing to offend the stranger by such a remark, he\nadded, displaying his half-worn-off teeth in a good-natured smile,\n\"You had better come and work with us, and send the German, too.\nWhen we get through working, we shall have a good time. Well take\nthe German along. They are just such folk as we.\" And, having said\nthis, Prok\u00f3fi took his muscular arm out of the crotch of the fork,\non which he had been leaning, threw the fork over his shoulders, and\nwent away to the women.\n\n\"_Oh, le brave homme!_\" the polite Frenchman exclaimed, smiling. And\nwith this he then concluded his diplomatic mission to the Russian\npeople.\n\nThe sight of these so radically different men,--the one beaming with\nfreshness, alacrity, elegance, the well-fed Frenchman, in a silk hat\nand long overcoat of the latest fashion, energetically illustrating\nwith his white hands, unused to labour, how to squeeze the Germans,\nand the sight of the dishevelled Prok\u00f3fi, with hay-seed in his hair,\ndried up from work, sunburnt, always tired and always working, in\nspite of his immense rupture, with fingers swollen from work, with\nhis loosely hanging homespun trousers, battered bast shoes, jogging\nalong with an immense forkful of hay over his shoulder in that\nindolent pace of a labouring man, which economizes motion,--the\nsight of these two so radically different men elucidated to me then\nmany things, and has occurred to me now, after the Toulon-Paris\ncelebrations. One of them personified all those men, nurtured by\nthe labours of the masses, who later use these masses as food for\ncannon; and Prok\u00f3fi personified to me that food for cannon, which\nnurtures and makes secure the men who dispose of it.\n\n\nX.\n\n\"But France has been deprived of two provinces,--two children have\nbeen violently removed from their mother. But Russia cannot permit\nGermany to prescribe laws to it and to deprive it of its historic\ndestiny in the East,--it cannot tolerate the chance of having\nits provinces, the Baltic provinces, Poland, the Caucasus, taken\nfrom it, as was done in the case of France. But Germany cannot\ntolerate the possibility of losing its prerogatives, which it has\ngained through so many sacrifices. But England cannot yield its\nsupremacy on the seas to any one.\" And, having spoken such words,\nit is generally assumed that a Frenchman, a Russian, a German, an\nEnglishman must be prepared to sacrifice everything in order to\nregain the lost provinces, to establish their predominance in the\nEast, to maintain their unity and power, their supremacy on the\nseas, and so forth.\n\nIt is assumed that the sentiment of patriotism is, in the first\nplace, a sentiment which is always inherent in men, and, in the\nsecond, such an exalted moral sentiment that, if it is absent,\nit has to be evoked in those who do not have it. But neither is\ncorrect. I have passed half a century among the Russian masses,\nand among the great majority of the real Russian people I have in\nall that time never seen or heard even once any manifestation or\nexpression of this sentiment of patriotism, if we do not count\nthose patriotic phrases, which are learned by rote during military\nservice or are repeated from books by the most frivolous and\nspoiled men of the nation. I have never heard any expression of\npatriotic sentiments from the people; but, I have, on the contrary,\nfrequently heard the most serious and respectable men from among the\nmasses giving utterance to the most absolute indifference and even\ncontempt for all kinds of manifestations of patriotism. The same\nthing I have observed among the labouring classes of other nations,\nand I have often been assured of the same by cultured Frenchmen,\nGermans, and Englishmen concerning their own working people.\n\nThe working people are too busy with the all-absorbing business of\nsupporting themselves and their families, to be interested in those\npolitical questions, which present themselves as the chief motive\nof patriotism,--the questions of Russia's influence in the East,\nthe unity of Germany, or the restitution of the lost provinces\nto France, or the acts of this or that part of one state toward\nanother, and so forth, do not interest them, not only because they\nhardly ever know the conditions under which these questions have\narisen, but also because the interests of their lives are quite\nindependent of the political interests. It is always very much a\nmatter of indifference to a man from the masses, where certain\nborders will be marked down, or to whom Constantinople will belong,\nor whether Saxony or Brunswick will be a member of the German union,\nor whether Australia or Matabeleland will belong to England, or\neven to what government he will have to pay taxes and to what army\nhe will have to send his sons; but it is always very important for\nhim to know how much he will have to pay in taxes, how long he\nhas to serve, and how much he will receive for his labour,--and\nthese are questions that are quite independent of the common\npolitical interests. It is for this reason that, in spite of all\nthe intensified means used by the governments for the inoculation\nof the masses with a patriotism which is alien to them and for the\nsuppression of the ideas of socialism, which are developing among\nthem, the socialism more and more penetrates into the masses, and\nthe patriotism, which is so carefully inoculated by the governments,\nis not only not adopted by the masses, but is disappearing more and\nmore, maintaining itself only among the upper classes, to whom it is\nadvantageous. If it happens that at times patriotism takes hold of\nthe popular crowd, as was the case in Paris, this is only so when\nthe masses are subjected to an intensified hypnotic influence by the\ngovernments and the ruling classes, and the patriotism is maintained\namong the masses only so long at this influence lasts.\n\nThus, for example, in Russia, where patriotism, in the form of\nlove and loyalty for the faith, the Tsar, and the country, is\ninoculated in the masses with extraordinary tension and with the\nuse of all the tools at the command of the governments, such as the\nchurch, the school, the press, and all kinds of solemnities, the\nRussian labouring classes,--one hundred millions of the Russian\nnation,--in spite of Russia's unearned reputation as a nation that\nis particularly devoted to its faith, its Tsar, and its country,\nare most free from the deception of patriotism and from loyalty\nto faith, the Tsar, and country. The men of the masses for the\nmost part do not know their Orthodox, state faith, to which they\nare supposed to be so loyal, and when they come to know it, they\nimmediately give it up and become rationalists, that is, accept a\nfaith which it is impossible to attack or to defend; on their Tsar\nthey, in spite of the constant and persistent influences brought\nto bear upon them, look as upon all the powers of violence, if not\nwith condemnation, at least with absolute indifference; but their\ncountry, if by that we do not mean their village or township, they\ndo not know at all, or, if they do, they do not distinguish it\nfrom any other countries, so that, as Russian colonists used to go\nto Austria and to Turkey, they now with just as much indifference\nsettle in Russia, outside of Russia, in Turkey or in China.\n\n\nXI.\n\nMy old friend D----, who in the winter lived alone in the country,\nwhile his wife, whom he went to see but rarely, lived in Paris,\nused to talk during the long autumn evenings with an illiterate,\nbut very clever and respectable peasant, an elder, who came in the\nevening to report, and my friend told him, among other things, of\nthe superiority of the French political order over our own. This\nwas on the eve of the last Polish insurrection and the interference\nof the French government in our affairs. The patriotic Russian\nnewspapers at that time burned with indignation on account of such\ninterference, and so heated up the ruling classes that they talked\nof a war with France.\n\nMy friend, who had read the papers, told the elder also of these\nrelations between Russia and France. Submitting to the tone of the\npapers, my friend said that if there should be any war (he was an\nold soldier), he would serve and fight against France. At that time\nthe \"_revanche_\" against the French seemed necessary to the Russians\non account of Sevastopol.\n\n\"But why should we wage war?\" asked the elder.\n\n\"How can we permit France to manage our affairs?\"\n\n\"But you say yourself that things are better arranged with them than\nwith us,\" the elder said, quite seriously. \"Let them arrange matters\nin our country, too.\"\n\nMy friend told me that this reflection so startled him that he was\nabsolutely at a loss what to say, and only laughed, as laugh those\nwho awaken from a deceptive dream.\n\nSuch reflections one may hear from any sober Russian labouring\nman, if only he is not under any hypnotic influence of the\ngovernment. They talk of the love of the Russian masses for their\nfaith, their Tsar, and their government, and yet there will not\nbe found one commune of peasants in the whole of Russia, which\nwould hesitate for a moment, which of the two places to choose\nfor its colonization,--Russia, with the Tsar, the little father,\nas they write in books, and with the holy Orthodox faith in its\nadored country, but with less and worse land, or without the little\nfather, the white Tsar, and without the Orthodox faith, somewhere\noutside of Russia, in Prussia, China, Turkey, Austria, but with some\ngreater and better advantages, as indeed we have seen before and\nsee at present. For every Russian peasant the question as to what\ngovernment he will be under (since he knows that, no matter under\nwhat government he may be, he will be fleeced just the same) has\nincomparably less meaning than the question as to whether, I will\nnot say the water is good, but as to whether the clay is soft and as\nto whether there will be a good crop of cabbage.\n\nBut it may be thought that the indifference of the Russians is due\nto this, that any other government under whose power they may come\nwill certainly be better than the Russian, because in Europe there\nis not one that is worse than the Russian; but that is not so: so\nfar as I know, we have seen the same in the case of the English,\nDutch, German immigrants in America, and of all the other colonists\nin Russia.\n\nThe transference of the European nations from the power of one\ngovernment to another, from the Turkish to the Austrian, or from\nthe French to the German, changes the condition of the nations so\nlittle that in no case can they provoke the dissatisfaction of the\nworking classes, so long as they are not artificially subjected to\nthe suggestions of the governments and the ruling classes.\n\n\nXII.\n\nPeople generally adduce, in proof of the existence of patriotism,\nthe manifestations of patriotic sentiments in a nation during a time\nof all kinds of celebrations, as, for example, in Russia during a\ncoronation or the meeting of the emperor after the calamity of the\nseventeenth of October, or in France during the proclamation of war\nagainst Prussia, or in Germany during the festivities of victory, or\nduring the Franco-Russian celebrations.\n\nBut it ought to be known how these manifestations are prepared. In\nRussia, for example, people are especially dressed up by the village\ncommune and the owners of factories to meet and welcome the emperor\nwhenever he passes through a given locality.\n\nThe transports of the masses are generally prepared artificially\nby those who need them, and the degree of transport expressed by\nthe crowd shows only the degree of the art of the arrangers of\nthese transports. This business has long been practised, and so\nthe specialists in arranging such transports have reached a high\ndegree of virtuosity in these arrangements. When Alexander II. was\nstill an heir apparent, and was in command, as is usually the case,\nof the Preobr\u00e1zhenski regiment, he once drove out after dinner\nto the regiment in camp. The moment his carriage appeared, the\nsoldiers, coatless as they were, rushed out to meet him, and with\nsuch transport welcomed, as they say, their most august commander,\nthat all ran a race behind his carriage, and many of them made\nthe sign of the cross while on a run, looking all the time at the\nheir apparent. All those who saw this meeting were deeply touched\nby this na\u00efve loyalty and love of the Russian soldiers for their\nTsar and his heir, and by that sincere religious and apparently\nunprepared transport which was expressed in the faces, the motions,\nand especially in the signs of the cross, which the soldiers\nmade. However, all that was done artificially and prepared in the\nfollowing manner: after the inspection of the previous day the heir\nsaid to the brigade commander that he would drive up the next day to\nthe regiment.\n\n\"When are we to expect your Imperial Majesty?\"\n\n\"In all probability in the evening. Only, please, no preparations.\"\n\nThe moment the heir drove off, the brigade commander called together\nthe commanders of the companies and gave the order that on the\nfollowing day all the soldiers were to appear in clean shirts, and,\nas soon as they saw the heir's carriage, which the signallers were\nto announce, they were to run at haphazard after the carriage,\nshouting \"Hurrah!\" and that, at the same time, every tenth man in\nthe company was to run and make the sign of the cross. The sergeants\ndrew up the companies, and, counting the soldiers, stopped at every\ntenth man: \"One, two, three ... eight, nine, ten,--Sidor\u00e9nko--the\nsign of the cross; one, two, three, four ... Iv\u00e1nov--the sign of\nthe cross....\" Everything was carried out as by command, and the\nimpression of transport was complete, both on the heir apparent and\non all the persons present, even on the soldiers and the officers,\nand even on the commander of the brigade, who had invented all that.\nJust so, though less coarsely, they do in all places, wherever\nthere are any patriotic manifestations. Thus the Franco-Russian\ncelebrations, which present themselves to us as free expressions\nof the people's sentiments, did not originate with the people, but\nwere, on the contrary, very artfully and quite obviously prepared\nand provoked by the French government.\n\n\"The moment the arrival of the Russian sailors became known,\" I am\nagain quoting the same _Rural Messenger_, the official organ, which\ncollects its information from all the other newspapers, \"committees\nfor the arrangement of celebrations were being formed, not only\nin all the large and small cities lying on the route from Toulon\nto Paris, a considerable distance, but also in a large number of\ntowns and villages which lie quite to either side of this route.\nEverywhere a subscription was opened for contributions to meet the\nexpenses for these celebrations. Many cities sent deputations to\nParis to our imperial ambassador, imploring him to let the sailors\nvisit their cities even for one day or even for one hour. The\nmunicipal governments of all those cities in which our sailors were\nordered to stay set aside vast sums, averaging more than one hundred\nthousand roubles, for the arrangement of all kinds of festivities\nand amusements, and expressed their willingness to expend even\ngreater sums, as much as should be needed, provided the welcome and\nthe celebrations should be as magnificent as possible.\n\n\"In Paris itself a private committee collected, in addition to the\nsum set aside by the city government for this purpose, an immense\nsum by private subscription, also for the arrangement of amusements,\nand the French government assigned more than one hundred thousand\nroubles for expenses incurred by the ministers and other authorities\nin welcoming the guests. In many cities, where our sailors will not\nset foot at all, they none the less decided to celebrate the first\nof October with all kinds of festivities in honour of Russia. A vast\nnumber of cities and provinces decided to send special deputations\nto Toulon and Paris, in order to welcome the Russian guests and\nto offer them presents to remember France by, or to send to them\naddresses and telegrams of welcome. It was decided everywhere to\nconsider the first of October a national holiday and to dismiss\nthe pupils of all the educational institutions for that day, and\nin Paris for two days. Officials of lower rank had their penalties\nremitted, that they might gratefully remember the joyful day for\nFrance,--the first of October.\n\n\"To make it easier for those who wished to visit Toulon and take\npart in the welcome to the Russian squadron, the railways lowered\nthe rates to one-half and sent out special trains.\"\n\nAnd thus, when by means of a whole series of universal, simultaneous\nmeasures, which the government can always take by dint of the\npower which it has in its hands, a certain part of the nation,\npre\u00ebminently the scum of the people, the city crowd, is brought to\na condition of abnormal excitement, they say: \"Behold, this is the\nfree expression of the will of the whole nation.\" Manifestations\nlike those which just took place in Toulon and in Paris, which in\nGermany take place at the meeting of the emperor or of Bismarck,\nor at man\u0153uvres in Lorraine, and which are constantly repeated\nin Russia at every meeting circumstanced with solemnity, prove\nonly this, that the means of an artificial excitation of the\npeople, which now are in the hands of the governments and the\nruling classes, are so powerful that the governments and the ruling\nclasses, which are in possession of them, are always able at will\nto provoke any kind of a patriotic manifestation they may wish\nby rousing the patriotic sentiments of the masses. Nothing, on\nthe contrary, proves the absence of patriotism in the masses with\nsuch obviousness as those tense efforts which now are made by the\ngovernments and the ruling classes for the artificial excitation\nof patriotism, and the insignificant results which are obtained in\nspite of all the efforts.\n\nIf patriotic sentiments are so proper to the nations, they should\nbe permitted to manifest themselves freely, and should not be\nprovoked by all kinds of exclusive and artificial means, applied on\nevery possible occasion. Let them even for a time, for one year,\nstop in Russia compelling all the people, as they are doing now,\nupon the accession of every Tsar, to swear allegiance to him; let\nthem at every divine service stop solemnly repeating several times\nthe customary prayers for the Tsar; let them stop celebrating his\nbirthdays and name-days with ringing of bells, illumination, and\nthe prohibition to work; let them stop everywhere hanging out and\ndisplaying representations of him; let them stop, in prayer-books,\nalmanacs, text-books, printing his name and the names of his\nfamily, and even the pronouns referring to him, in capitals; let\nthem stop glorifying him in special books and newspapers printed\nfor the purpose; let them stop imprisoning men for the slightest\ndisrespectful word uttered concerning the Tsar,--let them stop\ndoing all that for a time only, and then we should see how proper\nit is for the masses, for the real labouring masses, for Prok\u00f3fi,\nfor elder Iv\u00e1n, and for all the men of the Russian masses,--as the\nnation is made to believe and as all the foreigners are convinced of\nit,--to worship the Tsar, who in one way or another turns them over\ninto the hands of a landed proprietor or of the rich in general. So\nit is in Russia; but let them similarly stop in Germany, France,\nItaly, England, America doing all that which is done there with the\nsame tension by the ruling classes in order to rouse patriotism and\nloyalty and submission to the existing government, and we should\nsee in how far this imaginary patriotism is characteristic of the\nnations of our time.\n\nBut, as it is, the masses are stultified from childhood by all\npossible means, by school-books, divine services, sermons, books,\nnewspapers, verses, monuments, which all tend in one and the same\ndirection; then they select by force or bribery a few thousands of\nthe people, and when these assembled thousands, joined by all the\nloafers who are always happy to be present at any spectacle, to the\nsounds of cannon-shots and of music, and at the sight of every\nkind of splendour and light begin to shout what the leaders shout\nto them, we are told that this is an expression of the sentiments\nof the whole nation. But, in the first place, these thousands,\nor, if it is a great crowd, these tens of thousands, who shout\nsomething at such celebrations, form but a tiny, a ten-thousandth\npart of the whole nation; in the second place, out of these tens of\nthousands of shouting men, who wave their hats, the greater part\nare either collected by force, as is the case with us in Russia, or\nartificially provoked by some enticement; in the third place, among\nall these thousands, there are scarcely tens who know what it is all\nabout, and all the rest would as gladly shout and wave their hats if\nthe very opposite took place; and, in the fourth place, the police\nare always present, and they will make any one shut up if he does\nnot shout what the government wants and demands shall be shouted,\nand lock him up at once, as was done with much force during the\nFranco-Russian festivities.\n\nIn France they welcomed with equal enthusiasm the war with Russia\nunder Napoleon I., and then Alexander I., against whom the war was\nwaged, and then again Napoleon, and again the allies, and Bourbon,\nand Orleans, and the Republic, and Napoleon III., and Boulanger;\nand in Russia they acclaim with the same enthusiasm, to-day Peter,\nto-morrow Catherine, the next day Paul, Alexander, Constantine,\nNicholas, the Duke of Leuchtenberg, the brother Slavs, the King of\nPrussia, the French sailors, and all those whom the government wants\nthem to welcome. The same happens in England, America, Germany,\nItaly.\n\nWhat in our time is called patriotism is, on the one hand, only\na certain mood, which is constantly produced and maintained in\nthe masses by the schools, the religion, the venal press, having\nsuch a tendency as the government demands, and, on the other, a\ntemporary excitation, produced with exclusive means by the ruling\nclasses, in the masses, who stand on a lower moral and even mental\nplane,--an excitation, which later is given out as a constant\nexpression of the will of the whole nation. The patriotism of the\noppressed nationalities does not form an exception to this. It is as\nlittle characteristic of the working classes, and is artificially\ninculcated upon them by the upper classes.\n\n\nXIII.\n\n\"But if the men of the masses do not experience the sentiment of\npatriotism, this is due to the fact that they have not yet reached\nthat exalted sentiment, which is characteristic of every cultured\nman. If they do not experience this exalted sentiment, it has to be\neducated in them. It is this that the government is doing.\"\n\nThus generally speak the men of the ruling classes, with such full\nconfidence that patriotism is an exalted sentiment, that the na\u00efve\nmen of the masses, who do not experience it, consider themselves at\nfault, because they do not experience this sentiment, and try to\nassure themselves that they experience it, or at least pretend that\nthey do.\n\nBut what is this exalted sentiment, which, in the opinion of the\nruling classes, ought to be educated in the nations?\n\nThis sentiment is in its most precise definition nothing but a\npreference shown to one's own state or nation in comparison with any\nother state or nation, a sentiment which is fully expressed in the\nGerman patriotic song, \"_Deutschland, Deutschland \u00fcber alles_,\" in\nwhich we need only substitute _Russland_, _Frankreich_, _Italien_,\nor any other state for _Deutschland_, and we shall get the clearest\nformula of the exalted sentiment of patriotism. It may be that this\nsentiment is very desirable and useful for the governments and the\nintegrity of the state, but one cannot help but observe that this\nsentiment is not at all exalted, but, on the contrary, very stupid\nand very immoral: stupid, because, if every state will consider\nitself better than any other, it is obvious that they will all be\nin the wrong; and immoral, because it inevitably leads every man\nwho experiences the feeling to try to obtain advantages for his own\nstate and nation, at the expense of other states and nations--a\ntendency which is directly opposed to the fundamental moral law\nrecognized by all men: not to do unto another what we do not wish to\nhave done to ourselves.\n\nPatriotism may have been a virtue in the ancient world, when it\ndemanded of man that he serve the highest ideal accessible to him\nat the time,--the ideal of his country. But how can patriotism\nbe a virtue in our time, when it demands of men what is directly\nopposed to what forms the ideal of our religion and morality,--not\nthe recognition of the equality and brotherhood of all men, but the\nrecognition of one state and nationality as predominating over all\nthe others. This sentiment is in our time not only not a virtue, but\nunquestionably a vice; no such sentiment of patriotism in its true\nsense does or can exist in our time, because the material and moral\nfoundations for it are lacking.\n\nPatriotism could have some sense in the ancient world, when every\nnation, more or less homogeneous in its structure, professing one\nand the same state religion, and submitting to the same unlimited\npower of its supreme, deified ruler, appeared to itself as an island\nin the ocean of the barbarians, which ever threatened to inundate it.\n\nWe can see how with such a state of affairs, patriotism, that is,\nthe desire to ward off the attacks of the barbarians, who were not\nonly prepared to destroy the social order, but who also threatened\nwholesale plundering and murder, with the enslavement of men and\nthe rape of women, was a natural feeling, and we can see why a man,\nto free himself and his compatriots from such calamities, could\nhave preferred his nation to all the others, and could experience a\nhostile feeling toward the barbarians around him, and could kill\nthem, in order to protect his nation.\n\nBut what significance can this sentiment have in our Christian\ntime? On what ground and for what purpose can a man of our time, a\nRussian, go and kill Frenchmen or Germans, or a Frenchman Germans,\nwhen he knows full well, no matter how little educated he may be,\nthat the men of the other state and nation, against which they are\nrousing his patriotic hostility, are not barbarians, but just such\nChristians as he, frequently of the same faith and profession with\nhim, desiring like him nothing but peace and a peaceful exchange of\nlabour, and that, besides, they are for the most part united with\nhim either by the interests of common labour, or by commercial or\nspiritual interests, or by all together? Thus frequently the men of\nanother country are nearer and more indispensable to a man than his\nown countrymen, as is the case with labourers who are connected with\nemployers of other nationalities, and as is the case with commercial\npeople, and especially with scholars and artists.\n\nBesides, the conditions of life themselves have so changed now that\nwhat we call our country, what we are supposed to distinguish from\neverything else, has ceased to be something clearly defined, as it\nwas with the ancients, where the men forming one country belonged\nto one nationality, one state, and one faith. We can understand\nthe patriotism of an Egyptian, a Jew, a Greek, who, defending\nhis country, was at the same time defending his faith, and his\nnationality, and his home, and his state.\n\nBut in what way will in our time be expressed the patriotism of an\nIrishman in the United States, who by his faith belongs to Rome, by\nhis nationality to Ireland, by his state allegiance to the United\nStates? In the same condition are a Bohemian in Austria, a Pole in\nRussia, Prussia, and Austria, a Hindoo in England, a Tartar and\nan Armenian in Russia and in Turkey. But, even leaving out these\nmen of the separate conquered nationalities, the men of the most\nhomogeneous states, such as are Russia, France, Prussia, can no\nlonger experience that sentiment of patriotism, which was peculiar\nto the ancients, because frequently all the chief interests of their\nlife (sometimes their domestic ones,--they are married to women\nof another nation; the economic ones,--their capital is abroad;\ntheir spiritual, scientific, or artistic ones) are not in their own\ncountry, but outside it, in that state against which the government\nis rousing his patriotic hatred.\n\nBut most of all is patriotism impossible in our time, because, no\nmatter how much we have tried for eighteen hundred years to conceal\nthe meaning of Christianity, it has none the less trickled through\ninto our life, and is guiding it in such a way that the coarsest and\nmost stupid of men cannot help but see the absolute incompatibility\nof patriotism with those moral rules by which they live.\n\n\nXIV.\n\nPatriotism was necessary for the formation, out of heterogeneous\nnationalities, of strong, united kingdoms, protected against the\nbarbarians. But as soon as the Christian enlightenment transformed\nall these kingdoms alike from within, by giving them the same\nfoundations, patriotism not only became unnecessary, but was also\nthe one barrier against that union of the nations for which they are\nprepared by dint of their Christian consciousness.\n\nPatriotism is in our time the cruel tradition of a long-gone-by\nperiod of time, which holds itself only through inertia and\nbecause the governments and the ruling classes feel that with\nthis patriotism is connected not only their power, but also their\nexistence, and so with care and cunning and violence rouse and\nsustain it in the nations. Patriotism is in our time like the\nscaffolding, which at one time was necessary for the construction of\nthe walls of a building, but which now, though it only interferes\nwith the proper use of the building, is not taken down, because its\nexistence is advantageous for some persons.\n\nAmong the Christian nations there has for a long time ceased to\nexist any cause for discord, and there can be no such cause. It is\neven impossible to imagine why and how Russian and German labourers,\nwho peacefully work together near the border and in the capital\ncities, should begin to quarrel among themselves. And much less\ncan we imagine any hostility between, let us say, a Kaz\u00e1n peasant,\nwho supplies a German with corn, and the German, who supplies him\nwith scythes and machines, and similarly among French, German, and\nItalian labourers. It is even ridiculous to talk of quarrels among\nthe scholars, artists, writers of various nationalities, who live\nby the same interests, that are independent of nationality and the\nstate structure.\n\nBut the governments cannot leave the nations alone, that is, in\npeaceful relations among themselves, because the chief, if not the\nonly justification of the existence of the governments consists in\nmaking peace between the nations, that is, in allaying their hostile\nrelations. And so the governments provoke these hostile relations\nunder the guise of patriotism, and then make it appear that they are\nmaking peace among the nations. It is something like what a gipsy\ndoes, who pours some pepper under his horse's tail, and lashes it in\nthe stall, and then leads it out, while hanging on to the bridle,\npretending that he has the hardest time to restrain the mettled\nhorse.\n\nWe are assured that the governments are concerned about preserving\nthe peace among the nations. In what way do they preserve this peace?\n\nPeople are living along the Rhine in peaceful intercourse among\nthemselves,--suddenly, in consequence of all kinds of disputes and\nintrigues between the kings and emperors, war breaks out, and the\nFrench government finds it necessary to recognize some of these\ninhabitants as Frenchmen. Ages pass, men have become accustomed\nto this state of affairs; again there begin hostilities between\nthe governments of the great nations, and war breaks out on the\nslightest pretence, and the Germans find it necessary to recognize\nthese inhabitants once more as Germans, and in all the French and\nthe Germans ill-will flames up toward one another. Or Germans\nand Russians are living peacefully near the border, peacefully\nexchanging their labour and the products of labour, and suddenly the\nsame institutions which exist only in the name of the pacification\nof the nations begin to quarrel, to do one foolish thing after\nanother, and are not able to invent anything better than the\ncoarsest childish method of self-inflicted punishment, if only they\ncan thus have their will and do something nasty to their adversary\n(which in this case is especially advantageous, since not those who\nstart a customs war, but others, suffer from it); thus the Customs\nWar between Russia and Germany was lately started. Then, with the\naid of the newspapers, there flames up a malevolent feeling, which\nis still farther fanned by the Franco-Russian celebrations, and\nwhich, before we know it, may lead to a sanguinary war.\n\nI have cited the last two examples of the manner in which the\ngovernments affect the people by rousing in them a hostile\nfeeling toward other nations, because they are contemporary; but\nthere is not one war in all history, which was not provoked by\nthe governments, by the governments alone, independently of the\nadvantages to the nations, to which war, even if it is successful,\nis always harmful.\n\nThe governments assure the nations that they are in danger of an\nincursion from other nations and from internal enemies, and that the\nonly salvation from this danger consists in the slavish obedience\nof the nations to their governments. This is most obvious in the\ntime of revolutions and dictatorships, and this takes place at all\ntimes and in all places, wherever there is power. Every government\nexplains its existence and justifies all its violence by insisting\nthat, if it did not exist, things would be worse. By assuring the\nnations that they are in danger, the governments subject them to\nthemselves. When the nations submit to the governments, these\ngovernments compel these nations to attack the other nations. In\nthis manner the nations find confirmed the assurances of their\ngovernments in regard to the danger from being attacked by other\nnations.\n\n_Divide et impera._\n\nPatriotism in its simplest, clearest, and most unquestionable\nsignificance is for the rulers nothing but a tool for attaining\ntheir ambitious and selfish ends, and for the ruled a renunciation\nof human dignity, reason, conscience, and a slavish submission\nto those who are in power. Thus is patriotism actually preached,\nwherever it is preached.\n\nPatriotism is slavery.\n\nThe advocates of peace through arbitration judge like this: two\nanimals cannot divide their prey otherwise than by fighting, as do\nchildren, barbarians, and barbarous nations. But sensible people\nsettle their differences by discussion, conviction, the transmission\nof the solution of the question to disinterested, sensible men. Even\nthus must the sensible nations of our time act. These reflections\nseem quite correct. The nations of our time have reached an age of\ndiscretion, are not hostile to one another, and should be able to\nsettle their differences in a peaceable manner. But the reflection\nis correct only in reference to the nations, to the nations alone,\nif they were not under the power of their governments. But the\nnations which submit to their governments cannot be sensible,\nbecause submission to the governments is already a sign of the\ngreatest senselessness.\n\nHow can we talk of the sensibleness of men who promise in advance to\ndo everything (including the murder of men) which the government,\nthat is, certain men who have accidentally come to hold this\nposition, may command them to do?\n\nMen who are able to accept such a duty of unflinching submission to\nwhat certain strangers will, from St. Petersburg, Vienna, Paris,\ncommand them to do, cannot be sensible, and the governments, that\nis, the men who possess such power, can still less be sensible,\nand cannot help abusing it,--they cannot help losing their minds\nfrom such a senselessly terrible power. For that reason the peace\namong the nations cannot be attained by any sensible means, through\nconventions, through arbitrations, so long as there exists a\nsubmission to the governments, which is always senseless and always\npernicious.\n\nBut the submission of men to the governments will always exist,\nso long as there is any patriotism, because every power is based\non patriotism, that is, on the readiness of men, for the sake of\ndefending their nation, their country, that is, the state, against\nsupposed dangers that are threatening it, to submit to the power.\n\nOn this patriotism was based the power of the French kings over the\nwhole nation previous to the Revolution; on the same patriotism\nwas based the power of the Committee of Public Safety after the\nRevolution; on the same patriotism was reared the power of Napoleon\n(as consul and as emperor); and on the same patriotism, after the\ndownfall of Napoleon, was established the power of the Bourbons,\nand later of the Republic, and of Louis Philippe, and again of the\nRepublic, and again of Bonaparte, and again of the Republic, and on\nthe same patriotism came very near being established the power of\nMr. Boulanger.\n\nIt is terrible to say so, but there does not exist, and there has\nnot existed, a case of aggregate violence committed by one set of\nmen against another which has not been committed in the name of\npatriotism. In the name of patriotism the Russians fought with\nthe French, and the French with the Russians, and in the name of\npatriotism the Russians and the French are now preparing themselves\nto wage war against the Germans,--to fight from two flanks. But war\nis not all,--in the name of patriotism the Russians crush the Poles,\nand the Germans the Slavs; in the name of patriotism the Communists\nkilled the Versaillians, and the Versaillians, the Communists.\n\n\nXV.\n\nIt would seem that with the dissemination of culture, of improved\nmeans of locomotion, of frequent intercourse among the men of the\nvarious nations, in connection with the diffusion of the press, and,\nabove all, in connection with the complete absence of danger from\nother nations, the deception of patriotism ought to become harder\nand harder, and ought in the end to become impossible.\n\nBut the point is, that these same means of a universal\nexternal culture, of improved methods of locomotion, and of\nintercommunication, and above all, of the press, which the\ngovernments have seized upon and seize upon more and more, give\nthem now such a power of exciting in the nations hostile feelings\ntoward one another, that, though on the one hand the obviousness of\nthe uselessness and harm of patriotism has increased, there has, on\nthe other, increased the power of the governments and of the ruling\nclasses to influence the masses, by rousing patriotism in them.\n\nThe difference between what was and what now is consists only in\nthis, that, since now a much greater number of men share in the\nadvantages which patriotism affords to the upper classes, a much\ngreater number of men take part in the dissemination and maintenance\nof this wonderful superstition.\n\nThe more difficult it is to maintain the power, the greater and\ngreater is the number of men with whom the government shares it.\n\nFormerly a small group of rulers had the power,--emperors, kings,\ndukes, their officials, and warriors; but now the participants in\nthis power and in the advantages which it affords are not only the\nofficials and the clergy, but also capitalists, great and small, the\nlandowners, bankers, members of Chambers, teachers, rural officers,\nscholars, even artists, and especially journalists. And all these\npersons consciously and unconsciously spread the deception of\npatriotism, which is indispensable to them for the maintenance of\ntheir advantageous position. And the deception, thanks to the fact\nthat the means of deception have become more powerful and that now\nan ever-growing number of men are taking part in it, is produced so\nsuccessfully that, in spite of the great difficulty of deceiving,\nthe degree of the deception remains the same.\n\nOne hundred years ago, the illiterate masses, who had no conception\nas to who composed their government and as to what nations\nsurrounded them, blindly obeyed those local officials and gentry,\nwhose slaves they were. And it sufficed for the government by means\nof bribes and rewards to keep these officials and this gentry in\ntheir power, in order that the masses might obediently do what was\ndemanded of them. But now, when the masses for the most part can\nread and more or less know of whom their government is composed, and\nwhat nations surround them; when the men of the masses constantly\nmove about with ease from one place to another, bringing to the\nmasses information about what is going on in the world, a mere\ndemand to carry out the commands of the government no longer\nsuffices: it becomes necessary to obscure the true conceptions which\nthe masses have concerning life, and to impress them with improper\nideas concerning the conditions of their life and concerning the\nrelation of other nations toward them.\n\nAnd so, thanks to the diffusion of the press, of the rudiments, and\nof the means of communication, the governments, having their agents\neverywhere, by means of decrees, church sermons, the schools, the\nnewspapers inculcate on the masses the wildest and most perverse\nconceptions about their advantages, about the relation of the\npeoples among themselves, about their properties and intentions;\nand the masses, which are so crushed by labour that they have no\ntime and no chance to understand the significance and verify the\ncorrectness of those conceptions which are inculcated upon them, and\nof those demands which are made on them in the name of their good,\nsubmit to them without a murmur.\n\nBut the men from the masses who free themselves from constant\nlabour and who educate themselves, and who, it would seem, should\nbe able to understand the deception which is practised upon them,\nare subjected to such an intensified effect of menaces, bribery,\nand hypnotization by the governments, that they almost without an\nexception pass over to the side of the governments and, accepting\nadvantageous and well-paid positions as teachers, priests, officers,\nofficials, become participants in the dissemination of the deception\nwhich ruins their fellow men. It is as though at the door of\neducation stood a snare, into which inevitably fall those who in one\nway or another leave the masses that are absorbed in labour.\n\nAt first, as one comes to understand the cruelty of the deception,\nthere involuntarily rises an indignation against those who for their\npersonal, selfish, ambitious advantage produce this cruel deception,\nwhich destroys, not only men's bodies, but also their souls, and\none feels like showing up these cruel deceivers. But the point is,\nthat the deceivers do not deceive because they want to deceive, but\nbecause they almost cannot do otherwise. And they do not deceive in\nany Machiavellian way, with a consciousness of the deception which\nthey practise, but for the most part with the na\u00efve assurance that\nthey are doing something good and elevated, in which opinion they\nare constantly maintained by the sympathy and approval of all the\nmen who surround them. It is true that, feeling dimly that their\npower and their advantageous position is based on this deception,\nthey are involuntarily drawn toward it; but they do not act because\nthey wish to deceive the masses, but because they think that the\nwork which they are doing is useful for the masses.\n\nThus emperors and kings and their ministers, performing their\ncoronations, man\u0153uvres, inspections, mutual visits, during\nwhich time they, dressing themselves up in all kinds of uniforms\nand travelling from one place to another, consult with one another\nwith serious faces about how to pacify presumably hostile nations\n(who will never think of fighting with one another), are absolutely\nconvinced that everything they do is exceedingly sensible and useful.\n\nSimilarly all the ministers, diplomatists, and all kinds of\nofficials, who dress themselves up in their uniforms, with all\nkinds of ribbons and little crosses, and with preoccupation write\non fine paper their obscure, twisted, useless numbered reports,\ncommunications, prescriptions, projects, are absolutely convinced\nthat without this their activity the whole life of the nations will\ncome to a standstill or will be entirely destroyed.\n\nSimilarly the military, who dress themselves up in their ridiculous\ncostumes and who seriously discuss with what guns or cannon it is\nbetter to kill people, are fully convinced that their man\u0153uvres\nand parades are most important and necessary for the nation.\n\nThe same conviction is held by the preachers, journalists, and\nwriters of patriotic verses and text-books, who receive a liberal\nreward for preaching patriotism. Nor is any doubt concerning this\nharboured by the managers of celebrations, like the Franco-Russian\nones, who are sincerely affected when they utter their patriotic\nspeeches and toasts. All people do unconsciously what they do,\nbecause that is necessary, or because their whole life is based\non this deception and they are unable to do anything else, while\nthese same acts evoke the sympathy and the approval of all those\nmen among whom they are committed. Not only do they, being all\nconnected with one another, approve and justify the acts and the\nactivities of one another,--the emperors and kings, the acts of\nthe soldiers, the officials, and the clergy; and the military, the\nofficials, and the clergy, the acts of the emperors, the kings, and\none another,--the popular crowd, especially the city crowd, which\nsees no comprehensible meaning in everything which is being done by\nthese men, involuntarily ascribes a special, almost a supernatural\nsignificance to them. The crowd sees, for example, that triumphal\narches are being erected; that men masquerade in crowns, uniforms,\nvestments; that fireworks are displayed, cannon are fired, bells are\nrung, regiments are marching with music, documents, telegrams, and\ncouriers fly from one place to another, and strangely masquerading\nmen with preoccupation keep riding from one place to another, saying\nand writing something, and so forth,--and, not being able to verify\nwhether there is the slightest need for what is being done (as,\nindeed, there is none), ascribes to all this a special, mysterious,\nand important meaning, and with shouts of transport or with silent\nawe meets all these manifestations. But in the meantime these\nexpressions of transport and the constant respect of the crowd still\nmore strengthen the assurance of the men who are doing all these\nfoolish things.\n\nLately William II. ordered a new throne for himself, with some\nspecial ornaments, and, dressing himself up in a white uniform with\npatches, in tight trousers, and in a helmet with a bird on it, and\nthrowing a red mantle over all, came out to his subjects and seated\nhimself on this throne, with the full assurance that this was a very\nnecessary and important act, and his subjects not only did not see\nanything funny in all this, but even found this spectacle to be very\nmajestic.\n\n\nXVI.\n\nThe power of the governments has now for a long time ceased to be\nbased on force, as it was based in those times when one nationality\nconquered another and by force of arms held it in subjection, or\nwhen the rulers, amidst a defenceless people, maintained separate\narmed troops of janissaries, opr\u00edchniks, or guardsmen. The power of\nthe governments has now for a long time been based on what is called\npublic opinion.\n\nThere exists a public opinion that patriotism is a great moral\nsentiment, and that it is good and right to consider one's own\nnation, one's own state, the best in the world, and from this there\nnaturally establishes itself a public opinion that it is necessary\nto recognize the power of the government over ourselves and to\nsubmit to it; that it is good and right to serve in the army and\nto submit to discipline; that it is good and right to give up our\nsavings in the shape of taxes to the government; that it is good\nand right to submit to the decisions of the courts; that it is good\nand right to believe without verification in what is given out as a\ndivine truth by the men of the government.\n\nOnce such a public opinion exists, there establishes itself a mighty\npower, which in our time has command of milliards of money, of an\norganized mechanism of government, the post, the telegraphs, the\ntelephones, disciplined armies, courts, the police, a submissive\nclergy, the school, even the press, and this power maintains in the\nnations that public opinion which it needs.\n\nThe power of the governments is maintained through public opinion;\nbut, having the power, the governments by means of all their organs,\nthe officers of the courts, the school, the church, even the press,\nare always able to keep up the public opinion which they need.\nPublic opinion produces power,--power produces public opinion. There\nseems to be no way out from this situation.\n\nThus it would, indeed, be, if public opinion were something stable\nand unchanging, and if the governments were able to produce the\npublic opinion which they need.\n\nBut fortunately this is not the case, and public opinion is, in the\nfirst place, not something which is constant, unchanging, stable,\nbut, on the contrary, something eternally changing, moving together\nwith the motion of humanity; and, in the second, public opinion not\nonly cannot be produced by the will of the governments, but is that\nwhich produces the governments and gives them power or takes it away\nfrom them.\n\nIt may appear that public opinion remains immovable and now is such\nas it was decades ago, and it may appear that public opinion wavers\nin relation to certain special cases, as though going back, so that,\nfor example, it now destroys the republic, putting the monarchy in\nits place, and now again destroys the monarchy, putting the republic\nin its place; but that only seems so when we view the external\nmanifestations of that public opinion which is artificially produced\nby the governments. We need only take public opinion in its relation\nto the whole life of men, and we shall see that public opinion, just\nlike the time of the day or year, never stands in one place, but is\nalways in motion, always marching unrestrictedly ahead along the\npath on which humanity proceeds, just as, in spite of retardations\nand waverings, day or spring moves on unrestrictedly along the path\nover which the sun travels.\n\nThus, though by the external signs the condition of the nations of\nEurope in our time is nearly the same that it was fifty years ago,\nthe relation of the nations toward it is now entirely different\nfrom what it was fifty years ago. Though there exist, even as fifty\nyears ago, the same rulers, armies, wars, taxes, luxury, and misery,\nthe same Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, these existed before\nbecause the public opinion of the nations demanded them, but now\nthey all exist because the governments artificially maintain that\nwhich formerly was a living public opinion.\n\nIf we frequently do not notice this motion of public opinion, as we\ndo not notice the motion of water in the river, with the current\nof which we are swimming, this is due to the fact that those\nimperceptible changes of public opinion which form its motion are\ntaking place in ourselves.\n\nThe property of public opinion is that of constant and unrestricted\nmotion. If it seems to us that it is standing in one place, this\nis due to the fact that everywhere there are people who have\nestablished an advantageous position for themselves at a certain\nmoment of public opinion, and so with all their strength try to\nmaintain it and not to admit the manifestation of the new, the\npresent public opinion which, though not yet fully expressed, is\nliving in the consciousness of men. Such people, who retain the\nobsolete public opinion and conceal the new, are all those who at\nthe present time form the governments and the ruling classes, and\nwho profess patriotism as an indispensable condition of human life.\n\nThe means which are at the command of these people are enormous, but\nsince public opinion is something eternally flowing and increasing,\nall their efforts cannot help but be vain: the old grows old, and\nthe youthful grows.\n\nThe longer the expression of the new public opinion shall be\nretained, the more it will grow, and the greater will be the force\nwith which it will express itself. The government and the ruling\nclasses try with all their strength to retain that old public\nopinion of patriotism, on which their power is based, and to retard\nthe manifestation of the new, which will destroy it. But it is\npossible only within certain limits to retain the old and retard the\nnew, just as running water can be held back by a dam only within\ncertain limits.\n\nNo matter how much the governments may try to rouse in the nations\nthe past public opinion, now no longer characteristic of them,\nconcerning the dignity and virtue of patriotism, the men of our time\nno longer believe in patriotism, but more and more believe in the\nsolidarity and brotherhood of the nations. Patriotism now presents\nto men nothing but the most terrible future; but the brotherhood\nof the nations forms that ideal which more and more grows to be\ncomprehensible and desirable for humanity. And so the transition\nof men from the former obsolete public opinion to the new must\ninevitably be accomplished. This transition is as inevitable as the\nfalling of the last sere leaves in autumn and the unfolding of the\nyoung leaves in swelling buds.\n\nThe longer this transition is delayed, the more imperative does it\nbecome, and the more obvious is its necessity.\n\nIndeed, we need only recall what it is we are professing, as\nChristians, and simply as men of our time, we need but recall\nthose moral bases which guide us in our public, domestic, and\nprivate life, and that position in which we have placed ourselves\nin the name of patriotism, in order that we may see what degree\nof contradiction we have reached between our consciousness and\nthat which among us, thanks to the intensified influence of the\ngovernment in this respect, is regarded as our public opinion.\n\nWe need only reflect on those very usual demands of patriotism,\nwhich present themselves to us as something very simple and\nnatural, in order that we may understand to what extent these\ndemands contradict that real public opinion which we all share now.\nWe all consider ourselves free, cultured, humane men, and even\nChristians, and at the same time we are in such a position that\nif to-morrow William takes umbrage at Alexander, or Mr. N---- writes\na clever article on the Eastern question, or some prince robs the\nBulgarians or the Servians, or some queen or empress takes offence\nat something, we all, the cultured, humane Christians, must go out\nto kill men, whom we do not know, and toward whom we are friendly\ndisposed, as toward all men. If this has not yet happened, we owe\nthis, as we are assured, to the peaceful mind of Alexander III., or\nto this, that Nicholas Aleks\u00e1ndrovich is going to marry Victoria's\ngrandchild. But let another man be in the place of Alexander, or\nlet Alexander himself change his mood, or Nicholas Aleks\u00e1ndrovich\nmarry Amalia, and not Alice, and we shall throw ourselves like\nbloodthirsty animals upon one another, to take out one another's\nguts. Such is the supposed public opinion of our time. Such opinions\nare calmly repeated in all the leading and liberal organs of the\npress.\n\n[Illustration: Alexander III.\n\n_Photogravure from Photograph_]\n\nIf we, the Christians of one thousand years' standing, have not yet\ncut one another's throats, it is because Alexander III. does not let\nus do so.\n\nThis is, indeed, terrible.\n\n\nXVII.\n\nFor the greatest and most important changes to take place in the\nlife of humanity, no exploits are needed,--neither the armament\nof millions of soldiers, nor the construction of new roads\nand machines, nor the establishment of exhibitions, nor the\nestablishment of labour-unions, nor revolutions, nor barricades, nor\nexplosions, nor the invention of aerial motion, and so forth, but\nonly a change in public opinion. But for public opinion to change,\nno efforts of the mind are needed, nor the rejection of anything\nexisting, nor the invention of anything unusual and new; all that\nis needed is, that every separate man should say what he actually\nthinks and feels, or at least should not say what he does not think.\nLet men, even a small number of them, do so, and the obsolete public\nopinion will fall of its own accord and there will be manifested\nthe youthful, live, present public opinion. And let public opinion\nchange, and the inner structure of men's life, which torments and\npains them, will be changed without any effort. It is really a shame\nto think how little is needed for all men to be freed from all\nthose calamities which now oppress them; they need only stop lying.\nLet men only not succumb to that lie which is inculcated on them,\nlet them not say what they do not think or feel, and immediately a\nrevolution will take place in the whole structure of our life, such\nas the revolutionists will not accomplish in centuries, even if all\nthe power were in their hands.\n\nIf men only believed that the strength is not in strength, but in\nthe truth, and if they boldly expressed it, or at least did not\ndepart from it in words and deeds,--if they did not say what they do\nnot think, and did not do what they consider bad and stupid.\n\n\"What harm is there in crying '_Vive la France!_' or 'Hurrah!' to\nsome emperor, king, victor, or in going in a uniform, with the\nchamberlain's key, to wait for him in the antechamber, to bow, and\nto address him by strange titles, and then to impress all young\nand uncultured men with the fact that this is very praiseworthy?\"\nOr, \"What harm is there in writing an article in defence of the\nFranco-Russian alliance or the Customs War, or in condemnation of\nthe Germans, Russians, Frenchmen, Englishmen?\" Or, \"What harm is\nthere in attending some patriotic celebration and eulogizing men\nwhom you do not care for and have nothing to do with, and drinking\ntheir health?\" Or even, \"What harm is there in recognizing, in a\nconversation, the benefit and usefulness of treaties, or alliances,\nor even in keeping silent, when your nation and state is praised in\nyour presence, and other nationalities are cursed and blackened,\nor when Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Lutheranism are praised, or when\nsome war hero or ruler, like Napoleon, Peter, or the contemporary\nBoulanger or Sk\u00f3belev, are praised?\"\n\nAll that seems so unimportant, and yet in these seemingly\nunimportant acts, in our aloofness from them, in our readiness to\npoint out, according to our strength, the irrationality of what is\nobviously irrational,--in this does our great, invincible power\nconsist, the power which composes that insuperable force which\nforms the real, actual, public opinion, which, moving itself, moves\nthe whole of humanity. The governments know this, and tremble\nbefore this force, and with all the means at their command try to\ncounteract it and to get possession of it.\n\nThey know that the force is not in force, but in thought and in its\nclear enunciation, and so they are more afraid of the expression\nof independent thought than of armies, and establish censorships,\nbribe newspapers, take possession of the management of religion\nand of schools. But the spiritual force which moves the world\nslips away from them: it is not even in a book, a newspaper,--it\nis intangible and always free,--it is in the depth of men's\nconsciousness. The most powerful, intangible, freest force is the\none which is manifested in man's soul, when he by himself reflects\non the phenomena of the world, and then involuntarily expresses his\nthoughts to his wife, brother, friend, to all those men with whom\nhe comes together, and from whom he considers it a sin to conceal\nwhat he regards as the truth. No milliards of roubles, millions of\nsoldiers, no institutions, nor wars, nor revolutions will produce\nwhat will be produced by the simple expression of a free man as to\nwhat he considers just, independently of what exists and what is\ninculcated upon him.\n\nOne free man will truthfully say what he thinks and feels, amidst\nthousands of men, who by their acts and words affirm the very\nopposite. It would seem that the man who frankly expressed his\nthought would remain alone, while in reality it happens that all\nthose men, or the majority of them, have long been thinking and\nfeeling the same, but have not expressed their thought. And what\nyesterday was the new opinion of one man, to-day becomes the common\nopinion of all men. And as soon as this opinion has established\nitself, men's acts begin to change imperceptibly, slowly, but\nirresistibly.\n\nFor, as it is, every free man says to himself: \"What can I do\nagainst all this sea of evil and deceit, which inundates me? Why\nshould I give expression to my thought? Why even give form to it?\nIt is better not to think of these obscure and intricate questions.\nMaybe these contradictions form an inevitable condition of all the\nphenomena of life. And why should I alone struggle against all this\nevil of the world? Would it not be better if I abandoned myself to\nthe current which sweeps me along? If anything can be done, it can\nbe done only in conjunction with other men.\"\n\nAnd, abandoning that powerful instrument of thought and its\nexpression, which moves the world, this man takes up the instrument\nof public activity, without noticing that all public activity is\nbased on the very principles against which he has to struggle,\nthat in entering upon any public activity which exists amidst our\nworld, he must at least partially depart from the truth, make\nsuch concessions as will destroy the whole force of that powerful\ninstrument of the struggle which is given to him. It is as though a\nman, into whose hands an unusually sharp dagger is given, one that\ncuts everything, should drive in nails with the blade.\n\nWe all deplore the senseless order of life which contradicts all\nour existence, and yet not only fail to make use of the one most\npowerful tool, which is in our hands,--the recognition of the truth\nand its expression,--but, on the contrary, under the pretext of\nstruggling with evil, destroy this tool and sacrifice it to the\nimaginary struggle against this order.\n\nOne man does not tell the truth which he knows, because he feels\nhimself under obligation to the men with whom he is connected;\nanother,--because the truth might deprive him of the advantageous\nposition by means of which he is supporting his family; a\nthird,--because he wants to attain glory and power, to use them\nlater in the service of men; a fourth,--because he does not wish\nto violate the ancient sacred traditions; a fifth,--because the\nexpression of the truth will provoke persecution and will impair\nthat good public activity to which he is devoting himself, or\nintends to devote himself.\n\nOne man serves as an emperor, king, minister, official, soldier,\nand assures himself and others that the deviation from the truth\nwhich is necessary in his position is more than redeemed by his\nusefulness.\n\nAnother exercises the office of a spiritual pastor, though in\nthe depth of his heart he does not believe in what he teaches,\npermitting himself a deviation from the truth in view of the good\nwhich he does. A third instructs men in literature and, in spite\nof the suppression of the whole truth, in order not to provoke the\ngovernment and society against himself, has no doubt as to the good\nwhich he does; a fourth simply struggles against the existing order,\nas do the revolutionists and anarchists, and is fully convinced that\nthe aim which he pursues is so beneficent that the suppression of\nthe truth, which is indispensable in his activity, and even lying\nwill not destroy the good effect of his activity.\n\nFor the order of life which is contrary to the consciousness of\nmen to give way to one in accord with it, it is necessary for the\nobsolete public opinion to give way to a live and new one.\n\nFor the old, obsolete public opinion to give way to the new, live\none, it is necessary that the men who are conscious of the new\ndemands of life should clearly express them. Meanwhile all the men\nwho recognize all these new demands, one in the name of one thing,\nand another in the name of another, not only repress them, but\neven in words and deeds confirm what is directly opposed to these\ndemands. Only the truth and its expression can establish that new\npublic opinion which will change the obsolete and harmful order of\nlife; we, however, not only do not express the truth which we know,\nbut frequently even express precisely what we consider to be an\nuntruth.\n\nIf free men would only not depend on what has no force and is never\nfree,--on external power,--and would always believe in what is\nalways powerful and free,--in the truth and its expression. If men\nonly expressed boldly the truth, already revealed to them, about the\nbrotherhood of all the nations and about the criminality of the\nexclusive membership in one nation, the dead, false public opinion,\non which the whole power of the governments is based, and all the\nevil produced by them, would fall off by itself like a dried-up\nskin, and there would appear that new, live public opinion, which is\nonly waiting for the sloughing off of the hampering old opinion, in\norder clearly and boldly to proclaim its demands and establish the\nnew forms of life in accordance with the consciousness of men.\n\n\nXVIII.\n\nMen need but understand that what is given out to them as public\nopinion, what is maintained by such complex and artificial means,\nis not public opinion, but only the dead consequence of the quondam\npublic opinion; they need only, above all, believe in themselves, in\nthis, that what is cognized by them in the depth of their hearts,\nwhat begs for recognition and finds no expression only because it\ncontradicts public opinion, is that force which changes the world,\nand the manifestation of which forms man's destiny; men need but\nbelieve that the truth is not what men about him say, but what his\nconscience, that is, God, says to him, and immediately there will\ndisappear the false, artificially sustained public opinion, and the\ntrue one will be established.\n\nIf men only said what they believe, and did not say what they do\nnot believe, there would immediately disappear the superstitions\nthat result from patriotism, and all the evil feelings and all\nthe violence, which are based on them. There would disappear the\nhatred and hostility of states against states and of nationalities\nagainst nationalities, which are fanned by the governments; there\nwould disappear the eulogizing of military exploits, that is, of\nmurder; there would, above all else, disappear the respect for the\nauthorities, the surrender of people's labours and the submission to\nthem, for which there are no foundations outside of patriotism.\n\nLet all this be done, and immediately all that vast mass of weak\nmen, who are always guided from without, will sweep over to the side\nof the new public opinion. And the new public opinion will become\nthe ruling one in the place of the old public opinion.\n\nLet the governments have possession of the school, the church, the\npress, milliards of roubles, and millions of disciplined men turned\ninto machines,--all that apparently terrible organization of rude\nforce is nothing in comparison with the recognition of the truth,\nwhich arises in the heart of one man who knows the force of the\ntruth, and is communicated by this man to another, a third man, just\nas an endless number of candles are lighted from one. This light\nneed only burn, and, like the wax before the face of the fire, all\nthis seemingly so powerful organization will waste away.\n\nIf men only understood that terrible power which is given them in\nthe word which expresses the truth. If men only did not sell their\nbirthright for a mess of pottage. If men only made use of this power\nof theirs,--the rulers would not only not dare, as they dare now, to\nthreaten men with universal slaughter, to which they will drive men\nor not, as they may see fit, but would not even dare in the sight of\npeaceable citizens to bring the disciplined murderers out on parade\nor in man\u0153uvres; the governments would not dare for their own\nprofit, for the advantage of their accomplices, to make and unmake\ncustoms treaties, and they would not dare to collect from the people\nthose millions of roubles which they distribute to their accomplices\nand for which they prepare themselves for the commission of murder.\n\nAnd so the change is not only possible, but it is even impossible\nfor it not to take place, as it is impossible for an overgrown, dead\ntree not to rot, and for a young one not to grow. \"Peace I leave\nwith you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth give I\nunto you; let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid,\"\nsaid Christ. And this peace is actually already among us, and it\ndepends on us to attain it.\n\nIf only the hearts of separate men did not grow faint from those\ntemptations with which they are tempted every hour, and if they\nwere not frightened by those imaginary fears with which they are\nterrified. If men only knew in what their mighty, all-conquering\nforce consists, the peace for which men have always wished, not the\none which is obtained by means of diplomatic treaties, journeys of\nemperors and kings from one city to another, dinners, speeches,\nfortresses, cannon, dynamite, and melenite, but the one which is\nobtained not by the exhaustion of the masses by taxes, not by\ntearing the flower of the population away from work and debauching\nthem, but by the free profession of the truth by every separate\nindividual, would long ago have come to us.\n\n_Moscow, March 17, 1894._\n\n\n\n\nREASON AND RELIGION\n\n1895\n\n\n\n\nREASON AND RELIGION\n\n\nYou ask me:\n\n1. Should people who are not particularly advanced mentally seek\nan expression in words for the truths of the inner life, as\ncomprehended by them?\n\n2. Is it worth while in one's inner life to strive after complete\nconsciousness?\n\n3. What are we to be guided by in moments of struggle and wavering,\nthat we may know whether it is indeed our conscience that is\nspeaking in us, or whether it is reflection, which is bribed by our\nweakness? (The third question I for brevity's sake expressed in my\nown words, without having changed its meaning, I hope.)\n\nThese three questions in my opinion reduce themselves to one,--the\nsecond, because, if it is not necessary for us to strive after a\nfull consciousness of our inner life, it will be also unnecessary\nand impossible for us to express in words the truths which we\nhave grasped, and in moments of wavering we shall have nothing to\nbe guided by, in order to ascertain whether it is our conscience\nor a false reflection that is speaking within us. But if it is\nnecessary to strive after the greatest consciousness accessible to\nhuman reason (whatever this reason may be), it is also necessary to\nexpress the truths grasped by us in words, and it is these expressed\ntruths which have been carried into full consciousness that we have\nto be guided by in moments of struggle and wavering. And so I answer\nyour radical question in the affirmative, namely, that every man,\nfor the fulfilment of his destiny upon earth and for the attainment\nof the true good (the two things go together), must strain all the\nforces of his mind for the purpose of elucidating to himself those\nreligious bases by which he lives, that is, the meaning of his life.\n\nI have frequently met among illiterate earth-diggers, who have\nto figure out cubic contents, the wide-spread conviction that\nthe mathematical calculation is deceptive, and that it is not\nto be trusted. Either because they do not know any mathematics,\nor because the men who figured things out mathematically for\nthem had frequently consciously or unconsciously deceived them,\nthe opinion that mathematics was inadequate and useless for the\ncalculation of measures has established itself as an undoubted\ntruth which they think it is even unnecessary to prove. Just such\nan opinion has established itself among, I shall say it boldly,\nirreligious men,--an opinion that reason cannot solve any religious\nquestions,--that the application of reason to these questions is the\nchief cause of errors, that the solution of religious questions by\nmeans of reason is criminal pride.\n\nI say this, because the doubt, expressed in your questions, as\nto whether it is necessary to strive after consciousness in our\nreligious convictions, can be based only on this supposition,\nnamely, that reason cannot be applied to the solution of religious\nquestions. However, such a supposition is as strange and obviously\nfalse as the supposition that calculation cannot settle any\nmathematical questions.\n\nGod has given man but one tool for the cognition of himself and\nhis relation to the world,--there is no other,--and this tool is\nreason, and suddenly he is told that he can use his reason for\nthe elucidation of his domestic, economic, political, scientific,\nartistic questions, but not for the elucidation of what it is\ngiven him for. It turns out that for the elucidation of the most\nimportant truths, of those on which his whole life depends, a man\nmust by no means employ reason, but must recognize these truths as\nbeyond reason, whereas beyond reason a man cannot cognize anything.\nThey say, \"Find it out, through revelation, faith.\" But a man cannot\neven believe outside of reason. If a man believes in this, and not\nin that, he does so only because his reason tells him that he ought\nto believe in this, and not to believe in that. To say that a man\nshould not be guided by reason is the same as saying to a man, who\nin a dark underground room is carrying a lamp, that, to get out from\nthis underground room and find his way, he ought to put out his lamp\nand be guided by something different from the light.\n\nBut, perhaps, I shall be told, as you say in your letter, that\nnot all men are endowed with a great mind and with a special\nability for expressing their thoughts, and that, therefore, an\nawkward expression of their thoughts concerning religion may lead\nto error. To this I will answer in the words of the Gospel, \"What\nis hidden from the wise is revealed to babes.\" This saying is not\nan exaggeration and not a paradox, as people generally judge of\nthose utterances of the Gospel which do not please them, but the\nassertion of a most simple and unquestionable truth, which is,\nthat to every being in the world a law is given, which this being\nmust follow, and that for the cognition of this law every being is\nendowed with corresponding organs. And so every man is endowed with\nreason, and in this reason there is revealed to him the law which he\nmust follow. This law is hidden only from those who do not want to\nfollow it and who, in order not to follow it, renounce reason and,\ninstead of using their reason for the cognition of the truth, use\nfor this purpose the indications, taken upon faith, of people like\nthemselves, who also reject reason.\n\nBut the law which a man must follow is so simple that it is\naccessible to any child, the more so since a man has no longer any\nneed of discovering the law of his life. Men who lived before him\ndiscovered and expressed it, and all a man has to do is to verify\nthem with his reason, to accept or not to accept the propositions\nwhich he finds expressed in the tradition, that is, not as people,\nwho wish not to fulfil the law, advise us to do, by verifying reason\nthrough tradition, but by verifying tradition through reason.\nTradition may be from men, and false, but reason is certainly\nfrom God, and cannot be false. And so, for the cognition and the\nexpression of truth, there is no need of any especial prominent\ncapacity, but only of the faith that reason is not only the highest\ndivine quality of man, but also the only tool for the cognition of\ntruth.\n\nA special mind and gifts are not needed for the cognition and\nexposition of the truth, but for the invention and exposition of the\nlie. Having once departed from the indications of reason, men heap\nup and take upon faith, generally in the shape of laws, revelations,\ndogmas, such complicated, unnatural, and contradictory propositions\nthat, in order to expound them and harmonize them with the lie,\nthere is actually a need of astuteness of mind and of a special\ngift. We need only think of a man of our world, educated in the\nreligious tenets of any Christian profession,--Catholic, Orthodox,\nProtestant,--who wants to elucidate to himself the religious tenets\ninculcated upon him since childhood, and to harmonize them with\nlife,--what a complicated mental labour he must go through in\norder to harmonize all the contradictions which are found in the\nprofession inoculated in him by his education: God, the Creator and\nthe good, created evil, punishes people, and demands redemption, and\nso forth, and we profess the law of love and of forgiveness, and we\npunish, wage war, take away the property from poor people, and so\nforth, and so forth.\n\nIt is for the unravelling of these contradictions, or rather,\nfor the concealment of them from ourselves, that a great mind and\nspecial gifts are needed; but for the discovery of the law of our\nlife, or, as you express it, in order to bring our faith into full\nconsciousness, no special mental gifts are needed,--all that is\nnecessary is not to admit anything that is contrary to reason, not\nto reject reason, religiously to guard reason, and to believe in\nnothing else. If the meaning of a man's life presents itself to him\nindistinctly, that does not prove that reason is of no use for the\nelucidation of this meaning, but only this, that too much of what is\nirrational has been taken upon faith, and that it is necessary to\nreject everything which is not confirmed by reason.\n\nAnd so my answer to your fundamental question, as to whether it is\nnecessary to strive after consciousness in our inner life, is this,\nthat this is the most necessary and important work of our life. It\nis necessary and important because the only rational meaning of our\nlife consists in the fulfilment of the will of God who sent us into\nthis life. But the will of God is not recognized by any special\nmiracle, by the writing of the law on tablets with God's finger, or\nby the composition of an infallible book with the aid of the Holy\nGhost, or by the infallibility of some holy person or of an assembly\nof men,--but only by the activity of the reason of all men who in\ndeeds and words transmit to one another the truths which have become\nmore and more elucidated to their consciousness. This cognition has\nnever been and never will be complete, but is constantly increased\nwith the movement of humanity: the longer we live, the more clearly\ndo we recognize God's will and, consequently, what we ought to do\nfor its fulfilment. And so I think that the elucidation by any man\n(no matter how small he himself and others may consider him to\nbe--it is the little ones who are great) of the whole religious\ntruth, as it is accessible to him, and its expression in words\n(since the expression in words is the one unquestionable symptom of\na complete clearness of ideas) is one of the most important and most\nsacred duties of man.\n\nI shall be very much pleased if my answer shall satisfy you even in\npart.\n\n\n\n\nPATRIOTISM OR PEACE\n\nLetter to Manson\n\n1896\n\n\n\n\nPATRIOTISM OR PEACE\n\nLetter to Manson\n\n\nDEAR SIR:--You write to me asking me to express myself in respect to\nthe United States of North America \"in the interests of Christian\nconsistency and true peace,\" and express the hope that \"the nations\nwill soon awaken to the one means of securing national peace.\"\n\nI harbour the same hope. I harbour the same hope, because the\nblindness in our time of the nations that extol patriotism, bring\nup their young generations in the superstition of patriotism, and,\nat the same time, do not wish for the inevitable consequences of\npatriotism,--war,--has, it seems to me, reached such a last stage\nthat the simplest reflection, which begs for utterance in the mouth\nof every unprejudiced man, is sufficient, in order that men may see\nthe crying contradiction in which they are.\n\nFrequently, when you ask children which they will choose of two\nthings which are incompatible, but which they want alike, they\nanswer, \"Both.\"\n\n\"Which do you want,--to go out driving or to stay at\nhome?\"--\"Both,--go out driving and stay at home.\"\n\nJust so the Christian nations answer the question which life puts to\nthem, as to which they will choose, patriotism or peace, they answer\n\"Both patriotism and peace,\" though it is as impossible to unite\npatriotism with peace, as at the same time to go out driving and\nstay at home.\n\nThe other day there arose a difference between the United States\nand England concerning the borders of Venezuela. Salisbury for some\nreason did not agree to something; Cleveland wrote a message to\nthe Senate; from either side were raised patriotic warlike cries;\na panic ensued upon 'Change; people lost millions of pounds and of\ndollars; Edison announced that he would invent engines with which\nit would be possible to kill more men in an hour than Attila had\nkilled in all his wars, and both nations began energetically to\narm themselves for war. But because, simultaneously with these\npreparations for war, both in England and in America, all kinds\nof literary men, princes, and statesmen began to admonish their\nrespective governments to abstain from war, saying that the subject\nunder discussion was not sufficiently important to begin a war\nfor, especially between two related Anglo-Saxon nations, speaking\nthe same language, who ought not to war among themselves, but\nought calmly to govern others; or because all kinds of bishops,\narchdeacons, canons prayed and preached concerning the matter in all\nthe churches; or because neither side considered itself sufficiently\nprepared,--it happened that there was no war just then. And people\ncalmed down.\n\nBut a person has to have too little perspicacity not to see that\nthe causes which now are leading to a conflict between England\nand America have remained the same, and that, if even the present\nconflict shall be settled without a war, there will inevitably\nto-morrow or the day after appear other conflicts, between\nEngland and Russia, between England and Turkey, in all possible\npermutations, as they arise every day, and one of these will lead to\nwar.\n\nIf two armed men live side by side, having been impressed from\nchildhood with the idea that power, wealth, and glory are the\nhighest virtues, and that, therefore, to acquire power, wealth,\nand glory by means of arms, to the detriment of other neighbouring\npossessors, is a very praiseworthy matter, and if at the same time\nthere is no moral, religious, or political restraint for these men,\nis it not evident that such people will always fight, that the\nnormal relation between them will be war? and that, if such people,\nhaving clutched one another, have separated for awhile, they have\ndone so only, as the French proverb says, \"_pour mieux sauter_,\"\nthat is, they have separated to take a better run, to throw\nthemselves with greater fury upon one another?\n\nStrange is the egotism of private individuals, but the egotists\nof private life are not armed, do not consider it right either\nto prepare or use arms against their adversaries; the egotism of\nprivate individuals is under the control of the political power\nand of public opinion. A private person who with gun in his hand\ntakes away his neighbour's cow, or a desyat\u00edna of his crop, will\nimmediately be seized by a policeman and put into prison. Besides,\nsuch a man will be condemned by public opinion,--he will be called\na thief and robber. It is quite different with the states: they are\nall armed,--there is no power over them, except the comical attempts\nat catching a bird by pouring some salt on its tail,--attempts at\nestablishing international congresses, which, apparently, will\nnever be accepted by the powerful states (who are armed for the\nvery purpose that they may not pay any attention to any one), and,\nabove all, public opinion, which rebukes every act of violence in a\nprivate individual, extols, raises to the virtue of patriotism every\nappropriation of what belong to others, for the increase of the\npower of the country.\n\nOpen the newspapers for any period you may wish, and at any moment\nyou will see the black spot,--the cause of every possible war: now\nit is Korea, now the Pamir, now the lands in Africa, now Abyssinia,\nnow Turkey, now Venezuela, now the Transvaal. The work of the\nrobbers does not stop for a moment, and here and there a small war,\nlike an exchange of shots in the cordon, is going on all the time,\nand the real war can and will begin at any moment.\n\nIf an American wishes the preferential grandeur and well-being of\nAmerica above all other nations, and the same is desired for his\nstate by an Englishman, and a Russian, and a Turk, and a Dutchman,\nand an Abyssinian, and a citizen of Venezuela and of the Transvaal,\nand an Armenian, and a Pole, and a Bohemian, and all of them are\nconvinced that these desires need not only not be concealed or\nrepressed, but should be a matter of pride and be developed in\nthemselves and in others; and if the greatness and well-being of\none country or nation cannot be obtained except to the detriment of\nanother nation, frequently of many countries and nations,--how can\nwar be avoided?\n\nAnd so, not to have any war, it is not necessary to preach and pray\nto God about peace, to persuade the English-speaking nations that\nthey ought to be friendly toward one another, in order to be able\nto rule over other nations; to form double and triple alliances\nagainst one another; to marry princes to princesses of other\nnations,--but to destroy what produces war. But what produces war\nis the desire for an exclusive good for one's own nation,--what is\ncalled patriotism. And so to abolish war, it is necessary to abolish\npatriotism, and to abolish patriotism, it is necessary first to\nbecome convinced that it is an evil, and that it is hard to do.\nTell people that war is bad, and they will laugh at you: who does\nnot know that? Tell them that patriotism is bad, and the majority\nof people will agree with you, but with a small proviso. \"Yes, bad\npatriotism is bad, but there is also another patriotism, the one we\nadhere to.\" But wherein this good patriotism consists no one can\nexplain. If good patriotism consists in not being acquisitive, as\nmany say, it is none the less retentive; that is, men want to retain\nwhat was formerly acquired, since there is no country which was not\nbased on conquest, and it is impossible to retain what is conquered\nby any other means than those by which it was acquired, that is,\nby violence and murder. But even if patriotism is not retentive,\nit is restorative,--the patriotism of the vanquished and oppressed\nnations, the Armenians, Poles, Bohemians, Irish, and so forth. This\npatriotism is almost the very worst, because it is the most enraged\nand demands the greatest degree of violence.\n\nPatriotism cannot be good. Why do not people say that egotism can be\ngood, though this may be asserted more easily, because egotism is a\nnatural sentiment, with which a man is born, while patriotism is an\nunnatural sentiment, which is artificially inoculated in him?\n\nIt will be said: \"Patriotism has united men in states and keeps\nup the unity of the states.\" But the men are already united in\nstates,--the work is all done: why should men now maintain an\nexclusive loyalty for their state, when this loyalty produces\ncalamities for all states and nations? The same patriotism which\nproduced the unification of men into states is now destroying those\nstates. If there were but one patriotism,--the patriotism of none\nbut the English,--it might be regarded as unificatory or beneficent,\nbut when, as now, there are American, English, German, French,\nRussian patriotisms, all of them opposed to one another, patriotism\nno longer unites, but disunites. To say that, if patriotism was\nbeneficent, by uniting men into states, as was the case during its\nhighest development in Greece and Rome, patriotism even now, after\neighteen hundred years of Christian life, is just as beneficent,\nis the same as saying that, since the ploughing was useful and\nbeneficent for the field before the sowing, it will be as useful\nnow, after the crop has grown up.\n\nIt would be very well to retain patriotism in memory of the use\nwhich it once had, as people preserve and retain the ancient\nmonuments of temples, mausoleums, and so forth. But the temples and\nmausoleums stand, without causing any harm to men, while patriotism\nproduces without cessation innumerable calamities.\n\nWhat now causes the Armenians and the Turks to suffer and cut\neach other's throats and act like wild beasts? Why do England and\nRussia, each of them concerned about her share of the inheritance\nfrom Turkey, lie in wait and do not put a stop to the Armenian\natrocities? Why do the Abyssinians and Italians fight one another?\nWhy did a terrible war come very near breaking out on account\nof Venezuela, and now on account of the Transvaal? And the\nChino-Japanese War, and the Turkish, and the German, and the French\nwars? And the rage of the subdued nations, the Armenians, the Poles,\nthe Irish? And the preparation for war by all the nations? All that\nis the fruits of patriotism. Seas of blood have been shed for the\nsake of this sentiment, and more blood will be shed for its sake, if\nmen do not free themselves from this outlived bit of antiquity.\n\nI have several times had occasion to write about patriotism,\nabout its absolute incompatibility, not only with the teaching of\nChrist in its ideal sense, but even with the lowest demands of the\nmorality of Christian society, and every time my arguments have\nbeen met with silence or with the supercilious hint that the ideas\nexpressed by me were Utopian expressions of mysticism, anarchism,\nand cosmopolitanism. My ideas have frequently been repeated in a\ncompressed form, and, instead of retorting to them, it was added\nthat it was nothing but cosmopolitanism, as though this word\n\"cosmopolitanism\" unanswerably overthrew all my arguments. Serious,\nold, clever, good men, who, above all else, stand like the city on\na hill, and who involuntarily guide the masses by their example,\nmake it appear that the legality and beneficence of patriotism\nare so obvious and incontestable that it is not worth while to\nanswer the frivolous and senseless attacks upon this sentiment, and\nthe majority of men, who have since childhood been deceived and\ninfected by patriotism, take this supercilious silence to be a most\nconvincing proof, and continue to stick fast in their ignorance.\n\nAnd so those people who from their position can free the masses from\ntheir calamities, and do not do so, commit a great sin.\n\nThe most terrible thing in the world is hypocrisy. There was good\nreason why Christ once got angry,--that was against the hypocrisy of\nthe Pharisees.\n\nBut what was the hypocrisy of the Pharisees in comparison with the\nhypocrisy of our time? In comparison with our men, the Pharisees\nwere the most truthful of men, and their art of hypocrisy was\nas child's play in comparison with the hypocrisy of our time;\nnor can it be otherwise. Our whole life, with the profession of\nChristianity, the teaching of humility and love, in connection with\nthe life of an armed den of robbers, can be nothing but one solid,\nterrible hypocrisy. It is very convenient to profess a teaching at\none end of which is Christian sanctity and infallibility, and at the\nother--the pagan sword and gallows, so that, when it is possible to\nimpose or deceive by means of sanctity, sanctity is put into effect,\nand when the deception does not work, the sword and the gallows\nare put into effect. Such a teaching is very convenient, but the\ntime comes when this spider-web of lie is dispersed, and it is no\nlonger possible to continue to keep both, and it is necessary to\nally oneself with either one or the other. It is this which is now\ngetting to be the case in relation to the teaching about patriotism.\n\nWhether people want it or not, the question stands clearly before\nhumanity: how can that patriotism, from which result innumerable\nphysical and moral calamities of men, be necessary and a virtue? It\nis indispensable to give an answer to this question.\n\nIt is necessary either to show that patriotism is such a great good\nthat it redeems all those terrible calamities which it produces in\nhumanity; or to recognize that patriotism is an evil, which must\nnot only not be inoculated in men and impressed upon them, but from\nwhich also we must try to free ourselves at all cost.\n\n_C'est \u00e0 prendre ou \u00e0 laisser_, as the French say. If patriotism\nis good, then Christianity, which gives peace, is an idle dream,\nand the sooner this teaching is eradicated, the better. But\nif Christianity really gives peace, and we really want peace,\npatriotism is a survival from barbarous times, which must not\nonly not be evoked and educated, as we now do, but which must\nbe eradicated by all means, by means of preaching, persuasion,\ncontempt, and ridicule. If Christianity is the truth, and we wish to\nlive in peace, we must not only have no sympathy for the power of\nour country, but must even rejoice in its weakening, and contribute\nto it. A Russian must rejoice when Poland, the Baltic provinces,\nFinland, Armenia, are separated from Russia and made free; and an\nEnglishman must similarly rejoice in relation to Ireland, Australia,\nIndia, and the other colonies, and co\u00f6perate in it, because, the\ngreater the country, the more evil and cruel is its patriotism,\nand the greater is the amount of the suffering on which its power\nis based. And so, if we actually want to be what we profess, we\nmust not, as we do now, wish for the increase of our country, but\nwish for its diminution and weakening, and contribute to it with\nall our means. And thus must we educate the younger generations:\nwe must bring up the younger generations in such a way that, as it\nis now disgraceful for a young man to manifest his coarse egotism,\nfor example, by eating everything up, without leaving anything for\nothers, to push a weaker person down from the road, in order to pass\nby himself, to take away by force what another needs, it should\nbe just as disgraceful to wish for the increase of his country's\npower; and, as it now is considered stupid and ridiculous for a\nperson to praise himself, it should be considered stupid to extol\none's nation, as is now done in various lying patriotic histories,\npictures, monuments, text-books, articles, sermons, and stupid\nnational hymns. But it must be understood that so long as we are\ngoing to extol patriotism and educate the younger generations in\nit, we shall have armaments, which ruin the physical and spiritual\nlife of the nations, and wars, terrible, horrible wars, like those\nfor which we are preparing ourselves, and into the circle of which\nwe are introducing, corrupting them with our patriotism, the new,\nterrible fighters of the distant East.\n\nEmperor William, one of the most comical persons of our time,\norator, poet, musician, dramatic writer, and artist, and, above\nall, patriot, has lately painted a picture representing all the\nnations of Europe with swords, standing at the seashore and, at the\nindication of Archangel Michael, looking at the sitting figures\nof Buddha and Confucius in the distance. According to William's\nintention, this should mean that the nations of Europe ought to\nunite in order to defend themselves against the peril which is\nproceeding from there. He is quite right from his coarse, pagan,\npatriotic point of view, which is eighteen hundred years behind the\ntimes. The European nations, forgetting Christ, have in the name of\ntheir patriotism more and more irritated these peaceful nations,\nand have taught them patriotism and war, and have now irritated\nthem so much that, indeed, if Japan and China will as fully forget\nthe teachings of Buddha and of Confucius as we have forgotten the\nteaching of Christ, they will soon learn the art of killing people\n(they learn these things quickly, as Japan has proved), and, being\nfearless, agile, strong, and populous, they will inevitably very\nsoon make of the countries of Europe, if Europe does not invent\nsomething stronger than guns and Edison's inventions, what the\ncountries of Europe are making of Africa. \"The disciple is not above\nhis master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master\"\n(Luke vi. 40).\n\nIn reply to a prince's question how to increase his army, in order\nto conquer a southern tribe which did not submit to him, Confucius\nreplied: \"Destroy all thy army, and use the money, which thou art\nwasting now on the army, on the enlightenment of thy people and on\nthe improvement of agriculture, and the southern tribe will drive\naway its prince and will submit to thy rule without war.\"\n\nThus taught Confucius, whom we are advised to fear. But we, having\nforgotten Christ's teaching, having renounced it, wish to vanquish\nthe nations by force, and thus are only preparing for ourselves\nnew and stronger enemies than our neighbours. A friend of mine,\nwho saw William's picture, said: \"The picture is beautiful, only\nit does not at all represent what the legend says. It means that\nArchangel Michael shows to all the governments of Europe, which are\nrepresented as robbers bedecked with arms, what it is that will\ncause their ruin and annihilation, namely, the meekness of Buddha\nand the wisdom of Confucius.\" He might have added, \"And the humility\nof Lao-tse.\"\n\nIndeed, we, thanks to our hypocrisy, have forgotten Christ to such\nan extent, have so squeezed out of our life everything Christian,\nthat the teachings of Buddha and Confucius stand incomparably higher\nthan that beastly patriotism, by which our so-called Christian\nnations are guided. And so the salvation of Europe and of the\nChristian world at large does not consist in this, that, bedecking\nthemselves with swords, as William has represented them, they\nshould, like robbers, cast themselves upon their brothers beyond\nthe sea, in order to kill them, but, on the contrary, they should\nrenounce the survival of barbarous times,--patriotism,--and, having\nrenounced it, should take off their arms and show the Eastern\nnations, not an example of savage patriotism and beastliness, but an\nexample of brotherly love, which Christ has taught us.\n\n_Moscow, January 2, 1896._\n\n\n\n\nLETTER TO ERNEST HOWARD CROSBY\n\nOn Non-Resistance\n\n1896\n\n\n\n\nLETTER TO ERNEST HOWARD CROSBY\n\nOn Non-Resistance\n\n\nMY DEAR CROSBY:--I am very glad to hear of your activity and that\nit is beginning to attract attention. Fifty years ago Garrison's\nproclamation of non-resistance only cooled people toward him, and\nthe whole fifty years' activity of Ballou in this direction was met\nwith stubborn silence. I read with great pleasure in _Peace_ the\nbeautiful ideas of the American authors in regard to non-resistance.\nI make an exception only in the case of Mr. Bemis's old, unfounded\nopinion, which calumniates Christ in assuming that Christ's\nexpulsion of the cattle from the temple means that he struck the men\nwith a whip, and commanded his disciples to do likewise.\n\nThe ideas expressed by these writers, especially by H. Newton and\nG. Herron, are beautiful, but it is to be regretted that they do\nnot answer the question which Christ put before men, but answer the\nquestion which the so-called orthodox teachers of the churches, the\nchief and most dangerous enemies of Christianity, have put in its\nplace.\n\nMr. Higginson says that the law of non-resistance is not admissible\nas a general rule. H. Newton says that the practical results of\nthe application of Christ's teaching will depend on the degree of\nfaith which men will have in this teaching. Mr. C. Martyn assumes\nthat the stage at which we are is not yet suited for the application\nof the teaching about non-resistance. G. Herron says that in order\nto fulfil the law of non-resistance, it is necessary to learn to\napply it to life. Mrs. Livermore says the same, thinking that the\nfulfilment of the law of non-resistance is possible only in the\nfuture.\n\nAll these opinions treat only the question as to what would happen\nto people if all were put to the necessity of fulfilling the law\nof non-resistance; but, in the first place, it is quite impossible\nto compel all men to accept the law of non-resistance, and, in the\nsecond, if this were possible, it would be a most glaring negation\nof the very principle which is being established. To compel all men\nnot to practise violence against others! Who is going to compel men?\n\nIn the third place, and above all else, the question, as put by\nChrist, does not consist in this, whether non-resistance may become\na universal law for all humanity, but what each man must do in order\nto fulfil his destiny, to save his soul, and do God's work, which\nreduces itself to the same.\n\nThe Christian teaching does not prescribe any laws for all men; it\ndoes not say, \"Follow such and such rules under fear of punishment,\nand you will all be happy,\" but explains to each separate man his\nposition in the world and shows him what for him personally results\nfrom this position. The Christian teaching says to each individual\nman that his life, if he recognizes his life to be his, and its aim,\nthe worldly good of his personality or of the personalities of other\nmen, can have no rational meaning, because this good, posited as the\nend of life, can never be attained, because, in the first place,\nall beings strive after the goods of the worldly life, and these\ngoods are always attained by one set of beings to the detriment\nof others, so that every separate man cannot receive the desired\ngood, but, in all probability, must even endure many unnecessary\nsufferings in his struggle for these unattained goods; in the second\nplace, because if a man even attains the worldly goods, these, the\nmore of them he attains, satisfy him less and less, and he wishes\nfor more and more new ones; in the third place, mainly because the\nlonger a man lives, the more inevitably do old age, diseases, and\nfinally death, which destroys the possibility of any worldly good,\ncome to him.\n\nThus, if a man considers his life to be his, and its end to be the\nworldly good, for himself or for other men, this life can have for\nhim no rational meaning. Life receives a rational meaning only when\na man understands that the recognition of his life as his own, and\nthe good of personality, of his own or of that of others, as its\nend, is an error, and that the human life does not belong to him,\nwho has received this life from some one, but to Him who produced\nthis life, and so its end must not consist in the attainment of his\nown good or of the good of others, but only in the fulfilment of the\nwill of Him who produced it. Only with such a comprehension of life\ndoes it receive a rational meaning, and its end, which consists in\nthe fulfilment of God's will, become attainable, and, above all,\nonly with such a comprehension does man's activity become clearly\ndefined, and he no longer is subject to despair and suffering, which\nwere inevitable with his former comprehension.\n\n\"The world and I in it,\" such a man says to himself, \"exist by the\nwill of God. I cannot know the whole world and my relation to it,\nbut I can know what is wanted of me by God, who sent men into this\nworld, endless in time and space, and therefore inaccessible to my\nunderstanding, because this is revealed to me in the tradition, that\nis, in the aggregate reason of the best people in the world, who\nlived before me, and in my reason, and in my heart, that is, in the\nstriving of my whole being.\n\n\"In the tradition, the aggregate of the wisdom of all the best men,\nwho lived before me, I am told that I must act toward others as I\nwish that others should act toward me; my reason tells me that the\ngreatest good of men is possible only when all men will act likewise.\n\n\"My heart is at peace and joyful only when I abandon myself to the\nfeeling of love for men, which demands the same. And then I can not\nonly know what I must do, but also the cause for which my activity\nis necessary and defined.\n\n\"I cannot grasp the whole divine work, for which the world exists\nand lives, but the divine work which is being accomplished in this\nworld and in which I am taking part with my life is accessible to\nme. This work is the destruction of the discord and of the struggle\namong men and other beings, and the establishment among men of the\ngreatest union, concord, and love; this work is the realization\nof what the Jewish prophets promised, saying that the time will\ncome when all men shall be taught the truth, when the spears shall\nbe forged into pruning-hooks, and the scythes and swords into\nploughshares, and when the lion shall lie with the lamb.\"\n\nThus the man of the Christian comprehension of life not only knows\nhow he must act in life, but also what he must do.\n\nHe must do what contributes to the establishment of the kingdom of\nGod in the world. To do this, a man must fulfil the inner demands of\nGod's will, that is, he must act amicably toward others, as he would\nlike others to do to him. Thus the inner demands of a man's soul\ncoincide with that external end of life which is placed before him.\n\nAnd here though we have an indication which is so clear to a man of\nthe Christian comprehension, and incontestable from two sides, as\nto what the meaning and end of human life consists in, and how a man\nmust act, and what he must do, and what not, there appear certain\npeople, who call themselves Christians, who decide that in such and\nsuch cases a man must depart from God's law and the common cause of\nlife, which are given to him, and must act contrary to the law and\nthe common cause of life, because, according to their ratiocination,\nthe consequences of the acts committed according to God's law may be\nprofitless and disadvantageous for men.\n\nMan, according to the Christian teaching, is God's workman. The\nworkman does not know his master's whole business, but the nearest\naim to be attained by his work is revealed to him, and he is given\ndefinite indications as to what he should do; especially definite\nare the indications as to what he must not do, in order that he may\nnot work against the aim for the attainment of which he was sent to\nwork. In everything else he is given complete liberty. And so for\na man who has grasped the Christian conception of life the meaning\nof his life is clear and rational, and he cannot have a moment of\nwavering as to how he should act in life and what he ought to do, in\norder to fulfil the destiny of his life.\n\nAccording to the law given him in the tradition, in his reason, and\nin his heart, a man must always act toward another as he wishes\nto have done to him: he must contribute to the establishment of\nlove and union among men; but according to the decision of these\nfar-sighted people, a man must, while the fulfilment of the law,\naccording to their opinion, is still premature, do violence, deprive\nof liberty, kill people, and with this contribute, not to union\nof love, but to the irritation and enragement of people. It is as\nthough a mason, who is put to do certain definite work, who knows\nthat he is taking part with others in the building of a house, and\nwho has received a clear and indubitable command from the master\nhimself that he is to lay a wall, should receive the command from\nother masons like him, who, like him, do not know the general plan\nof the structure and what is useful for the common work, to stop\nlaying the wall, and to undo the work of the others.\n\nWonderful delusion! The being that breathes to-day and disappears\nto-morrow, that has one definite, incontestable law given to him,\nas to how he is to pass his short term of life, imagines that he\nknows what is necessary and useful and appropriate for all men, for\nthe whole world, for that world which moves without cessation, and\ngoes on developing, and in the name of this usefulness, which is\ndifferently understood by each of them, he prescribes to himself\nand to others for a time to depart from the unquestionable law,\nwhich is given to him and to all men, and not to act toward all men\nas he wants others to act toward him, not to bring love into the\nworld, but to practise violence, to deprive of freedom, to punish,\nto kill, to introduce malice into the world, when it is found that\nthis is necessary. And he enjoins us to do so knowing that the most\nterrible cruelties, tortures, murders of men, from the Inquisitions\nand punishments and terrors of all the revolutions to the present\nbestialities of the anarchists and the massacres of them, have all\nproceeded from this, that men suppose that they know what people and\nthe world need; knowing that at any given moment there are always\ntwo opposite parties, each of which asserts that it is necessary\nto use violence against the opposite party,--the men of state\nagainst the anarchists, the anarchists against the men of state; the\nEnglish against the Americans, the Americans against the English;\nthe English against the Germans; and so forth, in all possible\ncombinations and permutations.\n\nNot only does a man of the Christian concept of life see clearly by\nreflection that there is no ground whatever for his departure from\nthe law of his life, as clearly indicated to him by God, in order to\nfollow the accidental, frail, frequently contradictory demands of\nmen; but if he has been living the Christian life for some time, and\nhas developed in himself the Christian moral sensitiveness, he can\npositively not act as people demand that he shall, not only as the\nresult of reflection, but also of feeling.\n\nAs it is for many men of our world impossible to subject a child to\ntorture and to kill it, though such a torture may save a hundred\nother people, so a whole series of acts becomes impossible for a\nman who has developed the Christian sensitiveness of his heart in\nhimself. A Christian, for example, who is compelled to take part\nin court proceedings, where a man may be sentenced to capital\npunishment, to take part in matters of forcible seizure of other\npeople's property, in discussions about the declaration of war,\nor in preparations for the same, to say nothing of war itself,\nfinds himself in the same position in which a good man would be,\nif he were compelled to torture or kill a child. It is not that he\ndecides by reflection what he ought not to do, but that he cannot\ndo what is demanded of him, because for a man there exists the\nmoral impossibility, just as there is a physical impossibility, of\ncommitting certain acts. Just as it is impossible for a man to lift\nup a mountain, as it is impossible for a good man to kill a child,\nso it is impossible for a man who lives a Christian life to take\npart in violence. Of what significance for such a man can be the\nreflections that for some imaginary good he must do what has become\nmorally impossible for him?\n\nHow, then, is a man to act when he sees the obvious harm of\nfollowing the law of love and the law of non-resistance, which\nresults from it? How is a man to act--this example is always\nadduced--when a robber in his sight kills or injures a child, and\nwhen the child cannot be saved otherwise than by killing the robber?\n\nIt is generally assumed that, when they adduce such an example,\nthere can be no other answer to the question than that the robber\nought to be killed, in order that the child be saved. But this\nanswer is given so emphatically and so quickly only because we are\nnot only in the habit of acting in this manner in the case of the\ndefence of a child, but also in the case of the expansion of the\nborders of a neighbouring state to the detriment of our own, or in\nthe case of the transportation of lace across the border, or even\nin the case of the defence of the fruits of our garden against\ndepredations by passers-by.\n\nIt is assumed that it is necessary to kill the robber in order to\nsave the child, but we need only stop and think on what ground a man\nshould act thus, be he a Christian or a non-Christian, to convince\nourselves that such an act can have no rational foundations, and is\nconsidered necessary only because two thousand years ago such a mode\nof action was considered just and people were in the habit of acting\nthus. Why should a non-Christian, who does not recognize God and\nthe meaning of life in the fulfilment of His will, kill the robber,\nin defending the child? To say nothing of this, that in killing\nthe robber he is certainly killing, but does not know for certain\nuntil the very last moment whether the robber will kill the child or\nnot, to say nothing of this irregularity: who has decided that the\nlife of the child is more necessary and better than the life of the\nrobber?\n\nIf a non-Christian does not recognize God, and does not consider\nthe meaning of life to consist in the fulfilment of God's will, it\nis only calculation, that is, the consideration as to what is more\nprofitable for him and for all men, the continuation of the robber's\nlife or that of the child, which guides the choice of his acts. But\nto decide this, he must know what will become of the child which he\nsaves, and what would become of the robber if he did not kill him.\nBut that he cannot know. And so, if he is a non-Christian, he has\nno rational foundation for saving the child through the death of the\nrobber.\n\nBut if a man is a Christian, and so recognizes God and sees the\nmeaning of life in the fulfilment of His will, no matter what\nterrible robber may attack any innocent and beautiful child, he has\nstill less cause to depart from the law given him by God and to\ndo to the robber what the robber wants to do to the child; he may\nimplore the robber, may place his body between the robber and his\nvictim, but there is one thing he cannot do,--he cannot consciously\ndepart from the law of God, the fulfilment of which forms the\nmeaning of his life. It is very likely that, as the result of his\nbad bringing up and of his animality, a man, being a pagan or a\nChristian, will kill the robber, not only in the defence of the\nchild, but also in his own defence or in the defence of his purse,\nbut that will by no means signify that it is right to do so, that it\nis right to accustom ourselves and others to think that that ought\nto be done.\n\nThis will only mean that, in spite of the external education and\nChristianity, the habits of the stone age are still strong in man,\nthat he is capable of committing acts which have long ago been\ndisavowed by his consciousness. A robber in my sight is about to\nkill a child and I can save it by killing the robber; consequently\nit is necessary under certain conditions to resist evil with\nviolence.\n\nA man is in danger of his life and can be saved only through my\nlie; consequently it is necessary in certain cases to lie. A man\nis starving, and I cannot save him otherwise than by stealing;\nconsequently it is necessary in certain cases to steal.\n\nI lately read a story by Copp\u00e9e, in which an orderly kills his\nofficer, who has his life insured, and thus saves his honour and the\nlife of his family. Consequently in certain cases it is right to\nkill.\n\nSuch imaginary cases and the conclusions drawn from them prove only\nthis, that there are men who know that it is not right to steal,\nto lie, to kill, but who are so loath to stop doing this that they\nuse all the efforts of their mind in order to justify their acts.\nThere does not exist a moral rule for which it would be impossible\nto invent a situation when it would be hard to decide which is more\nmoral, the departure from the rule or its fulfilment. The same is\ntrue of the question of non-resistance to evil: men know that it is\nbad, but they are so anxious to live by violence, that they use all\nthe efforts of their mind, not for the elucidation of all the evil\nwhich is produced by man's recognition of the right to do violence\nto others, but for the defence of this right. But such invented\ncases in no way prove that the rules about not lying, stealing,\nkilling are incorrect.\n\n\"_Fais ce que doit, advienne que pourra_,--do what is right, and let\ncome what may,\"--is an expression of profound wisdom. Each of us\nknows unquestionably what he ought to do, but none of us knows or\ncan know what will happen. Thus we are brought to the same, not only\nby this, that we must do what is right, but also by this, that we\nknow what is right, and do not know at all what will come and result\nfrom our acts.\n\nThe Christian teaching is a teaching as to what a man must do for\nthe fulfilment of the will of Him who sent him into the world.\nBut the reflections as to what consequences we assume to result\nfrom such or such acts of men not only have nothing in common with\nChristianity, but are that very delusion which destroys Christianity.\n\nNo one has yet seen the imaginary robber with the imaginary child,\nand all the horrors, which fill history and contemporary events,\nhave been produced only because men imagine that they can know the\nconsequences of the possible acts.\n\nHow is this? Men used to live a beastly life, violating and killing\nall those whom it was advantageous for them to violate and kill,\nand even eating one another, thinking that that was right. Then\nthere came a time, when, thousands of years ago, even in the time\nof Moses, there appeared the consciousness in men that it was bad\nto violate and kill one another. But there were some men for whom\nviolence was advantageous, and they did not recognize the fact, and\nassured themselves and others that it was not always bad to violate\nand kill men, but that there were cases when this was necessary,\nuseful, and even good. And acts of violence and murder, though not\nas frequent and cruel, were continued, but with this difference,\nthat those who committed them justified them on the ground of\nusefulness to men. It was this false justification of violence that\nChrist arraigned. He showed that, since every act of violence could\nbe justified, as actually happens, when two enemies do violence\nto one another and both consider their violence justifiable, and\nthere is no chance of verifying the justice of the determination\nof either, it is necessary not to believe in any justifications of\nviolence, and under no condition, as at first was thought right by\nhumanity, is it necessary to make use of them.\n\nIt would seem that men who profess Christianity would have\ncarefully to unveil this deception, because in the unveiling of\nthis deception does one of the chief manifestations of Christianity\nconsist. But the very opposite has happened: men to whom violence\nwas advantageous, and who did not want to give up these advantages,\ntook upon themselves the exclusive propaganda of Christianity, and,\npreaching it, asserted that, since there are cases in which the\nnon-application of violence produces more evil than its application\n(the imaginary robber who kills the child), we must not fully accept\nChrist's teaching about non-resistance to evil, and that we may\ndepart from this teaching in the defence of our lives and of those\nof other men, in the defence of our country, the protection of\nsociety from madmen and malefactors, and in many other cases. But\nthe decision of the question as to when Christ's teaching ought to\nbe set aside was left to those very men who made use of violence.\nThus Christ's teaching about non-resistance to evil turned out to be\nabsolutely set aside, and, what is worse than all that, those very\nmen whom Christ arraigned began to consider themselves the exclusive\npreachers and expounders of His teaching. But the light shineth\nin the dark, and the false preachers of Christianity are again\narraigned by His teaching.\n\nWe can think of the structure of the world as we please, we may do\nwhat is advantageous and agreeable for us to do, and use violence\nagainst people under the pretext of doing good to men, but it is\nabsolutely impossible to assert that, in doing so, we are professing\nChrist's teaching, because Christ arraigned that very deception. The\ntruth will sooner or later be made manifest, and will arraign the\ndeceivers, even as it does now.\n\nLet only the question of the human life be put correctly, as it was\nput by Christ, and not as it was corrupted by the churches, and all\nthe deceptions which by the churches have been heaped on Christ's\nteaching will fall of their own accord.\n\nThe question is not whether it will be good or bad for human society\nto follow the law of love and the resulting law of non-resistance,\nbut whether you--a being that lives to-day and is dying by degrees\nto-morrow and every moment--will now, this very minute, fully do\nthe will of Him who sent you and clearly expressed it in tradition\nand in your reason and heart, or whether you want to act contrary\nto this will. As soon as the question is put in this form, there\nwill be but one answer: I want at once, this very minute, without\nany delay, without waiting for any one, and without considering the\nseeming consequences, with all my strength to fulfil what alone I\nam indubitably commanded to do by Him who sent me into the world,\nand in no case, under no condition, will I, can I, do what is\ncontrary to it, because in this lies the only possibility of my\nrational, unwretched life.\n\n_January 12, 1896._\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTIONS TO BOOKS\n\n1890-94\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTIONS TO BOOKS\n\n\n\n\nA. STOCKHAM'S TOKOLOGY\n\n\nThe present book does not belong to the vast number of all kinds of\nbooks, from the philosophical and the scientific to the artistic\nand practical, which, with other words, in other permutations and\ncombinations, say and repeat the old familiar, sickeningly familiar,\ncommonplaces. This book is one of those rare books which do not\ntreat of what everybody talks about and nobody needs, but of what\nnobody talks about and what is important and necessary for all. It\nis important for the parents to know how they should act, in order\nwithout unnecessary suffering to bring forth uncorrupted and healthy\nchildren, and still more important it is for the future children to\nbe born under the best of conditions, as, indeed, it says in one\nof the mottoes of the book, \"To be well-born is the right of every\nchild.\"\n\nThe book is not one of those which are read only that no one may\nsay that he has not read this book, but one of those the reading of\nwhich leaves traces, compelling men to change their lives, to mend\nwhat is irregular in them, or at least to think of doing so. This\nbook is called _Tokology_, the science of the bearing of children.\nThere are all kinds of strange sciences, but there is no such\nscience, and yet, after the science of how to live and die, this is\nthe most important science. This book has had enormous success in\nAmerica, and has greatly influenced American mothers and fathers.\nIn Russia it ought to have an even greater influence. The questions\nabout abstaining from tobacco and all kinds of exciting beverages,\nbeginning with alcohol and ending with tea, the questions about\neating without the slaughter of living beings, vegetarianism, the\nquestions about sexual continence in domestic life, and many others,\nwhich partly have been solved and partly are being worked out, and\npossess a vast literature in Europe and in America, have not yet\nbeen touched upon by us, and so Mrs. Stockham's book is particularly\nimportant for us: it at once transfers the reader into a new world\nof a living human movement.\n\nIn this book every thinking woman--for this book is chiefly\nintended for women--will find first of all an indication that there\nis absolutely no need of continuing to live as insipidly as her\nforefathers lived, but that it is possible to find better paths of\nlife, using for this purpose science, the experience of men, and her\nown free thought, and, as the first model of such a use she will\nfind in this book many precious counsels and hints, which will make\nlife easier for herself, her husband, and her children.\n\n_February 2, 1890._\n\n\n\n\nAMIEL'S DIARY\n\n\nAbout a year and a half ago I chanced for the first time to read\nAmiel's book, _Fragments d'un Journal Intime_. I was struck by the\nsignificance and profundity of its contents, the beauty of the\nexposition, and, above all, the sincerity of this book. As I read\nit, I marked down the passages which more particularly startled\nme. My daughter undertook to translate these passages, and thus\nwere formed the extracts from the _Fragments d'un Journal Intime_,\nthat is, the extracts from the extracts of Amiel's diary in several\nvolumes not yet printed, which he conducted from day to day for the\nperiod of thirty years.\n\nHenri Amiel was born in Geneva in 1821 and was early left an\norphan. Having graduated from the higher courses in Geneva, Amiel\nwent abroad and there passed several years at the universities of\nHeidelberg and Berlin. Upon returning in 1849 to his home, he at\nthe age of twenty-eight years received in the Geneva Academy a\nprofessorship, at first of \u00e6sthetics, and later of philosophy, and\nthis he held until his death.\n\nAmiel's whole life was passed in Geneva, where he died in 1881,\nhaving in no way risen above the large number of the most ordinary\nof professors, who, mechanically compiling their lectures from the\nlatest books in their particular specialties, just as mechanically\ntransmit them to their hearers, and from a still greater number\nof poets without contents, who furnish these quite useless, but\nstill marketable wares to periodicals that are published in tens of\nthousands of copies.\n\nAmiel did not have the slightest success either in the learned or\nin the literary field. As he was approaching old age, he wrote of\nhimself as follows:\n\n\"What have I been able to extract from those gifts which were\nbestowed upon me, from the peculiar conditions of my life of half\na century? Are all my collected scribblings, my correspondence,\nthese thousands of intimate pages, my lectures, my articles, my\nverses, my different notes anything but dry leaves? To whom and\nfor what have I ever been of any use? And will my name live a day\nlonger than I myself, and will it have any significance for any one?\nInsignificant, empty life! _Vie nulle._\"\n\nAbout Amiel and his diary two well-known French writers, his friend,\nthe well-known critic, E. Scherer, and the philosopher, Caro, have\nwritten after his death. Interesting is that sympathetic, but\npartially patronizing air with which both these authors treat Amiel,\nwhen they regret that he was deprived of those qualities which are\nnecessary for the performance of real work. And yet, the real work\nof these two writers--the critical labours of E. Scherer and the\nphilosophic labours of Caro--will hardly much outlive their authors,\nwhile the accidental, not real work of Amiel, his diary, will always\nremain a live book, necessary for men and influencing them for the\ngood.\n\nA writer is dear and necessary for us only in the measure in which\nhe reveals to us the inner working of his soul, of course, if this\nwork is new, and not previously accomplished. No matter what he may\nwrite, a drama, a learned work, a story, a philosophic treatise, a\nlyric poem, a criticism, a satire, it is only this inner work of his\nsoul which is dear to us, and not the architectural structure in\nwhich he, for the most part, and I think, always, distorting them,\nclothes his thoughts and feelings.\n\nEverything which Amiel poured into a ready mould, his lectures,\ntreatises, poems, was completely dead; but his diary, where, without\nthinking of the form, he spoke only to himself, full of life,\nwisdom, instruction, consolation, will for ever remain one of the\nbest books accidentally left to us by such men as Marcus Aurelius,\nPascal, Epictetus.\n\nPascal says: \"There are but three kinds of people: those who, having\nfound God, serve Him; those who, not having found Him, are busy\nseeking Him, and those who, not having found Him, none the less do\nnot seek Him.\n\n\"The first are sensible and happy, the last are senseless and\nunhappy, the second are unhappy, but sensible.\"\n\nI think that the difference established by Pascal between the first\nand the second, between those who, as he says in another passage,\nhaving found God, serve Him with their whole hearts, and those who,\nnot having found Him, seek Him with their whole hearts, is not only\nnot so great as he thought, but does not even exist. I think that\nthose who with their whole hearts and suffering (\"_en gemissant_,\"\nas Pascal says) seek God, already serve Him. They serve Him with\nthis, that with these sufferings of their seeking they lay out\nand open for others the road to God, as Pascal himself did in his\nthoughts, and as Amiel did all his life in his diary.\n\nAmiel's whole life, as it is presented to us in this diary, is full\nof this seeking after God, which is suffering with the whole heart.\nThe contemplation of this seeking is the more instructive in that\nit never ceases to be a seeking, never stops, never passes into the\nconsciousness of the acquisition of truth and into instruction.\nAmiel says neither to himself nor to others: \"I now know the\ntruth,--hear me!\" On the contrary, it seems to him, as is proper\nfor him who sincerely seeks the truth, that the more he finds out,\nthe more he has still left to know, and he, without stopping, does\neverything he can for the purpose of finding out more and more of\nthe truth, and so constantly feels his ignorance. He constantly\ndwells upon what Christianity and the condition of a Christian\nought to be, without for a moment dwelling on the thought that\nChristianity is precisely what he professes, and that he himself\npersonifies the condition of a Christian. And yet his whole diary\nis full of expressions of the profoundest Christian understanding\nand feeling. These expressions act most powerfully on the reader on\naccount of their very unconsciousness and sincerity. He speaks with\nhimself, without thinking that he is heard, without trying to appear\nsure of what he is not sure, without concealing his suffering and\nhis seeking.\n\nIt is as though we were present, without the master's knowledge, at\nthe most secret, profound, impassioned inner work of the soul, which\nis generally concealed from the view of an outsider.\n\nFor this reason it is possible to find many statelier and more\neloquent expressions of Amiel's religious feeling, but it is hard\nto find such as are more intimate and more heart-stirring. Shortly\nbefore his death, when he knew that his disease might any day end in\nstrangulation, he wrote:\n\n\"When you no longer reflect that you have tens of years, one year,\na month free before yourself, when you already count tens of hours,\nand the future night bears in itself the menace of the unexplored,\nit is evident that you decline art, science, politics, and are\nsatisfied with conversing with yourself, and that is possible until\nthe very end. This inward conversation is the only thing which\nis left to him who is sentenced to death and whose execution is\ndelayed. He (this condemned man) concentrates upon himself. He no\nlonger emits rays, but only converses with his soul. He no longer\nacts, but only contemplates.... Like a hare, he returns to his lair\nto die; and this lair is his conscience, his thought. So long as he\ncan hold a pen and has a moment of solitude, he concentrates himself\nbefore this echo of himself and holds converse with God.\n\n\"This, by the way, is not a moral investigation, a repentance, a\ncall. It is only the 'amen' of submission.\n\n\"My child, give me your heart.\n\n\"Renunciation and agreement are less difficult for me than for\nothers, because I want nothing. I should only want not to suffer.\nChrist in the Garden of Gethsemane asked for the same. Let us do\nthe same that He did. 'Nevertheless not as I will but as Thou\nwilt,'--and we will wait.\"\n\nSuch he is on the day before his death. He is not less sincere and\nserious throughout his whole diary, in spite of the elegance, and\nnow and then choiceness of his diction, which became a habit with\nhim. In the course of all the thirty years of his diary he feels\nthat we all so thoroughly forget, that we are all condemned to death\nand that our execution is only delayed. And it is for this very\nreason that this book is so sincere, serious, and useful.\n\n_1893._\n\n\n\n\nS. T. SEM\u00c9NOV'S PEASANT STORIES\n\n\nI have long ago formed a rule to judge every artistic production\nfrom three sides: (1) from the side of its contents,--in how far\nthat which is revealed by the artist from a new side is important\nand necessary for men, because every production is a production of\nart only when it reveals a new side of life; (2) to what extent the\nform of the production is good, beautiful, and in correspondence\nwith the contents; and (3) in how far the relation of the artist\nto his subject is sincere, that is, in how far he believes in what\nhe represents. This last quality always seems to me to be the most\nimportant one in an artistic production. It gives to an artistic\nproduction its force, makes an artistic production infectious, that\nis, evokes in the hearer and reader those sensations which the\nartist experiences.\n\nSem\u00e9nov possesses this quality in the highest degree.\n\nThere is a certain story by Flaubert, translated by Turg\u00e9nev,\n_Julian the Merciful_. The last episode of the story, which is\nintended to be most touching, consists in this, that Julian lies\ndown in the same bed with a leper, whom he warms up with his body.\nThis leper is Christ, who carries Julian off to heaven with Him.\nAll that is told with great mastery, but I always remain very cold\nduring the reading of this story. I feel that the author himself\nwould not have done, and would not even have wished to do so, and I\nnever feel any agitation in reading about this wonderful exploit.\n\nBut Sem\u00e9nov describes the simplest story, and it always touches me.\nA village lad comes to Moscow to find himself a place, and with the\ninfluence of a countryman of his, a coachman, who is living with a\nwealthy merchant, he here gets the position of assistant janitor.\nThis place was formerly occupied by an old man. It was by the advice\nof his coachman that the merchant sent away the old man and in his\nplace put the young lad. The lad arrives in the evening to begin\nhis work, and in the yard hears the old man's complaints in the\nservants' room, for having been discharged for no cause whatsoever,\nonly to make room for the young fellow. The lad suddenly feels pity\nfor the old man and is ashamed to have pushed him out. He reflects\nfor a moment, wavers, and finally decides to give up the place,\nwhich he needs and which has pleased him so much.\n\nAll this is told in such a way that every time when I read it I feel\nthat the author not only would have wished to act similarly in such\na case, but would certainly have done so, and his feeling infects\nme, and I am happy, and it seems to me that I have done something\ngood or would be glad to do something good.\n\nSincerity is Sem\u00e9nov's chief characteristic. But, besides it, the\ncontents are always significant,--significant, because they deal\nwith the most important class of Russia, the peasantry, which\nSem\u00e9nov knows as only a peasant, who himself lives the hard life\nof a peasant, can know. The contents of his stories are also\nsignificant, because in all of them the chief interest is not in the\nexternal events, not in the peculiarities of the situations, but in\nthe approximation to and the removal from the ideal of Christian\ntruth, which stands firm and clear in the soul of the author and\nserves him as a safe measure for the valuation of the worth and\nimportance of human acts.\n\nThe form of the stories fully corresponds to the contents: it is\nserious and simple, and the details are always correct,--there\nare no false notes. What is particularly good is the figurative\nlanguage of the persons in the stories, which is frequently quite\nnew, and always artless and strikingly powerful.\n\n_March 23, 1894._\n\n\n\n\nTHE WORKS OF GUY DE MAUPASSANT\n\n\nIt was, I think, in the year 1881 that Turg\u00e9nev, during a visit at\nmy house, took a French novel, under the name of _Maison Tellier_,\nout of his satchel and gave it to me.\n\n\"Read it, if you have a chance,\" he said, apparently with\nindifference, just as the year before he had handed me a number of\nthe _Russian Wealth_, in which there was an article by Garsh\u00edn, who\nwas making his d\u00e9but. Evidently, as in the case of Garsh\u00edn, so even\nnow, he was afraid he might influence me in one way or another, and\nwished to know my uninfluenced opinion.\n\n\"He is a young French author,\" he said; \"look at it,--it is not\nbad; he knows you and esteems you very much,\" he added, as though\nto encourage me. \"As a man he reminds me of Druzh\u00ednin. He is just\nas excellent a son and friend, _un homme d'un commerce sur_, as was\nDruzh\u00ednin, and, besides, he has relations with the labouring people,\nwhom he guides and aids. Even in his relations to women he reminds\nme of Druzh\u00ednin.\"\n\nAnd Turg\u00e9nev told me something remarkable and incredible in regard\nto Maupassant's relations in this respect.\n\nThis time, the year 1881, was for me the most ardent time of the\ninner reconstruction of my whole world-conception, and in this\nreconstruction the activity which is called artistic, and to which\nI formerly used to devote all my strength, not only lost for me the\nsignificance formerly ascribed to it, but even became distinctly\ndistasteful to me on account of the improper place which it had\noccupied in my life and which in general it occupies in the\nconcepts of the men of the wealthy classes.\n\nFor this reason I was at that time not in the least interested in\nsuch productions as the one which Turg\u00e9nev recommended to me. But,\nto oblige him, I read the book which he gave me.\n\nJudging from the first story, _Maison Tellier_, I could not help\nbut see, in spite of the indecent and insignificant subject of the\nstory, that the author possessed what is called talent.\n\nThe author was endowed with that particular gift, called talent,\nwhich consists in the author's ability to direct, according to\nhis tastes, his intensified, strained attention to this or that\nsubject, in consequence of which the author who is endowed with this\nability sees in those subjects, upon which he directs his attention,\nsomething new, something which others did not see. Maupassant\nevidently possessed that gift of seeing in subjects something which\nothers did not see. But, to judge from the small volume which I\nhad read, he was devoid of the chief condition necessary, besides\ntalent, for a truly artistic production. Of the three conditions:\n(1) a correct, that is, a moral relation of the author to the\nsubject, (2) the clearness of exposition, or the beauty of form,\nwhich is the same, and (3) sincerity, that is, an undisguised\nfeeling of love or hatred for what the artist describes,--Maupassant\npossessed only the last two, and was entirely devoid of the first.\nHe had no correct, that is, no moral relation to the subjects\ndescribed. From what I had read, I was convinced that Maupassant\npossessed talent, that is, the gift of attention, which in the\nobjects and phenomena of life revealed to him those qualities\nwhich are not visible to other men; he also possessed a beautiful\nform, that is, he expressed clearly, simply, and beautifully what\nhe wished to say, and also possessed that condition of the worth\nof an artistic production, without which it does not produce any\neffect,--sincerity,--that is, he did not simulate love or hatred,\nbut actually loved and hated what he described. But, unfortunately,\nbeing devoid of the first, almost the most important condition of\nthe worth of an artistic production, of the correct, moral relation\nto what he represented, that is, of the knowledge of the difference\nbetween good and evil, he loved and represented what it was not\nright to love and represent, and did not love and did not represent\nwhat he ought to have loved and represented. Thus the author in this\nlittle volume describes with much detail and love how women tempt\nmen and men tempt women, and even some incomprehensible obscenities,\nwhich are represented in _La Femme de Paul_, and he describes the\nlabouring country people, not only with indifference, but even with\ncontempt, as so many animals.\n\nParticularly striking was that lack of distinction between bad and\ngood in the story _Une Partie de Campagne_, in which, in the form\nof a most clever and amusing jest, he gives a detailed account of\nhow two gentlemen with bared arms, rowing in a boat, simultaneously\ntempted, the one an old mother, and the other a young maiden, her\ndaughter.\n\nThe author's sympathy is during the whole time obviously to such an\nextent on the side of the two rascals, that he ignores, or, rather,\ndoes not see what the tempted mother, the girl, the father, and the\nyoung man, evidently the fianc\u00e9 of the daughter, must have suffered,\nand so we not only get a shocking description of a disgusting crime\nin the form of an amusing jest, but the event itself is described\nfalsely, because only the most insignificant side of the subject,\nthe pleasure afforded to the rascals, is described.\n\nIn the same volume there is a story, _Histoire d'une Fille de\nFerme_, which Turg\u00e9nev recommended to me more particularly, and\nwhich more particularly displeased me on account of the author's\nincorrect relation to the subject. The author apparently sees in all\nthe working people whom he describes nothing but animals, who do not\nrise above sexual and maternal love, and so the description leaves\nus with an incomplete, artificial impression.\n\nThe insufficient comprehension of the lives and interests of the\nworking classes, and the representation of the men from those\nclasses in the form of half-animals, which are moved only by\nsensuality, malice, and greed, forms one of the chief and most\nimportant defects of the majority of the modern French authors,\namong them Maupassant, not only in this story, but also in all\nthe other stories, in which he touches on the people and always\ndescribes them as coarse, dull animals, whom one can only ridicule.\nOf course, the French authors must know the conditions of their\npeople better than I know them; but, although I am a Russian and\nhave not lived with the French people, I none the less assert that,\nin describing their masses, the French authors are wrong, and\nthat the French masses cannot be such as they are described. If\nthere exists a France as we know it, with her truly great men and\nwith those great contributions which these great men have made to\nscience, art, civil polity, and the moral perfection of humanity,\nthose labouring masses, which have held upon their shoulders this\nFrance and her great men, do not consist of animals, but of men with\ngreat spiritual qualities; and so I do not believe what I am told\nin novels like _La Terre_, and in Maupassant's stories, just as I\nshould not believe if I were told of the existence of a beautiful\nhouse standing on no foundation. It is very possible that the high\nqualities of the masses are not such as are described in _La petite\nFadette_ and in _La Mare au Diable_, but these qualities exist, that\nI know for certain, and the writer who describes the masses, as\nMaupassant does, by telling sympathetically of the \"_hanches_\" and\n\"_gorges_\" of Breton domestics, and with contempt and ridicule the\nlife of the labouring people, commits a great error in an artistic\nsense, because he describes the subject from only one, the most\nuninteresting, physical side, and completely overlooks the other,\nthe most important, spiritual side, which forms the essence of the\nsubject.\n\nIn general, the reading of the volume which Turg\u00e9nev gave me left me\ncompletely indifferent to the young writer.\n\nI was at that time so disgusted with the stories, _Une Partie de\nCampagne_, _La Femme de Paul_, and _L'Histoire d'une Fille de\nFerme_, that I did not at that time notice the beautiful story, _Le\nPapa de Simon_, and the superb story, so far as the description of a\nnight is concerned, _Sur l'Eau_.\n\n\"There are in our time, when there are so many who are willing to\nwrite, a number of people with talent, who do not know to what to\napply it, or who boldly apply it to what ought not and should not\nbe described,\" I thought. I told Turg\u00e9nev so. And I entirely forgot\nabout Maupassant.\n\nThe first thing from Maupassant's writings which after that fell\ninto my hands was _Une Vie_, which somebody advised me to read. This\nbook at once made me change my opinion concerning Maupassant, and\nafter that I read with interest everything which was written over\nhis name. _Une Vie_ is an excellent novel, not only incomparably\nthe best novel by Maupassant, but almost the best French novel\nsince Hugo's _Les Mis\u00e9rables_. Besides the remarkable power of his\ntalent, that is, of that peculiar, strained attention, directed upon\nan object, in consequence of which the author sees entirely new\nfeatures in the life which he is describing, this novel combines,\nalmost to an equal degree, all three conditions of a true artistic\nproduction: (1) the correct, that is, the moral, relation of the\nauthor to the subject, (2) the beauty of form, and (3) sincerity,\nthat is, love for what the author describes. Here the meaning of\nlife no longer presents itself to the author in the experiences of\nall kinds of debauched persons,--here the contents, as the title\nsays, are formed by the description of a ruined, innocent, sweet\nwoman, who is prepared for anything beautiful, a woman who is ruined\nby that very gross, animal sensuality which in the former stories\npresented itself to the author as the central phenomenon of life,\nwhich dominates everything, and the author's whole sympathy is on\nthe side of the good.\n\nThe form, which is beautiful even in the first stories, is here\ncarried to a high degree of perfection, such as, in my opinion, has\nnot been reached by any other French prose writer. And, besides,\nwhat is most important, the author here really loves, and loves\nstrongly, the good family which he describes, and actually despises\nthat coarse male who destroys the happiness and peace of this dear\nfamily and especially of the heroine of the novel.\n\nIt is for that reason that all the events and persons of this novel\nare so vivid and impress themselves on our memory: the weak, good,\nslatternly mother; the noble, weak, dear father, and the daughter,\nwho is still dearer in her simplicity, absence of exaggeration,\nand readiness for everything good; their mutual relations, their\nfirst journey, their servants, their neighbours, the calculating,\ncoarsely sensuous, stingy, petty, impudent fianc\u00e9, who, as always,\ndeceives the innocent girl with the customary base idealization\nof the grossest of sentiments; the marriage; Corsica, with the\ncharming descriptions of nature; then the life in the country; the\ncoarse deception of the husband; the seizure of the power over\nthe estate; his conflicts with his father-in-law; the yielding of\nthe good people; the victory of impudence; the relation to the\nneighbours,--all that is life itself, with all its complexity and\nvariety. But not only is all this described vividly and well,--there\nis over all a sincere, pathetic tone, which involuntarily affects\nthe reader. One feels that the author loves this woman, and that he\ndoes not love her merely for her external forms, but for her soul,\nfor what there is good in it, and that he sympathizes with her and\nsuffers for her, and this sensation is involuntarily transferred to\nthe reader. And the questions as to why, for what purpose, this fair\ncreature was ruined, and why it should be so, naturally arise in\nthe reader's soul, and make him stop and reflect on the meaning and\nsignificance of human life.\n\nIn spite of the false notes, which here and there occur in the\nnovel, as, for example, the detailed account of the girl's skin,\nor the impossible and unnecessary details about how the deserted\nwife, by the advice of the abbot, again becomes a mother, details\nwhich destroy all the charm of the heroine's purity; in spite of the\nmelodramatic and unnatural history of the revenge of the insulted\nhusband,--in spite of these blemishes, the novel not only appears to\nme to be beautiful, but through it I no longer saw in the author the\ntalented babbler and jester, who does not know and does not want to\nknow what is good and what bad, such as he had appeared to me to be,\njudging him from the first book, but a serious man, who looks deeply\ninto man's life and is beginning to make things out in it.\n\nThe next novel of Maupassant which I read was _Bel-Ami_.\n\n_Bel-Ami_ is a very filthy book. The author apparently gives himself\nthe reins in the description of what attracts him, and at times\nseems to be losing the fundamental, negative point of view upon his\nhero and passes over to his side; but in general, _Bel-Ami_, like\n_Une Vie_, has for its basis a serious thought and sentiment.\n\nIn _Une Vie_ the fundamental thought is the perplexity in the\npresence of the cruel senselessness of the agonizing life of a\nbeautiful woman, who is ruined by the gross sensuality of a man;\nhere it is not only the perplexity, but also the indignation of the\nauthor at the sight of the welfare and success of a gross sensuous\nbeast, who by his very sensuality makes a career for himself and\nattains a high position in the world, an indignation also at the\nsight of the corruption of that milieu in which the hero attains his\nsuccess. There the author seems to ask: \"Why, for what purpose, is\nthe fair creature ruined? Why did it happen?\" Here he seems to be\nanswering the questions: \"Everything pure and good has perished and\ncontinues to perish in our society, because this society is corrupt,\nsenseless, and terrible.\"\n\nThe last scene of the novel, the marriage in a fashionable church\nof the triumphant rascal, who is adorned with the Order of the\nLegion of Honour, with the pure young maiden, the daughter of the\nold, formerly irreproachable mother of the family, whom he seduced,\nthe marriage, which is blessed by the bishop and is recognized as\nsomething good and proper by all the persons present, expresses\nthis idea with unusual force. In this novel, in spite of its being\nclogged with obscene details, in which the author unfortunately\nseems to delight, we can see the same serious relations of the\nauthor to life.\n\nRead the conversation of the old poet with Duroy, when they come out\nafter dinner from the Walters, I think. The old poet lays bare life\nbefore his young interlocutor and shows it to him such as it is,\nwith its eternal, unavoidable companion and end,--death.\n\n\"It already holds me, _la gueuse_,\" he says of death. \"It has\nalready loosened my teeth, pulled out my hair, mauled my limbs, and\nis about to swallow me. I am already in its power,--it only plays\nwith me, as a cat plays with a mouse, knowing that I cannot get away\nfrom it. Glory, wealth,--what is it all good for, since it is not\npossible to buy a woman's love with them, and it is only a woman's\nlove that makes life worth living. And death will take that away. It\nwill take this first, and then health, strength, and life itself.\nAnd it is the same with everybody. And that is all.\"\n\nSuch is the meaning of the remarks of the aging poet. But Duroy,\nthe fortunate lover of all those women whom he likes, is so full of\nsensuous energy and strength that he hears, and yet does not hear,\nand understands, and yet does not understand, the words of the old\npoet. He hears and understands, but the spring of his sensuous life\nbubbles up with such force that the incontestable truth, which\npromises the same end to him, does not appal him.\n\nIt is this inner contradiction which, besides its satirical\nsignificance, forms the chief meaning of _Bel-Ami_. The same thought\nsparkles in the beautiful scenes of the death of the consumptive\njournalist. The author puts the question to himself as to what\nlife is and how the contradiction between the love of life and the\nknowledge of unavoidable death is to be solved,--and he does not\nanswer the questions. He seems to be seeking and waiting, and does\nnot decide one way or another. Consequently the moral relation to\nlife continues to be correct in this novel also.\n\nBut in the next novels after that this moral relation to life\nbegins to become entangled, the valuation of the phenomena of life\nbegins to waver, to grow dim, and in the last novels is completely\ndistorted.\n\nIn _Mont-Oriol_ Maupassant seems to combine the motives of the\ntwo preceding novels, and repeats himself as regards contents. In\nspite of the beautiful descriptions, full of refined humour, of a\nfashionable watering-place and of the activity of the doctors in\nthis place, we have here the same male, Paul, who is just as base\nand heartless as the husband in _Une Vie_, and the same deceived,\nruined, yielding, weak, lonely, always lonely, dear woman, and\nthe same indifferent triumph of insignificance and baseness as in\n_Bel-Ami_.\n\nThe thought is the same, but the author's relation to what he\ndescribes is now considerably lower, especially lower than in the\nfirst novel. The inner valuation of the author as to what is good\nand bad begins to become entangled. In spite of all the mental\ndesire of the author to be objective without any bias, the rascal\nPaul apparently enjoys the author's complete sympathy. For this\nreason the history of Paul's love, his attempts to seduce, and his\nsuccess in this produce a false impression. The reader does not know\nwhat the author wants,--whether he wants to show the whole emptiness\nand baseness of Paul, who with indifference turns away from the\nwoman and offends her, only because her form is spoiled from being\npregnant with a child by him, or whether he wants, on the contrary,\nto show how agreeable and nice it is to live the way this Paul lives.\n\nIn the next novels after that, _Pierre et Jean_, _Fort comme la\nMort_, and _Notre C\u0153ur_, the moral relation of the author to his\npersons is still more entangled, and is entirely lost in the last.\nOn all these novels already lies the stamp of indifference, haste,\nfictitiousness, and, above all, again that absence of a correct\nmoral relation to life which was noticeable in his first writings.\nThis begins at the same time that Maupassant's reputation as a\nfashionable author becomes established, and he is subject to that\nterrible temptation to which every well-known author, particularly\nsuch an attractive one as Maupassant, falls a prey. On the one side,\nthe success of the first novels, newspaper laudations, and flattery\nof society, especially of the women; on the second, the evergrowing\nrewards, which, however, do not keep pace with the constantly\ngrowing demands; on the third,--the insistence of publishers, who\nvie with one another, flatter, implore, and no longer judge of the\nquality of the productions offered by the author, but in ecstasy\naccept everything which appears over the name that has established\nits reputation with the reading public. All these temptations are\nso great that they evidently intoxicate the author: he succumbs to\nthem, and, though he continues to work out his novels as regards\ntheir forms, and does it even better than before, and even loves\nwhat he describes, he no longer loves what he describes because\nit is good and moral, that is, because it is loved by everybody,\nand hates what he describes not because it is bad and despised by\neverybody, but only because one thing accidentally pleases and\nanother displeases him.\n\nUpon all the novels of Maupassant, beginning with _Bel-Ami_,\nlies this stamp of haste and, above all, of fictitiousness. From\nthat time on Maupassant no longer does what he did in his first\ntwo novels,--he does not take for the foundation of his novels\ncertain moral demands and on their basis describe the activity of\nhis persons, but writes his novels as all artisan novelists write\ntheirs, that is, he invents the most interesting and the most\npathetic or most contemporary persons and situations, and from these\ncomposes his novel, adorning it with all those observations which\nhe has happened to make and which fit into the canvas of the novel,\nwithout the slightest concern how the events described are related\nto the demands of morality. Such are _Pierre et Jean_, _Fort comme\nla Mort_, and _Notre C\u0153ur_.\n\nNo matter how much we are accustomed to read in French novels about\nhow families live by threes, and how there is always a lover, whom\nall but the husband know, it still remains quite incomprehensible\nto us how it is that all husbands are always fools, _cocus_, and\n_ridicules_, and all lovers, who in the end marry and become\nhusbands, are neither _ridicules_ nor _cocus_, but heroes. And still\nless can we understand in what way all women are loose in morals and\nall mothers holy.\n\nIt is on these unnatural and improbable and, above all, profoundly\nimmoral situations that _Pierre et Jean_ and _Fort comme la Mort_\nare constructed. And so the sufferings of the persons who are in\nthese situations do not touch us much. Pierre's and Jean's mother,\nwho was able to pass all her life in deceiving her husband, evokes\nlittle sympathy for herself when she is compelled to confess her sin\nto her son, and still less when she justifies herself, asserting\nthat she could not help making use of the opportunity of happiness\nwhich presented itself to her. Still less can we sympathize with\nthe gentleman who, in _Fort comme la Mort_, during his whole life\ndeceived his friend, corrupted his wife, and now laments because,\nhaving grown old, he is not able to corrupt also the daughter\nof his paramour. But the last novel, _Notre C\u0153ur_, does not\neven have any inner problem, except the description of all kinds\nof shades of sexual love. What is described is a satiated, idle\ndebauchee, who does not know what he wants, and who now falls in\nwith just as debauched, mentally debauched, a woman, without even\nany justification of sensuality, and now parts from her and falls in\nwith a servant girl, and now again falls in with the first and, it\nseems, lives with both. Though in _Pierre et Jean_ and _Fort comme\nla Mort_ there are touching scenes, this last novel provokes nothing\nbut disgust in us.\n\nThe question in Maupassant's first novel, _Une Vie_, stands like\nthis. Here is a good, clever, dear human being, ready for anything\ngood, and this being for some reason is sacrificed, at first to a\ncoarse, petty, stupid animal of a husband, and then to just such\na son, and perishes aimlessly, without having given anything to\nthe world. What is this for? The author puts the question like\nthat, and does not seem to give any answer. But his whole novel,\nall his sentiments of sympathy for her and disgust with what\nruined her serve as an answer to his question. If there is one\nman who has understood her sufferings and has given expression to\nthis understanding, these sufferings are redeemed, as Job says to\nhis friends, when they say that no one will find out about his\nsuffering. Let a suffering be made known and understood, and it is\nredeemed. Here the author saw and comprehended this suffering and\nshowed it to men. And this suffering is redeemed, because, as soon\nas it is understood by men, it will sooner or later be destroyed.\n\nIn the next novel, _Bel-Ami_, the question is no longer as to why\nthere is any suffering for the worthy, but why there is wealth and\nglory for the unworthy. And what are this wealth and glory, and how\nare they acquired? And just as before, this question includes an\nanswer, which consists in the negation of everything which is so\nhighly valued by the crowd. The contents of this second novel are\nstill serious, but the moral relation of the author to the subject\ndescribed is considerably weakened, and while in the first novel\nonly here and there occur blemishes of sensuality, which spoil the\nnovel, in _Bel-Ami_ these blemishes expand, and many chapters are\nwritten in mere obscenity, in which the author seems to revel.\n\nIn the next novel, _Mont-Oriol_, the questions as to why and for\nwhat purpose are the sufferings of the dear woman and the success\nand joys of the savage male are no longer put, but it seems to be\nassumed that it ought to be so, and the moral demands are almost\nnot felt; instead there appear, without any need and evoked by no\nartistic demands, obscene, sensuous descriptions. As a striking\nexample of this violation of art, in consequence of the incorrect\nrelation of the author to the subject, may with particular vividness\nserve the detailed description of the appearance of the heroine in\nthe bathtub, which is given in this novel. This description is of no\nuse whatsoever, and is in no way connected with the external or the\ninternal meaning of the novel: bubbles cling to the pink body.\n\n\"Well?\" asks the reader.\n\n\"That's all,\" replies the author. \"I describe, because I like such\ndescriptions.\"\n\nIn the next two novels, _Pierre et Jean_ and _Fort comme la\nMort_, no moral demand whatever is to be found. Both novels are\nconstructed on debauchery, deception, and lying, which bring the\n_dramatis person\u00e6_ to tragic situations.\n\nIn the last novel, _Notre C\u0153ur_, the condition of the _dramatis\nperson\u00e6_ is most monstrous, savage, and immoral, and these persons\nno longer struggle against anything, but only seek enjoyments, of\nambition, of the senses, of the sexual passion, and the author seems\nto sympathize completely with their strivings. The only conclusion\none can draw from this last novel is this, that the greatest\nhappiness in life is sexual intercourse, and that, therefore, we\nmust in the most agreeable manner make use of this happiness.\n\nStill more startling is this immoral relation to life as it is\nexpressed in the quasi-novel, _Yvette_. The contents of this\nterribly immoral production are as follows: a charming girl,\nwith an innocent soul, but corrupted in the forms which she has\nacquired in the corrupt surroundings of her mother, deludes the\ndebauchee. He falls in love with her, but, imagining that this girl\nconsciously talks that insinuating nonsense which she has learned\nin her mother's company, and which she repeats like a parrot,\nwithout understanding it, he imagines that the girl is corrupt, and\ncoarsely proposes a _liaison_ with her. This proposition frightens\nand offends her (she loves him), opens her eyes to her position and\nto that of her mother, and makes her suffer deeply. The touching\nsituation--the conflict of the beauty of the innocent soul with the\nimmorality of the world--is beautifully described, and it would have\nbeen well to stop here, but the author, without the least external\nor internal need, continues his narration and causes this gentleman\nto make his way to the girl at night and seduce her. In the first\npart of the novel the author had evidently been on the side of the\ngirl, and in the second he suddenly passed over to the side of the\ndebauchee. One impression destroys the other, and the whole novel\nfalls to pieces and breaks up, like bread which has not been kneaded.\n\nIn all his novels after _Bel-Ami_ (I am not speaking now of his\nshorter stories, which form his chief desert and fame,--of them I\nshall speak later), Maupassant obviously surrendered himself to the\ntheory, which not only existed in his circle in Paris, but which now\nexists everywhere among artists, that for an artistic production we\nnot only need have no clear conception of what is good and what bad,\nbut that, on the contrary, the artist must absolutely ignore all\nmoral questions,--that in this does a certain merit of the artist\nconsist. According to this theory an artist can and must represent\nwhat is true, what exists, or what is beautiful, what, consequently,\npleases him, or even what can be useful as material for \"science,\"\nbut it is not the business of the artist to trouble himself about\nwhat is moral or immoral, good or bad.\n\nI remember, a famous painter showed me once his painting, which\nrepresented a religious procession. Everything was exquisitely\npainted, but I could not see any relation of the artist to his\nsubject.\n\n\"Well, do you consider these rites good, and do you think that they\nought to be performed, or do you not?\" I asked the artist.\n\nThe artist said to me, with a certain condescension to my na\u00efvet\u00e9,\nthat he did not know and did not consider it necessary to know: his\nbusiness was to represent life.\n\n\"But do you at least love this?\"\n\n\"I cannot tell you.\"\n\n\"Well, do you despise these rites?\"\n\n\"Neither the one nor the other,\" replied, with a smile of compassion\nfor my stupidity, the modern highly cultured artist, who represented\nlife without understanding its meaning and without either loving or\nhating its phenomena. Even so unfortunately thought Maupassant.\n\nIn his introduction to _Pierre et Jean_ he says that people tell the\nwriter: \"_Consolez-moi, attristez-moi, attendrissez-moi, faites-moi\nr\u00e2cer, faites-moi rire, faites-moi fr\u00e9mir, faites-moi pleurer,\nfaites-moi penser. Seuls quelques esprits d'\u00e9lites demandent \u00e1\nl'artiste: faites-moi quelque chose de beau dans la forme qui vous\nconviendra le mieux d'apr\u00e8s votre temp\u00e9rament._\"\n\nIt was to satisfy the demand of these chosen spirits that Maupassant\nwrote his novels, imagining na\u00efvely that that which was considered\nbeautiful in his circle was the beautiful which art ought to serve.\n\nIn the same circle in which Maupassant moved, it is woman, a\nyoung, beautiful, for the most part a nude woman, and the sexual\nintercourse with her that have pre\u00ebminently been considered to be\nthat beauty which art must serve. Such an opinion was held not only\nby Maupassant's fellows in \"art,\" by painters, sculptors, novelists,\nand poets, but also by philosophers, the teachers of the younger\ngenerations. Thus the famous Renan says frankly in his work, _Marc\nAur\u00e8le_, while condemning Christianity for its lack of appreciation\nof feminine beauty:\n\n\"_Le d\u00e9faut du christianisme apparait bien ici, il est trop\nuniquement moral: la beaut\u00e9 chez-lui est tout-\u00e0-fait sacrifi\u00e9e.\nOr, aux yeux d'une philosophie compl\u00e8te, la beaut\u00e9, loin d'\u00eatre un\navantage superficiel, un danger, un inconv\u00e9nient, est un don de\nDieu, comme la vertu. Elle vaut la rertu; la femme belle exprime\naussi bien une face du but divin, une des fins de Dieu, que l'homme\nde g\u00e9nie ou la femme vertueuse. Elle le sait et de l\u00e0 sa fiert\u00e9.\nElle sent instinctivement le tr\u00e9sor infini qu'elle porte en son\ncorps; elle sait bien, que sans esprit, sans talent, sans grace\nvertu, elle compte entre les premi\u00e8res manifestations de Dieu: et\npourquoi lui interdire de mettre en valeur le don, qui lui a \u00e9t\u00e9\nfait, de sortir le diamant qui lui est \u00e9chu?_\n\n\"_La femme, en se passant, accomplit un devoir; elle pratique\nun art, art exquis, en un sens le plus charmant des arts. Ne nous\nlaissons pas \u00e9garer par le sourire que certains mots provoquent chez\nles gens frivoles. On d\u00e9cerne la palme du g\u00e9nie \u00e0 l'artiste grec qui\na su r\u00e9soudre le plus d\u00e9licat des probl\u00e8mes, orner le corps humain,\nc'est \u00e0 orner la perfection m\u00eame, et l'on ne veut voir qu'une\naffaire de chiffons dans l'essai de collaborer \u00e0 la plus belle\n\u0153uvre de Dieu, \u00e0 la beaut\u00e9 de la femme! La toilette de la femme,\navec tous ses raffinements, est du grand art \u00e0 sa mani\u00e8re._\n\n\"_Les si\u00e8cles et les pays, qui savent y r\u00e9ussir,--sont les grands\nsi\u00e8cles, les grands pays, et le christianisme montra par l'exclusion\ndont il frappa le genre de recherches que l'id\u00e9al social qu'il\nconcevait ne deviendrait le cadre d'une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 compl\u00e8te que bien\nplus tard, quand la r\u00e9volte des gens du monde aurait bris\u00e9 le joug\n\u00e9troit impos\u00e9 primitivement \u00e0 la secte par un pi\u00e9tisme exalt\u00e9_\"\n(_Marc Aur\u00e8le_, p. 555).\n\n(Thus, according to the opinion of this guide of the younger\ngenerations, it is only now that the Parisian tailors and wigmakers\nhave mended the mistake made by Christianity, and have reestablished\nbeauty in its real, high significance.)\n\nTo leave no doubt in what sense beauty is to be taken, this same\nfamous writer, historian, and scholar wrote a drama, _L'Abbesse de\nJouarre_, in which he showed that sexual intercourse with a woman\nis that very ministration to beauty, that is, a high and good work.\nIn this drama, which is remarkable for its absence of talent and\nespecially for the coarseness of Darcy's conversations with the\nAbbess, where we can see from the very first words of what love this\ngentleman is speaking with the apparently innocent and highly moral\ngirl, who is not in the least offended by this,--it appears that the\nmost highly moral people, in the sight of death, to which they are\ncondemned, a few hours before it can do nothing more beautiful than\nsurrender themselves to their animal passion.\n\nThus, in the circle in which Maupassant grew up and was educated,\nthe representation of feminine beauty and love has quite seriously,\nand as something long ago decided and determined by the cleverest\nand most learned of men, been considered to be the true problem of\nthe highest art,--_le grand art_.\n\nIt is to this theory, frightful in its insipidity, that Maupassant\nwas subjected, when he became a fashionable writer. And, as was to\nhave been expected, in the novels this false ideal led Maupassant to\na series of mistakes and to weaker and ever weaker productions.\n\nIn this showed itself the radical difference which exists between\nthe demands of the novel and those of the story. The novel has for\nits problem, even for its external problem, the description of\nthe whole human life or of many human lives, and so the writer of\na novel must have a clear and firm idea of what is good and what\nbad in life, and Maupassant did not possess that; on the contrary,\naccording to the theory to which he held, it was thought that that\nwas not necessary. If he had been a novelist like some untalented\nwriters of sensuous novels, he would have calmly described as good\nwhat is bad, and his novels would be complete and interesting\nfor people sharing the same views as the author. But Maupassant\nhad talent, that is, he saw things in their real form, and so he\ninvoluntarily revealed the truth: he involuntarily saw the bad in\nwhat he wanted to regard as good. For this reason his sympathy is\nconstantly wavering in all his novels, with the exception of the\nfirst: now he represents the bad as being good, now he recognizes\nthe bad to be bad and the good to be good, and now again he keeps\nall the time jumping from one to the other. But this destroys\nthe very essence of every artistic impression, the _charpente_,\non which he stands. People who are not very sensitive to art\nfrequently imagine that an artistic production forms one whole,\nbecause the same persons act in it all the time, because everything\nis constructed on one plot, or because the life of one man is\ndescribed. That is not true. That only seems so to the superficial\nobserver: the cement which binds every artistic production into\none whole and so produces the illusion of a reflection of life\nis not the unity of persons and situations, but the unity of the\noriginal, moral relation of the author to his subject. In reality,\nwhen we read or contemplate an artistic production by a new author,\nthe fundamental question which arises in our soul is always this:\n\"Well, what kind of a man are you? How do you differ from all other\nmen whom I know, and what new thing can you tell me about the way\nwe ought to look upon our life?\" No matter what the artist may\nrepresent,--saints, robbers, kings, lackeys,--we seek and see only\nthe artist's soul. If he is an old, familiar artist, the question is\nno longer, \"Who are you?\" but, \"Well, what new thing can you tell\nme? From what new side will you now illumine my life for me?\" And\nso an author who has no definite, clear, new view of the world, and\nstill more so the one who does not consider this to be necessary,\ncannot give an artistic production. He can write beautifully, and a\ngreat deal, but there will be no artistic production. Even so it was\nwith Maupassant in his novels. In his first two novels, especially\nin the first, _Une Vie_, there was that clear, definite, new\nrelation to life, and so there was an artistic production; but as\nsoon as he, submitting to the fashionable theory, decided that there\nis no need whatever for this relation of the author to life, and\nbegan to write only in order to _faire quelque chose de beau_, his\nnovels ceased to be artistic productions. In _Une Vie_ and _Bel-Ami_\nthe author knows who is to be loved and who is to be hated, and the\nreader agrees with him and believes him, believes in those persons\nand events which are described to him. But in _Notre C\u0153ur_ and\nin _Yvette_ the author does not know who is to be loved and who is\nto be hated; nor does the reader know it. And as the reader does\nnot know it, he does not believe in the events described and is not\ninterested in them. And so, with the exception of the first two,\nor, speaking strictly, of the one first novel, all of Maupassant's\nnovels, as novels, are weak; and if Maupassant had left us only his\nnovels, he would be a striking example of how a brilliant gift may\nperish in consequence of that false milieu in which it was evolved,\nand of those false theories of art which are invented by men who\ndo not love it and so do not understand it. But, fortunately,\nMaupassant has written short stories, in which he did not succumb\nto the false theory which he adopted, and wrote, not _quelque chose\nde beau_, but what touched and provoked his moral feeling. It is in\nthese stories, not in all, but in the best of them, that we see how\nthe moral feeling grew in the author.\n\nIn this, indeed, does the remarkable quality of every true talent\nconsist, so long as it does not do violence to itself under the\ninfluence of a false theory, that it teaches its possessor, leads\nhim on over the path of moral development, makes him love what is\nworthy of love, and hate what is worthy of hatred. An artist is an\nartist for the very reason that he sees the objects, not as he wants\nto see them, but as they are. The bearer of talent,--man,--may make\nmistakes, but the talent, as soon as the reins are given to it, as\nwas done by Maupassant in his stories, will reveal and lay bare the\nsubject and will make the writer love it, if it is worthy of love,\nand hate it, if it is worthy of hatred. What happens to every true\nartist, when, under the influence of his surroundings, he begins to\ndescribe something different from what he ought to describe, is what\nhappened to Balaam, who, when he wanted to bless, cursed that which\nought to have been cursed, and, when he wanted to curse, began to\nbless that which ought to have been blessed; he will involuntarily\ndo, not what he wants, but what he ought to do. The same happened\nwith Maupassant.\n\nThere has hardly been another such an author, who thought so\nsincerely that all the good, the whole meaning of life was in woman,\nin love, and who with such force of passion described woman and\nthe love of her from all sides, and there has hardly been another\nauthor, who with such clearness and precision has pointed out all\nthe terrible sides of the same phenomenon, which to him seemed to be\nthe highest, and one that gives the greatest good to men. The more\nhe comprehended this phenomenon, the more did it become unveiled;\nthe shrouds fell off, and all there was left was its terrible\nconsequences and its still more terrible reality.\n\nRead his \"Idiot Son,\" \"A Night with the Daughter\" (_L'Ermite_), \"The\nSailor and His Sister\" (_Le Port_), \"Field of Olives,\" _La Petite\nRoque_, the English _Miss Harriet_, _Monsieur Parent_, _L'Armoire_\n(the girl that fell asleep in the safe), \"The Marriage\" in _Sur\nl'Eau_, and the last expression of everything, _Un Cas de Divorce_.\nWhat Marcus Aurelius said, trying to find means with which to\ndestroy in imagination the attractiveness of this sin, Maupassant\ndoes in glaring, artistic pictures, which upset one completely. He\nwants to laud love, but the more he knew of it, the more he cursed\nit. He cursed it for the calamities and sufferings which it brings\nwith it, and for the disappointments, and, above all, for the\nsimulation of true love, for the deception which is in it, and from\nwhich man suffers the more, the more he abandons himself to this\ndeception.\n\nThe mighty moral growth of the author, during his literary activity,\nis written in indelible characters in these exquisite short stories\nand in his best book, _Sur l'Eau_.\n\nAnd not merely in this discrowning, this involuntary and, therefore,\nso much more powerful discrowning of sexual love, do we see the\nauthor's moral growth; we see it also in all those higher and ever\nhigher demands which he makes on life.\n\nNot only in sexual love does he see the inner contradiction between\nthe demands of the animal and of the rational man,--he sees it in\nthe whole structure of the world.\n\nHe sees that the world, the material world, such as it is, is not\nonly not the best of worlds, but, on the contrary, might have been\nquite different,--this idea is strikingly expressed in _Horla_,--and\ndoes not satisfy the demands of reason and of love; he sees that\nthere is a certain other world, or at least there are the demands\nfor such a world, in man's soul.\n\nHe is tormented, not only by the irrationality of the material world\nand the absence of beauty in it, but also by its lack of love, by\nits disunion. I know of no more heartrending cry of despair of an\nerring man who recognizes his loneliness, than the expression of\nthis idea in the exquisite story, _Solitude_.\n\nThe phenomenon which more than any other tortured Maupassant, and to\nwhich he frequently returned, is the agonizing state of loneliness,\nthe spiritual loneliness of a man, that barrier which stands between\na man and others, that barrier which, as he says, is felt the more\npainfully, the closer the bodily contact.\n\nWhat is it that tortures him? And what would he have? What destroys\nthis barrier, what puts a stop to this loneliness? Love, not love of\nwoman, of which he is tired, but pure, spiritual, divine love. And\nit is this that Maupassant seeks; toward this saviour of life, which\nwas long ago clearly revealed to all, that he painfully tugs at the\nfetters with which he feels himself bound.\n\nHe is not yet able to name what he is seeking, he does not want to\nname it with his lips alone, for fear of defiling his sanctuary.\nBut his unnamed striving, which is expressed by his terror in the\npresence of solitude, is so sincere that it infects us and draws\nus more powerfully than many, very many sermons of love, which are\nenunciated with the lips alone.\n\nThe tragedy of Maupassant's life consists in this, that, living in\nsurroundings that are terrible because of their monstrousness and\nimmorality, he by the force of his talent, that unusual light which\nwas in him, broke away from the world-conception of his circle, was\nnear to liberation, already breathed the air of freedom, but, having\nspent his last strength in this struggle, perished without becoming\nfree, because he did not have the strength to make this one last\neffort.\n\nThe tragedy of this ruin consists in the same in which it even now\ncontinues to consist for the majority of the so-called men of our\ntime.\n\nMen have in general never lived without an explanation of the\nmeaning of the life they live. Everywhere and at all times there\nhave appeared advanced, highly gifted men, prophets, as they are\ncalled, who have explained to men this meaning and significance of\nlife, and at all times the men of the rank and file, who have no\nstrength to make this meaning clear to themselves, have followed\nthat explanation of life which their prophets revealed to them.\n\nThis meaning was eighteen hundred years ago simply, lucidly,\nindubitably, and joyously explained by Christianity, as is proved by\nthe life of all those who have accepted this meaning and follow that\nguide of life which follows from this meaning.\n\nBut there appeared men who interpreted this meaning in such a way\nthat it became nonsense. And people are in a dilemma,--whether\nto recognize Christianity, as it is interpreted by Catholicism,\nLourdes, the Pope, the dogma of the seedless conception, and so\nforth, or to live on, being guided by the instructions of Renan and\nhis like, that is, to live without any guidance and comprehension of\nlife, surrendering themselves to their lusts, so long as they are\nstrong, and to their habits, when the passions have subsided.\n\nAnd the people, the people of the rank and file, choose one or the\nother, sometimes both, at first libertinism, and then Catholicism.\nAnd people continue to live thus for generations, shielding\nthemselves with different theories, which are not invented in order\nto find out the truth, but in order to conceal it. And the people of\nthe rank and file, especially the dull ones among them, feel at ease.\n\nBut there are also other people,--there are but a few of them\nand they are far between,--and such was Maupassant, who with\ntheir own eyes see things as they are, see their meaning, see the\ncontradictions of life, which are hidden from others, and vividly\npresent to themselves that to which these contradictions must\ninevitably lead them, and seek for their solutions in advance. They\nseek for them everywhere except where they are to be found, in\nChristianity, because Christianity seems to them to have outlived\nits usefulness, to be obsolete and foolish and repellent by its\nmonstrosity. Trying in vain to arrive by themselves at these\nsolutions, they come to the conclusion that there are no solutions,\nthat the property of life consists in carrying within oneself these\nunsolved contradictions. Having arrived at such a solution, these\npeople, if they are weak, unenergetic natures, make their peace\nwith such a senseless life, are even proud of their condition,\nconsidering their lack of knowledge to be a desert, a sign of\nculture; but if they are energetic, truthful, and talented natures,\nsuch as was Maupassant, they cannot bear it and in one way or\nanother go out of this insipid life.\n\nIt is as though thirsty people in the desert should be looking\neverywhere for water, except near those men who, standing near a\nspring, pollute it and offer ill-smelling mud instead of water,\nwhich still keeps on flowing farther down, below the mud. Maupassant\nwas in that position; he could not believe,--it even never occurred\nto him that the truth which he was seeking had been discovered long\nago and was near him; nor could he believe that it was possible\nfor a man to live in a contradiction such as he felt himself to be\nliving in.\n\nLife, according to those theories in which he was brought up, which\nsurrounded him, and which were verified by all the passions of his\nyouthful and spiritually and physically strong being, consists in\nenjoyment, chief of which is woman and the love of her, and in the\ndoubly reflected enjoyment,--in the representation of this love\nand the excitation of this love in others. All that would be very\nwell, but, as we look closely at these enjoyments, we see amidst\nthem appear phenomena which are quite alien and hostile to this love\nand this beauty: woman for some reason grows homely, looks horrid\nin her pregnancy, bears a child in nastiness, then more children,\nunwished-for children, then deceptions, cruelties, then moral\nsufferings, then simply old age, and finally death.\n\nAnd then, is this beauty really beauty? And then, what is it all\nfor? It would be nice, if it were possible to arrest life. But it\ngoes on. What does it mean,--life goes on? Life goes on, means,--the\nhair falls out and grows gray, the teeth decay, there appear\nwrinkles, and there is an odour in the mouth. Even before everything\nends, everything becomes terrible and disgusting: you perceive the\npasty paint and powder, the sweat, the stench, the homeliness. Where\nis that which I served? Where is beauty? And it is all. If it is\nnot,--there is nothing. There is no life.\n\nNot only is there no life in what seemed to have life, but you, too,\nbegin to get away from it, to grow feeble, to look homely, to decay,\nwhile others before your very eyes seize from you those pleasures\nin which was the whole good of life. More than that: there begins\nto glint the possibility of another life, something else, some\nother union of men with the whole world, such as excludes all those\ndeceptions, something else, something that cannot be impaired by\nanything, that is true and always beautiful. But that cannot be,--it\nis only the provoking sight of an oasis, when we know that it is not\nthere and that everything is sand.\n\nMaupassant lived down to that tragic moment of life, when there\nbegan the struggle between the lie of the life which surrounded him,\nand the truth which he was beginning to see. He already had symptoms\nof spiritual birth.\n\nIt is these labours of birth that are expressed in his best\nproductions, especially in his short stories.\n\nIf it had been his fate not to die in the labour of birth, but to be\nborn, he would have given great, instructive productions, but even\nwhat he gave us during the process of his birth is much. Let us be\ngrateful to this strong, truthful man for what he gave us.\n\n_Vor\u00f3nezh, April 2, 1894._\n\n\nTHE END.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTranscriber's note:\n\nText enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).\n\nSmall capital text has been replaced with all capitals.\n\nVariations in spelling, punctuation and hyphenation have been\nretained except in obvious cases of typographical error.\n\nMissing page numbers are page numbers that were not shown in the\noriginal text.\n\nThe illustrations have been moved so that they do not break up\nparagraphs, thus the page number of the illustration might not match\nthe page number in the List of Illustrations.\n\nPage 290: The transcriber has removed \"were\" from \"But since there\nwere was more than one woman in each house\".","title":"The Kingdom of God is Within You / Christianity and Patriotism / Miscellanies","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":165957}