{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_43409/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_43409","id":"gutenberg_43409","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43409","summary":null,"tags":["Art","Art and morals","Category: Art","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christianity -- Controversial literature","Christianity -- Essence, genius, nature","Evil, Non-resistance to","Government, Resistance to -- Religious aspects -- Christianity","Nonviolence -- Religious aspects -- Christianity"],"text":"LYOF N. TOLSTO\u00cf\n\n XIX\n\n THE KINGDOM OF GOD\n IS WITHIN YOU\n\n WHAT IS ART?\n\n [Illustration: COUNT TOLSTO\u00cf PLOWING\n\n FROM THE PAINTING BY REPIN]\n\n\n\n\n THE NOVELS AND OTHER WORKS OF\n\n LYOF N. TOLSTO\u00cf\n\n THE KINGDOM OF\n GOD IS WITHIN YOU\n\n WHAT IS ART?\n\n [Illustration: publisher mark]\n\n NEW YORK\n CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS\n 1902\n\n\n\n\n COPYRIGHT, 1899,\n BY THOMAS V. CROWELL & CO.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nThe present volume contains two contrasting treatises. The first is\nreligious, and shows in Count Tolsto\u00ef's earnest and eloquent manner\nthe meaning of Christ's words which he takes for his text,--\"The\nKingdom of God is within you.\" The outward forms of religion,\nhowever helpful they may be to some souls, are not essential; the\nsuperstitions with which Faith sometimes clothes or masks herself\nmay or may not be uplifting; but the foundation of Christianity is\nthe truth contained in Christ's words, his simple, plain, undogmatic\ncommands and prohibitions.\n\nOne word sums it all up, and that word is Love. If the world should\ntake love for its guiding star, it is evident that all the evils\nof the world would cease,--wars, crimes, poverty, ambitions; the\nmillennium would come! Count Tolsto\u00ef shows how that blessed period\nmay begin in every man. The translation of this beautiful and\ninspiring book has been made by Mrs. Aline Delano of Boston.\n\nIn answering the question, \"What is Art?\" Count Tolsto\u00ef analyzes and\ntests the various definitions given by other writers. He shows up\nwith merciless severity what he considers the fallacy in the popular\ndelusion that the fetish of Art pardons bestiality, obscenity, and\nwhatever conduces to stimulating the passions. The work is strongly\ncontroversial, and attacks unsparingly many of the popular notions\nof the day, as, for instance, that \"Art is the manifestation of some\nmysterious idea of God,\" or \"the expression of man's emotions by\nexternal signs,\" or the production of pleasing objects. He believes\nthat art has a loftier function, and he proceeds elaborately to\nargue in favor of this universal activity, which should be to effect\na union among men so that they may have the same noble feelings and\nprogress together toward universal and individual well-being. \"Art\nfor art's sake\" is meaningless to him. It is interesting to notice\nthat the most original and independent of the French critics has\nrecently taken practically the same ground in a lecture, in which he\nasserts that it is the critic's business to test art and literature,\nand that art has a most intimate relation with morality.\n\nMuch of the book is racy and amusing; much of it is abstruse,\nand requires close attention. But whether one follows the author\nin his individual opinions or not, it cannot be denied that the\ngeneral tone of the treatise is helpful and uplifting, and that it\nis based on sound common sense. Mr. Aylmer Maude of England is the\ntranslator of this work, and has had the benefit of Count Tolsto\u00ef's\nown suggestions in regard to certain points. As the special preface\nexplains, the translation accurately represents the author's views,\nwhile the edition published in Russia was in many ways garbled\nand distorted. The translators of both treatises have seized the\nopportunity of carefully revising their work.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU\n\n PAGE\n\n INTRODUCTORY 1\n\n CHAPTER I\n\n Doctrine of non-resistance to evil, from the origin\n of Christianity, has been, and still is, professed\n by the minority of men 3\n\n CHAPTER II\n\n Opinions of believers and unbelievers in regard to\n non-resistance 30\n\n CHAPTER III\n\n Misconception of Christianity by non-believers 47\n\n CHAPTER IV\n\n Misconception of Christianity by scientists 79\n\n CHAPTER V\n\n Contradiction of our life and Christian consciousness 100\n\n CHAPTER VI\n\n Attitude of men of the present day toward war 122\n\n CHAPTER VII\n\n Significance of the military conscription 152\n\n CHAPTER VIII\n\n Certainty of the acceptance of the Christian doctrine\n of non-resistance to evil by violence by the men\n of our world 171\n\n CHAPTER IX\n\n The acceptance of the Christian life-conception\n delivers men from the miseries of our pagan life 194\n\n CHAPTER X\n\n Uselessness of violence for the destruction of\n evil--The moral advance of mankind is accomplished,\n not only through the knowledge of truth, but also\n through the establishment of public opinion 218\n\n CHAPTER XI\n\n Christian public opinion already arises in our\n society, and will inevitably destroy the system\n of violence of our life--When this will come about 242\n\n CHAPTER XII\n\n Conclusion: \"Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at\n hand!\" 254\n\n\n\n\n WHAT IS ART?\n\n TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 339\n\n AUTHOR'S PREFACE 341\n\n CHAPTER I\n\n Time and labor spent on art--Lives stunted in its\n service--Morality sacrificed to and anger\n justified by art--The rehearsal of an opera\n described 345\n\n CHAPTER II\n\n Does art compensate for so much evil?--What is\n art?--Confusion of opinions--Is it \"that which\n produces beauty\"?--The word \"beauty\" in\n Russian--Chaos in \u00e6sthetics 351\n\n CHAPTER III\n\n Summary of various \u00e6sthetic theories and definitions,\n from Baumgarten to to-day 360\n\n CHAPTER IV\n\n Definitions of art founded on beauty--Taste not\n definable--A clear definition needed to enable\n us to recognize works of art 376\n\n CHAPTER V\n\n Definitions not founded on beauty--Tolsto\u00ef's\n definition--The extent and necessity of\n art--How people in the past have distinguished\n good from bad in art 383\n\n CHAPTER VI\n\n How art for pleasure has come into esteem--Religions\n indicate what is considered good and bad--Church\n Christianity--The Renaissance--Skepticism of the\n upper classes--They confound beauty with goodness 389\n\n CHAPTER VII\n\n An \u00e6sthetic theory framed to suit this view of life 396\n\n CHAPTER VIII\n\n Who have adopted it?--Real art needful for all men--Our\n art too expensive, too unintelligible, and too\n harmful for the masses--The theory of \"the elect\"\n in art 401\n\n CHAPTER IX\n\n Perversion of our art--It has lost its natural\n subject-matter--Has no flow of fresh\n feeling--Transmits chiefly three base emotions 406\n\n CHAPTER X\n\n Loss of comprehensibility--Decadent art--Recent French\n art--Have we a right to say it is bad and that what\n we like is good art?--The highest art has always\n been comprehensible to normal people--What fails\n to infect normal people is not art 412\n\n CHAPTER XI\n\n Counterfeits of art produced by: Borrowing; Imitating;\n Striking; Interesting--Qualifications needful for\n production of real works of art, and those\n sufficient for production of counterfeits 436\n\n CHAPTER XII\n\n Causes of production of counterfeits--Professionalism--\n Criticism--Schools of art 446\n\n CHAPTER XIII\n\n Wagner's \"Nibelung's Ring\" a type of counterfeit\n art--Its success, and the reasons thereof 455\n\n CHAPTER XIV\n\n Truths fatal to preconceived views are not readily\n recognized--Proportion of works of art to\n counterfeits--Perversion of taste and incapacity\n to recognize art--Examples 468\n\n CHAPTER XV\n\n THE QUALITY OF ART, CONSIDERED APART FROM ITS\n SUBJECT-MATTER--The sign of art: Infectiousness--\n Incomprehensible to those whose taste is\n perverted--Conditions of infection: Individuality;\n Clearness; Sincerity 476\n\n CHAPTER XVI\n\n THE QUALITY OF ART, CONSIDERED ACCORDING TO ITS\n SUBJECT-MATTER--The better the feeling the better\n the art--The cultured crowd--The religious\n perception of our age--The new ideals put fresh\n demands to art--Art unites--Religious art--Universal\n art--Both co\u00f6perate to one result--The new\n appraisement of art--Bad art--Examples of art--How\n to test a work claiming to be art 479\n\n CHAPTER XVII\n\n Results of absence of true art--Results of perversion\n of art: Labor and lives spent on what is useless\n and harmful--The abnormal life of the rich--\n Perplexity of children and plain folk--Confusion\n of right and wrong--Nietzsche and Redbeard--\n Superstition, Patriotism, and Sensuality 497\n\n CHAPTER XVIII\n\n The purpose of human life is the brotherly union of\n man--Art must be guided by this perception 507\n\n CHAPTER XIX\n\n The art of the future not a possession of a select\n minority, but a means toward perfection and unity 510\n\n CHAPTER XX\n\n The connection between science and art--The mendacious\n sciences; the trivial sciences--Science should deal\n with the great problems of human life, and serve as\n a basis for art 517\n\n APPENDICES\n\n APPENDIX I 528\n\n APPENDIX II 530\n\n APPENDIX III 537\n\n APPENDIX IV 542\n\n\n\n\n THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS\n WITHIN YOU\n\n OR,\n\n CHRISTIANITY NOT AS A MYSTICAL DOCTRINE,\n BUT AS A NEW-LIFE CONCEPTION\n\n\n\n\nAUTHOR'S PREFACE\n\n\nIn this book I have endeavored to show that our modern Christianity\nhas been tried and found wanting, that the armed camp of Europe\nis not Christian, but Pagan, as is latter-day religion, of which\nthe present state of affairs is the outcome. The book contains\nthree principal ideas,--the first, that Christianity is not only\nthe worship of God and a doctrine of salvation, but is, above all\nthings, a new conception of life, which is changing the whole fabric\nof human society; the second, that from the first appearance of\nChristianity there entered into it two opposite currents,--the one\nestablishing the true and new conception of life, which it gave to\nhumanity, and the other perverting the true Christian doctrine and\nconverting it into a Pagan religion, and that this contradiction\nhas attained in our days the highest degree of tension which now\nexpresses itself in universal armaments, and on the Continent in\ngeneral conscription; and the third, that this contradiction, which\nis masked by hypocrisy, can only be solved by an effort of sincerity\non the part of every individual endeavoring to conform the acts of\nhis life,--independent of what are regarded as the exigencies of\nfamily, society, and the State,--with those moral principles which\nhe considers to be true.\n\n * * * * *\n\n_The above is an extract (slightly adapted) from an article on\nCount Tolsto\u00ef which appeared in the London_ Daily Chronicle _of\n26th December,1893. Sent by Miss Tatiana Tolsto\u00ef, on behalf of\nher father, to the publishers of this edition of his work, it is\ninserted here as a Preface at the suggestion of Count Tolsto\u00ef._\n\n\n\n THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS\n WITHIN YOU;\n\n OR,\n\n CHRISTIANITY NOT AS A MYSTICAL DOCTRINE,\n BUT AS A NEW LIFE-CONCEPTION\n\n \"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you\n free.\"--JOHN viii. 32.\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.\"--MATTHEW x. 28.\n\n \"Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.\"--I\n CORINTHIANS vii. 23.\n\n\nINTRODUCTORY\n\nIn 1884 I wrote a book entitled \"My Religion,\" wherein I formulated\nmy creed.\n\nWhile affirming my faith in the doctrine taught by Christ, I could\nnot refrain from manifesting at the same time the reason why I look\nupon the ecclesiastical doctrine commonly called Christianity as\nerroneous, and to me incredible.\n\nAmong the many deviations of the latter from the doctrine of Christ,\nI called attention to the principal one; namely--the evasion of\nthe commandment that forbids man to resist evil by violence, as a\nstriking example of the perversion of the doctrine of Christ by\necclesiastical interpretation.\n\nI knew but little, no more than other men, of what had been taught\nor written on the subject of non-resistance in former times. I\nwas familiar with the opinions of the Fathers of the Church,\nOrigen, Tertullian, and others; and I also knew of the existence\nof certain sects called Mennonites, Herrnhuters, and Quakers, all\nof which forbid Christians the use of arms, and will not submit to\nconscription, but I never knew the arguments by which these sects\nsought to maintain their views.\n\nMy book, as I had anticipated, was prohibited by the Russian\ncensors, but partly in consequence of my reputation as a writer,\npartly because it excited curiosity, it had a circulation in\nmanuscript, and while, on the one hand, it called forth from those\npersons who sympathized with my ideas, information concerning works\nwritten on the same subject, on the other, it excited criticisms on\nthe opinions therein maintained.\n\nThese two results, together with the historical events of recent\nyears, made many things clear to me, and led me to many new\ndeductions and conclusions which I now desire to set forth.\n\nI shall speak in the first place of the information I received in\nregard to the history of this matter of non-resistance to evil;\nand in the second place, of the arguments upon the subject offered\nby religious critics, that is, by critics who profess the religion\nof Christ, as well as those of secular critics, that is to say, of\nmen who make no such profession; and finally, the conclusions which\nI drew from the arguments of both parties, as well as from the\nhistorical events of later years.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nDOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO EVIL FROM THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY,\nHAS BEEN, AND STILL IS, PROFESSED BY THE MINORITY OF MEN\n\n Concerning the book \"My Religion\"--Information called forth by\n this book--Letters of Quakers--Professions of Garrison--Adin\n Ballou, his works and Catechism--\"The Net of Faith\" of\n Helchitsky--Relations of men toward works that explain the\n teachings of Christ--The book of Dymond \"On War\"--Assertion of\n Non-resistance by Musser--Relations of government in 1818 toward\n those who refuse to join the military service--General inimical\n attitude of governments and liberal men toward those who refused\n to take part in the violence of governments and their conscious\n effort to conceal and ignore these demonstrations of Christian\n Non-resistance.\n\n\nAmong the early responses called forth by my book were letters\nfrom American Quakers. In these letters, while expressing their\nsympathy with my ideas in regard to the unlawfulness of violence\nand war where Christians are concerned, the Quakers made known to\nme many details in relation to their sect, which for more than two\nhundred years has professed the doctrine of Christ in the matter of\nnon-resistance, and which never has, nor does it now use weapons for\nself-defense. Together with the letters, the Quakers sent me many\nof their pamphlets, periodicals, and books. From these publications\nI learned that already, many years ago, they had demonstrated the\nChristian's duty of keeping the commandment of non-resistance to\nevil by violence, and the error of the church which countenances\nwars and executions.\n\nHaving shown by a succession of arguments and texts that war--the\nslaughter and mutilation of men--is inconsistent with a religion\nfounded on peace and good-will to men, the Quakers go on to assert\nthat nothing is so conducive to the defamation of Christ's truth in\nthe eyes of the heathen, or so successful in arresting the spread\nof Christianity throughout the world, as the refusal to obey this\ncommandment, made by men who call themselves Christians, and by the\nsanction thus given to war and violence. The doctrine of Christ,\nwhich has entered into the consciousness of men, not by force or by\nthe sword, as they say, but by non-resistance to evil, by humility,\nmeekness, and the love of peace, can only be propagated among men by\nthe example of peace, love, and concord given by its followers.\n\nA Christian, according to the teaching of the Lord, should be guided\nin his relations toward men only by the love of peace, and therefore\nthere should be no authority having power to compel a Christian to\nact in a manner contrary to God's law, and contrary to his chief\nduty toward his fellow-men.\n\nThe requirements of the civil law, they say, may oblige men, who,\nto win some worldly advantages, seek to conciliate that which is\nirreconcilable, to violate the law of God; but for a Christian,\nwho firmly believes that his salvation depends upon following the\nteaching of Christ, this law can have no meaning.\n\nMy acquaintance with the activity of the Quakers and with their\npublications, with Fox, Paine, and particularly with a work\npublished by Dymond in 1827, proved to me not only that men have\nlong since recognized the impossibility of harmonizing Christianity\nand war, but that this incompatibility has been proved so clearly\nand irrefragably, that one can only wonder how it is possible for\nthis incongruous union of Christianity with violence--a doctrine\nwhich is still taught by the church--to remain in force.\n\nBesides the information obtained from the Quakers, I also received\nfrom America about the same time advices on the subject from another\nand hitherto unknown source. The son of William Lloyd Garrison, the\nfamous anti-slavery champion, wrote to me that, having read my book,\nwherein he had found ideas similar to those expressed by his father\nin 1838, and taking it for granted that I should be interested to\nknow that fact, he sent me a book written by Mr. Garrison some fifty\nyears ago, entitled \"Non-resistance.\"\n\nThis avowal of principle took place under the following\ncircumstances:--In 1838, on the occasion of a meeting of the Society\nfor the Promotion of Peace, William Lloyd Garrison, while discussing\nmeans for the suppression of war, arrived at the conclusion that the\nestablishment of universal peace can have no solid foundation save\nin the literal obedience to the commandment of non-resistance by\nviolence (Matthew v. 39), as understood by the Quakers, with whom\nGarrison was on friendly terms. Having arrived at this conclusion,\nhe wrote, offering to the Society the following proclamation, which\nat that time, in 1838, was signed by many of its members:--\n\n \"_Declaration of Sentiments adopted by the Peace Convention,\n held in Boston, September 18, 19, and 20, 1838_:--\n\n \"Assembled in Convention, from various sections of the American\n Union, for the promotion of Peace on earth and Good-will among\n men, We, the undersigned, regard it as due to ourselves, to the\n cause which we love, to the country in which we live, and to the\n world, to publish a Declaration, expressive of the principles\n we cherish, the purposes we aim to accomplish, and the measures\n we shall adopt to carry forward the work of peaceful, universal\n reformation.\n\n \"We cannot acknowledge allegiance to any human government;\n neither can we oppose any such government by a resort to\n physical force. We recognize but one King and Lawgiver, one\n Judge and Ruler of mankind. We are bound by the laws of a\n Kingdom which is not of this world; the subjects of which are\n forbidden to fight; in which Mercy and Truth are met together,\n and Righteousness and Peace have kissed each other; which has no\n state lines, no national partitions, no geographical boundaries;\n in which there is no distinction of rank or division of caste,\n or inequality of sex; the officers of which are Peace, its\n exactors Righteousness, its walls Salvation, and its gates\n Praise; and which is destined to break in pieces and consume\n all other kingdoms. Our country is the world, our countrymen\n are all mankind. We love the land of our nativity only as\n we love all other lands. The interests, rights, liberties of\n American citizens are no more dear to us than are those of the\n whole human race. Hence, we can allow no appeal to patriotism to\n revenge any national insult or injury; the Principle of Peace,\n under whose stainless banner we rally, came not to destroy, but\n to save, even the worst of enemies. He has left us an example,\n that we should follow His steps. God commendeth his love toward\n us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.\n\n \"We conceive that if a nation has no right to defend itself\n against foreign enemies, or to punish its invaders, no\n individual possesses that right in his own case. The unit\n cannot be of greater importance than the aggregate. If one\n man may take life, to obtain or defend his rights, the same\n license must necessarily be granted to communities, states,\n and nations. If _he_ may use a dagger or a pistol, _they_ may\n employ cannon, bombshells, land and naval forces. The means\n of self-preservation must be in proportion to the magnitude\n of interests at stake, and the number of lives exposed to\n destruction. But if a rapacious and bloodthirsty soldiery,\n thronging these shores from abroad, with intent to commit\n rapine and destroy life, may not be resisted by the people\n or magistracy, then ought no resistance to be offered to\n domestic troubles of the public peace or of private security.\n No obligation can rest upon Americans to regard foreigners as\n more sacred in their persons than themselves, or to give them a\n monopoly of wrong-doing with impunity.\n\n \"The dogma, that all the governments of the world are\n approvingly ordained of God, and that the powers that be in the\n United States, in Russia, in Turkey, are in accordance with His\n will, is not less absurd than impious. It makes the impartial\n Author of human freedom and equality unequal and tyrannical. It\n cannot be affirmed that the powers that be, in any nation, are\n actuated by the spirit or guided by the example of Christ, in\n the treatment of enemies; therefore, they cannot be agreeable\n to the will of God; and therefore their overthrow, by a\n spiritual regeneration of their subjects, is inevitable.\n\n \"We register our testimony not only against all wars, whether\n offensive or defensive, but all preparations for war; against\n every naval ship, every arsenal, every fortification; against\n the militia system and a standing army; against all military\n chieftains and soldiers; against all monuments commemorative\n of victory over a fallen foe, all trophies won in battle, all\n celebrations in honor of military or naval exploits; against all\n appropriations for the defense of a nation by force and army,\n on the part of any legislative body; against every edict of\n government requiring of its subjects military service. Hence we\n deem it unlawful to bear arms, or to hold a military office.\n\n \"As every human government is upheld by physical strength, and\n its laws are enforced virtually at the point of the bayonet,\n we cannot hold any office which imposes upon its incumbent the\n obligation to compel men to do right, on pain of imprisonment\n or death. We therefore voluntarily exclude ourselves from every\n legislative and judicial body, and repudiate all human politics,\n worldly honors, and stations of authority. If we cannot occupy\n a seat in the legislature or on the bench, neither can we elect\n _others_ to act as our substitutes in any such capacity.\n\n \"It follows that we cannot sue any man at law, to compel him by\n force to restore anything which he may have wrongfully taken\n from us or others; but if he has seized our coat, we shall\n surrender up our cloak, rather than subject him to punishment.\n\n \"We believe that the penal code of the old covenant, 'An eye\n for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,' has been abrogated by\n Jesus Christ; and that under the new covenant, the forgiveness\n instead of the punishment of enemies has been enjoined upon all\n His disciples, in all cases whatsoever. To extort money from\n enemies, or set them upon a pillory, or cast them into prison,\n or hang them upon gallows, is obviously not to forgive, but to\n take retribution. 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the\n Lord.'\n\n \"The history of mankind is crowded with evidences proving that\n physical coercion is not adapted to moral regeneration; that the\n sinful disposition of men can be subdued only by love; that evil\n can be exterminated from the earth only by goodness; that it is\n not safe to rely upon an arm of flesh, upon man whose breath is\n in his nostrils, to preserve us from harm; that there is great\n security in being gentle, harmless, long-suffering, and abundant\n in mercy; that it is only the meek who shall inherit the earth,\n for the violent who resort to the sword are destined to perish\n with the sword. Hence, as a measure of sound policy--of safety\n to property, life, and liberty--of public quietude and private\n enjoyment--as well as on the ground of allegiance to Him who\n is King of kings and Lord of lords, we cordially adopt the\n non-resistance principle; being confident that it provides for\n all possible consequences, will insure all things needful to us,\n is armed with omnipotent power, and must ultimately triumph over\n every assailing force.\n\n \"We advocate no jacobinical doctrine. The spirit of jacobinism\n is the spirit of retaliation, violence, and murder. It neither\n fears God nor regards man. We would be filled with the spirit of\n Jesus Christ. If we abide by our principles, it is impossible\n for us to be disorderly, or plot treason, or participate in any\n evil work; we shall submit to every ordinance of man, for the\n Lord's sake; obey all the requirements of government, except\n such as we deem contrary to the commands of the gospel; and in\n no case resist the operation of law, except by meekly submitting\n to the penalty of disobedience.\n\n \"But while we shall adhere to the doctrine of non-resistance and\n passive submission, we purpose, in a moral and spiritual sense,\n to speak and act boldly in the cause of God; to assail iniquity\n in high places and in low places; to apply our principles\n to all existing civil, political, legal, and ecclesiastical\n institutions; and to hasten the time when the kingdoms of this\n world will have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His\n Christ, and He shall reign forever.\n\n \"It appears to us a self-evident truth, that, whatever the\n gospel is designed to destroy at any period of the world, being\n contrary to it, ought now to be abandoned. If, then, the time\n is predicted when swords shall be beaten into plowshares, and\n spears into pruning-hooks, and men shall not learn the art of\n war any more, it follows that all who manufacture, sell, or\n wield those deadly weapons do thus array themselves against the\n peaceful dominion of the Son of God on earth.\n\n \"Having thus briefly stated our principles and purposes, we\n proceed to specify the measures we propose to adopt in carrying\n our object into effect.\n\n \"We expect to prevail through the foolishness of\n preaching,--striving to commend ourselves unto every man's\n conscience, in the sight of God. From the press we shall\n promulgate our sentiments as widely as practicable. We shall\n endeavor to secure the co\u00f6peration of all persons, of whatever\n name or sect. The triumphant progress of the cause of Temperance\n and of Abolition in our land, through the instrumentality of\n benevolent and voluntary associations, encourages us to combine\n our own means and efforts for the promotion of a still greater\n cause. Hence, we shall employ lecturers, circulate tracts\n and publications, form societies, and petition our state and\n national governments, in relation to the subject of Universal\n Peace. It will be our leading object to devise ways and means\n for effecting a radical change in the views, feelings, and\n practices of society, respecting the sinfulness of war and the\n treatment of enemies.\n\n \"In entering upon the great work before us, we are not unmindful\n that, in its prosecution, we may be called to test our sincerity\n even as in a fiery ordeal. It may subject us to insult, outrage,\n suffering, yea, even death itself. We anticipate no small amount\n of misconception, misrepresentation, calumny. Tumults may arise\n against us. The ungodly and violent, the proud and pharisaical,\n the ambitious and tyrannical, principalities and powers, and\n spiritual wickedness in high places, may contrive to crush\n us. So they treated the Messiah, whose example we are humbly\n striving to imitate. If we suffer with Him we know that we\n shall reign with Him. We shall not be afraid of their terror,\n neither be troubled. Our confidence is in the Lord Almighty,\n not in man. Having withdrawn from human protection, what can\n sustain us but that faith which overcomes the world? We shall\n not think it strange concerning the fiery trial which is to\n try us, as though some strange thing had happened unto us; but\n rejoice, inasmuch as we are partakers of Christ's sufferings.\n Wherefore, we commit the keeping of our souls to God, in\n well-doing, as unto a faithful Creator. For every one that\n forsakes house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother,\n or wife, or children, or lands, for Christ's sake, shall receive\n a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.\n\n \"Firmly relying upon the certain and universal triumph of the\n sentiments contained in this declaration, however formidable may\n be the opposition arrayed against them--in solemn testimony of\n our faith in their divine origin--we hereby affix our signatures\n to it, commending it to the reason and conscience of mankind,\n giving ourselves no anxiety as to what may befall us, and\n resolving in the strength of the Lord God calmly and meekly to\n abide the issue.\"\n\nLater on, Garrison founded a Non-resistance Society and started\na periodical entitled _The Non-resistant_, wherein the full\nsignificance and consequences of the doctrine were plainly\nset forth, as has been stated in the proclamation. I gained,\nsubsequently, further information concerning the fate of this\nsociety and the periodical from a biography of William Lloyd\nGarrison, written by his sons.\n\nNeither the periodical nor the society enjoyed a long life. The\nmajority of Garrison's associates in the work of liberating the\nslaves, apprehensive lest the too radical views expressed in\nthe _The Non-resistant_ might alienate men from the practical\nbusiness of the abolition of slavery, renounced the doctrine of\nnon-resistance as expressed in the declaration, and both periodical\nand society passed out of existence.\n\nOne would suppose that this declaration of Garrison, formulating,\nas it did, an important profession of faith in terms both energetic\nand eloquent, would have made a deeper impression on men, and have\nbecome a subject for universal consideration. On the contrary, not\nonly is it unknown in Europe, but even among those Americans who\nhonor the memory of Garrison there are but few who are familiar with\nthis.\n\nA similar fate befell another American champion of the same\ndoctrine, Adin Ballou, who died recently, and who for fifty years\nhad preached in favor of non-resistance to evil. How little is known\nin regard to the question of non-resistance may be gathered from\nthe fact that the younger Garrison (who has written an excellent\nbiography of his father in four large volumes), in answer to my\ninquiry whether any society for the defense of the principles of\nnon-resistance was yet alive and possessed adherents, wrote me\nthat, so far as he knew, the society had dissolved and its members\nwere no longer interested, while at this very time Adin Ballou, who\nhad shared Garrison's labors, and who had devoted fifty years of\nhis life to the teaching of the doctrine of non-resistance, both\nby pen and by tongue, was still living in Hopedale, Massachusetts.\nAfterward I received a letter from Wilson, a disciple and co-worker\nof Ballou, and subsequently I entered into correspondence with\nBallou himself. I wrote to him, and he sent me his works, from\none of which I made the following extract:--\"Jesus Christ is my\nLord and Master,\" says Ballou in one of his articles, written to\nshow the inconsistency of Christians who believe in the right of\ndefensive and offensive warfare. \"I have covenanted to forsake all\nand follow Him, through good and evil report, until death. But I am\nnevertheless a Democratic Republican citizen of the United States,\nimplicitly sworn to bear true allegiance to my country, and to\nsupport its Constitution, if need be, with my life. Jesus Christ\nrequires me to do unto others as I would that others should do\nunto me. The Constitution of the United States requires me to do\nunto twenty-seven hundred thousand slaves\" (they had slaves then;\nnow they could easily be replaced by workmen) \"the very contrary\nof what I would have them do unto me--viz., assist to keep in a\ngrievous bondage.... But I am quite easy. I vote on. I help govern\non. I am willing to hold any office I may be elected to under the\nConstitution. And I am still a Christian. I profess on. I find\ndifficulty in keeping covenant both with Christ and the Constitution.\n\n\"Jesus Christ forbids me to resist evil-doers by taking\n'eye for eye, tooth for tooth, 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.\n\n\"In the maintenance and use of this expensive life-destroying\napparatus we can exemplify the virtues _of forgiving our injuries,\nloving our enemies, blessing them that curse us, and doing good\nto those that hate us_. For this reason we have regular Christian\nchaplains to pray for us and call down the smiles of God on our holy\nmurders.\n\n\"I see it all\" (that is, the contradiction between profession and\nlife), \"and yet I insist that I am as good a Christian as ever. I\nfellowship all; I vote on; I help govern on; I profess on; _and I\nglory in being at once a devoted Christian and a no less devoted\nadherent to the existing government_. I will not give in to those\nmiserable non-resistant notions. I will not throw away my political\ninfluence, and leave unprincipled men to carry on government alone.\n\n\"The Constitution says--'Congress shall have power to declare\nwar, grant letters of marque and reprisal,' and I agree to this,\nI indorse it. I swear to help carry it through. I vote for men to\nhold office who are sworn to support all this. What, then, am I less\na Christian? Is not war a Christian service? Is it not perfectly\nChristian to murder hundreds of thousands of fellow human beings; to\nravish defenseless females, sack and burn cities, and enact all the\nother cruelties of war? Out upon these new-fangled scruples! This is\nthe very way to forgive injuries, and love our enemies! If we only\ndo it all in true love nothing can be more Christian than wholesale\nmurder!\"\n\nIn another pamphlet, entitled \"How many does it take?\" he says--\"One\nman must not kill. If he does, it is murder; two, ten, one hundred\nmen, acting on their responsibility, must not kill. If they do, it\nis still murder. But a state or nation may kill as many as they\nplease, and it is no murder. It is just, necessary, commendable, and\nright. Only get people enough to agree to it, and the butchery of\nmyriads of human beings is perfectly innocent. But how many does it\ntake? This is the question. Just so with theft, robbery, burglary,\nand all other crimes. Man-stealing is a great crime in one man, or\na very few men only. But a whole nation can commit it, and the act\nbecomes not only innocent, but highly honorable.\"\n\nThe following is, in substance, a catechism of Ballou, compiled for\nthe use of his congregation:--\n\n\nTHE CATECHISM OF NON-RESISTANCE.[1]\n\n [1] From the Russian version, which Count Tolsto\u00ef calls a free\n translation made with some omissions. After diligent search and\n inquiry I have been unable to find this catechism among Ballou's\n works.--TR.\n\n_Q._ Whence comes the word non-resistance?\n\n_A._ From the utterance: \"But I say unto you, That ye resist not\nevil.\"--Matthew v. 39.\n\n_Q._ What does this word denote?\n\n_A._ It denotes a lofty Christian virtue, commanded by Christ.\n\n_Q._ Are we to understand the word non-resistance in its broad\nsense, that is, as meaning that one should offer no resistance to\nevil whatsoever?\n\n_A._ No; it should be understood literally as Christ taught it--that\nis, not to return evil for evil. Evil should be resisted by all\nlawful means, but not by evil.\n\n_Q._ From what does it appear that Christ gave that meaning to\nnon-resistance?\n\n_A._ From the words which he used on that occasion. He said: \"Ye\nhave heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth\nfor a tooth. But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but\nwhosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other\nalso. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy\ncoat, let him have thy cloke also.\"\n\n_Q._ Whom did he mean by the words: \"Ye have heard that it hath been\nsaid\"?\n\n_A._ The patriarchs and the prophets, and that which they spoke and\nwhich is contained in the Old Testament, that the Jews generally\ncall the Law and Prophets.\n\n_Q._ To what laws did Christ allude in the words: \"Ye have heard\"?\n\n_A._ To those in which Noah, Moses, and other prophets grant the use\nof personal violence against those who commit it, for the purpose of\npunishing and destroying evil deeds.\n\n_Q._ Mention such commandments.\n\n_A._ \"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be\nshed.\"--Genesis ix. 6.\n\n\"He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to\ndeath. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for\nlife, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,\nburning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.\"--Exodus\nxxi. 12, 23, 24, 25.\n\n\"And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. And if\na man cause a blemish in his neighbor; as he hath done, so shall\nit be done to him; breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for\ntooth.\"--Leviticus xxiv. 17, 19, 20.\n\n\"And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if\nthe witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against\nhis brother; then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have\ndone unto his brother. And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall\ngo for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for\nfoot.\"--Deuteronomy xix. 18, 19, 21.\n\nThese are the injunctions of which Jesus speaks.\n\nNoah, Moses, and the prophets taught that he who murders, mutilates,\nor tortures his neighbor doeth evil. In order to combat and destroy\nthis evil, the evil-doer must be chastised by death, mutilation,\nor some personal torture. Transgressions are to be avenged by\ntransgressions, murder by murder, torture by torture, evil by evil.\nThus taught Noah, Moses, and the prophets. But Christ forbids all\nthis. The gospel says: \"I say unto you, resist ye not evil, avenge\nnot one transgression by another, but rather bear a repetition of\nthe offense from the evil-doer.\" That which has been allowed is now\nforbidden. Having understood what resistance we have been taught, we\nknow exactly what Christ meant by non-resistance.\n\n_Q._ Did the teaching of the Ancients admit of resisting\ntransgression by transgression?\n\n_A._ Yes; but Christ forbade it. A Christian has no right in any\ncase to take the life of, or to offend against, the evil-doer.\n\n_Q._ May he not kill or wound another in self-defense?\n\n_A._ No.\n\n_Q._ May he enter a complaint to the magistrates for the purpose of\nchastising the offender?\n\n_A._ No. For that which he does through others, he practically does\nhimself.\n\n_Q._ May he fight in the army against foreign or domestic enemies?\n\n_A._ Certainly not. He can take no part in war, or in the\npreparation therefor. He cannot make use of weapons. He cannot\nresist one transgression by another, whether he is alone or in\ncompany, either personally or through other agents.\n\n_Q._ May he voluntarily select or drill soldiers for the government?\n\n_A._ He cannot do this, if he wishes to be _faithful_ to the law of\nChrist.\n\n_Q._ May he voluntarily contribute money to assist a government\nwhich is supported by military power, executions, and violence in\ngeneral?\n\n_A._ No; unless the money is to be used for some special purpose,\njustifiable in itself, where the object and the means employed are\ngood.\n\n_Q._ May he pay taxes to such a government?\n\n_A._ No; he should not pay taxes on his own accord, but he should\nnot resist the levying of a tax. A tax imposed by the government\nis levied independently of the will of the citizens. It may not be\nresisted without recourse to violence, and a Christian should not\nuse violence; therefore he must deliver his property to the forced\ndamage caused by authorities.\n\n_Q._ May a Christian vote at elections and take part in courts of\nlaw or in the government?\n\n_A._ No. To take a part in elections, courts of law, or in the\nadministration of government is the same thing as a participation in\nthe violence of the government.\n\n_Q._ What is the chief significance of the doctrine of\nnon-resistance?\n\n_A._ To show that it is possible to extirpate evil from one's own\nheart, as well as from that of one's neighbor. This doctrine forbids\nmen to do that which perpetuates and multiplies evil in this world.\nHe who attacks another, and does him an injury, excites a feeling\nof hatred, the worst of all evil. To offend our neighbor because he\nhas offended us, with ostensible motive of self-defense, means but\nto repeat the evil act against him as well as against ourselves,--it\nmeans to beget, or at least to let loose, or to encourage the Evil\nSpirit whom we wish to expel. Satan cannot be driven out by Satan,\nfalsehood cannot be purged by falsehood, nor can evil be conquered\nby evil. True non-resistance is the only real method of resisting\nevil. It crushes the serpent's head. It destroys and exterminates\nall evil feeling.\n\n_Q._ But admitting that the idea of the doctrine is correct, is it\npracticable?\n\n_A._ As practicable as any virtue commanded by the law of God.\nGood deeds cannot be performed under all circumstances without\nself-sacrifice, privations, suffering, and, in extreme cases,\nwithout the loss of life itself. But he who prizes life more than\nthe fulfilment of God's will is already dead to the only true life.\nSuch a man, in trying to save his life, will lose it. Furthermore,\nwherever non-resistance costs the sacrifice of one's life, or of\nsome essential advantage of life, resistance costs thousands of such\nsacrifices.\n\n_Non-resistance preserves; resistance destroys._\n\nIt is much safer to act justly than unjustly; to endure an offense\nrather than resist it by violence; safer even in regard to the\npresent life. If all men refused to resist evil, the world would be\na happy one.\n\n_Q._ But if only a few were to act thus, what would become of them?\n\n_A._ Even if but one man were to act thus, and the others should\nagree to crucify him, would it not be more glorious for him to die\nin the glory of non-resisting love, praying for his enemies, than\nlive wearing the crown of C\u00e6sar, besprinkled with the blood of the\nmurdered? But whether it be one man or thousands of men who are\nfirmly determined not to resist evil by evil, still, whether in the\nmidst of civilized or uncivilized neighbors, men who do not rely\non violence are safer than those who do. A robber, a murderer, a\nvillain, will be less likely to harm them if he finds them offering\nno armed resistance. \"All they that take the sword shall perish with\nthe sword,\" and he who seeks peace, who acts like a friend, who is\ninoffensive, who forgives and forgets injuries, generally enjoys\npeace, or if he dies, he dies a blessed death.\n\nHence, if all were to follow the commandment of non-resistance,\nthere would manifestly be neither offense nor evil-doing. If even\nthe majority were composed of such men they would establish the rule\nof love and good-will even toward the offenders, by not resisting\nevil by evil nor using violence. Even if such men formed a numerous\nminority, they would have such an improving moral influence over\nsociety that every severe punishment would be revoked, and violence\nand enmity would be replaced by peace and good-will. If they formed\nbut a small minority, they would rarely experience anything worse\nthan the contempt of the world, while the world, without preserving\nit or feeling grateful therefor, would become better and wiser from\nits latent influence. And if, in the most extreme cases, certain\nmembers of the minority might be persecuted unto death, these men,\nthus dying for the truth, would have left their doctrine already\nsanctified by the blood of martyrdom.\n\nPeace be with all ye who seek peace; and may the all-conquering love\nbe the imperishable inheritance of every soul who submits of its own\naccord to the law of Christ.\n\n_Resist not evil by violence._--ADIN BALLOU.\n\n * * * * *\n\nFor fifty years Ballou wrote and published books chiefly on the\nsubject of non-resistance. In these writings, remarkable for their\neloquence and simplicity of style, the question is considered in\nall its aspects. He proved it to be the duty of every Christian\nwho professes to believe that the Bible is a revelation from God,\nto obey this commandment. He enumerates the arguments against the\ncommandment of non-resistance, drawn from the Old as well as the\nNew Testament, the expulsion from the Temple, among others, and\nanswers each one in turn. Setting the Bible aside, he points out the\npractical good sense on which this principle is founded, sums up the\narguments against it, and refutes them. For instance, in one chapter\nof his work he treats of non-resistance to evil in exceptional\ncases, and affirms that granting the truth of the supposition that\nthere are cases to which the rule of non-resistance cannot be\napplied, that would prove that the rule in general is inconsistent.\nCiting such exceptional cases, he proves that these are the very\noccasions when the application of this rule is both wise and\nnecessary. The question has been viewed from every side, and no\nargument, whether of opponent or sympathizer, has been neglected or\nleft unanswered. I mention this in order to call attention to the\ndeep interest which works of this class ought to excite in men who\nprofess Christianity; and it would seem therefore that Ballou's\nzeal should have been recognized, and the ideas he expressed either\naccepted or disproved. But such was not the case.\n\nThe life-work of Garrison, the father, his founding the society\nof the Non-resistant, and his declaration, convinced me, more\neven than my intercourse with the Quakers, that the divergence of\nthe Christianity of the State from Christ's law of non-resistance\nby violence has been long since noticed and pointed out, and men\nhave labored and still do labor to counteract it. Thus Ballou's\nearnestness has fortified my opinion. But the fate of Garrison, and\nparticularly that of Ballou, almost unknown, notwithstanding fifty\nyears of active and persistent work in one direction, has confirmed\nme in the belief that there exists a certain inexpressed but fixed\ndetermination to oppose all such attempts by a wall of silence.\n\nIn August of 1890 Ballou died, and his obituary appeared in the\nAmerican _Religio-Philosophical Journal_ of August 23d.\n\nFrom this obituary we learn that Ballou was the spiritual leader of\na community, that he had preached from 8000 to 9000 sermons, married\n1000 couples, and written 500 articles, but in regard to the object\nof his life's devotion not a word is said; the word \"non-resistance\"\nis never mentioned.\n\nAll the exhortations of the Quakers for 200 years, all the efforts\nof Garrison, the father, the foundation of his society, his\nperiodical, and his declarations, as well as the life-work of\nBallou, are the same as if they had never existed.\n\nAnother striking example of the obscurity into which a work written\nfor the purpose of explaining the principle of non-resistance, and\nto denounce those who refuse to recognize this commandment, may\nfall, is the fate of a book by the Czech Helchitsky, which has only\nrecently been discovered, and which up to the present time has never\nbeen printed.\n\nShortly after the publication of my book in German, I received a\nletter from a professor of the Prague University, who wrote to tell\nme of a book which had never been printed, a work written in the\nfifteenth century by the Czech Helchitsky, and entitled \"The Net of\nFaith.\" In this work, written four centuries ago, Helchitsky, as\nthe professor tells me, has expressed exactly the same opinion in\nregard to true and false Christianity that I did in my work entitled\n\"My Religion.\" The professor wrote that the work of Helchitsky was\nto appear in print for the first time in the Czech language in one\nof the publications of the St. Petersburg Academy of Science. As I\nwas unable to obtain the book, I endeavored to ascertain all that\nwas known of Helchitsky himself, and this knowledge I gained from\na German book sent to me by the same professor in Prague. Besides\nthat I learned something from Pipin's \"History of Czech Literature.\"\nPipin says:--\n\n \"'The Net of Faith' is the doctrine of Christ, wherewith man\n is to be raised from the gloomy depths of the social sea of\n iniquity. True faith is to believe the words of God; but we are\n living in times when men call the true faith heresy; hence it is\n upon our own reason that we must rely to discover the truth if\n we possess it not. Darkness has concealed it from men, and they\n no longer recognize the true law of Christ.\n\n \"As an illustration of the law, Helchitsky cites the original\n social organization of Christian society, which is considered by\n the Church of Rome of the present time as rank heresy.\n\n \"This primitive church was his own ideal of a social order\n founded upon equality, liberty, and fraternity. Christianity,\n according to Helchitsky, still preserves this foundation, and\n has but to return to its pure teaching to render any other\n social order, whose existence requires the authority of pope or\n king, quite superfluous. The law of love will suffice for all....\n\n \"Historically, Helchitsky assigns the decadence of Christianity\n to the time of Constantine the Great, whom the Pope Silvester\n received into the Church in spite of his pagan life and morals.\n Constantine, in return, rewarded the Pope by endowing him with\n riches and temporal power. Since then these two forces have\n played into each other's hands, seeking only outward glory.\n Doctors, men of learning, and the clergy, caring only to\n maintain their influence over the world, excited the nations one\n against the other, encouraging the crimes of murder and rapine,\n and thus destroying Christianity, both in faith and practice.\n Helchitsky totally denies the right of man to wage war or to\n exact the penalty of death. According to him, every soldier,\n even if he be a 'knight,' is only a transgressor, a criminal,\n and a murderer.\"\n\nAll this, with the addition of some biographical details and\nextracts from the correspondence of Helchitsky, is related in the\nGerman book.\n\nHaving thus become acquainted with the essence of Helchitsky's\nteachings, I waited with still greater impatience the appearance of\n\"The Net of Faith\" in the Academy's periodical. But one, two, three\nyears passed, and the book was not forthcoming. It was only in 1888\nthat I learned that the printing had been suspended. I obtained\nthe proof-sheets of what had been printed, and read them. In many\nrespects it was a wonderful book.\n\nIts contents have been accurately summarized by Pipin. Helchitsky's\nprincipal idea is that Christianity, in league with sovereignty\nduring the reign of Constantine the Great, and continuing to\ndevelop under these conditions, became corrupted, and ceased to be\nChristianity. He called his book \"The Net of Faith\" because he had\nchosen for his motto that verse from the New Testament which speaks\nof the disciples as fishers of men. He carries on the simile thus:\n\"Through His disciples, Christ caught the world in the net of His\nfaith, but the larger fishes, breaking the net, escaped; then others\nfollowed through these same holes made by the large fishes, and the\nnet was left almost empty.\" By the big fish he means the popes,\nemperors, and sovereigns who, without giving up their authority,\naccepted Christianity, not in its reality, but in its semblance.\n\nHelchitsky teaches the same doctrine that is now taught by the\nnon-resistant Mennonites and Quakers, and in former times by\nthe Bogomiles, the Paulicians, and other sects. He teaches that\nChristianity, requiring, as it does from its followers, humility,\ngentleness, a forgiving spirit, the turning of the other cheek when\none is struck, and the love of one's enemies, is not compatible\nwith that violence which is an essential element of authority. A\nChristian, according to Helchitsky, should not only refuse to be a\ncommander or a soldier, but he should take no part in government,\nneither should he become a tradesman, nor even a landowner. He\nmight be an artisan or a farmer. This book is among the few which\nhave been saved from the flame into which books denouncing official\nChristianity were commonly cast. As all such so-called heretical\nworks were usually burned with their authors, very few of those\nwhich denounce official Christianity have been preserved--and for\nthis reason the book of which we speak has a special interest.\n\nBut apart from its interest, concerning which there may be\ndifferences of opinion, it is one of the most remarkable results of\nhuman thought, both on account of its profundity and the wonderful\npower and beauty of its language, not to mention its antiquity. And\nyet this book has remained unprinted for centuries, and continues to\nbe unknown except to a few specialists. (_See Note, end of Chapter._)\n\nOne would think that works like these of the Quakers, of Garrison,\nof Ballou, and of Helchitsky,--which affirm and prove by the\nauthority of the Bible that the world misinterprets the teaching of\nChrist,--would arouse an interest, would make a sensation, would\ngive rise to discussions between the clergy and their flocks.\n\nOne might suppose that works which deal with the very essence of the\nChristian doctrine would be reviewed, and either acknowledged to be\njust, or else refuted and condemned.\n\nNot at all. Every one of these works suffers the same fate. Men\nof widely differing opinions, believers, and, what is still more\nsurprising, unbelieving liberals, as though by common consent,\npreserve an obstinate silence in regard to them. Thus every attempt\nto explain the true meaning of Christ's doctrine goes for nothing.\n\nAnd more astonishing still is the ignorance concerning two works\nwhose existence was made known to me after the publication of my\nown book. One is a work by Dymond, \"On War,\" printed for the first\ntime in London in 1824, and the other by Daniel Musser, entitled\n\"Non-resistance Asserted,\" was written in 1864.\n\nThe ignorance in regard to these books is amazing; the more so, that\napart from their merit, both treat, not so much of the theory as of\nits practical application to life; of the relations of Christianity\nto military service, which is particularly interesting in view of\nthe system of conscription. It may be asked, perhaps, what action is\nbefitting for a subject who believes that war is incompatible with\nreligion when his government calls upon him for military service?\n\nOne would take this to be a vital question, whose answer, in view\nof our present system of conscription, becomes one of serious\nimportance. All men, or the majority of mankind, are Christians,\nand every male is required to do military duty. How man, in his\nChristian character, is to meet this demand, Dymond gives the\nfollowing reply:--\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\"Those who suppose that obedience in all things is required, or that\nresponsibility in political affairs is transferred from the subject\nto the sovereign, reduce themselves to a great dilemma. It is to\nsay that we must resign our conduct and our consciences to the will\nof others, and act wickedly, or well, as their good or evil may\npreponderate, without merit for virtue or responsibility for crime.\"\n\nIt is worthy of notice that the same is expressed in a maxim to\nsoldiers, which they are required to memorize. Dymond says that only\na commander answers for the consequences of his order. But this\nis unjust. A man cannot remove the responsibility for his actions\nfrom himself. And this is evident from the following: \"If your\nsuperior orders you to kill your child, your neighbor, your father,\nor your mother, will you obey? If you will not, there is an end of\nthe argument; for if you may reject his authority in one instance,\nwhere is the limit to rejection? There is no rational limit but that\nwhich is assigned by Christianity, and that is both rational and\npracticable....\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 honorable and an awful duty is laid upon them. It is upon\ntheir fidelity, so far as human agency is concerned, that the\ncause of peace is suspended. Let them, then, be willing to avow\ntheir opinions and to defend them. Neither let them be contented\nwith words, if more than words, if suffering also, is required.\nIt is only by the unyielding fidelity of virtue that corruption\ncan be extirpated. If you believe that Jesus Christ has prohibited\nslaughter, let not the opinions or the commands of a world induce\nyou to join in it. By this 'steady and determinate pursuit of\nvirtue,' the benediction which attaches to those who hear the\nsayings of God, and do them, will rest upon you, and the time will\ncome when even the world will honor you as contributors to the work\nof human reformation.\"\n\nMusser's work, entitled \"Non-resistance Asserted; or, Kingdom of\nChrist and Kingdom of this World Separated,\" was published in 1864.\n\nThis book deals with the same question, drawing its illustrations\nfrom the drafting of the United States citizens during the time of\nthe Civil War. In setting forth the reasons why men should have\nthe right to decline military service, his arguments are no less\napplicable to the present time. In his Introduction the author says:\n\"It is well known that there are great numbers of people in the\nUnited States who profess to be conscientiously opposed to war. They\nare mostly called non-resistants, or defenseless Christians, and\nrefuse to defend their country, or take up arms at the call of the\ngovernment and go forth to battle against its enemies. Hitherto this\nconscientious scruple has been respected by the government in this\ncountry; and those claiming it have been relieved or excused from\nthis service.\n\n\"Since the commencement of the present civil war in the United\nStates the public mind has been unusually agitated on this subject.\nIt is not unreasonable that such persons as feel it to be their\nduty to go forth and endure the hardships of camp life, and imperil\nhealth, life, and limb in defense of their country and government,\nshould feel some jealousy of those who have, with themselves, long\nenjoyed the protection and benefits of the government, and yet, in\nthe hour of its need, refuse to share the burden of its defense\nand protection. Neither is it strange that such a position should\nbe looked upon as most unreasonable and monstrous, and those who\nhold it be regarded with some suspicion. \"Many able speakers and\nwriters,\" says the author, \"have raised their voices and pens\nto refute the idea of non-resistance, as both unreasonable and\nunscriptural. This is not to be wondered at, seeing that those who\nprofess the principle and do not possess it, or correctly understand\nit, act inconsistently, and thereby bring the profession into\ndisrepute and contempt. However much misapplication or abuse of a\nprinciple may prejudice the minds of those who are unacquainted with\na subject, it is yet no argument against its truth.\"\n\nThe author at first proves it to be the duty of each Christian to\nobey the rule of non-resistance. He says that the rule is perfectly\nexplicit, and that it has been given by Christ to all Christianity\nwithout any possibility of being misinterpreted. \"Judge for\nyourselves, whether it is right or wrong to obey man more than you\ndo the Lord,\" said both Peter and John; and in exactly the same way\nevery man who wishes to be a Christian should regard the requirement\nof his nation to be a soldier, remembering that Christ has told him,\n\"Do not resist evil.\"\n\nThis, in the opinion of Musser, decides the question of principle.\nAnother point, as to the right of declining military duty while\none enjoys the advantages accruing through violence, the author\nconsiders in detail, and arrives at the conclusion that should a\nChristian who follows the teaching of Christ refuse to go to the\nwar, he must also decline to take any position under the government\nor any part in the elections, neither must he have recourse to any\nofficer of the law for his own personal advantage. Our author goes\non to consider the relation between the Old and New Testaments,\nand the significance of government for non-Christians; arguments\nagainst the doctrine of non-resistance are enumerated and refuted.\nThe author closes his book with the following words:--\"Christians\nneed no governments: for they ought not to obey it in those matters\nwherein Christ's teaching is set at naught, and still less should\nthey take an active part in it. Christ has chosen His disciples out\nof the world. They have no promise of temporal good or happiness,\nbut the contrary. Their promise is in the world to come. The spirit\nwhich they possess renders them happy and contented in any sphere of\nlife. So long as the world tolerates them, they are contented; but\nif it will not let them dwell in peace, they flee to another city or\nplace; and so they are true pilgrims and strangers on earth, having\nno certain abiding place.... They are well contented that the dead\nmay bury their dead, if they are only permitted to follow Christ.\"\n\nWithout deciding upon the merits of this definition of a Christian's\nduty in regard to war, which we find set down in these two works, we\ncannot fail to see the urgent need for a decision in regard to the\nquestion itself.\n\nThere are men--hundreds of thousands of Quakers, Mennonites, our\nown Duhobortzi, Molokani, men who belong to no sect whatsoever--who\nbelieve that violence and therefore military service is incompatible\nwith Christianity; every year, for instance, we see in Russia a\nnumber of men refusing to obey the conscription because of their\nreligious opinions. And how does the government deal with them?\nDoes it release them? Oh, no!... Does it use force, and in case\nof disobedience punish them? Not exactly.... In 1818, government\nmanaged the affair in this wise.\n\nThe following is an extract, hardly known to any one in Russia, from\na letter of Muraviev-Karsky, which was prohibited by the Russian\ncensor:--\n\n \"TIFLIS, _October 2d, 1818_.\n\n \"This morning the commander of the fortress told me that five\n peasants belonging to the landowners of the government of Tambov\n had been recently sent into the province of Grusia. These men\n were intended to serve as soldiers, but they refused to obey.\n They were flogged several times and made to run the gantlet,\n but they were ready to give themselves up to the most cruel\n tortures, yea, even to death itself, to escape military service.\n 'Let us go our way and harm us not; we do no harm ourselves. All\n men are equal. The sovereign is a man like one of us, why should\n we pay him taxes, and wherefore should we risk our lives to\n kill in battle those who have never done us any harm? Draw and\n quarter us, if you will, and we shall never change our minds; we\n will never wear the uniform, nor mess at the soldier's table.\n Some pitying soul may give us alms but from the government we\n neither have had nor will have anything whatsoever.' Such are\n the words of these peasants, who assure us that there are many\n men in Russia like themselves. Four times they were brought\n before the Committee of Ministers, and it was finally decided\n that a report be made to the Czar, who ordered them to be sent\n to Grusia for discipline, and desired the Commander-in-Chief to\n forward a monthly report of the progress made in bringing these\n peasants to a proper frame of mind.\"\n\nThe final result of this discipline is not known, for the matter was\nkept a profound secret, and the episode may never have been made\npublic.\n\nThis was the conduct of the government seventy-five years ago in the\ngreater number of cases, always carefully hiding the truth from the\npeople; and it pursues the same policy at the present day, except\nin regard to the German Mennonites, who live in the government of\nKherson, and who in lieu of military duty serve a corresponding term\nas foresters,--the justice of their refusal to obey the conscription\nbeing recognized.\n\nBut they are the sole exception; all others who, from religious\nscruples, refuse to perform military duty are treated in the manner\njust described.\n\nAt first the government employs all the methods of coercion now in\nuse to discipline and _convert_ the rebels, while at the same time\nthe most profound secrecy envelops all these proceedings. I know of\na process which was begun in 1884 against a man who had declined to\nserve,--a long-drawn-out trial which was guarded by the Ministry as\na great secret.\n\nThe first step is usually to send the accused to the priests,\nand, be it said to their shame, they always try to win over the\ninsubordinate. But as the influence exercised in the name of Christ\nis generally unsuccessful, the delinquent is sent from the clergy to\nthe gendarmes, who, finding in him no political offense, send him\nback; whereupon he is despatched to the scientists, the doctors, and\nthence into the insane hospital. While he is thus sent to and fro,\nthe delinquent, deprived of his liberty like a condemned convict,\nis made to endure every kind of indignity and suffering. Four such\ncases have come to my knowledge. The doctors generally release the\nman from the insane hospital, and then every underhanded and crafty\ndevice is employed to delay the accused, because his release might\nencourage others to follow his example. He is not allowed to remain\namong the soldiers lest they discover from him that conscription\nis not, as they are taught to believe, in accordance with the law\nof God, but opposed to it. The most satisfactory arrangement for a\ngovernment would be either to execute the delinquent, or beat him\nwith rods until he died, as was done in former times. But it is\nawkward to condemn a man to public execution because he is true to\nthe doctrine which we all profess to believe. Nor is it possible to\ntake no notice of a man when he refuses to obey. So the government\neither tortures the man in order to compel him to deny Christ, or\ntries to rid itself of him by some means which will hide both the\nman and the crime from the eyes of the world, rather than resort to\npublic execution. All sorts of cunning man\u0153uvers and tricks are\nemployed to torment the man. He is either banished to some remote\nprovince, or exasperated to disobedience and then imprisoned, or\nsent to the reform battalion, where he may be subjected to torture\nwithout publicity or restriction; or he is pronounced insane and\nlocked up in the insane asylum. For instance, one was exiled to\nTashkent; that is to say, a pretense was made of transferring him\nthither. Another was sent to Omsk, a third was court-martialed for\ndisobedience and imprisoned, and a fourth was put into a house for\nthe insane. The same thing is repeated on every side. Not only\nthe government, but the majority of liberal free-thinkers, as\nthough by preconcerted agreement, carefully avoid alluding to what\nhas been said, written, or done in this matter of denouncing the\ninconsistency of violence, as embodied in its most shocking, crude,\nand striking form, in the person of a soldier,--this readiness to\ncommit murder,--not only with the precepts of Christianity, but with\nthe dictates of mere humanity, which the world professes to obey.\n\nHence all the information that I have gathered concerning what\nhas been accomplished, and what is still going on in this work of\nexplaining the doctrine of Christ and the light in which it is\nregarded by the ruling powers of Europe and America, has confirmed\nme in the conviction that a spirit inimical to true Christianity\ndwells in these authorities, exhibited chiefly by the conspiracy of\nsilence with which they enshroud any manifestation of it.\n\nNOTE\n\n \"The publication of this book ('The Net of Faith') was ended\n [completed] by the Academy in the last months of the present\n year (1893).\"--_Note received by the Publisher from Count\n Tolsto\u00ef while this work was going to press._\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nOPINIONS OF BELIEVERS AND UNBELIEVERS IN REGARD TO NON-RESISTANCE\n\n The fate of the book, \"My Religion\"--The evasive answers\n of religious critics to the questions propounded in that\n book--1st answer, Violence does not contradict Christianity--2d\n answer, Necessity of violence for the purpose of repressing\n evil-doers--3d answer, Necessity of violence for the defense of\n one's neighbor--4th answer, The violation of the commandment of\n Non-resistance regarded as a weakness--5th answer, Evasion of\n the answer by a pretense that this matter has long since been\n decided--The cloak of church authority, antiquity, the holiness\n of religious men, explain for many the contradictions between\n violence and Christianity, in theory as well as in life--Usual\n attitude of the clergy and authorities in regard to the\n profession of true Christianity--General character of Russian\n secular writers--Foreign secular critics--Incorrectness of the\n opinions of the former and the latter caused by a failure to\n understand the true meaning of the doctrine of Christ.\n\n\nAll the criticisms of the statements contained in my own book have\ngiven me a similar impression of a wish to ignore the subject.\n\nAs I had anticipated, no sooner was the book published than it\nwas prohibited, and should, according to law, have been burned.\nBut instead of being consumed by the flames, every copy was taken\nby the government officials and circulated in large numbers,\nboth in manuscript and in the lithographed sheets, as well as in\ntranslations which were published abroad. It was not long before\ncriticisms began to appear, not only from the clergy, but from the\nsecular world, which the government, so far from forbidding, took\npains to encourage. Hence the very refutation of the book, the\nexistence of which they assumed to be unknown, was made the theme of\ntheological controversy.\n\nThese criticisms, both foreign and domestic, may be divided into two\nclasses, religious and secular; the former by persons who consider\nthemselves believers, and the latter by free-thinkers. I shall\nbegin by considering the former. In my book I accuse the clergy\nof inculcating doctrines contrary to the commandments of Christ,\nplainly and clearly expressed in the Sermon on the Mount, and\nparticularly in regard to the commandment of non-resistance to evil,\nthereby depriving the doctrine of Christ of all its significance.\nDo the ministers of the gospel believe the Sermon on the Mount,\nincluding the commandment of non-resistance, to be of divine origin?\nHaving felt themselves obliged to review my book, it would seem as\nif they must first of all answer the principal charge, and declare\nat once whether they do or do not consider the Sermon on the Mount\nand the commandment of non-resistance obligatory upon a Christian.\nInstead of making the usual reply, couched in words such as, \"Though\none cannot deny, neither can one affirm, the more so as,\" etc.,\nlet them give a categorical answer to my question: Did Christ\npractically require his disciples to do that which he taught in\nthe Sermon on the Mount, and therefore may a Christian appeal to a\nlegal tribunal, either for defense or prosecution, and still remain\na Christian? May he consistently take a part in a government which\nis the instrument of violence? And that most important question,\nwhich, since the introduction of the general conscription, concerns\nus all: May a Christian remain a Christian and still disobey the\ndirect command of Christ; may he promise to conduct himself in a\nmanner directly opposed to the doctrine of Christ, by entering into\nmilitary service and putting himself in training to be a murderer?\n\nThe questions are put plainly and directly, and would seem to call\nfor plain and direct answers. But no; my book has been received\njust as all previous denunciations have been, those denunciations\nof the clergy who have deviated from the law of Christ, with which\nhistory abounds since the time of Constantine the Great. Many\nwords have been expended in noting the errors of my interpretation\nof this or that passage of the Scriptures, of how wrong I am in\nreferring to the Trinity, the Redemption, and the Immortality of\nthe soul, but never a word of that vital question: How are we to\nreconcile those lessons of forgiveness, humility, patience, and\nlove toward all mankind, our neighbors as well as our enemies,\ntaught us by the Teacher, which dwell in the heart of each of us,\nwith the necessities caused by military aggressions against our\nown countrymen as well as against foreigners? All that deserves\nthe name of a response to these questions may be summed up under\nfive headings. I have endeavored to bring together in this book not\nonly the criticisms upon my book, but everything that has ever been\nwritten on this subject.\n\nThe first criticisms with which I deal come mostly from men of high\nposition, either in Church or State, who feel quite sure that no one\nwill venture to combat their assertions; should any one make the\nattempt, they would never hear the arguments. These men, intoxicated\nfor the most part by their authority, have forgotten that there is a\nChristianity in whose name they hold their places. They condemn as\nsectarian all that which is truly Christ-like in Christianity, while\non the other hand, every text in both Old and New Testaments which\ncan be wrested from its meaning so as to justify an anti-Christian\nor pagan sentiment--upon these they establish the foundation of\nChristianity. In order to confirm their statement that Christianity\nis not opposed to violence, these men generally quote, with the\ngreatest assurance, equivocal passages from the Old and New\nTestaments, interpreting them in the most anti-Christian spirit--the\ndeath of Ananias and Sapphira, the execution of Simon the Sorcerer,\netc. All of Christ's words that can possibly be misinterpreted are\nquoted in vindication of cruelty--the expulsion from the Temple, the\nwords \"... it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom than\nfor that city\" (Luke x. 12), and other passages. According to these\nmen, a Christian is not at all obliged to be guided by the spirit\nof humility, forgiveness, and love of his enemies. It is useless\nto try to refute such a doctrine, because men who affirm it refute\nthemselves, or rather they turn away from Christ Himself, to invent\nan ideal and a form of religion all their own, forgetful of Him in\nwhose name both the Church and the offices they hold exist. If men\nbut knew that the Church preaches an unforgiving, murder-loving, and\nbelligerent Christ, they would not believe in that Church, and its\ndoctrines would be defended by none.\n\nThe second method, somewhat more awkward, consists in affirming that\nthough Christ did, in point of fact, teach us to turn the other\ncheek, and to share our cloak, and that these are indeed lofty\nmoral laws, still ... the world abounds in evil-doers, and if these\nwretches are not subdued by force, the righteous will perish and the\nworld will be destroyed. I met with this argument for the first time\nin St. John Chrysostom, and have called attention to its unfairness\nin my book entitled \"My Religion.\"\n\nThis argument is groundless, because if we allow ourselves to look\nupon our fellow-men as evil-doers, outcasts (Raka), we sap the very\nfoundations of the Christian doctrine, which teaches us that we,\nthe children of the Heavenly Father, are brothers, and equal one to\nthe other. In the second place, if the same Father had permitted\nus to use violence toward wrong-doers, as there is no infallible\nrule for distinguishing the good from the evil, every individual\nor every community might class its neighbors under the head of\nevil-doers, which is practically the case at the present time. In\nthe third place, if it were possible to distinguish the righteous\nfrom the unrighteous, even then it would not be expedient in a\nChristian community to put to death, to cripple, or to imprison the\nevil-doers, as in such a community there would be no one to execute\nthese sentences, since every man in his quality of Christian is\nforbidden to do violence to a malefactor.\n\nThe third mode of reply, more ingenious than the preceding ones,\nconsists in affirming that while to obey the commandment of\nnon-resistance is every Christian's duty, when the injury is a\npersonal one, it ceases to be obligatory when harm is done to one's\nneighbor, and that in such an emergency a Christian is bound to\nbreak the commandment and use force against the evil-doer. This\nassertion is purely arbitrary, and one finds no justification for it\nthroughout the whole body of the doctrine of Christ.\n\nSuch an interpretation is not only a narrow one, but actually\namounts to a direct negation. If every man has the right to employ\nviolence whenever his neighbor is threatened with danger, then the\nquestion becomes reduced to this: How may one define what is called\ndanger to one's neighbor? If, however, my private judgment is to be\narbiter in this matter, then any violence which I might commit on\nany occasion whatever could be excused by the declaration that my\nneighbor was in danger. Magicians have been burned, aristocrats and\nGirondists put to death, because the men in power considered them\ndangerous.\n\nIf this important condition, which destroys the significance of the\ncommandment, ever entered into the thought of Christ, it would have\nbeen formulated somewhere. Not only is no such exception to the\ncommandment to be found throughout the Teacher's life and lessons,\nbut there is on the other hand a warning against an interpretation\nso false and misleading.\n\nThe error and the impracticability of such a definition is vividly\nillustrated in the Bible story of Caiaphas, who made use of this\nvery same interpretation. He admitted that it was not well to put\nto death the innocent Jesus, but at the same time he perceived the\nexistence of a danger, not for himself, but for all the people, and\ntherefore declared it better for one man to die, rather than that a\nwhole nation should perish.\n\nAnd we have a still more explicit proof of the fallacy of this\ninterpretation in the words addressed to Peter, when he tried to\nrevenge by violence the attack upon Jesus (Matthew xxvi. 51). Peter\nwas defending not himself, but his beloved and divine Master, and\nChrist distinctly forbade him, saying, \"For all they that take\nthe sword shall perish with the sword\" (Matthew xxvi. 52). One\ncan never justify an act of violence against one's fellow-man by\nclaiming to have done it in defense of another who was enduring some\nwrong, because in committing an act of violence, it is impossible\nto compare the one wrong with the other, and to say which is the\ngreater, that which one is about to commit, or the wrong done\nagainst one's neighbor. We release society from the presence of a\ncriminal by putting him to death, but we cannot possibly know that\nthe former might not have so changed by the morrow as to render the\nexecution a useless cruelty. We imprison another, we believe him a\ndangerous man; but no later than next day this very man may have\nceased to be dangerous, and his imprisonment has become unnecessary.\nI see a robber, a man known to me, pursuing a girl; I hold a gun\nin my hand; I wound or perhaps kill the robber, and save the girl.\nThe fact that I have either wounded or killed the robber remains,\nbut I know not what might have happened had I not done so. And what\na vast amount of harm must and does accrue from the assurance that\na man feels of his right to provide against a possible calamity.\nNinety-nine parts of the world's iniquity, from the Inquisition to\nthe bomb-throwing of the present day, and the execution of tens of\nthousands of political criminals, so called, result from this very\nassurance.\n\nThe fourth and still more ingenious reply to this question of\nthe Christian's responsibility in regard to the commandment of\nChrist concerning non-resistance to evil by violence, consists in\nasserting that this commandment is not denied, but acknowledged,\nlike all the others; it is only the special significance attributed\nto it by sectarians that is denied. Our critics declare that the\nviews of Garrison, Ballou, and Dymond, as well as those professed\nby the Quakers, the Shakers, the Mennonites, the Moravians, the\nWaldenses, Albigenses, Bogomiles, and Paulicians, are those of\nbigoted sectarians. This commandment, they say, has the importance,\nno more and no less, of all the others; and one who through weakness\nhas transgressed against any of the commandments, whether that of\nnon-resistance or another, does not for that cause cease to be a\nChristian, provided his creed be true.\n\nThis is a very cunning and persuasive subterfuge, especially for\nthose who are willing to be deceived, reducing the direct negation\nof the commandment to its accidental infraction. One has, however,\nbut to compare the attitude of the clergy toward this or any of the\nother commandments which they do acknowledge, to be convinced that\nit is quite different from their attitude toward this one.\n\nThe commandment against fornication they acknowledge without\nreservation, and in no case will they ever admit that this sin is\nnot an evil. There are no circumstances mentioned by the clergy\nwhen the commandment against fornication may be broken, and they\nalways insist that the occasions for this sin must be avoided.\nBut in regard to non-resistance it is a very different matter.\nEvery clergyman believes that there are circumstances wherein this\ncommandment may be held in abeyance, and they preach accordingly.\nSo far from teaching their parishioners to avoid the temptations\nto this sin, chief among which is the oath of allegiance, they\ntake the oath themselves. Clergymen have never been known to\nadvocate the breaking of any other commandment; but in regard to\nthe doctrine of non-resistance, they distinctly teach that this\nprohibition must not be taken too literally, that so far from\nalways obeying this commandment, one should on occasion follow\nthe opposite course--that is, one should sit in judgment, should\ngo to war, and should execute criminals. Thus in most of the cases\nwhere non-resistance to evil by violence is in question, the\npreachers will be found to advocate disobedience. Obedience to this\ncommandment, they say, is difficult, and can only be practicable\nin a state of society whose members are perfect. But how is it to\nbecome less difficult, when its infraction is not only condoned, but\ndirectly encouraged, when legal tribunals, prisons, the implements\nof warfare, the cannon and muskets, armies and battles, receive the\nblessing of the Church? Therefore this reply is not true. Evidently\nthe statement that this commandment is acknowledged by the clergy to\nbe of equal validity with the other commandments cannot be true.\n\nClergymen do not really acknowledge it, yet, unwilling to admit this\nfact, they try by evasion to conceal their non-acknowledgment.\n\nSuch is the fourth method of answering.\n\nThe fifth, more ingenious than its predecessor, is the popular one\nof all. It consists in quietly evading reply, pretending that the\nquestion was solved ages ago, in a cogent and satisfactory manner,\nand that it would be a waste of words to reopen the subject. This\nmethod is employed by all the more cultured authors, who, if they\nmade answer at all, would feel themselves bound to be logical.\nRealizing that the inconsistency between that doctrine of Christ,\nof which we make a verbal profession, and the scheme of our daily\nlives, is not to be solved by words, and that the more it is talked\nthe more glaring this inconsistency becomes, they evade it with\nmore or less circumspection, pretending that the question of union\nbetween Christianity and the law of violence has either been already\nsolved, or else that it cannot be solved at all.[2]\n\n [2] I know of but one criticism, or rather essay, for it can hardly\n be termed criticism, in the strict sense of the word, which treats\n of the same subject, having my book in view. It is a pamphlet by\n Tro\u00eftzky, called \"The Sermon on the Mount\" (printed in Kazan).\n Evidently the author acknowledges the doctrine of Christ in the\n fullness of its meaning. He declares that the commandment of\n non-resistance to evil means what it says, and the same with the\n commandment as to taking an oath. He does not deny, as others have\n done, the meaning of Christ's teaching, but unfortunately neither\n does he draw those inevitable conclusions which must result from\n a conception such as his own of Christ's doctrine. If one is not\n to resist evil by violence, nor to take an oath, it is but natural\n to ask: Then what is the duty of a soldier? And what is to be done\n about taking the oath of allegiance? But to these questions the\n author makes no reply, and surely a reply should have been given. If\n he had none to make, it would have been better to have said nothing\n at all.\n\nMost of my clerical critics have made use of this method. I might\nquote scores of criticisms of this class, wherein everything\nis discussed except the vital principle of the book. As a\ncharacteristic specimen of these criticisms I will quote from an\narticle by that well-known and scholarly Englishman, the writer and\npreacher, Canon Farrar, who, like so many other learned theologians,\nis an expert in the art of silently ignoring and evading a\nstatement. The article appeared in an American magazine, _The\nForum_, for October, 1888.\n\nAfter briefly but conscientiously setting forth the subject-matter\nof my book, Farrar says:--\"After repeated search the central\nprinciple of all Christ's teaching seemed to him [Tolsto\u00ef] to be,\n'Resist not evil' or 'him that is evil.' He came to the conclusion\nthat a coarse deceit had been palmed upon the world when these words\nwere held by civil society to be compatible with war, courts of\njustice, capital punishment, divorce, oaths, national prejudice,\nand indeed with most of the institutions of civil and social life.\nHe now believes that the Kingdom of God would come if all men\nkept these five commandments, which he holds to be the pith of\nall Christ's teaching--viz.: 1. Live in peace with all men. 2. Be\npure. 3. Take no oaths. 4. Never resist evil. 5. Renounce national\ndistinctions.... Most of the Bible does not seem to him to reflect\nthe spirit of Christ at all, though it has been brought into\nartificial and unwarrantable connection with it. Hence he rejects\nthe chief doctrines of the Church: that of the Atonement by blood,\nthat of the Trinity, that of the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the\nApostles and the transmission to the priesthood by laying on of\nhands, that of the need of the seven sacraments for salvation. He\nsets aside the authority of Paul, of councils, of fathers, popes,\nor patriarchs, and believes himself to be the immediate disciple of\nChrist alone.... But we are compelled to ask, Is this interpretation\nof Christ a true one? Are all men bound, or is any man bound, to act\nas this great writer has done?\"\n\nOne might naturally expect that this vital question, which alone\ncould induce a man to write a dissertation on the book, would be\nanswered either by admitting that my interpretation of the doctrine\nof Christ is correct and should be accepted, or declaring that\nit is erroneous, proving his point, and offering a more correct\ninterpretation of the words which I have misconstrued. But no;\nFarrar merely expresses his belief that \"though actuated by the\nnoblest sincerity, Count Tolsto\u00ef has been misled by partial and\none-sided interpretations of the meaning of the gospel and the\nmind and will of Christ.\" In what this error consists he does not\nexplain, but says: \"_To enter into the proof of this is impossible\nin this article, for I have already exceeded the space at my\ncommand_.\" And concludes with equanimity: \"Meanwhile the reader\nwho feels troubled lest it should be his duty also to forsake all\nthe conditions of his life, and to take up the position and work\nof a common laborer, may rest for the present on the principle,\n'Securus judicat orbis terrarum.' With few and rare exceptions the\nwhole of Christendom, from the days of the Apostles down to our\nown, has come to the firm conclusion that it was the object of\nChrist to lay down great eternal principles, but not to disturb the\nbases and revolutionize the institutions as well as all inevitable\nconditions. Were it my object to prove how untenable is the doctrine\nof communism, based by Count Tolsto\u00ef upon the divine paradoxes,\nwhich can be interpreted on only historical principles in accordance\nwith the whole method of the teaching of Jesus, it would require an\nampler canvas than I have here at my disposal.\" What a pity that he\nhas no space! And, wonderful to relate, no one for fifteen centuries\never had the space to prove that the Christ whom we profess said one\nthing and meant another. And of course they could prove it if they\nwould! But it is not worth while to prove what everybody knows to be\ntrue. It is enough to say: \"Securus judicat orbis terrarum.\"\n\nThe criticisms of all educated believers are very much alike,\nbecause realizing as they must the danger of their position, they\nfeel that their only safeguard lies in the hope that by sheltering\nthemselves behind the authority and holiness of the Church, they may\nsucceed in intimidating their readers, or diverting them from any\nidea of reading the Bible for themselves or using their own reason\nto solve this question. And this is a method that succeeds. To whom\nwould it ever occur, indeed, that all these assurances, repeated\nwith so much solemnity, century after century, by archdeacons,\nbishops, and archbishops, synods and popes, are a base falsehood,\na calumny against the character of Christ, uttered for the purpose\nof assuring to themselves the money they require to lead a life\nof ease at the expense of others,--a falsehood and a calumny so\npalpable, particularly now, that the only chance of perpetuating\nthis falsehood lies in holding the people in awe by their arrogance\nand audacity?\n\nThe very same thing has been going on of late years in the Bureau\nof military conscription. A number of aged officials, decorated\nand self-important, are at a table, a full-lengthed portrait of\nthe Emperor with the mirror of justice before them, and, while\nleisurely chatting with each other, they write, call out the names,\nand give their orders. Here also, with a cross upon his breast, his\nhair blowing over his stole, a genial and venerable-looking priest\ndressed in a silk robe sits before a pulpit on which is placed a\ngolden cross and a Bible with gilt clasps.\n\nIvan Petrov is called. An untidy, poorly clad youth, with a\nfrightened expression, twitching muscles, and gleaming eyes that\nhave a wandering look, steps forward, and in a hesitating, broken\nvoice almost whispers: \"I ... according to law ... as a Christian\n... I ... I cannot....\" \"What is he muttering?\" asks the chairman,\nimpatiently, squinting and making an effort to hear, as he raises\nhis head from the book. \"Speak louder!\" exclaims the colonel with\nthe glittering shoulder-straps. \"As a Christian ... I ... I....\"\nAnd at last it becomes plain that the youth refuses to enter the\nmilitary service because he is a Christian. \"Don't talk nonsense!\nMeasure him! Doctor, be kind enough to look at the measure. Will he\ndo?\" \"He will do.\" \"Holy Father, let him take the oath.\"\n\nNot only is there no uneasiness on the part of the officers, but no\none pays the least attention to the muttering of this frightened,\npitiable youth. \"They always mutter, and we are in a hurry; we have\nstill so many more to receive.\"\n\nThe recruit tries to speak again. \"This is against the law of\nChrist!\" \"Move on! move on! We know what is lawful and what is not!\nMove on! Father, make him understand! Next! Vassili Nikitin!\"\n\nThen the trembling youth is led away. Now which of all these men,\nthe soldiers, Vassili Nikitin, the new man on the list, or any other\nwitness of the scene,--which of these would ever dream that the\nunintelligible, broken utterances of the youth, silenced forthwith\nby the magistrates, embodied the real truth, while the loud,\narrogant speeches of the officials, of the priest, uttered with\nauthority, were actually false?\n\nThe same impression is made not only by Farrar's essay, but by\nall those grandiloquent sermons, reviews, and other publications\nwhich spring into existence on every side wherever truth is found\ncombating the arrogance of falsehood. At once these orators and\nwriters, subtle or bombastic, begin by dwelling upon points closely\nallied to the vital question, while preserving an artful silence on\nthe question itself.\n\nAnd this is the fifth and most efficacious method of accounting for\nthe inconsistent attitude of ecclesiastical Christianity, which,\nwhile professing Christ, with its own life denies, and teaches\nothers to deny, this doctrine in the practice of daily life.\nThey who employ the first method of justification by boldly and\ndistinctly affirming that Christ sanctioned violence, meaning wars\nand murders, put themselves beyond the pale of Christ's teaching;\nwhile they who defend themselves according to the second, third, and\nfourth methods soon become entangled, and are easily convicted of\nfalsehood; but the fifth class, they who condescend not to reason,\nuse their dignity for a screen, and insist that all these questions\nwere settled ages ago, and need no reconsideration; they, apparently\ninvulnerable, will maintain an undisputed authority, and men will\nrepose under the hypnotic suggestion of Church and State, nor seek\nto throw off the yoke.\n\nSuch were the views of the clergy, of the professors of\nChristianity, in regard to my book, nor could anything different\nhave been expected: they are in bonds to their inconsistent\nposition, believers in the divinity of the Teacher, and yet\ndiscrediting His plainest words,--an inconsistency which they are\nbound to reconcile in some way. Hence it is not to be supposed\nthat they would give unbiased opinions in regard to the essential\nquestion of that change which must take place in the life of one\nwho makes a practical application of the doctrine of Christ to\nthe existing order. From secular critics and free-thinkers, who\nacknowledge no obligation to the doctrine of Christ, and who might\nbe expected to judge them without prejudice, I had prepared myself\nfor criticisms such as these. I thought that the Liberals would look\nupon Christ not only as the founder of a religion involving personal\nsalvation (as understood by the ecclesiastics and their followers),\nbut, to use their own expression, as upon a reformer who tears down\nthe old foundations to make way for new ones, and whose reformation\nis not even yet complete.\n\nTo set forth that conception of Christ and his doctrine has been\nthe object of my book. But to my surprise not one out of the many\ncriticisms, Russian or foreign, that have appeared, has accepted my\nview, or even discussed it from my standpoint, which is, that the\nteaching of Christ is a philosophical, moral, and social doctrine.\n(I use the phraseology of the scientists.) The Russian secular\ncritics, conceiving the sum and substance of my book to be a plea\nin favor of resistance to evil, and taking it for granted (probably\nfor the sake of argument) that the doctrine forbade any struggle\nwhatsoever against the wrong, made a virulent, and for several\nyears, most successful attack upon this doctrine, proving that the\nteaching of Christ must be false, since it forbids any effort to\novercome evil. Their refutations of this so-called _false_ doctrine\nhad all the more chance of success, because the censorship had\nprohibited, not only the book itself, but also all articles in its\ndefense, and consequently they knew beforehand that their arguments\ncould not be assailed.\n\nIt is worthy of note that here in Russia, where not a word against\nthe Holy Scriptures is allowed by the censor, for several years\nin succession the distinct and unmistakable commandment of Christ\n(Matthew v. 39) was criticized, distorted, condemned, and mocked at\nin all the leading periodicals.\n\nThe Russian secular critics, apparently ignorant of all that had\nbeen said and done in regard to non-resistance to evil, seemed to\nthink that I had invented the principle myself, and attacked it\nas if it were my idea, first distorting and then refuting it with\ngreat ardor, bringing forward time-worn arguments that had been\nanalyzed and refuted over and over again, showing that the oppressed\nand downtrodden should be defended by violence, and declaring the\ndoctrine of Christ concerning non-resistance to be immoral.\n\nAll the significance that the Russian critics saw in Christ's\npreaching was, that it seemed expressly intended to hamper them\nin their struggles against what they believe to be an evil in the\npresent day. Thus it came about that the principle of non-resistance\nto evil by violence was attacked from two opposite camps; the\nConservatives, because this principle interfered with them in their\nefforts to suppress sedition, and as opposed to all persecution,\nas well as to the punishment of death; the Revolutionists, because\nthis principle forbade them to resist the oppression of the\nConservatives, or to attempt their overthrow. The Conservatives were\nindignant that the doctrine of non-resistance to evil by violence\nshould thwart an energetic suppression of revolutionary elements,\nwhich might imperil the welfare of a nation; the Revolutionists\nin the like manner were indignant because this same doctrine\naverted the downfall of the Conservatives, who, in their opinion,\nimperil the welfare of the people. It is a circumstance worthy\nof notice that the Revolutionists should attack the principle of\nnon-resistance to evil by violence; for of all the doctrines dreaded\nby despotism, and dangerous to its existence, this is the chief one.\nSince the creation of the world the opposite principle of resistance\nby violence has been the corner-stone of every despotic institution,\nfrom the Inquisition to the fortress of Schl\u00fcsselburg.\n\nMoreover, the Russian critics declared that the progress of\ncivilization itself would be checked were this commandment of\nnon-resistance applied to everyday life, by which they mean the\ncivilization of Europe, which is, according to them, the model for\nall mankind.\n\nSuch was the substance of Russian criticism.\n\nForeign critics start from the same premises, but their deductions\ndiffer somewhat from those of the Russian critics; not only are they\nless captious and more cultivated, but their modes of analysis are\nnot the same.\n\nIn discussing my book, and more particularly the gospel doctrine\nas it is expressed in the Sermon on the Mount, the foreign critics\naffirmed that the latter could not really be called Christian\ndoctrine (they believe that the Christian doctrine is embodied in\nCatholicism or Protestantism), and that the precepts of the Sermon\non the Mount are only a series of the delightful but unpractical\nvisions of the \"charmant docteur,\" as Renan says, suited to the\nartless, half-civilized Galileans who lived 1800 years ago, or to\nthe Russian and semi-barbarous peasants, to Sutaev and Bondarev, and\nto the Russian mystic Tolsto\u00ef, but which are by no means adapted to\nthe lofty plane of European culture. The foreign secular critics, in\na courteous way, in order not to wound my feelings, have endeavored\nto show that my belief that mankind may be guided by so simple a\ndoctrine as the Sermon on the Mount arises partly from my limited\nknowledge of history and ignorance of the many vain attempts to\ncarry out in daily life the principles of the Sermon on the Mount,\nwhich history tells us have always proved an utter failure, and\npartly from my misconception of the significance of our modern\ncivilization, with its Krupp guns, its smokeless powder, its African\ncolonization, its Home Rule, its parliaments, journalism, strikes,\nand constitutions, not to mention the Eiffel Tower,--on which the\nentire population of Europe is at present reposing.\n\nThus wrote Vog\u00fc\u00e9, thus wrote Leroy-Beaulieu, Matthew Arnold, the\nAmerican writer Talmage, who is also a popular preacher, the\nfree-thinker Ingersoll, and others.\n\n\"The teaching of Christ is no longer practicable, because it does\nnot suit our industrial times,\" Ingersoll ingenuously remarks, and\nthereby he no doubt gives utterance to the views which this cultured\ngeneration holds in regard to the doctrine of Christ. The doctrine\nhas no affinity with the industrialism of the present age, as though\nindustrialism were a sacred institution which can suffer no change.\nA drunkard might thus reply to one who calls upon him to be sober,\nthat a man in liquor finds such advice absurd.\n\nThe arguments of all secular writers, Russian as well as foreign,\nhowever varied in form or expression, are substantially alike;\nthey all agree in misapprehending the doctrine of Christ, with its\noutcome of non-resistance, and in affirming that it is not expedient\nbecause it implies a need of a change of life.\n\nThe doctrine of life is inexpedient, because if we lived up to it\nour lives could not go on as they have done hitherto; in other\nwords, if we were to begin to live like righteous men, as Christ\nbids us, we must abandon the wicked ways to which we have grown\naccustomed. So far from discussing the question of non-resistance of\nevil by violence, the very mention of the fact that the precepts of\nChrist include such a command is considered as sufficient proof of\nthe inexpediency of the whole doctrine.\n\nAnd yet it would seem necessary to offer some solution of this\nquestion, as it lies at the root of all that most interests us.\n\nThe question is how to settle these differences among men, when the\nvery action that is considered evil by one man is considered good by\nanother. It is no answer to say that I think an action evil although\nmy adversary may consider it a good one. There are but two ways of\nsolving the difficulty. One is to find a positive and indisputable\nstandard of evil, and the other is to obey the command, resist not\nevil by violence.\n\nMen have tried to achieve the former from the earliest historical\nages, and we all know with what unsuccessful results.\n\nThe second solution--that is, the non-resistance of what we must\nconsider evil until we have found a universal standard: that\nsolution has been suggested by Christ himself.\n\nIt might be thought that the solution suggested by Christ was the\nwrong one, and a better one might be substituted after the standard\nhad been found which is to define evil once and for all. One might\nnot know of the existence of such a question, as is the case with\nthe barbarous races, but no one can be permitted to pretend,\nlike the learned critics of the Christian doctrine, that no such\nquestion does exist, or that the recognition of the right of certain\nindividuals or groups of individuals, and still less of one's own\nright, to define evil, and to resist it by violence, decides the\nquestion, because we all know that such a recognition does not\ndecide it at all, for there are always persons who will refuse to\nadmit that such a prerogative can exist.\n\nAnd yet this very acknowledgment, that anything that seems evil to\nus is evil, or else an utter misconception of the question, affords\na basis for the conclusions of secular critics concerning the\ndoctrine of Christ; hence not only the utterances of the clerical,\nbut also those of the secular critics in regard to my book, have\nmade it evident to me that most men totally fail to comprehend\neither the doctrine of Christ, or the questions which it is intended\nto decide.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nMISCONCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY BY NON-BELIEVERS\n\n The meaning of the Christian doctrine, which is clear for\n the minority, has become unintelligible for the majority of\n men--The cause of it is the false conception of Christianity\n and the misguided assurance of believers, as well as of\n unbelievers, that they apprehend it--The apprehension of\n Christianity for believers is concealed by the Church--The\n apprehension of Christianity--Its essence and its unlikeness\n to the pagan doctrines--Misunderstood at first, it has grown\n clear to those who embrace it owing to its correspondence with\n the truth--Contemporaneously with it arose the assertion that\n the true meaning of the doctrine was understood, and had been\n confirmed by miraculous transmission--The Council of Disciples\n according to the Acts--Authoritative and miraculous assertion\n of the true conception of Christ's doctrine has found its\n logical conclusion in the acknowledgment of the Credo and\n the Church--The Church could not have been established by\n Christ--Definition of Churches according to the Catechism--There\n are various Churches, ever antagonistic to one another--Where is\n heresy?--The work of Mr. Arnold concerning heresies--Heresies\n are the sign of activity in the Churches--Churches always divide\n mankind, and are ever inimical to Christianity--In what the\n activity of the Russian Church consists--Matthew xxiv. 23--The\n Sermon on the Mount, or the Credo--The Orthodox Church conceals\n from the people the true meaning of Christianity--The same is\n done by other Churches--All the contemporary external conditions\n are such that they destroy the doctrine of the Church, and\n therefore Churches use all their efforts to defend it.\n\n\nThe knowledge which I obtained after the publication of my book in\nregard to the views which the minority of mankind have held, and\nstill hold, concerning the doctrine of Christ in its simplicity\nand real significance, as well as the criticisms of clerical and\nsecular writers, who deny the possibility of apprehending it in\nits actual meaning, have convinced me that while the minority has\nnot only always possessed a true conception of this doctrine, and\nthat this conception has grown steadily more and more clear, for\nthe majority, on the other hand, its sense has become more and more\nvague, reaching at last such a degree of obscurity that men fail to\nunderstand the simplest commands expressed in the Bible, even when\ncouched in the plainest possible language.\n\nThe inability that prevails at the present time to comprehend the\ndoctrine of Christ in its true, simple, and actual meaning, when\nits light has penetrated into the remotest recesses of the human\nunderstanding, when, as Christ said, they proclaim from the roofs\nthat which He whispered in the ear; when this doctrine penetrates\nevery phase of human life, domestic, economical, civil, politic, and\ninternational,--this failure to apprehend it would be inexplicable,\nif one had not discovered the reasons for it.\n\nOne of the reasons is, that believers as well as unbelievers are\nperfectly sure that they long ago understood the doctrine of Christ\nso completely, unquestionably, and finally, that it can have no\nother meaning but the one which they attribute to it. That is\nbecause the tradition of this false conception has been handed down\nfor ages,--and therefore its misconception.\n\nThe most powerful stream of water cannot add one single drop to a\nvessel that is already full.\n\nOne might succeed in explaining to the dullest of men the most\ndifficult of problems, if he had no previous conception in regard to\nthem; but it is impossible to explain to the cleverest man even the\nsimplest matters, if he is perfectly sure that he knows everything\nabout it.\n\nThe Christian doctrine appears to men of the present times to be a\ndoctrine of that kind, known for ages, and never to be questioned\nin its most trivial details, and which is susceptible of no other\ninterpretation.\n\nAt the present time Christianity is conceived by those who profess\nthe doctrines of the Church as a supernatural, miraculous revelation\nof all that is expressed in the Credo; while unbelievers look upon\nit as an affair of the past, a manifestation of the demand of\nhumanity for a belief in the supernatural, as an historical fact,\nwhich has found its fullest expression in Catholicism, Orthodoxy,\nand Protestantism, and which has for us no vital meaning. For the\nbelievers the real significance of the doctrine is concealed by the\nChurch; for the unbelievers it is hidden by science.\n\nLet us begin by considering the former.\n\nEighteen hundred years ago, in the pagan world of Rome, there\nappeared a strange and novel doctrine, unlike any of its\npredecessors, which was ascribed to the man Christ.\n\nIt was a doctrine wholly new in form as well as in substance, both\nfor the Hebrew world, from whose midst it had sprung, as well as for\nthe Roman world, in whose midst it was preached and promulgated.\n\nAmong the accurately defined religious precepts of the Jews, where,\naccording to Isaiah, there was precept upon precept, and among the\nhighly perfected Roman legislative assemblies, there appeared a\ndoctrine that not only repudiated all deities, all fear of them,\nall augury and all faith in it, but also denied the necessity for\nany human institutions whatsoever. Instead of the precepts and\ncreeds of former times, this doctrine presented only an image of\ninterior perfection, truth, and love in the person of Christ, and\nthe attainment of this interior perfection possible for men, and, as\na consequence, of the outward perfection foretold by the prophets:\nthe coming of the Kingdom of God, when all enmity shall cease, when\nevery man will hear the word of the Lord and be united with another\nin brotherly love, and when the lion and the lamb shall lie down\ntogether. Instead of threats of punishment for the non-observance of\nthe commandments of the old laws, religious no less than secular,\ninstead of tempting men by promise of rewards to observe these laws,\nthis doctrine attracted mankind only by proclaiming itself to be the\ntruth.\n\n\"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether\nit be of God, or whether I speak of myself.\"--John vii. 17.\n\n\"Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do\nye not believe me?\"--John viii. 46.\n\n\"But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the\ntruth....\"--John viii. 40.\n\n\"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you\nfree.\"--John viii. 32.\n\nGod must be worshiped in truth. All the doctrine will be made plain\nby the Spirit of Truth. Do as I command you, and you will know\nwhether what I say is the truth.\n\nNo evidence was brought to prove the doctrine, except the truth and\nits harmony therewith. The whole substance consisted in learning the\ntruth and in following its guidance, drawing nearer and nearer to it\nin the affairs of everyday life.\n\nAccording to this doctrine, there is no mode of action that can\njustify a man or make him righteous; as regards interior perfection\nwe have only the image of truth, in the person of Christ, to win our\nhearts, and outward perfection is expressed by a realization of the\nKingdom of God. In order to fulfil the doctrine it needs but to take\nChrist for our model, and to advance in the direction of interior\nperfection by the road which has been pointed out to us, as well as\nin that of exterior perfection, which is the establishment of the\nKingdom of God. The degree of human happiness, whether it be more\nor less, depends, according to this doctrine, not on the degree\nof perfection at which it arrives, but on the comparative rate of\nprogress toward that perfection.\n\nThe advance toward perfection of Zacch\u00e6us the publican, of the\nadulteress, of the thief on the cross, is, according to this\ndoctrine, better than the stagnation of the righteous Pharisee.\nThe shepherd rejoices more over the one sheep which was lost and\nis found than over the ninety and nine which are in the fold. The\nprodigal returned, the piece of money which was lost and is found,\nis more precious unto God than that which was never lost.\n\nAccording to this doctrine, each state is but a step on the road\ntoward the unattainable interior and exterior perfection, and\ntherefore it has no significance in itself. The progress of this\nmovement toward perfection is its merit; the least cessation of this\nmovement means the cessation of good works.\n\n\"Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth,\" and \"No\nman, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for\nthe kingdom of God.\" \"Rejoice not that the spirits are subject unto\nyou; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.\"\n\"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is\nperfect.\" \"Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness.\"\n\nThe fulfilment of the doctrine lies in a continual progress toward\nthe attainment of a higher truth, and in the growing realization of\nthat truth within one's self, by means of an ever increasing love;\nas well as in a more and more keen realization of the Kingdom of\nGod in the world around us. It is evident that the doctrine that\nappeared in the midst of the Hebrew and pagan world could not be\naccepted by the majority of men, who lived a life so totally unlike\nthe one prescribed by this new doctrine; and even those who did\naccept it could not comprehend its full meaning, because of its\ncontradiction of all former ideas.\n\nIt is only through a series of misapprehensions, errors, one-sided\nexplanations, corrected and supplemented by generations of men,\nthat the meaning of the Christian doctrine has become more and more\nplain. The Christian world-conception and that of the Hebrew and\npagan peoples mutually acted and reacted upon each other, and the\nChristian principle being the more vital, it penetrated deeper and\ndeeper into the Hebrew and pagan principles that had outlived their\nusefulness, and became more clearly defined, freeing itself from\nthe spurious admixtures imposed upon it. Men understood its meaning\nbetter and better, and realized it more and more unmistakably in\nlife.\n\nThe older the world grew, the more lucid became its apprehension of\nChristianity, as must always be the case with any doctrine relating\nto human life.\n\nSuccessive generations rectified the mistakes of the preceding ones\nand approached nearer and nearer to the apprehension of its true\nmeaning. Thus it was from the very beginning of Christianity. And\nit was then that certain men came to the front who affirmed that\nthe only true interpretation was the one which they themselves\nproclaimed, adducing the miracles as a proof thereof.\n\nThis was the principal cause of its misapprehension in the first\nplace, and of its complete perversion in the second.\n\nThe doctrine of Christ was supposed to be transmitted to mankind not\nlike any other truth, but in a peculiar, supernatural manner; hence\nthey propose to prove its authority, not because it satisfies the\ndemands of reason and of human nature in general, but because of the\nmiraculous character of its transmission, which is supposed to be\nan incontrovertible proof of the validity of its conception. This\nidea sprang from a misconception, and the result was that it became\nimpossible to understand it.\n\nIt originated at the very beginning, when the doctrine was so\nimperfectly understood and often so erroneously construed; as, for\nexample, in the Gospels and the Acts. The less men understood it,\nthe more mysterious it appeared, and the greater need was there for\nvisible proof of its authenticity. The rule for doing unto others as\nyou would wish them to do unto you, called for no miraculous proof,\nneither did it require faith, because the proposition is convincing\nin itself, both to reason and to human nature. But the proposition\nthat Christ was God needed miraculous testimony.\n\nThe more mystical grew the apprehension of Christ's teaching, the\nmore the miraculous element entered into it; and the more miraculous\nit became, the farther it was from its original meaning; and the\nmore complicated, mystical, and remote from its original meaning it\ncame to be, the more necessary it was to declare its infallibility,\nand the less intelligible it became.\n\nFrom the very beginning of Christianity one could see from the\nGospels, the Acts, and the Epistles how the misapprehension of the\ndoctrine called forth the necessity of proofs--miraculous and beyond\nhuman intelligence.\n\nIt dated from the time mentioned in the Acts, when the disciples\nwent up to Jerusalem to consult with the elders in regard to the\nquestion that had arisen as to whether the uncircumcised and those\nwho abstained not from the meat offered to idols should be baptized.\n\nThe very manner of asking the question showed that those who\ndiscussed it misconceived the doctrine of Christ, who rejected all\nexternal rites, such as the washing of the feet, purification,\nfasts, and the Sabbath. It is said distinctly: \"Not that which goeth\ninto the mouth defileth a man; but those things which proceed out\nof the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.\"\nAnd therefore the question in regard to the baptism of those not\ncircumcised could only arise among men who, loving their Teacher and\nwith the intuitive perception of the grandeur of his doctrine, could\nnot as yet comprehend its exact meaning. And so it was.\n\nAnd in proportion as the members of the assembly failed to\ncomprehend the doctrine, did they stand in need of an outward\naffirmation of their incomplete conception. And in order to decide\nthe question, whose very proposal proves the misconception of\nthe doctrine, it was that in this assembly for the first time,\naccording to the description given in the Acts, were uttered those\nawful words, productive of so much harm, by which the truth of\ncertain propositions has been for the first time confirmed: \"For it\nseemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us;\" that is to say, it was\na declaration that the truth of what they said was witnessed by a\nmiraculous participation of the Holy Ghost, that is--of God.\n\nBut the assertion that the Holy Ghost--that is to say, God--had\nspoken through the apostles, in its turn required proof. And\ntherefore it became necessary to declare that on the fiftieth day\nthe Holy Ghost, in the shape of fiery tongues, descended on those\nwho had made this assertion. [In the description the descent of the\nHoly Ghost precedes the council, but the Acts were written much\nlater than either.] But the descent of the Holy Ghost must also\nbe proved, though it would be difficult to say why a fiery tongue\nhovering over a man's head should be a proof of the truth of what\nhe says any more than the miracles, the cures, the resurrections,\nthe martyrdoms, and all the rest of those persuasive miracles with\nwhich the Acts are filled, and which serve rather to repel than to\nconvince one of the truth of the Christian dogmas. The results of\nthese methods were such that the more pains they took to confirm\ntheir statements, accumulating stories of miracles, the more the\ndoctrine itself deviated from its original meaning, and the less\nintelligible it became.\n\nThus it was from the beginning of the Christian era, and thus\nit continued to increase, until in its own time it has reached\nits logical consummation in the dogma of transubstantiation, the\ninfallibility of the Pope, the bishops, and Scriptures, which is\nsomething utterly incomprehensible and nonsensical, requiring\na blind faith, not in God or Christ, nor even in the doctrine,\nbut a faith either in one person, as in Catholicism, or in many\npersons, as in Orthodoxy, or in a book, as in Protestantism. The\nmore widely spread Christianity became, and the larger the number\nof uninstructed men it received, the less it was understood, the\nmore the infallibility of its conceptions was insisted upon,\nand the more slender grew the possibility of understanding its\ntrue meaning. Already, about the time of Constantine, the entire\nconception of the doctrine amounted to the _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ formulated by\nthe temporal power,--the outcome of discussions that took place in\nthe council,--to the Credo, in which it is said: I believe in this\nand that, etc., and at the end, \"in the one holy, Apostolic and\n\u0152cumenical Church,\" that is, in the infallibility of the persons\nwho constitute it; so that it all amounted to this, that a man\nbelieved not in God, nor in Christ, as they revealed themselves to\nhim, but in that which was believed by the Church.\n\nBut the Church is holy, and was founded by Christ. God could not\nallow men to interpret His doctrine as they chose, and therefore He\nestablished the Church. All these propositions are so unjust and\nunfounded, that one is actually ashamed to refute them. In no place,\nand in no manner whatsoever, save in the assertion of the Church,\nis it seen that either God or Christ can ever have founded anything\nlike the Church in its ecclesiastical sense. There is a distinct\nand evident warning in the New Testament against the Church, as\nan outside authority, in the passage which bids the disciples of\nChrist call no man father or master. But nowhere is there a word\nin regard to the establishment of what the ecclesiastics call the\nChurch. The word \"church\" is used in the New Testament twice, once\nin speaking of the assembly which is to decide a dispute; the second\ntime in connection with the obscure words in regard to the rock,\nPeter, and the gates of hell. From these two references, where the\nword is used only in the sense of an assembly, men have derived the\ninstitution which we recognize at present under the same of the\nChurch.\n\nBut Christ could by no means have founded a church, that is, what we\nunderstand by that word at the present time, because nothing like\nour Church, as we know it in these days, with the sacraments, the\nhierarchy, and above all the establishment of infallibility, was to\nbe found either in the words of Christ, or in the ideas of the men\nof those times.\n\nBecause men have called something which has been established since,\nby the same word that Christ used in regard to another thing, by no\nmeans gives them a right to assert that Christ founded only one true\nChurch.\n\nMoreover, if Christ had it in his mind to establish a church which\nwas to be the depository of the whole doctrine and faith, He would\nsurely have expressed this so plainly and clearly, and would have\ngiven, apart from all stories of miracles which are repeated with\nevery variety of superstition, such signs as would leave no doubt as\nto its authenticity; yet this was not the case, and now, as always,\none finds different institutions, each one calling itself the only\ntrue Church.\n\nThe Catholic catechism says: \"L'Eglise est la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 des fid\u00e8les\n\u00e9tablie par N.-S. J\u00e9sus-Christ, r\u00e9pandue sur toute la terre et\nsoumise \u00e0 l'autorit\u00e9 de pasteurs l\u00e9gitimes, principalement notre\nS.-P. le pape,\"--meaning by \"pasteurs l\u00e9gitimes,\"[3] a human\ninstitution made up of a number of men bound together by a certain\norganization of which the Pope is the head.\n\n [3] The Church is the society of the faithful, established by our\n Lord Jesus Christ, diffused throughout the world, subject to the\n authority of its lawful pastors and our holy father the Pope.\n\nThe Orthodox catechism says: \"Our Church is a society established\non earth by Jesus Christ, united by the divine doctrine and the\nsacraments under the government and direction of a hierarchy\nestablished by the Lord,\"--those words, \"established by the Lord,\"\nsignifying a Greek hierarchy, composed of certain men who are\nordained to fill certain places.\n\nThe Lutheran catechism says: \"Our Church is a holy Christian society\nof believers under Christ, our Master, in which the Holy Ghost, by\nmeans of the Bible and the sacraments, offers, communicates, and\ndispenses the divine salvation,\"--meaning by that, that the Catholic\nChurch is in error, and has fallen away from grace, and that the\ngenuine tradition has been preserved in Protestantism.\n\nFor Catholics the divine Church is identified with the Pope and\nthe Roman hierarchy. For the Orthodox it is identified with the\ninstitution of the Eastern and Russian hierarchy.[4] For Lutherans\nthe divine Church signifies a congregation of men who acknowledge\nthe Bible and the Lutheran catechism.\n\n [4] The definition of Homiakov, which had a certain success among\n the Russians, does not help the case, if one believes with him\n that the Orthodox is the only true Church. Homiakov asserts that\n a church is a society of men (without distinction between the\n ecclesiastics and the laity) united by love, and to whom the truth\n is revealed (\"Let us love one another, that we may unanimously\n profess,\" etc.), and that such a church is, in the first place, one\n that professes the Nicene creed, and, secondly, one which, after\n the division of the churches, refused to recognize the authority of\n the Pope and the new dogmas. With such a definition as this, the\n difficulty of identifying a church which is united by love with a\n church professing the Nicene creed, and the accuracy of Photius, as\n Homiakov would have it, is still greater. Hence the statement of\n Homiakov that this church united by love, and therefore holy, is\n the same as that of the Greek hierarchy, is still more arbitrary\n than the assertions of the Catholics and the old Greek Orthodox\n believers. If we admit the existence of the Church according to the\n idea of Homiakov, that is, as a society of men united by love and\n truth, then all that any man can say in regard to it, is that it\n would be most desirable to be a member of that society,--if such\n an one exists,--that is, to live in the spirit of love and truth;\n but there are no outward manifestations by which one could either\n acknowledge one's self, or recognize others as members of this holy\n society, or exclude one's self from it, for there is no outward\n institution to be found which corresponds to that idea.\n\nWhen those who belong to any one of the existing churches speak of\nthe beginnings of Christianity, they generally use the word \"church\"\nin the singular, as though there had never been but one church. This\nis quite unfair. The Church, which as an institution declares itself\nto be the depository of infallible truth, did not arise until there\nwere already two.\n\nWhile the faithful still agreed among themselves, the congregation\nwas united, and there was no occasion for calling itself a church.\nIt was only when it separated into two hostile parties that each\nparty felt obliged to assert its possession of the truth by claiming\ninfallibility.\n\nDuring the course of the controversies between the two parties,\nwhile each one claimed infallibility for itself and declared its\nopponent heretical, arose the idea of the one church.\n\nWe know that there was a church in the year 51, which granted\nthe admission of the uncircumcised, and we know it only because\nthere was another, the Jewish Church, which denied their right to\nmembership.\n\nIf at the present time there is a Catholic Church which asserts\nits infallibility, it is because there are other churches, namely,\nthe Greek Orthodox and the Lutheran, each one asserting its own\ninfallibility, and thus disowning all other churches. Hence the idea\nof one church is but the product of the imagination, containing not\na shadow of reality.\n\nIt is an historical fact that there have existed, and still continue\nto exist, numerous bodies, each one of whom maintains itself to be\nthe true Church established by Christ, declaring at the same time\nthat all the others who call themselves churches are heretical and\nschismatic.\n\nThe catechisms of those churches which possess the greatest number\nof communicants, the Catholic, the Orthodox, and the Lutheran,\nexpress this in the plainest language.\n\nThe Catholic catechism says: \"Quels sont ceux qui sont hors de\nl'Eglise? Les infid\u00e8les, h\u00e9r\u00e9tiques, et schismatiques.\"[5] By\nschismatics it means the so-called Orthodox, and by heretics the\nLutherans; so that, according to the Catholic catechism, the Church\nis composed only of Catholics.\n\n [5] Who are those outside the Church? The infidels, heretics, and\n schismatics.\n\nIn the so-called Orthodox catechism it says: \"The name Church of\nChrist means only the Orthodox Church, which has remained in perfect\nunion with the universal Church. As to the Roman Church and the\nProtestant creeds\" (they are not even called a church), \"they cannot\nbelong to the one true Church, for they have separated themselves\nfrom it.\"\n\nAccording to this definition the Catholics and the Protestants are\noutside of the Church, and only the Orthodox are in it.\n\nThe Lutheran catechism says: \"Die wahre Kirche wird darein erkannt,\ndas in ihr das Wort Gottes lauter und rein ohne Menschenzusetzung\ngelehrt und die Sacramenten treu nach Christ Einsetzung gewartet\nwerden.\"[6]\n\n [6] Thereby may be the true Church known that in it the word of God\n is taught plainly and clearly, without human additions, and that\n sacraments are administered faithfully according to the teaching of\n Christ.\n\nAccording to this definition, those who have added anything\nwhatsoever to the teaching of Christ and the apostles, as the\nCatholic and Greek Churches have done, are outside the Church, and\nthe Lutherans alone are in it.\n\nThe Catholics assert that the Holy Ghost dwells perpetually with\ntheir hierarchy; the Orthodox assert that the same Holy Ghost\nresides also with them; the Arians claim that the Holy Ghost\nmanifests itself to them (and they have the same right to assert\nthis as have the prevailing religions of the present day); all the\ndenominations of Protestants--Lutherans, Reformed Presbyterians,\nMethodists, Swedenborgians, and Mormons--assert that the Holy Ghost\nmanifests itself only with them.\n\nIf the Catholics assert that the Holy Ghost during the separation of\nthe Arian and Greek Churches withdrew from the separating churches\nand remained in the one true Church, then the Protestants of any\ndenomination whatsoever may assert with as much right that during\nthe separation of their Church from the Catholic, the Holy Ghost\nleft the Catholic Church and entered into their own. And this is\nexactly what they do say. Every church professes to derive its creed\nby an unbroken tradition from Christ and the apostles. And certainly\nevery Christian creed derived from Christ must have reached the\npresent generation through tradition of some sort. But this is no\nproof that any one of these traditions embodies infallible truth, to\nthe exclusion of all others.\n\nEvery branch proceeds from the root without interruption; but the\nfact that each one comes from one root, by no means proves it to\nbe the only branch. And so it is in regard to the churches. The\nproofs which each church offers of its apostolic succession, and\nthe miracles which are to prove its authenticity, are the same in\nevery case; consequently there is but one exact definition of what\nis called a church (not the imaginary church which we may desire,\nbut the actual church which has really existed). The Church is a\nbody of men which lays claim to the exclusive possession of the\ntruth. All these various societies which were afterward transformed\nby State authority into powerful organizations have really been the\nchief obstacles to the diffusion of true Christianity. It could not\nbe otherwise: for the principal characteristic which distinguishes\nthe doctrine of Christ from those of earlier times is that the men\nwho accepted it strove to understand and to fulfil it more and more\nperfectly; whereas the doctrine of the Church affirmed that it was\nalready thoroughly understood and also fulfilled.\n\nHowever strange this may seem to us, reared as we have been in the\nfalse doctrine of the Church, as if it were a Christian institution,\nand taught to despise heresy, it is nevertheless in that which men\ncall heresy that true progress, that is, true Christianity, was\nmanifested, and it only ceased to be such when these heresies were\nchecked, and it was, so to speak, stamped with the immutable imprint\nof the Church.\n\nWhat, then, is heresy? Read all the theological works which treat of\nheresies, of that subject which above all others calls for an exact\ndefinition, for every theologian speaks of the true doctrine in the\nmidst of the false ones by which it is surrounded, and nowhere will\nyou find even the shadow of a definition of heresy.\n\nAs an instance of the complete absence of the definition of what\nis understood by the word heresy, we will quote the opinion of a\nlearned Christian historian, E. de Pressens\u00e9 in \"Histoire du Dogme,\"\nwith its epigraph, \"Ubi Christus, ibi Ecclesia\" (Paris, 1869). This\nis what he says in his preface (p. 4):--\n\n\"I know that they dispute our right to qualify thus\" (that is, to\npronounce them heretical) \"the tendencies which were so actively\nresisted by the early Fathers. The very name of heresy seems an\nattack upon liberty of conscience and thought. We cannot share\nthese scruples, for they would simply deprive Christianity of any\nindividual character.\"\n\nAnd having said that after Constantine the Church did in fact\nabuse its authority to describe the dissenters as heretics and\nto persecute them, he says, in speaking of the early ages of\nChristianity: \"The Church is a free association; there is an\nadvantage to be gained in separating from it. The controversy\nagainst error is based on feelings and ideas; no uniform body of\ndogma has as yet been adopted; differences of secondary importance\nappear in the East and West with perfect freedom; theology is not\nlimited by unalterable formulas. If amid these varying opinions a\ncommon groundwork of faith is discerned, have we not the right to\nsee in this, not a definite system devised and formulated by the\nrepresentatives of a school, but faith itself in its most unerring\ninstinct and spontaneous manifestation? If this very unanimity\nwhich is revealed in the essential matters of faith is found to be\nantagonistic to certain tendencies, have we not the right to infer\nthat these tendencies disagreed with the fundamental principles of\nChristianity? Will not this supposition become a certainty if we\nrecognize in the doctrine rejected by the Church the characteristic\nfeatures of one of the religions of the past? If we admit that\ngnosticism or ebionitism are legitimate forms of Christian thought,\nwe must boldly declare that Christian thought does not exist, nor\ndoes it possess any specific characteristic by which it may be\nrecognized. We should destroy it even while pretending to enlarge\nits limits. In the time of Plato no one would have dared to advocate\na doctrine which would leave no room for the theory of ideas, and he\nwould have been subjected to the well-deserved ridicule of Greece,\nif he attempted to make of Epicurus or of Zeno a disciple of the\nAcademy. Let us then admit that if there exists a religion or a\ndoctrine called Christianity, it may have its heresies.\"\n\nThe writer's argument amounts to this, that every opinion which does\nnot accord with the code of dogmas that we have professed at any\ngiven time, is a heresy. At a certain time and in a certain place\nmen make a certain profession, but this profession can never be a\nfixed criterion of the truth. All is summed up in the \"Ubi Christus,\nibi Ecclesia,\" and Christ is wherever we are.\n\nEvery so-called heresy which claims that what it professes is the\nactual truth, may likewise find in the history of the Church a\nconsistent explanation of the faith it professes, and apply all\nthe arguments to its own use. Pressens\u00e9 simply calls his own creed\nChristian truth, precisely as every heretical sect has done.\n\nThe primary definition of the word heresy (the word \u1f01\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 means\na part) is the name given by a society of men to any opinion\ncontradicting any part of the doctrine professed by the society. A\nmore specific meaning is an expression of an opinion which denies\nthe truth of the creed, established and maintained by the temporal\npower.\n\nThere is a remarkable, although little known, work entitled\n\"Unpartheyische Kirchen und Ketzer-Historie,\" 1729, by Gottfried\nArnold, which treats of this subject, and points out the illegality,\nthe perversity, the lack of sense, and the cruelty of employing the\nword heresy in the sense of refutation. This book is an attempt to\nrelate the history of Christianity in the form of a history of\nheresies.\n\nIn his introduction the author asks a series of questions: (1) Of\nthose who make heretics (Von denen Ketzermachern selbst); (2) Of\nthose who have become heretics; (3) Of the subjects of heresy; (4)\nOf the ways of making heretics; and (5) Of the aims and consequences\nof the making of heretics. To each of these points he adds scores\nof other questions, giving the answers from the works of well-known\ntheologians, but principally leaving it to the reader to draw his\nown deductions from the contents of the book. As instances of\nquestions which are to a certain extent their own answers I will\nquote the following:--Concerning the 4th question, of the methods\nfor making heretics, he asks in one of the questions (the 7th):\n\"Does not all history tend to show us that the greatest makers of\nheretics, the adepts in the art, were those very wiseacres from\nwhom the Father concealed his secrets--that is, the hypocrites, the\nPharisees, and the Scribes, or utterly godless and evil-minded men?\n(Question 20-21) And in the corrupted times of Christianity did\nnot the hypocrites and envious ones reject the very men, talented\nand especially indorsed by the Lord, who would have been highly\nesteemed in periods of pure Christianity? (21) And, on the other\nhand, would not those men who during the decadence of Christianity\nrose above all others, and set themselves up as teachers of the\npurest Christianity, would not they, during the times of the\napostles of Christ and his disciples, have been considered as the\nshameful heretics and anti-Christians?\" Among other things, while\nexpressing the idea that the verbal declaration of the essence of\nfaith which was required by the Church, the abjuration of which was\nregarded as a heresy, could never cover all the ideas and beliefs\nof the faithful, and that hence the requirement that faith shall be\nexpressed by a certain formula of words is the immediate cause of\nheresy, he says in the 21st question:--\n\n\"And supposing that holy acts and thoughts appear to a man so high\nand so profound that he finds no adequate words wherewith to convey\nthem, should he be considered a heretic if he is unable to formulate\nhis conception? (33) And was not this the reason why there were no\nheresies in the early times of Christianity, because Christians\njudged each other, not by their words, but by their hearts and by\ntheir deeds, enjoying a perfect freedom of expression, without the\nfear of being called heretic?\" \"Was it not one of the convenient and\neasiest methods of the Church,\" he asks in the 31st question, \"when\nthe ecclesiastics wished to rid themselves of any one, or ruin his\nreputation, to excite suspicion in regard to the doctrine he held,\nand by investing him in the garment of heresy, condemn and cast him\nout?\"\n\n\"Although it is true that among so-called heretics sins and errors\nhave been committed, it is no less true, as the numerous examples\nhere quoted bear testimony\" (that is to say, in the history of\nthe Church and of heresies), \"that there has never been a sincere\nand conscientious man of any importance whose safety has not been\nendangered through the envy of the ecclesiastics.\"\n\nThis was the interpretation of heresy almost 200 years ago, and the\nsame meaning is attached to it to-day, and so long as the idea of\nthe Church shall exist it will never change. Where the Church exists\nthere must also exist the idea of heresy. The Church is a body of\nmen claiming possession of indisputable truth. A heresy is the\nopinion of men who do not acknowledge the truth of the Church to be\nindisputable.\n\nHeresy is the manifestation of a movement in the Church; it is\nan attempt to destroy the immutable assertion of the Church, the\nattempt of a living apprehension of the doctrine. Each advance that\nhas been made toward the comprehension and the practice of the\ndoctrine has been accomplished by heretics: Tertullian, Origen,\nAugustine, and Luther, Huss, Savonarola, Helchitsky, and others were\nall heretics. It could not be otherwise.\n\nA disciple of Christ, who possesses an ever growing sense of\nthe doctrine and of its progressive fulfilment as it advances\ntoward perfection, cannot, either for himself or others, affirm,\nsimply because he is a disciple of Christ, that he understands and\npractises the doctrine of Christ to its fullest extent; still less\ncould he affirm this in regard to any body of men. To whatsoever\nstate of comprehension and perfection he may have arrived, he\nmust always feel the inadequacy both of his conception and of its\napplication, and must ever strive for something more satisfactory.\nAnd therefore to claim for one's self, or for any body of men\nwhatsoever, the possession of a complete apprehension and practice\nof the doctrine of Christ is in direct contradiction to the spirit\nof Christ's doctrine itself.\n\nHowever strange this statement may appear, every church, as a\nchurch, has always been, and always must be, an institution not\nonly foreign, but absolutely hostile, to the doctrine of Christ. It\nis not without reason that Voltaire called it \"_l'inf\u00e2me_\"; it is\nnot without reason that all so-called Christian sects believe the\nChurch to be the Scarlet Woman prophesied by the Revelation; it is\nnot without reason that the history of the Church is the history of\ncruelties and horrors.\n\nChurches in themselves are, as some persons believe, institutions\nbased upon a Christian principle, from which they have deviated to a\ncertain extent; but considered in the light of churches, of bodies\nof men claiming infallibility, they are anti-Christian institutions.\nBetween churches in the ecclesiastical sense and Christianity,\nnot only is there nothing in common except the name, but they are\ntwo utterly contradictory and hostile elements. One is pride,\nviolence, self-assertion, inertia, and death. The other is meekness,\nrepentance, submission, activity, and life.\n\nNo man can serve these two masters at the same time; he must choose\neither the one or the other.\n\nThe servants of the churches of every creed, especially in these\nmodern times, strive to represent themselves as the partisans of\nprogress in Christianity; they make concessions, they try to correct\nthe abuses that have crept into the Church, and protest that it is\nwrong to deny the principle of the Christian Church on account of\nthese abuses, because it is only through the medium of the Church\nthat unity can be obtained, and that the Church is the only mediator\nbetween God and man. All this is untrue. So far from fostering the\nspirit of unity, the churches have ever been the fruitful source of\nhuman enmity, of hatred, wars, conflicts, inquisitions, Eves of St.\nBartholomew, and so on; neither do the churches act as the mediators\nbetween God and man,--an office, moreover, quite unnecessary, and\ndirectly forbidden by Christ himself, who has revealed his doctrine\nunto each individual; it is but the dead formula, and not the living\nGod, which the churches offer to man, and which serves rather to\nincrease than diminish the distance between man and his Creator.\nThe churches, which were founded upon a misconception, and which\npreserve this misconception by their immutability, must of necessity\nharass and persecute any new conception, because they know, however\nthey may try to conceal it, that every advance along the road\nindicated by Christ is undermining their own existence.\n\nWhenever one reads or listens to the essays and sermons in which\necclesiastical writers of modern times belonging to the various\ncreeds discuss the Christian truths and virtues, when one hears\nand reads these artificial arguments, these exhortations, these\nprofessions of faith, elaborated through centuries, that now and\nthen sound sincere, one is almost ready to doubt if the churches can\nbe inimical to Christianity. \"It cannot be possible that men like\nJohn Chrysostom, F\u00e9nelon, Butler, and other Christian preachers,\ncould be inimical to it.\" One would like to say, \"The churches may\nhave gone astray from Christianity, may have committed errors, but\nthey cannot have been hostile to it.\" But one must first see the\nfruit before he can know the tree, as Christ has taught, and one\nsees that their fruits were evil, that the result of their works has\nbeen the distortion of Christianity; and one cannot help concluding\nthat, however virtuous the men may have been, the cause of the\nchurch in which these men served was not Christian. The goodness\nand virtue of certain individuals who served the churches were\npeculiar to themselves, and not to the cause which they served. All\nthese excellent men, like Francis of Assisi and Francis de Sales,\nTichon Zad\u00f2nsky, Thomas \u00e0 Kempis, and others, were good men, even\nthough they served a cause hostile to Christianity; and they would\nhave been still more charitable and more exemplary had they not\nyielded obedience to false doctrines.\n\nBut why do we speak of, or sit in judgment on, the past, which may\nbe falsely represented, and is, in any event, but little known to\nus? The churches, with their principles and their works, are not of\nthe past; we have them with us to-day, and can judge them by their\nworks and by their influence over men.\n\nWhat, then, constitutes their power? How do they influence men? What\nis their work in the Greek, the Catholic, and in all the Protestant\ndenominations? and what are the consequences of such work?\n\nThe work of our Russian so-called Orthodox Church is visible to all.\nIt is a factor of primary importance, which can neither be concealed\nnor disputed.\n\nIn what manner is the activity of the Russian Church\ndisplayed,--that vast institution which labors with so much zeal,\nthat institution which numbers among its servants half a million of\nmen, and costs the people tens of millions?\n\nThe activity of the Church consists in forcing, by every means in\nits power, upon the one hundred millions of Russian people, those\nantiquated, time-worn beliefs which have lost all significance,\nand which were formerly professed by foreigners, with whom we had\nnothing in common, beliefs in which nearly every man has lost\nhis faith, even in some cases those very men whose duty it is to\ninculcate them.\n\nThe endeavor to force upon the people those formulas of the\nByzantine clergy, marvelous to them and senseless to us, concerning\nthe Trinity, the Virgin, the sacraments, grace, and so forth,\nembraces one province of the activity of the Russian Church; another\nfunction is the encouragement given to idolatry, in the literal\nsense of the word: the veneration of holy relics and holy images,\nthe sacrifices offered to them in the faith that they will hear and\ngrant prayers. I will pass over in silence what is written in the\necclesiastical magazines by the clergy who possess a semblance of\nlearning and liberality, and will speak only of what is really done\nby the clergy throughout the immense extent of Russia, among its one\nhundred millions of inhabitants. What is it that is taught to the\npeople with such unremitting pains and endeavor, and with so much\nearnestness? What is required of them for the sake of the so-called\nChristian religion?\n\nI will start at the beginning, with the birth of the child. When\na child is born, we are taught that a prayer must be read over\nthe mother and child, in order to purify them, for without that\nprayer the mother remains unclean. For that purpose, and facing the\nikons of the saints, whom the common people simply call gods, the\npriest takes the infant in his arms, reads the exhortation, and by\nthat means he is supposed to cleanse the mother. Then the parents\nare instructed, nay, even ordered, under penalty of punishment\nin the event of non-compliance, to christen the child--that is,\nto let the priest immerse it three times in the water, while\nwords unintelligible to all present are read, and still less\nintelligible ceremonies are performed, such as the application of\noil to different parts of the body, the cutting of the hair, the\nblowing and spitting of the sponsors at the imaginary devil. All\nthis is necessary to cleanse the child, and make a Christian of\nhim. Then the parents are told that the child must receive the\nholy sacrament--that is, he is to swallow, in the form of bread\nand wine, a particle of the body of Christ, by which means the\nchild will receive the blessing of Christ, and so on. Then they\nare told that as the child grows it must be taught to pray, which\nmeans that he is to stand in front of boards upon which the faces\nof Christ, the Virgin, and the saints are painted, bow his head\nand body, while with his right hand, his fingers being folded in\na peculiar manner, he touches his forehead, his shoulders, and\nhis stomach, and utters certain Slavonic words, the commonest of\nwhich, those which all children learn, are the following: \"Mother\nof God, ... Virgin, rejoice,\" etc. Then the child is taught that he\nmust repeat this--that is, that he must make the sign of the cross\nwhenever he sees a church or an ikon. Furthermore, he is taught\nthat on a holiday (holidays are either the day on which Christ was\nborn, although no one knows when that took place, or the day of his\ncircumcision, or that on which the Virgin died, or when the cross or\nthe ikon was brought, or when some fanatic beheld a vision, etc.) he\nshould array himself in his best clothes, go to church, buy candles,\nand set them up before the ikons of the saints, give to the priest\nmemoranda bearing the names of the dead who are to be prayed for,\nreceive bread with triangular pieces cut out of it, pray repeatedly\nfor the health and welfare of the Czar and bishops, as well as for\nhimself and his own affairs, and then kiss the cross and the hand of\nthe priest.\n\nThus is he taught to pray; and besides this, he is also taught\nthat he must perform his devotions once a year. To perform one's\ndevotions means to go to church and tell one's sins to the priest,\nit being assumed that this recital of one's sins to a stranger will\nhave a purifying effect on a man; then he is to swallow a spoonful\nof bread and wine, which will purify him still more. Moreover,\nmen are told that if a man and woman desire to have their sexual\nrelation sanctified they must come to church, put crowns of metal\nupon their heads, swallow some wine, walk three times round a table,\naccompanied by the sound of singing, and this will make their sexual\nrelation holy and entirely different from any others.\n\nIn daily life the observation of the following rules is enjoined:\nto eat no meat nor drink no milk on certain days, to say _Te Deums_\nand _Requiems_ on certain other days, to invite the priest to\none's house on holidays and present him with money; to take from\nthe church several times a year boards upon which are painted the\nimages of the saints, and to carry them on towels through fields and\nhouses. Before death a man must without fail receive a spoonful of\nbread and wine; and if there be time to be anointed with oil, that\nis still better, for it insures his welfare in the future life.\nAfter his death his relatives are told that, in order to save his\nsoul, it is well to place in his hand a printed prayer; it is also a\ngood thing to read a certain book over the dead, and for his name to\nbe mentioned in church at stated times.\n\nThis is what constitutes every man's religious obligation. But\nif any one wishes to take a special care of his soul, this creed\nteaches that the greatest amount of happiness may be secured in\nthe next world by bequeathing money for churches and monasteries,\nthereby obliging the saints to pray for one. According to this faith\nit is also well to visit monasteries and kiss the miraculous ikons\nand the relics.\n\nThese are believed to impart a peculiar holiness, strength, and\ngrace; and to be near these objects, as one must be in kissing them,\nplacing tapers before them, crawling under them, and repeating _Te\nDeums_ before them, greatly promotes salvation.\n\nAnd this is the faith called Orthodox, this is the true faith,\nthe one which, under the garb of a Christian religion, has been\nenergetically taught to the people for many centuries, and is\ninculcated at the present time more vigorously than ever.\n\nLet it not be said that the Orthodox teachers look upon all this as\nan ancient form of faith which it was not considered worth while\nto abolish, and that the essence of the doctrine abides elsewhere.\nThis is not the truth. Throughout Russia, and lately with increased\nenergy, the entire Russian clergy teaches this faith, and this\nalone. Nothing else is taught. Men may write about other doctrines\nand discuss them in the capitals, but among the hundred million\ninhabitants this, and only this, is taught. The ecclesiastics may\ndiscuss other doctrines, but only this is what is taught.\n\nAll this--the worship of relics and shrines--is included in theology\nand the catechism; the people are carefully instructed in all this,\ntheoretically and practically, by every kind of solemnity, splendor,\nauthority, and violence; the people are compelled to believe in it\nall; they are hypnotized, and the faith is jealously guarded against\nany attempt to deliver them from these foolish superstitions.\n\nAs I said in my book, I have during the course of many years had\nfrequent opportunities to remark the ridicule and rude jests\nthat have been applied to Christ's words and doctrine, and the\necclesiastics not only failed to condemn it, they even encouraged\nthis scoffing; but let a man venture to say one disrespectful word\nof the ugly idol called the Iverskaya,[7] sacrilegiously carried\naround Moscow by intoxicated men, and a groan of indignation will\nrise from these same Orthodox ecclesiastics. In fact, it is only an\nexternal worship in the form of idolatry that is propagated. And\nlet it not be said that the one does not exclude the other, that\n\"All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do;\nbut do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not\" (Matthew\nxxiii. 3). This is said concerning the Pharisees, who fulfilled\nall the outward commands of the law, and therefore the words,\n\"whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do,\" refer to\nacts of benevolence and charity; whereas the words, \"do not ye after\ntheir works, for they say and do not,\" refer to their observances of\nthe rites and their indifference to works of charity, and directly\ncontradicts the clerical interpretation of this passage, which\nexplains it as a commandment which has to do only with the rites. An\nexternal worship is hardly compatible with the service of charity\nand truth; one is apt to exclude the other. It was so with the\nPharisees, and the same may be said of our professing Christians.\n\n [7] The ikon of the Virgin which stands in a chapel in the heart\n of Moscow, and which is the object of a special veneration to the\n Russians.--TR.\n\nIf a man is to be saved by redemption, the sacraments, and prayer,\ngood works are no longer of any value to him. It must be either the\nSermon on the Mount or the Credo. No man can believe in both, and\nthe ecclesiastics have chosen the latter. The Credo is taught and\nrecited as a prayer in the churches, while the Sermon on the Mount\nis excluded even from selections from the Bible which are read in\nchurches, so that the congregation never hear it, except on the days\nwhen the entire Bible is read. It is inevitable; the men who can\nbelieve that a cruel and unreasonable God had condemned humanity to\neternal death and sacrificed his own Son, and who had destined a\ncertain portion of mankind to everlasting torture, cannot believe\nin a God of love. A man who believes in God, in the Christ who is\ncoming in his glory to judge and punish the dead and the living,\ncannot believe in a Christ who commands us to turn the other cheek\nto the offender, who forbids us to sit in judgment, and who bids us\nto forgive our enemies and to love them. A man who believes in the\ninspiration of the Old Testament and in the holiness of David, who\non his deathbed ordered the murder of an old man who had offended\nhim, and whom he could not kill himself because he was bound by\nan oath (1 Kings ii. 8,9), and many other horrors of a similar\ncharacter, in which the Old Testament abounds, cannot believe in the\nmoral law of Christ; a man who believes in the doctrine and sermons\nof the Church, wherein the practice of war and the penalty of death\nare reconciled with Christianity, cannot believe in the brotherhood\nof humanity.\n\nBut, above all, a man who believes in salvation through faith, in\nredemption, and in the sacraments, cannot strive with all his might\nto live up to the moral precepts of Christ. A man who has been\ntaught by the Church the sacrilegious doctrine that he is to be\nsaved through a certain medium, and not by his own efforts, will\nsurely have recourse to that medium; he will not trust to his own\nefforts, on which, he has been assured, it is sinful to rely. Every\nChurch, with its doctrines of redemption and salvation, and above\nall, the Orthodox faith, with its idolatry, excludes the doctrine\nof Christ. But it is said, \"This has always been the faith of the\npeople, and that they will continue to hold it is proved by the\nwhole history of the Russian nation. It would be wrong to deprive\nthem of their traditions.\" Herein lies the fallacy. The people,\nit is true, did once upon a time profess something like what is at\npresent professed by the Church; but besides this worship of images\nand relics, the people had always a profound moral conception of\nChristianity never possessed by the Church, and only met with in\nher noblest representatives; but the people, in the better class,\nand in spite of the obstacles raised by the State and the Church,\nhave long since abandoned the cruder phase of belief, a fact that\nis proved by the rationalistic sects that are beginning to spring\nup on every side, sects that Russia is filled with at the present\nday, and against which the ecclesiastics wage so hopeless a warfare.\nThe people are beginning to recognize the moral, vital side of\nChristianity more and more plainly. And now the Church appears,\nfailing to give them a moral support, but forcibly teaching old-time\npaganism,--the Church, with its immutable formulas, endeavoring to\nthrust men back into the gloom from which they are struggling so\nearnestly to escape.\n\nThe ecclesiastics say: \"We are teaching nothing new; it is the same\nfaith which the people already hold, only we teach it in a more\nperfect manner.\" It is like binding a chicken and trying to put it\nback into the shell from which it came. I have often been struck by\nthe spectacle, which would be simply absurd were not its results so\nterrible, of men traveling, so to speak, in a circle, deceived and\ndeceiving, but wholly unable to escape from the charmed circle.\n\nThe first question, the first doubt, that enters the head of\nevery Russian when he begins to reason, is a suspicion of the\nmiraculous ikons, and principally of the relics: is it true that\nthey are incorruptible, and that they perform miracles? Hundreds\nand thousands of men ask these questions, and are at a loss for an\nanswer, especially since bishops and metropolitans and other eminent\npersons kiss both the relics and the miraculous images. Ask the\nbishops and other personages of importance why they do this, and\nthey will tell you that they do it in order to impress the masses,\nand the masses do it because the bishops and other magnates do it.\n\nThe activity of the Russian Church, despite the veneer of modernity\nand the scientific and spiritual standards which its members have\nbegun to establish by their essays, their religious reviews, and\ntheir sermons, consists not only in encouraging the people in a\ncoarse and grotesque idolatry, but in strengthening and promulgating\nsuperstition and religious ignorance, and in endeavoring to destroy\nthe vital conception of Christianity that exists in the people side\nby side with this idolatry.\n\nI remember being once in a book-shop of the monastery of Optin\u00e6\nDesert while an old peasant was selecting spiritual reading for\nhis educated grandson. The monk was offering him a description of\nrelics, of holy days, of miraculous ikons, the Book of Psalms, and\nthe like. I asked the old man if he had a Bible. \"No,\" he replied.\n\"Give him a Russian Bible,\" I said to the monk. \"We don't sell that\nto them,\" said the monk. This, in short, is the activity of our\nChurch.\n\nBut the European or American reader may say, \"That only happens in\nbarbaric Russia,\" and the remark will be correct, but only so far as\nit applies to the government, which supports the Church to maintain\nin our land its stupefying and demoralizing influence.\n\nIt is true that there is nowhere in Europe a government so despotic,\nor that is in more perfect accord with the established Church.\nTherefore in Russia the government authorities play an important\npart in demoralizing the people; but it is not true that the Russian\nChurch differs from other churches in respect to its influence over\nthe people.\n\nChurches are everywhere alike, and if the Catholic, Anglican, and\nLutheran have not at their beck so submissive a government as the\nRussian, we may be sure that they would not fail to take advantage\nof it were it within their reach.\n\nThe Church as a church, whether it be Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran,\nor Presbyterian, or any denomination whatsoever, inasmuch as it is\na church, cannot help striving after the same object as the Russian\nChurch--namely, to conceal the true meaning of the doctrine of\nChrist, and to substitute a meaning of its own, which imposes no\nobligations, which excludes the possibility of understanding the\ntrue, living doctrine of Christ, and which above all justifies the\nexistence of a priesthood living at the expense of the people.\n\nDo we not find Catholicism with its prohibition against reading the\nBible, and with its demand for implicit obedience to the clergy\nand the infallible Pope? Wherein does Catholicism differ in its\npreaching from the Russian Church? The same external worship, the\nsame relics, miracles, and statues, miracle-performing Madonnas\nand processions; the same vague and mystical utterances concerning\nChristianity in books and sermons, and all in support of the\ngrossest idolatry.\n\nAnd is it not the same in the Anglican or in the Lutheran, or in any\nother Protestant denomination with an established form of church?\n\nThe same demands that the congregation shall acknowledge a belief in\ndogmas which were defined in the fourth century, and which have lost\nall meaning for the men of our time; the same call for idol worship,\nif not of relics or ikons, at least of the Sabbath and the letter\nof the Bible; the same endeavor to conceal the real requirement of\nChristianity and the substitution of exterior rites, and \"cant,\" as\nthe English so happily define the tendency which finds such sway\namong them.\n\nThis activity is more noticeable in Protestantism, because that\ncreed has not even the excuse of antiquity. And is not the same\nthing going on in the present \"Revivalism,\" a regenerated Calvinism,\nwhich has given birth to the Salvation Army? Inasmuch as the\nattitude of all ecclesiastical dogmas toward the doctrine of Christ\nis very much the same, so are their methods of a similar character.\n\nThe attitude they have taken obliges them to make every effort to\nconceal the doctrine of that Christ in whose name they speak.\n\nThe disparity between ecclesiastical creeds and the doctrine of\nChrist is so great that a special effort is required to keep mankind\nin ignorance. Indeed, one needs but to consider the position of\nany adult, I do not say educated, but one who has assimilated\nsuperficially the current notions concerning geology, physics,\nchemistry, cosmography, and history, when for the first time he\nactually reflects on the faith impressed upon him in his childhood,\nand maintained by the Church, concerning the creation of the world\nin six days, the appearance of light before the sun was created, the\nstory of Noah's ark and the animals preserved in it,--concerning\nJesus and his divine origin as the Son of God who created all things\nbefore time existed; that this God came down to earth because of\nAdam's sin; that he rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and\nsits on the right hand of the Father; that he will come in the\nclouds to judge the living and the dead, etc.\n\nAll these ideas evolved by the men of the fourth century, which had\nfor them a certain meaning, have none whatever for us. The present\ngeneration may repeat these words, but it can never believe in them,\nbecause the statements that God dwells in heaven, that the heavens\nopened and a voice was heard to utter certain words, that Christ\narose from the dead and ascended into heaven, that he will come\nagain from some place in the clouds, etc., have no meaning for us.\n\nIt was possible for a man who believed that heaven was a substantial\narch of limited dimensions to believe or to disbelieve that God\ncreated it, that it opened, and that Christ ascended thither,--but\nfor us there is no sense in such ideas. Men of our time can only\naffirm that it is one's duty to believe all this,--which they do.\nBut they cannot really believe in what has no meaning in it for them.\n\nBut if all these utterances are supposed to have an allegorical\nsignification and are only intended as similes, then we know in the\nfirst place that all the churchmen will not agree to this--on the\ncontrary, the majority insist on taking the Scriptures literally;\nand in the second place, that these interpretations differ greatly,\nand are supported by no reliable authority.\n\nAnd even if a man wished to believe the doctrine of the Church as\nit is taught, the increase of culture, the reading of the Bible,\nand the intercourse among the members of different churches, form a\ngreater and more insurmountable obstacle to belief.\n\nNowadays a man has but to buy the Bible for threepence, and to read\nthe simple, indisputable words of Christ to the Samaritan woman,\nthat the Father seeketh worshipers neither in Jerusalem nor in this\nor that mountain, but worshipers in spirit and truth; or the words,\nthat a Christian should pray not like the heathen in the temples,\nnor at the corners of streets, but in the secrecy of his closet; or,\nthat a disciple of Christ may call no one father or mother,--one has\nbut to read these words to be indubitably convinced that priests who\ncall themselves teachers in opposition to the teaching of Christ,\nand dispute among themselves, cannot be authorities, and that that\nwhich they teach is not Christian.\n\nBut this is not enough. If the modern man were to go on believing\nin miracles and never read the Bible, the fellowship with men of\nother creeds and professions, which is so much a matter of course in\nthese days, will compel him to question the truth of his religion.\nIt was natural enough for a man who had never met a believer in a\ncreed different from his own, to think that his was the only faith;\nbut an intelligent man has but to encounter--and that is an everyday\noccurrence--good and bad men of all creeds, who criticize each\nother's beliefs, in order to question the truth of his own religion.\nNow, only a man either totally ignorant or indifferent to the\nproblems of life as dealt with by religion can remain in the faith\nof the Church.\n\nWhat shrewdness is needed, and what efforts must the churches make,\nin order to go on, in the face of all these faith-destroying\ninfluences, building temples, saying masses, preaching, instructing,\nconverting, and above all receiving for this the large compensations\nwhich all those priests, pastors, stewards, superintendents, abbots,\narchdeacons, bishops, and archbishops receive!\n\nA special and supernatural effort is called for, and to this the\nChurch responds, exerting herself more and more. In Russia, besides\nmany other measures, they employ a simple, rude violence, by virtue\nof the power invested in the Church. People who shrink from an\noutward observance of faith and who do not conceal the fact are\nsimply punished or deprived of their civil rights; and to those who\nstrictly comply with the rites, privileges and rewards are granted.\n\nSo much for the Orthodoxy; but every church, without exception,\nmakes the most of the means at its disposal, and hypnotism is one of\nthe chief agents.\n\nEvery art, from architecture to poetry, is enlisted, in order to\nmove and intoxicate the human soul. This hypnotic and mesmerizing\ninfluence is markedly displayed in the activity of the Salvation\nArmy, which employs novel, and to us abnormal, methods, such, for\ninstance, as drums, horns, singing, banners, uniforms, processions,\ndancing, outbursts of tears, and dramatic gestures.\n\nStill, these methods are startling simply because of their novelty.\nIs not the familiar form of worship in cathedrals, with their\npeculiar illumination, the golden pomp, the candles, choirs, organs,\nbells, vestments, the weeping preachers, etc., of a similar nature?\nAnd yet, however powerful may be the influence of this hypnotism,\nit is by no means the chief or most harmful form which the activity\nof the Church assumes. Its most malign activity is that which is\ndevoted to deceiving the children--those little ones of whom Jesus\nhas said, \"Woe be unto him who tempts the least of these.\" From\nthe earliest awakening of a child's intelligence he is deceived\nand formally taught that which his teachers no longer believe\nthemselves, and this goes on until the delusion becomes from habit\na part of his nature. A child is systematically deceived concerning\nthe most important affair in life, and when this deception has\nbecome so incorporated with his being that it is difficult to uproot\nit, then the world of science and reality is opened to him--a world\nthat is wholly at variance with the faith which he has imbibed from\nhis teachers--and he is left to reconcile those contradictions as\nbest he may.\n\nGiven the problem of how to muddle a man so that he will be unable\nto discriminate between two antagonistic conceptions that have been\ntaught to him since his childhood, one could never have devised\nanything more effectual than the education of every young man in our\nso-called Christian society.\n\nShocking as it is to contemplate the work of the churches among men,\nstill, if we consider their position, we shall see that they cannot\nact otherwise. They are face to face with a dilemma: the Sermon on\nthe Mount or the Nicene creed; the one excludes the other. If a man\nsincerely believes the Sermon on the Mount, the Nicene creed must\ninevitably lose all its meaning for him, and the same would hold\ntrue as regards the Church and its representatives; but if a man\naccepts the Nicene creed, that is to say, the Church, or those who\ncall themselves its representatives, then he will find no use for\nthe Sermon on the Mount. Hence it is incumbent on the churches to\nmake every effort to obscure the meaning of the Sermon on the Mount\nand to endeavor to draw the people toward them. It is only due to\ntheir intense activity in that direction that the influence of the\nchurches has not decreased. Let the Church but pause in this effort\nto influence the masses by hypnotizing men and deceiving children\nfor ever so short a time, and men will comprehend the doctrine\nof Christ, and this comprehension will do away with churches and\ntheir influence. Therefore the churches cease not for one moment\ntheir compulsory activity through the hypnotism of adults and the\ndeception of children. And it is this activity of the churches that\ngives people a false conception of Christ's doctrine, and prevents\nthe majority of men, the so-called believers, from understanding it.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nMISCONCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY BY SCIENTISTS\n\n The relation of scientists to religions in general--What\n are religions, and their significance to human life--Three\n conceptions of life--The Christian doctrine is the expression of\n the divine life-conception--The misconception of Christianity\n by scientists who study its outward manifestations due to\n the fact that they consider it from the standpoint of the\n social life-conception--Opinion resulting therefrom, that\n the teaching of Christ is exaggerated and unpractical--The\n expression of the life-conception of the gospel--Erroneous\n judgments of scientists concerning Christianity are based upon\n the assurance that they possess an infallible criterion of\n knowledge--Hence arise two misapprehensions in regard to the\n Christian doctrine--The first misapprehension concerning the\n impracticability of the doctrine arises from the fact that the\n Christian doctrine presents a conduct of life different from\n that of the social life-conception--Christianity offers not a\n rule, but an ideal--Christ adds the consciousness of a divine\n power to that of an animal power--Christianity seems to exclude\n the possibility of life only when the indication of the ideal\n is taken for the rule--An ideal cannot be belittled--According\n to the doctrine of Christ, life is movement--The ideal and\n the commandments--The second misapprehension arises from the\n attempt to replace the love of God and His service by the love\n and service of humanity--Scientists believe that Christianity\n and their doctrine concerning the service of humanity are\n identical--The doctrine of love toward humanity has for its\n foundation the social life-conception--The love for humanity\n which springs logically from love for the individual has no\n meaning, because humanity is a fiction--Christian love springing\n from the love of God has for its object not only humanity but\n the whole world--Christianity teaches a life in accordance with\n its divine nature--It indicates that the essence of a man's soul\n is love, and that its good is obtained from its love of God,\n whom he feels to be within him through love.\n\n\nLet us now turn our attention to another fallacious conception of\nChristianity, which is antagonistic to its actual principles,--the\nscientific conception.\n\nThe Christianity of the churchmen is something which they have\nevolved for themselves, and which they believe to be the only true\ninterpretation of Christian doctrine.\n\nThe scientists take the professions of faith of the various\nchurches for Christianity, and assuming that these dogmas embody\nan exhaustive definition of Christian doctrine, they affirm that\nChristianity has had its day.\n\nOne needs but to take into consideration the important part\nwhich all religions, and especially Christianity, have played in\nthe life of man, and the significance which science attaches to\nthem, to see at once how impossible it would be to obtain any just\napprehension of Christian doctrine through these conceptions. As\neach individual must possess certain impressions in regard to the\nmeaning of his life, and, though often unconsciously, conform his\nconduct thereunto, so mankind in the aggregate, or groups of men\nliving under the same conditions, must likewise possess a conception\nof the meaning of their common life and its consequent activities.\nAs an individual passing from one period of life to another\ninevitably changes his ideas, the point of view of a grown-up man\ndiffers from that of a child, so also mankind in the aggregate--the\nnation--inevitably, and in conformity with its age, changes its\nviews of life and the activity that springs therefrom.\n\nThe difference in this respect between an individual and mankind\nin general lies in the fact that while the individual, in forming\nhis conception of the significance and responsibilities of that new\nperiod of life upon which he is about to enter, may avail himself of\nthe advice of his predecessors who have already passed that stage,\nmankind can have no such advantage, because it is advancing along an\nunbeaten track and there is no one of whom it can ask for the clue\nto the mystery of life, or how it shall demean itself under these\nunfamiliar conditions to which no nation has ever yet been subjected.\n\nThe married man with a family of children will not continue to\nview life as he did when he was a child; neither is it possible\nfor mankind, with the many changes that have taken place,--the\ndensity of the population, the constant intercourse of nations,\nthe perfected means of combating the forces of nature, and the\nincrease of knowledge generally,--to view the life of the present\nday in the light of the past; hence it becomes necessary to evolve\na life-conception from which activities corresponding with a new\nsystem which is to be established will naturally develop.\n\nAnd this need is supplied by that peculiar capacity of the race for\nproducing men able to impart a new significance to human life,--a\nsignificance developing a different set of activities.\n\nThe birth of the life-conception, which always takes place when\nmankind enters upon new conditions and its subsequent activities, is\nwhat we call religion.\n\nTherefore, in the first place, religion is not, as science regards\nit, a phenomenon which formerly traveled hand in hand with the\ndevelopment of mankind, and which has since been left behind; on the\ncontrary, it is a phenomenon inherent to human existence itself, and\nnever more distinctly manifested than at the present day. In the\nsecond place, religion defines future rather than past activities;\ntherefore it is evident that an investigation of the phenomena of\nthe past can by no means touch the essence of religion.\n\nThe longing to typify the forces of nature is no more the essence\nof religion than is the fear of those same forces, or the need of\nthe miraculous and its outward manifestations, as the scientists\nsuppose. The essence of religion lies in the power of man to\nforeknow and to point out the way in which mankind must walk. It is\na definition of a new life which will give birth to new activities.\n\nThis faculty of foreknowledge concerning the destiny of humanity\nis more or less common, no doubt, to all people; still from time\nto time a man appears in whom the faculty has reached a higher\ndevelopment, and these men have the power clearly and distinctly\nto formulate that which is vaguely conceived by all men, thus\ninstituting a new life-conception from which is to flow an unwonted\nactivity, whose results will endure for centuries to come. Thus far\nthere have been three of these life-conceptions; two of them belong\nto a bygone era, while the third is of our own time and is called\nChristianity. It is not that we have merged the various conceptions\nof the significance of life into three arbitrary divisions, but that\nthere really have been but three distinct conceptions, by which the\nactions of mankind have been influenced, and save through these we\nhave no means of comprehending life.\n\nThese three life-conceptions are--firstly, the individual or animal;\nsecondly, the social or pagan; and thirdly, the universal or divine.\n\nAccording to the first of these, a man's life is his personality,\nand that only, and his life's object is to gratify his desires.\nAccording to the second, his life is not limited to his own\npersonality; it includes the sum and continuity of many\npersonalities,--of the family, of the race, and of the State,\nand his life's object is to gratify the will of the communities\nof individuals. And according to the third, his life is confined\nneither to his personality nor to that of the aggregate of\nindividuals, but finds its significance in the eternal source of all\nlife,--in God Himself.\n\nThese three life-conceptions serve as the basis for the religions of\nevery age.\n\nThe savage sees life only through the medium of his own desires. He\ncares for nothing but himself, and for him the highest good is the\nfull satisfaction of his own passions. The incentive of his life is\npersonal enjoyment. His religion consists of attempts to propitiate\nthe gods in his favor, and of the worship of imaginary deities, who\nexist only for their own personal ends.\n\nA member of the pagan world recognizes life as something concerning\nothers besides himself; he sees it as concerning an aggregate of\nindividuals,--the family, the race, the nation, the State, and is\nready to sacrifice himself for the aggregate. The incentive of his\nlife is glory. His religion consists in honoring the chiefs of his\nrace, his progenitors, his ancestors, his sovereigns, and in the\nworship of those gods who are the exclusive patrons of his family,\nhis tribe, his race, and his State.[8]\n\n [8] The unity of this social and pagan life-conception is by no\n means destroyed by the numerous and varied systems which grow out of\n it, such as the existence of the family, of the nation, and of the\n State, and even of that life of humanity conceived according to the\n theory of the Positivists.\n\n These multifarious systems of life are based upon the fundamental\n idea of the insignificance of the individual, and the assurance that\n the meaning of life is to be sought and found only in humanity,\n taken in its broadest sense.--AUTHOR.\n\nThe man who possesses the divine life-conception neither looks upon\nlife as centered in his own personality nor in that of mankind at\nlarge, whether family, tribe, race, nation, or State; but rather\ndoes he conceive of it as taking its rise in the eternal life of\nGod, and to fulfil His will he is ready to sacrifice his personal,\nfamily, and social well-being. Love is the impelling motive of his\nlife, and his religion is the worship, in deed and in truth, of the\nbeginning of all things,--of God Himself.\n\nHistory is but the transcript of the gradual transition from the\nanimal life-conception of the individual to the social, and from\nthe social to the divine. The history of the ancients for thousands\nof centuries, culminating in that of Rome, is the history of the\nevolution from the animal life-conception of the individual to that\nof society and the State. From the advent of Christianity and the\nfall of Imperial Rome we have the history of that change which is\nstill going on from the social to the divine life-conception.\n\nThe latter, together with the Christian doctrine which is based\nupon it, and by which our lives are shaped, and our activities,\nboth practical and scientific, are quickened, is regarded by the\npseudo-scientists, who judge it only by its outward signs, as\nsomething outlived, which has lost all meaning for us.\n\nAccording to scientists this doctrine is embodied in the dogmas\nof the Trinity, the Redemption, the miracles, the Church and its\nsacraments, etc., and is only one of the many religions which have\narisen during the progress of human history, and now, having played\nits part and outlived its time, is vanishing before the dawn of\nscience and true enlightenment.\n\nThe grossest of human errors spring in most cases from the fact\nthat men who stand on a low intellectual plane, when they encounter\nphenomena of a higher order, instead of trying to rise to the\nhigher plane from which these phenomena may be fitly regarded, and\nmaking an effort to understand them, judge them by their own low\nstandard, and the less they know of what they speak, the more bold\nand determined are their judgments.\n\nMost scientists, who treat of the moral doctrine of Christ from the\nlower standpoint of a social life-conception, regard it as nothing\nmore than an amalgam without cohesion of the asceticism of India\nwith the doctrine of the Stoics and Neo-Platonists, and of vague\nanti-social dreams, devoid of all serious meaning in these latter\ndays; they simply see its outward manifestation in the form of\ndogmas in Catholicism, in Protestantism, and in its struggle with\nthe powers of the world. Interpreting the design of Christianity\nfrom its outward aspects, they are like unto deaf men, who judge\nof the meaning and excellence of music by the movements of the\nmusicians.\n\nHence it is that all such men, from Comte and Strauss to Spencer\nand Renan, not understanding the purport of Christ's words, knowing\nnothing whatever of their intention, ignorant of the question\nto which they serve as an answer, and taking no pains to learn\nit,--such men, if they are inimical to Christianity, utterly deny\nthe sense of the doctrine; but if they are leniently inclined, then,\nfrom the height of their superior wisdom, they amend it, taking for\ngranted that Christ would have said what they think He meant, had He\nknown how to express himself. They treat His doctrine just as men\nof overweening self-conceit treat their inferiors, correcting them\nin their speech: \"You mean so and so.\" And the spirit of emendation\nis always such as to reduce the doctrine of the higher, the divine\nlife-conception, to that of the lower and the social conception.\n\nIt is usually admitted that the moral teaching of Christianity\nis good but exaggerated; that in order to make it perfect, its\nhyperboles, which are incompatible with our present mode of life,\nshould be discarded. \"A doctrine which requires so much that is\nimpracticable is more hurtful than one which demands of men only\nwhat is in proportion to their strength.\" Thus declare the learned\ninterpreters of Christianity, thus unwittingly reiterating the\nassertion of those who misunderstood the Christian doctrine long\nyears ago, and crucified the Master.\n\nThe Hebrew law, \"An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,\" the\nretributive justice known to mankind thousands of years ago, seems\nfar better suited to the court of contemporary scientists than the\nlaw of love which Christ preached 1800 years ago, and which was to\nreplace this identical law of justice.\n\nIt would seem that every action of those men who accepted the\nteaching of Christ in its literal sense, and lived up to it, all the\nwords and deeds of sincere Christians, and all the agencies which,\nunder the guise of socialism and communism, are now transforming\nthe world, are merely exaggeration, not worth discussing. Nations\nwhich have lived under Christian influences, and which are now\nrepresented by their advanced thinkers, the scientists, have\narrived at the conclusion that the Christian doctrine is a matter\nof dogma; that its practical teaching has been a mistake and an\nexaggeration, inimical to the just requirements of morality that\nare in accord with human nature, and that the very doctrine which\nChrist repudiated, and for which he substituted a dogma of his own,\nis far better suited to us. The scientist considers the commandment\nof non-resistance to evil by violence an exaggeration, and even an\nact of folly. It would be far better, in his opinion, to reject it,\nnever dreaming that it is not the doctrine of Christ which he is\ncontroverting, but something which he assumes to be the doctrine in\nquestion. He does not realize when he says that the commandment of\nnon-resistance in the doctrine of Christ is an exaggeration, that\nhe is like one who, teaching the theory of the circle, declares\nthat the equality of the radii is an exaggeration. It is just as\nif one who has no idea of the form of a circle were to affirm that\nthe law which requires that each point of its circumference shall\nbe equidistant from its center, is an exaggeration. As a suggestion\nto reject or modify the proposition concerning the equality of the\nradii of a circle signifies an ignorance in regard to the circle\nitself, so also does the idea of rejecting or modifying, in the\npractical teaching of Christ, the commandment of non-resistance to\nevil by violence signify a misunderstanding of the doctrine.\n\nAnd those who entertain these views do not really comprehend the\ndoctrine. They do not understand that it is the unfolding of a new\nconception of life, corresponding to the new phase of existence\nupon which the world entered 1800 years ago, and a definition of\nthe new activity to which it gave birth. Either they do not believe\nthat Christ said what He meant to say, or that what is found in the\nSermon on the Mount and elsewhere He said either from His enthusiasm\nor lack of wisdom and simplicity of character.[9]\n\n [9] Here, for example, is a characteristic expression of opinion\n in the American periodical, _The Arena,_ for November, 1890,\n from an article entitled \"New Basis of Church Life.\" Discussing\n the significance of the Sermon on the Mount, and especially the\n doctrine of non-resistance to evil, the author, having no reason for\n obscuring its meaning as the ecclesiastics do, says:--\n\n \"Devout common sense must gradually come to look upon Christ\n as a philanthropic teacher, who, like every enthusiast who\n ever taught, went to an Utopian extreme in his own philosophy.\n Every great agitation for the betterment of the world has been\n led by men who beheld their own mission with such absorbing\n intensity that they could see little else. It is no reproach to\n Christ to say that he had the typical reformer's temperament;\n that his precepts cannot be literally accepted as a complete\n philosophy of life; and that men are to analyze them reverently,\n but, at the same time, in the spirit of ordinary truth-seeking\n criticism,\" etc.\n\n \"Christ did in fact preach absolute communism and anarchy; but,\"\n and so on. Christ would have been glad to have expressed Himself\n in more fitting terms, but He did not possess our critical\n faculty in the use of exact definitions, therefore we will set\n Him right. All He said concerning meekness, sacrifice, poverty,\n and of taking no thought for the morrow, were but haphazard\n utterances, because of His ignorance of scientific phraseology.\n\n Matt. vi. 25-34.--25. _Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought\n for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor\n yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more\n than meat, and the body than raiment?_\n\n 26. _Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither\n do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father\n feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?_\n\n 27. _Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his\n stature?_\n\n 28. _And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of\n the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:_\n\n 29. _And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory\n was not arrayed like one of these._\n\n 30. _Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which\n to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not\n much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?_\n\n 31. _Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or,\n What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?_\n\n 32. _(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your\n heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things._\n\n 33. _But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his\n righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you._\n\n 34. _Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow\n shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the\n day is the evil thereof._\n\n Luke xii. 33-34.--33. _Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide\n yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens\n that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth\n corrupteth._\n\n 34. _For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also._\n\n Matt. xix. 21.--\"_Go and sell that thou hast, and give to the\n poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and\n follow me._\"\n\n Mark viii. 34.--\"_Whosoever will come after me, let him deny\n himself, and take up his cross, and follow me._\"\n\n John iv. 34.--\"_My meat is to do the will of him that sent me,\n and to finish his work._\"\n\n Luke xxii. 42.--\"_Not my will, but thine, be done._\"\n\n _Not what I wish, but what Thou wishest, and not as I wish, but\n as Thou wishest. Life consists in doing not your own will, but\n the will of God._\n\nAll these doctrines are regarded by men who adhere to the lower\nlife-conception as expressions of enthusiastic exaltation, with no\nspecial reference to daily life. And yet these doctrines are no less\nthe natural outcome of the Christian life-conception than is the\nidea of giving one's labor for the common good, or of sacrificing\none's life to defend one's country, the outcome of the social\nlife-conception.\n\nAs the believer in the social life-conception says to the savage:\n\"Rouse yourself! Consider what you are doing! The life that man\nlives for himself alone cannot be the true one, for life is fleeting\nand full of woe. It is the life of the community at large, the\nrace, the family, the State, that endures: therefore a man must\nsacrifice his personality for the life of the family and the State;\"\nChristianity in like manner says unto him who believes in a social\nlife-conception of the community: \"Repent, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1, that\nis, arouse yourself, consider your ways, else shall you perish. Know\nyou that this bodily, animal life is born to-day and dies to-morrow;\nnothing can assure its permanence, no outward expedients, no system\nwhatsoever can give it stability. Consider your ways and learn that\nthe life you live is not the real life, that neither family, social,\nnor State life will save you from perdition. An honest rational\nlife is possible for man provided that he be, not a participant\nof the life of the family or life of the State, but a partaker of\nthe source of all life--that of the Father Himself; then his life\nis united to the life of the Father.\" Such is beyond a doubt the\nmeaning of the Christian conception of life, clearly set forth in\nevery maxim of the New Testament.\n\nOne may not share such a conception of life, one may deny it, or\nprove it to be inaccurate and fallacious; but no man can possibly\njudge a doctrine without having first made himself familiar with the\nlife-conception which forms its basis; and still more impossible is\nit to judge a lofty subject from a low standpoint, to pronounce upon\nthe belfry from a knowledge of the foundation. Yet this is precisely\nwhat is done by contemporary scientists. And this is because they\nare laboring under an error similar to that of the clergy, in\nbelieving that they possess such infallible methods of studying\ntheir subject that, if they but bring their so-called scientific\nmethods to bear upon the subject under consideration, there can be\nno doubt as to the accuracy of their conclusion.\n\nThe possession of a guide to knowledge, which they believe to be\ninfallible, is really the chief obstacle to the comprehension of\nthe Christian doctrine among unbelievers and so-called scientists,\nby whose opinions the great majority of unbelievers, the so-called\neducated classes, are guided. All the errors of the scientists\nconcerning Christianity, and especially two strange misapprehensions\nthat avail more than anything else to blind men to its real\nsignification, arise therefrom.\n\nOne of these misapprehensions is that the doctrine of a Christian\nlife not being practical, it remains optional with the individual\nwhether he take it for his guide or no; and if he chooses to do\nso, it may then be modified to suit the exigencies of our social\nlife. The second misapprehension is that the Christian doctrine of\nlove of God, and therefore of the service due to Him, is a mystical\nrequirement, neither clearly expressed nor offering any well-defined\nobject of love: consequently the more definite and intelligible\ndoctrine of love of man and of the service of humanity may be\nsubstituted for it.\n\nThe first misapprehension which relates to the impracticability of\nthe Christian doctrine arises from the fact that men who believe in\nthe social life-conception, not comprehending the rule obeyed by\nmen who hold the Christian doctrine, and mistaking the Christian\nstandard of perfection for the guiding principle of life, believe\nand declare that it is impossible to follow the teaching of Christ,\nbecause implicit obedience to this doctrine would end by destroying\nlife. \"If man were to fulfil the precepts of Christ, he would\ndestroy his life; and if all the world were to fulfil them, the\nhuman race would soon become extinct. If you were to take no thought\nfor the morrow, neither of what ye shall eat or drink, nor what\nye shall put on; if one may not resist evil by violence or defend\none's life, nor even give up one's life for his friend; if one is to\npreserve absolute chastity, mankind could not long exist;\" so they\nbelieve and affirm.\n\nAnd they are right, if one takes the incentives to perfection\noffered by the teaching of Christ as laws which each man must obey,\njust as, for instance, in the social order every man must pay his\ntaxes, and some must serve in the courts of law, and so on.\n\nThe misapprehension consists in overlooking the fact that the\ndoctrine of Christ, and the doctrine formulated by a lower\nlife-conception, guide men in very different ways. The doctrines of\nthe social life-conception guide men in fulfilling the requirements\nof the law. The doctrine of Christ guides men by manifesting the\ninfinite perfection of the Heavenly Father, to which it is natural\nfor every man to aspire, whatever may be his shortcomings.\n\nThe misconception of those who judge the Christian doctrine by the\nstandard of the state or civil doctrine is this,--that they imagine\nthat the perfection of which Christ speaks may be attained in this\nlife, and ask themselves just as they would ask concerning some law\nof the State, what will happen when all this shall be fulfilled?\nThis hypothesis is fallacious, because the perfection indicated\nby Christianity is infinite and can never be attained; and Christ\npromulgates his doctrine, knowing that although absolute perfection\nwill never be attained, yet the aspiration toward it will ever\ncontribute to the welfare of mankind, that this welfare may by this\nmeans be everlastingly increased.\n\nChrist is not teaching angels, but men who live and move in an\nanimal life, and whose impulses are of an animal nature. And to\nthis animal impulse Christ, so to speak, adds another force by\ncommunicating to man a sense of the divine perfection, guiding the\ncurrent of life between these two forces.\n\nTo take it for granted that human life is to follow the direction\nindicated by Christ would be like expecting the boatman, who,\ncrossing a swift river, steers almost directly against the current,\nto float in that direction.\n\nChrist recognizes the fact that a parallelogram has two sides,\nand that a man's life is controlled by two indestructible forces:\nhis animal nature and his consciousness of a filial relationship\nto God. Disregarding the factor of the animal life, which never\nlooses its hold, and is beyond man's control, Christ speaks of the\ndivine consciousness, urging man to its fuller recognition, its\ncomplete emancipation from all that fetters it, and to its utmost\ndevelopment.\n\nMan's true life, according to the precepts of Christ, is only to\nbe found in this emancipation and in the growth of the divine\nconsciousness. According to the old dispensation, a true life meant\nthe fulfilment of the precepts of the law; but according to Christ,\nit means the closest approach to the divine perfection which has\nbeen manifested to every man, and which every man recognizes,--a\ncloser and closer union of his will to the will of God; a union\nwhich every man is striving to attain, and which would utterly\ndestroy the life we now lead.\n\nGod's perfection is the asymptote of human life, toward which it is\nforever aspiring and drawing nearer, although it can only reach its\ngoal in the infinite.\n\nIt is only when men mistake the suggestion of an ideal for a rule\nof conduct that the Christian doctrine seems at odds with life.\nIndeed, the reverse is true, for it is by the doctrine of Christ,\nand that alone, that a true life is rendered possible. \"It is a\nmistake to require too much,\" men usually say, when discussing the\ndemands of the Christian religion. \"One ought not to be required\nto take no thought for the morrow, as the Bible teaches, but of\ncourse one should not be over-anxious; one cannot give all that he\npossesses to the poor, still he should bestow a certain portion of\nhis goods in charity; one ought not to remain unmarried, but let him\navoid a dissolute life; one need not renounce his wife and children,\nalthough one must not idolize them.\"\n\nThese arguments are equivalent to telling a man who is crossing a\nswift river and steering his boat against the current, that no one\ncan cross a river by steering against the current, but that he must\ndirect his boat in a straight line toward the point he wishes to\nreach.\n\nThe doctrine of Christ differs from former doctrines in that it\ninfluences men, not by outward observances, but by the interior\nconsciousness that divine perfection may be attained.\n\nIt is this illimitable and divine perfection that absorbs the soul\nof man, not restricted laws of justice and philanthropy. It needs\nbut the aspiration toward this divine perfection to impel the\ncourse of human life from the animal to the divine, so far as may be\nhumanly possible.\n\nIn order to land at any given point one must steer beyond it. To\nlower the standard of an ideal means not only to lessen the chances\nof attaining perfection, but to destroy the ideal itself. The\nideal that influences mankind is not an ingenious invention; it is\nsomething that dwells in the soul of each individual. It is this\nideal of utter and infinite perfection that excites men and urges\nthem to action. A possible degree of perfection would have no appeal\nto the souls of men.\n\nIt is because the doctrine of Christ requires illimitable\nperfection, that is to say, the blending of the divine essence,\nwhich is in each man's soul, with the will of God, the union of\nthe Son with the Father, that it has authority. It is only the\nemancipation of the Son of God, who dwells with each one of us, from\nthe animal element within us, and the drawing near to the Father,\nthat can, in the Christian sense of the word, be called life.\n\nThe presence of the animal element in man is not enough of itself to\nconstitute human life. Neither is a spiritual life, which is guided\nonly by the will of God, a human life. A true human life is composed\nof an animal and of a spiritual life united to the will of God, and\nthe nearer this component life approaches to the life of God, the\nmore it has life.\n\nAccording to the Christian doctrine, life is a condition of progress\ntoward the perfection of God; hence no one condition can be either\nhigher or lower than another, because each is in itself a certain\nstage in human progress toward the unattainable perfection, and\ntherefore of equal importance with all the others. Any spiritual\nquickening, according to this doctrine, is simply an accelerated\nmovement toward perfection. Therefore the impulse of Zacch\u00e6us the\npublican, of the adulteress, and the thief on the cross, show forth\na higher order of life than does the passive righteousness of the\nPharisee. This doctrine, therefore, can never be enforced by\nobligatory laws. The man who, from a lower plane, lives up to the\ndoctrine he professes, ever advancing toward perfection, leads a\nhigher life than one who may perhaps stand on a superior plane of\nmorality, but who is making no progress toward perfection.\n\nThus the stray lamb is dearer to the Father than those which are in\nthe fold; the prodigal returned, the coin that was lost and is found\nagain, more highly prized than those that never were lost.\n\nSince the fulfilment of this doctrine is an impulse from self toward\nGod, it is evident that there can be no fixed laws for its movement.\nIt may spring from any degree of perfection or of imperfection; the\nfulfilment of rules and fulfilment of the doctrine are by no means\nsynonymous; there could be no rules or obligatory laws for its\nfulfilment.\n\nThe difference between social laws and the doctrine of Christ\nis the natural result of the radical dissimilarity between the\ndoctrine of Christ and those earlier doctrines which had their\nsource in a social life-conception. The latter are for the most\npart positive, enjoining certain acts, by the performance of which\nmen are to be justified and made righteous, whereas the Christian\nprecepts (the precept of love is not a commandment in the strict\nsense of the word, but the expression of the very essence of the\ndoctrine), the five commandments of the Sermon on the Mount, are all\nnegative, only meant to show men who have reached a certain degree\nof development what they must avoid. These commandments are, so to\nspeak, mile-stones on the infinite road to perfection, toward which\nhumanity is struggling; they mark the degrees of perfection which it\nis possible for it to attain at a certain period of its development.\n\nIn the Sermon on the Mount Christ expressed the eternal ideal to\nwhich mankind instinctively aspires, showing at the same time the\npoint of perfection to which human nature in its present stage may\nattain.\n\nThe ideal is to bear no malice, excite no ill-will, and to love all\nmen. The commandment which forbids us to offend our neighbor is one\nwhich a man who is striving to attain this ideal must not do less\nthan obey. And this is the first commandment.\n\nThe ideal is perfect chastity in thought, no less than in deed; and\nthe commandment which enjoins purity in married life, forbidding\nadultery, is one which every man who is striving to attain this\nideal must not do less than obey. And this is the second commandment.\n\nThe ideal is to take no thought for the morrow, to live in the\npresent, and the commandment, the fulfilment of which is the point\nbeneath which we must not fall, is against taking oath or making\npromises for the future. Such is the third commandment.\n\nThe ideal--to use no violence whatsoever--shows us that we must\nreturn good for evil, endure injuries with patience, and give up the\ncloak to him who has taken the coat. Such is the fourth commandment.\n\nThe ideal is to love your enemies, to do good to them that\ndespitefully use you. In order to keep the spirit of this\ncommandment one must at least refrain from injuring one's enemies,\none must speak kindly of them, and treat all one's fellow-creatures\nwith equal consideration. Such is the fifth commandment.\n\nAll these commandments are reminders of that which we, in our\nstriving for perfection, must and can avoid; reminders, too, that we\nmust labor now to acquire by degrees habits of self-restraint, until\nsuch habits become second nature. But these commandments, far from\nexhausting the doctrine, do not by any means cover it. They are but\nstepping-stones on the way to perfection, and must necessarily be\nfollowed by higher and still higher ones, as men pursue the course\ntoward perfection.\n\nThat is why a Christian doctrine would make higher demands than\nthose embodied in the commandments, and not in the least decrease\nits demands, as they who judge the Christian doctrine from a social\nlife-conception seem to think.\n\nThis is one of the mistakes of the scientists in regard to the\nsignificance of Christ's doctrine. And the substitution of the\nlove of humanity for the love and service of God is another, and it\nsprings from the same source.\n\nIn the Christian doctrine of loving and of serving God, and (as\nthe natural consequence of such love and service) of loving and\nserving one's neighbor, there seems to the scientific mind a certain\nmysticism, something at once confused and arbitrary; and, believing\nthat the doctrine of love for humanity rests on a firmer basis and\nis altogether more intelligible, they utterly reject the requirement\nof love and service of God.\n\nThe theory of a scientist is that a virtuous life, a life with a\npurpose, must be useful to the world at large; and in a life of this\nkind they discover the solution of the Christian doctrine, to which\nthey reduce Christianity itself. Assuming their own doctrine to be\nidentical with that of Christianity, they seek and believe that they\nfind in the latter an affirmation of their own views.\n\nThis is a fallacy. The Christian doctrine, and the doctrine of the\nPositivists, and of all advocates of the universal brotherhood of\nman, founded on the utility of such a brotherhood, have nothing\nin common, and especially do they differ in that the doctrine of\nChristianity has a solid and a clearly defined foundation in the\nhuman soul, whereas love of humanity is but a theoretical conclusion\nreached through analogy.\n\nThe doctrine of the love of humanity has for its basis the social\nlife-conception.\n\nThe essence of the social life-conception consists in replacing the\nsense of individual life by that of the life of the group. In its\nfirst steps, this is a simple and natural progression, as from the\nfamily to the tribe; from the family to the race is more difficult,\nand requires special education,--which has arrived at its utmost\nlimits when the State has been reached.\n\nIt is natural for every man to love himself, and he needs no\nincentive thereto; to love his tribe, which lends both support and\nprotection; to love his wife, the delight and comfort of his daily\nlife; the children, who are his consolation and his future hope; his\nparents, who gave him life and cherished him,--all this, although\nnot so intense as love of self, is natural and common to mankind.\n\nTo love one's race, one's people, for their own sake, although not\nso instinctive, is also common. To love one's ancestors, one's\nkinsfolk, through pride, is also natural and frequent; and a man may\nfeel love for his fellow-countrymen, who speak the same language\nand profess the same faith as himself, although the emotion is\nless strong than love of self or love of family. But love for a\nnation, Turkey, for instance, or Germany, England, Austria, Russia,\nis almost impossible, and notwithstanding the training given in\nthat direction, it is only a fictitious semblance; it has no real\nexistence. At this aggregate ceases man's power of transfusing\nhis innermost consciousness; for such a fiction he can feel no\ndirect sentiment. And yet the Positivists and all the preachers\nof the scientific fraternity, not taking into consideration the\nfact that this feeling is weakened in proportion to the expansion\nof its object, continue to theorize on the same lines. They say:\n\"If it were to the advantage of an individual to transfuse his\nconsciousness into the family, and thence into the nation and the\nState, it follows that it will be to his further advantage to\ntransfuse his consciousness into the universal entity, mankind, that\nall men may live for humanity, as they have lived for the family and\nfor the State.\"\n\nAnd theoretically they are right.\n\nAfter having transferred the consciousness and love for the\nindividual to the family, and from the family to the race, the\nnation, and the State, it would be perfectly logical for men, in\norder to escape the strife and disasters that result from the\ndivision of mankind into nations and states, to transfer their love\nto humanity at large. This would appear to be the logical outcome,\nand it has been offered as a theory by those who forget that love\nis an innate sentiment, which can never be inspired by preaching;\nthat it must have a real object, and that the entity which men call\nhumanity is not a real object, but a fiction.\n\nA family, a race, even a State, are no inventions of men; these\nthings have formed themselves like a hive of bees, or a colony of\nants, and possess an actual existence. The man who loves his family,\nafter a human fashion, knows whom he is loving--Ann, Maria, John, or\nPeter. The man who loves his ancestors, and is proud of them, knows\nthat he loves the Guelphs, for instance, or the Ghibellines; the man\nwho loves his country knows that he loves France from the Rhine to\nthe Pyrenees, that he loves its capital, Paris, and all its history.\nBut the man who loves humanity, what is it that he loves? There is a\nState, there is a people, there is the abstract conception of man.\nBut humanity as a concrete conception is impossible.\n\nHumanity? Where is its limit? Where does it end and where does\nit begin? Does it exclude the savage, the idiot, the inebriate,\nthe insane? If one were to draw a line of demarcation so as to\nexclude the lower representatives of the human race, where ought\nit to be drawn? Ought it to exclude the Negro, as they do in the\nUnited States, or the Hindoos, as some Englishmen do, or the Jews,\nas does another nation? But if we include all humanity without\nexception, why should we restrict ourselves to men? Why should we\nexclude the higher animals, some of whom are superior to the lowest\nrepresentatives of the human race?\n\nWe do not know humanity in the concrete, nor can we fix its limits.\nHumanity is a fiction, and therefore it cannot be loved. Indeed,\nit would be advantageous if men could love humanity as they love\nthe family. It would be very useful, as the communists say, to\nsubstitute a community of interests for individual competition,\nor the universal for the personal; in a word, to make the whole\nworld a mutual benefit society,--only that there are no motives to\nbring about such a result. The Positivists, communists, and all\nthe exponents of the scientific fraternity exhort us to extend\nthe love which men feel for themselves, their families, their\nfellow-countrymen, over humanity at large, forgetting that the love\nof which they speak is a personal love, which may be kindled for the\nfamily, and even extend to include one's native country, but which\nexpires altogether when it is appealed to in behalf of an artificial\nstate, such as Austria, England, or Turkey; and when claimed for\nthat mystical object, humanity in general, one cannot even grasp the\nidea.\n\n\"A man loves himself, his physical personality, he loves his family,\nhe even loves his country. Why should he not also love mankind?\nIt would seem such a happy consummation! And it so happens that\nChristianity inculcates the same precept.\" These are the opinions of\nthe Positivist, the communist, and the socialist fraternities.\n\nIt would indeed be fortunate, but it is impossible, because love\nfounded on a personal and social life-conception can go no further\nthan the love of country.\n\nThe flaw in the argument arises from the fact that the social\nlife-conception, the basis of family love and of patriotism, is\nitself an individual love, and such a love, in its transference from\na person to a family, a race, a nation, and a State, gradually loses\nits efficiency, and in the State has reached its final limit, and\ncan go no further.\n\nThe necessity for widening the sphere of love is not to be denied,\nand yet it is the very attempt to satisfy this requirement that\ndestroys its possibility, and proves the inadequacy of personal\nhuman love.\n\nAnd here it is that the advocates of the Positivist, communist, and\nsocialist brotherhood offer as a prop to the humanitarianism that\nhas proved its inefficiency, a Christian love, not in its essence,\nbut only in its results; in other words, not the love of God, but\nthe love of man.\n\nBut there can be no such love; it has no _raison d'\u00e9tre_. Christian\nlove comes only from a Christian life-conception, whose sole\nmanifestation is the love and service of God.\n\nBy a natural sequence in the extension of love from the individual\nto the family, and thence to the race, the nation, and the State,\nthe social life-conception has brought men not to the consciousness\nof love for humanity,--which is illimitable--the unification of\nevery living creature,--but to a condition which evokes no feeling\nin man, to a contradiction for which it provides no reconciliation.\n\nIt is only the Christian doctrine which, by lending to human life\na new significance, is able to solve the difficulty. Christianity\npresents the love of self and the love of the family, as well as\npatriotism and the love of humanity, but it is not to be restricted\nto humanity alone; it is to be given to every living creature; it\nrecognizes the possibility of an indefinite expansion of the kingdom\nof love, but its object is not to be found outside itself, in the\naggregate of individuals, neither in the family, nor in the race,\nnor in the State, nor in mankind, nor all the wide world, but in\nitself, in its personality,--a divine personality, whose essence is\nthe very love which needed a wider sphere.\n\nThe distinction between the Christian doctrine and those which\npreceded it may be thus defined. The social doctrine says: Curb thy\nnature (meaning the animal nature alone); subject it to the visible\nlaw of the family, of society, and of the State. Christianity says:\nLive up to thy nature (meaning the divine nature); make it subject\nto nothing; neither to thine own animal nature, nor to that of\nanother, and then thou shalt attain what thou seekest by subjecting\nthine outward personality to visible laws. The Christian doctrine\nrestores to man his original consciousness of self, not the animal\nself, but the godlike self, the spark of divinity, as the son\nof God, like unto the Father, but clothed in a human form. This\nconsciousness of one's self as a son of God, whose essence is love,\nsatisfies at once all those demands made by the man who professes\nthe social life-conception for a broader sphere of love. Again, in\nthe social life-conception the enlargement of the domain of love was\na necessity for the salvation of the individual; it was attached\nto certain objects, to one's self, to one's family, to society,\nand to humanity. With the Christian world-conception love is not a\nnecessity, neither is it attached to any special object; it is the\ninherent quality of a man's soul; he loves because he cannot help\nloving.\n\nThe Christian doctrine teaches to man that the essence of his soul\nis love; that his well-being may be traced, not to the fact that he\nloves this object or that one, but to the fact that he loves the\nprinciple of all things--God, whom he recognizes in himself through\nlove, and will by the love of God love all men and all things.\n\nThis is the essential difference between the Christian doctrine and\nthat of the Positivists, and all other non-Christian theorists of a\nuniversal brotherhood.\n\nSuch are the two chief misapprehensions in regard to the Christian\ndoctrine, and from those most of the false arguments on the subject\nhave originated.\n\nOne is, that the doctrine of Christ, like the doctrines which\npreceded it, promulgates rules which men must obey, and that these\nrules are impracticable. The other, that the whole meaning of\nChristianity is contained in the doctrine of a co\u00f6perative union of\nmankind, in one family, to attain which, leaving aside the question\nof love of God, one should obey only the rule of love of one's\nfellow-men.\n\nFinally, the mistake of scientists, in supposing that the doctrine\nof the supernatural contains the essence of Christianity, that\nits life-teaching is not practicable, together with the general\nmisapprehensions that result from such a misconception, further\nexplains why men of our time have so misunderstood Christianity.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nCONTRADICTION OF OUR LIFE AND CHRISTIAN CONSCIOUSNESS\n\n Men consider that they may accept Christianity without changing\n their life--The pagan life-conception no longer corresponds to\n the present age of humanity, which the Christian life-conception\n alone can satisfy--The Christian life-conception is still\n misunderstood by men, but our life itself necessitates its\n acceptance--The requirements of a new life-conception always\n seem unintelligible, mystical, and supernatural--Such, for\n the majority of men, seem the requirements of the Christian\n life-conception--The acceptance of a Christian life-conception\n will inevitably be accomplished both through spiritual and\n material agencies--The fact that men, conscious of a higher\n life-conception, continue to entertain the lower forms of\n life, causes contradiction and suffering, which embitter life\n and require its alteration--Contradictions of our life--The\n economical contradiction, and the suffering it causes to the\n working-men and to the rich--The contradiction of State, and\n the sufferings that arise from obedience to State laws--The\n international contradiction, and its acknowledgment by\n contemporary writers: Komarvosky, Ferri, Booth, Passy, Lawson,\n Wilson, Bartlett, Defourny, Moneta--The military contradiction\n the extreme.\n\n\nMany causes have contributed toward the misunderstanding of the\nteaching of Christ. One of these is that men assumed to understand\nthe doctrine, when, like the faithful of the Church, they accepted\nthe statement that it had been transmitted in a supernatural\nmanner; or, like the scientists, after having investigated certain\nof its outward manifestations. Another reason may be found in the\nconviction that it is impracticable, and that it may be replaced by\nthe doctrine of love of humanity. But the principal reason of all\nsuch misconceptions is that men look upon the doctrine of Christ as\none that may be accepted or rejected without any special change in\none's life.\n\nMen, attached by habit to the existing order, shrink from\nattempting to change it, hence they agree to consider this doctrine\nas a mass of revelations and laws that may be accepted without\nmaking any change in one's life: whereas the doctrine of Christ\nis not a doctrine of rules for man to obey, but unfolds a new\nlife-conception, meant as a guide for men who are now entering upon\na new period, one entirely different from the past.\n\nThe life of humanity continues its course and has its stages, like\nthe life of an individual; each age has its own life-conception,\nwhich a man must adopt whether he will or no. Those who do not adopt\nit consciously, adopt it unconsciously. The same change that takes\nplace in the views of the individual, as life goes on, occurs also\nin the existence of nations and of humanity in general.\n\nIf a father were to conduct his affairs like a child, his life would\ncertainly become so unbearable that he would cast about for a\ndifferent plan of life, and would eagerly grasp at one better suited\nto his years.\n\nAnd the human race is at the present time passing through a\nsimilar experience, in its transition from a pagan to a Christian\nlife-conception. A man of the society of the present day finds that\nthe pagan life-conception is no longer suited to the times, hence he\nis induced to submit to the requirements of the Christian religion,\nwhose truths, however misunderstood and falsely interpreted they\nmay be, are yet familiar to his ears, and seem to offer the only\npractical solution of the contradictions that beset his path. If the\ndemands of the Christian doctrine seem unintelligible, peculiar, and\ndangerous to a man who has hitherto held the social life-conception,\nthe demands of the latter seemed none the less so to a savage of a\nprevious age, who neither fully apprehended them, nor was able to\nforesee their consequences.\n\nThe savage reasoned thus: \"It would be folly for me to sacrifice\nmy peace or my life to defend an incomprehensible, intangible, and\nuncertain ideal, family, race, country, and, above all, it would be\ndangerous to deliver myself into the hands of an unknown power.\" But\nthere came a time in the life of the savage when, on the one hand,\nhe had begun, although vaguely, to understand the meaning of social\nlife, as well as that of its chief incentive,--social approval or\ncondemnation: glory,--while, on the other hand, the sufferings\nof his personal life had become so severe that it was no longer\npossible for him to go on believing in the truth of his former\nlife-conception; whereupon he accepted the social and State doctrine\nand submitted to its laws.\n\nAnd he who holds the social life-conception is now undergoing a\nsimilar experience.\n\n\"It is madness\"--thus reasons the man holding such views--\"to\nsacrifice one's interests or those of one's family and of one's\ncountry, in order to fulfil the requirements of a law that would\ncompel one to renounce the most natural and praiseworthy feelings\ntoward one's self, one's family, and one's country, and, above all,\nthe guarantee of protection afforded by the State.\"\n\nBut there comes a time when, on the one hand, a vague awakening\nconsciousness stirs the soul, the consciousness of the higher law,\nlove of God and one's neighbor, and the sufferings a man endures\nfrom the contradictions of life, compel him to renounce the social\nlife-conception and to adopt the new Christian life-conception which\nis offered him. And this time has now arrived.\n\nTo us, who underwent the transition from the individual to the\nsocial life-conception thousands of years ago, this transition\nappears to have been both natural and inevitable, just as the\npresent transition, through which we have been passing these last\n1800 years, seems arbitrary, unnatural, and overwhelming. But it\nseems so for the simple reason that the former change is a thing\nof the past, and has fixed in us certain habits, whereas we are\nstill practically accomplishing the present transition, and have to\naccomplish it consciously.\n\nIt was centuries, indeed thousands of years, before the social\nlife-conception was adopted by all mankind; it passed through\nvarious phases, and we ourselves possess it through heredity,\neducation, and unconscious habit; hence it seems natural to us. But\n5000 years ago it seemed as strange and unnatural to men as the\nChristian doctrine in its true meaning seems to them now.\n\nThe universal brotherhood of man, the equality of races, the\nabolition of property, the anomalous doctrine of non-resistance,\nall these requirements of the Christian religion seem to us\nimpossibilities. But in olden times, thousands of years ago, not\nonly the requirements of the State, but even those of the family,\nas, for instance, the obligation of parents to feed their children,\nof children to support their aged parents, and that of conjugal\nfidelity, seemed equally impossible. And still more unreasonable\nseemed the demands of the State, requiring citizens to submit\nto established authority, to pay taxes, to perform military\nduty in defense of their country, etc. We find no difficulty in\ncomprehending these requirements now; they seem perfectly simple\nand natural, with nothing mystical or alarming in their aspect;\nbut five or even three thousand years ago, such demands seemed\nintolerable.\n\nThus the social life-conception served as a foundation for religion,\nfor at the time when it was first manifested to men it seemed to\nthem to be utterly incomprehensible, mystical, and supernatural. Now\nthat we have passed that phase of human life, we can understand the\nreasons for the aggregation of men into families, communities, and\nstates. But in the early ages the demand for these aggregations was\nmade in the name of the supernatural, and its fulfilment assured by\nthe same authority.\n\nThe patriarchal religion deified the family, the race, the people.\nState religions deified the sovereigns and the State. Even at\nthe present day the uneducated masses, the Russian peasants, for\ninstance, who call the Czar a God upon earth, obey the laws from\nreligious instinct, not because their reason counsels them to do so,\nnor because they have the least idea of a State.\n\nAnd to those men of our own times who hold the social\nlife-conception, the Christian doctrine seems to be a supernatural\nreligion, whereas in reality there is nothing mystical or\nsupernatural about it; it is only a doctrine concerning human life,\ncorresponding with the degree of development which man has attained,\nand one which he cannot refuse to accept.\n\nThe time will come, and it is already near at hand, when the\nChristian foundations of life--equality, brotherly love, community\nof goods, non-resistance of evil by violence--will seem as natural\nand simple as the foundations of family, social, and State life\nappear to us at the present time.\n\nThere can be no retrogression for humanity. Men have outgrown the\nlower life-conception of the family and the State, and must press\nforward to embrace the next higher conception, as they have already\nbegun to do.\n\nThis movement is accomplished in two ways: consciously, by moral\ncauses; unconsciously, by material ones. It rarely happens that a\nman changes his mode of life at the dictates of reason; however\nconscious he may be of the new design and purpose revealed to him by\nhis reason, he goes on in the old fashion until his life has become\nintolerably inconsistent, and therefore distressing. Likewise, the\nlarger portion of mankind, after learning through its religious\nteachers a new conception of life and its objects, to which it has\nyet to adjust itself, will for a long time pursue its wonted course,\nand only make the change in the end because its former life has\nbecome impossible.\n\nIn spite of the necessity for a change of life, acknowledged and\nproclaimed by our religious guides and admitted by the wisest men,\nin spite of the religious respect entertained for these guides, the\nmajority of men continue to be influenced in life, now additionally\ncomplicated, by their former views. It is as if the father of a\nfamily, knowing well enough how to conduct himself properly, should\nthrough force of habit or thoughtlessness continue to live as if he\nwere still a child.\n\nAt this very moment we are experiencing one of these transitions.\nHumanity has outgrown its social, its civic age, and has entered\nupon a new epoch. It knows the doctrine that must underlie the\nfoundations of life in this new epoch; but, yielding to inertia,\nit still clings to its former habits. From this inconsistency\nbetween the theory of life and its practice follow a series of\ncontradictions and sufferings that embitter man's life and compel\nhim to make a change.\n\nOne needs but to compare the practice of life with its theory to be\nhorrified at the extraordinary contradictions between the conditions\nof life and our inner consciousness.\n\nMan's whole life is a continual contradiction of what he knows to\nbe his duty. This contradiction prevails in every department of\nlife, in the economical, the political, and the international. As\nthough his intelligence were forgotten and his faith temporarily\neclipsed,--for he must have faith, else would his life have no\npermanence,--he acts in direct opposition to the dictates of his\nconscience and his common sense.\n\nIn our economical and international relations we are guided by\nthe fundamental principles of bygone ages,--principles quite\ncontradictory to our mental attitude and the conditions of our\npresent life.\n\nIt was right for a man who believed in the divine origin of\nslavery, and in its necessity, to live in the relation of a master\nto his slaves. But is such a life possible in these days? A man\nof antiquity might believe himself justified in taking advantage\nof his fellow-man, oppressing him for generations, merely because\nhe believed in diversity of origin, noble or base, descent from\nHam or Japheth. Not only have the greatest philosophers of ancient\ntimes, the teachers of mankind, Plato and Aristotle, justified the\nexistence of slavery and adduced proofs of its legality, but no\nlonger than three centuries ago those who described an ideal state\nof society could not picture it without slaves.\n\nIn ancient times, and even in the Middle Ages, it was honestly\nthought that men were not born equal, that the men worthy of respect\nwere only Persians, only Greeks, only Romans, or only Frenchmen;\nbut no one believes it now. And the enthusiastic advocates of the\nprinciples of aristocracy and patriotism at this present day cannot\nbelieve in their own statements.\n\nWe all know, and cannot help knowing, even if we had never heard\nit defined and never attempted to define it ourselves, that we all\npossess an inherent conviction deep in our hearts of the truth of\nthat fundamental doctrine of Christianity, that we are all children\nof one Father, yea, every one of us, wheresoever we may live,\nwhatsoever language we may speak; that we are all brothers, subject\nonly to the law of love implanted in our hearts by our common Father.\n\nWhatever may be the habits of thought or the degree of education of\na man of our time, whether he be an educated liberal, whatsoever\nhis shade of opinion, a philosopher, whatsoever may be his system,\na scientist, an economist of any of the various schools, an\nuneducated adherent of any religious faith,--every man in these\ndays knows that in the matter of life and worldly goods all men\nhave equal rights; that no man is either better or worse than his\nfellow-men, but that all men are born free and equal. Every man\nhas an instinctive assurance of this fact, and yet he sees his\nfellow-beings divided into two classes, the one in poverty and\ndistress, which labors and is oppressed, the other idle, tyrannical,\nluxurious; and not only does he see all this, but, whether\nvoluntarily or otherwise, he falls in line with one or the other of\nthese divisions,--a course repugnant to his reason. Hence he must\nsuffer both from his sense of the incongruity and his own share in\nit.\n\nWhether he be master or slave, a man in these days is forever\nhaunted by this distressing inconsistency between his ideal and the\nactual fact, nor can he fail to perceive the suffering that springs\ntherefrom.\n\nThe masses--that is to say, the majority of mankind, who suffer\nand toil, their lives dull and uninteresting, never enlivened by a\nray of brightness, enduring numberless privations--are those who\nrecognize most clearly the sharp contrasts between what is and what\nought to be, between the professions of mankind and their actions.\n\nThey know that they work like slaves, that they are perishing in\nwant and in darkness, that they may minister to the pleasures of\nthe minority. And it is this very consciousness that enhances its\nbitterness; indeed, it constitutes the essence of their suffering.\n\nA slave in old times knew that he was a slave by birth, whereas the\nworking-man of our day, while he feels himself to be a slave, knows\nthat he ought not to be one, and suffers the tortures of Tantalus\nfrom his unsatisfied yearning for that which not only could be\ngranted him, but which is really his due. The sufferings of the\nworking-classes that spring from the contradictions of their fate\nare magnified tenfold by the envy and hatred which are the natural\nfruits of the sense of these contradictions.\n\nA working-man in our period, even though his work may be less\nfatiguing than the labor of the ancient slave, and even were he to\nsucceed in obtaining the eight-hour system and twelve-and-sixpence\na day, still has the worst of it, because he manufactures objects\nwhich he will never use or enjoy;--he is not working for himself;\nhe works in order to gratify the luxurious and idle, to increase\nthe wealth of the capitalist, the mill-owner, or manufacturer. He\nknows that all this goes on in a world where men acknowledge certain\npropositions such as the economic principle that labor is wealth,\nthat it is an act of injustice to employ another man's labor for\none's own benefit, that an illegal act is punishable by law, in a\nworld, moreover, where the doctrine of Christ is professed,--that\ndoctrine which teaches us that all men are brothers, and that it\nis the duty of a man to serve his neighbor and to take no unfair\nadvantage of him.\n\nHe realizes all this, and must suffer keenly from the shocking\ncontradiction between the world as it should be and the world as\nit is. \"According to what I am told and what I hear men profess,\"\nsays a working-man to himself, \"I ought to be a free man equal to\nany other man, and loved; I am a slave, hated and despised.\" Then\nhe in his turn is filled with hatred, and seeks to escape from his\nposition, to overthrow the enemy that oppresses him, and to get the\nupper hand himself.\n\nThey say: \"It is wrong for a workman to wish himself in the place\nof a capitalist, or for a poor man to envy the rich.\" But this is\nfalse. If this were a world where God had ordained masters and\nslaves, rich and poor, it would be wrong for the working-man or the\npoor man to wish himself in the place of the rich: but this is not\nso; he wishes it in a world which professes the doctrine of the\ngospel, whose first principle is embodied in the relation of the\nson to the Father, and consequently of fraternity and equality.\nAnd however reluctant men may be to acknowledge it, they cannot\ndeny that one of the first conditions of Christian life is love,\nexpressed, not in words, but in deeds.\n\nThe man of education suffers even more from these inconsistencies. If\nhe has any faith whatever he believes, perhaps, in fraternity,--at\nleast in the sentiment humanity; and if not in the sentiment\nhumanity, then in justice; and if not in justice, then surely\nin science; and he cannot help knowing all the while that\nthe conditions of his life are opposed to every principle of\nChristianity, humanity, justice, and science.\n\nHe knows that the habits of life in which he has been bred, and\nwhose abandonment would cause him much discomfort, can only be\nsupported by the weary and often suicidal labor of the down-trodden\nworking-class--that is, by the open infraction of those principles\nof Christianity, humanity, justice, and even of science (political\nscience), in which he professes to believe. He affirms his faith\nin the principles of fraternity, humanity, justice, and political\nscience, and yet the oppression of the working-class is an\nindispensable factor in his daily life, and he constantly employs it\nto attain his own ends in spite of his principles; and he not only\nlives in this manner, but he devotes all his energies to maintain a\nsystem which is directly opposed to all his beliefs.\n\nWe are brothers: but every morning my brother or my sister performs\nfor me the most menial offices. We are brothers: but I must have\nmy morning cigar, my sugar, my mirror, or what not,--objects whose\nmanufacture has often cost my brothers and sisters their health,\nyet I do not for that reason forbear to use these things; on the\ncontrary, I even demand them. We are brothers: and yet I support\nmyself by working in some bank, commercial house, or shop, and am\nalways trying to raise the price of the necessities of life for\nmy brothers and sisters. We are brothers: I receive a salary for\njudging, convicting, and punishing the thief or the prostitute,\nwhose existence is the natural outcome of my own system of life, and\nI fully realize that I should neither condemn nor punish. We are all\nbrothers: yet I make my living by collecting taxes from the poor,\nthat the rich may live in luxury and idleness. We are brothers:\nand yet I receive a salary for preaching a pseudo-Christian\ndoctrine, in which I do not myself believe, thus hindering men from\ndiscovering the true one; I receive a salary as priest or bishop for\ndeceiving people in a matter which is of vital importance to them.\nWe are brothers: but I make my brother pay for all my services,\nwhether I write books for him, educate him, or prescribe for him\nas a physician. We are all brothers: but I receive a salary for\nfitting myself to be a murderer, for learning the art of war, or for\nmanufacturing arms and ammunition and building fortresses.\n\nThe whole existence of our upper classes is utterly contradictory,\nand the more sensitive a man's nature the more painful is the\nincongruity.\n\nA man with a sensitive conscience can enjoy no peace of mind in such\na life. Even supposing that he succeeds in stifling the reproaches\nof his conscience, he is still unable to conquer his fears.\n\nThose men and women of the dominant classes who have hardened\nthemselves, and have succeeded in stifling their consciences,\nmust still suffer through their fear of the hatred they inspire.\nThey are quite well aware of its existence among the laboring\nclasses; they know that it can never die; they know, too, that\nthe working-men realize the deceits practised upon them, and the\nabuses that they endure; that they have started organizations to\nthrow off the yoke, and to take vengeance on their oppressors. The\nhappiness of the upper classes is poisoned by fear of the impending\ncalamity, foreshadowed by the unions, the strikes, and First of\nMay demonstrations. Recognizing the calamity that threatens them,\ntheir fear turns to defiance and hatred. They know that if they\nrelax for one moment in this conflict with the oppressed, they are\nlost, because their slaves, already embittered, grow more and more\nso with every day's oppression. The oppressors, though they may\nsee it, cannot cease to oppress. They realize that they themselves\nare doomed from the moment they abate one jot of their severity.\nSo they go on in their career of oppression, notwithstanding their\naffectation of interest in the welfare of the working-men, the\neight-hour system, the laws restricting the labor of women and\nchildren, the pensions, and the rewards. All this is mere pretense,\nor at best the natural anxiety of the master to keep his slave in\ngood condition; but the slave remains a slave all the while, and the\nmaster, who cannot live without the slave, is less willing than ever\nto set him free. The governing classes find themselves in regard to\nthe working-men very much in the position of one who has overthrown\nhis opponent, and who holds him down, not so much because he does\nnot choose to let him escape, but because he knows that should he\nfor one moment lose his hold on him, he would lose his own life, for\nthe vanquished man is infuriated, and holds a knife in his hand.\n\nHence our wealthy classes, whether their consciences be tender or\nhardened, cannot enjoy the advantages they have wrung from the poor,\nas did the ancients, who were convinced of the justice of their\nposition. All the pleasures of life are poisoned either by remorse\nor fear.\n\nSuch is the economic inconsistency. Still more striking is that of\nthe civil power.\n\nA man is trained first of all in habits of obedience to state laws.\nAt the present time every act of our lives is under the supervision\nof the State, and in accordance with its dictates a man marries and\nis divorced, rears his children, and in some countries accepts the\nreligion it prescribes. What is this law, then, that determines the\nlife of mankind? Do men believe in it? Do they consider it true? Not\nat all. In most cases they recognize its injustice, they despise\nit, and yet they obey it. It was fit that the ancients should obey\ntheir law. It was chiefly religious, and they sincerely believed\nit to be the only true law, to which all men owed obedience. Is\nthat the case with us? We cannot refuse to acknowledge that the\nlaw of our State is not the eternal law, but only one of the many\nlaws of many states, all equally imperfect, and frequently wholly\nfalse and unjust,--a law that has been openly discussed in all its\naspects by the public press. It was fit that the Hebrew should obey\nhis laws, since he never doubted that the finger of God Himself\nhad traced them; or for the Roman, who believed that he received\nthem from the nymph Egeria; or even for those peoples who believed\nthat the rulers who made the laws were anointed of God, or that\nlegislative assemblies have both the will and the ability to devise\nlaws as good as possible. But we know that laws are the offspring\nof party conflicts, false dealing, and the greed of gain, that they\nare not, and can never be, the depository of true justice; and\ntherefore it is impossible for people of the present day to believe\nthat obedience to civil or state laws can ever satisfy the rational\ndemands of human nature. Men have long since realized that there\nis no sense in obeying a law whose honesty is more than doubtful,\nand therefore they must suffer when, though privately denying its\nprerogative, they still conform to it. When a man's whole life is\nheld in bondage by laws whose injustice, cruelty, and artificiality\nhe plainly discerns, and yet is compelled to obey these laws under\npenalty of punishment, he must suffer; it cannot be otherwise.\n\nWe recognize the disadvantages of custom-houses and import duties,\nbut we are yet obliged to pay them; we see the folly of supporting\nthe court and its numerous officials, we admit the harmful influence\nof church preaching, and still we are compelled to support both; we\nalso admit the cruel and iniquitous punishments inflicted by the\ncourts, and yet we play our part in them; we acknowledge that the\ndistribution of land is wrong and immoral, but we have to submit to\nit; and despite the fact that we deny the necessity for armies or\nwarfare, we are made to bear the heavy burden of supporting armies\nand waging war.\n\nThese contradictions, however, are but trifling in comparison with\nthe one which confronts us in the problem of our international\nrelations, and which cries aloud for solution, since both human\nreason and human life are at stake, and this is the antagonism\nbetween the Christian faith and war.\n\nWe, Christian nations, whose spiritual life is one and the same,\nwho welcome the birth of every wholesome and profitable thought\nwith joy and pride, from whatsoever quarter of the globe it may\nspring, regardless of race or creed; we, who love not only the\nphilanthropists, the poets, the philosophers, and the scientists\nof other lands; we, who take as much pride in the heroism of a\nFather Damien as if it was our own; we, who love the French, the\nGermans, the Americans, and the English, not only esteeming their\nqualities, but ready to meet them with cordial friendship; we, who\nnot only would be shocked to consider war with them in the light of\nan exploit,--when we picture to ourselves the possibility that at\nsome future day a difference may arise between us that can only be\nreconciled by murder, and that any one of us may be called upon to\nplay his part in an inevitable tragedy,--we shudder at the thought.\n\nIt was well enough for a Hebrew, a Greek, or a Roman to maintain\nthe independence of his country by murder, and even to subdue other\nnations by the same means, because he firmly believed himself a\nmember of the one favored people beloved by God, and that all the\nothers were Philistines and barbarians. Also, in the times of the\nMiddle Ages men might well have held these opinions, and even they\nwho lived toward the end of the last century and at the beginning\nof this. But we, whatever provocation may be offered us, we cannot\npossibly believe as they did; and this difficulty is so painful for\nus in these times that it has become impossible to live without\ntrying to solve it.\n\n\"We live in a time replete with contradictions,\" writes Count\nKomarovsky, the Professor of International Law, in his learned\ntreatise. \"Everywhere the tone of the public press seems to indicate\na general desire for peace, and shows the need of it for all\nnations. And the representatives of the government, in their private\nas well as in their public capacity, in parliamentary speeches and\ndiplomatic negotiations, express themselves in the same temper.\nNevertheless, the governments increase the military force year after\nyear, impose new taxes, negotiate loans, and will leave as a legacy\nto future generations the responsibilities of the present mistaken\npolicy. How are the word and the deed at variance!\n\n\"By way of justification the governments claim that all their\narmaments and the consequent outlay are simply defensive in their\ncharacter, but to the uninitiated the question naturally suggests\nitself: Whence is to come the attack if all the great powers are\ndevoting themselves _to a defensive policy_? It certainly looks as\nif each one of them lived in hourly expectation of attack from his\nneighbor, and the consequence is a strife between the different\ngovernments to surpass each other in strength. The very existence of\nthis spirit of rivalry favors the chances of war: the nations, no\nlonger able to support the increased armament, will sooner or later\nprefer open war to the tension in which they live and the ruin which\nmenaces them, so that the slightest pretext will avail to kindle\nin Europe the conflagration of a general war. It is a mistake to\nsuppose that such a crisis will heal the political and economic ills\nunder which we groan. The experience of late wars shows us that each\none served only to exacerbate the animosity of the nations against\neach other, to increase the unbearable burden of military despotism,\nand has involved the political and economic situation of Europe in a\nmore melancholy and pitiable plight than ever.\"\n\n\"Contemporary Europe keeps under arms nine millions of men,\" says\nEnrico Ferri, \"and a reserve force of fifteen millions, at a cost\nof four milliards of francs a year. By increasing its armament\nit paralyzes more and more the springs of social and individual\nwelfare, and may be compared to a man who, in order to obtain\nweapons, condemns himself to an\u00e6mia, thereby depriving himself of\nthe strength to use the weapons he is accumulating, whose weight\nwill eventually overpower him.\"\n\nThe same idea has been expressed by Charles Booth, in his address\ndelivered in London, July 26, 1887, before the Association for the\nReform and Codification of National Laws. Having mentioned the same\nnumbers,--over nine millions in active service and fifteen millions\nin reserve, and the enormous sums required to support these armies\nand armaments,--he says, in substance: \"These numbers represent\nbut a small part of the actual expenditure, because outside of the\nexpenses enumerated in the budgets of the nations we must take\ninto consideration the great losses to society from the removal\nof so many able-bodied men, lost to industry in all its branches,\nand moreover, the interest on the enormous sums spent in military\npreparations, which yield no returns. As might be expected, the\nconstantly increasing national debts are the inevitable result of\nthese outlays in preparation for war. By far the greater proportion\nof the debt of Europe has been contracted for munitions of war.\nThe sum total is four milliards of pounds, or forty milliards of\nroubles, and these debts are increasing every year.\"\n\nKomarovsky, whom we lately quoted, says elsewhere: \"We are living\nin hard times. Everywhere we hear complaints of the stagnation of\ncommerce and industry, and of the wretched economical situation.\nThey tell us of the hard conditions of life among the laboring\nclasses and the general impoverishment of the people. But regardless\nof this, governments, determined to maintain their independence, go\nto the utmost limits of folly. Additional taxes are levied on every\nside, and the financial oppression of the people knows no bounds.\nIf we glance at the budgets of European states for the last hundred\nyears, we shall be struck with their constantly increasing figures.\nHow can we explain this abnormal condition that sooner or later\nthreatens to overwhelm us with inevitable bankruptcy?\n\n\"Most assuredly it is caused by the expense of maintaining armies,\nwhich absorbs one-third, or even one-half, of the budget of all\nEuropean nations. The saddest part of it, however, is that there is\nno end to this increase of budgets and consequent impoverishment of\nthe masses. What is socialism but a protest against the abnormal\nsituation in which the majority of mankind of our continent finds\nitself?\"\n\n\"We are being ruined,\" says Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Passy, in a paper read before\nthe last Peace Congress in London (1890), \"to enable us to take part\nin the senseless wars of the future, or to pay the interest of debts\nleft us by the criminal and insane wars and contests of the past. We\nshall perish with hunger, to have success in murder.\"\n\nGoing on to speak of the opinion of France in regard to this\nmatter, he says: \"We believe that now, a hundred years after the\nproclamation formulating the belief in the rights of men and\ncitizens, the time has come to declare the rights of nations and\nto repudiate once and for all time those undertakings of fraud and\nviolence, which, under the name of conquests, are actually crimes\nagainst humanity, and which, however much the pride of nations or\nthe ambition of monarchs may seek to justify them, serve only to\nenervate the conquerors.\"\n\n\"I am always very much surprised at the way religion is carried on\nin this country,\" says Sir Wilfred Lawson before 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\ngoes to the Sunday-school till he is fourteen or fifteen years of\nage, and then his friends say, 'Put him in the army.' What has he to\ndo in the army? Why, not love his enemies, but whenever he sees an\nenemy, to run him through the body with a bayonet is the nature of\nall religious teaching in this country. I do not think that that is\na very good way of carrying out the precepts of religion. I think if\nit is a good thing for the boy to love his enemy, it is a good thing\nfor the man to love his enemy.\"...\n\nAnd later!\n\n\"In Europe great Christian nations keep among them 28,000,000 of\narmed men to settle quarrels by killing one another, instead of\nby arguing. This is what the Christian nations of the world are\ndoing at this moment. It is a very expensive way also; for in a\npublication which I saw--I believe it was correct--it was made\nout that since the year 1812 these nations had spent the almost\nincredible amount of 1,500,000,000 of money in preparing and\nsettling their quarrels by killing one another. Now it seems to\nme that with that state of things one of two positions must be\naccepted,--either that Christianity is a failure, or that those\nwho profess to expound Christianity have failed in expounding it\nproperly.\"\n\n\"So long as our men-of-war are not disarmed and our army not\ndisbanded, we have no right to be called a Christian nation,\" said\nMr. F. L. Wilson.\n\nIn a conversation in regard to the duty of Christian ministers in\nthe matter of preaching against war, Mr. G. D. Bartlett remarked,\namong other things:--\n\n\"If I understand the Scriptures, I say that men are only playing\nwith Christianity when they ignore this question.... I have lived\na long 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 make 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\nA Catholic priest, the Abb\u00e9 Defourny, has spoken in a similar\nspirit. \"One of the first commandments of the eternal law, engraved\nin every man's conscience,\" says the Abb\u00e9 Defourny, \"forbids a man\nto take his neighbor's life or shed his blood\" (without sufficient\ncause, being forced to it by stress of circumstance). \"This is a\ncommandment more deeply engraved in the human heart than all the\nothers.... But as soon as it becomes a question of war, that is,\na question of the wholesale shedding of human blood, men in these\ndays do not wait for a sufficient cause. Those who are active in\nwar forget to ask themselves if there is any justification for the\nnumerous manslaughters that take place, whether they are just or\nunjust, legal or illegal, innocent or criminal, or whether they\nbreak the principal law that forbids us to commit murder\" (without\njust cause). \"Their conscience is silent.... War has ceased to be a\nmatter connected with morality. The soldier, amid all the fatigues\nand dangers he undergoes, knows no joy but conquest, no sorrow but\ndefeat. Don't tell me that they serve the country. A great genius\nhas long ago answered this statement in words that have since become\na proverb: 'Take away justice, and what is then a nation but a great\nband of robbers? And is not a band of robbers in itself a small\nstate? They, too, have their laws. They, too, fight for booty, and\neven honor.'\n\n\"The aim of this organization\" (it was a question of establishing\ninternational tribunals) \"is to influence the European nations until\nthey cease to be nations of thieves, and their armies bands of\nrobbers. Yes, our armies are nothing less than a rabble of slaves\nbelonging to one or two monarchs and their ministers, who, as we all\nknow, rule them tyrannically and without any responsibility other\nthan nominal, as we know.\n\n\"It is the characteristic of a slave that he is a tool in the hands\nof his master. Such are the soldiers, officers, and generals, who\nat the beck of their sovereign go forth to slay or to be slain.\nThere is a military slavery, and it is the worst of all slaveries,\nparticularly now, when by means of conscription it forges chains for\nthe necks of all the free and strong men of the nation, in order to\nuse them as instruments of murder, to make them executioners and\nbutchers of human flesh, since that is the sole reason why they are\ndrafted and drilled....\n\n\"Two or three potentates in their cabinets make treaties, without\nprotocols, without publicity, and therefore without responsibility,\nsending men to the slaughter.\n\n\"'Protests against increased armaments began before our time,' said\nSignor E. G. Moneta. Listen to Montesquieu: 'France' (for France we\nmight now substitute Europe) 'is perishing from an overgrown army. A\nnew disease is spreading throughout Europe. It has affected kings,\nand obliges them to maintain an incredible number of troops. It is\nlike a rash, and therefore contagious; for no sooner does one nation\nincrease its troops than all the others follow suit. Nothing can\nresult from this condition of affairs but general calamity.\n\n\"'Each government maintains as many troops as it would require if\nits people were threatened with destruction, and this state of\ntension is called peace. Europe is in truth ruined. If private\nindividuals were reduced to such straits as these, the richest man\namong them would be practically destitute. The wealth of the world\nand its commerce are in our hands, and yet we are poor.'\n\n\"This was written almost 150 years ago. It seems like a picture of\nthe present. One thing alone has changed--the form of government.\nIn the time of Montesquieu it was said that the reason for the\nmaintenance of large armies might be found in the unlimited power of\nkings, who carried on war in the hope of increasing their private\nproperty and their glory.\n\n\"Then it was said: 'Ah! if the people could but choose\nrepresentatives who would have a right to refuse the governments\nwhen they called for soldiers and money--there would be an end of\na military policy.' Now, almost everywhere in Europe there are\nrepresentative governments, and still the military expenditure in\npreparation for war has increased in frightful proportion.\n\n\"It looks as though the folly of the rulers had passed into the\nruling classes. Now they no longer fight because one king has\nbeen rude to another king's mistress, as in the time of Louis\nXIV., but by exaggerating the importance of national dignity\nand patriotism,--emotions which are natural and honorable in\nthemselves,--and exciting the public opinion of one country against\nthe other, until they have arrived at such a pitch of sensitiveness\nthat it is enough to say, for instance (even were the report to\nprove false), one country has refused to receive the ambassador\nof another, to precipitate the most frightful and disastrous war.\nEurope maintains under arms at the present time more soldiers than\nwere in the field during the great wars of Napoleon. Every citizen\non our continent, with a few exceptions, is forced to spend several\nyears in the barracks. Fortresses, arsenals, men-of-war are built,\nnew firearms are invented, which in a short time are replaced by\nothers, because science, which should always be devoted to the\npromotion of human welfare, contributes, it must be regretfully\nacknowledged, to human destruction, inventing ever new means of\nkilling greater numbers of men in the shortest possible time.\n\n\"In these stupendous preparations for slaughter, and in the\nmaintenance of these vast numbers of troops, hundreds of millions\nare yearly expended--sums that would suffice to educate the masses,\nand to carry on the most important works of public improvement,\nthereby contributing toward a perfect solution of the social problem.\n\n\"Therefore, notwithstanding all our scientific victories, Europe\nfinds herself in this respect not one whit better off than she was\nin the most barbarous times of the Middle Ages. Every one laments\na state of things which is neither war nor peace, and longs to be\ndelivered from it. The heads of governments emphatically affirm\nthat they desire peace, and eagerly emulate each other in their\npacific utterances, but almost immediately thereafter they propose\nto the legislative assemblies measures for increasing the armament,\nasserting that they take these precautions for the preservation of\npeace.\n\n\"But this is not the sort of peace we care for, and the nations\nare not deceived by it. True peace has for its foundation mutual\nconfidence, whereas these appalling armaments show, if not a\ndeclared hostility, at least a secret distrust among the different\nnations. What should we say of a man who, wishing to show his\nfriendly feelings to his neighbor, should invite him to consider a\ncertain scheme, holding a loaded pistol while he unfolds it before\nhim?\n\n\"It is this monstrous contradiction between the assurances of peace\nand the military policy of the governments, that good citizens wish\nto put an end to, at any cost.\"\n\nOne is amazed to learn that there are 60,000 suicides reported in\nEurope, not including Turkey and Russia, every year, and these are\nall well-substantiated cases; but it would be far more remarkable\nif the number were less. Any man in these times who investigates the\nantagonism between his convictions and his actions, finds himself\nin a desperate plight. Setting aside the many other contradictions\nbetween actual life and conviction which abound in the life of a\nman of the present day, to view the military situation in Europe in\nthe light of its profession of Christianity is enough to make a man\ndoubt the existence of human reason, and drive him to escape from a\nbarbarous and insane world by putting an end to his own life. This\ninconsistency, which is the very quintessence of all the others, is\nso shocking, that one can only go on living and taking any part in\nit, by dint of trying not to think about it,--to forget it all.\n\nWhat can it mean? We are Christians, who not only profess to love\none another, but are actually leading one common life; our pulses\nbeat in harmony; we meet each other in love and sympathy, deriving\nsupport and counsel from our mutual intercourse. Were it not for\nthis sympathy life would have no meaning. But at any moment some\ndemented ruler may utter a few rash words, to which another gives\nreply, and lo! I am ordered to march at the risk of my life, to slay\nthose who have never injured me, whom I really love. And it is no\nremote contingency, but an inevitable climax for which we are all\npreparing ourselves.\n\nFully to realize this is enough to drive one to madness and to\nsuicide, and this is but too common an occurrence, especially among\nsoldiers.\n\nA moment's reflection shows us why this seems an inevitable\nconclusion.\n\nIt explains the frightful intensity with which men plunge into all\nkinds of dissipation,--wine, tobacco, cards, newspaper reading,\ntravel, all manner of shows and pleasures. They pursue all these\namusements in deadly earnest, as if they were serious avocations,\nas indeed they are. If men possessed none of these distractions,\nhalf of them would kill themselves out of hand, for to live a life\nthat is made up of contradictions is simply unbearable, and such is\nthe life that most of us lead at the present day. We are living in\ndirect contradiction to our inmost convictions. This contradiction\nis evident both in economic and in political relations; it\nis manifested most unmistakably in the inconsistency of the\nacknowledgment of the Christian law of brotherly love and military\nconscription, which obliges men to hold themselves in readiness\nto take each other's lives,--in short, every man to be at once a\nChristian and a gladiator.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nATTITUDE OF MEN OF THE PRESENT DAY TOWARD WAR\n\n Men do not endeavor to destroy the contradiction between life\n and consciousness by a change of life, but educated men use\n all their power to stifle the demands of consciousness and to\n justify their lives, and thus degrade society to a condition\n worse than pagan, to a state of primeval savagery--Uncertainty\n of the attitude of our leading men toward war, universal\n armament, and general military conscription--Those who regard\n war as an accidental political phenomenon easily to be remedied\n by external measures--The Peace Congress--Article in the Revue\n des Revues--Proposition of Maxime du Camp--Significance of\n Courts of Arbitration and Disarmament--Relations of governments\n to these, and the business they pursue--Those who regard war as\n a cruel inevitable phenomenon--Maupassant--Rod--Those who regard\n it as indispensable, even useful--Camille Doucet, Claretie,\n Zola, Vog\u00fc\u00e9.\n\n\nThe contradictions of life and of consciousness may be solved in two\nways: by change of life, or by change of consciousness; and it would\nseem as if there could be no hesitation in a choice between the two.\n\nWhen a man acknowledges a deed to be evil he may refrain from the\ndeed itself, but he can never cease to regard it as evil. Indeed,\nthe whole world might cease from evil-doing, and yet have no power\nto transform, or even to check for a season, the progress of\nknowledge in regard to that which is evil, and which ought not to\nexist. One would think that the alternative of a change of life to\naccord with consciousness might be settled without question, and\nthat it would therefore seem unavoidable for the Christian world of\nthe present day to abandon those pagan forms which it condemns, and\nregulate its life by the Christian precepts which it acknowledges.\n\nSuch would be the result were it not for the principle of inertia\n(a principle no less unalterable in human life than in the world\nof matter), which finds its expression in the psychological law\ndefined in the gospel by the words: \"Men loved darkness rather than\nlight, because their deeds were evil\" (John iii. 19). Most persons,\nin conformity to this principle, do not use their reason in order\nto ascertain the truth, but rather to persuade themselves that they\npossess it, and that their daily life, which is pleasant for them,\nis in harmony with the precepts of truth.\n\nSlavery conflicted with all the moral principles taught by Plato\nand Aristotle, and yet neither of them perceived this, because the\ndisavowal of slavery must have destroyed that life by which they\nlived. And the same thing is repeated in our times.\n\nThe division of mankind into two classes, the existence of political\nand military injustice, is opposed to all those moral principles\nwhich our society professes, and yet the most progressive and\ncultivated men of the age seem not to perceive this.\n\nAlmost every educated man at the present day is striving\nunconsciously to preserve the old-time conception of society, which\njustifies his attitude, and to conceal from others and from himself\nits inconsistencies, chief among which is the necessity of adopting\nthe Christian ideal, which is subversive of the very structure of\nour social existence. It is this antiquated social system, in which\nthey no longer believe, because it is really a thing of the past,\nthat men are trying to uphold.\n\nContemporary literature, philosophical, political, and\nartistic,--all contemporary literature affords a striking proof\nof the truth of my statement. What wealth of imagination, what\nform and color, what erudition and art, but what a lack of serious\npurpose, what reluctance to face any exact thought! Ambiguity of\nexpression, indirect allusion, witticisms, vague reflection, but no\nstraightforward or candid dealing with the subject they treat of,\nnamely, life.\n\nIndeed, our writers treat of obscenities and improprieties; in the\nguise of refined paradox they convey suggestions which thrust men\nback to primeval savagery, to the lowest dregs, not only of pagan\nlife, but animal life, which we outlived 5000 years ago. Delivering\nthemselves from the Christian life-conception, which for some simply\ninterferes with the accustomed current of their lives, while for\nothers it interferes with certain advantages, men must of necessity\nreturn to the pagan life-conception and to the doctrines to which it\ngave rise. Not only are patriotism and the rights of the aristocracy\npreached at the present time as they used to be 2000 years ago, but\nalso the coarsest epicureanism and sensuality, with this difference\nonly,--that the teachers of old believed in the doctrines they\ntaught, whereas those of the present day neither do nor can possess\nany faith in what they utter, because there is no longer any sense\nin it. When the ground is shifting under our feet, we cannot stand\nstill, we must either recede or advance. It sounds exaggerated to\nsay that the enlightened men of our time, the advanced thinkers, are\nspeciously degrading society, plunging it into a condition worse\nthan pagan,--into a state of primeval barbarism.\n\nIn no other matter has this tendency of the leading men of our\ntime been so plainly shown as in their attitude toward that\nphenomenon in which at present all the inconsistency of social life\nis concentrated,--toward war, universal armament, and military\nconscription.\n\nThe equivocal, if not unscrupulous, attitude of the educated men\nof our time toward this question is a striking one. It may be\nstated from three points of view. Some regard this phenomenon as\nan accidental state of affairs, which has sprung from the peculiar\npolitical situation of Europe, and believe it to be susceptible\nof adjustment by diplomatic and international mediation, without\ninjury to the structure of nations. Others look upon it as something\nappalling and cruel, fatal yet unavoidable,--like disease or\ndeath. Still others, in cold blood, calmly pronounce war to be an\nindispensable, salutary, and therefore desirable event.\n\nMen may differ in their views in regard to this matter, but all\ndiscuss it as something with which the will of the individuals who\nare to take part in it has nothing whatever to do; therefore they\ndo not even admit the natural question which presents itself to\nmost men; viz., \"Is it my duty to take part in it?\" In the opinion\nof these judges there is no reason in such a question, and every\nman, whatever may be his personal prejudices in regard to war, must\nsubmit in this matter to the demands of the ruling powers.\n\nThe attitude of those in the first category, who expect deliverance\nfrom war by means of diplomatic and international mediation, is\nwell defined in the results of the London Peace Congress, and in\nan article, together with letters concerning war from prominent\nwriters, which may be found in the _Revue des Revues_ (No. 8, 1891).\n\nThese are the results of the Congress.\n\nHaving collected from all parts of the globe the opinions of\nscientists, both written and oral, the Congress, opening with a _Te\nDeum_ in the cathedral, and closing with a dinner and speeches,\nlistened for five days to numerous addresses, and arrived at the\nfollowing conclusions:--\n\nResolution I. The Congress affirms its belief that the brotherhood\nof man involves as a necessary consequence a brotherhood of\nnations, in which, the true interests of all are acknowledged to\nbe identical. The Congress is convinced that the true basis for an\nenduring peace will be found in the application by nations of this\ngreat principle in all their relations one to another.\n\nII. 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 these\nprinciples of Peace and Good-will, which occupy such a central\nplace in the teaching of Jesus Christ, of philosophers and of\nmoralists, and _it recommends that the third Sunday in December in\neach year be set apart for that purpose_.\n\nIII. The 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\nIV. The Congress protests against the use of military drill in\nconnection with the physical exercises of schools, and suggests\nthe formation of brigades for saving life rather than any of\nquasi-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\nV. 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\nVI. 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 ends\nshould be counteracted by the publication of accurate statements\nand information that would tend to the removal of misunderstanding\namongst nations, and recommends to the Inter-Parliamentary\nCommittee the importance of considering the question of starting an\ninternational newspaper, which should have such a purpose as one of\nits primary objects.\n\nVII. 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\nVIII. In view of the vast moral and social influence of woman, the\nCongress urges upon every woman throughout the world to sustain, as\nwife, mother, sister, or citizen, the things that make for peace,\nas otherwise she incurs grave responsibilities for the continuance\nof the systems of war and militarism, which not only desolate\nbut corrupt the home-life of the nation. To concentrate and to\npractically apply this influence, the Congress recommends that\nwomen should unite themselves with societies for the promotion of\ninternational peace.\n\nIX. This Congress expresses the hope that the Financial Reform\nAssociation and other similar societies in Europe and America should\nunite in convoking at an early date a conference to consider the\nbest means of establishing equitable commercial relations between\nStates by the reduction of import duties as a step toward Free\nTrade. The Congress feels that it can affirm that the whole of\nEurope desires Peace, and is impatiently waiting for the moment when\nit shall see the end of those crushing armaments which, under the\nplea of defense, become in their turn a danger, by keeping alive\nmutual distrust, and are, at the same time, the cause of the general\neconomic disturbance which stands in the way of settling in a\nsatisfactory manner the problems of labor and poverty, which should\ntake precedence of all others.\n\nX. This Congress, recognizing that a general disarmament would be\nthe best guarantee of _Peace_, and would lead to the solution,\nin the general interest, of those questions which now must divide\nStates, expresses the wish that a Congress of Representatives of\nall the States of Europe may be assembled as soon as possible to\nconsider the means of effecting a gradual general disarmament, which\nalready seems feasible.\n\nXI. This Congress, considering that the timidity of a single Power\nor other cause might delay indefinitely the convocation of the\nabove-mentioned Congress, is of the opinion that the Government\nwhich should 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 have\nincreased rather than diminished the conditions of its national\ndefense.\n\nXII. 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 votes to those candidates who have included in\ntheir programme Peace, Disarmament, and Arbitration.\n\nXIII. This Congress congratulates the friends of Peace on the\nresolution adopted by the International American Conference\n(with the exception of the representatives of Chili and Mexico)\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 causes, 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\nXIV. This Congress respectfully recommends this resolution to the\nstatesmen of Europe, and expresses the ardent desire that treaties\nin similar terms be speedily entered into between the other nations\nof the world.\n\nXV. This Congress expresses its satisfaction at the adoption\nby the Spanish Senate, on June 18th 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 States\naffected; also at the adoption of resolutions to a like effect\nby the Norwegian Storthing on March 6th last, and by the Italian\nChamber on July 11th.\n\nXVI. That a committee of five be appointed to prepare and address\ncommunications, in the name of the Congress, to the principal\nreligious, political, economical, labor, and peace organizations\nin civilized countries, requesting them to send petitions to the\ngovernmental authorities of their respective countries, praying that\nmeasures be taken for the formation of suitable tribunals for the\nadjudication of international questions, so as to avoid the resort\nto war.\n\nXVII. Seeing (1) that the object pursued by all Peace Societies is\nthe establishment of juridical order between nations:\n\n(2) That neutralization by international treaties constitutes a step\ntoward this juridical state, and lessens the number of districts in\nwhich war can be carried on:\n\nThis Congress recommends a larger extension of the rule of\nneutralization, and expresses the wish:--\n\n(1) That all treaties which at present assure to certain States\nthe benefit of neutrality remain in force, or, if necessary, be\namended in a manner to render the neutrality more effective, either\nby extending neutralization to the whole of the State, of which\na part only may be neutralized, or by ordering the demolition of\nfortresses, which constitute rather a peril than a guarantee for\nneutrality.\n\n(2) That new treaties, provided that they are in harmony with the\nwishes of the populations concerned, be concluded for establishing\nthe neutralization of other States.\n\nXVIII. The Committee Section proposes:--\n\n(1) That the next Congress be held immediately before or immediately\nafter the next session of the Inter-Parliamentary Conference, and at\nthe same places.\n\n(2) That the question of an international Peace Emblem be postponed\n_sine die_.\n\n(3) The adoption of the following resolutions:--\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 the\nsubstitution of international arbitration for war.\n\n(_b_) That this Congress, assembled in London from the 14th to\nthe 19th July, desires to express its profound reverence for the\nmemory of Aurelio Salfi, the great Italian jurist, a member of the\nCommittee of the International League of Peace and Liberty.\n\n(4) That the memorial to the various heads of the 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(5) That the Organization Committee be empowered to make the needful\nverbal emendations in the papers and resolutions presented.\n\n(6) That the following resolutions be adopted:--\n\n(_a_) A resolution of thanks to the Presidents of the various\nsittings of the Congress.\n\n(_b_) A resolution of thanks to the chairman, the secretary, and the\nmembers of the Bureau of this Congress.\n\n(_c_) A resolution of thanks to the conveners and members of the\nsectional committees.\n\n(_d_) A resolution of thanks to Rev. Canon Scott Holland, Rev. Dr.\nReuan Thomas, and Rev. J. Morgan Gibbon, for their pulpit addresses\nbefore the Congress, and that they be requested to furnish copies\nof the same for publication; and also Stamford Hall Congregational\nChurch for the use of those buildings for public services.\n\n(_e_) A letter of thanks to Her Majesty for permission to visit\nWindsor Castle.\n\n(_f_) And also a resolution of thanks to the Lord Mayor and Lady\nMayoress, to Mr. Passmore Edwards, and other friends who have\nextended their hospitality to the members of the Congress.\n\nXIX. 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\nthe labors of this Congress, it expresses its firm and unshaken\nbelief in the ultimate triumph of the cause of _Peace_, and of the\nprinciples which have been advocated at these meetings.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe fundamental idea of the Congress is--firstly, that it is\nnecessary to disseminate by all means among all men the belief that\nwar is not advantageous for mankind, and that peace is a great\nbenefit; and secondly, to influence governments, impressing upon\nthem the advantages and necessity of disarmament.\n\nTo accomplish the first end, the Congress advises teachers of\nhistory, women, and ministers of the gospel, to teach people, every\nthird Sunday of December, the evils of war and the benefits of\npeace; to accomplish the second, the Congress addresses itself to\ngovernments, suggesting to them disarmament and arbitration.\n\nTo preach the evils of war and the benefits of peace! But the evils\nof war are so well known to men, that from the earliest ages the\nmost welcome greeting was always: \"Peace be unto you!\"\n\nNot only Christians but all pagans were fully aware of the benefits\nof peace and of the evils of war thousands of years ago, so that the\nadvice to the ministers of the gospel to preach against the evils\nof war and to advocate the benefits of peace every third Sunday in\nDecember is quite superfluous.\n\nA real Christian cannot do otherwise than preach thus, constantly,\nas long as he lives. But if there are those who are called\nChristians, or Christian preachers, who do not do this, there must\nbe a cause for it, and so long as this cause exists no advice will\navail. Still less effective will be the advice to governments\nto disband armies and have recourse to International Courts of\nArbitration. Governments know very well all the difficulties and\nburdens of conscription and of maintaining armies, and if in the\nface of such difficulties and burdens they still continue to do\nso, it is evident that they have no means of doing otherwise, and\nthe advice of a Congress could in no way bring about a change.\nBut scientists will not admit this, and still hope to find some\ncombination of influences by means of which those governments which\nmake war may be induced to restrain themselves.\n\n\"Is it possible to avoid war?\" writes a scientist in the _Revue des\nRevues_ (No. 8 of 1891). \"All agree in recognizing the fact that\nif war should ever break out in Europe, its consequences would be\nsimilar to those of the great invasions. It would imperil the very\nexistence of nations; it would be bloody, atrocious, desperate. This\nconsideration, and the consideration of the terrible nature of the\nengines of destruction at the command of modern science, retards\nits declaration and temporarily maintains the present system,--a\nsystem which might be continued indefinitely, if it were not for the\nenormous expenses that burden the European nations and threaten to\nculminate in disasters fully equal to those occasioned by war.\n\n\"Impressed with these thoughts, men of all nationalities have\nsought for means to arrest, or at least to diminish, the shocking\nconsequences of the carnage that threatens us.\n\n\"Such are the questions which are to be debated by the next Congress\nof Universal Peace to be held in Rome, which have already been\ndiscussed in a recently published pamphlet on Disarmament.\n\n\"Unfortunately, it is quite certain that with the present\norganization of the greater number of the European states, isolated\none from the other and controlled by different interests, the\nabsolute cessation of war is an illusion which it would be folly to\ncherish. Still, the adoption of somewhat wiser rules and regulations\nin regard to these international duels would at least tend to\nlimit their horrors. It is equally Utopian to build one's hope on\nprojects of disarmament, whose execution, owing to considerations of\na national character, which exist in the minds of all our readers,\nis practically impossible.\" (This probably means that France cannot\ndisarm until she has retaliated.) \"Public opinion is not prepared\nto accept them, and, furthermore, the international relations make\nit impossible to adopt them. Disarmament demanded by one nation\nof another, under conditions imperiling its security, would be\nequivalent to a declaration of war.\n\n\"Still, we must admit that an exchange of opinions between the\nnations interested may to a certain extent aid in establishing an\ninternational understanding, and also contribute to lessen the\nmilitary expenses that now crush European nations, to the great\ndetriment of the solution of social questions, the necessity of the\nsolution of which is realized by each nation individually, under the\npenalty of being confronted by a civil war, due to the efforts made\nto prevent a foreign one.\n\n\"One may at least hope for a decrease of the enormous expenses\nnecessary for the present military organization, which is maintained\nfor the purpose of invading a foreign territory in twenty-four\nhours, or of a decisive battle a week after the declaration of war.\"\n\nIt ought not to be possible for one nation to attack another and\ntake possession of its territory within twenty-four hours. This\npractical sentiment was expressed by Maxime du Camp, and is the\nconclusion of his study of the subject.\n\nMaxime du Camp offers the following propositions:--\n\n\"1st. A Diplomatic Congress, to assemble every year.\n\n\"2d. No war to be declared until two months after the incident\nwhich gave rise to it.\" (Here the difficulty lies in determining\nthe nature of the incident that kindled the war--that is, every\ndeclaration of war is caused by several circumstances, and it would\nbe necessary to determine from which one the two months are to be\nreckoned.)\n\n\"3d. No war shall be declared until the vote of the people shall\nhave been taken.\n\n\"4th. Hostilities must not begin until a month after the declaration\nof war.\"\n\n\"_No war shall be declared_ ...\" etc. But who is to _prevent_\nhostilities _beginning_? Who will compel men to do this or that?\nWho will compel governments to wait a certain stated time? Other\nnations. But all the other nations are in the very same position,\nrequiring to be restrained and kept within bounds, in other words,\n_coerced_. And who will _coerce_ them? And how is it to be done?\nBy public opinion. But if public opinion has sufficient influence\nto force a nation to postpone its action until a stated time, this\npublic opinion can prevent it from waging war at any time.\n\nBut, it is said, there might be a balance of power, which would\noblige nations to restrain themselves. This very experiment has been\nand is still being tried; this was the object of the Holy Alliance,\nthe League of Peace, etc.\n\nBut all would agree to this, it is said. If all would agree to this,\nthen wars would cease, and there would be no need of Courts of\nAppeal or of Arbitration.\n\n\"A Court of Arbitration would take the place of war. Disputes would\nbe decided by a Board of Arbitrators, like that which pronounced\non the Alabama claims. The Pope has been requested to decide the\nquestion concerning the Caroline Islands: Switzerland, Belgium,\nDenmark, and Holland have declared that they prefer the decision of\na Court of Arbitration to war.\"\n\nI believe Monaco has expressed a similar wish. It is a pity that\nGermany, Russia, Austria, and France have thus far shown no sign of\nimitating their example.\n\nIt is astonishing how easily men can deceive themselves when they\nfeel inclined.\n\nThe governments will agree to allow their disputes to be decided\nby a Board of Arbitration and to dismiss their armies. The trouble\nbetween Russia and Poland, England and Ireland, Austria and the\nCzechs, Turkey and the Slavs, France and Germany, will be settled\nby mutual consent. This is very much like suggesting to merchants\nand bankers that they shall sell at cost price, and devote their\nservices gratuitously to the distribution of property.\n\nOf course the essence of commerce and banking consists in buying\ncheap and selling dear, and therefore the suggestion to sell at cost\nprice and the consequent overthrow of money amounts to a proposal of\nself-destruction.\n\nThe same is true in regard to governments.\n\nThe suggestion to governments to desist from violence, and to adjust\nall differences by arbitration, would be to recommend a suicidal\npolicy, and no government would ever agree to that. Learned men\nfound societies (there are more than one hundred of them), they\nassemble in Congresses (like those held in London and Paris and the\none which is to be held in Rome), they read essays, hold banquets,\nmake speeches, edit journals devoted to the subject, and by all\nthese means they endeavor to prove that the strain upon nations who\nare obliged to support millions of soldiers has become so severe\nthat something must be done about it; that this armament is opposed\nto the character, the aims, and the wishes of the populations;\nbut they seem to think that if they consume a good deal of paper,\nand devote a good deal of eloquence to the subject, that they may\nsucceed in conciliating opposing parties and conflicting interests,\nand at last effect the suppression of war.\n\nWhen I was a child I was told that if I wished to catch a bird I\nmust put salt on its tail. I took a handful and went in pursuit of\nthe birds, but I saw at once that if I could sprinkle salt on their\ntails I could catch them, and that what I had been told was only a\njoke. Those who read essays and works on Courts of Arbitration and\nthe disarmament of nations must feel very much the same.\n\nIf it were possible to sprinkle salt on a bird's tail it would be\ntantamount to saying that the bird could not fly, and therefore it\nwould be no effort to catch it. If a bird has wings and does not\nwish to be caught, it will not allow any salt to be put on its tail,\nfor it is the nature of a bird to fly. Likewise it is the nature\nof a government not to be ruled, but to rule its subjects. And a\ngovernment rightly is named such only when it is able to rule its\nsubjects, and not be ruled by them. This, therefore, is its constant\naim, and it will never voluntarily resign its power. And as it\nderives its power from the army it will never give up the army, nor\nwill it ever renounce that for which the army is designed,--war.\n\nThe misapprehension springs from the fact that the learned jurists,\ndeceiving themselves as well as others, depict in their books an\nideal of government,--not as it really is, an assembly of men who\noppress their fellow-citizens, but in accordance with the scientific\npostulate, as a body of men who act as the representatives of the\nrest of the nation. They have gone on repeating this to others\nso long that they have ended by believing it themselves, and\nthey really seem to think that justice is one of the duties of\ngovernments. History, however, shows us that governments, as seen\nfrom the reign of C\u00e6sar to those of the two Napoleons and Prince\nBismarck, are in their very essence a violation of justice; a man or\na body of men having at command an army of trained soldiers, deluded\ncreatures who are ready for any violence, and through whose agency\nthey govern the State, will have no keen sense of the obligation of\njustice. Therefore governments will never consent to diminish the\nnumber of those well-trained and submissive servants, who constitute\ntheir power and influence.\n\nSuch is the attitude of certain scientists toward that\nself-contradiction under which the world groans, and such are their\nexpedients for its relief. Tell these scientists that the question\ndeals only with the personal relations of each individual toward\nthe moral and religious question, and then ask them what they think\nof the lawfulness or unlawfulness of taking part in the general\nconscription, and their sole reply will be a shrug of the shoulders;\nthey will not even deign to give a thought to your question. Their\nway of solving the difficulty is to make speeches, write books,\nchoose their presidents, vice-presidents, and secretaries; assembled\nin a body, to hold forth in one city or another. They think that\nthe result of their efforts will be to induce governments to\ncease to recruit soldiers, on whom all their power depends; they\nexpect that their appeals will be heard, and that armies will be\ndisbanded, leaving governments defenseless, not only in the presence\nof neighbors, but of their subjects; that they, like highwaymen\nwho, having bound their defenseless victims in order to rob them,\nno sooner hear the outcries of pain than they loosen the rope that\ncauses it, and let their prisoners go free.\n\nAnd there really are men who believe in this, who spend their time\nin promoting Leagues of Peace, in delivering addresses, and in\nwriting books; and of course the governments sympathize with it all,\npretending that they approve of it; just as they pretend to support\ntemperance, while they actually derive the larger part of their\nincome from intemperance; just as they pretend to maintain liberty\nof the constitution, when it is the absence of liberty to which they\nowe their power; just as they pretend to care for the improvement\nof the laboring classes, while on oppression of the workman rest\nthe very foundations of the State; just as they pretend to uphold\nChristianity, when Christianity is subversive of every government.\n\nIn order to accomplish these ends they have long since instituted\nlaws in regard to intemperance that can never avail to destroy it;\neducational projects that not only do not prevent the spread of\nignorance, but do everything to increase it; decrees in the name\nof liberty that are no restraint upon despotism; measures for the\nbenefit of the working-man which will never liberate him from\nslavery; they have established a Christianity which serves to prop\nthe government rather than destroy it. And now another interest\nis added to their cares,--the promotion of peace. Governments,\nor rather those rulers who are going about at present with their\nministers of state, making up their minds on such radical questions\nas, for instance, whether the slaughter of millions shall begin\nthis year or next,--they are quite well assured that discussions on\npeace are not going to prevent them from sending millions of men to\nslaughter whenever they see fit to do so. They like to hear these\ndiscussions, they encourage them, and even take part themselves.\n\nIt does no harm to the government; on the contrary, it is useful, by\nway of diverting observation from that radical question: When a man\nis drafted, ought he or ought he not to fulfil his military duty?\n\nThanks to all these unions and congresses, peace will presently be\nestablished; meanwhile put on your uniforms, and be prepared to\nworry and harass each other for our benefit, say the governments.\nAnd the scientists, the essayists, and the promoters of congresses\ntake the same view.\n\nThis is one way of looking at it, and so advantageous for the State\nthat all prudent governments encourage it.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe way another class has of regarding it is more tragic. They\ndeclare that although it is the fate of humanity to be forever\nstriving after love and peace, it is nevertheless abnormal and\ninconsistent. Those who affirm this are mostly the sensitive men of\ngenius, who see and realize all the horror, folly, and cruelty of\nwar, but by some strange turn of mind never look about them for any\nmeans of escape, but who seem to take a morbid delight in realizing\nto the utmost the desperate condition of mankind. The view of the\nfamous French writer, Maupassant, on the subject of war, affords a\nnoteworthy example of this kind. Gazing from his yacht upon a drill\nand target-practice of French soldiers, the following thoughts arise\nin his mind:--\n\n \"I have but to think of the word 'war' and a paralyzing sense\n of horror creeps over me, as though I were listening to stories\n of witchcraft, or tales of the Inquisition, or of things\n abominable, monstrous, unnatural, of ages past.\n\n \"When people talk of cannibals we smile contemptuously with a\n sense of superiority to such savages. But who are the savages,\n the true savages? Those who fight that they may drive off the\n conquered, or those who fight for the pure pleasure of killing?\n Those sharp-shooters running over yonder are destined to be\n killed like a flock of sheep who are driven by the butcher to\n the slaughter-house. Those men will fall on some battlefield\n with a sabre-cut in the head, or with a ball through the heart.\n Yet they are young men, who might have done useful work. Their\n fathers are old and poor; their mothers, who have idolized them\n for twenty years as only mothers can idolize, will learn after\n six months, or perhaps a year, that the son, the baby, the\n grown-up child on whom so much love and pains were lavished,\n who was reared at such an expense, has been torn by a bullet,\n trampled under foot, or crushed by a cavalry charge, and finally\n flung like a dead dog into some ditch. Why must her boy, her\n beautiful, her only boy, the hope and pride of her life, why\n must he be killed? She knows not; she can but ask why.\n\n \"War!... The fighting!... The murdering!... The slaughter of\n men!... And to-day, with all our wisdom, civilization, with the\n advancement of science, the degree of philosophy to which the\n human spirit has attained, we have schools where the art of\n murder, of aiming with deadly accuracy and killing large numbers\n of men at a distance, is actually taught, killing poor, harmless\n devils who have families to support, killing them without even\n the pretext of the law.\n\n \"_It is stupefying that the people do not rise up in arms\n against the governments. What difference is there between\n monarchies and republics? It is stupefying that society does not\n revolt as a unit at the very sound of the word war._\n\n \"Alas! we shall never be free from oppression of the hateful,\n hideous customs, the criminal prejudices, and the ferocious\n impulses of our barbarous ancestors, for we are beasts; and\n beasts we shall remain, moved by our instincts and susceptible\n of no improvement.\n\n \"Any one but Victor Hugo would have been banished when he\n uttered his sublime cry of freedom and truth:--\n\n \"'To-day force is called violence, and the nations condemn it;\n they inveigh against war. Civilization, listening to the appeal\n of humanity, undertakes the case and prepares the accusation\n against the victors and the generals. The nations begin to\n understand that the magnitude of a crime cannot lessen its\n wickedness; that if it be criminal to kill one man, the killing\n of numbers cannot be regarded in the light of extenuation; that\n if it be shameful to steal, it cannot be glorious to lead an\n invading army.\n\n \"'Let us proclaim these absolute truths, let us dishonor the\n name of war!'\n\n \"But the wrath and indignation of the poet are all in vain,\"\n continues Maupassant. \"War is more honored than ever.\n\n \"A clever expert in this business, a genius in the art of\n murder, Von Moltke, once made to a peace-delegate the following\n astonishing reply:--\n\n \"'War is sacred; it is a divine institution; it fosters\n every lofty and noble sentiment in the human heart: honor,\n self-sacrifice, virtue, courage, and saves men, so to speak,\n from settling into the most shocking materialism.'\n\n \"Assembling in herds by the hundred thousand, marching night and\n day without rest, with no time for thought or for study, never\n to read, learning nothing, of no use whatsoever to any living\n being, rotting with filth, sleeping in the mud, living like a\n wild beast in a perennial state of stupidity, plundering cities,\n burning villages, ruining whole nations; then to encounter\n another mountain of human flesh, rush upon it, cause rivers\n of blood to flow, and strew the fields with the dead and the\n dying, all stained with the muddy and reddened soil, to have\n one's limbs severed, one's brain scattered as wanton waste, and\n to perish in the corner of a field while one's aged parents,\n one's wife and children, are dying of hunger at home,--this\n is what it means to be saved from falling into the grossest\n materialism!\n\n \"Soldiers are the scourge of the world. We struggle against\n nature, ignorance, all kinds of obstacles, in the effort to make\n our wretched lives more endurable. There are men, scientists\n and philanthropists, who devote their whole lives to benefit\n their fellow-men, seeking to improve their condition. They\n pursue their efforts tirelessly, adding discovery to discovery,\n expanding the human intelligence, enriching science, opening\n new fields of knowledge, day by day increasing the well-being,\n comfort, and vigor of their country.\n\n \"Then war comes upon the scene, and in six months all the\n results of twenty years of patient labor and of human genius are\n gone forever, crushed by victorious generals.\n\n \"And this is what they mean when they speak of man's rescue from\n materialism!\n\n \"We have seen war. We have seen men maddened; returned to the\n condition of the brutes, we have seen them kill in wanton sport,\n out of terror, or for mere bravado and show. Where right exists\n no longer, and law is dead, where all sense of justice has\n been lost, we have seen innocent men shot down on the highway,\n because they were timid and thus excited suspicion. We have\n seen dogs chained to their masters' doors killed by way of\n target-practice, we have seen cows lying in a field fired at by\n the mitrailleuses, just for the fun of shooting at something.\n\n \"And this is what they call saving men from the most shocking\n materialism!\n\n \"To invade a country, to kill the man who defends his home\n because he wears a blouse and does not wear a _kepi_, to burn\n the dwellings of starving wretches, to ruin or plunder a man's\n household goods, to drink the wine found in the cellars, to\n violate the women found in the streets, consume millions of\n francs in powder, and to leave misery and cholera in their track.\n\n \"This is what they mean by saving men from the most shocking\n materialism!\n\n \"What have military men ever done to prove that they possess the\n smallest degree of intelligence? Nothing whatever. What have\n they invented? The cannon and the musket; nothing more.\n\n \"Has not the inventor of the wheelbarrow, by the simple and\n practical contrivance of a wheel and a couple of boards,\n accomplished more than the inventor of modern fortification?\n\n \"What has Greece bequeathed to the world? Its literature and its\n marbles. Was she great because she conquered, or because she\n produced? Was it the Persian invasion that saved Greece from\n succumbing to the most shocking materialism?\n\n \"Did the invasions of the Barbarians save and regenerate Rome?\n\n \"Did Napoleon I. continue the great intellectual movement\n started by the philosophers at the end of the last century?\n\n \"Very well, then; can it be a matter of surprise, since\n governments usurp the rights of life and death over the people,\n that the people from time to time assume the right of life and\n death over their governments?\n\n \"They defend themselves, and they have the right. No man has an\n inalienable right to govern others. It is allowable only when it\n promotes the welfare of the governed. It is as much the duty of\n those who govern to avoid war as it is that of a captain of a\n ship to avoid shipwreck.\n\n \"When a captain has lost his ship he is indicted, and if he\n is found to have been careless or even incompetent, he is\n convicted. As soon as war has been declared why should not the\n people sit in judgment upon the act of the government?\n\n \"If they could once be made to understand the power that would\n be theirs, _if they were the judges of the rulers who lead them\n on to slay their fellow-men, if they refused to allow themselves\n to be needlessly slaughtered, if they were to turn their weapons\n against the very men who have put them into their hands--that\n day would see the last of war.... But never will that day\n arrive.\"_--\"Sur l'Eau.\"\n\nThe author perceives the full horror of war, realizes that the\ngovernment is its author, that government forces men to go slay, or\nbe slain, when there is no need for it; he realizes that the men who\nmake up the armies might turn their weapons against the government\nand demand a reckoning. Still the author does not believe that this\nwill ever happen, or that there is any possible deliverance from the\nexisting condition of affairs.\n\nHe grants that the result of war is shocking, but he believes it\nto be inevitable; assuming that the never ceasing requisition of\nsoldiers on the part of government is as inevitable as death, then\nwars must follow as a matter of course.\n\nThese are the words of a writer of talent, endowed with a faculty of\nvividly realizing his subject, which is the essence of the poetic\ngift. He shows us all the cruel contradictions between creed and\ndeed; but since he fails to offer a solution, it is evident that\nhe feels that such a contradiction must exist, and regards it as a\ncontribution to the romantic tragedy of life. Another and an equally\ngifted writer, Edouard Rod, paints with colors still more vivid the\ncruelty and folly of the present situation, but he, like Maupassant,\nfeels the influence of the dramatic element, and neither suggests a\nremedy nor anticipates any change.\n\n \"Why do we toil? Why do we plan and hope to execute? And how\n can one even love one's neighbor in these troublous times,\n when the morrow is nothing but a menace?... Everything that\n we have begun, our ripening schemes, our plans for work, the\n little good that we might accomplish, will it not all be swept\n away by the storm that is gathering?... Everywhere the soil\n quakes beneath our feet, and threatening clouds hang low on the\n horizon. Ah! if we had nothing more to fear than the bugbear of\n the Revolution!... Unable to conceive a society worse than our\n own, I am more inclined to distrust than to fear the one that\n may replace it, and if I should suffer in consequence of the\n change, I should console myself with the reflection that the\n executioners of the present were victims of the past, and the\n hope of a change for the better would make me endure the worst.\n But it is not this remote danger which alarms me. I see another\n close at hand and far more cruel, since it is both unjustifiable\n and irrational, and nothing good can come out of it. Day by day\n the chances of war are weighed, and day by day they become more\n pitiless.\n\n \"The human mind refuses to believe in the catastrophe which even\n now looms up before us, and which the close of this century\n must surely witness, a catastrophe which will put an end to all\n the progress of our age, and yet we must try to realize it.\n Science has devoted all her energy these twenty years to the\n invention of destructive weapons, and soon a few cannon-balls\n will suffice to destroy an army;[10] not the few thousands of\n wretched mercenaries, whose life-blood has been bought and paid\n for, but whole nations are about to exterminate each other;\n during conscription their time is stolen from them in order to\n steal their lives with more certainty. By way of stimulating a\n thirst for blood mutual animosities are excited, and gentle,\n kind-hearted men allow themselves to be deluded, and it will\n not be long before they attack each other with all the ferocity\n of wild beasts; multitudes of peace-loving citizens will obey\n a foolish command, God only knows on what pretext,--some\n stupid frontier quarrel, perhaps, or it may be some colonial\n mercantile interest.... They will go like a flock of sheep to\n the slaughter, yet knowing where they go, conscious that they\n are leaving their wives and their children to suffer hunger;\n anxious, but unable to resist the enticement of those plausible\n and treacherous words that have been trumpeted into their ears.\n _Unresistingly they go; although they form a mass and a force,\n they fail to realize the extent of their power, and that if\n they were all agreed they might establish the reign of reason\n and fraternity_, instead of lending themselves to the barbarous\n trickeries of diplomacy.\n\n [10] The book was published a year ago, and since then dozens\n of new weapons and smokeless powder have been invented for the\n annihilation of mankind.--AUTHOR.\n\n \"So self-deceived are they that bloodshed takes on the aspect of\n duty, and they implore the blessing of God upon their sanguinary\n hopes. As they march, they trample underfoot the harvests which\n they themselves have planted, burning the cities which they have\n helped to build, with songs, shouts of enthusiasm, and music.\n And their sons will raise a statue to those who have slain them\n by the most approved methods.... The fate of a whole generation\n hangs on the hour when some saturnine politician shall make the\n sign, and the nations will rush upon each other. We know that\n the noblest among us will be cut down, and that our affairs\n will go to destruction. _We know this, we tremble in anger, yet\n are powerless._ We have been caught in a snare of bureaucracy\n and waste paper from which we can only escape by measures too\n energetic for us. We belong to the laws which we have made for\n our protection, and which oppress us. _We are nothing more\n than the creatures of that antinomic abstraction, the State,\n which makes of each individual a slave in the name of all, each\n individual of which all, taken separately, would desire the\n exact contrary of what he will be made to do._\n\n \"And if it were but the sacrifice of a single generation! But\n many other interests are involved.\n\n \"Paid orators, demagogues, taking advantage of the passions\n of the masses and of the simple-minded who are dazzled by\n high-sounding phrases, have so embittered national hatreds\n that to-morrow's war will decide the fate of a race: one of\n the component parts of the modern world is threatened; the\n vanquished nation will morally disappear; it matters not which\n chances to be the victim, a power will disappear (as though\n there had ever been one too many for the good). A new Europe\n will then be established on a basis so unjust, so brutal, so\n bloodstained, that it cannot fail to be worse than that of\n to-day,--more iniquitous, more barbarous, and more aggressive....\n\n \"Thus a fearful depression hangs over us. We are like men\n dashing up and down a narrow passageway, with muskets pointed at\n us from all the roofs. We work like sailors executing their last\n man\u0153uver after the ship has begun to sink. Our pleasures are\n those of the prisoner to whom a choice dish is offered a quarter\n of an hour before his execution. Anxiety paralyzes our thought,\n and the utmost we can do is to wonder, as we con the vague\n utterances of ministers, or construe the meaning of the words\n of monarchs, or turn over those ascribed to the diplomatists,\n retailed at random by the newspapers, never sure of their\n information, whether all this is to happen to-morrow or the day\n after, whether it is this year or next that we are all to be\n killed. In truth, one might seek in vain throughout the pages\n of history for an epoch more unsettled or more pregnant with\n anxiety.\"--\"Le Sens de la Vie.\"\n\nHe shows us that the power is really in the hands of those who allow\nthemselves to be destroyed, in the hands of separate individuals who\ncompose the mass; that the root of all evil is the State. It would\nseem as if the contradiction between one's faith and one's actual\nlife had reached its utmost limit, and that the solution could not\nbe far to seek.\n\nBut the author is of a different opinion. All that he sees in\nthis is the tragedy of human life, and having given us a detailed\ndescription of the horror of this state of things, he perceives\nno reason why human life should not be spent in the midst of this\nhorror. Such are the views of the second class of writers, who\nconsider only the fatalistic and tragic side of war.\n\nThere is still another view, and this is the one held by men who\nhave lost all conscience, and are consequently dead to common sense\nand human feeling.\n\nTo this class belong Moltke, whose opinions are quoted by\nMaupassant, and nearly all military men who have been taught to\nbelieve this cruel superstition, who are supported by it, and who\nnaturally regard war not only as an inevitable evil, but as a\nnecessary and even profitable occupation. And there are civilians\ntoo, scientists, men of refinement and education, who hold very much\nthe same views.\n\nThe famous academician Doucet, in reply to a query of the editor of\nthe _Revue des Revues_ in regard to his opinions on war, replies as\nfollows in the number containing letters concerning war:[11]--\n\n \"DEAR SIR,--When you ask of the least belligerent of all the\n academicians if he is a partizan of war, his reply is already\n given. Unfortunately you yourself classify the peaceful\n contemplations which inspire your fellow-countrymen at the\n present hour as idle visions.\n\n \"Ever since I was born I have always heard good men protesting\n against this shocking custom of international carnage. All\n recognize this evil and lament it. But where is its remedy?\n\n \"The effort to suppress duelling has often been made. It seems\n to be so easy. Far from it. All that has been accomplished\n toward achieving this noble purpose amounts to nothing, nor\n will it ever amount to more. Against war and duelling the\n congresses of the two hemispheres vote in vain. Superior to all\n arbitrations, conventions, and legislations will ever remain\n human honor, which has always demanded the duel, and national\n interests, which have always called for war. Nevertheless, I\n wish with all my heart that the Universal Peace Congress may\n succeed at last in its difficult and honorable task.--Accept the\n assurance, etc.,\n\n \"CAMILLE DOUCET.\"\n\n [11] _La Revue des Revues_, \"La guerre, \u00e9tat de la question, jug\u00e9\n par nos grands hommes contemporains.\"--TR.\n\nIt amounts to this, that honor obliges men to fight, that it is for\nthe interest of nations that they should attack and destroy one\nanother, and that all endeavors to abolish war can but excite a\nsmile.\n\nJules Claretie expresses himself in similar terms:--\n\n \"DEAR SIR,--A sensible man can have but one opinion on the\n question of war and peace. Humanity was created to live--to\n live for the purpose of perfecting its existence by peaceful\n labor. The mutual relations of cordiality which are promoted and\n preached by the Universal Congress of Peace may be but a dream\n perhaps, yet certainly is the most delightful of dreams. The\n vision of the land of promise is ever before the eyes, and upon\n the soil of the future the harvest will ripen, secure from the\n plowing of the projectile, or the crushing of cannon-wheels.\n But, alas!... Since philosophers and philanthropists are not the\n rulers of mankind, it is fit that our soldiers should guard our\n frontiers and our homes, and their weapons, skilfully wielded,\n are perhaps the surest guarantees of the peace we love so well.\n Peace is given only to the strong and the courageous.--Accept\n the assurances of, etc.,\n\n \"JULES CLARETIE.\"\n\nThe substance of this is, that there is no harm in talking about\nwhat no one intends to do, and what ought not in any event to be\ndone. When fighting is in order, there is no alternative but to\nfight.\n\n\u00c9mile Zola, the most popular novelist in Europe, gives utterance to\nhis views on the subject of war in the following terms:--\n\n \"I look upon war as a fatal necessity which seems to us\n indispensable because of its close connection with human nature\n and all creation. Would that it might be postponed as long as\n possible! Nevertheless a time will come when we shall be forced\n to fight. At this moment I am regarding the subject from the\n universal standpoint, and am not hinting at our unfriendly\n relations with Germany, which are but a trifling incident in the\n world's history. I affirm that war is useful and necessary,\n since it is one of the conditions of human existence. The\n fighting instinct is to be found not only among the different\n tribes and peoples, but in domestic and private life as\n well. It is one of the chief elements of progress, and every\n advancing step taken by mankind up to the present time has been\n accompanied by bloodshed.\n\n \"Men have talked, and still do talk, of disarmament; and yet\n disarmament is utterly impossible, for even though it were\n possible, we should be compelled to renounce it. It is only an\n armed nation that can be powerful and great. I believe that a\n general disarmament would be followed by a moral degradation,\n assuming the form of a widespread effeminacy which would impede\n the progress of humanity. Warlike nations have always been\n vigorous. The military art has contributed to the development\n of other arts. History shows us this. In Athens and Rome, for\n instance, commerce, industry, and literature reached their\n highest development when these cities ruled the world by the\n force of arms. And nearer to our own time we found an example\n in the reign of Louis XIV. The wars of the great king, so far\n from impeding the advance of arts and sciences, seemed rather to\n promote and to favor their progress.\"\n\nWar is useful!\n\nBut chief among the advocates of these views, and the most talented\nof all the writers of this tendency, is the academician Vog\u00fc\u00e9, who,\nin an article on the military section of the Exhibition of 1889,\nwrites as follows:--\n\n \"On the Esplanade des Invalides, the center of exotic and\n colonial structures, a building of a more severe order stands\n out from the midst of the picturesque bazaar; these various\n fragments of our terrestrial globe adjoin the palace of war. A\n magnificent theme and antithesis for humanitarian rhetoric which\n never loses a chance to lament a juxtaposition of this kind, and\n to utter its 'this will kill that' [_ceci tuera cela_[12]];\n that the confederacy of nations brought about by science and\n labor will overpower the military instinct. Let it cherish this\n vision of a golden age, caressing it with fond hopes. We have\n no objection; but should it ever be realized, it would very\n soon become an age of corruption. History teaches us that the\n former has been accomplished by the means of the latter, that\n blood is necessary to hasten and to seal the confederacy of\n nations. In our own time the natural sciences have strengthened\n the mysterious law which revealed itself to Joseph de Maistre\n through the inspiration of his genius and meditation on\n primordial dogmas; he saw how the world would redeem its\n hereditary fall by offering a sacrifice. Science shows us that\n the world is made better by struggle and violent selection;\n this affirmation of the same law, with varied utterance, comes\n from two sources. It is by no means a pleasant one. The laws\n of the world, however, are not established for our pleasure,\n but for our perfection. Let us then enter this necessary and\n indispensable palace of war, and we shall have the opportunity\n to observe how our most inveterate instinct, losing nothing\n of its power, is transformed in its adaptation to the various\n demands of historical moments.\"\n\n [12] Words taken from Victor Hugo's \"Notre Dame,\" where he says that\n printing will kill architecture.--AUTHOR.\n\nThis idea, namely, that the proof of the necessity of war may\nbe found in the writings of De Maistre and of Darwin, two great\nthinkers, as he calls them, pleases Vog\u00fc\u00e9 so much that he repeats it.\n\n\"Sir,\" he writes to the editor of the _Revue des Revues_, \"you ask\nmy opinion in regard to the possible success of the Universal Peace\nCongress. I believe, with Darwin, that vehement struggle is the\nlaw governing all being, and I believe, with Joseph de Maistre,\nthat it is a divine law,--two different modes of characterizing\nthe same principle. If, contrary to all expectations, a certain\nfraction of humanity--for example, all the civilized West--should\nsucceed in arresting the issue of this law, the more primitive races\nwould execute it against us; in these races the voice of nature\nwould prevail over human intellect. And they would succeed, because\nthe certainty of _peace_--I do not say peace, but the absolute\n_certainty of peace_--would in less than half a century produce a\ncorruption and a decadence in men more destructive than the worst of\nwars. I believe that one should act in regard to war--that criminal\nlaw of humanity--as in regard to all criminal laws: modify it, or\nendeavor to make its execution as rare as possible, and use every\nmeans in our power to render it superfluous. But experience of all\nhistory teaches us that it cannot be suppressed, so long as there\nshall be found on earth two men, bread, money, and a woman between\nthem. I should be very glad if the Congress could prove to me the\ncontrary; but I doubt if it can disprove history, and the law of God\nand of nature.--Accept my assurance, etc.,\n\n \"E. M. DE VOG\u00dc\u00c9.\"\n\nThis may be summed up as follows: History and nature, God and man,\nshow us that so long as there are two men left on earth, and the\nstakes are bread, money, and woman, just so long there will be war.\nThat is, that no amount of civilization will ever destroy that\nabnormal concept of life which makes it impossible for men to divide\nbread, money (of all absurdities), and woman without a fight. It is\nodd that people meet in congresses and hold forth as to the best\nmethod of catching birds by putting salt on their tails, although\nthey must know that this can never be done! It is astonishing that\nmen like Rod, Maupassant, and others, clearly realizing all the\nhorrors of war, and all the contradictions that ensue from men not\ndoing what they ought to do, and what it would be to their advantage\nto do, who bemoan the tragedy of life, and yet fail to see that\nthis tragic element would vanish as soon as men ceased to discuss a\nsubject which should not be discussed, and ceased to do that which\nis both painful and repulsive for them to do!\n\nOne may wonder at them; but men who, like Vog\u00fc\u00e9 and others, believe\nin the law of evolution, and look upon war as not only unavoidable,\nbut even useful, and therefore desirable,--such men are fairly\nshocking, horrible in their moral aberration. The former at least\ndeclare that they hate evil and love good, but the latter believe\nthere is neither good nor evil.\n\nAll this discussion of the possibility of establishing peace instead\nof continual warfare is but the mischievous sentimentalism of idle\ntalkers. There is a law of evolution which seems to prove that I\nmust live and do wrong. What, then, can I do? I am an educated\nman,--I am familiar with the doctrine of evolution; hence it follows\nthat I shall work evil. \"Entrons au palais de la guerre.\" There is a\nlaw of evolution, and therefore there can be no real evil; and one\nmust live one's life and leave the rest to the law of evolution.\nThis is the last expression of refined civilization; it is with\nthis idea that the educated classes at the present day deaden their\nconscience.\n\nThe desire of these classes to preserve their favorite theories and\nthe life that they have built up on them can go no further. They\nlie, and by their specious arguments deceive themselves as well as\nothers, obscuring and deadening their intuitive perceptions.\n\nRather than adapt their lives to their consciousness, they try by\nevery means to befog and to silence it. But the light shines in the\ndarkness, and even now it begins to dawn.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nSIGNIFICANCE OF THE MILITARY CONSCRIPTION\n\n General military conscription is not a political accident, but\n the extreme limit of contradiction contained in the social\n life-conception--Rise of power in society--The basis of power\n is personal violence--The organization of armed men, an army,\n is required by power to enable it to accomplish violence--The\n rise of power in society, that is, of violence, destroys by\n degrees the social life-conception--Attitude of power toward\n the masses, that is to say, the oppressed--Governments endeavor\n to make workmen believe in the necessity of State violence for\n their preservation from external foes--But the army is needed\n principally to defend government from its own subjects, the\n oppressed working-men--Address of Caprivi--All the privileges of\n the ruling classes are assured by violence--Increase of armies\n leads to a general military conscription--General military\n conscription destroys all the advantages of social life which it\n is the duty of the State to guard--General military conscription\n is the extreme limit of obedience, as it demands in the name of\n the State the abnegation of all that may be dear to man--Is the\n State needed?--The sacrifices which it requires from citizens\n through the general military conscription have no longer any\n basis--Hence it is more advantageous for man to rebel against\n the demands of the State than to submit to them.\n\n\nThe efforts which the educated men of the upper classes are making\nto silence the growing consciousness that the present system of\nlife must be changed, are constantly on the increase, while life\nitself, continuing to develop and to become more complex without\nchanging its direction, as it increases the incongruities and\nsuffering of human existence, brings men to the extreme limit of\nthis contradiction. An example of this uttermost limit is found in\nthe general military conscription.\n\nIt is usually supposed that this conscription, together with the\nincreasing armaments and the consequent increase of the taxes and\nnational debts of all countries, are the accidental results of a\ncertain crisis in European affairs, which might be obviated by\ncertain political combinations, without change of the interior life.\n\nThis is utterly erroneous. The general conscription is nothing\nbut an internal contradiction which has crept into the social\nlife-conception, and which has only become evident because it has\narrived at its utmost limits at a period when men have attained a\ncertain degree of material development.\n\nThe social life-conception transfers the significance of life\nfrom the individual to mankind in general, through the unbroken\ncontinuity of the family, the tribe, and the State.\n\nAccording to the social life-conception it is supposed that as the\nsignificance of life is comprised in the sum total of mankind, each\nindividual will of his own accord sacrifice his interests to those\nof the whole. This in fact has always been the case with certain\naggregates, like the family or the tribe.\n\nIn consequence of custom, transmitted by education and confirmed by\nreligious suggestion, and without compulsion, the individual merges\nhis interests in those of the group, and sacrifices himself for the\nbenefit of the whole.\n\nBut the more complex became societies, the larger they\ngrew,--conquest especially contributing to unite men in social\norganizations,--the more individuals would be found striving to\nattain their ends at the expense of their fellow-men; and thus the\nnecessity for subjugation by power, or, in other words, by violence,\nbecame more and more frequent.\n\nThe advocates of the social life-conception usually attempt to\ncombine the idea of authority, otherwise violence, with that of\nmoral influence; but such a union is utterly impossible.\n\nThe result of moral influence upon man is to change his desires,\nso that he willingly complies with what is required of him. A man\nwho yields to moral influence takes pleasure in conforming his\nactions to its laws; whereas authority, as the word is commonly\nunderstood, is a means of coercion, by which a man is forced to act\nin opposition to his wishes. A man who submits to authority does not\ndo as he pleases, he yields to compulsion, and in order to force\na man to do something for which he has an aversion, the threat of\nphysical violence, or violence itself, must be employed: he may be\ndeprived of his liberty, flogged, mutilated, or he may be threatened\nwith these punishments. And this is what constitutes power both in\nthe past and in the present.\n\nDespite the unremitting efforts of rulers to conceal these facts,\nand to attribute a different significance to authority, it simply\nmeans the rope and chain wherewith a man is bound and dragged, the\nlash wherewith he is flogged, the knife or ax wherewith his limbs,\nnose, ears, and head are hewed off. Authority is either the menace\nor the perpetration of these acts. This was the practice in the\ntimes of Nero and Genghis Khan, and is still in force even in the\nmost liberal governments, like the republics of France and America.\nIf men submit to authority, it is only because they fear that if\nthey were to resist, they would be subjected to violence. All the\nrequisitions of the State, such as the payment of taxes and the\nfulfilment of public duties, the submission to penalties in the form\nof exile, fines, etc., to which men seem to yield voluntarily, are\nalways enforced by the physical threat or the reality of physical\npunishment.\n\nPhysical violence is the basis of authority.\n\nIt is the military organization that makes it possible to inflict\nphysical violence, that organization wherein the entire armed force\nacts as one man, obeying a single will. This assemblage of armed\nmen, submitting to one will, forms what is called an army. The army\nhas ever been and still is the basis of an authority, vested in\nthe commanding generals; and the most engrossing interest of every\nsovereign, from the Roman C\u00e6sars to the Russian and German emperors,\nhas always been to protect and flatter the army, for they realize\nthat when the army is on their side, power is also in their hands.\n\nIt is the drilling and the increase of the troops required for\nthe maintenance of authority which has brought into the social\nlife-conception an element of dissolution.\n\nThe aim of authority, and its consequent justification, is to\nrestrain those men who are endeavoring, by methods which are\ndetrimental to those of mankind in general, to promote their own\ninterests. But whether authority has been acquired by force of arms,\nor by hereditary succession, or by election, men who have gained\nauthority are in no way different from their fellow-men; they are\njust like all others, not inclined to waive their own interests in\nfavor of the many, but, since they hold power in their hands, are\nmore likely to make the interests of the many give way to their\nown. Whatever measures may have been devised by way of restraining\nthose in authority who might seek their own ends at the expense of\nthe public, or to vest authority in the hands of infallible men, no\nsatisfactory results have as yet been attained.\n\nAttributing divine right to kings, hereditary succession, election;\ncongresses, parliaments, and senates;--none of these have ever\nyet proved effectual. Everybody knows that no expedient has\never succeeded either in committing authority into the hands of\ninfallible men, or of preventing its abuses. On the contrary, we\nknow that men who have the authority, be they emperors, ministers of\nState, chiefs of police, or even policemen, always are more liable,\nbecause of their position, to become immoral,--that is, to put their\nown private interests before those of the public,--than men who do\nnot possess such an authority; and this is inevitable.\n\nThe social life-conception could be justified only while all\nmen voluntarily sacrificed their private interests to those of\nthe public in general; but no sooner did men appear who refused\nto sacrifice their interests, than authority, in other words,\nviolence, was required to restrain these men. Thus there entered\ninto the social life-conception, and the organization based on it,\na principle containing within itself the germs of dissolution,--the\nprinciple of authority, or the tyranny of the few over the many.\nIn order that the authority held by certain men might fulfil its\nobject, which is to restrain those who are trying to further their\nown interests to the detriment of society in general, it would be\nnecessary to have it in the hands of infallible men, as is supposed\nto be the case in China, or as it was believed to be in the Middle\nAges, and is even at the present time by those who have faith in\nconsecration by unction. It is only under such conditions that the\nsocial organization can be justified.\n\nBut as no such conditions exist, and, furthermore, as men who are\nin authority, from the very fact of its possession, must ever be\nfar from being saints, the social organization that is based upon\nauthority cannot possibly have any justification.\n\nIf there ever was a time when a low standard of morality, and the\ngeneral tendency of men toward violence, called for an authority\npossessing the power to restrict this violence, an authority whose\nexistence may have been an advantage,--that is, when the violence\nof the State was less than the violence of individuals toward\neach other,--we cannot help seeing now that this prerogative of\nthe State, when violence no longer exists, cannot go on forever.\nMorals improved in proportion to the gradual decrease of individual\nviolence, while the prerogative of authority lost ground in measure\nas it became corrupted by the possession of unbridled power.\n\nThe entire history of the last 2000 years will have been told\nwhen we have described this change in the relations between the\nmoral development of man and the demoralization of governments.\nIn its simplest form it runs thus: men lived together in tribes,\nin families, and in races, and were at enmity one with another;\nthey employed violence, they spread desolation, they murdered one\nanother. Thus devastation was on a scale both great and small: man\nfought with man, tribe with tribe, family with family, race with\nrace, nation with nation. The larger and more powerful communities\nabsorbed the weaker ones; and the greater and more vigorous became\nthe aggregation of men, the more seldom did one hear of acts\nof violence within these communities, and the more secure the\ncontinuity of their existence appeared.\n\nWhen the members of a tribe or a family unite together to form one\ncommunity, they are naturally less hostile to each other, and the\ntribes and families are not so likely to die out; while among the\ncitizens of a State subjected to one authority the contentions seem\neven less frequent, and hence is the life of the State on a basis\nstill more assured.\n\nThese fusions into larger and larger aggregates took place, not\nbecause men realized that it would be to their advantage, as is\nillustrated by the fable that tells of the falling of the Varegs in\nRussia, but are due rather to natural growth on the one hand, and\nstruggle and conquest on the other.\n\nWhen conquest was achieved, the authority of the conqueror put\nan end to internal strife, and the social life-conception was\njustified. But this justification is only temporary. Internal feuds\ncease only when the pressure of authority is brought to bear with\ngreater weight upon individuals formerly inimical to one another.\nThe violence of the internal struggle, not annihilated by authority,\nis the offspring of authority itself. Authority is in the hands\nof men who, like all the rest, are ever ready to sacrifice the\ncommon weal if their own personal interests are at stake; with the\nsole difference that these men, encountering no resistance from\nthe oppressed, are wholly subject to the corrupting influence of\nauthority itself.\n\nTherefore it is that the evil principle of violence relegated\nto authority is ever increasing, and the evil becomes in time\nworse than that which it is supposed to control: whereas, in the\nindividual members of society, the inclination to violence is always\ndiminishing, and the violence of authority becomes less and less\nnecessary.\n\nAs its power increases in measure of its duration, State authority,\nthough it may eradicate internal violence, introduces into life\nother and new forms of violence, always increasing in intensity.\nAnd though the violence of authority in the State is less striking\nthan that of individual members of society toward each other, its\nprincipal manifestation being not that of strife, but of oppression,\nit exists none the less, and in the highest degree.\n\nIt cannot be otherwise; for not only does the possession of\nauthority corrupt men, but, either from design or unconsciously,\nrulers are always striving to reduce their subjects to the lowest\ndegree of weakness,--for the more feeble the subject, the less the\neffort required to subdue him.\n\nTherefore violence employed against the oppressed is pushed to its\nutmost limit, just stopping short of killing the hen that lays the\ngolden egg. But if the hen has ceased to lay, like the American\nIndians, the Fiji Islanders, or the Negroes, then it is killed,\ndespite the sincere protests of the philanthropists against that\nmode of procedure.\n\nThe most conclusive proof of this assertion, at the present time, is\nthe position of the working-men, who are in truth simply vanquished\nmen.\n\nDespite all the pretended efforts of the upper classes to lighten\ntheir position, all the working-men of the world are subjected to an\nimmutable iron rule, which prescribes that they shall have scarcely\nenough to live upon, in order that their necessities may urge them\nto unremitting toil, the fruits of which are to be enjoyed by their\nmasters, in other words, their conquerors.\n\nIt has always been the case that, after the long continuance and\ngrowth of power, the advantages accruing to those who have submitted\nto it have failed, while the disadvantages have multiplied.\n\nThus it is and thus it always has been, under whatsoever form of\ngovernment the nation may have lived; only that where despotism\nprevails authority is confined to a limited number of oppressors,\nand violence takes on a ruder form, while in the constitutional\nmonarchies, and in the republics of France and America, authority\nis distributed among a greater number of oppressors, and its\nmanifestations are less rude; but the result, in which the\ndisadvantages of dominion are greater than the advantages, and the\nmethod--reduction of the oppressed to the lowest possible degree of\nabjection, for the benefit of the oppressors, remain ever the same.\n\nSuch has been the position of all the oppressed, but until lately\nthey have been unaware of the fact, and for the most part have\ninnocently believed that governments were instituted for their\nbenefit, to preserve them from destruction, and that to permit the\nidea that men might live without governments would be a thought\nsacrilegious beyond expression; it would be the doctrine of anarchy,\nwith all its attendant horrors.\n\nMen believed, as in something so thoroughly proved that it needed no\nfurther testimony, that as all nations had hitherto developed into\nthe State form, this was to remain the indispensable condition for\nthe development of mankind forever.\n\nAnd so it has gone on for hundreds, nay, thousands of years, and the\ngovernments, that is to say, their representatives, have endeavored,\nand still go on endeavoring, to preserve this delusion among the\npeople.\n\nAs it was during the time of the Roman emperors, so it is now.\nAlthough the idea of the uselessness, and even of the detriment,\nof power enters more and more into the consciousness of men, it\nmight endure forever, if governments did not think it necessary to\nincrease the armies in order to support their authority.\n\nIt is the popular belief that governments increase armies as a\nmeans of defense against other nations, forgetting that troops are\nprincipally needed by governments to protect them against their own\nenslaved subjects.\n\nThis has always been necessary, and has grown more so with the\nspread of education, the increase of intercourse among different\nnationalities; and at the present time, in view of the communist,\nsocialist, anarchist, and labor movements, it is a more urgent\nnecessity than ever. Governments realize this fact, and increase\ntheir principal means of defense,--the disciplined army.[13]\n\n [13] That the abuse of authority exists in America, despite the\n small number of troops, by no means refutes our argument; on the\n contrary, it serves rather as a testimony in its favor. In America\n there are fewer troops than in other States, and nowhere do we find\n less oppression of the downtrodden classes, and nowhere have men\n come so near to the abolition of governmental abuses, and even of\n government itself. However, it is in America that, owing to the\n growing unity among the working-men, voices have been heard, more\n and more frequently of late, calling for an increase of troops,\n and this when no foreign invasion threatens the States. The ruling\n classes are fully aware that an army of 50,000 men is insufficient,\n and, having lost confidence in Pinkerton's forces, they believe that\n their salvation can only be secured by the increase of the army.\n\nIt was but recently that in the German Reichstag, in giving the\nreason why more money was needed to increase the pay of the\nsubaltern officers, the German Chancellor answered candidly that\ntrusty subaltern officers are needed in order to fight against\nsocialism. Caprivi put into words what every one knows, although\nit has been carefully concealed from the people. The reason why\nthe Swiss and Scottish Guards were hired to protect the popes and\nthe French kings, and why the Russian regiments are so carefully\nshuffled, is in order that those which are posted in the interior\nmay be recruited by men from the borders, and those on the borders\nby men from the interior. The meaning of Caprivi's reply, translated\ninto simple, everyday language, means that money is needed, not to\nrepel a foreign enemy, but to bribe the subaltern officers to hold\nthemselves in readiness to act against the oppressed working-men.\n\nCaprivi incidentally expressed what every man knows--or if he does\nnot know it he feels it--namely, that the existing system of life is\nsuch as it is, not because it is natural for it to be so, or that\nthe people are content to have it so, but because violence on the\npart of governments, the army, with its bribed subaltern officers,\nits captains and generals, sustains it.\n\nIf a working-man has no land, if he is not allowed to enjoy the\nnatural right possessed by every man, to draw from the soil the\nmeans of subsistence for himself and his family, it is not so\nbecause the people oppose it, but because the right to grant or\nto withhold this privilege from working-men is given to certain\nindividuals--namely, to the landed proprietors. And this unnatural\norder of things is maintained by the troops. If the enormous wealth\nearned and saved by working-men is not regarded as common property,\nbut as something to be enjoyed by the chosen few; if certain men\nare invested with the power of levying taxes on labor, and with\nthe right of using that money for whatsoever purposes they deem\nnecessary; if the strikes of the working-men are suppressed, and\nthe trusts of the capitalists are encouraged; if certain men are\nallowed to choose in the matter of religious and civil education\nand the instruction of children; if to certain others the right\nis given to frame laws which all men must obey, and if they are\nto enjoy the control of human life and property,--all this is not\nbecause the people wish it, or because it has come about in the\ncourse of nature, but because the governments will have it so for\ntheir own advantage and that of the ruling classes; and all this is\naccomplished by means of physical violence.\n\nIf every man is not yet aware of this, he will find it out whenever\nattempts are made to change the present order of things.\n\nAnd therefore all the governments and the ruling classes stand in\nneed of troops above all things, in order to maintain a system of\nlife which, far from having developed from the needs of the people,\nis often detrimental to them, and is only advantageous for the\ngovernment and the ruling classes.\n\nEvery government requires troops to enforce obedience, that it may\nprofit by the labor of its subjects. But no government exists alone:\nside by side with it stands the government of the adjacent country,\nwhich is also profiting by the enforced labor of its subjects, and\never ready to pounce upon its neighbor and take possession of the\ngoods which it has won from the labor of its own subjects. Hence it\nis that every government needs an army, not only for home use, but\nto guard its plunder from foreign depredations. Thus each government\nfinds itself obliged to outdo its neighbor in the increase of its\narmy, and, as Montesquieu said one hundred and fifty years ago, the\nexpansion of armies is a veritable contagion.\n\nOne State makes additions to its army in order to overawe its own\nsubjects; its neighbor takes alarm, and straightway follows the\nexample.\n\nArmies have reached the millions which they now number not only\nfrom the fear of foreign invasion; the increase was first caused\nby the necessity for putting down all attempts at rebellion on the\npart of the subjects of the State. The causes for the expansion of\narmies are contemporary, the one depending on the other; armies\nare needed against internal attempts at revolt, as well as for\nexternal defense. The one depends upon the other. The despotism of\ngovernments increases exactly in proportion to the increase of their\nstrength and their internal successes, and their foreign aggression\nwith the increase of internal despotism.\n\nEuropean governments try to outdo one another, ever increasing their\narmaments, and compelled at last to adopt the expedient of a general\nconscription as a means of enrolling the greatest number of troops\nat the smallest possible expense.\n\nGermany was the first to whom this plan suggested itself. And no\nsooner was it done by one nation than all the others were forced\nto do likewise. Thus all the citizens took up arms to assist in\nupholding the wrongs that were committed against them; in fact, they\nbecame their own oppressors.\n\nGeneral military conscription was the inevitable and logical\nconsummation at which it was but natural to arrive; at the same\ntime it is the last expression of the innate contradiction of the\nsocial life-conception which sprang into existence when violence was\nrequired for its support.\n\nGeneral military conscription made this contradiction a conspicuous\nfact. Indeed, the very significance of the social life-conception\nconsists in this,--that a man, realizing the cruelty of the struggle\nof individuals among themselves, and the peril that the individual\nincurs, seeks protection by transferring his private interests to a\nsocial community; whereas the result of the system of conscription\nis that men, after having made every sacrifice to escape from the\ncruel struggle and uncertainties of life, are once more called upon\nto undergo all the dangers they had hoped to escape, and moreover,\nthe community--the State for which the individuals gave up their\nprevious advantages--is now exposed to the same risk of destruction\nfrom which the individual himself formerly suffered. Governments\nshould have set men free from the cruelty of the personal struggle,\nand given them confidence in the inviolable structure of State life;\nbut instead of doing this they impose on individuals a repetition\nof the same dangers, with this difference, that in the place of\nstruggle between individuals of the same group, it is a case of\nstruggle between groups.\n\nThe establishment of a general military conscription is like the\nwork of a man who props a crumbling house. The walls have settled,\nsloping inward--he braces them; the ceiling begins to hang down--he\nsupports that; and when the boards between give way, other braces\nare supplied. At last it reaches the point when, although the braces\nhold the house together, they actually make it uninhabitable.\n\nThe same may be said of the general conscription system. The general\nmilitary conscription nullifies all those advantages of social life\nwhich it is expected to protect.\n\nThe advantages of social life are those guarantees which it offers\nfor the protection of property and labor, as well as co\u00f6peration for\nthe purposes of mutual advantage; the general military conscription\ndestroys all this.\n\nThe taxes collected from the people for purposes of war absorb the\ngreater part of the productions of their labor, which the army ought\nto protect.\n\nWhen men are taken from the ordinary avocations of daily life, labor\nis practically destroyed. Where war is ever threatening to break\nforth, it does not seem worth while to improve social conditions.\n\nIf a man had formerly been told that unless he submitted to the\ncivil authority he would run the risk of being assaulted by wicked\nmen, that he would be in danger from domestic as well as from\nforeign foes, against whom he would be forced to defend himself,\nthat he might be murdered, and therefore he would find it for\nhis advantage to suffer certain privations if by that means he\nsucceeded in escaping all these perils, he might have believed this,\nespecially as the sacrifices required by the State promised him the\nhope of a peaceful existence within the well-established community\nin whose name he had made them. But now, when these sacrifices are\nnot only multiplied, but the promised advantages are not realized,\nit is quite natural for men to think that their subjection to\nauthority is utterly useless.\n\nBut the fatal significance of the general conscription, as the\nmanifestation of that contradiction which dwells in the social\nlife-conception, lies not in this. Wherever military conscription\nexists, every citizen who becomes a soldier likewise becomes a\nsupporter of the State system, and a participant in whatsoever the\nState may do, at the same time that he does not acknowledge its\nvalidity; and this may be called its chief manifestation.\n\nGovernments declare that armies are principally required for\nexternal defense; but this is untrue. They are, in the first place,\nneeded to overawe their own subjects, and every man who yields to\nmilitary conscription becomes an involuntary participator in all the\noppressive acts of government toward its subjects. It is necessary\nto remember what goes on in every State in the name of order and\nthe welfare of the community, all the while enforced by military\nauthority, to be convinced that every man who fulfils military\nduty becomes a participant in acts of the State of which he cannot\napprove. Every dynastic and political feud, all the executions\nresulting from such feuds, the crushing of rebellions, the use\nof the military in dispersing mobs, in putting down strikes, all\nextortionate taxation, the injustice of land ownership and the\nlimitations of freedom of labor,--all this is done, if not directly\nby the troops, then by the police supported by the troops. He who\nperforms his military duty becomes a participant in all these acts,\nabout which he often feels more than dubious, and which are in most\ncases directly opposed to his conscience. Men do not wish to leave\nthe land which they have tilled for generations; they do not wish to\ndisperse on the bidding of the government; they do not wish to pay\nthe taxes which are extorted from them; neither do they willingly\nsubmit to laws which they have not helped to make; they do not wish\nto give up their nationality. And I, if I am performing military\nduty, must come forward and strike these men down. I cannot take\npart in such proceedings without asking myself if they be right. And\nought I to co\u00f6perate in carrying them out?\n\nGeneral military conscription is the last step in the process of\ncoercion required by governments for the support of the whole\nstructure; for subjects it is the extreme limit of obedience. It is\nthe keystone of the arch that supports the walls, the abstraction\nof which would destroy the whole fabric. The time has come when\nthe ever growing abuses of governments, and their mutual contests,\nhave required from all their subjects not only material but moral\nsacrifices, till each man pauses and asks himself, Can I make these\nsacrifices? And for whose sake am I to make them? These sacrifices\nare demanded in the name of the State. In the name of the State I am\nasked to give up all that makes life dear to a man,--peace, family,\nsafety, and personal dignity. What, then, is this State in whose\nname such appalling sacrifices are demanded? And of what use is it?\n\nWe are told that the State is necessary, in the first place, because\nwere it not for that no man would be safe from violence and the\nattacks of wicked men; in the second place, without the State\nwe should be like savages, possessing neither religion, morals,\neducation, instruction, commerce, means of communication, nor any\nother social institutions; and, in the third place, because without\nthe State we should be subject to the invasion of the neighboring\nnations.\n\n\"Were it not for the State,\" we are told, \"we should be subjected to\nviolence and to the attacks of evil men in our own land.\"\n\nBut who are these evil men from whose violence and attacks the\ngovernment and the army saves us? If such men existed three or\nfour centuries ago, when men prided themselves on their military\nskill and strength of arm, when a man proved his valor by killing\nhis fellow-men, we find none such at the present time: men of\nour time neither use nor carry weapons, and, believing in the\nprecepts of humanity and pity for their neighbors, they are as\ndesirous for peace and a quiet life as we are ourselves. Hence this\nextraordinary class of marauders, against whom the State might\ndefend us, no longer exists. But if, when they speak of the men\nfrom whose attacks the government defends us, we understand that\nthey mean the criminal classes, in that case we know that they are\nnot extraordinary beings, like beasts of prey among sheep, but are\nmen very much like ourselves, who are naturally just as reluctant\nto commit crimes as those against whom they commit them. We know\nnow that threats and punishments are powerless to decrease the\nnumbers of such men, but that their numbers may be decreased by\nchange of environment and by moral influence. Hence the theory of\nthe necessity of State violence in order to protect mankind against\nevil-doers, if it had any foundation three or four centuries ago,\nhas none whatever at the present time. One might say quite the\nreverse nowadays, for the activity of governments, with their\nantiquated and merciless methods of punishment, their galleys,\nprisons, gallows, and guillotines, so far below the general plane\nof morality, tends rather to lower the standard of morals than to\nelevate it, and therefore rather to increase than to lessen the\nnumber of criminals.\n\nIt is said that \"without the State there would be no institutions,\neducational, moral, religious, or international; there would be no\nmeans of communication. Were it not for the State, we should be\nwithout organizations necessary to all of us.\"\n\nAn argument like this could only have had a basis several centuries\nago. If there ever was a time when men had so little international\ncommunication, and were so unused to intercourse or interchange\nof thought that they could not come to an agreement on matters of\ngeneral interest--commercial, industrial, or economical--without\nthe assistance of the State, such is not the case at present. The\nwidely diffused means of communication and transmission of thought\nhave achieved this result,--that when the modern man desires to\nfound societies, assemblies, corporations, congresses, scientific,\neconomical, or political institutions, not only can he easily\ndispense with the assistance of governments, but in the majority\nof cases governments are more of a hindrance than a help in the\npursuit of such objects.\n\nSince the end of the last century almost every progressive movement\non the part of mankind has been not only discouraged, but invariably\nhampered, by governments. Such was the case with the abolition of\ncorporal punishment, torture, and slavery; with the establishment\nof freedom of the press and liberty of meeting. Furthermore, State\nauthorities and governments nowadays not only do not co\u00f6perate,\nbut they directly hinder the activity by means of which men work\nout new forms of life. The solution of labor and land questions,\nof political and religious problems, is not only unencouraged, but\ndistinctly opposed, by the government authority.\n\n\"If there were no State and government authority, nations would be\nsubjugated by their neighbors.\"\n\nIt is not worth while to answer this last argument. It refutes\nitself.\n\nWe are told that the government and its armies are necessary for our\ndefense against the neighboring States which might subject us. But\nall the governments say this of one another; and yet we know that\nevery European nation professes the same principles of liberty and\nfraternity, and therefore needs no defense against its neighbor.\nBut if one speaks of defense against barbarians, then one per cent\nof the troops under arms at the present time would suffice. It is\nnot only that the increase of armed force fails to protect us from\ndanger of attack from our neighbors, it actually provokes the very\nattack which it deprecates.\n\nHence no man who reflects on the significance of the State, in\nwhose name he is required to sacrifice his peace, his safety, and\nhis life, can escape the conviction that there is no longer any\nreasonable ground for such sacrifices.\n\nEven regarding the subject theoretically, a man must realize that\nthe sacrifices demanded by the State are without sufficient reason;\nand when he considers the matter from a practical point of view,\nweighing all the different conditions in which he has been placed\nby the State, every man must see that so far as he himself is\nconcerned, the fulfilment of the requirements of the State and his\nown subjection to military conscription is indubitably and in every\ncase less advantageous for him than if he refused to comply with it.\nIf the majority of people prefer obedience to insubordination, it is\nnot because they have given the subject dispassionate consideration,\nweighing the advantages and disadvantages, but because they are,\nso to speak, under the influence of hypnotic suggestion. Men\nsubmit to demands like this without using their reason or making\nthe least effort of the will. It requires independent reasoning,\nas well as effort, to refuse submission,--effort which some men\nare incapable of making. But supposing we exclude the moral\nsignificance of submission and non-submission, and consider only\ntheir advantages, then non-submission will always prove more\nadvantageous than submission. Whoever I may be, whether I belong to\nthe well-to-do--the oppressing class--or to the oppressed laboring\nclass, in either case the disadvantages of non-submission are less\nnumerous than the disadvantages of submission, and the advantages of\nnon-submission greater than those of submission.\n\nIf I belong to the oppressive, which is the smallest class, and\nrefuse to submit to the demands of the government, I shall be tried\nas one who refuses to fulfil his obligations,--I shall be tried, and\nin case my trial terminates favorably, I shall either be declared\nnot guilty, or I may be dealt with as they treat the Mennonites\nin Russia--that is, be compelled to serve my term of military\nservice by performing some non-military work; if, on the contrary,\nan unfavorable verdict is rendered, I shall be condemned to exile\nor imprisonment for two or three years (I am speaking of cases in\nRussia); or possibly my term of imprisonment may be longer. And I\nmay even be condemned to suffer the penalty of death, although that\nis not at all probable. Such are the disadvantages of non-submission.\n\nThe disadvantages of submission are as follows:--If I am fortunate\nI shall not be sent to murder men, neither shall I run the risk\nmyself of being disabled or killed; they will simply make a military\nslave of me. I shall be arrayed in the garments of a clown; my\nsuperior officers, from the corporal to the field-marshal, will\norder me about. At their word of command I shall be put through\na series of gymnastic contortions, and after being detained from\none to five years I shall be released, but still obliged for ten\nyears longer to hold myself in readiness at any moment I may be\nsummoned to execute the orders these people give me. And if I am\nless fortunate I shall be sent to the wars, still in the same\ncondition of slavery, and there I shall be forced to slay fellow-men\nof other countries who never did me any harm. Or I may be sent to a\nplace where I may be mutilated or killed; perhaps find myself, as\nat Sevastopol, sent to certain death; these things happen in every\nwar. Worse than all things else, I may be sent to fight against my\nfellow-countrymen, and compelled to kill my own brethren for some\nmatter dynastic or governmental, and to me of foreign interest. Such\nare the comparative disadvantages.\n\nThe comparative advantages of submission and non-submission are as\nfollows:--For him who has submitted the advantages are these: after\nhe has subjected himself to all the degradations and committed all\nthe cruel deeds required of him, he may, provided he be not killed,\nreceive some scarlet or golden bauble to decorate his clown's\nattire; or if he be especially favored, hundreds of thousands of\njust such brutal men like himself may be put under his command, and\nhe be called field-marshal, and receive large sums of money.\n\nBy refusing to submit he will possess the advantages of preserving\nhis manly dignity, of winning the respect of good men, and, above\nall, he will enjoy the assurance that he is doing God's business,\nand therefore an unquestionable benefit to mankind.\n\nSuch are the advantages and disadvantages, on either side, for\nthe oppressor, a member of the wealthy class. For a man of the\nworking-class--a poor man--the advantages and disadvantages\nare about the same, if we include one important addition to\nthe disadvantages. The special disadvantage for a man of the\nworking-class who has not refused to perform military service is\nthat, when he enters the service, his participation and his tacit\nconsent go toward confirming the oppression in which he finds\nhimself.\n\nBut the question concerning the State, whether its continued\nexistence is a necessity, or whether it would be wiser to abolish\nit, cannot be decided by discussion on its usefulness for the men\nwho are required to support it by taking part in the military\nservice, and still less by weighing the comparative advantages and\ndisadvantages of submission or non-submission for the individual\nhimself. It is decided irrevocably and without appeal by the\nreligious consciousness, by the conscience of each individual, to\nwhom no sooner does military conscription become a question than it\nis followed by that of the necessity or non-necessity of the State.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nCERTAINTY OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF\nNON-RESISTANCE TO EVIL BY VIOLENCE BY THE MEN OF OUR WORLD\n\n Christianity is not a legislation but a new life-conception;\n hence it was not obligatory, nor has it been accepted by all men\n in its full meaning, but only by a few; the rest have accepted\n it in a corrupted form--Moreover, Christianity is a prophecy\n of the disappearance of the pagan life, and therefore of the\n necessity of accepting the Christian doctrine--Non-resistance\n of evil by violence is one of the principles of the Christian\n doctrine which must inevitably be accepted by men at the present\n day--Two methods of solving every struggle--The first method\n consists in believing the general definitions of evil to be\n binding upon all, and to resist this evil by violence--The\n second, the Christian method, consists in not resisting evil\n by violence--Although the failure of the first method was\n recognized in the first centuries of Christianity, it is still\n employed; but as humanity advanced it has become more evident\n that there is not, nor can there be, a general definition of\n evil--Now this has become evident to all, and if the violence\n which is destined to combat evil exists, it is not because it\n is considered necessary, but because men do not know how to\n dispense with it--The difficulty of dispensing with it is due\n to the skilfulness and complexity of political violence--This\n violence is supported by four methods: by threats, bribes,\n hypnotism, and the employment of military force--Deliverance\n from State violence cannot be accomplished by overthrowing\n the State--Through experience of the misery of pagan life men\n are compelled to acknowledge the doctrine of Christ, with its\n non-resistance to evil,--a doctrine which they have hitherto\n ignored--To this same necessity of acknowledging the Christian\n doctrine we are brought by the consciousness of its truth--This\n consciousness is in utter contradiction to our life, and is\n especially evident in regard to general military conscription;\n but, in consequence of habit and the four methods of State\n violence, men do not see this inconsistency of Christianity\n with the duties of a soldier--Men do not see it even when the\n authorities themselves show them plainly all the immorality of\n the duties of a soldier--The call of the general conscription is\n the extreme trial for every man,--the command to choose between\n the Christian doctrine of non-resistance or servile submission\n to the existing organization of the State--Men generally submit\n to the demands of the State organization, renouncing all that\n is sacred, as though there were no other issue--For men of the\n pagan life-conception, indeed, no other issue does exist; they\n are compelled to acknowledge it, regardless of all the dreadful\n calamities of war--Society composed of such men must inevitably\n perish, and no social changes can save it--The pagan life has\n reached its last limits; it works its own destruction.\n\n\nIt is frequently said that if Christianity be a truth, it would\nhave been accepted by all men on its first appearance, and would\nstraightway have changed and improved the lives of men. One might\nas well say that if the seed is alive it must instantly sprout and\nproduce its flower or its fruit.\n\nThe Christian doctrine is not a law which, being introduced by\nviolence, can forthwith change the life of mankind. Christianity\nis a life-conception more lofty and excellent than the ancient;\nand such a new conception of life cannot be enforced; it must be\nadopted voluntarily, and by two processes, the spiritual or interior\nprocess, and the experimental or external process.\n\nSome men there are--but the smaller proportion--who instantly,\nand as though by prophetic intuition, divine the truth, surrender\nthemselves to its influence, and live up to its precepts;\nothers--and they are the majority--are brought to the knowledge of\nthe truth, and the necessity for its adoption, by a long series of\nerrors, by experience and suffering.\n\nIt is to this necessity of adopting the doctrine by the external\nprocess of experience that Christendom has at last arrived.\n\nNow and then one wonders why the mistaken presentment of\nChristianity, which even at the present time prevents men from\naccepting it in its true significance, could have been necessary.\nAnd yet the very errors, having brought men to their present\nposition, have been the medium through which it has become possible\nfor the majority to accept Christianity in its true meaning.\n\nIf instead of that corrupted form of Christianity which was given\nto the people, it had been offered to them in its purity, the\ngreater portion of mankind would have refused it, like the Asiatic\npeoples to whom it is yet unknown. But having once accepted it in\nits corrupted form, the nations embracing it were subjected to its\nslow but sure influence, and by a long succession of errors, and\nthe suffering that ensued therefrom, have now been brought to the\nnecessity of adopting it in its true meaning.\n\nThe erroneous presentation of Christianity, and its acceptance by\nthe majority of mankind, with all its errors, was then a necessity,\njust as the seed, if it is to sprout, must for a time be buried in\nthe soil.\n\nThe Christian doctrine is the doctrine of truth as well as of\nprophecy.\n\nEighteen hundred years ago the Christian doctrine revealed to men\nthe true conduct of life, and at the same time foretold the result\nof disobeying its injunctions and of continuing to pursue their\nformer course, guided only by the precepts which were taught before\nthe dawn of Christianity; and it also showed them what life may\nbecome if they accept the Christian doctrine and obey its dictates.\n\nHaving taught in the Sermon on the Mount those precepts by which men\nshould order their daily lives, Christ said: \"Therefore whosoever\nheareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him\nunto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: and the rain\ndescended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon\nthat house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And\nevery one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not,\nshall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the\nsand: and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds\nblew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall\nof it\" (Matthew vii. 24-27).\n\nAnd thus, after eighteen centuries, the prophecy has been fulfilled.\nAs the result of the abandonment of Christ's teachings, having\ndisregarded the principle of non-resistance to evil, men have\nunwittingly fallen into the condition of imminent peril foretold by\nChrist to those who refused to follow His precepts.\n\nMen often think that the question of resistance or non-resistance to\nevil by violence is an artificial question, which may be evaded. And\nyet this is the question that life presents to mankind in general,\nand to each thinking man in particular, and it is one that must be\nsolved. In social life, ever since Christianity was first preached,\nthis question has been like the doubt that confronts the traveler\nwhen he comes to a place where the road which he has followed\ndivides, and he knows not which branch to choose. He must pursue\nhis way, and he can no longer go on without pausing to deliberate,\nbecause there are now two roads from which to choose, whereas before\nthere was but one; he must make up his mind which he will take.\n\nIn like manner, since the doctrine of Christ has been made known to\nmen, they can no longer say, I will go on living as I did before,\nwithout deciding the question of resistance or non-resistance to\nevil by violence. One must decide at the beginning of every fresh\nstruggle whether one ought or ought not to resist by violence that\nwhich one believes to be evil.\n\nThe question of resistance or non-resistance of evil by violence\narose with the first contest among men, for every contest is simply\nthe resistance by violence of something which each combatant\nbelieves to be an evil. But before the time of Christ men did not\nunderstand that resistance by violence of whatever the individual\nbelieved to be evil--only the same action which seems evil to one\nman may seem good to another--is simply one mode of settling the\ndifficulty, and that the other method consists in not resisting evil\nby violence.\n\nBefore the appearance of the doctrine of Christ men believed\nthat there could be but one way of deciding the contest, that of\nresisting evil by violence, and acted accordingly, while each\ncombatant strove to persuade himself and others that what he\nregarded as evil was in fact the actual and absolute evil. For this\npurpose, dating from the oldest times, men began to invent certain\ndefinitions of evil which should be obligatory for all, and for the\npurpose of establishing definitions which should be thus binding,\nwere issued, either certain laws supposed to have been received in a\nsupernatural manner, or commands of individuals or of bodies of men\nto whom an infallible wisdom was ascribed. Men used violence against\ntheir fellow-men and assured themselves and others that they were\nbut using such violence against an evil acknowledged by all.\n\nThis was the custom from the most ancient times, particularly among\nmen who had usurped authority, and men have been long in seeing its\nbaselessness.\n\nBut the longer mankind existed the more complex grew its mutual\nrelations, and the more evident it became that to resist by violence\neverything that is considered evil is unwise; that the struggle is\nnot diminished thereby, and that no human wisdom can ever define an\ninfallible standard of evil.\n\nWhen Christianity first appeared in the Roman Empire it had already\nbecome evident to most men that whatever Nero or Caligula called\nevil, and sought to overcome by violence, was not necessarily an\nevil for the rest of mankind. Even then men had already begun to\nrealize that the human laws for which a divine origin was claimed\nwere really written by men; that men cannot be infallible, no\nmatter with what external authority they may be invested; and that\nfallible men will not become infallible because they meet together\nand call themselves a Senate, or any other similar name. Even then\nthis had been perceived and understood by many. And it was then\nthat Christ preached His doctrine, which not only embodied the\nprinciple of non-resistance, but which revealed a new conception\nof life, of which the application to social life would lead to the\nsuppression of strife among men, not by obliging one class to yield\nto whatsoever authority shall ordain, but by forbidding all men, and\nespecially those in power, to employ violence against others.\n\nThe doctrine was at that time embraced by a very limited number\nof disciples, while the majority of men, particularly those who\nwere in authority, although they nominally accepted Christianity,\ncontinued to follow the practice of resisting by violence whatever\nthey regarded as evil. So it was during the times of the Roman and\nByzantine emperors, and so it went on in later times.\n\nThe inconsistency of an authoritative definition of evil and its\nresistance by violence, already apparent in the first centuries\nof Christianity, had grown still more evident at the time of the\ndissolution of the Roman Empire and its subdivision into numerous\nindependent states hostile to one another and torn by internal\ndissensions.\n\nBut men were not yet ready to accept the law of Christ, and\nthe former method of defining an evil to be resisted by the\nestablishment of laws, enforced by coercion and binding upon all\nmen, continued to be employed. The arbiter, whose office it was\nto decide upon the nature of the evil to be resisted by violence,\nwas alternately the Emperor, the Pope, the elected body, or the\nnation at large. But both within and without the State men were\nalways to be found who refused to hold themselves bound, either by\nthose laws which were supposed to be the expression of the divine\nwill, or by the human laws which claimed to manifest the will of\nthe people;--men whose views on the subject of evil were quite at\nvariance with those of the existing authorities, men who resisted\nthe authorities, employing the same methods of violence that had\nbeen directed against themselves.\n\nMen invested with religious authority would condemn as evil a\nmatter which to men and institutions invested with a temporal\nauthority commended itself as desirable, and _vice versa_, and more\nand more furious grew the struggle. And the oftener men had recourse\nto violence in settling the difficulty, the more evident it became\nthat it was ill chosen, because there is not, nor can there ever be,\na standard authority of evil to which all mankind would agree.\n\nThus matters went on for eighteen centuries, and at last arrived at\ntheir present condition, which is, that no man can dispute the fact\nthat an infallible definition of evil will never be made. We have\nreached the point when men have ceased not only to believe in the\npossibility of finding a universal definition which all men will\nadmit, but they have even ceased to believe in the necessity of\nsuch a definition. We have reached the point when men in authority\nno longer seek to prove that that which they consider evil is evil,\nbut candidly acknowledge that they consider that to be evil which\ndoes not please them, and those who are subject to authority obey,\nnot because they believe that the definitions of evil made by\nauthority are just, but only because they have no power to resist.\nThe annexation of Nice to France, Lorraine to Germany, the Czechs\nto Austria, the partition of Poland, the subjection of Ireland and\nIndia to the English rule, the waging of war against China, the\nslaughter of Africans, the expulsion of the Chinese, the persecution\nof the Jews in Russia, or the derivation of profits by landowners\nfrom land which they do not cultivate, and by capitalists from the\nresults of labor performed by others,--none of all this is done\nbecause it is virtuous, or because it will benefit mankind and is\nessentially opposed to evil, but because those who hold authority\nwill have it so. The result at the present time is this: certain\nmen use violence, no longer in the name of resistance to evil, but\nfrom caprice, or because it is for their advantage; while certain\nother men submit to violence, not because they believe, like those\nof former ages, that violence is used to defend them from evil, but\nsimply because they cannot escape it.\n\nIf a Roman, or a man of the Middle Ages, or a Russian, such\na man as I can remember fifty years ago, believed implicitly\nthat the existing violence of authority was needed to save him\nfrom evil,--that taxes, duties, serfdom, prisons, the lash, the\nknout, galleys, executions, military conscription, and wars were\nunavoidable,--it would be difficult to find a man at the present\ntime who believes that all the violences committed saves a single\nman from evil; on the contrary, not one could be found who had not\na distinct assurance that most of the violations to which he is\nsubjected, and in which he himself participates, are in themselves a\ngreat and unprofitable calamity.\n\nThere is hardly a man to be found at the present time who fails\nto realize all the uselessness and absurdity of collecting taxes\nfrom the laboring classes for the purpose of enriching idle\nofficials; or the folly of punishing weak and immoral men by exile\nor imprisonment, where, supported as they are, and living in\nidleness, they become still weaker and more depraved; or, again, the\nunspeakable folly and cruelty of those preparations for war, which\ncan neither be explained nor justified, and which ruin and imperil\nthe safety of nations. Nevertheless these violations continue, and\nthe very men who realize and even suffer from their uselessness,\nabsurdity, and cruelty, contribute to their encouragement.\n\nIf fifty years ago it was possible that the wealthy man of leisure\nand the illiterate laborer should both believe that their positions,\nthe one a continual holiday, the other a life of incessant labor,\nwere ordained by God--in these days, not only throughout Europe, and\neven in Russia, owing to the activity of the people, the growth of\neducation, and the art of printing, it is hardly possible to find\na man, either rich or poor, who in one way or another would not\nquestion the justice of such an order of things. Not only do the\nrich realize that the possession of wealth is in itself a fault,\nfor which they strive to atone by donations to science and art,\nas formerly they redeemed their sins by endowing churches; but\neven the majority of the laboring class now understand that the\nexisting order is false, and should be altered, if not abolished.\nMen who profess religion, of whom we have millions in Russia, the\nso-called sectarians, acknowledge, because they interpret the gospel\ndoctrine correctly, that this order of things is false and should\nbe destroyed. The working-men consider it false because of the\nsocialistic, communistic, or anarchical theories that have already\nfound way into their ranks. In these days the principle of violence\nis maintained, not because it is considered necessary, but simply\nbecause it has been so long in existence, and is so thoroughly\norganized by those who profit by it--that is to say, by the\ngovernments and ruling classes--that those who are in their power\nfind it impossible to escape.\n\nNowadays every government, the despotic as well as the most\nliberal, has become what Herzen has so cleverly termed a Genghis\nKhan with a telegraphic equipment, that is, with an organization\nof violence, having for basis nothing less than the most brutal\ntyranny, and converting all the means invented by science for the\ninter-communication and peaceful activities of free and equal men to\nits own tyrannous and oppressive ends.\n\nThe existing governments and the ruling classes no longer care\nto present even the semblance of justice, but rely, thanks to\nscientific progress, on an organization so ingenious that it is able\nto inclose all men within a circle of violence through which it is\nimpossible to break. This circle is made up of four expedients, each\nconnected with and supporting the other like the rings of a chain.\n\nThe first and the oldest expedient is intimidation. It consists\nin representing the actual organization of the State, whether it\nbe that of a liberal republic or of an arbitrary despotism, as\nsomething sacred and immutable, which therefore punishes by the most\ncruel penalties any attempt at revolution. This expedient has been\nput into practice recently wherever a government exists: in Russia\nagainst the so-called nihilists, in America against the anarchists,\nin France against the imperialists, monarchists, communists, and\nanarchists. Railroads, telegraphs, telephones, photography, the\nimproved method of disposing of criminals by imprisoning them in\nsolitary confinement for the remainder of their lives in cells,\nwhere, hidden from human view, they die forgotten, as well as\nnumerous other modern inventions upon which governments have the\nprior claim, give them such power, that if once the authority\nfell into certain hands, and the regular and secret police,\nadministrative officials, and all kinds of procureurs, jailers, and\nexecutioners labored zealously to support it, there would be no\npossibility whatsoever of overthrowing the government, however cruel\nor senseless it might be.\n\nThe second expedient is bribery. This consists in taking the\nproperty of the laboring classes by means of taxation and\ndistributing it among the officials, who, in consideration of this,\nare bound to maintain and increase the bondage of the people. The\nbribed officials, from the prime ministers to the lowest scribes,\nform one unbroken chain of individuals, united by a common interest,\nsupported by the labor of the people, fulfilling the will of the\ngovernment with a submission proportionate to their gains, never\nhesitating to use any means in any department of business to promote\nthe action of that governmental violence on which their well-being\nrests.\n\nThe third expedient I can call by no other name than hypnotism.\nIt consists in retarding the spiritual development of men, and,\nby means of various suggestions, influencing them to cling to the\ntheory of life which mankind has already left behind, and upon\nwhich rests the foundation of governmental authority. We have at\nthe present time a hypnotizing system, organized in a most complex\nmanner, beginning in childhood and continued until the hour of\ndeath. This hypnotism begins during the early years of a man's life\nin a system of compulsory education. Children receive in school\nthe same ideas in regard to the universe which their ancestors\nentertained, and which are in direct contradiction to contemporary\nknowledge. In countries where a State religion exists, children\nare taught the senseless and sacrilegious utterances of church\ncatechisms, with the duty of obedience to authorities; in the\nrepublics they are taught the absurd superstition of patriotism,\nand the same obligation of obedience to the government. In maturer\nyears this hypnotizing process is continued by the encouragement\nof religious and patriotic superstition. Religious superstition is\nencouraged by the erection of churches built from money collected\nfrom the people, by holidays, processions, painting, architecture,\nmusic, by incense that stupefies the brain, and, above all, by\nthe maintenance of the so-called clergy, whose duty consists in\nbefogging the minds of men and keeping them in a continual state\nof imbecility, what with the solemnity of their services, their\nsermons, their intervention with the private lives of men in time\nof marriage, birth, and death. The patriotic superstition is\nencouraged by the governments and the ruling classes by instituting\nnational festivals, spectacles, and holidays, by erecting monuments\nwith money collected from the people, which will influence men to\nbelieve in the exclusive importance and greatness of their own State\nor country and its rulers, and encourage a feeling of hostility\nand even of hatred toward other nations. Furthermore, autocratic\ngovernments directly forbid the printing and circulation of books\nand the delivery of speeches that might enlighten men; and those\nteachers who have the power to rouse the people from its torpor\nare either banished or imprisoned. And every government, without\nexception, conceals from the masses all that would tend to set them\nfree, and encourages all that would demoralize them,--all those\nwritings, for instance, that tend to confirm them in the crudeness\nof their religious and patriotic superstition; all kinds of sensual\npleasures, shows, circuses, theaters; and all means for producing\nphysical stupor, especially those, like tobacco or brandy, which are\namong the principal sources of national income. Even prostitution is\nencouraged; it is not only recognized, but organized by the majority\nof governments. Such is the third expedient.\n\nThe fourth expedient consists in this: certain individuals are\nselected from among the mass of enslaved and stupefied beings,\nand these, after having been subjected to a still more vigorous\nprocess of brutalization, are made the passive instruments of the\ncruelties and brutalities indispensable to the government. This\nstate of brutality and imbecility is produced by taking men in their\nyouth, before they have yet had time to gain any clear conception\nof morality; and then, having removed them from all the natural\nconditions of human life, from home, family, birthplace, and the\npossibility of intelligent labor, by shutting them up together in\nbarracks, where, dressed in a peculiar uniform, to the accompaniment\nof shouts, drums, music, and the display of glittering gewgaws, they\nare daily forced to perform certain prescribed evolutions. By these\nmethods they are reduced to that hypnotic condition when they cease\nto be men and become imbecile and docile machines in the hands of\nthe hypnotizer. These physically strong young men thus hypnotized\n(and at the present time, with the general conscription system,\nall young men answer to this description), supplied with murderous\nweapons, ever obedient to the authority of the government, and ready\nat its command to commit any violence whatsoever, constitute the\nfourth and the principal means for subjugating men. So the circle of\nviolence is completed.\n\nIntimidation, bribery, and hypnotism force men to become soldiers;\nsoldiers give power and make it possible to execute and to rob\nmankind (with the aid of bribed officials), as well as to hypnotize\nand to recruit men who are in their turn to become soldiers.\n\nThe circle is complete, and there is no possibility of escape from\nit.\n\nIf some men believe that deliverance from violence, or even a\ncertain abatement of its energy, may be the result of its overthrow\nby the oppressed, who will then replace it by a system which will\nrequire no such violence and subjugation, and if, so believing,\nthey attempt to bring this about, they only deceive themselves and\nothers. So far from improving the position, these attempts will only\nrender things worse.\n\nThe activity of such men only strengthens the despotism of\ngovernments by giving the latter a convenient pretext for increasing\ntheir defenses. For even when, following a train of circumstances\nhighly demoralizing to the government,--take the case of France\nin 1870, for example,--a government is overthrown by violence\nand the authority passes into other hands, this new authority\nis by no means likely to be less oppressive than the former. On\nthe contrary, obliged to defend itself from its exasperated and\noverthrown enemies, it will be even more cruel and despotic than its\npredecessor, as has ever been the case in periods of revolution.\n\nIf socialists and communists believe that the possession of\nindividual capital is a pernicious influence in society, and\nanarchists regard government itself as an evil, there are, on the\nother hand, monarchists, conservatives, and capitalists who look\nupon the social and communal state as an evil order of society,\nno less than anarchy itself; and all these parties have nothing\nbetter to offer by way of reconciling mankind than violence. Thus,\nwhichever party gains the upper hand, it will be forced, in order\nto introduce and maintain its own system, not only to avail itself\nof all former methods of violence, but to invent new ones as well.\nIt simply means a change of slavery with new victims and a new\norganization; but the violence will remain,--nay, increase,--because\nhuman hatred, intensified by the struggle, will devise new means\nfor reducing the conquered to subjection. This has always been the\nresult of every revolution and violent overthrow of government. Each\nstruggle serves but to increase the power of those in authority at\nthe time to enslave their fellow-men.\n\nOne domain of human activity, and only one, has hitherto escaped\nthe encroachments of the governments--the domain of the family,\nthe economical domain of private life and domestic labor. But now\neven this domain, in consequence of the struggle of socialists and\ncommunists, is gradually passing into the hands of the governments,\nso that labor and recreation, the dwellings, clothes, and food of\nthe people will by degrees, if the desires of the reformers are\naccomplished, be determined and regulated by the government.\n\nThe long experiment of Christian life by nation after nation, during\neighteen centuries, has inevitably brought men to the necessity\nof deciding whether the doctrine of Christ is to be accepted or\nrefused, and of deciding, too, the question of social life dependent\nthereupon,--the resistance or non-resistance of evil by violence.\nBut there is this difference,--that formerly men could either accept\nor reject the decision given by Christianity, whereas now it has\nbecome imperative, because it affords the sole means of deliverance\nfrom that condition of slavery in which, as in a net, men find\nthemselves entangled.\n\nNor is it alone this sad plight that brings them to this necessity.\n\nParallel with the negative proof of the falsehood of the pagan\norder of things there has been positive proof of the truth of the\nChristian doctrine.\n\nIndeed, in the course of the eighteen centuries, the best men in all\nChristendom, through an inner spiritual medium, having recognized\nthe truths of the doctrine, have borne witness of it, regardless of\nthreats, privations, miseries, and torture. These nobler men, by\ntheir martyrdom, have sealed the truth of the doctrine.\n\nChristianity penetrated into human consciousness, not alone by the\nmethod of negative proof, that, namely, it had become impossible to\ngo on with the pagan life; but by its simplifying process, by its\nexplanation of, and its deliverance from, superstition, and by its\nconsequent spread among all classes of society.\n\nEighteen centuries of the profession of Christianity have not\npassed in vain for those who accepted it, even if it were but in\noutward form. These eighteen centuries have made men realize all\nthe miseries of the pagan state, even though they have continued\nto lead a pagan existence, out of harmony with an age of humanity;\nand at the bottom of their hearts they believe now (and herein\nlies the only reason for living at all) that salvation from such\nan existence can be found in the fulfilment of the Christian\ndoctrine in its true sense. As to when and where this salvation is\nto be accomplished, opinions differ, according to the intellectual\ndevelopment of men and the prejudices among which they live; but\nevery educated man recognizes that our salvation is to be found\nin the fulfilment of the Christian doctrine. Certain believers,\nthose who consider the Christian doctrine divine, affirm that this\nsalvation will be accomplished when all men believe in Christ and\nthe time of the second advent approaches; others, who also have\nfaith in the divinity of Christ's doctrine, believe that this\nsalvation will come through the churches, which, having got all\nmen within the fold, will implant in their hearts those Christian\nvirtues which will transform their lives. Others, again, who do\nnot accept the divinity of Christ, believe that the salvation of\nmen will be accomplished by means of a slow, continuous progress,\nduring which the groundwork of pagan life will be gradually replaced\nby the groundwork of liberty, equality, and fraternity--that is,\nby the basis of Christianity. Still others there are who preach a\nnew social organization, and who believe that this salvation will\nbe brought about when, by means of a violent revolution, men are\nforced to a community of goods, to the abolition of governments, to\ncollective rather than individual labor--that is, by the realization\nof one of the aspects of Christianity. Thus, after one fashion\nor another, all men of our epoch not only renounce the existing\norder of life as no longer suited to the times, but acknowledge,\noften without realizing it, and regarding themselves as enemies of\nChristianity, that our salvation lies only in the adaptation to life\nof a whole or a part of the Christian doctrine in its true sense.\n\nFor the majority of men Christianity, as its Teacher has expressed\nit, could not be comprehended at once, but was to grow, like unto a\nhuge tree, from the tiniest seed. \"The kingdom of heaven is like to\na grain of mustard seed, ... which indeed is the least of all seeds:\nbut when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh\na tree.\" And thus it has grown and continues to grow, if not in\nmanifestation, then in human consciousness.\n\nIt is no longer reserved for the minority of men, who have\nalways understood Christianity by its veritable truth; but it is\nacknowledged by the great majority, who, if we are to judge by their\nsocial life, are far removed from it.\n\nLook at the private life of individuals, listen to their estimation\nof human actions as they pronounce judgment on each other; listen\nnot only to public sermons and orations, but to the precepts which\nparents and teachers offer to their charges, and you will see that,\nhowever far removed from the practice of Christian truths may be the\npolitical or social existence of men who are in bonds to violence,\nyet Christian virtues are admired and exalted by all; while, on the\ncontrary, the anti-Christian vices are unhesitatingly condemned\nas harmful to all mankind. Those who sacrifice their lives in the\nservice of humanity are looked upon as the better men; while those\nwho take advantage of the misfortune of their neighbors to further\ntheir own selfish interests are universally condemned.\n\nThere may still be men who, insensible to Christian ideals, have set\nup for themselves other ideals, such as power, courage, or wealth;\nbut these ideals are passing away; they are not accepted by all, nor\nby the men of the better class. Indeed, the Christian ideals are the\nonly ones which are recognized as obligatory for all.\n\nThe position of our Christian world, looked at from without, with\nits cruelty and slavery, is indeed appalling. But if we consider\nit from the standpoint of human consciousness, it presents a very\ndifferent aspect. All the evil of our life seems to exist only\nbecause it always has existed from all ages, and the men whose\nactions are evil have had neither the time nor the experience to\novercome their evil habits, although all are willing to abandon\nthem. Evil seems to exist by reason of some cause apparently\nindependent of the consciousness of men.\n\nStrange and contradictory as it may seem, modern men hate the very\norder of things which they themselves support.\n\nI believe it is Max M\u00fcller who describes the astonishment of an\nIndian converted to Christianity, who, having apprehended the\nessence of the Christian doctrine, came to Europe and beheld the\nlife of Christians. He could not recover from his astonishment in\nthe presence of the reality, so different from the state of things\nhe had expected to find among Christian nations.\n\nIf we are not surprised at the contradiction between our convictions\nand our actions, it is only because the influences which obscure\nthis contradiction act upon us. We have but to look at our life\nfrom the standpoint of the Indian, who understood Christianity in\nits true significance, without any concessions or adaptations, and\nto behold the barbarous cruelties with which our life is filled, in\norder to be horrified at the contradictions in the midst of which we\nlive, without noticing them.\n\nOne has but to remember the preparations for war, the\ncartridge-boxes, the silver-plated bullets, the torpedoes, and--the\nRed Cross; the establishment of prisons for solitary confinement,\nexperiments with _electrocution_, and--the care for the welfare of\nthe prisoners; the philanthropic activity of the rich, and--their\ndaily life, which brings about the existence of the poor, whom they\nseek to benefit. And these contradictions arise, not, as it might\nseem, because men pretend to be Christians while they are actually\nheathens, but because they lack something, or because there is some\npower which prevents them from being what they really desire to\nbe, and what they even conscientiously believe themselves to be.\nIt is not that modern men merely pretend to hate oppression, the\ninequality of class distinctions, and all kinds of cruelty, whether\npractised against their fellow-men or against animals. They _are_\nsincere in their hatred of these abuses; but they do not know how\nto abolish them, or they lack the courage to alter their own mode\nof life, which depends upon all this, and which seems to them so\nimportant.\n\nAsk, indeed, any individual if he considers it praiseworthy or\neven honorable for a man to fill a position for which he receives\na salary so high as to be out of all proportion to the amount of\nhis labor, as, for instance, that of collecting from the people,\noften from beggars, taxes which are to be devoted to the purchase\nof cannon, torpedoes, and other instruments for murdering the men\nwith whom we wish to live in peace, and who wish to live in peace\nwith us; or, to receive a salary for spending his life either\nin perfecting these instruments of murder, or in the military\nexercises by which men are trained for slaughter? Ask whether it\nbe praiseworthy or compatible with the dignity of man, or becoming\nto a Christian, to undertake, also for money, to arrest some\nunfortunate man, some illiterate drunkard, for some petty theft not\nto be compared with the magnitude of our own appropriation, or for\nmanslaughter not conducted by our advanced methods; and for such\noffenses to throw people into prison, or put them to death? Ask\nwhether it be laudable and becoming in a man and a Christian, also\nfor money, to teach the people foolish and injurious superstitions\ninstead of the doctrine of Christ? Whether, again, it be laudable\nand worthy of a man to wrench from his neighbor, in order to\ngratify his own caprice, the very necessaries of life, as the great\nlandowners do; or to exact from his fellow-man an excessive and\nexhausting toil for the purpose of increasing his own wealth, as\nthe mill-owners and manufacturers do; or to take advantage of human\nnecessities to build up colossal fortunes, as the merchants do?\n\nEvery individual would reply not, especially if the question\nregarded his neighbor. And at the same time the very man who\nacknowledges all the ignominy of such deeds, when the case is\npresented to him, will often, of his own accord, and for no\nadvantage of a salary, but moved by childish vanity, the desire to\npossess a trinket of enamel, a decoration, a stripe, voluntarily\nenter the military service, or become an examining magistrate, a\njustice of the peace, a minister of state, an _uriadnik_, a bishop,\naccepting an office whose duties will oblige him to do things, the\nshame and ignominy of which he cannot help realizing.\n\nMany of these men will, I am sure, defend themselves on the ground\nof the lawfulness and necessity of their position; they will argue\nthat the authorities are of God, that the functions of State are\nindispensable for the good of mankind, that Christianity is not\nopposed to wealth, that the rich youth was bidden to give up his\ngoods only if he wished to be perfect, that the present distribution\nof wealth and commerce is beneficial to all men, and that it\nis right and lawful. But however much they may try to deceive\nthemselves and others, they all know that what they do is opposed to\nthe highest interests of life, and at the bottom of their hearts,\nwhen they listen only to their consciences, they are ashamed and\npained to think of what they are doing, especially when the baseness\nof their deeds has been pointed out to them. A man in modern life,\nwhether he does or does not profess to believe in the divinity\nof Christ, must know that to be instrumental either as a czar,\nminister, governor, or policeman, as in selling a poor family's last\ncow to pay taxes to the treasury, the money of which is devoted to\nthe purchase of cannon or to pay the salaries or pensions of idle\nand luxurious officials, is to do more harm than good; or to be\na party to the imprisonment of the father of a family, for whose\ndemoralization we are ourselves responsible, and to bring his family\nto beggary; or to take part in piratical and murderous warfare;\nor to teach absurd superstitions of idol-worship instead of the\ndoctrine of Christ; or to impound a stray cow belonging to a man\nwho has no land; or to deduct the value of an accidentally injured\narticle from the wages of a mechanic; or to sell something to a poor\nman for double its value, only because he is in dire necessity;--the\nmen of our modern life cannot but know that all such deeds are\nwrong, shameful, and that they ought not to commit them. They do all\nknow it. They know that they are doing wrong, and would abstain from\nit, had they but the strength to oppose those forces which blind\nthem to the criminality of their actions while drawing them on to do\nwrong.\n\nBut there is nothing that demonstrates so vividly the degree of\ncontradiction to which human life has attained as the system that\nembodies both the method and the expression of violence,--the\ngeneral conscription system. It is only because a general armament\nand military conscription have come imperceptibly and by slow\ndegrees, and that governments employ for their support all the means\nof intimidation at their disposal,--bribery, bewilderment, and\nviolence,--that we do not realize the glaring contradiction between\nthis state of affairs and those Christian feelings and ideas with\nwhich all modern men are penetrated.\n\nThis contradiction has become so common that we fail to see the\nshocking imbecility and immorality of the actions, not only of\nthose men who, of their own accord, choose the profession of murder\nas something honorable, but of those unfortunates who consent to\nserve in the army, and of those who, in countries where military\nconscription has not yet been introduced, give of their own free\nwill the fruits of their labor to be used for the payment of\nmercenaries and for the organization for murder. All these men are\neither Christians or men professing humanitarianism and liberalism,\nwho know that they participate in the most imbecile, aimless, and\ncruel murders; yet still they go on committing them. But this\nis not all. In Germany, where the system of general military\nconscription originated, Caprivi has revealed something that has\nalways been carefully hidden: that the men who run the risk of\nbeing killed are not only foreigners, but are quite as likely to\nbe fellow-countrymen,--working-men,--from which class most of the\nsoldiers are obtained. Nevertheless, this admission neither opened\nmen's eyes nor shocked their sensibilities. They continue just as\nthey did before, to go like sheep, and submit to anything that\nis demanded of them. And this is not all. The German Emperor has\nrecently explained with minute precision the character and vocation\nof a soldier, having distinguished, thanked, and rewarded a private\nfor killing a defenseless prisoner who attempted to escape. In\nthanking and rewarding a man for an act which is looked upon even\nby men of the lowest type of morality as base and cowardly, Wilhelm\npointed out that the principal duty of a soldier, and one most\nhighly prized by the authorities, is that of an executioner,--not\nlike the professional executioners who put to death condemned\nprisoners only, but an executioner of the innocent men whom his\nsuperiors order him to kill.\n\nYet more. In 1891 this same Wilhelm, the _enfant terrible_ of State\nauthority, who expresses what other men only venture to think, in a\ntalk with certain soldiers, uttered publicly the following words,\nwhich were repeated the next day in thousands of papers:--\n\n\"Recruits! You have given _me_ the oath of allegiance before the\naltar and the servant of the Lord. You are still too young to\ncomprehend the true meaning of what has been said here, but first of\nall take care ever to follow the orders and instructions that are\ngiven to you. You have taken the oath of allegiance to _me_; this\nmeans, children of my guards, that you are now _my_ soldiers, that\nyou have given yourselves up to me, body and soul.\n\n\"But one enemy exists for you--_my_ enemy. With the present\nsocialistic intrigues _it may happen that I shall command you to\nshoot your own relatives, your brothers, even your parents_ (from\nwhich may God preserve us!), _and then you are in duty bound to obey\nmy orders unhesitatingly_.\"\n\nThis man expresses what is known, but carefully concealed, by all\nwise rulers. He says outright that the men who serve in the army\nserve _him_and _his_ advantage, and should be ready for that purpose\nto kill their brothers and fathers.\n\nRoughly but distinctly he lays bare all the horror of the crime\nfor which men who become soldiers prepare themselves,--all that\nabyss of self-abasement into which they fling themselves when they\npromise obedience. Like a bold hypnotizer, he tests the depth of the\nslumber; he applies red-hot iron to the sleeper's body; it smokes\nand shrivels, but the sleeper does not awaken.\n\nPoor, sick, miserable man, intoxicated with power, who by these\nwords insults all that is sacred to men of modern civilization!\nAnd we, Christians, liberals, men of culture, so far from feeling\nindignant at this insult, pass it over in silence. Men are put to\nthe final test in its rudest form; but they hardly observe that a\ntest is in question, that a choice is put before them. It seems\nto them as if there were no choice, but only the one necessity\nof slavish submission. It would seem as if these insane words,\noffensive to all that a civilized human being holds sacred, ought\nto rouse indignation,--but nothing of the kind happens. Year after\nyear every young man in Europe is subjected to the same test, and\nwith very few exceptions they all forswear what is and should be\nsacred to every man; all manifest a readiness to kill their brothers\nand even their fathers, at the order of the first misguided man who\nwears a red and gold livery, asking only when and whom they are to\nbe ordered to kill--for they are ready to do it.\n\nEven by savages certain objects are held sacred, for whose sake\nthey are ready to suffer rather than submit. But what is sacred for\nthe man of the modern world? He is told: Be my slave, in a bondage\nwhere you may have to murder your own father; and he, oftentimes a\nman of learning, who has studied all the sciences in the university,\nsubmissively offers his neck to the halter. He is dressed in a\nclown's garments, ordered to leap, to make contortions, to salute,\nto kill--and he submissively obeys; and when at last allowed to\nreturn to his former life, he continues to hold forth on the dignity\nof man, freedom, equality, and brotherhood.\n\n\"But what is to be done?\" we often hear men ask in perplexity. \"If\nevery man were to refuse, it would be a different matter; but, as it\nis, I should suffer alone without benefiting any one.\" And they are\nright; for a man who holds the social life-conception cannot refuse.\nLife has no significance for him except as it concerns his personal\nwelfare; it is for his advantage to submit, therefore he does so.\n\nTo whatever torture or injury he may be subjected he will submit,\nbecause he can do nothing alone; he lacks the foundation which\nalone would enable him to resist violence, and those who are in\nauthority over him will never give him the chance of uniting with\nothers.\n\nIt has often been said that the invention of the terrible military\ninstruments of murder will put an end to war, and that war will\nexhaust itself. This is not true. As it is possible to increase the\nmeans for killing men, so it is possible to increase the means for\nsubjecting those who hold the social life-conception. Let them be\nexterminated by thousands and millions, let them be torn to pieces,\nmen will still continue like stupid cattle to go to the slaughter,\nsome because they are driven thither under the lash, others that\nthey may win the decorations and ribbons which fill their hearts\nwith pride.\n\nAnd it is with material like this that the public\nleaders--conservatives, liberals, socialists, anarchists--discuss\nthe ways and means of organizing an intelligent and moral society,\nwith men who have been so thoroughly confused and bewildered\nthat they will promise to murder their own parents. What kind of\nintelligence and morality can there be in a society organized from\nmaterial like this? Just as it is impossible to build a house\nfrom bent and rotten timber, however manipulated, so also is it\nimpossible with such materials to organize an intelligent and moral\nsociety. They can only be governed like a drove of cattle, by the\nshouts and lash of the herdsman. And so, indeed, they are governed.\n\nAgain, while on the one hand we find men, Christians in name,\nprofessing the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity, on\nthe other hand we see these same men ready, in the name of liberty,\nto yield the most abject and slavish obedience; in the name of\nequality, to approve of the most rigid and senseless subdivision of\nmen into classes; and in the name of fraternity, ready to slay their\nown brothers.[14]\n\n [14] The fact that some nations, like the English and American, have\n no general conscription system (although one hears already voices in\n its favor), but a system of recruiting and hiring soldiers, nowise\n alters the case as regards the slavery of the citizens under the\n government. In the former system every man must go himself to kill\n or be killed; in the latter, he must give the proceeds of his labor\n to employ and drill murderers.\n\nThe contradiction of the moral consciousness, and hence the misery\nof life, has reached its utmost limit, beyond which it can go no\nfurther. Life, based on principles of violence, has culminated in\nthe negation of the basis on which it was founded. The organization,\non principles of violence, of a society whose object was to insure\nthe happiness of the individual and the family, and the social\nwelfare of humanity, has brought men to such a pass that these\nbenefits are practically annulled.\n\nThe first part of the prophecy in regard to those men and their\ndescendants who adopted this doctrine has been fulfilled, and now\ntheir descendants are forced to realize the justice of its second\npart.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nTHE ACCEPTANCE OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE-CONCEPTION DELIVERS MEN FROM\nTHE MISERIES OF OUR PAGAN LIFE\n\n The external life of Christian nations remains pagan, but they\n are already penetrated by the Christian life-conception--The\n issue from this contradiction is in the acceptance of the\n Christian life-conception--In it alone is every man free, and\n it alone frees him from all human authority--This deliverance\n is brought about, not by a change of external conditions,\n but only by a change in the conception of one's life--The\n Christian life-conception demands the renunciation of violence,\n and, in delivering the man who accepts it, it frees the world\n from all external authority--The issue from the present\n apparently hopeless position consists in every man accepting\n the Christian life-conception and living accordingly--But\n men consider this method too slow, and see their salvation\n in change of the material conditions of life made with the\n aid of the authority of the State--This method will have no\n issue, because men themselves cause the evil from which they\n suffer--This is especially evident in regard to the submissive\n acceptance of military duty, for it is more advantageous for\n a man to refuse than accept--Human freedom will be brought\n about only through the liberation of each individual man, and\n already there are signs of this liberation, which threatens to\n destroy State organization--The repudiation of the un-Christian\n demands of governments undermines their authority and makes\n men free--Therefore instances of such refusals are feared by\n governments more than conspiracies or violence--Instances, in\n Russia, of refusals to take the oath of allegiance, to pay\n taxes, to accept passports or positions in the police, to take\n part in courts of law, or to be drafted as soldiers--Similar\n instances in other countries--Governments know not how to\n dispose of men who refuse to obey their requirements because of\n the Christian doctrine--These men destroy without a struggle\n the foundations of governments from the inside--To punish them\n would mean for governments to deny Christianity themselves, and\n to contribute to the diffusion of that consciousness from which\n such refusals spring--Hence the position of governments is a\n desperate one, and men who preach the uselessness of personal\n deliverance only arrest the destruction of the existing system\n of government founded on violence.\n\n\nThe Christian nations of the present day are in a position no less\ncruel than that of pagan times. In many respects, especially in the\nmatter of oppression, their position has grown worse.\n\nA contrast like that of modern and ancient times may be seen in the\nvegetation of the last days of autumn as compared with that of the\nearly days of spring. In the autumn the outward decay and death\ncorrespond to the interior process, which is the suspension of life;\nin the spring the apparent lifelessness is in direct contradiction\nto the real vitality within, and the approaching transition to new\nforms of life.\n\nAnd thus it is as regards the apparent resemblance between pagan\nlife and that of the present day. It exists only in appearance. The\ninner lives of men in the times of paganism were quite unlike those\nof the men of our days.\n\nIn the former the external aspect of cruelty and slavery\ncorresponded with the inner consciousness of men, a conformity which\nonly increased as time went on; in the latter the external condition\nof cruelty and slavery is in utter contradiction to the Christian\nconsciousness of men, a contradiction which grows more and more\nstriking every year.\n\nThe misery and suffering resulting therefrom seem so useless. It is\nlike prolonged suffering in child-labor. Everything is ready for the\ncoming life, and yet no life appears.\n\nApparently the situation is without deliverance. It would indeed\nbe so were it not that to men, and therefore to the world, there\nhas been vouchsafed the capacity for a loftier conception of life,\nwhich has the power to set free, and at once, from all fetters,\nhowever firmly riveted.\n\nAnd this is the Christian life-conception presented to men 1800\nyears ago.\n\nA man has but to assimilate this life-conception and he will be set\nfree, as a matter of course, from the fetters that now restrain him,\nand feel free as a bird who spreads his wings and flies over the\nwall that has kept him a prisoner.\n\nThey talk of setting the Christian Church free from the State, of\ngranting freedom to or withholding it from Christians. Such thoughts\nand expressions are strangely misleading. Liberty can neither be\ngranted to nor withheld from a Christian or Christians.\n\nBut if there is a question of granting or withholding liberty, then\nevidently it is not the true Christians who are meant, but only men\nwho call themselves by that name. A Christian cannot help being\nfree, because in the pursuit and attainment of his object no one can\neither hinder or retard him.\n\nA man has but to understand his life as Christianity teaches him to\nunderstand it; that is, he must realize that it does not belong to\nhimself, nor to his family, nor to the State, but to Him who sent\nhim into the world; he must therefore know that it is his duty to\nlive, not in accordance with the law of his own personality, nor of\nthat of his family or State, but to fulfil the infinite law of Him\nwho gave him life, in order to feel himself so entirely free from\nall human authority that he will cease to regard it as a possible\nobstacle.\n\nA man needs but to realize that the object of his life is the\nfulfilment of God's law; then the pre\u00ebminence of that law, claiming\nas it does his entire allegiance, will of necessity invalidate the\nauthority and restrictions of all human laws.\n\nThe Christian who contemplates that law of love implanted in every\nhuman soul, and quickened by Christ, the only guide for all mankind,\nis set free from human authority.\n\nA Christian may suffer from external violence, may be deprived of\nhis personal freedom, may be a slave to his passions,--the man who\ncommits sin is the slave of the sin,--but he cannot be controlled\nor coerced by threats into committing an act contrary to his\nconsciousness. He cannot be forced to this, because the privations\nand sufferings that are so powerful an influence over men who hold\nthe social life-conception have no influence whatever over him. The\nprivations and sufferings that destroy the material welfare which is\nthe object of the social life-conception produce no effect upon the\nwelfare of the Christian's life, which rests on the consciousness\nthat he is doing God's will--nay, they may even serve to promote\nthat welfare when they are visited upon him for fulfilling that will.\n\nA Christian, therefore, who submits to the inner, the divine law,\nis not only unable to execute the biddings of the outward law when\nthey are at variance with his consciousness of God's law of love,\nas in the case of the demands made upon him by the government; but\nhe cannot acknowledge the obligation of obeying any individual\nwhomsoever, cannot acknowledge himself to be what is called a\nsubject. For a Christian to promise to subject himself to any\ngovernment whatsoever--a subjection which may be considered the\nfoundation of State life--is a direct negation of Christianity;\nsince an individual who promises beforehand to obey implicitly every\nlaw that men may enact, by that promise utters an emphatic denial of\nChristianity, whose very essence is obedience in all contingencies\nto the law which he feels to be within him--the law of love.\n\nWith the pagan life-conception it was possible to promise to obey\nthe will of temporal authorities without violating the laws of\nGod, which were supposed to consist in carrying out such customs\nas circumcision, the observance of the Sabbath, the utterance of\nprayer at certain periods, abstinence from certain kinds of food,\netc. The one did not contradict the other. But Christianity differs\nfrom paganism inasmuch as its requirements are not of an external\nor negative character; on the contrary, they are such as reverse\nman's former relations toward his fellow-men, and may call for\nacts on his part which could not be anticipated, and consequently\nare not defined. Hence it is that a Christian can neither promise\nto obey nor to disobey the will of another, ignorant as he must\nbe of the nature of its requirements; not only must he refuse to\nobey human laws, but he cannot promise to do or abstain from doing\nanything definite at any given time, because he can never tell at\nwhat hour or in what manner the Christian law of love, on which his\nlife-conception is based, will demand his co\u00f6peration. A Christian,\npromising in advance to obey unconditionally the laws of men, admits\nby that promise that the inner law of God does not constitute for\nhim the sole law of his life.\n\nWhen a Christian promises to obey the commands or laws of men, he\nis like a craftsman who, having hired himself out to one master,\npromises at the same time to execute the orders of other persons. No\nman can serve two masters.\n\nA Christian is freed from human authority by acknowledging\nthe supremacy of one authority alone, that of God, whose law,\nrevealed to him through Christ, he recognizes within himself, and\nobeys,--that and no other.\n\nAnd this deliverance is accomplished neither by means of a struggle,\nnor by the destruction of previous customs of life, but only through\na change in his life-conception. The deliverance proceeds, in the\nfirst place, from the Christian's acknowledgment of the law of love,\nas revealed to him by his Teacher, which suffices to determine the\nrelations of men, and according to which every act of violence seems\nsuperfluous and unlawful. Secondly, because those privations and\nmiseries, or the anticipations of such, which influence a man who\nholds the social life-conception and reduces him to obedience, seem\nto him no more than the inevitable consequences of existence, which\nhe would never dream of opposing by violence, but bears patiently,\nas he would bear disease, hunger, or any other misery; which,\nindeed, have no possible influence over his actions. The Christian's\nonly guide must be the divine indwelling element, subject neither to\nrestriction nor to control.\n\nA Christian lives in accordance with the words spoken by the Master:\n\"He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice\nin the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax\nshall he not quench, _till he send forth judgment unto victory_.\"[15]\n\n [15] Matthew xii. 19, 20.\n\nA Christian enters into no dispute with his neighbor, he neither\nattacks nor uses violence; on the contrary, he suffers violence\nhimself without resistance, and by his very attitude toward evil not\nonly sets himself free, but helps to free the world at large from\nall outward authority.\n\n\"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you\nfree.\"[16] If there were any doubt of the truth of Christianity\nthere could be no more indubitable proof of its authenticity than\nthe complete freedom, recognizing no fetters, which a man feels as\nsoon as he assimilates the Christian life-conception.\n\n [16] John viii. 32.\n\nHuman beings in their present condition may be likened to bees in\nthe act of swarming, as we see them clinging in a mass to a single\nbough. Their position is a temporary one, and must inevitably be\nchanged. They must rise and find themselves a new abode. Every bee\nknows this, and is eager to shift its own position, as well as that\nof the others, but not one of them will do so until the whole swarm\nrises. The swarm cannot rise, because one bee clings to the other\nand prevents it from separating itself from the swarm, and so they\nall continue to hang. It might seem as if there were no deliverance\nfrom this position, precisely as it seems to men of the world who\nhave become entangled in the social net. Indeed, there would be no\noutlet for the bees if each one were not a living creature possessed\nof a pair of wings. Neither would there be any issue for men if\neach one were not a living individual, being gifted with a capacity\nfor assimilating the Christian life-conception.\n\nIf among these bees who are able to fly not one could be found\nwilling to start, the swarm would never change its position. And it\nis the same among men. If the man who has assimilated the Christian\nlife-conception waits for others before he proceeds to live in\naccordance with it, mankind will never change its attitude. And as\nall that is needed to change a solid mass of bees into a flying\nswarm is for one bee to spread its wings and fly away, when the\nsecond, the third, the tenth, and the hundredth will follow suit; so\nall that is needed to break through the magic circle of social life,\ndeliverance from which seems so hopeless, is, that one man should\nview life from a Christian standpoint and begin to frame his own\nlife accordingly, whereupon others will follow in his footsteps.\n\nBut men think that the deliverance of mankind by this method is\ntoo slow a process, and that a simultaneous deliverance might be\neffected by some other method. Just as if bees, when the swarm was\nready to rise, were to decide that it would be too long a process if\nthey waited for each bee to spread its wings and rise separately,\nand that some means must be devised whereby the swarm may rise all\nat once, whenever it pleases. But that is impossible. Not until the\nfirst, second, third, and hundredth bee has unfolded its wings and\nflown away can the swarm take flight and find for itself a new home.\nNot until each individual man adopts the Christian life-conception,\nand begins to live in conformity with its precepts, will the\ncontradictions of human life be solved, and new forms of life become\nestablished.\n\nOne of the most striking events of our time is the propaganda\nof slavery which is spread among the masses, not only by the\ngovernment, to whom it is of use, but by those exponents of\nsocialistic theories who consider themselves the champions of\nfreedom.\n\nThese men preach that the amelioration in the conditions of life,\nthe reconciliation between actuality and consciousness, will not be\nbrought about by the personal efforts of individual men, but that it\nwill evolve itself out of a certain forced reorganization of society\nby some unknown influence. Their theory is that men should not\nproceed of their own accord to the place where they wish to go, but\nthat they should have a platform built under their feet, upon which\nthey may be carried to the spot they desire to reach. Hence they\nmust not move as far as their strength will permit, but all their\nefforts must be directed toward building this imaginary platform\nwithout stirring from their position.\n\nThere is a theory in economics preached in these days of which the\nessential principle is this: the worse the condition of affairs,\nthe better the prospect; the greater the accumulation of capital\nand oppression of the working-man resulting therefrom, the nearer\nthe day of deliverance; and therefore any effort on the part of\nthe individual to free himself from the oppression of capital is\nuseless. In regard to the government it is declared that the greater\nits authority, which, according to this theory, should include the\ndomain of private life, hitherto uninvaded, the better it will be,\nand hence one should solicit the interference of governments with\nprivate life. In regard to international politics, it is declared\nthat the increase of armies and modes of extermination will lead\nto the necessity of a general disarmament through the agency of\ncongresses, arbitration, etc. And the most surprising part of all is\nthat human lethargy is so profound that men credit these theories,\nalthough the whole structure of life, and every stage in human\nprogress, demonstrate their fallacy.\n\nMen suffer from oppression, and by way of deliverance certain\nexpedients are suggested for the improvement of their condition,\nthese means of relief to be administered by authority, to which they\ncontinue to submit. This will naturally tend to augment authority\nand to increase the consequent oppression of government.\n\nOf all the errors of humanity there is none that so retards its\nprogress as this. Men will do anything in the world to achieve their\npurpose save the one simple deed, which it is every man's duty to\nperform. Men will invent the most ingenious devices for changing the\nposition which is burdensome to them, but never dream of the simple\nremedy of abstaining from the acts which cause it.\n\nI was told of an incident which happened to an intrepid _stanovoy_,\nwho, on arriving in a village where the peasants had revolted, and\nwhither troops had been sent, undertook, like the Emperor Nicholas\nI., to quell the disturbance by his personal influence. He ordered\nseveral loads of rods to be brought, and having gathered all the\npeasants into the barn, he entered himself, shut himself in with\nthem, and so terrified them by his shouts and threats that in\ncompliance with his commands they began to flog each other. And so\nthey went on flogging one another until some fool revolted, and,\nshouting to his comrades, bade them leave off. It was not until then\nthat the flogging ceased, and the _stanovoy_ escaped from the barn.\n\nIt is this very advice of the fool that men who believe in the\nnecessity of civil government seem unable to follow. They are unable\nto stop punishing themselves, and setting an absurd example for\nothers to imitate. Such is the consummation of merely human wisdom.\n\nIs it possible, indeed, to imagine a more striking imitation of\nthose men flogging one another than the meekness with which the\nmen of these days fulfil those social duties that lead them into\nbondage, especially the military conscription? It is clear that men\nenslave themselves; they suffer from this slavery, and yet they\nbelieve it inevitable; they also believe that it will not affect\nthe ultimate emancipation of mankind, which they declare the final\noutcome, in spite of the fact that slavery is ever increasing.\n\nThe man of modern times, whoever he may be (I do not mean a true\nChristian), educated or ignorant, a believer or an unbeliever, rich\nor poor, married or single, does his work, takes his pleasures, and\ndreads all restrictions and privations, all enmity and suffering.\nThus he is living, peaceably. Suddenly men come to him and say:\n\"First, promise on your oath that you will obey us like a slave\nin all that we command; believe that whatever we tell you is\nunquestionably true, and submit to all that we shall call laws. Or,\nsecondly, give us a share in the product of your labor, that we\nmay use it to keep you in bondage, and prevent you from revolting\nagainst our commands. Or, thirdly, choose, or be chosen among, the\nso-called officials of the government, knowing that the government\nwill go on quite regardless of the foolish speeches which you, or\nothers like you, may utter; that it will be carried on in accordance\nwith our wishes and the wishes of those who control the army.\nOr, fourthly, come to the law-courts, and take part in all the\nsenseless cruelties which we commit against men, who are erring and\ndepraved men, and who have become so through our fault,--in the\nform of imprisonment, exile, solitary confinement, and execution.\nOr, lastly, although you may be on the most friendly terms with\nmen who belong to other nations, you must be ready at a moment's\nnotice, whenever the command is issued, to look upon such of them\nas we shall indicate as your enemies, and either personally or by\nsubstitute contribute to the ruin, robbery, and murder of these men,\nof old men, women, and children--even, if we require it, of your\nfellow-countrymen and your parents.\"\n\nOne would think that in these days there could be but one reply from\nany man in his senses.\n\n\"Why must I do all this? Why must I promise to obey all the orders\nof Salisbury to-day, those of Gladstone to-morrow; Boulanger to-day,\nand to-morrow the orders of an assembly composed of men like\nBoulanger; Peter III. to-day, Catharine to-morrow, and the next day\nPugatchov; to-day the insane King of Bavaria, to-morrow the Emperor\nWilliam? Why should I promise this to men whom I know to be wicked\nor foolish, or men whom I know nothing at all about? Why should I,\nin the form of taxes, hand over to them the fruits of my labor,\nknowing that this money will be used to bribe officials, to support\nprisons, churches, and armies, to pay for the execution of evil acts\ndestined for my oppression? In other words, why should I apply the\nrod to my own back? Why should I go on wasting my time, averting\nmy eyes, helping to give a semblance of legality to the acts of\nwrong-doers, play a part in elections, and pretend to participate\nin the government, when I know perfectly well that the country is\nruled by those who control the army? Why should I go into the courts\nand be a party to the infliction of tortures and executions upon\nmy erring fellow-beings, knowing, if I am a Christian, that the\nlaw of love has been substituted for the law of vengeance, and if\nI am an educated man, that punishment, so far from reforming its\nvictims, serves only to demoralize them? Why should I, in person or\nin substitute, go and kill and despoil, and expose myself to the\ndangers of war, simply because the key of the temple of Jerusalem\nhappens to be in the keeping of one bishop rather than in that\nof another; because Bulgaria is to be ruled by one German prince\ninstead of another; or because the privileges of the seal fishery\nare reserved for the English to the exclusion of the American\nmerchants. Why should I regard as my enemies the inhabitants of a\nneighboring country, with whom up to the present day I have lived,\nand still wish to live, in peace and amity,--why should I go myself,\nor pay for soldiers, to murder and ruin them?\n\n\"And, above all, why should I contribute, whether in person or by\npaying for military service, to the enslavement and destruction of\nmy brothers and parents? Why should I scourge myself? All this is\nof no use to me; on the contrary, it does me harm. It is altogether\ndegrading, immoral, mean, and contemptible. Why, then, should I do\nall this? If I am told that I shall be made to suffer in any event,\nI reply that in the first place, there can be no possible suffering\ngreater than that which would befall me were I to execute your\ncommands. And in the second place, it is perfectly evident to me\nthat if we refuse to scourge ourselves, no one else will do it for\nus. Governments are but sovereigns, statesmen, officials, who can\nno more force me against my will, than the _stanovoy_ could force\nthe peasants; I should be brought before the court, or thrown into\nprison, or executed, not by the sovereign, or the high officials,\nbut by men in the same position as myself; and as it would be\nequally injurious and disagreeable for them to be scourged as for\nme, I should probably open their eyes, and they would not only\nrefrain from injuring me, but would doubtless follow my example.\nAnd in the third place, though I were made to suffer for this, it\nwould still be better for me to be exiled or imprisoned, doing\nbattle in the cause of common sense and truth, which must eventually\ntriumph, if not to-day, then to-morrow, or before many days, than\nto suffer in the cause of folly and evil. It would rather be to my\nadvantage to risk being exiled, imprisoned, or even executed, than\nremain, through my own fault, a life-long slave of evil men, to be\nruined by an invading enemy, or mutilated like an idiot, or killed\nwhile defending a cannon, a useless territory, or a senseless piece\nof cloth called a flag. I have no inclination to scourge myself,\nit would be of no use. You may do it yourselves if you choose--I\nrefuse.\"\n\nIt would seem as though not only the religious and moral element\nin human nature, but ordinary common sense and wise counsel, would\ninfluence every man of the present day thus to make reply, and\nto suit the action to the word. But no. Men who hold the social\nlife-conception consider such a course not only useless, but even\nprejudicial to the object in view,--the deliverance of mankind from\nslavery. They advise us to go on, like the peasants, punishing\none another, comforting ourselves with the reflection that our\nchatter in parliaments and assemblies, our trade unions, our First\nof May demonstrations, our conspiracies and covert threats to the\ngovernments that scourge us, must result in our final deliverance,\neven though we go on strengthening our fetters. Nothing so hampers\nhuman liberty as this wonderful delusion. Instead of making\nindividual efforts to achieve freedom, every man for himself\ndevoting all his energies to that object, through the attainment of\na new life-conception, men are looking for a universal scheme of\ndeliverance, and are in the meanwhile sinking deeper and deeper into\nslavery. It is as if a man were to declare that in order to obtain\nheat one must merely place every lump of coal in a certain position,\nnever minding whether it kindled or not. And yet that the liberation\nof mankind can only be accomplished by means of the deliverance of\nthe individual grows more and more evident.\n\nThe liberation of individuals from the dominion of the State, in\nthe name of the Christian life-conception, which was formerly an\nexceptional occurrence and one that attracted but little attention,\nhas attained in these days a menacing significance for the authority\nof State.\n\nIf in the days of ancient Rome it happened that a Christian,\nprofessing his faith, refused to take a part in sacrifices, or in\nthe worship of the emperors or the gods, or in the Middle Ages\nrefused to worship ikons or to acknowledge the temporal authority of\nthe Pope, such refusals were the exception; a man might be obliged\nto confess to his faith, but he might perhaps live all his life\nwithout being forced to do so. But now all men, without exception,\nare subjected to trial of faith. Every man of modern times is\nobliged, either to participate in the cruelties of pagan life, or\nto repudiate them. And secondly, in those days any refusal to bow\nbefore the gods, the ikons, or the Pope was of no consequence to the\nState. Whether those who bowed before the gods, the ikons, or the\nPope were many or few, the State lost none of its power. Whereas\nat the present time every refusal to execute the un-Christian\ndemands of the government undermines the authority of the State,\nbecause the authority of the State rests on the fulfilment of these\nanti-Christian requirements.\n\nTemporal authority, in order to maintain itself, has been forced by\nthe conditions of life to demand from its subjects certain actions\nwhich it is impossible for men who profess true Christianity to\nperform. Therefore at the present time every man who professes\nit helps to undermine the authority of the government, and will\neventually pave the way for the liberation of mankind.\n\nOf what apparent importance are such acts as the refusal of a score\nor two of fools, as they are called,--men who decline to take the\noath of allegiance, to pay taxes, or to take part in courts of law,\nor to serve in the army? Such men are tried and condemned, and life\nremains unchanged. These occurrences may seem unimportant, and\nyet these are precisely the factors that undermine the authority\nof the government more than any others, and thus prepare the way\nfor the liberation of mankind. These are the bees who are the\nfirst to separate themselves from the swarm, and, still hovering\nnear, they wait for the whole swarm to rise and follow them. The\ngovernments are aware of this, and look upon such occurrences with\nmore apprehension than upon all the socialists, anarchists, and\ncommunists, with their conspiracies and their dynamite bombs.\n\nA new _r\u00e9gime_ is inaugurated. Each subject, according to custom,\nis required to take the oath of allegiance to the new government.\nA proclamation is issued, and all are bidden to assemble in the\ncathedral to take the oath. Suddenly one man in Perm, another in\nTula, a third in Moscow, a fourth in Kaluga, refuse to take the\noath and (without preconcerted action) justify their refusal by\nthe same argument,--that the Christian law forbids the oath; but,\neven were the oath not forbidden, they could not, according to the\nspirit of this law, promise to perform such evil deeds as the oath\nrequires,--such as reporting those antagonistic to the interests\nof the government, defending that government by armed force, or\nattacking its enemies. They are summoned to appear before the\n_stanovoys_, _spravniks_, priests, governors; they are reasoned\nwith, coaxed, threatened, and punished; yet they adhere to their\ndetermination, and refuse to take the oath. They are asked, \"Is it\ntrue that you never took the oath?\"\n\n\"It is.\"\n\n\"And what was done to you?\"\n\n\"Nothing.\"\n\nEvery subject is required to pay his taxes, and the taxes are paid.\nBut one man in Charkov, another in Iver, and a third in Samara,\nrefuse to comply, and, as by one accord, each man alleges the same\nreason. One of them says that he will pay after he has learned the\nobject for which his money is to be used. \"If it is to be used for\ncharity, he will give of his own free will, and even more than is\ndemanded of him. But if it is to be applied to evil purposes, he\nwill give nothing of his own free will, because, according to the\nlaw of Christ, which he obeys, he can take no part in doing evil.\"\nAnd the others who refuse to pay taxes, except on compulsion,\nexpress the same idea, perhaps in other words. Those who have\nproperty are forced to pay, and those who have none are simply let\nalone.\n\n\"Then you have not paid your tax?\"\n\n\"No.\"\n\n\"And what was done to you?\"\n\n\"Nothing.\"\n\nThe passport system is instituted. Every man who leaves his home\nmust apply for one, and pay a tax for it. Suddenly, in different\nplaces, are to be found those who declare that passports should\nnot be used, that a man should not acknowledge his dependence upon\nthe State, which is supported by violence; and these men take no\npassports, consequently they pay no tax for them. And again, there\nare no means of coercing them to comply with the demand. They are\nimprisoned, but when after a time they find themselves at liberty\nagain, they go on living without passports.\n\nEvery peasant is expected to perform police duty as _sotsky_ or\n_dessiatsky_,[17] etc.; but some peasant in Charkov refuses to\nfulfil this duty, because, as he says in explanation of his refusal,\nthe law of Christ, which he professes, forbids him to arrest,\nimprison, or transport his fellow-men. Another peasant in Iver or\nin Tambov makes the same statement. The peasants are threatened,\nbeaten, and imprisoned, but they adhere to their resolution, and\nrefuse to perform actions contrary to their religious belief. And\nthey cease to be elected _sotsky_, and are gradually left in peace.\n\n [17] Petty rural police.--TR.\n\nIt is the duty of every citizen to serve on the jury. All at once\nmen of widely different classes,--carriage-makers, professors,\nmerchants, peasants, nobles,--as if moved by a single impulse,\nrefuse to fulfil this duty, not for reasons valid in the eyes of\nthe law, but because the tribunal itself is, in their opinion,\nillegal and un-Christian, and ought not to exist. These men are\nfined, and false reasons are ascribed for their refusal, the true\nones meanwhile remaining hidden from the public. The same treatment\nis employed in regard to those who, for similar reasons, refuse to\nappear as witnesses in courts of law. These, too, are finally left\nundisturbed.\n\nEvery man at the age of twenty-one must draw lots. Suddenly there\nis found a man in Moscow, another in Iver, another in Charkov, and\nstill another in Kiev, who, as it were by agreement, go to the\ndepartment and declare that they will neither take the oath of\nallegiance nor serve in the army, because they are Christians. Here\nare the details of an affair which was among the earlier cases,--of\nlate these refusals have begun to multiply,--a case with which I am\nmyself familiar,[18] which is but one example among many.\n\n [18] The details of this case are authentic.\n\nIn the City Hall of Moscow a young man of average education gives\nhis reasons for refusing to comply. His words are not heeded, and\nhe is bidden to repeat the words of the oath with the other men.\nHe still persists in his refusal, and quotes a certain passage in\nthe Bible that forbids men to take an oath. No attention is paid\nto his arguments, and again he is ordered to take the oath, which\nhe declines to do. Whereupon it is taken for granted that he is\na sectarian, and therefore misunderstands Christianity; in other\nwords, that he differs from the priests paid by the State. He is\nthen sent under guard to the priests that they may convince him,\nwhich they endeavor to do; but the arguments uttered in the name\nof Christ, by which they strive to persuade him to deny Christ,\nevidently have no effect on the young man. So they declare him\nincorrigible, and send him back to the army. Still he openly refuses\nto take the oath and to fulfil his military duties.\n\nIt is a case not anticipated by the law. A refusal to comply\nwith the demands of the government cannot be overlooked, neither\ncan this case be called one of ordinary insubordination. After\nconferring, the military authorities decide that, in order to rid\nthemselves of this objectionable youth, the better way will be\nto consider him as a rebel and forward him under military escort\nto the Department of the Secret Police. The police officials and\nthe gendarmes question the young man, but his replies will not\nserve to classify his offense under the heading of any crime that\ncomes within their jurisdiction; they cannot either accuse him of\nrevolutionary motives, or of conspiracy, because he declares that\nhe has no desire to destroy anything whatsoever; on the contrary,\nhe opposes all violence. He says that he has nothing to conceal;\nhe desires only an opportunity for saying and doing all things in\nthe most open manner. And as it resulted with the clergy, so also\nwith the gendarmes, who, though rarely embarrassed as to how to put\nthe law in operation, can find no pretext for an accusation against\nthe young man, and send him back to the ranks. Once more there is a\nconference, and his superiors decide that, although he has not taken\nthe oath of allegiance, he is to be regarded as a soldier. He is put\ninto uniform, his name is entered on the lists, and he is sent under\nconvoy to his post. Here his immediate superiors once more order\nhim to perform his military duty, and still he refuses to obey, and\nin the presence of the other soldiers he states his reasons, saying\nthat, as a Christian, he cannot of his own free will prepare himself\nto commit murder, which was forbidden even by the law of Moses.\n\nAll this takes place in a provincial city. The occurrence excites\nthe interest and the sympathy, not only of outsiders, but even of\nthe officers, and therefore there is hesitation about employing\nthe usual punishment for contumacy. However, for the sake of\nappearances, he is thrown into jail, and a request is sent to the\nhigher military authorities for further instructions in the case.\nFrom an official standpoint this refusal to take part in a military\norganization, in which the Czar himself serves, and which is\nblessed by the Church, must be regarded as insanity, and therefore\nthe message is received from St. Petersburg that the young man is\nprobably insane, and that before any violent measures are used\nagainst him he must be sent to the insane hospital. Thither he is\nsent in the hope that he will remain there, as happened some ten\nyears ago in the case of a young man from Iver, who also refused\nto serve, and who was tortured in the hospital until at last he\nwas subdued. But in the present instance even this measure fails\nto relieve the military authorities from this troublesome young\nman. The doctors examine him, become interested in him, and,\ndiscovering no symptoms of insanity, they return him to his post.\nHe is received, and pretending that his refusal and its causes are\nforgotten, he is once more invited to join the drill, and again he\nrefuses, in the presence of other soldiers, stating his reasons\nfor his refusal. The affair attracts more and more notice from\nsoldiers as well as from civilians. Again the question is referred\nto St. Petersburg, and thence comes the order to transfer the young\nman to the frontier, where the troops are in active service, and\nwhere, if he refuses to obey orders, he may be shot without exciting\nattention, as there are but few Russians and Christians in that\nfar-away territory, the majority being foreigners and Mohammedans.\nThis is done. The young man is ordered to join the Trans-Caspian\ntroops, and with other criminals he is delivered into the hands of\ncommanders noted for their severity and determination.\n\nMeanwhile, during all these transportations from place to place,\nthe young man has suffered from harsh treatment, from cold, hunger,\nand filth, and his life has been made miserable. Yet all these\ntrials do not weaken his resolution. In the Trans-Caspian province,\nwhere he is once more ordered to serve as a sentry under arms, he\nrefuses to obey. He consents to stand where he is sent, beside the\nhayricks, but declines to take a weapon in his hand, declaring that\non no account will he use violence against any one whomsoever.\nAll this occurs in the presence of the soldiers. Such contumacy\ncannot go unpunished; consequently he is court-martialed for an\ninfringement of military discipline, convicted, and sentenced to two\nyears' confinement in a military prison. And once again, with the\ncriminals, he is sent by _\u00e9tape_ to the Caucasus and then thrown\ninto prison, his fate being left to the discretionary power of the\njailer. There he is tortured for a year and a half, but still his\nresolution to avoid the use of weapons remains unchanged, and he\ncontinues to explain to every one whom he meets the reasons for his\nrefusal. Toward the end of the second year, before his term has\nreally expired, he is set at liberty; and although not in accordance\nwith the law, they are so anxious to rid themselves of him, that his\nimprisonment is accepted as an equivalent of further active service.\n\nAnd in various parts of Russia others are found who, as if by a\nconcerted plan, imitate his example, and in every case the action\nof the government is undecided, vacillating, and underhanded.\nSome of these men are confined in the insane hospitals, some are\nappointed military clerks and sent to serve in Siberia, some are\nmade foresters, others are thrown into prison, others are fined.\nAt the present time several of these men are imprisoned, not for\ntheir substantial offense, denying the legality of the acts of\nthe government, but for disobeying the particular orders of their\nsuperiors. For instance, an officer of the reserve recently failed\nto give information of the place of his residence, and declined\nto serve further in the army; he was fined thirty roubles for\ndisobeying the orders of the authorities,--and this he declined to\npay, except under compulsion. Several peasants and soldiers who\nrefused to take part in a drill and to use weapons were put under\narrest for disobedience and contention.\n\nSuch instances of a refusal to comply with the demands of the\nState when opposed to Christianity, especially refusals to perform\nmilitary service, occur not only in Russia, but everywhere. I\nknow that in Servia, men from the so-called sect of Nazarenes\nsteadily refuse to enter the army, and the Austrian government has\nfor several years made futile attempts to convert them by means\nof imprisonment. In 1885 there were 130 refusals of this kind. I\nknow that in Switzerland, in 1890, there were men in confinement in\nthe castle of Chillon for refusing to perform military duty whose\ndetermination was not to be influenced by punishment. Such refusals\nhave occurred in Sweden; the men there also were imprisoned, and the\ngovernment carefully concealed the affairs from the people. Similar\ninstances occurred in Prussia. I know of one subaltern officer in\nthe guards who, in 1891, in Berlin, announced to his superiors that\nhe, as a Christian, could not continue his military service, and in\nspite of all remonstrances and threats he adhered to his resolution.\nIn the south of France a community of men called the Hinschist has\nrecently been established (my information is derived from the _Peace\nHerald_ of July, 1891), who, as professing the Christian doctrine,\nrefuse to perform military duty. At first they were told off to\nserve in hospitals, but now, with the increase of the sect, they are\npunished for insubordination, while they still refuse to bear arms.\n\nSocialists, communists, and anarchists, with their bombs and their\nrevolutions, are far less dangerous to governments than these men,\nwho from different places proclaim their refusals, all based upon\nthe same doctrine, familiar to all. Every government knows how to\ndefend itself from revolutionists; it holds the means in its own\nhands, and therefore does not fear these external foes. But what can\na government do to protect itself from men who declaim against all\nauthority as useless, superfluous, and injurious, offering, however,\nno opposition to authority, merely rejecting its offices, dispensing\nwith its services, and therefore refusing to participate in it?\n\nThe revolutionists say: \"State organization is bad, either for one\nreason or for another; it should be destroyed, and replaced by such\nand such a system.\" But a Christian says: \"I know nothing of State\norganization, whether it be good or bad, and it is for this very\nreason that I do not wish to support it. And I cannot undertake\nsubmission, because such submission is contrary to my conscience.\"\n\nAll the institutions of the State are opposed to the conscience of a\nChristian: the oath of allegiance, taxation, courts of law, armies;\nwhile the whole authority of government is dependent upon them.\nRevolutionary foes struggle against the government, but Christianity\nenters not into this contest; internally, it destroys the principles\non which government is based.\n\nWith the Russian people, in whose midst, particularly since the\ntime of Peter I., the protest of Christianity against the State has\nnever ceased; in the midst of this people, where the conditions\nof life are such that whole communes emigrate to Turkey, China,\nand uninhabited portions of the globe, who, so far from needing\nthe government, always consider it an unnecessary burden, and\nonly endure it as a calamity, whether it be Russian, Chinese, or\nTurkish,--the cases of isolated individuals who, from Christian\nmotives, have liberated themselves from the control of government\nhave grown more and more frequent in these latter days. Such\nmanifestations are particularly dreaded by the government at the\npresent time, because the men who protest often belong not to the\nso-called lower, the uneducated classes, but are men of average\nand even superior education, and because these men explain their\nrefusals, not by some mystical belief peculiar to the individual,\nas in olden times, nor do they complicate them with superstition\nand fanaticism, like the sects of the Self-burners or Bieguni, but\nassign as the reason for their refusals the simplest, most obvious\nof truths, patent to and admitted by all the world.\n\nThus men refuse to pay taxes of their own free will, because the\nmoney is used to promote violence; in other words, to pay the wages\nof the violators in the army, for building prisons and fortresses,\nor for manufacturing cannon,--in all of which, as Christians, they\nconsider it wrong and immoral to take a part.\n\nThey refuse to take the oath of allegiance, for were they to promise\nto obey the authorities,--that is, men who use violence,--they must\ncontradict the sense of the Christian doctrine.\n\nThey refuse to swear in court, because an oath is distinctly\nforbidden by the gospel.\n\nThey decline police duties, because in that office they would be\ncompelled to use violence against their brethren and to distress\nthem, and a Christian cannot do this.\n\nThey refuse to take part in courts of law, because they look upon\nevery tribunal as a vehicle for the law of vengeance, and therefore\nincompatible with the Christian law of forgiveness and love.\n\nThey decline to have anything to do with military preparations, or\nto enter the ranks of the army, because they neither can nor will be\nexecutioners, nor prepare themselves for such an office.\n\nAnd the reasons alleged for these refusals are of such a nature\nthat, however arbitrary the governments may be, they cannot punish\nopenly those who refuse.\n\nWere the governments to punish men for such refusals, they would be\nforced to abjure forever both justice and virtue, those principles\nby which, as they assure us, all their authority is supported.\n\nWhat are governments to do with these men? Of course they have the\npower to execute, to imprison, and to condemn to transportation\nand penal servitude all enemies who attempt to overthrow them by\nviolence; they can obtain by bribery half the men they need, and\nhave at their command millions of armed soldiers, who are ready to\nput to death all the enemies of authority. But what can be done with\nmen who wish neither to destroy nor to establish anything, whose\nsole desire is to avoid in their own private lives any act that\nmay be opposed to the Christian law, and who consequently refuse\nto perform duties which are regarded by the government as the most\nnatural and obligatory of all?\n\nIf they were revolutionists, preaching violence and practising it,\nit would be an easy matter to oppose them. Some might be bribed,\nsome deceived, others intimidated, and those who could neither be\nbought, deceived, nor intimidated would be manifestly criminals,\nenemies of society who, as such, could be executed or beaten to\ndeath; and the people would approve the acts of the government. If\nthey were fanatics belonging to some particular sect, one might, in\nview of the superstitions inherent in their doctrine, refute at the\nsame time what truth their arguments contained. But what is to be\ndone with men who neither preach rebellion nor any special dogmas,\nwho wish to live in peace with all mankind, who refuse to take the\noath of allegiance or to pay taxes, or to take part in tribunals,\nto perform military service, and the various duties of a similar\nnature, on which the whole organization of the State is founded?\nWhat is to be done with them? They cannot be bribed. The very risk\nthey are willing to take shows their integrity. Neither can they be\ndeceived when these things are represented as the commands of God,\nbecause their refusal is based on the indubitable law of God, by\nwhich the very men who are trying to coerce them to disobey this law\nprofess to hold themselves bound. It is vain to hope to intimidate\nthem by threats, because the very suffering and privations which\nthey endure for righteousness' sake serve but to strengthen their\ndevotion to their faith, whose law distinctly commands them first of\nall to obey God, to fear not them that kill the body, but to fear\nthose who can kill both body and soul. Neither can they be executed\nor imprisoned for life. Their past lives, their thoughts and\nactions, their friends, speak for them; every one knows them to be\ngentle, kindly, and harmless men, and it is impossible to represent\nthem in the light of criminals whose suppression is needed for the\nsalvation of society. Moreover, the execution of men acknowledged\nby all to be virtuous would arouse defenders who would endeavor to\nexplain the causes for their disobedience. And when all men are\nmade to recognize the reasons why these Christians refuse to obey\nthe demands of the State, they cannot fail to acknowledge the same\nobligation, and to admit that all men should long since have refused\nobedience.\n\nConfronted with these insubordinations, governments find themselves\nin a desperate plight. They realize that the prophecies of\nChristianity are about to be fulfilled, that it is loosening the\nfetters of them that are in bonds and setting men free; they realize\nthat such freedom will inevitably destroy those who have held\nmankind in bondage. Governments realize this; they know that their\nhours are counted, that they are helpless to resist. All that they\nare able to do is to retard the hour of dissolution. And this they\ntry to do; but their position is still a desperate one.\n\nIt is like the predicament of a conqueror who wishes to preserve the\ntown set on fire by the inhabitants. No sooner does he put the fire\nout in one place than two other fires break out; when he separates\nthe burning portion from the main body of a large building the\nflames burst out at both extremities. These outbreaks are not, as\nyet, of frequent occurrence, but the spark has been kindled, and the\nfire will burn steadily until all is consumed.\n\nThe position of governments in the presence of men who profess\nChristianity is so precarious that very little is needed to shake\nto pieces their power, built up through so many centuries, and\napparently so solid in structure. And it is now that the sociologist\ncomes forward, preaching that it is useless, and even hurtful and\nimmoral, for the individual to emancipate himself alone.\n\nLet us suppose that men have been working for a long time to divert\nthe course of a river; they have at last succeeded in digging a\ncanal, and all that remains now is to make an opening and let the\nwater flow through it into the canal; suppose now certain other men\narrive upon the scene and suggest that, instead of letting the water\nflow into the canal, it would be much better to erect over the river\nsome form of machinery, by means of which the water would be poured\nfrom one side to the other.\n\nBut things have gone too far. Governments are aware of their\nweakness and helplessness, and men of the Christian faith are\nawakening from their torpor, beginning already to realize their\npower.\n\n\"I am come to send fire on the earth,\" said Christ.\n\nAnd this is the fire that begins to burn.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nUSELESSNESS OF VIOLENCE FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF EVIL. THE MORAL\nADVANCE OF MANKIND IS ACCOMPLISHED, NOT ONLY THROUGH THE KNOWLEDGE\nOF TRUTH, BUT ALSO THROUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PUBLIC OPINION\n\n Christianity destroys the State--Which is more necessary,\n Christianity or the State?--There are men who defend the\n necessity of the State, and others who, on the same grounds,\n deny this necessity--Neither can be proved by abstract\n reasoning--The question decides the character of a man's\n consciousness, which either allows or forbids him to participate\n in the organization of the State--Realization of the uselessness\n and immorality of taking part in the organization of the\n State, which is contradictory to Christian doctrine, decides\n this question for each one, regardless of the destiny of the\n State--Argument of the defenders of the State, as a form of\n social life indispensable for the defense of the good from the\n wicked, until all nations, and all members of each nation,\n shall have become Christians--The more wicked are always those\n in power--History is but a recital of the usurpation of power\n by the bad over the good--The acknowledgment by authority of\n the necessity of struggle with evil by violence is equivalent\n to self-destruction--The annihilation of violence is not\n only possible, but is going on before our eyes--However, it\n is not destroyed by State violence, but through those men\n who, obtaining power by violence, and recognizing its vanity\n and futility, benefit by experience and become incapable of\n using violence--This is the process through which individual\n men, as well as whole nations, have passed--It is in that\n way that Christianity penetrates into the consciousness of\n men, and not only is this accomplished despite the violence\n used by authority, but through its agency, and therefore the\n abolition of authority is not only without danger, but it goes\n on continually as life itself--Objection of the defenders\n of the State system that the diffusion of Christianity is\n improbable--Diffusion of Christian truth interdicting violence\n accomplished not only slowly and gradually, by the internal\n method, by individual recognition of the truth, by prophetic\n intuition, by the realizing of the emptiness of power and\n abandonment of it by individual men, but accomplished also by\n the external method, by which large numbers of men, inferior in\n intellectual development, at once, in view of their confidence\n in the others, adopt the new truth--The diffusion of truth at\n a certain stage creates a public opinion, which compels the\n majority of men who have previously opposed it to recognize\n the new truth at once--Therefore a universal renunciation of\n violence may very soon come to pass; namely, when a Christian\n public opinion shall be established--The conviction of the\n necessity of violence prevents the establishment of Christian\n public opinion--Violence compels men to discredit the moral\n force which can alone exalt them--Neither nations nor individual\n men have been conquered by violence, but by public opinion,\n which no violence can resist--It is possible to conquer savage\n men and nations only by the diffusion of Christian public\n opinion among them, whereas the Christian nations, in order\n to conquer them, do everything in their power to destroy the\n establishment of a Christian public opinion--These unsuccessful\n experiments cannot be cited as a proof of the impossibility of\n conquering men by Christianity--Violence which corrupts public\n opinion only prevents the social organization from becoming\n what it should be, and with the abolition of violence Christian\n public opinion will be established--Whatever may take place\n when violence has been abolished, the unknown future can be no\n worse than the present, and therefore one need not fear it--To\n penetrate to the unknown and move toward it is the essence of\n life.\n\n\nChristianity, faithfully interpreted, saps the foundations of the\ncivil law, and this was always understood from the very outset.\nIt was for this that Christ was crucified; and until men felt the\nnecessity for justifying the establishment of the Christian state,\nthey always accepted that interpretation. The cleverly constructed\ntheories intended to reconcile the doctrines of Christianity with\nthat of the State date back to the time when rulers of nations\nadopted a nominal external Christianity. But in these times it\nis impossible for a sincere and earnest man not to perceive the\nincompatibility of the Christian doctrine of love, meekness of\nspirit, and forgiveness of injuries, with the despotism, the\nviolence, and the wars of the State. The profession of true\nChristianity not only forbids the recognition of the State, but\nstrikes at its very foundations.\n\nBut if it be true that Christianity is incompatible with the State,\none naturally asks which is the better adapted to promote the\nwell-being of mankind, the system prescribed by the State, or the\nprecepts of Christianity?\n\nThere are those who affirm that the State organization is the more\nindispensable; they declare that its overthrow would check all\nhuman progress, that no development is possible save through the\nchannels of civil government, and that all those evils which we\nfind prevailing among nations who live under State laws are not\nthe result of the organization, which permits progress and the\nattainment of the highest degree of civilization.\n\nThey who hold these views quote, in support of their position,\ncertain historical, philosophical, and even religious arguments,\nwhich seem to them irrefutable. But there are others who entertain\nviews diametrically opposed to these. For instance, they say\nthat the fact of the world having existed at one time without a\ngovernment, might be taken to prove the State to be only a temporary\ncondition; that the time was sure to come when men would require\na change, which time had now arrived. To support their theory,\nthese men in turn adduce historical, philosophical, and religious\narguments which seem to them irrefutable.\n\nVolumes may be and have been written in defense of the former\nposition, and of late years a great deal has been written, and ably\nwritten too, from the opposite standpoint.\n\nIt can neither be proved on the one hand, as the partizans of the\nState claim, that its destruction would be followed by a general\nupheaval, by robberies and murders, and by the nullification of all\nsocial laws, and the return of man to a condition of barbarism; nor\non the other, as the enemies of the State affirm, that man has grown\nso virtuous and well disposed that, preferring peace to enmity, he\nwill no longer rob and murder his neighbor; that he is quite able,\nwithout State assistance, to establish a community, and conduct\nhis own affairs; and that the State itself, while assuming an air\nof protection, is really exerting a demoralizing influence. It is\nimpossible to prove either one or the other by abstract arguments.\nAnd naturally neither point can be proved by experience, as it is a\nquestion first of all of getting the requisite experience.\n\nWhether or not the time has arrived for abolishing the State is a\nquestion which could not be answered were it not that we possess\nother means that will assist us to settle it beyond dispute.\n\nIt needs no one to tell the young birds when it is time to burst the\nshell; they know very well when there is no longer room for them\nin the eggs, and begin of their own accord to break the shell and\nleave it behind. So it is with this question of a change in human\naffairs. Has the time come for men to cast aside the customs of the\nState and establish a new order? When a man's inner consciousness\nhas so developed that he feels himself hampered by the requirements\nof the State, and can no longer submit to the restraint, realizing\nat the same time that he has ceased to need its protecting care,\nthe question whether or no men have matured sufficiently to enable\nthem to dispense with the State is disposed of without reference to\nformer arguments. A man who has outgrown the State can no more be\ncoerced into submission to its laws than can the fledgling be made\nto re\u00ebnter its shell.\n\n\"The State may have been necessary at one time, and for aught that\nI know it may even now serve the purposes you mention,\" says the\nman who holds the Christian life-conception. \"I can only say that\n_I_ have no need of it, nor can _I_ conform to its requirements.\nYou must decide for yourself whether it be advantageous or no. I\nshall not attempt to generalize on the subject with the expectation\nof proving my point. I only recognize what I need and what I don't\nneed; what I can, and what I cannot do. I know, as far as I am\nmyself concerned, that _I_ do not need to separate from the men of\nother nations, and therefore I can neither recognize an exclusive\naffiliation to this or that one, nor acknowledge myself the subject\nof any one government. I need none of the institutions established\nby the State, and therefore I am not willing to surrender the fruits\nof my labor in the form of taxes to support institutions which I\nbelieve to be not only unnecessary but positively injurious. I know\nthat _I_ need neither magistrates, nor tribunals founded on and\nsupported by violence, and therefore I can have nothing to do with\nthem; I know that _I_ feel no inclination to attack other nations\nand put their citizens to death, neither do I wish to defend myself\nagainst them by force of arms, and therefore I can take no part\nin wars nor in preparations for wars. Doubtless there are men who\nbelieve that all these things are an indispensable part of human\nlife,--I cannot argue with them,--but I know that for me they have\nno meaning, and that I will have nothing to do with them.\n\n\"And this is not a matter of personal selection, but because I must\nobey the commands of Him who has sent me into the world, and has\ngiven me an unmistakable law by which I am to be guided through\nlife.\"\n\nWhatever arguments may be advanced to prove that harm and probably\ndisaster will accrue from abolishing the authority of the State,\nthe man who has already outgrown the State ideal cannot possibly\nbe bound by it. And whatever arguments may be adduced to prove its\nnecessity, he can never return to it. He is like the young bird who\ncan never return to its outgrown shell.\n\n\"But granting this to be true,\" say the partizans of the existing\norder, \"we cannot dispense with the supremacy of the State until all\nmen are Christians, because even among those who claim the title\nthere are many who are very far from being Christians--evil-doers,\nwho seek their own gratification at the expense of their fellow-men,\nand if the governments were overthrown, so far from improving the\ncondition of the people, it would greatly add to their miseries. The\nsubversion of the State would be a misfortune, not only where the\nminority are true Christians, but even supposing the whole people to\nbe so; while the neighboring nations are still non-Christian, these\nlatter would make their lives a martyrdom by rapine and murder and\nall manner of violence. It would serve only to provide the vicious\nand unprincipled with an opportunity to oppress the innocent.\nTherefore the State should not be abolished until all the wicked\nhave ceased from troubling, which will not happen just at present.\nHence, however much certain individual Christians may wish to escape\nfrom the authority of the State, the greater good of the greater\nnumber demands its preservation.\" So say the defenders of the State\nprinciple. \"If it were not,\" they say, \"for State authority there\nwould be no protection against the malice and injustice of the\noppressor; that authority alone makes it possible to restrain the\nwicked.\"\n\nBut in uttering these sentiments the partizans of the existing order\ntake it for granted that they have proved the truth of what they\nassert. When they declare that the evil-doers would ride roughshod\nover the defenseless and the innocent were it not for the authority\nof the State, they imply that the governing power is vested at\nthe present time in a body of virtuous men, who control all the\nwrong-doers. But this is a proposition which must be proved. It\ncould only be a correct statement if we happened to resemble the\ninhabitants of China, where it is popularly believed, although\nthe belief is not justified by fact, that the good are always in\nauthority, because should it become known that the rulers are\nno better than those over whom they rule, it is the duty of the\ncitizens to overthrow the government. But although this is supposed\nto be one of the customs of China, it is not, nor would it be\npossible for it to be so, since, in order to overthrow a criminal\ngovernment, one needs the power as well as the right. Even in China\nthis is a mere supposition, and in our own Christian land we have\nnever so much as dreamed of it. As far as we are concerned, there\nis no reason to believe that power is in the hands of the virtuous\nand high-minded, rather than in those of men who took it by violence\nand have held it for themselves and their descendants. For surely\nit would be impossible for a high-minded man to usurp authority by\nviolence and to continue to hold it.\n\nIn order to gain possession of power, and to retain it, one\nmust have a love for it, and the love of power is incompatible\nwith goodness; it accords with the opposite qualities of pride,\nduplicity, and cruelty.\n\nBoth the origin and the maintenance of power depend upon the\nexaltation of the individual, and the degradation of the people by\nmeans of hypocrisy and fraud, by prisons, fortresses, and murders.\n\"If State authority were to be abolished, then would the more wicked\npeople dominate over the less wicked,\" say the upholders of State\norganization. But if the Egyptians conquered the Hebrews, and the\nPersians the Egyptians, and the Macedonians the Persians, and the\nRomans the Greeks, and the barbarians the Romans, is it really\npossible that the conquerors are always better than the conquered?\nAnd so with political changes in the State; is the power always\ntransferred to the better men? When Louis XVI. was deposed, and\ncontrol passed into the hands of Robespierre, and when, later, he\nwas in turn succeeded by Napoleon, was it the better or the worse\nman who held the power? Again, were they of Versailles or the\ncommunists the better men? Charles the First or Cromwell? When Peter\nIII. reigned, or, after his murder, when Catharine ruled over one\npart of Russia, and Pugatchov over the other--who then was good and\nwho was wicked?\n\nAll those in authority affirm that their office is required in\norder that the unprincipled may be hindered from oppressing the\ninnocent, implying thereby that they themselves, being virtuous,\nare protecting other virtuous men from the malice of the evil-doer.\nTo possess power and to do violence are synonymous terms; to do\nviolence means doing something to which the victim of violence\nobjects, and which the aggressor would resent were it directed\nagainst himself. Therefore the possession of power really means\ndoing unto others what we should not like if it were done to\nourselves,--that is, harm.\n\nObedience signifies that a man holds patience to be better than\nviolence, and to choose patience rather than violence means to be\ngood, or, at least, not so wicked as those who do unto others what\nthey would not wish to have done to themselves.\n\nTherefore all the probabilities are that those in authority were\nin past times, as they are in present, worse men than those they\nruled over. Doubtless there are wicked men among those who submit\nto authority, but it is impossible that the better men should rule\nover the worse.\n\nThis might be thought in pagan times, when the definition of\ngoodness was inaccurate; but with the clear and exact conception of\nthe qualities of good and evil presented by Christianity before us\nwe cannot imagine it. If in the pagan world they who were more or\nless good, and they who were more or less bad, might not be easily\ndistinguished, the characteristics of goodness and wickedness have\nbeen so clearly defined by the Christian conception that it is\nimpossible to mistake them. According to the doctrine of Christ, the\ngood are those who submit and are long-suffering, who do not resist\nevil by violence, who forgive injuries, and love their enemies; the\nwicked are the vainglorious, who tyrannize, who are arrogant and\nviolent with others. Therefore, if we are guided by the doctrine of\nChrist, we shall have no difficulty in deciding where to seek the\ngood and the wicked among rulers and subjects. It is even absurd to\nspeak of Christians as sovereigns or rulers.\n\nThe non-Christians--that is, those to whom life is but a matter of\ntemporal welfare--must always rule over the Christians, for whom\nlife means self-denial and disregard of temporal things.\n\nAnd thus it has always been, and it has been manifested more and\nmore plainly as the Christian doctrine has become more clearly\ndefined and widespread.\n\nThe farther true Christianity extended, the firmer the hold it\ngained on the consciousness of men, the less possible it became\nfor Christians to belong to the dominant class, and the easier for\nnon-Christians to gain the ascendancy.\n\n\"To abolish the supremacy of the State before all men have become\ntrue Christians would only afford the wicked a chance to tyrannize\nover the good and maltreat them with impunity,\" say the upholders of\nthe existing order.\n\nIt has always been the same from the beginning of the world until\nthis present time, and it always will be. _The wicked always\nrule over the good and do violence to them_. Cain did violence\nto Abel, the astute Jacob betrayed the trusting Esau, and was\nhimself deceived by Laban; Caiaphas and Pilate sat in judgment on\nChrist; the Roman emperors ruled over Seneca, Epictetus, and other\nhigh-minded Romans of those times; Ivan IV. with his Opritchniks,\nthe tipsy syphilitic Peter with his clowns, the prostitute Catharine\nwith her lovers, ruled over the industrious, God-fearing Russian\npeople of those times, and trampled upon them. William rules the\nGermans, Stambulov the Bulgarians, and the Russian officials rule\nover the Russian people; the Germans ruled over the Italians, and\nnow they rule over the Hungarians and the Slavs. The Turks ruled\nover the Greeks and now rule over the Slavs, the English over the\nHindoos, the Mongolians over the Chinese.\n\nSo we see that whether the tyranny of the State is or is not to be\nabolished, the position of the innocent, who are oppressed by the\ntyrants, will not be materially affected thereby.\n\nMen are not to be frightened by being told that the wicked will\noppress the good, because that is the natural course, and will never\nchange.\n\nThe whole of pagan history is a mere narrative of events wherein\nthe wicked have got the upper hand, and, once in power, by craft\nand cruelty have kept their hold upon men, announcing themselves\nmeanwhile as the guardians of justice and the defenders of the\ninnocent against the oppressor. All revolutions are but the result\nof the appropriation of power by the wicked and their rule over the\ngood. When the rulers say that if their power were to be destroyed\nthe evil-doers would tyrannize over the innocent, what they really\nmean is that the tyrants in power are reluctant to yield to those\nother tyrants who would fain wrest from them their authority. When\nthey protest that this authority of theirs, which is actually\nviolence, is necessary to defend the people against the possible\ntyranny of others,[19] they are simply denouncing themselves. The\nreason why violence is dangerous is that, whenever it is employed,\nall the arguments which the perpetrators advanced in their own\ndefense may be used against them with even greater force. They talk\nof the violence done in the past, and more frequently of future and\nimaginary violence, while they themselves are the real offenders.\n\"You say that men committed robbery and murder in former times, and\nprofess anxiety lest all men be robbed or murdered unless protected\nby your authority. This may or may not be true, but the fact that\nyou allow thousands of men to perish in prisons by enforced labor,\nin fortresses, and in exile, that your military requisitions ruin\nmillions of families and imperil, morally and physically, millions\nof men, this is not a supposititious but an actual violence, which,\naccording to your own reasoning, should be resisted by violence.\nAnd therefore, by your own admission, the wicked ones, against whom\none should use violence, are yourselves.\" Thus should the oppressed\nreply to their oppressors. And such are the language, the thoughts,\nand the actions of non-Christians. Wherever the oppressed are more\nwicked than the oppressor, they attack and overthrow them whenever\nthey are able; or else--and this is more frequently the case--they\nenter the ranks of the oppressors and take part in their tyranny.\n\n [19] Such declarations on the part of Russian authorities, who are\n noted for their oppression of foreign nationalities,--the Poles, the\n Germans of the Baltic provinces, and the Jews,--strike one as both\n amusing and artless. The Russian government, which has oppressed\n its own subjects for centuries, and which has never protected the\n Malo-Russians in Poland, the Latishi in the Baltic provinces,\n nor the Russian peasants, of whom all sorts of people have taken\n advantage for hundreds of years, suddenly becomes a champion of\n the oppressed, of the very same people whom it still continues to\n oppress.\n\nThus the dangers of which the defenders of State rights make a\nbugbear--that if authority were overthrown the wicked would prevail\nover the good--potentially exist at all times. The destruction of\nState violence, in fact, never can, for this very reason, lead to\nany real increase of violence on the part of the wicked over the\ngood.\n\nIf State violence disappeared, it is not unlikely that other acts\nof violence would be committed; but the sum of violence can never be\nincreased simply because the power passes from the hands of one into\nthose of another.\n\n\"State violence can never be abolished until all the wicked\ndisappear,\" say the advocates of the existing order, by which\nthey imply that there must always be violence, because there will\nalways be wicked people. This could only prove true, supposing\nthe oppressors to be really beneficent, and supposing the true\ndeliverance of mankind from evil must be accomplished by violence.\nThen, of course, violence could never cease. But as, on the\ncontrary, violence never really overcomes evil, and since there is\nanother way altogether to overcome it, the assertion that violence\nwill never cease is untrue. Violence is diminishing, and clearly\ntending to disappear; though not, as is claimed by the defenders of\nthe existing order, in consequence of the amelioration of those who\nlive under an oppressive government (their condition really gets\nworse), but because the consciousness of mankind is becoming more\nclear. Hence even the wicked men who are in power are growing less\nand less wicked, and will at last become so good that they will be\nincapable of committing deeds of violence.\n\nThe reason why humanity marches forward is not because the inferior\nmen, having gained possession of power, reform their subjects\nby arbitrary methods, as is claimed both by Conservatives and\nRevolutionists, but is due above all to the fact that mankind in\ngeneral is steadily, and with an ever increasing appreciation,\nadopting the Christian life-conception. There is a phenomenon\nobservable in human life in a manner analogous to that of boiling.\nThose who profess the social life-conception are always ambitious\nto rule, and struggle to attain power. In this struggle the most\ngross and cruel, the least Christian elements of society, bubble up,\nas it were, and rise, by reason of their violence, into the ruling\nor upper classes of society. But then is fulfilled what Christ\nprophesied: \"Woe unto you that are rich! Woe unto you that are full!\nWoe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you!\" (Luke vi.\n24-26). The men who have attained power, and glory, and riches, and\nwho have realized all their cherished aims, live to discover that\nall is vanity, and gladly return to their former estate. Charles\nV., Ivan the Terrible, Alexander I., having realized the evils of\npower and its futility, renounced it because they recognized it as\na calamity, having lost all pleasure in the deeds of violence which\nthey formerly enjoyed.\n\nBut it is not alone kings like Charles V. and Alexander I. who\narrive at this disgust of power, but every man who has attained the\nobject of his ambition. Not only the statesman, the general, the\nmillionaire, the merchant, but every official who has gained the\nposition for which he has longed this half score of years, every\nwell-to-do peasant who has saved one or two hundred roubles, finds\nat last the same disillusion.\n\nNot only individuals, but entire nations, mankind as a whole, have\npassed through this experience.\n\nThe attractions of power and all it brings--riches, honors,\nluxury--seem to men really worth struggling for only until they are\nwon; for no sooner does a man hold them within his grasp than they\nmanifest their own emptiness and gradually lose their charm, like\nclouds, lovely and picturesque in outline seen from afar, but no\nsooner is one enveloped in them than all their beauty vanishes.\n\nMen who have obtained riches and power, those who have struggled for\nthem, but more particularly those who have inherited them, cease to\nbe greedy for power or cruel in its acquisition.\n\nHaving learned by experience, sometimes in one generation, sometimes\nin several, how utterly worthless are the fruits of violence, men\nabandon those vices acquired by the passion for riches and power,\nand growing more humane, they lose their positions, being crowded\nout by others who are less Christian and more wicked; whereupon they\nfall back into a stratum, which, though lower in the social scale,\nis higher in that of morality, thus increasing the mean level of\nChristian consciousness. But straightway, the worse, the rougher,\nand less Christian elements rise to the surface, and being subject\nto the same experience as their predecessors, after one or two\ngenerations these men, too, recognize the hollowness of violent\nambitions, and, being penetrated with the spirit of Christianity,\nfall back into the ranks of the oppressed. These are in turn\nreplaced by new oppressors, less despotic than the former, but\nrougher than those whom they oppress. So that although the authority\nis to all outward seeming unchanged, yet the number of those who\nhave been driven by the exigencies of life to adopt the Christian\nlife-conception increases with every change of rulers. They may be\nmore harsh, more cruel, and less Christian than their subjects;\nbut always men less and less violent replace their predecessors in\nauthority.\n\nViolence chooses its instruments from among the worst elements\nof society; men who gradually become leavened, and, softened and\nchanged for the better, are returned into society.\n\nSuch is the process by means of which Christianity takes fuller\npossession of men day by day. Christianity enters into the\nconsciousness of men in spite of the violence of power, and even\nowing to that violence.\n\nThe argument of the defenders of the State, that if power were\nabolished the wicked would tyrannize over the good, not only fails\nto prove that the domination of the wicked is a new thing to be\ndreaded,--as it exists already,--but proves, on the contrary, that\nthe tyranny of the State, which allows the wicked to govern the\ngood, is itself the real evil which we ought to eradicate, and which\nis constantly decreasing by the very nature of things.\n\n\"But if State violence is not to cease until the rulers have become\nso far Christianized that they will renounce it of their own accord\nand no others will be found to take their places,--if these things\nare coming to pass,\" say the defenders of the existing order, \"when\nis it to happen? If 1800 years have passed, and still so many long\nto rule, it is wholly improbable that we shall soon behold this\nchange, if it ever takes place at all.\n\n\"Even though there may be at present, as there always have been,\ncertain individuals who would not rule if they could, who do not\nchoose to benefit themselves in that way, still the number of those\nwho do prefer to rule rather than to be ruled is so great that it is\ndifficult to imagine a time when the number will be exhausted.\n\n\"In order to accomplish the conversion of all men, to induce each\none to exchange the pagan for the Christian life-conception,\nvoluntarily resigning riches and power, there being none left to\nprofit by these, it would be necessary that not only all the rude,\nhalf-barbarous people, unfitted either to accept Christianity or\nfollow its precepts, who are always to be found in every Christian\ncommunity, should become Christians, but that all savage and\nnon-Christian nations, which are still numerous, should also become\nChristian.\n\n\"Therefore were one to admit that the Christianizing process may\nat some future time embrace all humanity, we must still take into\nconsideration the degree of progress that has been made in 1800\nyears, and realize that this can only happen after many centuries.\nHence we need not for the present trouble ourselves about the\noverthrow of authority; all we have to do is to look to it that it\nis in the best hands.\"\n\nThus reply the partizans of the existing system. And this reasoning\nwould be perfectly consistent, provided that the transition of men\nfrom one life-conception to another were only to be effected by the\nprocess of individual conversion; that is to say, that each man,\nthrough his personal experience, should realize the vanity of power,\nand apprehend Christian truth. This process is constantly going on,\nand in that way, one by one, men are converted to Christianity.\n\nBut men do not become converted to Christianity merely in this way;\nthere is an exterior influence brought to bear which accelerates\nthe process. The progression of mankind from one system of life\nto another is accomplished not only gradually, as the sand glides\nthrough the hour-glass, grain by grain, until all has run out, but\nrather as water which enters an immersed vessel, at first slowly,\nat one side, then, borne down by its weight, suddenly plunges, and\nat once fills completely.\n\nAnd this is what happens in human communities during a change in\ntheir life-conception, which is equivalent to the change from one\norganization to another. It is only at first that men by degrees,\none by one, accept the new truth and obey its dictates; but after\nit has been to a certain extent disseminated, it is accepted, not\nthrough intuition, and not by degrees, but generally and at once,\nand almost involuntarily.\n\nAnd therefore the argument of the advocates of the present system,\nthat but a minority have embraced Christianity during the last\n1800 years, and that another 1800 years must pass away before the\nrest of mankind will accept it, is erroneous. For one must take\ninto consideration another mode, in addition to the intuitive of\nassimilating new truth, and of making the transition from one mode\nof life to another. This other mode is this: men assimilate a truth\nnot alone because they may have come to realize it through prophetic\ninsight or through individual experience, but the truth having been\nspread abroad, those who dwell on a lower plane of intelligence\naccept it at once, because of their confidence in those who have\nreceived it and incorporated it in their lives.\n\nEvery new truth that changes the manner of life and causes humanity\nto move onward is at first accepted by a very limited number, who\ngrasp it by knowledge of it. The rest of mankind, accepting on faith\nthe former truth upon which the existing system has been founded, is\nalways opposed to the spread of the new truth.\n\nBut as, in the first place, mankind is not stationary, but is\never progressing, growing more and more familiar with truth and\napproaching nearer to it in everyday life: and secondly, as all\nmen progress according to their opportunities, age, education,\nnationality, beginning with those who are more, and ending with\nthose who are less, capable of receiving new truth--the men nearest\nthose who have perceived the truth intuitively pass, one by one,\nand with gradually diminishing intervals, over to the side of the\nnew truth. So, as the number of men who acknowledge it increases,\nthe truth itself becomes more clearly manifested. The feeling of\nconfidence in the new truth increases in proportion to the numbers\nwho have accepted it. For, owing to the growing intelligibility of\nthe truth itself, it becomes easier for men to grasp it, especially\nfor those lower intellectually, until finally the greater number\nreadily adopt it, and help to found a new _r\u00e9gime_.\n\nThe men who go over to the new truth, once it has gained a certain\nhold, go over _en masse_, of one accord, much as ballast is rapidly\nput into a ship to maintain its equilibrium. If not ballasted,\nthe vessel would not be sufficiently immersed, and would change\nits position every moment. This ballast, which at first may seem\nsuperfluous and a hindrance to the progress of the ship, is\nindispensable to its equipoise and motion.\n\nThus it is with the masses when, under the influence of some new\nidea that has won social approval, they abandon one system to adopt\nanother, not singly, but in a body. It is the inertia of this mass\nwhich impedes the rapid and frequent transition from one system of\nlife, not ratified by wisdom, to another; and which for a long time\narrests the progress of every truth destined to become a part of\nhuman consciousness.\n\nIt is erroneous, then, to argue that because only a small percentage\nof the human race has in these eighteen centuries adopted the\nChristian doctrine, that many, many times eighteen centuries must\nelapse before the whole world will accept it,--a period of time so\nremote that we who are now living can have no interest in it. It is\nunfair, because those men who stand on a lower plane of development,\nwhom the partizans of the existing order represent as hindrances to\nthe realization of the Christian system of life, are those men who\nalways go over in a body to a truth accepted by those above them.\n\nAnd therefore that change in the life of mankind, when the powerful\nwill give up their power without finding any to assume it in their\nstead, will come to pass when the Christian life-conception,\nrendered familiar, conquers, not merely men one by one, but masses\nat a time.\n\n\"But even if it were true,\" the advocates of the existing order\nmay say, \"that public opinion has the power to convert the inert\nnon-Christian mass of men, as well as the corrupt and gross who are\nto be found in every Christian community, how shall we know that\na Christian mode of life is born, and that State violence will be\nrendered useless?\n\n\"After renouncing the despotism by which the existing order has been\nmaintained, in order to trust to the vague and indefinite force of\npublic opinion, we risk permitting those savages, those existing\namong us, as well as those outside, to commit robbery, murder, and\nother outrages upon Christians.\n\n\"If even with the help of authority we have a hard struggle against\nthe anti-Christian elements ever ready to overpower us, and destroy\nall the progress made by civilization, how then could public\nopinion prove an efficient substitute for the use of force, and\navail for our protection? To rely upon public opinion alone would\nbe as foolhardy as to let loose all the wild beasts of a menagerie,\nbecause they seem inoffensive when in their cages and held in awe by\nred-hot irons.\n\n\"Those men entrusted with authority, or born to rule over others by\nthe divine will of God, have no right to imperil all the results of\ncivilization, simply to make an experiment, and learn whether public\nopinion can or cannot be substituted for the safeguard of authority.\"\n\nAlphonse Karr, a French writer, forgotten to-day, once said, in\ntrying to prove the impossibility of abolishing the death penalty:\n\"Que Messieurs les assassins commencent par nous donner l'exemple.\"\nAnd I have often heard this witticism quoted by persons who really\nbelieved they were using a convincing and intellectual argument\nagainst the suppression of the penalty of death. Nevertheless, there\ncould be no better argument against the violence of government.\n\n\"Let the assassins begin by showing us an example,\" say the\ndefenders of government authority. The assassins say the same, but\nwith more justice. They say: \"Let those who have set themselves up\nas teachers and guides show us an example by the suppression of\nlegal assassination, and we will imitate it.\" And this they say, not\nby way of a jest, but in all seriousness, for such is in reality the\nsituation.\n\n\"We cannot cease to use violence while we are surrounded by those\nwho commit violence.\"\n\nThere is no more insuperable barrier at the present time to the\nprogress of humanity, and to the establishment of a system that\nshall be in harmony with its present conception of life, than this\nerroneous argument.\n\nThose holding positions of authority are fully convinced that men\nare to be influenced and controlled by force alone, and therefore to\npreserve the existing system they do not hesitate to employ it. And\nyet this very system is supported, not by violence, but by public\nopinion, the action of which is compromised by violence. The action\nof violence actually weakens and destroys that which it wishes to\nsupport.\n\nAt best, violence, if not employed as a vehicle for the ambition of\nthose in high places, condemns in the inflexible form a law which\npublic opinion has most probably long ago repudiated and condemned;\nbut there is this difference, that while public opinion rejects\nand condemns all acts that are opposed to the moral law, the law\nsupported by force repudiates and condemns only a certain limited\nnumber of acts, seeming thus to justify all acts of a like order\nwhich have not been included in its formula.\n\nFrom the time of Moses public opinion has regarded covetousness,\nlust, and cruelty as crimes, and condemned them as such. It condemns\nand repudiates every form that covetousness may assume, not only\nthe acquisition of another man's property by violence, fraud, or\ncunning, but the cruel abuse of wealth as well. It condemns all\nkinds of lust, let it be impudicity with a mistress, a slave, a\ndivorced wife, or with one's wife; it condemns all cruelty,--blows,\nbad usage, murder,--all cruelty, not only toward human beings, but\ntoward animals. Whereas, the law, based upon violence, attacks only\ncertain forms of covetousness, such as theft and fraud, and certain\nforms of lust and cruelty, such as conjugal infidelity, assault,\nand murder; and thus it seems to condone those manifestations of\ncovetousness, lust, and cruelty which do not fall within its narrow\nlimits.\n\nBut violence not only demoralizes public opinion, it excites in the\nminds of men a pernicious conviction that they move onward, not\nthrough the impulsion of a spiritual power, which would help them\nto comprehend and realize the truth by bringing them nearer to that\nmoral force which is the source of every progressive movement of\nmankind,--but, by means of violence,--by the very factor that not\nonly impedes our progress toward truth, but withdraws us from it.\nThis is a fatal error, inasmuch as it inspires in man a contempt for\nthe fundamental principle of his life,--spiritual activity,--and\nleads him to transfer all his strength and energy to the practice of\nexternal violence.\n\nIt is as though men would try to put a locomotive in motion by\nturning its wheels with their hands, not knowing that the expansion\nof steam was the real motive-power, and that the action of the\nwheels was but the effect, and not the cause. If by their hands\nand their levers they move the wheels, it is but the semblance of\nmotion, and, if anything, injures the wheels and makes them useless.\n\nThe same mistake is made by those who expect to move the world by\nviolence.\n\nMen affirm that the Christian life cannot be established save by\nviolence, because there are still uncivilized nations outside of the\nChristian world, in Africa and Asia (some regard even the Chinese\nas a menace of our civilization), and because, according to the new\ntheory of heredity, there exist in society congenital criminals,\nsavage and irredeemably vicious.\n\nBut the savages whom we find in our own community, as well as\nthose beyond its pale, with whom we threaten ourselves and others,\nhave never yielded to violence, and are not yielding to it now.\nOne people never conquered another by violence alone. If the\nvictors stood on a lower plane of civilization than the conquered,\nthey always adopted the habits and customs of the latter, never\nattempting to force their own methods of life upon them. It is by\nthe influence of public opinion, not by violence, that nations are\nreduced to submission.\n\nWhen a people have accepted a new religion, have become Christians,\nor turned Mohammedans, it has come to pass, not because it was\nmade obligatory by those in power (violence often produced quite\nthe opposite result), but because they were influenced by public\nopinion. Nations constrained by violence to accept the religion of\nthe conqueror have never really done so.\n\nThe same may be said in regard to the savage elements found in\nall communities: neither severity nor clemency in the matter of\npunishments, nor modifications in the prison system, nor augmenting\nof the police force, have either diminished or increased the\naggregate of crimes, which will only decrease through an evolution\nin our manner of life. No severities have ever succeeded in\nsuppressing the vendetta, or the custom of dueling in certain\ncountries. However many of his fellows may be put to death for\nthieving, the Tcherkess continues to steal out of vainglory. No girl\nwill marry a Tcherkess who has not proved his daring by stealing a\nhorse, or at least a sheep. When men no longer fight duels, and the\nTcherkess cease to steal, it will not be from fear of punishment\n(the danger of capital punishment adds to the prestige of daring),\nbut because public manners will have undergone a change. The same\nmay be said of all other crimes. Violence can never suppress that\nwhich is countenanced by general custom. If public opinion would but\nfrown upon violence, it would destroy all its power.\n\nWhat would happen if violence were not employed against hostile\nnations and the criminal element in society we do not know. But\nthat the use of violence subdues neither we do know through long\nexperience.\n\nAnd how can we expect to subdue by violence nations whose education,\ntraditions, and even religious training all tend to glorify\nresistence to the conqueror, and love of liberty as the loftiest\nof virtues? And how is it possible to extirpate crime by violence\nin the midst of communities where the same act, regarded by the\ngovernment as criminal, is transformed into an heroic exploit by\npublic opinion?\n\nNations and races may be destroyed by violence--it has been done.\nThey cannot be subdued.\n\nThe power transcending all others which has influenced individuals\nand nations since time began, that power which is the convergence\nof the invisible, intangible, spiritual forces of all humanity, is\npublic opinion.\n\nViolence serves but to enervate this influence, disintegrating it,\nand substituting for it one not only useless, but pernicious to the\nwelfare of humanity.\n\nIn order to win over all those outside the Christian fold, all the\nZulus, the Manchurians, the Chinese, whom many consider uncivilized,\nand the uncivilized among ourselves, there is _only one way_. This\nis by the diffusion of a Christian mode of thought, which is only to\nbe accomplished by a Christian life, Christian deeds, a Christian\nexample. But instead of employing this _one way_ of winning those\nwho have remained outside the fold of Christianity, men of our epoch\nhave done just the opposite.\n\nIn order to convert uncivilized nations who do us no harm, whom we\nhave no motive for oppressing, we ought, above all, to leave them\nin peace, and act upon them only by our showing them an example of\nthe Christian virtues of patience, meekness, temperance, purity, and\nbrotherly love. Instead of this we begin by seizing their territory,\nand establishing among them new marts for our commerce, with the\nsole view of furthering our own interests--we, in fact, rob them;\nwe sell them wine, tobacco, and opium, and thereby demoralize them;\nwe establish our own customs among them, we teach them violence and\nall its lessons; we teach them the animal law of strife, that lowest\ndepth of human degradation, and do all that we can to conceal the\nChristian virtues we possess. Then, having sent them a score of\nmissionaries, who gabble an absurd clerical jargon, we quote the\nresults of our attempt to convert the heathen as an indubitable\nproof that the truths of Christianity are not adaptable to everyday\nlife.\n\nAnd as for those whom we call criminals, who live in our midst,\nall that has just been said applies equally to them. There is\nonly _one way_ to convert them, and that is by means of a public\nopinion founded on true Christianity, accompanied by the example of\na sincere Christian life. And by way of preaching this Christian\ngospel and confirming it by Christian example, we imprison, we\nexecute, guillotine, hang; we encourage the masses in idolatrous\nreligions calculated to stultify them; the government authorizes the\nsale of brain-destroying poisons--wine, tobacco, opium; prostitution\nis legalized; we bestow land upon those who need it not; surrounded\nby misery, we display in our entertainments an unbridled\nextravagance; we render impossible in such ways any semblance of a\nChristian life, and do our best to destroy Christian ideas already\nestablished; and then, after doing all we can to demoralize men, we\ntake and confine them like wild beasts in places from which they\ncannot escape, and where they will become more brutal than ever;\nor we murder the men we have demoralized, and then use them as an\nexample to illustrate and prove our argument that people are only to\nbe controlled by violence.\n\nEven so does the ignorant physician act, who, having placed his\npatient in the most unsanitary conditions, or having administered\nto him poisonous drugs, afterward contends that his patient has\nsuccumbed to the disease, when had he been left to himself he would\nhave recovered long ago.\n\nViolence, which men regard as an instrument for the support of\nChristian life, on the contrary, prevents the social system from\nreaching its full and perfect development. The social system is such\nas it is, not because of violence, but in spite of it.\n\nTherefore the defenders of the existing social system are\nself-deceived when they say that, since violence barely holds the\nevil and un-Christian elements of society in awe, its subversion,\nand the substitution of the moral influence of public opinion, would\nleave us helpless in face of them. They are wrong, because violence\ndoes not protect mankind; but it deprives men of the only possible\nchance of an effectual defense by the establishment and propagation\nof the Christian principle of life.\n\n\"But how can one discard the visible and tangible protection of the\npoliceman with his baton, and trust to invisible, intangible public\nopinion? And, moreover, is not its very existence problematical?\nWe are all familiar with the actual state of things; whether it be\ngood or bad we know its faults, and are accustomed to them; we know\nhow to conduct ourselves, how to act in the present conditions; but\nwhat will happen when we renounce the present organization, and\nconfide ourselves to something invisible, intangible, and utterly\nunfamiliar?\"\n\nMen dread the uncertainty into which they would plunge if they\nwere to renounce the familiar order of things. Certainly were our\nsituation an assured and stable one, it would be well to dread\nthe uncertainties of change. But so far from enjoying an assured\nposition, we know that we are on the verge of a catastrophe.\n\nIf we are to give way to fear, then let it be before something that\nis really fearful, and not before something that we imagine may be\nso.\n\nIn fearing to make an effort to escape from conditions that are\nfatal to us, only because the future is obscure and unknown, we are\nlike the passengers of a sinking ship who crowd into the cabin and\nrefuse to leave it, because they have not the courage to enter the\nboat that would carry them to the shore; or like sheep who, in fear\nof the fire that has broken out in the farmyard, huddle together in\na corner and will not go out through the open gate.\n\nHow can we, who stand on the threshold of a shocking and devastating\nsocial war, before which, as those who are preparing for it tell\nus, the horrors of 1793 will pale, talk seriously about the danger\nthreatened by the natives of Dahomey, the Zulus, and others who live\nfar away, and who have no intention of attacking us; or about the\nfew thousands of malefactors, thieves, and murderers--men whom we\nhave helped to demoralize, and whose numbers are not decreased by\nall our courts, prisons, and executions?\n\nMoreover, this anxiety lest the visible protection of the police be\noverthrown, is chiefly confined to the inhabitants of cities--that\nis, to those who live under abnormal and artificial conditions.\nThose who live normally in the midst of nature, dealing with its\nforces, require no such protection; they realize how little avails\nviolence to protect us from the real danger that surrounds us. There\nis something morbid in this fear, which arises chiefly from the\nfalse conditions in which most of us have grown up and continue to\nlive.\n\nA doctor to the insane related how, one day in summer, when he was\nabout to leave the asylum, the patients accompanied him as far as\nthe gate that led into the street.\n\n\"Come with me into town!\" he proposed to them.\n\nThe patients agreed, and a little band followed him. But the farther\nthey went through the streets where they met their sane fellow-men\nmoving freely to and fro, the more timid they grew, and pressed more\nclosely around the doctor. At last they begged to be taken back to\nthe asylum, to their old but accustomed mode of insane life, to\ntheir keepers and their rough ways, to strait jackets and solitary\nconfinement.\n\nAnd thus it is with those whom Christianity is waiting to set\nfree, to whom it offers the untrammeled rational life of the\nfuture, the coming century; they huddle together and cling to their\ninsane customs, to their factories, courts, and prisons, their\nexecutioners, and their warfare.\n\nThey ask: \"What security will there be for us when the existing\norder has been swept away? What kind of laws are to take the place\nof those under which we are now living? Not until we know exactly\nhow our life is to be ordered will we take a single step toward\nmaking a change.\" It is as if a discoverer were to insist upon\na detailed description of the region he is about to explore. If\nthe individual man, while passing from one period of his life to\nanother, could read the future and know just what his whole life\nwere to be, he would have no reason for living. And so it is with\nthe career of humanity. If, upon entering a new period, a program\ndetailing the incidents of its future existence were possible,\nhumanity would stagnate.\n\nWe cannot know the conditions of the new order of things, because\nwe have to work them out for ourselves. The meaning of life is to\nsearch out that which is hidden, and then to conform our activity to\nour new knowledge. This is the life of the individual as it is the\nlife of humanity.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\nCHRISTIAN PUBLIC OPINION ALREADY ARISES IN OUR SOCIETY, AND WILL\nINEVITABLY DESTROY THE SYSTEM OF VIOLENCE OF OUR LIFE. WHEN THIS\nWILL COME ABOUT\n\n The condition and organization of our society is shocking; it\n is upheld by public opinion, but can be abolished by it--Men's\n views in regard to violence have already changed; the number of\n men ready to serve the governments decreases, and functionaries\n of government themselves begin to be ashamed of their position,\n to the point of often not fulfilling their duties--These facts,\n signs of the birth of a public opinion, which, in becoming\n more and more general, will lead finally to the impossibility\n of finding men willing to serve governments--It becomes more\n and more clear that such positions are no longer needed--Men\n begin to realize the uselessness of all the institutions of\n violence; and if this is realized by a few men, it will later\n be understood by all--The time when the deliverance will be\n accomplished is unknown, but it depends on men themselves; it\n depends on how much each man is willing to live by the light\n that is within him.\n\n\nThe position of the Christian nations, with their prisons, their\ngallows, their factories, their accumulations of capital, taxes,\nchurches, taverns, and public brothels, their increasing armaments,\nand their millions of besotted men, ready, like dogs, to spring\nat a word from the master, would be shocking indeed if it were the\nresult of violence; but such a state of things is, before all, the\nresult of public opinion; and what has been established by public\nopinion not only may be, but will be, overthrown by it.\n\nMillions and millions of money, tens of millions of disciplined\nsoldiers, marvelous weapons of destruction, an infinitely perfected\norganization, legions of men charged to delude and hypnotize the\npeople,--this is all under the control of men who believe that this\norganization is advantageous for them, who know that without it they\nwould disappear, and who therefore devote all their energy to its\nmaintenance. What an indomitable array of power it seems! And yet\nwe have but to realize whither we are fatally tending, for men to\nbecome as much ashamed of acts of violence, and to profit by them,\nas they are ashamed now of dishonesty, theft, beggary, cowardice;\nand the whole complicated and apparently omnipotent system will die\nat once without any struggle. To accomplish this transformation it\nis not necessary that any new ideas should find their way into the\nhuman consciousness, but only that the mist which now veils the true\nsignificance of violence should lift, in order that the growing\nChristian public opinion and methods may conquer the methods of the\npagan world. And this is gradually coming to pass. We do not observe\nit, as we do not observe the movement of things when we are turning,\nand everything around us is turning as well.\n\nIt is true that the social organization seems for the most part as\nmuch under the influence of violence as it seemed a thousand years\nago, and in respect of armaments and war seems even more; but the\nChristian view of life is already having its effect. The withered\ntree, to all appearance, stands as firmly as ever; it seems even\nfirmer, because it has grown harder, but it is already rotten at the\nheart and preparing to fall. It is the same with the present mode\nof life based upon violence. The outward position of man appears\nthe same. There are the same oppressors, the same oppressed, but\nthe feeling of both classes in regard to their respective positions\nhas undergone a change. The oppressors, that is, those who take\npart in the government, and those who are benefited by oppression,\nthe wealthy classes, do not constitute, as formerly, the _\u00e9lite_\nof society, nor does their condition suggest that ideal of human\nprosperity and greatness to which formerly all the oppressed\naspired. Now, it often happens that the oppressors renounce of their\nown accord the advantages of their position, choosing the position\nof the oppressed, and endeavor, by the simplicity of their mode of\nlife, to resemble them.\n\nNot to speak of those offices and positions generally considered\ncontemptible, such as that of the spy, the detective, the usurer,\nor the keeper of a tavern, a great many of the positions held by\nthe oppressors, and formerly considered honorable, such as those of\npolice officers, courtiers, judges, administrative functionaries,\necclesiastical or military, masters on a large scale, and bankers,\nare not only considered little enviable, but are already avoided\nby estimable men. Already there are men who choose to renounce\nsuch once envied positions, preferring others which, although less\nadvantageous, are not associated with violence.\n\nIt is not merely such as these who renounce their privileges; men\ninfluenced, not by religious motives, as was the case in former\nages, but by growing public opinion, refuse to accept fortunes\nfallen to them by inheritance, because they believe that a man ought\nto possess only the fruits of his own labor.\n\nHigh-minded youths, not as yet depraved by life, when about to\nchoose a career, prefer the professions of doctors, engineers,\nteachers, artists, writers, or even of farmers, who live by their\ndaily toil, to the positions of judges, administrators, priests,\nsoldiers in the pay of government; they decline even the position of\nliving on their income.\n\nMost of the monuments at the present day are no longer erected in\nhonor of statesmen or generals, still less of men of wealth, but to\nscientists, artists, and inventors, to men who not only had nothing\nin common with government or authority, but who frequently opposed\nit. It is to their memory that the arts are thus consecrated.\n\nThe class of men who will govern, and of rich men, tends every day\nto grow less numerous, and so far as intellect, education, and\nespecially morality, are concerned, rich men and men in power are\nnot the most distinguished members of society, as was the case\nin olden times. In Russia and Turkey, as in France and America,\nnotwithstanding the frequent changes of officials, the greater\nnumber are often covetous and venal, and so little to be commended\nfrom the point of view of morality that they do not satisfy even the\nelementary exigencies of honesty demanded in government posts. Thus\none hears often the ingenuous complaints of those in government that\nthe best men among us, strangely enough as it seems to them, are\nalways found among those opposed to them. It is as if one complained\nthat it is not the nice, good people who become hangmen.\n\nRich men of the present day, as a general thing, are mere vulgar\namassers of wealth, for the most part having but little care beyond\nthat of increasing their capital, and that most often by impure\nmeans; or are the degenerate inheritors, who, far from playing an\nimportant part in society, often incur general contempt.\n\nMany positions have lost their ancient importance. Kings and\nemperors now hardly direct at all; they seldom effect internal\nchanges or modify external policy, leaving the decision of such\nquestions to the departments of State, or to public opinion. Their\nfunction is reduced to being the representatives of state unity and\npower. But even this duty they begin to neglect. Most of them not\nonly fail to maintain themselves in their former unapproachable\nmajesty, but they grow more and more democratic, they prefer even to\nbe bourgeois; they lay down thus their last distinction, destroying\nprecisely what they are expected to maintain.\n\nThe same may be said of the army. The high officers, instead of\nencouraging the roughness and cruelty of the soldiers, which befit\ntheir occupation, promote the diffusion of education among them,\npreach humanity, often sympathize with the socialistic ideas of\nthe masses, and deny the utility of war. In the late conspiracies\nagainst the Russian government many of those concerned were military\nmen. It often happens, as it did recently, that the troops, when\ncalled upon to establish order, refuse to fire on the people.\nThe barrack code of ideas is frankly deprecated by military men\nthemselves, who often enough make it the subject of derision.\n\nThe same may be said of judges and lawyers. Judges, whose duty it\nis to judge and condemn criminals, conduct their trials in such a\nfashion as to prove them innocent; thus the Russian government,\nwhen it desires the condemnation of those it wishes to punish,\nnever confides them to the ordinary tribunals; it tries them by\ncourt-martial, which is but a parody of justice. The same may be\nsaid of lawyers, who often refuse to accuse, and, twisting round\nthe law, defend those they should accuse. Learned jurists, whose\nduty it is to justify the violence of authority, deny more and more\nfrequently the right of punishment, and in its place introduce\ntheories of irresponsibility, often prescribing, not punishment, but\nmedical treatment for so-called criminals.\n\nJailers and turnkeys in convict prisons often become the protectors\nof those it is a part of their business to torture. Policemen\nand detectives are constantly saving those they ought to arrest.\nEcclesiastics preach tolerance; they often deny the right of\nviolence, and the more educated among them attempt in their sermons\nto avoid the deception which constitutes all the meaning of their\nposition, and which they are expected to preach. Executioners\nrefuse to perform their duty; the result is that often in Russia\ndeath-warrants cannot be carried out for lack of executioners,\nfor, notwithstanding all the advantages of the position, the\ncandidates, who are chosen from convicts, diminish in number every\nyear. Governors, commissioners, and tax-collectors, pitying the\npeople, often try to find pretexts for remitting the taxes. Rich\nmen no longer dare to use their wealth for themselves alone, but\nsacrifice a part of it to social charities. Landowners establish\nhospitals and schools on their estates, and some even renounce their\nestates and bestow them on the cultivators of the soil, or establish\nagricultural colonies upon them. Manufacturers and mill-owners found\nschools, hospitals, and savings-banks, institute pensions, and build\nhouses for the workmen; some start associations of which the profits\nare equally divided among all. Capitalists expend a portion of their\nwealth on educational, artistic, and philanthropic institutions for\nthe public benefit. Many men who are unwilling to part with their\nriches during their lifetime bequeath them to public institutions.\n\nThese facts might be deemed the result of chance were it not that\nthey all originate from one source, as, when certain trees begin\nto bud in the spring of the year, we might believe it accidental,\nonly we know the cause; and that if on some trees the buds begin to\nswell, we know that the same thing will happen to all of them.\n\nEven so is it in regard to Christian public opinion and its\nmanifestations. If this public opinion already influences some of\nthe more sensitive men, and makes each one in his own sphere decline\nthe advantages obtained by violence or its use, it will continue to\ninfluence men more and more, until it brings about a change in their\nmode of life and reconciles it with that Christian consciousness\nalready possessed by the most advanced.\n\nAnd if there are already rulers who do not venture on any\nundertaking on their own responsibility, and who try to be like\nordinary men rather than monarchs, who declare themselves ready to\ngive up their prerogatives and become the first citizens of their\ncountry, and soldiers who, realizing all the sin and evil of war,\ndo not wish to kill either foreigners or their fellow-countrymen,\njudges and lawyers who do not wish to accuse and condemn criminals,\npriests who evade preaching lies, tax-gatherers who endeavor to\nfulfil as gently as possible what they are called upon to do, and\nrich men who give up their wealth, then surely it will ultimately\ncome to pass that other rulers, soldiers, priests, and rich men will\nfollow their example. And when there are no more men ready to occupy\npositions supported by violence, the positions themselves will cease\nto exist.\n\nBut this is not the only way by which public opinion leads toward\nthe abolition of the existing system, and the substitution of a new\none. As the positions supported by violence become by degrees less\nand less attractive, and there are fewer and fewer applicants to\nfill them, their uselessness becomes more and more apparent.\n\nWe have to-day the same rulers and governments, the same armies,\ncourts of law, tax-gatherers, priests, wealthy landowners,\nmanufacturers, and capitalists as formerly, but their relative\npositions are changed.\n\nThe same rulers go about to their various interviews, they have the\nsame meetings, hunts, festivities, balls, and uniforms; the same\ndiplomatists have the same conversations about alliances and armies;\nthe same parliaments, in which Eastern and African questions are\ndiscussed, and questions in regard to alliances, ruptures, \"Home\nRule,\" the eight-hour day. Changes of ministry take place just as of\nold, accompanied by the same speeches and incidents. But to those\nwho know how an article in a newspaper changes perhaps the position\nof affairs more than dozens of royal interviews and parliamentary\nsessions, it becomes more and more evident that it is not these\nmeetings, interviews, and parliamentary discussions that control\naffairs, but something independent of all this, something which has\nno local habitation.\n\nThe same generals, officers, soldiers, cannon, fortresses, parades,\nand evolutions. But one year elapses, ten, twenty years elapse, and\nthere is no war. And troops are less and less to be relied on to\nsuppress insurrection, and it becomes more and more evident that\ngenerals, officers, and soldiers are only figure-heads in triumphal\nprocessions, the plaything of a sovereign, a sort of unwieldy and\nexpensive _corps-de-ballet_.\n\nThe same lawyers and judges, and the same sessions, but it becomes\nmore and more evident that as civil courts make decisions in a great\nvariety of causes without anxiety about purely legal justice, and\nthat criminal courts are useless, because the punishment does not\nproduce the desired result, therefore these institutions have no\nother object than the maintenance of men incapable of doing other\nthings more useful.\n\nThe same priests, bishops, churches, and synods, but it becomes more\nand more evident to all that these men themselves have long since\nceased to believe what they preach, and are therefore unable to\npersuade any one of the necessity of believing what they no longer\nbelieve themselves.\n\nThe same tax-gatherers, but more and more incapable of extorting\nmoney from the people by force, and it becomes more and more evident\nthat, without such collectors, it would be possible to obtain by\nvoluntary contribution all that is required for social needs.\n\nThe same rich men, and yet it becomes more and more evident\nthat they can be useful only when they cease to be personal\nadministrators of their possessions, and surrender to society their\nwealth in whole or part.\n\nWhen this becomes as plain to all men as it now is to a few, the\nquestion will naturally arise: Why should we feed and support all\nthose emperors, kings, presidents, members of departments, and\nministers, if all their interviews and conversations amount to\nnothing? Would it not be better, as some wit expressed it, to set up\nan india-rubber queen?\n\nAnd of what use to us are armies, with their generals, their\nmusicians, their horses, and drums? Of what use are they when there\nis no war, when no one wishes to conquer anybody else? And even if\nthere were a war, other nations would prevent us from reaping its\nadvantages; while upon their compatriots the troops would refuse to\nfire.\n\nAnd what is the use of judges and attorneys whose decisions in\ncivil cases are not according to the law, and who, in criminal ones,\nare aware that punishments are of no avail?\n\nAnd of what use are tax-gatherers who are reluctant to collect the\ntaxes, when all that is needed could be contributed without their\nassistance?\n\nAnd where is the use of a clergy which has long ceased to believe\nwhat it preaches?\n\nAnd of what use is capital in the hands of private individuals\nwhen it can be beneficial only when it becomes public property?\nHaving once asked all these questions, men cannot but arrive at the\nconclusion that institutions which have lost their usefulness should\nno longer be supported.\n\nAnd furthermore, men who themselves occupy positions of privilege\ncome to see the necessity of abandoning them.\n\nOne day, in Moscow, I was present at a religious discussion which\nis usually held during St. Thomas's week, near the church in the\nOkhotny Ryad. A group of perhaps twenty men had gathered on the\npavement, and a serious discussion concerning religion was in\nprogress. Meanwhile, in the nobles' club near at hand, a concert\nwas taking place, and a police-officer, having noticed the group of\npeople gathered near the church, sent a mounted policeman to order\nthem to disperse,--not that the police-officer cared in the least\nwhether the group stayed where it was or dispersed. The twenty\nmen who had gathered inconvenienced no one, but the officer had\nbeen on duty all the morning and felt obliged to do something. The\nyoung policeman, a smart-looking fellow, with his right arm akimbo\nand a clanking sword, rode up to us, calling out in an imperative\ntone: \"Disperse, you fellows! What business have you to gather\nthere?\" Every one turned to look at him, while one of the speakers,\na modest-looking man in a peasant's coat, replied calmly and\npleasantly: \"We are talking about business, and there is no reason\nwhy we should disperse; it might be better for you, my young friend,\nif you were to jump off from your horse and to listen to us. Very\nlikely it would do you good;\" and turning away he continued the\nconversation. The policeman turned his horse without a word and rode\naway.\n\nSuch scenes as this must be of frequent occurrence in countries\nwhere violence is employed. The officer was bored; he had nothing\nto do, and the poor fellow was placed in a position where he felt\nin duty bound to give orders. He was deprived of a rational human\nexistence; he could do nothing but look on and give orders, give\norders and look on, although both were works of supererogation. It\nwill not be long before all those unfortunate rulers, ministers,\nmembers of parliaments, governors, generals, officers, bishops,\npriests, and even rich men, will find themselves--indeed they\nhave already done so--in precisely the same position. Their\nsole occupation consists in issuing orders; they send out their\nsubordinates, like the officer who sent the policeman to interfere\nwith the people; and as the people with whom they interfere ask not\nto be interfered with, this seems to their official intelligence\nonly to prove that they are very necessary.\n\nBut the time will surely come when it will be perfectly evident to\nevery one that they are not only useless, but an actual impediment,\nand those whose course they obstruct will say gently and pleasantly,\nlike the man in the peasant's coat: \"We beg that you will let us\nalone.\" Then the subordinates as well as their instructors will find\nthemselves compelled to take the good advice that is offered them,\ncease to prance about among men with their arms akimbo, and having\ndiscarded their glittering livery, listen to what is said among men,\nand unite with them to help to promote the serious work of the world.\n\nSooner or later the time will surely come when all the present\ninstitutions supported by violence will cease to be; their too\nevident uselessness, absurdity, and even unseemliness, will finally\ndestroy them.\n\nThere must come a time when the same thing that happened to the king\nin Andersen's fairy tale, \"The King's New Clothes,\" will happen to\nmen occupying positions created by violence.\n\nThe tale tells of a king who cared enormously for new clothes, and\nto whom one day came two tailors who agreed to make him a suit woven\nfrom a wonderful stuff. The king engaged them and they set to work,\nsaying that the stuff possessed the remarkable quality of becoming\ninvisible to any one unfit for the office he holds. The courtiers\ncame to inspect the work of the tailors, but could see nothing,\nbecause these men were drawing their needles through empty space.\nHowever, remembering the consequences, they all pretended to see the\ncloth and to be very much pleased with it. Even the king himself\npraised it. The hour appointed for the procession when he was to\nwalk wearing his new garment arrived. The king took off his clothes\nand put on the new ones--that is, he remained naked all the while,\nand thus he went in procession. But remembering the consequences, no\none had the courage to say that he was not dressed, until a little\nchild, catching sight of the naked king, innocently exclaimed, \"But\nhe has nothing on!\" Whereupon all the others who had known this\nbefore, but had not acknowledged it, could no longer conceal the\nfact.\n\nThus will it be with those who, through inertia, continue to\nfill offices that have long ceased to be of any consequence,\nuntil some chance observer, who happens not to be engaged, as the\nRussian proverb has it, in \"washing one hand with the other,\" will\ningenuously exclaim, \"It is a long time since these men were good\nfor anything!\"\n\nThe position of the Christian world, with its fortresses, cannon,\ndynamite, guns, torpedoes, prisons, gallows, churches, factories,\ncustom-houses, and palaces is monstrous. But neither fortresses nor\ncannon nor guns by themselves can make war, nor can the prisons lock\ntheir gates, nor the gallows hang, nor the churches themselves lead\nmen astray, nor the custom-houses claim their dues, nor palaces and\nfactories build and support themselves; all these operations are\nperformed by men. And when men understand that they need not make\nthem, then these things will cease to be.\n\nAnd already men are beginning to understand this. If not yet\nunderstood by all, it is already understood by those whom the rest\nof the world eventually follows. And it is impossible to cease to\nunderstand what once has been understood, and the masses not only\ncan, but inevitably must, follow where those who have understood\nhave already led the way.\n\nHence the prophecy: that a time will come when all men will hearken\nunto the word of God, will forget the arts of war, will melt their\nswords into plowshares and their lances into reaping-hooks;--which,\nbeing translated, means when all the prisons, the fortresses, the\nbarracks, the palaces, and the churches will remain empty, the\ngallows and the cannon will be useless. This is no longer a mere\nUtopia, but a new and definite system of life, toward which mankind\nis progressing with ever increasing rapidity.\n\nBut when will it come?\n\nEighteen hundred years ago Christ, in answer to this question,\nreplied that the end of the present world--that is, of the pagan\nsystem--would come when the miseries of man had increased to their\nutmost limit; and when, at the same time, the good news of the\nKingdom of Heaven--that is, of the possibility of a new system,\none not founded upon violence--should be proclaimed throughout the\nearth.[20]\n\n [20] Matt. xxiv. 3-28.\n\n\"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of\nheaven, but my Father only,\"[21] said Christ. \"Watch therefore: for\nye know not what hour your Lord doth come.\"\n\n [21] Matt. xxiv. 36.\n\nWhen will the hour arrive? Christ said that we cannot know. And for\nthat very reason we should hold ourselves in readiness to meet it,\nas the goodman should watch his house against thieves, or like the\nvirgins who await with their lamps the coming of the bridegroom;\nand, moreover, we should work with all our might to hasten the\ncoming of that hour, as the servants should use the talents they\nhave received that they may increase.[22]\n\n [22] Matt. xxiv. 43; xxv. 1--13, 14-30.\n\nAnd there can be no other answer. The day and the hour of the advent\nof the Kingdom of God men cannot know, since the coming of that hour\ndepends only on men themselves.\n\nThe reply is like that of the wise man who, when the traveler asked\nhim how far he was from the city, answered, \"Go on!\"\n\nHow can we know if it is still far to the goal toward which humanity\nis aiming, when we do not know how it will move toward it; that it\ndepends on humanity whether it moves steadily onward or pauses,\nwhether it accelerates or retards its pace.\n\nAll that we can know is what we who form humanity should or should\nnot do in order to bring about this Kingdom of God. And that we all\nknow; for each one has but to begin to do his duty, each one has but\nto live according to the light that is within him, to bring about\nthe immediate advent of the promised Kingdom of God, for which the\nheart of every man yearns.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\nCONCLUSION\n\n\"REPENT, FOR THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS AT HAND!\"\n\n1\n\n Encounter with a train carrying soldiers to establish order\n among famine-stricken peasants--The cause of the disorder--How\n the mandates of the higher authorities are carried out in case\n of peasants' resistance--The affair at Orel as an example of\n violence and murder committed for the purpose of asserting the\n rights of the rich--All the advantages of the rich are founded\n on like acts of violence.\n\n2\n\n The Tula train and the behavior of the persons composing it--How\n men can behave as these do--The reasons are neither ignorance,\n nor cruelty, nor cowardice, nor lack of comprehension or of\n moral sense--They do these things because they think them\n necessary to maintain the existing system, to support which\n they believe to be every man's duty--On what the belief of the\n necessity and immutability of the existing order of things is\n founded--For the upper classes it is based on the advantages\n it affords them--But what compels men of the lower classes to\n believe in the immutability of this system, when they derive\n no advantage from it, and maintain it with acts contrary to\n their conscience?--The reason lies in the deceit practised by\n the upper classes upon the lower in regard to the necessity\n of the existing order, and the legitimacy of acts of violence\n for its maintenance--General deception--Special deception--The\n conscription.\n\n3\n\n How men reconcile the legitimacy of murder with the precepts of\n morality, and how they admit the existence in their midst of a\n military organization for purposes of violence which incessantly\n threatens the safety of society--Admitted only by the powers\n for whom the present organization is advantageous--Violence\n sanctioned by the higher authorities and carried out by the\n lower, notwithstanding the knowledge of its immorality, because,\n owing to the organization of the State, the moral responsibility\n is divided among a large number of participants, each of whom\n considers some other than himself responsible--Moreover, the\n loss of consciousness of moral responsibility is also due to a\n mistaken opinion as to the inequality of men, the consequent\n abuse of power by the authorities, and servility of the lower\n classes--The condition of men who commit acts contrary to their\n conscience is like the condition of a hypnotized person acting\n under the influence of suggestion--In what does submission to\n the suggestion of the State differ from submission to men of a\n higher order of consciousness or to public opinion?--The present\n system, which is the outcome of ancient public opinion, and\n which is already in contradiction to the modern, is maintained\n only through torpor of conscience, induced by auto-suggestion\n among the upper classes, and by the hypnotization of the\n lower--The conscience or intelligent consciousness of these\n men may awaken, and there are instances when it does awaken;\n therefore it cannot be said that any one of them will, or will\n not, do what he sets out to do--Everything depends on the degree\n of comprehension of the illegitimacy of the acts of violence,\n and this consciousness in men may either awaken spontaneously or\n be roused by those already awakened.\n\n4\n\n Everything depends upon the strength of conviction of each\n individual man in regard to Christian truth--But the advanced\n men of the present day consider it unnecessary to explain\n and profess Christian truth, regarding it sufficient for the\n improvement of human life to change its outward conditions\n within the limits allowed by power--Upon this scientific theory\n of hypocrisy, which has taken the place of the hypocrisy of\n religion, men of the wealthy classes base the justification of\n their position--In consequence of this hypocrisy, maintained by\n violence and falsehood, they can pretend before each other to\n be Christians, and rest content--The same hypocrisy allows men\n who preach the Christian doctrine to take part in a _r\u00e9gime_\n of violence--No external improvements of life can make it\n less miserable; its miseries are caused by disunion; disunion\n springs from following falsehood instead of truth--Union\n is possible only in truth--Hypocrisy forbids such a union,\n for while remaining hypocrites, men conceal from themselves\n and others the truth they know--Hypocrisy changes into evil\n everything destined to ameliorate life--It perverts the\n conception of right and wrong, and therefore is a bar to the\n perfection of men--Acknowledged malefactors and criminals do\n less harm than those who live by legalized violence cloaked by\n hypocrisy--All recognize the iniquity of our life, and would\n long since have modified it, if it were not covered by the cloak\n of hypocrisy--But it seems as if we had reached the limits of\n hypocrisy, and have but to make an effort of consciousness in\n order to awaken--like the man who has nightmare--to a different\n reality.\n\n5\n\n Can man make this effort?--According to the existing\n hypocritical theory, man is not free to change his life--He\n is not free in his acts, but is always free to acknowledge or\n disregard certain truths already known to him--The recognition\n of truth is the cause of action--The cause of the apparent\n insolvability of the question of man's freedom--It lies only\n in the acknowledgment of the truth revealed unto him--No other\n freedom exists--The acknowledgment of the truth gives freedom,\n and points the way in which a man, willingly or unwillingly,\n must walk--The recognition of truth and of true freedom allows\n man to become a participant of the work of God, to be not the\n slave but a creator of life--Men have but to forego the attempt\n to improve the external conditions of life, and direct all their\n energies toward the recognition and profession of the truth\n that is known to them, and the present painful system of life\n will vanish forthwith, and that portion of the Kingdom of God\n which is accessible to men would be established--One has only to\n cease lying and shamming to accomplish this--But what awaits us\n in the future?--What will happen to mankind when they begin to\n obey the dictates of their conscience, and how will they exist\n without the customary conditions of civilization?--Nothing truly\n good and beneficial can perish because of the realization of the\n truth, but will only increase in strength when freed from the\n admixture of falsehood and hypocrisy.\n\n6\n\n Our system of life has reached the limit of misery, and cannot\n be ameliorated by any pagan reorganization--All our life, with\n its pagan institutions, is devoid of meaning--Are we obeying\n the will of God in maintaining our present privileges and\n obligations?--We are in this position, not because such is\n the law of the universe, that it is inevitable, but because\n we wish it, because it is advantageous for some of us--All\n our consciousness contradicts this, and our deliverance\n consists in acknowledging the Christian truth, not to do to\n one's neighbor that which one would not have done to one's\n self--As our obligations in regard to ourselves should be\n subordinate to our obligations to others, so in like manner our\n obligations to others should be subordinate to our obligations\n to God--Deliverance from our position consists, if not in\n giving up our position and its rights at once, at least in\n acknowledging our guilt, and neither lying nor trying to justify\n ourselves--The true significance of our life consists in knowing\n and professing the truth, whereas our approval of, and our\n activity in, the service of the State takes all meaning from\n life--God demands that we serve Him, that is, that we seek to\n establish the greatest degree of union among all human beings,\n which union is possible only in truth.\n\n\nI was just putting the finishing touches to this two years' work\nwhen, on the 9th day of September,[23] I had occasion to go by\nrail to visit districts in the governments of Tula and Ryazan,\nwhere certain peasants were suffering from last year's famine, and\nothers were enduring still greater suffering from the same causes\nthis year.[24] At one of the stations the train in which I was a\npassenger met the express, which carried the Governor and troops\nsupplied with rods and loaded rifles for torturing and murdering the\nfamine-stricken peasants.\n\n [23] 1892.--Tr.\n\n [24] 1893.\n\nAlthough corporal punishment was legally abolished in Russia\nthirty years ago, the custom of flogging as a means of making the\ndecisions of authority respected has been revived, and has of late\nbeen frequently employed. I had heard of it, had read in the papers\nof the frightful tortures of which the Governor of Nijni-Novgorod,\nBaranov, has gone so far as to boast, and of the tortures that have\nbeen inflicted in Tchernigov, Tambov, Saratov, Astrakhan, and Orel,\nbut I had never yet witnessed, as I did now, how these things were\nactually done.\n\nAnd I myself saw well-meaning Russians, penetrated with the spirit\nof Christ, but armed with muskets and carrying rods, on their way to\nmurder and torture their starving brothers.\n\nThe pretext was as follows:--\n\nOn the estate of a rich landowner, upon a piece of ground held by\nhim in common with the peasants, a forest had been allowed to grow.\n(When I say that the forest \"grew,\" I mean that the peasants had\nnot only planted it, but had continued to take care of it.) They\nhad always had the use of it, and therefore looked upon it as their\nown, or at least as common property; but the landowner, confiscating\nit entirely to himself, began to cut down the trees. The peasants\nlodged a complaint. The judge of the lower court pronounced an\nillegal decision (I call it illegal on the authority of the\nProcureur[25] and the Governor, who surely ought to understand the\ncase) in favor of the landowner. The higher courts, as well as the\nSenate, although they could see that the case had been unfairly\ntried, confirmed the decision, and the wood was awarded to the\nlandowner, who continued to fell the trees. But the peasants,\nbelieving it impossible that such an injustice could be perpetrated\nby the higher magistrates, refused to submit to the decision, and\ndrove away the workmen sent to cut down the trees, saying that the\nforest belonged to them, and that they would appeal to the Czar\nhimself before they would allow it to be touched.\n\n [25] Attorney-General.\n\nThe case was reported to St. Petersburg, from whence the Governor\nreceived the order to enforce the decision of the courts, and in\norder to execute the command, asked for troops.\n\nHence these soldiers who, armed with bayonets and provided with\ncartridges and rods expressly prepared for the occasion and stored\nin one of the vans, were on their way to enforce the decision of\nthe higher authorities. The execution of an order from the ruling\npowers can be accomplished either by threats of torture and death,\nor by the enforcement of those threats, according to the degree of\nresistance on the part of the people.\n\nIf, for instance, in Russia (it is practically the same in other\nlands where state authority and the rights of ownership exist), the\npeasants offer to resist, the result is as follows: The superior\nofficer makes a speech and orders them to obey. The excited crowd,\naccustomed to be duped by those in high places, understands not\na word that the representative of authority is saying in his\nofficial, conventional language, and is by no means pacified.\nWhereupon the commanding officer declares that unless they submit\nand disperse, he will be forced to have recourse to arms. If the\ncrowd still refuses to yield and does not disperse, he orders his\nmen to load the muskets and to fire over their heads, and then, if\nthe peasants still stand their ground, he orders the soldiers to\naim at the crowds; they fire, and men fall wounded and killed in\nthe street. The crowd is dispersed, the soldiers, carrying out the\norders of their commanders, having laid hands upon those whom they\nsuppose to be the chief instigators, and arrested them. The dying,\nstained with blood, the wounded, mutilated, and dead, among whom\nare often women and children, are picked up. The dead are buried,\nthe wounded sent to the hospitals. Those who are supposed to be the\nringleaders are taken to the city and court-martialed, and if proved\nthat they have used violence, they are summarily hung. This has\nhappened in Russia repeatedly, and similar scenes must take place\nwherever the system of government is based upon violence. Such is\nthe course adopted in cases of revolt.\n\nIf, on the other hand, the peasants submit, the scene that ensues\nis entirely original and peculiarly Russian. The Governor, on his\narrival at the place, either quarters the soldiers in the different\nhouses of the village, where their maintenance ruins the peasants,\nor, satisfied by threatening the people, he graciously pardons\nthem and departs. Or, as more frequently happens, he addresses the\nmultitude, upbraids it for disobedience, and announces that the\nringleaders must be punished; he seizes a certain number of men\nconsidered as such, and without any form of trial causes them to be\nbeaten with rods in his presence.\n\nIn order to give an idea of the manner in which such an affair\nis conducted, I will describe an instance of the kind which\nhappened in Orel, which was approved by the higher authorities.\nLike the landowner in Tula, the landed proprietor at Orel chose\nto take possession of the peasants' property, and here, too, as\nin the former instance, the peasants resisted. In this case, the\nlandowner, without the consent of the peasants, wished to dam up,\nfor the benefit of his mill, a flow of water which supplied the\nmeadows. The peasants resisted this.\n\nThe landlord lodged a complaint with the rural commissary, who\nillegally (as was afterward admitted by the court) decided the case\nin favor of the landowner, giving him leave to divert the water. The\nlandowner sent workmen to close the channel through which the water\ndescended. The peasants, excited at this unfair judgment, sent their\nwomen to prevent the landowner's men from damming the channel. The\nwomen proceeded to the dam, upset the carts, and drove the workmen\naway. The landowner entered a complaint against them for committing\na lawless act. The rural commissary gave the order to arrest and\nlock up in the village jail one woman out of every family,--an order\nrather difficult to execute, since each family included several\nwomen; and as it was impossible to tell which of them to arrest, the\npolice could not fulfil the order. The landowner complained to the\nGovernor of the laxity of the police. The Governor, without stopping\nto consider the case, gave strict orders to the _Ispravnik_ to\ncarry out at once the orders of the rural commissary. In obedience\nto his superior the _Ispravnik_ arrived in the village, and with\nthat contempt for the individual peculiar to Russian authorities,\nordered the police to seize the first women they could. Disputes\nand resistance arose. The _Ispravnik_, paying no attention to\nthis, persisted in his order that the police should take one\nwoman, innocent or guilty, from every household, and put her under\narrest. The peasants defended their wives and mothers; they refused\nto give them up, and resisted the police and the _Ispravnik_.\nThus another and a greater offense was committed,--resistance to\nauthority,--which was at once reported in town. Then the Governor,\njust as I saw the Governor of Tula, with a battalion of soldiers\nsupplied with rods and muskets, backed by all due accessories of\ntelegraph and telephone, accompanied by a learned physician who was\nto superintend the flogging from a medical standpoint, started\non an express train for the spot, like the modern Genghis Khan\npredicted by Herzen. In the _Volostnoye Pravlenie_[26] were the\nsoldiers, a detachment of police with their revolvers suspended on\nred cords, the principal peasants of the neighborhood, and the men\naccused. Around them had collected a crowd of perhaps a thousand.\n\n [26] House of the rural communal government.\n\nDriving up to the house of the _Volostnoye Pravlenie_, the Governor\nalighted from his carriage and delivered an address, which had been\nprepared in advance, after which he inquired for the criminals, and\nordered a bench to be brought. No one understood what he meant until\nthe policeman, who always accompanied the Governor and made all the\narrangements for the punishments which had already been enforced\nseveral times in the government of Orel, explained that the bench\nwas to be used for flogging. This bench and the rods that had been\nbrought by the party were both produced. The executioners had been\npreviously selected from certain horse-thieves taken from the same\nvillage, the military having refused to do the business.\n\nWhen all was ready the Governor bade the first of the twelve men who\nwere pointed out to him by the landowner as the ringleaders to step\nforward. It so happened that he was the father of a family, a man\nforty-five years of age, respected in the community, whose rights he\nhad manfully defended.\n\nHe was led to the bench, stripped, and ordered to lie down.\n\nHe would have begged for mercy, but realizing how little it\nwould avail, he made the sign of the cross and stretched himself\nout on the bench. Two policemen held him down, and the learned\ndoctor stood by, ready in case of need to give his scientific\nassistance. The executioners having spat upon their hands, swung\nthe rods, and the flogging began. The bench, it seemed, was too\nnarrow, and it was found difficult to keep the writhing victim,\nwhose muscles twitched convulsively, from falling off. Then the\nGovernor ordered to be brought another bench, to which a plank\nwas adjusted in such a way as to support it. The soldiers, ever\nready with their continual salutes and responses of \"Yes, your\nExcellency,\" swiftly and obediently executed the orders, while in\nthe meantime the half-naked, pale, and suffering man, trembling,\nwith contracted brows and downcast eyes, stood by waiting. When the\nbench was readjusted, he was again stretched out upon it, and the\nhorse-stealers renewed their blows. His back, his legs, and even his\nsides were covered with bleeding wounds, and every blow was followed\nby the muffled groan which he could no longer repress. In the crowd\nthat stood by one could hear the sobs of the wife and mother, the\nchildren, and the kinsfolk of the man, as well as of all who had\nbeen called to witness the punishment.\n\nThe wretched Governor, intoxicated with power, who had no doubt\nconvinced himself of the necessity for this performance, counted the\nstrokes on his fingers, while he smoked cigarette after cigarette,\nfor the lighting of which several obliging persons hastened to offer\nhim a burning match.\n\nAfter fifty blows had been given, the peasant lay motionless,\nwithout uttering a sound, and the doctor, who had been educated in\na government school that he might devote his scientific knowledge\nto the service of his country and his sovereign, approached the\ntortured man, felt his pulse, listened to the beating of his heart,\nand reported to the representative of authority that the victim had\nbecome unconscious, and declared that, from a scientific point of\nview, it might prove dangerous to prolong the punishment. But the\nunfortunate Governor, utterly intoxicated by the sight of blood,\nordered the flogging to go on until seventy strokes had been given,\nthe number which he for some reason deemed necessary. After the\nseventieth blow the Governor said:--\n\n\"That will do! Now bring on the next one!\"\n\nThey raised the mutilated and unconscious man, with his swollen\nback, and carried him away, and the next was brought forward. The\nsobs and groans of the crowd increased, but the tortures were\ncontinued.\n\nSo it went on until each of the twelve men had received seventy\nstrokes. They begged for mercy, they groaned and screamed. The\nsobs and moans of the women grew louder and more heartrending, and\nthe faces of the men of the crowd more gloomy. But there stood the\ntroops, and the torture did not cease until it had seemed sufficient\nto the unfortunate, half-intoxicated, erring man called the Governor.\n\nNot only did the magistrates, the officers, and the soldiers\nsanction this act by their presence, but they took part in it,\npreventing the crowd from interfering with the order of its\nexecution.\n\nWhen I asked one of the chief officials why these tortures were\ninflicted after the men had already submitted, he replied, with\nthe significant air of a man who understands all the fine points\nof political wisdom, that it was done because it had been proved\nby experience that if the peasants are not punished they will\nsoon begin again to oppose the decrees of authority, and that the\npunishment of a few strengthens forever the power of authority.\n\nAnd now I saw the Governor of Tula, with his clerks, officers, and\nsoldiers, on his way to perform a similar act. Once more by murder\nor torture the sentence of the higher authorities was to be carried\nout,--a sentence whose object was to enable a young landowner, the\npossessor of a yearly income of 100,000 roubles, to receive 3000\nmore for a tract of wood of which he had basely defrauded a whole\ncommunity of needy and starving peasants, the price of which he\nwould squander in a few weeks in the restaurants of St. Petersburg,\nMoscow, and Paris. Such was the errand of the men I met.\n\nIt would seem as if there must be some purpose in this encounter,\nwhen, after two years of incessant contemplation, of continuous\nthought in one direction, fate should, for the first time in\nmy life, bring me face to face with this phenomenon, a living\nillustration of the theory I have so long cherished; namely, that\nthe entire organization of our life rests, not on any principle of\njustice, as men who occupy and enjoy advantageous positions under\nthe existing system like to imagine, but on the rudest and most\nbarefaced violence, on the murder and torture of human beings.\n\nThose who possess large estates and large capital, or who receive\nhigh salaries collected from the needy working-classes, from the\npeople who often lack the necessaries of life; merchants, clerks,\ndoctors, lawyers, artists, scientists, writers, coachmen, cooks, and\nvalets, who earn their living in the service of rich men,--fondly\nbelieve that the privileges which they enjoy are not the outcome\nof violence, but the natural result of a voluntary interchange of\nservices; that these privileges are by no means the result of the\noutrages and floggings endured by their fellow-men, such as took\nplace last summer, in Russia, in Orel and elsewhere, as the like\ntook place in many parts of Europe and America. They prefer to\nbelieve that the privileges they enjoy are the spontaneous result\nof a mutual agreement among men; that violence is only the natural\nresult of certain universal and superior laws, judicial, political,\nor economic. They try not to see that the privileges they possess\nare only held by them in consequence of some circumstance, not\nunlike that which compelled the peasants, who had tended the growing\nforest and greatly needed it, to surrender it to the rich landowner,\nwho had taken no pains to preserve it, and who did not require\nit for his own use; men who will either be flogged or murdered\nif they refuse to surrender it. Now, if it is an undeniable fact\nthat the mill in Orel was made to yield an increased income to the\nproprietor, and that the forest raised by the peasants was given to\nthe landowner only because of the flogging and the executions either\nthreatened or actually suffered, then it must be equally evident\nthat all the other exclusive rights of the rich, which deprive the\npoor of the bare necessaries of life, rest on the same basis.\n\nIf the peasants who need land in order to support their families\nmay not cultivate the land around them, and if land sufficient to\nfeed a thousand families is in the hands of one man, a Russian, an\nEnglishman, an Austrian, a rich landowner of whatever nationality;\nand if the merchant who buys grain from the needy grower keeps\nit in his warehouses in the midst of a destitute and famishing\npopulation, or sells it for three times its value to those of whom\nhe bought it at the lowest price,--it evidently springs from the\nsame cause.\n\nAnd if, beyond a certain line called the frontier, one man is not\nallowed to purchase certain goods without paying duties to other\nmen who have nothing to do with their production, and if a man is\nobliged to part with his last cow in order to pay taxes which are\ndistributed by the government among its officials, or used for\nthe support of soldiers who may kill the taxpayers, it would seem\nevident that all this is not the result of certain abstract rights,\nbut of incidents like those which may even now be going on in the\ngovernment of Tula, which in one form or another occur periodically\nall the world over, wherever state organization exists, and wherever\nthere are rich and poor.\n\nOwing to the fact that outrage and murder do not accompany all\nsocial relations founded on violence, those who possess the\nexclusive privileges of the governing classes assure themselves and\nothers that the advantages which they enjoy are not the result of\nviolence and bloodshed, but derived from certain vague and abstract\nrights. Still it ought to be evident that if those men, who realize\nthe injustice of it all (as is the case with the working-classes at\nthe present day), continue to surrender the greater part of their\nearnings to the capitalist and the landowner, and if they pay taxes,\nknowing that such taxes are not put to a good use, they do this, not\nbecause they acknowledge the justice of certain abstract rights,\nwhose meaning is unknown to them, but only because they know that\nthey will be whipped and put to death if they refuse to comply.\n\nIf it is not always necessary to imprison men, to flog them, or to\nput them to death when the landowner collects his rents, if the\nneedy peasant pays a treble price to the merchant who deceives him,\nor the mechanic accepts wages absurdly small in comparison with the\nincome of his master, or the poor man parts with his last rouble\nfor duties and taxes, it is because he remembers that men have been\nflogged and put to death for trying to avoid compliance with what\nwas demanded of them. Like a caged tiger, who does not touch the\nmeat that lies before his eyes, and who when he is ordered to leap\nover a stick obeys at once, not because he likes it, but because\nhe has not forgotten past hunger or the red-hot iron which he felt\nevery time he refused to obey; so it is with men, who, when they\nsubmit to a law which is not for their advantage, to a law which is\ndisastrous to their interests, or to one which they firmly believe\nto be unjust, do so because they remember what they will have to\nsuffer if they refuse to comply.\n\nThose who benefit by privileges born of violence long since\nperpetrated, often forget, and are very glad to forget, how such\nprivileges were obtained. And yet one has but to recall the annals\nof history,--not the history of the exploits of kings, but genuine\nhistory,--the history of the oppression of the majority by the\nminority, in order to acknowledge that the scourge, the prison, and\nthe gallows have been the original and only sources whence all the\nadvantages of the rich over the poor have sprung. One has but to\nremember the persistent and undying passion for gain among men, the\nmainspring of human action in these days, to become convinced that\nthe advantages of the rich over the poor can be maintained in no\nother way.\n\nAt rare intervals, oppression, flogging, imprisonment, executions,\nthe direct object of which is not to promote the welfare of the\nrich, may possibly occur, but we can positively declare that in\nour community, where for every man who lives at ease there are\nten overworked, hungry, and often cruelly suffering families of\nworking-men, all the privileges of the rich, all their luxury, all\ntheir superfluities, are acquired and maintained only by tortures,\nimprisonments, and executions.\n\nThe train that I met on the 9th day of September carrying soldiers,\nmuskets, ammunition, and rods to the famine-stricken peasants, in\norder that the wealthy landowner might possess in peace the tract of\nwood he had wrested from the peasants, a necessity of life to them,\nto him a mere superfluity, affords a vivid proof of the degree to\nwhich men have unconsciously acquired the habit of committing acts\nwholly at variance with their convictions and their conscience.\n\nThe express consisted of one first-class carriage for the Governor,\nofficials, and officers, and several vans crowded with soldiers.\nThe jaunty young fellows in their fresh new uniforms were crowded\ntogether, either standing, or sitting with their legs dangling\noutside the wide open sliding doors of the vans. Some were smoking,\nlaughing, and jesting, some cracking seeds and spitting out the\nshells. A few who jumped down upon the platform to get a drink of\nwater from the tub, meeting some of the officers, slackened their\npace and made that senseless gesture of lifting one hand to the\nforehead; then, with serious faces, as though they had been doing\nsomething not only sensible but actually important, they passed by,\nwatching the officers as they went. Soon they broke into a run,\nevidently in high spirits, stamping on the planks of the platform as\nthey ran, and chatting, as is but natural for good-natured, healthy\nyoung fellows who are making a journey together. These men, who were\non their way to murder starving fathers and grandfathers, seemed as\nunconcerned as though they were off on the pleasantest, or at least\nthe most everyday, business in the world.\n\nThe gaily dressed officers and officials who were scattered about\non the platform and in the first-class waiting-room produced the\nsame impression. At a table laden with bottles sat the Governor, the\ncommander of the expedition, attired in his semi-military uniform,\neating his luncheon and quietly discussing the weather with some\nfriends he had met, as though the business that called him hither\nwas so simple a matter that it could neither ruffle his equanimity\nnor diminish his interest in the change of the weather.\n\nAt some distance, but tasting no food, sat the chief of the police\nwith a mournful countenance, seemingly oppressed with the tiresome\nformalities. Officers in gaudy, gold-embroidered uniforms moved\nto and fro, talking loudly; one group was seated at a table just\nfinishing a bottle of wine; an officer at the bar who had eaten a\ncake brushed away the crumbs that had fallen on his uniform, and\nwith a self-sufficient air flung a coin upon the counter; some\nwalked nonchalantly up and down in front of our train looking at the\nfaces of the women.\n\nAll these men on their way to commit murder, or to torture the\nstarved and defenseless peasants, by whose toil they were supported,\nlooked as if engaged upon some important business which they were\nreally proud to execute.\n\nWhat did it mean?\n\nThese men, who were within half an hour's ride of the spot where,\nin order to procure for a rich man an extra 3000 roubles, of which\nhe had no need whatever, which he was unjustly confiscating from\na community of famished peasants, might be obliged to perform the\nmost shocking deeds that the imagination can conceive,--to murder\nand torture, as they did in Orel, innocent men, their brothers.\nThese men were now calmly approaching the time and place when these\nhorrors were to begin.\n\nSince the preparations had been made, it could not very well be\nclaimed that all these men, officers and privates, did not know what\nwas before them, and what they were expected to do. The Governor had\ngiven orders for the rods, the officials had purchased the birch\ntwigs, bargained for them, and noted the purchase in their accounts.\nIn the military department orders had been given and received\nconcerning ball cartridges. They all knew that they were on their\nway to torture and possibly to put to death their brothers exhausted\nby famine, and that perhaps in an hour they might begin the work.\n\nTo say, as they themselves would say, that they are acting from\nprinciple, from a conviction that the state system must be\nmaintained, is untrue. Those men, in the first place, have rarely,\nif ever, bestowed a single thought upon political science; and\nin the second place, because they could never be convinced that\nthe business on which they are engaged serves to support rather\nthan destroy the State; and finally, because, as a matter of fact,\nthe majority of these men, if not all of them, would not only be\nunwilling to sacrifice their peace and comfort to maintain the\nState, but would never miss the opportunity to promote their own\ninterests at the expense of the State,--therefore it is not for the\nsake of so vague a principle as that of maintaining the State that\nthey do this.\n\nWhat, then, does all this mean?\n\nI know these men. I may not know them as individuals, it is\ntrue, yet I know their dispositions, their past lives, their\nmodes of thought. They have had mothers, some have wives and\nchildren. Actually, they are, for the most part, kindly, gentle,\ntender-hearted men, who abhor any kind of cruelty, to say nothing\nof killing or torturing; moreover, every one of them professes\nChristianity, and considers violence perpetrated against\nthe defenseless a contemptible and shameful act. Each taken\nindividually, in everyday life, is not only incapable, for the sake\nof personal advantage, of doing one-hundredth part of what was\ndone by the Governor at Orel, but any one of them would consider\nhimself insulted if it were suggested that he could be capable of\ndoing anything like it in private life. And yet they are within\na half-hour's ride of the spot where they will inevitably find\nthemselves compelled to do such deeds.\n\nWhat can it mean, then?\n\nIt is not only the men on this train who are ready to commit murder\nand violence, but those others with whom the affair originated,\nthe landowner, the steward, the judge, those in St. Petersburg who\nissue orders,--the Minister of State, the Czar, also worthy men and\nprofessors of Christianity,--how can they, knowing the consequences,\nconceive such a scheme, and direct its execution?\n\nHow can they, even, who take no active part in it,--the spectators,\nwhose indignation would be aroused by accounts of private violence,\neven though it be but the ill-usage of a horse,--how can they allow\nthis shocking business to go on without rising in wrath to resist\nit, crying aloud, \"No, we will not allow you to flog or to kill\nstarving men because they refuse to surrender their last property\nvillainously attempted to be wrested from them!\" And not only are\nmen found willing to do these deeds, but most of them, even the\nchief instigators, like the steward, the landowner, the judge, and\nthose who take part in originating prosecution and punishment, the\nGovernor, the Minister of State, the Czar, remain perfectly calm,\nand show no sign of remorse over such things. And they who are about\nto execute this crime are equally calm.\n\nEven the spectators, who, it would seem, have no personal interest\nin the matter, look upon these men who are about to take part in\nthis dastardly business with sympathy rather than with aversion or\ncondemnation.\n\nIn the same compartment with me sat a merchant who dealt in timber,\na peasant by birth, who in loud and decided tones expressed his\napproval of the outrage which the peasants were about to suffer.\n\"The government must be obeyed; that's what it's for. If we pepper\nthem well, they will never rebel again. It's no more than they\ndeserve!\" he said.\n\nWhat did it all mean?\n\nIt could not be said that all these men, the instigators, the\nparticipants, the accomplices in this business, were rascals, who,\nin defiance of conscience, realizing the utter abomination of the\nact, were, either from mercenary motives or from fear of punishment,\ndetermined to commit it. Any man of them would, given the requisite\ncircumstances, stand up for his convictions. Not one of those\nofficials would steal a purse, or read another man's letter, or\nendure an insult without demanding satisfaction from the offender.\nNot one of those officers would cheat at cards, or neglect to pay a\ngambling debt, or betray a companion, or flee from the battlefield,\nor abandon a flag. Not one of those soldiers would dare to reject\nthe sacrament, or even taste meat on Good Friday. Each of these men\nwould choose to endure any kind of privation, suffering, or danger,\nrather than consent to do a deed which he considered wrong. Hence\nit is evident that they are able to resist whatever is contrary to\ntheir convictions.\n\nStill less true would it be to pronounce these men brutes, to whom\nsuch deeds are congenial rather than repulsive. One needs but to\ntalk with them to become convinced that all,--landowner, judge,\nminister, governor, Czar, officers, and soldiers,--at the bottom of\ntheir hearts not only disapprove of such deeds, but when a sense\nof their true significance is borne in upon them, really suffer at\nbeing forced to take part in these scenes. They can only try not to\nthink of them.\n\nOne needs but to speak to those who are actors in this business,\nbeginning with the landowner and ending with the lowest policeman\nor soldier, to discover that at the bottom of their hearts they all\nacknowledge the wickedness of the deed, and know that it would be\nbetter to abstain from it; and this knowledge makes them suffer.\n\nA lady of liberal views in our train, seeing the Governor and the\nofficers in the first-class waiting-room, and learning the object of\ntheir journey, began to talk in an ostensibly loud tone, in order\nthat they might hear what she said, condemning the present laws and\ncrying shame upon the men who took part in this business. This made\neverybody feel uncomfortable. The men knew not where to look, yet\nno one ventured to argue the point. The passengers pretended that\nremarks so senseless deserved no reply, but it was evident by the\nexpression of their faces and their wandering eyes that they felt\nashamed. I noticed the same in regard to the soldiers. They knew\nwell enough that they were going about an evil business, and they\npreferred not to think of what was before them. When the timber\nmerchant, insincerely, in my opinion, and simply by way of showing\nhis superior knowledge, began to speak of the necessity of these\nmeasures, the soldiers who heard him turned away frowning, and\npretended not to listen to him.\n\nThe landowner, his steward, the minister, the Czar, all who are\nparties to this business, those who were traveling by this train,\neven those who, taking no part in the affair, were but lookers-on,\nall really know it to be wicked. Why, then, do they do these things,\nwhy do they repeat them, why do they permit them to be?\n\nAsk the landowner who started the affair; the judge who rendered a\ndecision legal in form, but absolutely unjust; and those who, like\nthe soldiers and the peasants, will, with their own hands, execute\nthis work of beating and murdering their brothers,--all of them,\ninstigators, administrators, and executioners, will make essentially\nthe same reply.\n\nThe officials will say that the present system requires to be\nsupported in this manner, and it is for this reason that they do\nthese things, because the good of the country, the welfare of\nmankind in general, of social life and civilization, demand it.\n\nThe soldiers, men of the lower classes, who are forced to execute\nthis violence with their own hands, will answer that the higher\nauthorities, who are supposed to know their business, have commanded\nit, and that it is for them to obey. It never occurs to them to\nquestion the capacity of those who represent the higher authorities.\nIf the possibility of error is ever admitted, it is only in the case\nof some subordinate authority; the higher power whence all things\nemanate is supposed to be absolutely infallible.\n\nThus, while attributing their actions to various motives, both\nprincipals and subordinates agree that the existing order is the one\nbest suited to the present time, and that it is the sacred duty of\nevery man to maintain it.\n\nThis assurance of the necessity and immutability of the existing\norder is continually advanced by all participators in violence\ncommitted by the State, and that, as the existing order never can be\nchanged, the refusal of a single individual to perform the duties\nimposed on him will make no difference as far as the fundamental\nprinciple is concerned, and will only result in the substitution of\nanother who may be more cruel and do more harm.\n\nThis belief that the existing order is immutable, and that it is\nthe sacred duty of every man to lend it support, encourages every\nman of good moral character to take part, with a conscience more or\nless clear, in such affairs as that which occurred in Orel, and the\none in which those in the train for Tula were going to take part.\n\nOn what, then, is this belief founded?\n\nIt is but natural that it should seem pleasant and desirable to a\nlandowner to believe that the existing order is indispensable and\nimmutable, because it secures to him the income from his hundreds\nand thousands of _dessiatins_ by which his idle and luxurious\nexistence is maintained.\n\nIt is also natural that the judge should willingly admit the\nnecessity of a system through which he receives fifty times more\nthan the most hard-working laboring man. And the same may be said\nin regard to the other higher functionaries. It is only while the\npresent system endures that he, as governor, procureur, senator,\nor member of the council, can receive his salary of several\nthousands, without which he and his family would certainly perish;\nfor outside the place which he fills, more or less well according\nto his abilities and diligence, he could command only a fraction of\nwhat he receives. The ministers, the head of the State, and every\nperson in high authority are all alike in this, save that the higher\ntheir rank, the more exclusive their position, the more important\nit becomes that they should believe no order possible, except that\nwhich now exists; for were it overthrown, not only would they find\nit impossible to gain similar positions, but they would fall lower\nin the scale than other men. The man who voluntarily hires himself\nout as a policeman for ten roubles a month, a sum which he could\neasily earn in any other position, has but little interest in the\npreservation of the existing system, and therefore may or may not\nbelieve in its immutability.\n\nBut the king or emperor, who receives his millions, who knows that\naround him there are thousands of men envious to take his place, who\nknows that from no other quarter could he draw such an income or\nreceive such homage, that, if overthrown, he might be judged for\nabuse of power,--there is neither king nor emperor who can help\nbelieving in the immutability and sanctity of the existing order.\nThe higher the position in which a man is placed, the more unstable\nit is; and the more perilous and frightful the possible downfall,\nthe more firmly will he believe in the immutability of the existing\norder; and he is able to do wicked and cruel deeds with a perfectly\npeaceful conscience, because he persuades himself that they are\ndone, not for his own benefit, but for the support of the existing\norder.\n\nAnd so it is with every individual in authority, from obscure\npolicemen to the man who occupies the most exalted rank,--the\npositions they occupy being more advantageous than those which they\nmight be capable of filling if the present system did not exist. All\nthese men believe more or less in its immutability, because it is\nadvantageous to them.\n\nBut what influences the peasants, the soldiers, who stand on\nthe lowest rung of the ladder and who derive no advantage from\nthe existing system, who are in the most enslaved and degraded\ncondition; what induces them to believe that the existing order,\nwhich serves to keep them in this inferior position, is the best,\nand one which should be maintained; and why are they willing,\nin order to promote this end, to violate their consciences by\ncommitting wicked deeds?\n\nWhat urges them to the false conclusion that the existing order is\nimmutable and ought therefore to be maintained, when the fact is\nthat its immutability is due only to their own effort to maintain it?\n\nWhy do those men, taken from the plow, whom we see masquerading in\nugly, objectionable uniforms, with blue collars and gold buttons, go\nabout armed with muskets and sabers to kill their famishing fathers\nand brothers? They derive no advantage from their present position;\nthey would be no losers were they deprived of it, since it is worse\nthan the one from which they were taken.\n\nThose in authority belonging to the higher classes, the landowners\nand merchants, the judges, senators, governors, ministers, and\nkings, the officials in general, participate in such actions and\nmaintain the present system, because such a system is for their\ninterest. Often enough they are kind-hearted and gentle men. They\nplay no personal part in these acts; all they do is to institute\ninquiries, pronounce judgments, and issue commands. Those in\nauthority do not themselves execute the deeds which they have\ndevised and ordered. They but rarely see in what manner these\ndreadful deeds are executed. But the unfortunate members of the\nlower classes, who receive no benefit from the existing system, who,\non the other hand, find themselves greatly despised because of the\nduties which they perform in order that a system which is opposed to\ntheir own interests may be maintained,--they who tear men from the\nbosom of their families to send them to the galleys, who bind and\nimprison them, who stand on guard over them, who shoot them, why do\nthey do this? What is it that compels these men to believe that the\nexisting order is immutable, and that it is their duty to maintain\nit? Violence exists only because there are those who with their\nown hands maltreat, bind, imprison, and murder. If there were no\npolicemen, or soldiers, or armed men of any sort ready when bidden\nto use violence and to put men to death, not one of those who sign\ndeath-warrants, or sentence for imprisonment for life or hard labor\nin the galleys, would ever have sufficient courage himself to hang,\nimprison, or torture one thousandth part of those whom now, sitting\nin their studies, these men calmly order to be hung or tortured,\nbecause they do not see it done, they do not do it themselves. Their\nservants do it for them in some far-away corner.\n\nAll these deeds of injustice and cruelty have become an integral\npart of the existing system of life, only because there are men ever\nready to execute them. If there were no such men, the multitude of\nhuman beings who are now the victims of violence would be spared,\nand furthermore, the magistrates would never dare to issue, nor even\ndream of issuing, those commands which they now send forth with\nsuch assurance. If there were no men to obey the will of others\nand to execute commands to torture and murder, no one would ever\ndare to defend the declaration so confidently made by landowners\nand men of leisure; namely, that the land lying on all sides of\nthe unfortunate peasants, who are perishing for the want of it, is\nthe property of the man who does not till it, and that reserves\nof grain, fraudulently obtained, are to be held intact amidst a\nfamine-stricken and dying population, because the merchant must\nhave his profit. If there were no men ready at the bidding of the\nauthorities to torture and murder, the landowner would never dream\nof seizing a forest which had been tended by the peasants; nor would\nofficials consider themselves entitled to salaries paid to them from\nmoney wrung from the famished people whom they oppress, or which\nthey derive for the prosecution, imprisonment, and exile of men who\ndenounce falsehood and preach the truth.\n\nAll this is done because those in authority well know that they have\nalways at hand submissive agents ready to obey their commands to\noutrage and to murder.\n\nIt is to this crowd of submissive slaves, ready to obey all orders,\nthat we owe the deeds of the whole series of tyrants, from Napoleon\nto the obscure captain who bids his men fire upon the people. It is\nthrough the agency of policemen and soldiers (especially the latter,\nsince the former can act only when supported by military force)\nthat these deeds of violence are committed. What, then, has induced\nthose who are by no means benefited by doing with their hands\nthese dreadful deeds,--what is it that has led these kindly men\ninto an error so gross that they actually believe that the present\nsystem, which is so distressing, so baleful, so fatal, is the one\nbest suited to the times? Who has led them into this extraordinary\naberration?\n\nThey can never have persuaded themselves that a course which is not\nonly painful and opposed to their interests, but which is fatal\nto their class, which forms nine-tenths of the entire population,\none which, too, is opposed to their conscience, is right. \"What\nreason can you give for killing men, when God's commandment says,\n'Thou shalt not kill'?\" is a question I have often put to different\nsoldiers. And it always embarrassed them to have a question put\nwhich recalled what they would rather not remember.\n\nThey knew that the divine law forbade murder,--_thou shalt not\nkill_,--and they had always known of this compulsory military duty,\nbut had never thought of one as contradictory to the other. The\nhesitating replies to my question were usually to the effect that\nthe act of killing a man in war and the execution of criminals by\norder of the government were not included in the general prohibition\nagainst murder. But when I rejoined that no such limitation existed\nin the law of God, and cited the Christian doctrine of brotherhood,\nthe forgiveness of injuries, the injunction to love one's neighbor,\nall of which precepts are quite contrary to murder, the men of the\nlower class would usually agree with me and ask, \"How then can it be\nthat the government (which they believe cannot err) sends troops to\nwar and orders the execution of criminals?\" When I replied that this\nwas a mistake on the part of the government, my interlocutors became\nstill more uncomfortable, and either dropped the conversation or\nshowed annoyance.\n\n\"Probably there is a law for it. I should think the bishops know\nmore than you do,\" a Russian soldier once said to me. And he\nevidently felt relieved, confident that his superiors had found a\nlaw, one that had authorized his ancestors and their successors,\nmillions of men like himself, to serve the State, and that the\nquestion I had asked is in the nature of a conundrum.\n\nEvery man in Christendom has undoubtedly been taught by tradition,\nby revelation, and by the voice of conscience, which can never be\ngainsaid, that murder is one of the most heinous crimes men can\ncommit; it is thus affirmed in the gospel, and they know that this\nsin of murder is not altered by conditions--that is to say, if it\nis sinful to kill one man, it is sinful to kill another. Any man\nknows that, if murder be a sin, it is not changed by the character\nor position of the man against whom it is committed, which is the\ncase also with adultery, theft, and all other sins, and yet men are\naccustomed from childhood to see murder, not only acknowledged, but\nblessed by those whom they are taught to regard as their spiritual\ndirectors appointed by Christ, and to know that their temporal\nleaders, with calm assurance, countenance the custom of murder, and\nsummon all men, in the name of the law and even the name of God, to\nits participation. Men perceive the existence of an inconsistency,\nbut finding themselves unable to discern its cause, they naturally\nattribute the idea to their own ignorance. The obviousness and\ncrudity of the contradiction confirms them in this belief. They\ncannot imagine that their superiors and teachers, even the\nscientists, could advocate with so much assurance two principles so\nutterly at variance as the command to follow the law of Christ, and\nthe requirement to commit murder. No pure-minded, innocent child, no\nyouth, could imagine that men who stand so high in his esteem, whom\nhe looks upon with such reverence, could for any purpose deceive him\nso unscrupulously.\n\nAnd yet it is this very deception which is constantly practised. In\nthe first place, to all working-men, who have personally no time to\nanalyze moral and religious problems, it is taught from childhood,\nby example and precept, that tortures and murders are compatible\nwith Christianity, and in certain cases they should not only be\npermitted, but must be employed; in the second place, to certain\namong them, engaged in the army either through conscription or\nvoluntarily, it is conveyed that the accomplishment with their own\nhands of torture or homicide is not only their sacred duty, but a\nglorious exploit, meriting praise and recompense.\n\nThis universal deception is propagated by all catechisms or their\nsubstitutes, those books which at the present time teachers are\ncompelled to use in the instruction of the young. It is taught that\nviolence,--outrage, imprisonment, execution,--the murder that takes\nplace in civil or in foreign war, has for its object the maintenance\nand security of the political organization,--whether this be an\nabsolute or a constitutional monarchy, consulate, republic, or\ncommune,--that it is perfectly legitimate, and that it is in\ncontradiction neither to morality nor Christianity.\n\nAnd men are so firmly convinced of this that they grow up, live, and\ndie in the belief, never for a moment doubting it.\n\nSo much for this universal deception. And now for another, which is\nspecial, and practised upon soldiers and police, the instruments by\nwhose agency outrages and murders, necessary for the support and\nmaintenance of the existing order, are accomplished.\n\nThe military rules and regulations of every country are practically\nthe same as those formulated in the Russian military code.\n\n\"87. To fulfil exactly, and without comment, the orders of the\nsuperior officers, means--to execute orders with precision, without\nconsidering whether they are good or bad, or whether their execution\nbe possible. Only the superior is responsible for the consequences\nof his order.\n\n\"88. The only occasion on which the inferior should not obey the\norder of his superior is when he sees plainly that in obeying it\n...\" (Here one naturally thinks it will surely go on to say when\nhe plainly sees that in fulfilling the order of his superior he\nviolates the law of God. Not at all; it goes on to say:) \"_sees\nplainly that he violates the oath of allegiance and duty to his\nsovereign_.\"\n\nIt is stated in the code that a man, in becoming a soldier, can and\nmust execute _all_ the orders, without exception, which he receives\nfrom his superior; orders which, for a soldier, are for the most\npart connected with murder. He may violate every law, human and\ndivine, as long as he does not violate his oath of allegiance to him\nwho, at a given time, happens to be in power.\n\nThus it stands in the Russian military code, and this is the\nsubstance of the military codes of other nations. It could not be\notherwise. The foundations of the power of the State rest upon the\ndelusion by means of which men are set free from their obligations\nto God and to their own consciences, and bound to obey the will of a\ncasual superior.\n\nThis is the basis of the appalling conviction that prevails among\nthe lower classes, that the existing system, so ruinous to them, is\nnecessary and justifiable, and that it must be maintained by outrage\nand murder.\n\nThis is inevitable. In order to force the lower, the more numerous\nclasses to act as their own oppressors and tormentors, to commit\ndeeds contrary to their consciences, it is necessary to deceive them.\n\nAnd this is done.\n\nNot long since I saw again put into practice this shameful\ndeception, and again wondered to see it effected without opposition\nand so audaciously.\n\nIn the beginning of November, on my way through Tula, I saw at the\ngates of the _Zemskaya Uprava_ the familiar dense crowd of men and\nwomen, from which issued the sounds of drunken voices, blended with\nthe heartrending sobs of the wives and mothers.\n\nThe military conscription was in progress.\n\nAs usual, I could not pass by without pausing; the sight attracts me\nas by fascination.\n\nAgain I mingled with the crowd, and stood looking on, questioning,\nand marveling at the facility with which this most terrible of all\noffenses is committed in broad daylight, and in the midst of a large\ncity.\n\nOn the first day of November, in every village in Russia, with its\npopulation of one hundred millions, the _starostas_,[27] according\nto custom, take the men whose names are entered on the rolls,\nfrequently their own sons, and carry them to town.\n\n [27] Elders.\n\nOn the way the men drink freely, unchecked by the elder men; they\nrealize that entering upon this insane business of leaving their\nwives and mothers, giving up everything that is sacred to them, only\nto become the senseless tools of murder, is too painful if one's\nsenses are not stupefied with wine.\n\nAnd thus they journey on, carousing, brawling, singing, and\nfighting. The night is spent in a tavern, and on this morning,\nhaving drunk still more, they assemble before the house of the\n_Uprava_.\n\nSome in new sheepskin coats, with knit mufflers wound round their\nnecks, some with their eyes swollen with drinking, some noisy and\nboisterous, by way of stimulating their courage, others silent and\nwoebegone, they were gathered near the gates, surrounded by their\nwives and mothers with tear-stained faces, awaiting their turn (I\nhappened to be there on the day when the recruits were received,\nthat is to say, the day on which they were examined), while others\nwere crowding the entry of the office.\n\nMeanwhile they are hurrying on the work within. A door opens and\nthe guard calls for Piotr Sidorov. Piotr Sidorov makes the sign of\nthe cross, looks around with a startled gaze, and opening a glass\ndoor, he enters the small room where the recruits take off their\nclothes. The man before him, his friend, who has just been enrolled,\nhas but this moment stepped out of the office stark naked, and\nwith chattering teeth hastens to put on his clothes. Piotr Sidorov\nhas heard, and can plainly see by the look on his face, that the\nman has been enlisted. He longs to question him, but he is ordered\nto undress as quickly as possible. He pulls off his sheepskin\ncoat, drops his waistcoat and his shirt, and with prominent ribs,\ntrembling and reeking with the odors of liquor, tobacco, and sweat,\nsteps barefooted into the office, wondering what he shall do with\nhis large sinewy hands.\n\nA portrait of the Emperor in uniform, with a ribbon across his\nbreast, in a large golden frame, hangs in a conspicuous place, while\na small ikon of Christ, clad in a loose garment, with the crown of\nthorns on his head, hangs in one corner. In the middle of the room\nis a table covered with a green cloth on which papers are lying,\nand on which stands a small three-cornered object surmounted by\nan eagle and called the mirror of justice. Around the table the\nofficials sit tranquilly. One smokes, another turns over the papers.\nAs soon as Sidorov enters a guard comes up and measures him. His\nchin is raised and his feet are adjusted. Then a man who is smoking\na cigarette--the doctor--approaches him, and without glancing at\nhis face, but gazing in another direction, touches his body with an\nexpression of disgust, measures him, orders the guard to open his\nmouth, tells him to breathe, and then proceeds to dictate to another\nman who takes down the minutes. Finally, and still without even one\nglance at his face, the doctor says: \"He will do! The next!\" and\nwith a wearied air he seats himself at the table. Once more the\nguard hustles him about, bidding him to make haste. Somehow or other\nhe pulls on his shirt, fumbling for the sleeves, hastily gets on his\ntrousers, wraps his feet in the rags he uses for stockings, pulls on\nhis boots, hunts for his muffler and cap, tucks his sheepskin coat\nunder his arm, and is escorted to that part of the hall which is\nfenced off by a bench, where the recruits who have been admitted are\nplaced. A young countryman like himself, but from another, far-away\ngovernment, who is a soldier already, with a musket to which a\nbayonet is attached, guards him, ready to run him through the body\nif he should attempt to escape.\n\nMeanwhile the crowd of fathers, mothers, and wives, hustled by\npolicemen, presses around the gates, trying to find out who has been\ntaken and who rejected. A man who has been rejected comes out and\ntells them that Piotr has been admitted; then is heard the cry of\nPiotr's young wife, for whom this word means a four or five years'\nseparation, and the dissolute life such as a soldier's wife in\ndomestic service is.\n\nBut here comes a man with flowing hair and dressed differently from\nthe others, who has just arrived; he descends from his droschky and\ngoes toward the house of the _Zemskaya Uprava_, while the policemen\nclear a way for him through the crowd.\n\n\"The Father has arrived to swear them in.\" And this \"Father,\"\nwho has always been accustomed to believe himself a special and\nprivileged servant of Christ, and who is usually quite unconscious\nof his false position, enters the room where the recruits who have\nbeen admitted are waiting for him; he puts on, as a vestment, a sort\nof brocade curtain, disengages from it his flowing hair, opens the\nBible wherein an oath is forbidden, lifts the cross, that cross on\nwhich Christ was crucified for refusing to do what this person, his\nsupposed servant, commands men to do, and all these defenseless and\ndeluded young men repeat after him the lie so familiar to his lips,\nwhich he utters with such assurance. He reads while they repeat:\n\"I promise and swear to the Lord Almighty, upon His holy Bible,\"\netc. ... to defend (that is, to murder all those whom I shall be\nordered to murder) and to do whatever those men, strangers to me,\nwho regard me only as a necessary tool to be used in perpetrating\nthe outrages by which they oppress my brethren and preserve their\nown positions, command me to do. All the recruits having stupidly\nrepeated the words, the so-called Father departs, quite sure that\nhe has performed his duty in the most accurate and conscientious\nmanner, while the young men deluded by him really believe that by\nthe absurd, and to them almost unintelligible, words which they have\njust uttered, they are released during their term of service from\nall obligations to their fellow-men, and are bound by new and more\nimperative ties to the duties of a soldier.\n\nAnd this is done publicly, but not a man comes forward to say to the\ndeceived and the deceivers, \"Come to your senses and go your way;\nthis is all a base and treacherous lie; it imperils not only your\nbodies, but your souls.\"\n\nNo one does this. On the contrary, as if in derision, after they\nhave all been enrolled and are about to depart, the colonel enters\nthe hall where these poor, drunken, and deluded creatures are locked\nin, and with a solemn air, calls out to them in military fashion:\n\"Good day, men! I congratulate you upon entering _the Czar's\nservice_.\" And they, poor fellows, mumble in their semi-drunken way,\na reply which has already been taught them, to the effect that it\nfills their hearts with joy.\n\nThe expectant crowd of fathers, mothers, and wives is still standing\nat the gates. Women, with tear-worn, wide-open eyes, watch the door.\nSuddenly it opens and the men come rolling out, assuming an air of\nbravado, the Petruhas, Vanuhas, and Makars, now enrolled, trying\nto avoid the eyes of their relatives, pretending not to see them.\nAt once break out the sobs and cries of the wives and mothers.\nSome of the men clasp them in their arms, weeping, some put on a\ndevil-may-care look, others make an attempt to console them. The\nwives, the mothers, realizing that they are now abandoned, without\nsupport, for three or four years, cry and wail bitterly. The fathers\nsay little; they only sigh and make a clicking sound with their\ntongues that indicates their grief; they know that they are about\nto lose that help which they have reared and trained their sons to\nrender; that when their sons return they will no longer be sober and\nindustrious laborers, but soldiers, weaned from their former life of\nsimplicity, grown dissolute, and vain of their uniforms.\n\nNow the whole crowd has departed, driving down the street in\nsleighs to the taverns and inns, and louder grows the chorus of\nmingled sobs, songs, and drunken cries, the moaning and muttering\nof the wives and mothers, the sounds of the accordion, the noise of\naltercations.\n\nAll repair to the eating-houses and taverns, from the traffic of\nwhich part of the revenue of the government is derived, and there\nthey give themselves up to drink, stupefying their senses so that\nthey care nothing for the injustice done to them.\n\nThen they spend several weeks at home, drinking nearly all the time.\n\nWhen the day arrives, they are driven like cattle to the appointed\nplace, where they are drilled in military exercises by those who a\nfew years ago, like themselves, were deceived and brutalized. During\nthe instructions the means employed are lying, blows, and _vodka_.\nAnd before the year is over the good, kindly, and intelligent\nfellows will have become as brutal as their teachers.\n\n\"Suppose your father were arrested and attempted escape,\" I once\nsuggested to a young soldier, \"what would you do?\"\n\n\"It would be my duty to thrust my bayonet through his body,\" he\nreplied, in the peculiar, meaningless monotone of the soldier. \"And\nif he ran I should shoot,\" he added, taking pride apparently in\nthinking what he should do if his father attempted to run.\n\nWhen a good young fellow is reduced to a condition lower than\nthat of the brute, he is ready for those who wish to use him as\nan instrument of violence. He is ready. The man is lost, and a\nnew instrument of violence has been created. And all this goes on\nthroughout Russia in the autumn of every year, in broad daylight, in\nthe heart of a great city, witnessed by all the inhabitants, and the\nstratagem is so skilfully managed, that though men at the bottom of\ntheir hearts realize its infamy, still they have not the power to\nthrow off the yoke.\n\nAfter our eyes are once opened, and we view this frightful delusion\nin its true light, it is astonishing that preachers of Christianity\nand morality, teachers of youth, or even those kindly and sensible\nparents who are to be found in every community, can advocate\nany principles of morality whatever in the midst of a society\nwhere torture and murder are openly recognized as constituting\nindispensable conditions in human life,--openly acknowledged by all\nchurches and governments,--where certain men among us must be always\nready to murder their brethren, and where any of us may have to do\nthe same.\n\nNot to speak of Christian doctrine, how are children, how are\nyouths, how are any to be taught morality, while the principle that\nmurder is required in order to maintain the general welfare is\ntaught; when men are made to believe that murder is lawful, that\nsome men, and any of us may be among them, must kill and torture\ntheir neighbors, and commit every kind of crime at the command of\nthose in authority? If this principle is right, then there is not,\nnor can there be, any doctrine of morality; might is right, and\nthere is no other law. This principle, which some seek to justify\non the hypothesis of the struggle for existence, in fact dominates\nsociety.\n\nWhat kind of moral doctrine can that be which permits murder for any\nobject whatsoever? It is as impossible as a mathematical problem\nwhich would affirm that 2 = 3. It may be admitted that 2 = 3 looks\nlike mathematics, but it is not mathematics at all. Every code of\nmorals must be founded first of all upon the acknowledgment that\nhuman life is to be held sacred.\n\nThe doctrine of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life\nfor a life, has been revoked by Christianity because that doctrine\nwas but the justification of immorality, a semblance of justice, but\nwithout meaning. Life is a substance which can neither be weighed,\nmeasured, nor compared; hence the taking of one life for another has\nno sense. Moreover, the aim of every social law is amelioration of\nhuman life. How, then, can the destruction of certain lives improve\nthe condition of other lives? The destruction of life is not an act\nthat tends to improve it; it is suicide.\n\nTo destroy human life, and call it justice, may be likened to the\nact of a man who, having lost one arm, cuts off the other, by way of\nmaking matters even.\n\nNot to speak of the deceit of presenting the most shocking crimes in\nthe light of a duty, of the shocking abuse of using Christ's name\nand authority in order to confirm acts which he condemned, how can\nmen, looking at the matter from the standpoint merely of personal\nsafety, suffer the existence of the shocking, senseless, cruel, and\ndangerous force which every organized government, supported by the\narmy, represents?\n\nThe most violent and rapacious band of robbers is less to be\nfeared than such an organization. Even the authority of the leader\nof a band of robbers is more or less limited by the will of each\nindividual member of the band, who, retaining a certain degree of\nindependence, has the right to oppose acts with which he does not\nagree. But the authority of men who form part of an organized\ngovernment, maintained by the army with its present system of\ndiscipline, is unlimited. When their master, be he Boulanger,\nPugatchov, or Napoleon, issues his commands, there is no crime too\nhideous for those who form part of the government and the army to\ncommit.\n\nIt must often occur to one who sees conscriptions, drills, and\nmilitary man\u0153uvers taking place, who sees police going about with\nloaded revolvers, sentinels armed with bayonets,--to one who hears\nfrom morning till night, as I do (in the district of Hamovniky,[28]\nwhere I live), the whirring balls and the concussion as they\nstrike the target,--to ask why these things are tolerated. And\nwhen one sees in the same city, where every attempt at violence is\nat once suppressed, where even the sale of powder or medicines is\nprohibited, where a doctor is not allowed to practice without a\ndiploma, thousands of disciplined men, controlled by one individual,\nbeing trained for murder, one cannot help asking how men who have\nany regard for their own safety can calmly endure such a condition\nof affairs, and allow it to continue? Leaving aside the question\nof the immorality and pernicious influence of it, what could be\nmore dangerous? What are they thinking of,--I speak not now of\nChristians, Christian pastors, philanthropists, or moralists, but\nsimply those who value their lives, their safety, their welfare?\nGranting that power is at present in the hands of a moderate\nruler, it may fall to-morrow into those of a Biron, an Elizabeth,\na Catharine, a Pugatchov, a Napoleon. And even though the ruler be\nmoderate to-day, he may become a mere savage to-morrow; he may be\nsucceeded by an insane or half-insane heir, like the King of Bavaria\nor the Emperor Paul.\n\n [28] In Moscow.\n\nIt is not only those who fill the highest offices, but all the\nlesser authorities scattered over the land--the chiefs of police,\nthe commanders of companies, even the _stanovoys_[29]--may commit\nshocking crimes before they can be dismissed; it is an everyday\noccurrence.\n\n [29] Chiefs of rural police.\n\nInvoluntarily one asks: How can men allow these things to go on? How\ncan they tolerate them with any regard to their own personal safety?\n\nIt may be replied that some men do oppose it. (Those who are\ndeluded and live in subjection have nothing either to tolerate or\ninterdict.) Those who favor the continuance of the present system\nare only those who derive some special advantage from it. They\nfavor it, and even with the disadvantages of having an insane\nor tyrannical man at the head of the government and the army,\nthe position is less disadvantageous to them than if the present\norganization were abolished.\n\nWhether his position be held under a Boulanger, a Republic, a\nPugatchov, or a Catharine,--the judge, the police commissioner, the\ngovernor, the officer, will remain in it. But if the system which\nassures their positions were overthrown, they would lose them.\nTherefore it is a matter of indifference to these men whether one\nman or another be at the head of the organization of violence. What\nthey do fear is its abolition; so they support it.\n\nOne wonders why men of independent means, who are not obliged to\nbecome soldiers, the so-called _\u00e9lite_ of society, enter military\nservice in Russia, in England, in Germany, in Austria, and even in\nFrance, and desire the chance of killing? Why do parents, why do\nmoral men, send their children to military schools? Why do mothers\nbuy them such toys as helmets, swords, and muskets? (No child of\na peasant ever plays at being a soldier.) Why do kindly men and\nwomen, who can have no manner of interest in war, go into ecstasies\nover the exploits of a man like Skobelev? Why do men who are\nunder no obligation to do it, and who receive no pay for it, like\nMarshals of Nobility in Russia, devote months to the service which\ndemands such unremitting labor, wearying to the minds as well as\nto the body,--the enlistment of recruits? Why do all emperors and\nkings wear a military dress, why do they have drills and parades\nand military rewards? Why are monuments built to generals and\nconquerors? Why do wealthy and independent men regard it as an\nhonor to occupy the position of lackeys to kings, to flatter them\nand feign a belief in their special superiority? Why do men who\nhave long since ceased to believe in the medieval superstitions\nof the Church still constantly and solemnly pretend to do so,\nand thus support a sacrilegious and demoralizing institution?\nWhy is the ignorance of the people so zealously preserved, not\nonly by the government, but by men of the higher classes? Why do\nthey so energetically denounce every attempt to overthrow popular\nsuperstition and to promote popular education? Why do historians,\nnovelists, and poets, who can derive no benefit in exchange for\ntheir flattery, paint in such glowing colors the emperors, kings,\nand generals of bygone times? Why do the so-called scientists devote\ntheir lives to formulate theories that violence committed on the\npeople by power is legitimate violence--is right?\n\nOne often wonders why an artist or a woman of the world, neither of\nwhom, it would seem, ordinarily take much interest in sociological\nor military questions--why should they condemn strikes among\nworkmen, or advocate war with such partizan zeal?\n\nBut one ceases to feel surprise when one realizes that the members\nof the higher classes possess the keenest insight, an intuitive\nperception, as it were, concerning those conditions which are\nfriendly and those which are hostile to the organization upon whose\nexistence their privileges depend.\n\nIt is true that the woman of society does not deliberately argue\nthus: \"Were there no capitalists, or armies to defend them, my\nhusband would have no money, and I should have neither _salon_\nnor fashionable gowns;\" nor does the artist tell himself, in\nso many words, that if his pictures are to be sold there must\nbe capitalists, defended by armies, to buy them; yet instinct,\nhere doing duty for reason, is their surest guide. This instinct\nguides, with rare exceptions, all men who support those political,\nreligious, and economic institutions which are advantageous to\nthemselves.\n\nBut is it possible that men who belong to the higher classes defend\nthis organization only because it is for their own advantage? They\nsurely cannot fail to see that as an organization it is irrational,\nincompatible with the present consciousness of men, with public\nopinion, and that it is fraught with danger. Good, intelligent,\nhonest men who belong to the ruling class cannot but suffer from\nsuch contradictions, nor can they close their eyes to the dangers\nthat menace them.\n\nAnd is it possible that the millions of men of the lower classes\ncan go on calmly committing deeds which are so manifestly criminal,\nsuch as are the murders and tortures which they commit, simply from\nfear of punishment? Surely these things could not exist were not the\nfalsehood and brutality of their actions hidden from all classes of\nmen by the system of the political organization.\n\nWhen such deeds are committed, there are so many instigators,\nparticipants, and abettors that no single individual feels himself\nmorally responsible.\n\nAssassins compel all the witnesses of an assassination to strike\nthe body of the victim, with the intention of dividing the\nresponsibility among the greatest number possible. And whenever\nthose crimes by the aid of which the state system is maintained are\nto be committed, this same thing is observed. The rulers of State\nalways endeavor to involve the greatest possible number of citizens\nin the participation of the crimes which it is to their interest to\nhave committed.\n\nIn these latter days this is made especially evident by the\ndrawing of citizens on the jury in courts of law, by drafting them\ninto the army as soldiers, and into the communal or legislative\nadministration as electors or elected.\n\nAs in a wicker basket all the ends are so carefully interwoven that\nthey cannot be seen, so is it with the responsibility for crime.\nIndividual responsibilities are so manipulated that no man perceives\nprecisely what he is incurring.\n\nIn olden times tyrants were responsible for the crimes which were\ncommitted, but in the present age the most frightful crimes are\nperpetrated, such as would hardly have been possible in the time of\nNero, and still no one is held responsible.\n\nSome demand the crime, some propose it, some determine it, some\nconfirm it, some order it, some execute it.\n\nWomen and old men are hung, are flogged to death--even quite\ninnocent people, as was recently the case with us in Russia, in\nthe affair of the factory at Uzova; or, as is done all over in\nEurope and America, in the struggle with anarchists and other\nrevolutionists, hundreds, thousands of men are shot, are killed;\nor, as happens in time of war, millions of men are massacred; or,\nas is happening always, the souls of men are destroyed by solitary\nconfinement, by the debauchery of barrack life--and no one is\nresponsible.\n\nOn the lower scale of the social ladder are posted soldiers armed\nwith muskets, pistols, swords; they go about doing violence and\nkilling, and through their doing so force other men to become\nsoldiers like themselves, and yet they never dream that the\nresponsibility rests on their shoulders; they shift it on to their\nsuperiors, who give the orders.\n\nThe czars, the presidents, the ministers of State, the general\nassemblies, order tortures, murders, conscriptions, and as they\nenjoy the absolute assurance that they rule by the grace of God\nor by the will of the society they govern, and that that society\ndemands from them what they order, they cannot regard themselves as\nresponsible.\n\nBetween these two classes we find a number of intermediaries, who\ntake charge of the executions, tortures, conscriptions, and they,\ntoo, wash their hands of all responsibility, alleging on the one\nhand the orders of their superiors, and on the other that it is for\nsuch as themselves, who stand lower on the social ladder, to do\nthese things.\n\nThe power that demands and the power that fulfils commands, the two\nextremes of governmental organization, unite like the two ends of\na chain, each depending on and supporting the other, and all the\nintervening links.\n\nWere it not for the conviction that there are men who assume the\nwhole responsibility of such deeds, no soldier would lift his hand\nto torture or murder his fellow-man. Were it not for the conviction\nthat the nation demands it, no king, emperor, president, or assembly\nwould venture to issue commands for murder and torture. Were it\nnot that he believes that there are men above him who assume the\nresponsibility of his actions, and others below him whose welfare\nrequires this treatment, no man of the intermediate class would ever\nperform the functions committed to him.\n\nThe organization of the State is such that on whatever position of\nthe social ladder a man may stand, his irresponsibility remains\nintact. The higher he stands, the more liable he is to feel the\npressure brought to bear on him from below, urging him to issue\ncommands, and the less likely he will be to be influenced by orders\nfrom above, and _vice versa_.\n\nBut it is not enough that all men bound by the organization of the\nState transfer their responsibility from one to the other,--the\npeasant, for instance, who becomes a soldier to the merchant who\nhas become an officer; the officer to the noble who occupies the\nposition of governor; the governor to the minister of State; the\nminister to the sovereign; and the sovereign who in his turn\nshifts the responsibility upon all,--officials, nobles, merchants,\npeasants. Not only do men in this way merely free themselves from\nall sense of responsibility for their actions, but because, as\nthey adapt themselves to fulfil the requirements of political\norganizations, they so constantly, persistently, and strenuously\nassure themselves and others that all men are not equal that they\nbegin to believe it sincerely themselves. Thus we are assured that\nsome men are superior and must be especially honored and obeyed;\nwhile, on the other hand, we are assured in every way that others\nare inferior, and therefore bound to obey without murmur the\ncommands of their superiors.\n\nIt is to this inequality,--the exaltation of some upon the abasement\nof others,--that we may chiefly attribute the incapacity which men\ndisplay for discerning the folly of the existing system, with the\ncruelty and deceptions committed by some, and suffered by others.\n\nThere are certain men who have been made to believe that they are\npossessed of a peculiar importance and greatness, who have become\nso intoxicated by their imaginary superiority that they cease to\nrealize their responsibility for the actions they commit; others\nwho, on the contrary, have been told that they are insignificant\nbeings, and that it is their duty to submit to those above them,\nand, as the natural result of this continual state of degradation,\nfall into a strange condition of stupefied servility, and in this\nstate they, too, lose all sense of responsibility for their actions.\nAnd as to the intermediate class, subservient to those above them,\nand yet to a certain extent regarding themselves as superiors, they\nare apt to be both servile and arrogant, and they also lose the\nsense of responsibility.\n\nOne needs but to glance at any official of high rank in the act\nof reviewing the troops. Accompanied by his staff, mounted on\na magnificently caparisoned charger, equipped in a brilliant\nuniform, displaying all his decorations, he rides in front of\nthe ranks, while the band plays martial music and the soldiers\npresent arms, standing, as they do, as though verily petrified\nwith servility,--one has but to see this to understand how in such\nmoments, under such conditions, both generals and soldiers might\ncommit deeds which they never would have dreamed of committing.\n\nBut the intoxication to which men succumb under conditions like\nparades, pageants, religious ceremonies, and coronations, though\nacute, is not enduring, while there is another which is chronic,\nshared by all who have any authority whatsoever, from the Czar to\nthe policemen on the street, shared, too, by the masses who submit\nto authority in a state of stupefied servility, and who by way of\njustifying their submission, after the usual manner of slaves,\nascribe the greatest importance and dignity to those whom they obey.\n\nIt is this delusion in regard to human inequality and the consequent\nintoxication of power and stupefaction of servility, which makes it\npossible for those who are associated in a state organization to\ncommit crimes and suffer no remorse.\n\nUnder the influence of this intoxication,--there is an intoxication\nof servility as well as of power,--men seem to others, no less than\nto themselves, not the ordinary human beings which they really are,\nbut specially privileged beings,--nobles, merchants, governors,\njudges, officers, kings, statesmen, soldiers, having no longer\nordinary human duties, but only the duties of the class to which\nthey belong.\n\nThus the landed proprietor who prosecuted the peasants on account of\nthe forest did so because he did not regard himself as an ordinary\nman, with the same rights as the peasants, his neighbors, but as a\ngreat landowner and a member of the nobility, and, as such, exalted\nby the intoxication of authority, felt himself insulted by the\nopposition of the peasants. And regardless of the consequences, he\nsends in his petition to be reinstated in his pretended rights. The\njudges who rendered an unfair decision in his favor, did so because\nthey fancied themselves different from ordinary men, who are guided\nonly by truth; under the spell of the intoxication of authority,\nthey believed themselves the guardians of a justice which cannot\nerr; and at the same time, under the influence of servility, they\nconsidered themselves obliged to apply certain texts set forth in a\ncertain book and called the laws; and all the other persons who took\npart in this affair, from the representatives of higher authority\ndown to the last soldier ready to fire upon his brother,--they all\naccepted themselves in their conventionally accredited characters.\nNot one asked himself if he should take part in an act which his\nconscience reprobated, but each accepted himself as one who had\nsimply to fulfil a certain function; let it be the Czar, anointed\nof God, an exceptional being called to look after the welfare of a\nhundred million men; let it be the noble; the priest, the recipient\nof grace through ordination; the soldier, bound by oath to fulfil\ncommands without hesitation,--it is the same with all.\n\nAll their activity, past, present, and future, is stimulated by a\nlike intoxicating influence. If they had not the firm conviction\nthat the title of king, statesman, governor, judge, landowner,\nmarshal of nobility, officer, or soldier is of serious import and\nnecessity, not one of them could contemplate without horror and\ndisgust his own share in the deeds done in these latter days.\n\nArbitrary distinctions, established hundreds of years ago,\nrecognized for hundreds of years, described by special names\nand distinguished by special dress, sanctioned by all kinds of\nsolemnities calculated to influence men through their emotions, have\nbeen so thoroughly impressed upon the human imagination that men\nhave forgotten the common, everyday aspects of life; they look upon\nthemselves and others from a point of view dependent upon outward\nconditions, and regard their own acts and those of their neighbors\naccordingly.\n\nHere, for instance, we see a man of advanced years, a man perfectly\nin possession of his senses, who, because he has been decorated\nwith some bauble, and is attired in a ridiculous habit, or because\nhe is the holder of certain keys, or has received a bit of blue\nribbon fitter for the wear of a coquettish child, when he is called\ngeneral, chamberlain, chevalier of the order of St. Andrew, or some\nsuch absurdity, becomes at once proud, arrogant, happy; if, on the\ncontrary, he fails to get the gewgaw or the nickname he expected, he\nbecomes unhappy and ill, really to the point of sickness.\n\nOr let us take a still more remarkable case. A man, morally\nsane, young, free, and absolutely safe from want, has no sooner\nreceived the name of district-attorney, of _Zemsky Nachalnik_,\nthan he pounces upon some luckless widow, takes her from her small\nchildren, and throws her into jail, all because the poor woman has\nbeen secretly selling wine, and thus depriving the treasury of 25\nroubles' revenue. This man feels no remorse. Another still more\nsurprising case is that of a man, ordinarily kind and good, who,\nbecause he wears a uniform or carries a medal, and is told that he\nis a keeper [_garde-champ\u00eatre_] or custom-house officer, considers\nhimself justified in shooting men down, and no one ever dreams of\nblaming him for it, nor does he think himself in the wrong; but\nif he failed to fire upon his fellow-men he would then indeed be\nculpable. I say nothing of judges and jurymen, who condemn men to\ndeath, nor of troops, who slaughter thousands without a vestige of\nremorse, because they are told that they are not in the position of\nordinary men, but are jurymen, judges, generals, soldiers.\n\nThis abnormal and surprising state of affairs is formulated in words\nlike these: \"As a man, I sympathize with him, but as a keeper, a\njudge, a general, a czar, or a soldier, I must torture or murder\nhim.\"\n\nSo it is in this present case; men are on the way to slaughter and\ntorment their famine-stricken brethren, admitting all the while that\nin this dispute between the peasants and the landowner the former\nare in the right (all the superior officials told me so). They know\nthat the peasants are miserable, poor, and hungry, and that the\nlandowner is wealthy and one who inspires no sympathy, and yet these\nmen are going to kill the peasants in order that this landowner may\ngain 3000 roubles; and all because they regard themselves at the\nmoment not as men, but one as a governor, another as a general of\ngendarmerie, another as an officer, or as soldiers, as the case may\nbe, and bound not by the eternal laws of the human conscience, but\nby the accidental, transitory demands of their positions.\n\nHowever strange it may appear, the only explanation of this\nsurprising phenomenon is that men are like those under hypnotic\ninfluence, who, as suggested by the hypnotizers, imagine themselves\nin certain conditions. Thus, for instance, when it is suggested to\na hypnotized patient that he is lame, he proceeds to limp; that he\nis blind, he ceases to see; that he is an animal, and he begins to\nbite. And this is the state of all those who put their social and\npolitical duties before, and to the detriment of, their duties as\nhuman beings.\n\nThe essential characteristic of this condition is, that men,\ninfluenced by the thought that has been suggested to them, are\nunable to weigh their own actions, and simply obey the suggestion\nthat has been communicated to them.\n\nThe difference between men artificially hypnotized and those under\nthe influence of governmental suggestion consists in this,--that\nto the former their imagined environment is suggested suddenly by\none person, and the suggestion operates only for a short time;\nwhereas to the latter, their imagined position has been the result\nof gradual suggestion, going on, not for years, but for generations,\nand proceeds not from a single individual, but from their entire\ncircumstances.\n\n\"But,\" it will be objected, \"always, in all societies, the majority\nof men, all the children, all the women, absorbed in the duties\nand cares of motherhood, all the great mass of workers, who are\ncompletely absorbed by their labor, all those of weak mind, all the\nenfeebled, the many who have come under the subjection of nicotine,\nalcohol, opium, or what not,--all these are not in a position to\nthink for themselves, and consequently they submit to those who\nstand on a higher intellectual level, or they simply act according\nto domestic or social tradition, or in accordance with public\nopinion,--and in their acting thus there is nothing abnormal or\ncontradictory.\"\n\nIndeed, there is nothing unnatural in it, and the readiness with\nwhich those who reason but little submit to the guidance of men who\nstand on a higher plane of consciousness is a universal phenomenon,\nand one without which social life could not be. The minority submit\nto principles which they have considered for themselves, and in\nconsequence of the accordance of these principles with their reason;\nthe rest of men, the majority, submit to the same principles, not\nbecause of personal apprehension of their validity, but because\npublic opinion demands it.\n\nSuch submission to public opinion of men who can think but little\nfor themselves has nothing abnormal about it so long as public\nopinion maintains its unity.\n\nBut there is a period when the higher forms of truth, having been\nrevealed to the few, are in process of transmission to the many;\nand when the public opinion which was based on a lower plane of\nconsciousness has already begun to waver, to give place to the new,\nready to be established. And now men begin to view their own and\nother men's actions in the light of their new consciousness, while,\ninfluenced by inertia and tradition, they still continue to apply\nprinciples which were the outcome of the once highest consciousness,\nbut which are now distinctly opposed to it. Hence it is that men\nfind themselves in an abnormal position, and that, while realizing\nthe necessity of conforming to this new public opinion, they lack\ncourage to abandon conformity to the old one. This is the attitude\nwhich men, not only the men on the train, but the greater part of\nmankind, occupy toward Christian truths.\n\nThe attitude of those who belong to the upper classes, and who have\nall the advantages of high position, is the same as that of the\nlower classes who obey implicitly every command that is given to\nthem.\n\nMen of the ruling classes, who have no reasonable explanation of\ntheir privileges, and who in order to retain them are forced to\nrepress all their nobler and more humane tendencies, try to persuade\nthemselves of the necessity of their superior position; while the\nlower classes, stultified and oppressed by labor, are kept by the\nhigher classes in a state of constant subjection.\n\nThis is the only possible explanation of the amazing phenomena\nwhich I witnessed on the train on the 9th of September, when men,\nnaturally kindly and inoffensive, were to be seen going with an easy\nconscience to commit the most cruel, contemptible and idiotic of\ncrimes.\n\nIt cannot be said that they are devoid of the conscience which\nshould forbid them to do these things, as was the case with the men\nwho, centuries ago, tortured their fellow-men, scourged them to\ndeath, and burned them at the stake;--nay, it does exist in them,\nbut it is kept dormant; auto-suggestion, as the psychologist calls\nit, keeps it thus among the upper classes, while the soldiers, the\nexecutioners, are under the hypnotic influence of the classes above\nthem.\n\nConscience may slumber for a time, but it is not dead, and in spite\nof suggestion and auto-suggestion, it still whispers; yet a little\nwhile and it will awaken.\n\nOne might compare these men to a person under the influence of\nhypnotism, to whom it has been suggested that he shall commit some\nact contrary to his conception of right and wrong, as, for example,\nto murder his mother or his child. He feels himself so far coerced\nby the suggestion given him that he cannot refrain; and yet as the\nappointed time and place draw near, he seems to hear the stifled\nvoice of conscience reviving, and he begins to draw back, he tries\nto awaken himself. And no one can tell whether or not hypnotic\nsuggestion will conquer in the end; all depends on the relative\nstrength of conflicting influences.\n\nSo it was with the soldiers on that train, so it is with all men of\nour period who take part in state violence and profit by it.\n\nThere was a time when, having gone forth to do violence and murder,\nto terrify by an example, men did not return until they had\nperformed their mission, and then they suffered no doubt or remorse;\nbut having done their fellow-men to death, they placidly returned to\nthe bosom of their families, caressed their children, and with jest\nand laughter gave themselves up to all the pure joys of the hearth.\n\nThe men who were then benefited by violence, landed proprietors\nand men of wealth, believed their own interests to have a direct\nconnection with these cruelties. It is different now, when men know,\nor at least suspect, the real reason why they do these things. They\nmay close their eyes and try to silence their consciences, but\nneither those who commit such outrages, nor those who order them,\ncan longer fail to discern the significance of their acts. It may\nbe that they do not fully appreciate it until they are on the point\nof committing the deed, or in some cases not until after the deed\nhas been done. Those soldiers, for instance, who administered the\ntortures during the riot at the Yuzovo factory, at Nijni-Novgorod,\nSaratov, and Orel, did not fully apprehend the significance of what\nthey were doing until it was all over; and now, both they who gave\nthe orders, and they who executed them, suffer agonies of shame in\nthe condemnation of public opinion and of their own conscience. I\nhave talked with some of the soldiers about it; they either tried to\nchange the subject or spoke of it with horror and repugnance.\n\nThere are instances of men coming to their senses, however, just\nas they are on the point of committing deeds of the kind. I know\nof a sergeant who during the riots was beaten by two peasants;\nhe reported the fact to the commander of his company, but on the\nfollowing day, when he saw the tortures inflicted upon other\npeasants, he persuaded his superior officer to destroy his report\nand to allow the peasants who had beaten him to depart unpunished.\nI know of a case where the soldiers appointed to shoot a prisoner\nrefused to obey; and of other occasions where the superior officers\nhave refused to direct tortures and executions.\n\nThe men who were in the train on the 9th of September started with\nthe intention of torturing and murdering their fellow-men, but\nwhether they would carry out their intention one could not know.\nHowever each one's share in the responsibility of this affair might\nbe concealed from him, however strong the hypnotic suggestion\namong those taking part in it that they did so, not as men, but as\nfunctionaries, and so could violate all human obligations,--in spite\nof this,--the nearer they approached their destination, the more\nthey must have hesitated about it.\n\nIt is impossible that the Governor should not pause at the moment of\ngiving the decisive order to begin to murder and torture. He knows\nthat the conduct of the Governor at Orel has excited the indignation\nof the honorable men, and he himself, influenced by public opinion,\nhas repeatedly expressed his own disapproval of the affair; he knows\nthat the lawyer who ought to have accompanied him distinctly refused\nto do so, denouncing the whole affair as shameful; he knows that\nchanges are likely to take place in the government at any moment,\nthe result of which would be that those who were in favor yesterday\nmay be in disgrace to-morrow; that if the Russian press remains\nsilent, the foreign press may give an account of this business that\nmight cover him with opprobrium. Already he feels the influence of\nthe new public opinion which is to supersede and destroy the old\none. Moreover, he has no assurance that his subordinates may not at\nthe last moment refuse to obey him. He hesitates; it is impossible\nto divine what he will do.\n\nThe functionaries and officers who accompany him feel more or less\nas he does. They all know at the bottom of their hearts that they\nare engaged in a shameful business, that their share in it stains\nand degrades them in the eyes of those persons whose opinion they\nvalue. They know that a man who participates in deeds like these\nfeels shame in the presence of the woman he loves. And like the\nGovernor, they, too, feel doubtful whether the soldiers will obey\nthem at the last moment. What a contrast to the self-assurance of\ntheir bearing on the platform of the station! Not only do they\nsuffer, but they actually hesitate, and it is partly to hide their\ninward agitation that they assume an air of bravado. And this\nagitation increases as they draw nearer to their destination.\n\nAnd, indeed, the entire body of soldiers, although they give no\noutward sign, and seem utterly submissive, are really in the same\nstate of mind.\n\nThey are no longer like the soldiers of former days, who gave up the\nnatural life of labor, and surrendered themselves to debauchery,\nrapine, and murder, as the Roman legions did, or the veterans of\nthe Thirty Years' War, or even those soldiers of more modern times,\nwhose term of service lasted twenty-five years. Now they are for\nthe most part men newly taken from their families, with all the\nmemories of the wholesome, rational life from which they have been\ntorn still fresh in their minds.\n\nThese young men, peasants for the most part, know what they are\ngoing to do; they know that the land-owners generally ill-treat the\npeasants, and that this probably is a case in point. Furthermore,\nthe majority of them can read, and the books they read are\nnot always in favor of the service; some even demonstrate its\nimmorality. They find comrades who are independent thinkers,\nvolunteers and young officers, and the seed of doubt respecting the\nmerit and rectitude of such deeds as they are about to commit has\nalready been sown in their minds. True, they have all been subjected\nto that ingenious discipline, the work of centuries, which tends to\nkill the spirit of independence in every man, and are so accustomed\nto automatic obedience that at the words of command, \"Fire along the\nline!... Fire!\" and so forth, their muskets are raised mechanically,\nand they perform the customary movements. But now, \"Fire!\" means\nsomething more than firing at a target; it means the murder of their\nabused, downtrodden fathers and brothers, who are grouped yonder in\nthe street with their wives and children, gesticulating and crying\nout one does not know what.\n\nThere they are: here a man with thin beard, clad in a patched\n_kaftan_, with bast shoes on his feet, just like the father left\nbehind in the province of Kazan or Ryazan; there another, with gray\nbeard and bowed shoulders, leaning on a stout staff, just like the\ngrandfather; and here a youth, with big boots and red shirt, just\nlike himself a year ago,--the soldier who is about to shoot him. And\nthere is a woman, with her bast shoes and petticoat, like the mother\nhe left behind him.\n\nAnd he must fire upon them!\n\nAnd God alone knows what each soldier will do at the supreme moment.\nThe slightest suggestion that they ought not to do it, that they\nmust not do it,--a single word or hint,--would be enough to make\nthem pause.\n\nEvery one of these men at the moment of action will be like one\nhypnotized, to whom it has been suggested to chop a log, who, as\nhe approaches the object which is told to him is a log, sees as\nhe raises the ax that it is not a log at all, but his own brother\nwho lies sleeping there. He may accomplish the act which has been\nsuggested to him, or he may awake at the moment of committing it.\nIt is the same with these men. If they do not awaken, then will a\ndeed be done as shocking as that committed in Orel, and the reign of\nofficial hypnotism will thereby gain new power. If they awaken, then\nnot only will the deed remain undone, but many of those who hear\nof their refusal to do it will free themselves from the suggestion\nunder whose influence they have hitherto acted, or at least will\nthink of the possibility of doing so.\n\nIf only a few of these men come to their senses, and refuse to do\nthe deed, and fearlessly express their opinion of the wickedness of\nsuch deeds, even such a few men might enable the rest to throw off\nthe suggestion under the influence of which they act, and such evil\ndeeds would not be done.\n\nAnd another thing: if but a few of those persons who are simply\nspectators of the affair would, from their knowledge of other\naffairs of the same kind, boldly express their opinion to those\nengaged in it, and point out to them their folly, cruelty, and\ncriminality, even this would not be without a salutary influence.\n\nThis is precisely what happened in the case of Tula. Partly because\ncertain persons expressed reluctance to take a part in the affair;\nbecause a lady passenger and others showed their indignation at a\nrailway station; because one of the colonels whose regiment was\nsummoned to reduce the peasants to obedience declared that soldiers\nare not executioners,--because of these and other apparently\ntrifling influences the affair took on a different aspect, and\nthe troops, on arriving, did not commit outrages, but contented\nthemselves with cutting down the trees and sending them to the\nlandowner.\n\nHad it not been that certain of these men conceived a distinct idea\nthat they were doing wrong, and had not the idea got abroad, the\noccurrences at Orel would have been repeated. Had the feeling been\nstronger, perhaps the Governor and his troops would not have gone\nso far as even to fell the trees and deliver them to the landowner.\nHad it been more powerful still, perhaps the Governor would not have\ndared even to set out for Tula; its influence might even have gone\nso far as to prevent the Minister from framing, and the Emperor from\nconfirming, such decrees.\n\nAll depends, as we come therefore to see, upon the degree of\nconsciousness that men possess of Christian truth.\n\nHence, let all men to-day who wish to promote the welfare of mankind\ndirect their efforts toward the development of this consciousness of\nChristian truth.\n\nBut, strange to say, those men who nowadays talk most of the\namelioration of human life, and who are the acknowledged leaders\nof public opinion, declare this to be precisely the wrong thing\nto do, and that there are more effectual expedients for improving\nhuman existence. They insist that any improvement in the conditions\nof human life must be accomplished, not through individual\nmoral effort, nor through the propagation of truth, but through\nprogressive modifications in the general material conditions of\nlife. Therefore, they say, individual effort should be devoted to\nthe gradual reform of the everyday conditions of life; and seeing\nthat any individual profession of the truth which may happen to\nbe incompatible with the existing order is harmful, because it\nprovokes, on the part of the government, an opposition which\nprevents the individual from continuing efforts which may be of\nutility to society.\n\nAccording to this theory, all changes in the life of mankind proceed\nfrom the same causes that control the lives of the brute creation.\n\nAnd all the religious teachers, like Moses and the Prophets,\nConfucius, Lao Tze, Buddha, and Christ, preached their doctrines,\nand their followers adopted them, not because they divined and loved\nthe truth, but because the political, social, and, above all, the\neconomical conditions of the nations in whose midst these doctrines\nfound expression were favorable to their exposition and development.\n\nTherefore the principal activity of a man who wishes to serve the\nworld and to improve the condition of his kind should be directed,\naccording to this theory, not to teaching and profession of the\ntruth, but to the improvement of the outward, political, social,\nand, above all, economic conditions of life. The change in these\nconditions may be accomplished by serving the government and\nintroducing liberal and progressive principles, by contributing to\nthe development of commerce, by propagating socialistic principles,\nbut, above all, by promoting the diffusion of science.\n\nAccording to this doctrine, it is a matter of no consequence whether\none profess the revealed truth or not; there is no obligation to\nlive in accordance with its precepts, or to refrain from actions\nopposed to them,--as, for instance, to serve the government, though\none considers its power detrimental; to profit by the organization\nof capital, though one disapproves of it; to subscribe to certain\nforms of religion, though one considers them superstitions. Practise\nin the courts of law, though one believes them to be corrupt; or\nenter the army, or take the oath of allegiance, or indeed lie, or\ndo anything that is convenient. These things are trivial; for it is\na matter of vital importance, instead of challenging the prevailing\ncustoms of the day, to conform to them, though they be contrary\nto one's convictions, satisfied meanwhile to try and liberalize\nthe existing institutions, by encouraging commerce, propagating\nsocialistic doctrines, and generally promoting _soi-disant_\nscience and civilization. According to this convenient theory,\nit is possible for a man to remain a landowner, a merchant, a\nmanufacturer, a judge, a functionary paid by the government, a\nsoldier, an officer, and at the same time to be humanitarian,\nsocialist, and revolutionary.\n\nHypocrisy, formerly growing only out of such religious doctrines as\nthat of original sin, redemption, the Church, has in these latter\ndays, by means of the new theory, gained for itself a scientific\nbasis, and those whose intellectual habit of mind renders the\nhypocrisy of the Church unendurable, are yet deceived by this new\nhypocrisy with the _cachet_ of science. If in old times a man who\nprofessed the doctrines taught by the Church could with a clear\nconscience take part in any political crime, and benefit by so\ndoing, provided he complied with the external forms of his faith,\nmen of the present day, who deny Christianity, and view the conduct\nof life from a secular and scientific standpoint, are every whit as\nsure of their own innocence, even of their lofty morality, when they\nparticipate in and benefit by the evil-doings of government.\n\nIt is not alone in Russia, but in France, England, Germany, and\nAmerica as well, that we find the wealthy landed proprietor, who,\nin return for having allowed the men who live on his estate and who\nsupply him with the products of the soil, extorts from these men,\nwho are often poverty-stricken, all that he possibly can. Whenever\nthese oppressed laborers make an attempt to gain something for\nthemselves from the lands which the rich man calls his own, without\nfirst asking his consent, troops are called out, who torture and put\nto death those who have been bold enough to take such liberties.\n\nBy methods like this are claims to the ownership of land made good.\nOne would hardly imagine that a man who lived in such a wicked and\nselfish manner could call himself a Christian, or even liberal.\nOne would think that if a man cared to seem Christian or liberal,\nhe would at least cease to plunder and to torment his fellow-men\nwith the aid of the government, in order to vindicate his claims\nto the ownership of land. And such would be the case were it not\nfor the metaphysical hypocrisy which teaches that from a religious\nstandpoint it is immaterial whether one owns land or not, and that,\nfrom the scientific point of view, for a single individual to give\nup his land would be a useless sacrifice, without any effect on the\nwell-being of mankind, the amelioration of which can only be brought\nabout by a progressive modification of outward conditions.\n\nMeanwhile, your modern landowner will, without the least hesitation\nor doubt, organize an agricultural exhibition, or a temperance\nsociety, or, through his wife and daughters, distribute warm\nunderclothing and soup to three old women; and he will hold forth\nbefore the domestic circle, or in society, or as a member of\ncommittees, or in the public press, upon the gospel of love for\nmankind in general and the agricultural class in particular, that\nclass which he never ceases to torment and oppress. And those who\noccupy a similar position will believe in him and sing his praises,\nand take counsel together upon the best methods of improving the\ncondition of those very laboring classes they spend their lives\nin exploiting; and for this purpose they suggest every possible\nexpedient, save that which would effect it,--namely, to desist from\nrobbing the poor of the land necessary for their subsistence.\n\n(A striking example of this hypocrisy was presented by the Russian\nlandowners during the struggle with the famine of last year,[30]\na famine of which they were themselves the cause, and by which\nthey profited, not only by selling bread at the highest price, but\neven by disposing of the dried potato-plants for five roubles a\n_dessiatin_, to be used as fuel by the freezing peasants.)\n\n [30] 1892.\n\nThe business of the merchant, again (as is the case with business of\nany kind), is based upon a series of frauds; he takes advantage of\nthe necessities of men by buying his merchandise below, and selling\nit above, its value. One would think that a man, the mainspring\nof whose activity is what he himself in his own language calls\nshrewdness, ought to feel ashamed of this, and never dream of\ncalling himself Christian or liberal while he continues a merchant.\nBut, according to the new metaphysic of hypocrisy, he may pass for\na virtuous man and still pursue his evil career; the religious man\nhas but to believe, the liberal man but to co\u00f6perate, in the reform\nof external conditions to promote the general progress of commerce;\nthe rest does not signify. So this merchant (who, besides, often\nsells bad commodities, adulterates, and uses false weights and\nmeasures, or deals exclusively in commodities that imperil human\nlife, such as alcohol or opium) frankly considers himself, and is\nconsidered by others,--always provided he only does not cheat his\ncolleagues in business and knavery, his fellow-tradesmen,--a model\nof conscientiousness and honesty. And if he spend one per cent of\nhis stolen money on some public institution, hospital, museum,\nor school, men call him the benefactor of the people on whose\nexploitation all his welfare depends; and if he gives but the least\npart of this money to the Church or to the poor, then is he deemed\nan exemplary Christian indeed.\n\nTake again the factory-owner, whose entire income is derived\nfrom reducing the pay of his workmen to its lowest terms, and\nwhose whole business is carried on by forced and unnatural labor,\nendangering the health of generations of men. One would suppose\nthat if this man professed Christian or liberal principles he would\ncease to sacrifice human lives to his interests. But, according\nto the existing theory, he encourages industry, and it would be a\npositive injury to society if he were to abandon his operations,\neven supposing he were willing to do so. And, too, this man, the\ncruel slave-driver of thousands of human beings, having built for\nthose injured in his service minute houses, with gardens six feet\nin extent, or established a fund, or a home for the aged, or a\nhospital, is perfectly satisfied that he has more than atoned for\nthe moral and physical jeopardy into which he has plunged so many\nlives; and he continues to live calmly, proud of his work.\n\nWe find that the functionary, civil, military, or ecclesiastical,\nwho performs his duties to gratify his selfishness or ambition, or,\nas is more usually the case, for the sake of the stipend, collected\nin the shape of taxes from an exhausted and crippled people,--if,\nby a rare exception, he does not directly steal from the public\ntreasury,--considers himself, and is considered by his equals, a\nmost useful and virtuous member of society.\n\nThere are judges and other legal functionaries who know that their\ndecisions have condemned hundreds and thousands of unfortunate men\nto be torn from their families and thrown into prison. There these\nhapless beings are locked up in solitary confinement, or sent to\nthe galleys, where they go desperate and put an end to themselves\nby starving themselves to death, by swallowing glass, or by some\nsuch means. And who knows what the mothers, wives, and children\nof these men suffer by the separation and imprisonment, and the\ndisgrace of it,--who have vainly begged for pardon for their sons,\nhusbands, brothers, or that their lot may be a little alleviated.\nBut the judge or other legal functionary is so primed with the\ncurrent hypocrisy that he himself, his colleagues, his wife, and his\nfriends are all quite sure, despite what he does, that he is a good\nand sensible man. According to the current philosophy of hypocrisy,\nsuch a man performs a duty of great importance to the public. And\nthis man, who has injured hundreds or thousands of human beings, who\nowe it to him that they have lost their belief in goodness and their\nfaith in God, goes to church with a benevolent smile, listens to the\nBible, makes liberal speeches, caresses his children, bestows moral\nlessons upon them, for their edification, and grows sentimental over\nimaginary suffering.\n\nNot only these men, their wives and children, but the entire\ncommunity around them, all the teachers, actors, cooks, jockeys,\nlive by preying upon the life-blood of the working-people, which\nin one way or another they absorb like leeches. Every one of their\ndays of pleasure costs thousands of days in the lives of the\nworkers. They see the suffering and privation of these workmen,\nof their wives and children, of their aged and feeble. They know\nwhat punishments are visited upon those who attempt to resist\nthe organized system of pillage, but so far from abandoning or\nconcealing their luxurious habits, they flaunt them in the faces of\nthose whom they oppress and by whom they are hated. All the while\nthey assure themselves and others that they have the welfare of the\nworking-man greatly at heart. On Sundays, clad in rich garments,\nthey drive in their carriages to churches where the mockery of\nChristianity is preached, and listen there to the words of men who\nhave learned their falsehoods by heart. Some of these men wear\nstoles, some wear white cravats; they all preach the doctrine of\nlove for one's neighbor, a doctrine belied by their daily lives. And\nthey have all grown so accustomed to playing this part that they\nreally believe themselves to be what they pretend.\n\nThis universal hypocrisy, which has become to every class of\nsociety at the present day like the air it breathes, is so familiar\nthat men are no longer exasperated by it. It is very fitting that\nhypocrisy should signify acting or playing of a part. It has become\nso much a matter of course that it no longer excites surprise when\nthe representatives of Christ pronounce a blessing over murderers\nas they stand in rank holding their guns in the position which\nsignifies, in military parlance, \"for prayers,\" or when the priests\nand pastors of various Christian sects accompany the executioner\nto the scaffold, and, by lending the sanction of their presence\nto murder, make men believe it compatible with Christianity.\n(One minister was present when experiments in \"electrocution\"\ntook place in the United States.) At the International Prison\nExposition recently held in St. Petersburg, where instruments of\ntorture, such as chains, and models of prison-cells for solitary\nconfinement,--means of torture worse than the knout or the\nrod,--were on exhibition, sympathetic ladies and gentlemen went to\nsee them, and seemed greatly entertained.\n\nNo one marvels to find liberal science insisting upon the\nequality, fraternity, and liberty of men on the one hand, while\non the other it is striving to prove the necessity of armies,\nexecutions, custom-houses, of censorship of the press, of legalized\nprostitution, of the expulsion of foreign labor, of the prohibition\nof emigration, and of the necessity and justice of colonization\nestablished by the pillage and extermination of whole races of\nso-called savages, etc.\n\nThey talk of what will happen when all men shall profess what they\ncall Christianity (by which they mean the different conflicting\ncreeds); when every one will be fed and clothed; when men will\ncommunicate with one another all over the world by telegraph and\ntelephones, and will travel in balloons; when all working-men will\naccept the doctrine of socialism; when the trade unions will embrace\nmany millions of men and possess millions of money; when all men\nwill be educated, will read the papers, and be familiar with all the\nsciences.\n\nBut what good will this do if after all these improvements men are\nstill false to the truth?\n\nThe miseries of men are caused by disunion, and disunion arises from\nthe fact that men follow not truth, but falsehood, of which there is\nno end. Truth is the only bond by which men may be united; and the\nmore sincerely men strive after the truth the nearer they approach\nto true unity.\n\nBut how are men to be united in the truth, or even approach it,\nif they not only fail to proclaim the truth which they possess,\nbut actually think it useless to do so, and pretend to believe in\nsomething which they know to be a lie? In reality no improvement in\nthe condition of mankind is possible while men continue to hide the\ntruth from themselves, nor until they acknowledge that their unity,\nand consequently their welfare, can be promoted only by the spirit\nof truth; until they admit that to profess, and to act in obedience\nto the truth as it has been revealed to them, is more important than\nall things else.\n\nLet all the material progress ever dreamt of by religious and\nscientific men be made; let all men accept Christianity, and let all\nthe improvements suggested by the Bellamys and Richets, with every\npossible addition and correction, be carried out; and yet if the\nhypocrisy of to-day still flourishes, if men do not make known the\ntruth that is within them, but go on pretending to believe what they\nknow to be untrue, showing respect where they no longer feel it,\ntheir condition will never improve; on the contrary, it will become\nworse. The more men are raised above want, the more telegraphs,\ntelephones, books, newspapers, and reviews they possess, the more\nnumerous will be the channels for the diffusion of falsehood\nand hypocrisy, and the more at variance and miserable will men\nbecome,--and it is even so at the present time.\n\nLet all those material changes take place, and still the position of\nhumanity will in no way be improved by them; but let every man, so\nfar as he is able, begin at once and live up to his highest ideal\nof the truth or, at the least, cease to defend a lie, then indeed\nshould we see even in this year of 1893 such an advance in the\nestablishment of the truth upon earth, and in the deliverance of\nmankind, as could hardly be hoped for in a hundred years.\n\nIt was not without reason that the only harsh and denunciatory words\nthat Christ uttered were addressed to hypocrites. It is neither\ntheft, nor robbery, nor murder, nor fornication, nor fraud, but\nfalsehood, that particular hypocritical falsehood, which destroys\nin men's conscience the distinction between good and evil, which\ncorrupts them and takes from them the possibility of avoiding evil\nand of seeking good, which deprives them of that which constitutes\nthe essence of a true human life,--it is this which bars the way\nto all improvement. Those men who do evil, knowing not the truth,\ninspire in the beholder compassion for their victims and repugnance\nfor themselves, but they only injure the few whom they molest.\nWhereas those men who, knowing the good, yet pursue the evil,\nwearing all the while the mantle of hypocrisy, commit a wrong,\nnot only against themselves and their victims, but also against\nthousands of other men who are deceived by the falsehood under which\nthey conceal the wrong.\n\nThieves, robbers, murderers, rogues, who commit acts which they\nthemselves, as well as other men, know to be evil, serve as a\nwarning to show men what is evil, and make them hate it. Those,\nhowever, who steal, rob, torture, and murder, justifying themselves\nby pretended religious, scientific, or other motives, like the\nlandowners, merchants, factory-owners, and government servants of\nthe present time, by provoking imitation, injure not only their\nvictims, but thousands and millions of men who are corrupted\nby their influence, and who become so blinded that they cannot\ndistinguish the difference between good and evil.\n\nOne fortune acquired by trading in the necessaries of life or\nin articles that tend to demoralize men, or by speculations\nin the stock exchange, or by the acquisition of cheap lands\nwhich subsequently rise in value by reason of the increasing\nneeds of the people, or by the establishment of factories that\nendanger human health and human lives, or by rendering civil or\nmilitary service to the State, or by any occupation that tends\nto the demoralization of mankind,--a fortune acquired in any of\nthese ways, not only permitted, but approved by the leaders of\nsociety, when, furthermore, it is supported by a show of charity,\nsurely demoralizes men more than millions of thefts, frauds, or\nrobberies,--sins committed against the laws of the land and subject\nto judicial prosecution.\n\nA single enforcement of capital punishment, ordained by men of\neducation and wealth, sanctioned by the approval of the Christian\nclergy, and declared to be an act of justice essential to the\nwelfare of the State, tends far more to degrade and brutalize\nmankind than hundreds and thousands of murders committed in passion\nby the ignorant. A more demoralizing scene than the execution\nsuggested by Jukovsky, calculated as it is to excite a feeling of\nreligious exaltation, it would be difficult to conceive.[31]\n\n [31] See vol. iv. of the works of Jukovsky (a Russian poet).\n\nA war, even of the shortest duration,--with all its customary\nconsequences, the destruction of harvests, the thefts, the unchecked\ndebauchery and murders, with the usual explanations of its necessity\nand justice, with the accompanying glorification and praise bestowed\nupon military exploits, upon patriotism, devotion to the flag, with\nthe assumption of tenderness and care for the wounded,--will do more\nin one year to demoralize men than thousands of robberies, arsons,\nand murders committed in the course of centuries by individual men\ncarried away by passion.\n\nThe existence of one household, one not even extravagant beyond\nthe ordinary limits, esteeming itself virtuous and innocent, which\nyet consumes the production of enough to support thousands of the\nmen who live near in poverty and distress, has a more degrading\ninfluence on mankind than innumerable orgies of gross shopkeepers,\nofficers, or workmen who are addicted to drink and debauchery, and\nwho smash mirrors and crockery by way of amusement.\n\nOne solemn procession, one religious service, or one sermon from\nthe pulpit, embodying a falsehood which the preacher himself does\nnot believe, does infinitely more harm than thousands of frauds,\nadulterations of food, etc.\n\nMen talk of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees; but the hypocrisy\nof our contemporaries far surpasses the comparatively harmless\nsanctimoniousness of the Pharisees. They at least had an outward\nreligious law, whose fulfilment may perhaps have prevented them from\ndiscerning their duty toward their neighbors; indeed, those duties\nhad not then been distinctly defined. To-day there is no such law.\n(I do not consider such gross and stupid men as even now believe\nthat sacraments or absolution of the Pope can free them from sins.)\nOn the contrary, the law of the gospel, which in one form or another\nwe all profess, makes our duties perfectly plain. Indeed, those\nprecepts which were but vaguely indicated by certain of the prophets\nhave since been so clearly formulated, have grown to be such\ntruisms, that the very school-boys and hack writers repeat them.\nTherefore men of our times cannot feign ignorance concerning them.\n\nThose men who enjoy the advantages of the existing system, and who\nare always protesting love for their neighbor, without suspicion\nthat their own lives are an injury to their neighbors, are like\nthe robber who, caught with an uplifted knife, his victim crying\ndesperately for help, protests that he did not know that he was\ndoing anything unpleasant to the man whom he was in the act of\nrobbing and about to murder. Since the denial of this robber\nand murderer would be of no avail, his act being patent to all\nobservers, it would seem equally futile for our fellow-citizens, who\nlive by the sufferings of the oppressed, to assure themselves and\nothers that they desire the welfare of those whom they never cease\nto rob, and that they had not realized the nature of the methods by\nwhich their prosperity had been attained.\n\nWe can no longer persuade ourselves that we do not know of the\none hundred thousand men in Russia alone who have been shut up\nin galleys or in prisons for the purpose of securing to us our\nproperty and our peace; and that we do not know of the existence\nof those courts of law at which we preside, to which we bring\nour accusations, which sentence those men, who have attacked our\nproperty or our lives, to the galleys, to imprisonment, or to exile,\nwhere human beings, no worse than they who have pronounced judgment\nupon them, become degraded and lost; nor that we do not know that\neverything that we possess has been won and is preserved at the\nexpense of murder and violence. We cannot shut our eyes and pretend\nthat we do not see the policeman, who, armed with a revolver, paces\nbefore our window, protecting us while we are eating our excellent\ndinner, or when we are at the theater seeing a new play; nor do\nnot know of the existence of the soldiers who will appear armed\nwith guns and cartridges whenever our property is menaced. We know\nperfectly well that if we finish our dinner, see the new play to its\nend, enjoy a merry-making at Christmas, take a walk, go to a ball, a\nrace, or a hunt, we owe it to the policeman's revolver or the ball\nin the soldier's musket, which will pierce the hungry belly of the\ndisinherited man who, with watering mouth, peeps round the corner\nat our pleasures, and who might interrupt them if the policeman\nor the soldiers in the barracks were not ready to appear at our\nfirst call. Hence, as the man who is caught in the act of robbery\nin broad daylight cannot deny that he threatened his victim with a\nknife for the purpose of stealing his purse, it might be supposed\nthat we could no longer represent to ourselves and to others that\nthe soldiers and policemen whom we see around us are here, not for\nthe purpose of protecting us, but to repulse foreign enemies, to\nassure public order, to adorn by their presence public rejoicings\nand ceremonies. We cannot pretend we do not know that men are not\nfond of starving to death. We know that they do not like to die\nof hunger, being deprived of the right to earn their living from\nthe soil upon which they live, that they are not anxious to work\nten to fourteen hours a day underground, standing in water, or in\nover-heated rooms, twelve or fourteen hours a day, or at night,\nmanufacturing articles which contribute to our pleasures. It would\nseem impossible to deny what is so evident, and yet it is what we do\ndeny.\n\nIt cannot be denied that there are people of the wealthy class,\nand I am glad to say that I meet them more and more frequently,\nparticularly in the younger generation and among women, who, on\nbeing reminded by what means and at what a price their pleasures\nare obtained, instantly admit the truth of it, and with bowed heads\nexclaim: \"Ah, do not tell us of it! If it is as you say, one cannot\nlive!\" If, however, there are some who are willing to admit their\nsin, though they know not how to escape from it, still, the majority\nof men nowadays have become so confirmed in hypocrisy that they\nboldly deny facts that are patent to every one who has eyes.\n\n\"It is all nonsense,\" they say. \"No one forces the people to work\nfor the landowners or in the factories. It is a matter of mutual\naccommodation. Large properties and capital are indispensable,\nbecause they enable men to organize companies and provide work for\nthe laboring classes, and the work in mills and factories is by no\nmeans so dreadful as you represent it. When real abuses are found\nto exist, the government and society in general take measures to\nabolish them and to render the labor of the working-men easier and\nmore agreeable. The working-classes are used to physical labor,\nand are not as yet capable of doing anything else. The poverty\nof the people is caused neither by the landowners nor by the\ntyranny of the capitalists; it springs from other causes,--from\nignorance, disorder, and intemperance. We, the governing classes,\nwho counteract this state of poverty by wise administration; and\nwe, the capitalists, who counteract it by the multiplication of\nuseful inventions; and we, the liberals, who contribute our share\nby instituting trade unions and by diffusing education,--these are\nthe methods by which we promote the welfare of the people, without\nmaking any radical change in our position. We do not wish all to be\npoor like the poor; we wish all to be rich like the rich.\n\n\"As to torturing and killing men for the purpose of making them\nwork for the rich, that is all sophistry; the troops are sent out\nto quell disturbances when men, not appreciating their advantages,\nrebel and disturb the peace essential for the general welfare. It\nis equally necessary to restrain malefactors, for whom prisons,\ngallows, and the like are established. We are anxious enough to\nabolish them as far as possible ourselves, and are working for that\npurpose.\"\n\nHypocrisy, which nowadays is supported by two methods, the\nquasi-religious and the quasi-scientific, has attained such\nproportions, that if we did not live in its atmosphere continually,\nit would be impossible to believe that humanity could sink to such\ndepths of self-deception. Men have reached so surprising a state,\ntheir hearts have become so hardened, that they look and do not see;\nlisten, and do not hear or understand.\n\nFor a long time they have been living a life that is contrary to\ntheir conscience. Were it not for the aid of hypocrisy they would be\nunable so to live, for such a life, so opposed to conscience, can\nonly continue because it is veiled by hypocrisy.\n\nAnd the greater the difference between the practice and the\nconscience of men, the more elastic becomes hypocrisy. Yet even\nhypocrisy has its limits, and I believe that we have reached them.\n\nEvery man of the present day, with the Christian consciousness that\nhas involuntarily become his, may be likened to a sleeper who dreams\nthat he is doing what even in his dream he knows he ought not to do.\nIn the depths of his dream-consciousness he realizes his conduct,\nand yet seems unable to change his course, and to cease doing that\nwhich he is aware he should not do.\n\nThen, in the progress of his dream, his state of mind becoming less\nand less endurable, he begins to doubt the reality of what has\nseemed so real, and makes a conscious effort to break the spell that\nholds him.\n\nThe average man of our Christian world is in exactly the same\nstrait. He feels that everything going on around him is absurd,\nsenseless, and impossible; that the situation is becoming more and\nmore painful, that it has indeed reached the crisis.\n\nIt is impossible that we of the present age, endowed with the\nChristian conscience that has become a part of our very flesh and\nblood as it were, who live with a full consciousness of the dignity\nof man and the equality of all men, who feel our need for peaceable\nrelations with each other and for the unity of all nations, should\ngo on living in such a way. It is impossible that all our pleasures,\nall our satisfactions, should be purchased by the sufferings and\nthe lives of our brethren; impossible that we should be ready at a\nmoment's notice to rush upon each other like wild beasts, one nation\nagainst another, and relentlessly destroy the lives and labor of\nmen, only because one foolish diplomatist or ruler says or writes\nsomething foolish to another.\n\nIt is impossible; and yet all men of our time see that this is what\ndoes happen every day, and all wait for the catastrophe, while the\nsituation grows more and more strained and painful.\n\nAnd as a man in his sleep doubts the reality of his dream and longs\nto awaken and return to real life, so the average man of our day\ncannot, in the bottom of his heart, believe the terrible situation\nin which he finds himself, and which is growing worse and worse,\nto be the reality. He longs to attain to a higher reality, the\nconsciousness of which is already within him.\n\nAnd like this sleeper, who has but to make the conscious effort\nto ask himself whether it be a dream, in order to transform its\nseeming hopelessness into a joyous awakening, our average man has\nbut to make a conscious effort and ask himself, \"Is not all this\nan illusion?\" in order to feel himself forthwith like the awakened\nsleeper, transported from an hypocritical and horrible dream-world\ninto a living, peaceful, and joyous real one.\n\nAnd for this he has no need of any heroic achievement; he has only\nto make the effort prompted by his moral consciousness.\n\nBut is man able to make this effort?\n\nAccording to the existing theory, one indispensable from the point\nof view of hypocrisy, man is not free and may not change his life.\n\n\"A man cannot change his life, because he is not a free agent. He\nis not a free agent, because his acts are the result of preceding\ncauses. And whatever he may do, certain it is that preceding causes\nalways determine that a man must act in one way rather than in\nanother; therefore a man is not free to change his life,\"--thus\nargue the defenders of the metaphysic of hypocrisy. And they would\nbe perfectly right if man were an unconscious and stationary being,\nincapable of apprehending the truth, and unable to advance to a\nhigher state by means of it. But man is a conscious being, able to\ngrow more and more in the knowledge of truth. Therefore if he be\nnot free in his acts, the causes of these acts, which consist in\nthe recognition simply of such and such truth, are yet within his\nmastery.\n\nSo that if a man is not free to do certain acts, he is yet free to\nwork toward the suppression of the moral causes which prevent their\nperformance. He may be likened to the engineer of a locomotive, who,\nthough not at liberty to change the past or present motion of his\nengine, is yet free to determine its future progress.\n\nNo matter what an intelligent man may do, he adopts a certain course\nof action only because he acknowledges to himself that at the moment\nthat course alone is the right one; or because he has formerly\nrecognized it as such, and now continues to act as he does through\nforce of habit, or through mental inertia.\n\nWhether a man eats or abstains from food, whether he works or rests,\nwhether he avoids danger or seeks it, he acts as he does because he\nconsiders it to be reasonable at the time, or because previously\nhe saw that the truth consisted in acting in that way and not in\nanother.\n\nThe admission or the denial of a certain truth depends not on\noutward causes, but on certain conditions that man finds within\nhimself. Thus frequently, with all the outward and, as it may seem,\nfavorable conditions for recognizing the truth, one may reject it,\nwhile another may receive it under the most unfavorable conditions,\nand without apparent motives. As it is said in the gospel: \"No\nman can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw\nhim;\"--that is to say, the recognition of truth, which is the cause\nof all the manifestations of a man's life, does not depend on\noutward conditions, but on certain inherent qualities which escape\nrecognition.\n\nTherefore a man who is not free in his acts still feels himself\nfree in regard to the cause of his acts; that is, in regard to the\nrecognition or non-recognition of truth.\n\nThus a man who, under the influence of passion, has committed a deed\ncontrary to the truth he knows, still remains free in recognizing\nor denying the truth; in other words, denying the truth, he may\nconsider his act necessary and justify himself in committing it,\nor, accepting the truth, he may acknowledge his deed to be evil and\nhimself guilty.\n\nThus a gambler or a drunkard, who has succumbed to his passion, is\nfree to acknowledge gambling or drunkenness either as evils, or as\namusements without consequence. In the first instance, if he cannot\nget rid of his passion at once, he becomes free from it gradually,\naccording to the depth of his conviction of its evil. In the second\ninstance, his passion grows and gradually deprives him of all chance\nof deliverance.\n\nSo, too, with a man who, unable to endure the scorching flames for\nthe rescue of his friend, himself escapes from a burning house,\nwhile he recognizes the truth that a man should save the life of his\nfellow-man at the peril of his own, is yet free to look upon his\nact as evil, and therefore to condemn himself for it; or, denying\nthis truth, to judge his act to be both natural and necessary, and\nso justify himself in his own opinion. In the first instance, his\nrecognition of the truth, even though he has not acted in accordance\nwith it, helps him to prepare for a series of self-sacrificing\nactions that will inevitably follow such recognition. In the second\ninstance, he prepares for a series of actions just as selfish.\n\nI do not say that a man is always free to recognize or not to\nrecognize every truth. Certain truths there are, long since\nrecognized by men, and transmitted by tradition, education, and\nmere force of habit until they have become second nature; and there\nare other truths which men perceive as but dimly and afar. A man\nis not free not to recognize the first of these; he is not free to\nrecognize the second. But there is a third category of truths, which\nhave not as yet become unquestioned motors of his activity, but have\nrevealed themselves to man so unmistakably that he is unable to\ndisregard them; he must inevitably consider them, and either accept\nor reject them. It is by his relation to these truths that a man's\nfreedom is manifested.\n\nEach man in his perception of truth is like a wayfarer who walks by\nthe aid of a lantern whose light he casts before him: he does not\nsee what as yet has not been revealed by its beams, he does not see\nthe path he has left behind, merged again in the darkness; but at\nany given point he sees that which the lantern reveals, and he is\nalways at liberty to choose one side of the road or the other.\n\nThere exist for each man certain concealed truths, as yet unrevealed\nto his mental vision; certain others, which he has experienced,\nassimilated, and forgotten; and yet others, that rise up before\nhim demanding immediate recognition from his reason. And it is in\nthe recognition or the disregard of these truths that what we call\nfreedom becomes evident.\n\nAll the apparent difficulty of the question of man's liberty comes\nfrom the fact that those who seek to solve it represent man as\nstationary in the presence of the truth.\n\nUndoubtedly he is not free if we look upon him as a stationary\nbeing; if we forget that the life of all humanity is an eternal\nprocession from darkness to light, from the lower conception of\ntruth to a higher one, from truth mingled with error to purer truth.\n\nA man would not be free if he were ignorant of all truth; neither\nwould he be free, nor even have any conception of liberty, if the\ntruth were suddenly revealed to him in its entire purity and without\nany admixture of error.\n\nBut man is not a stationary being. And as he advances in life, every\nindividual discovers an ever increasing proportion of truth, and\nthus becomes less liable to error.\n\nThe relations of man to truth are threefold. Some truths are so\nfamiliar to him that they have become the unconscious springs of\naction; others have only been dimly revealed to him; again others,\nthough still unfamiliar, are revealed to him so plainly that they\nforce themselves upon his attention, and inevitably, in one way or\nanother, he is obliged to consider them. He cannot ignore them, but\nmust either recognize or repudiate them.\n\nAnd it is in the recognition or in the disregard of these truths\nthat man's free agency is manifested.\n\nA man's freedom does not consist in a faculty of acting\nindependently of his environment and the various influences it\nbrings to bear upon his life, but in his power to become, through\nrecognizing and professing the truth that has been revealed to\nhim, a free and willing laborer at the eternal and infinite work\nperformed by God and his universe; or, in shutting his eyes to\ntruth, to become a slave and be forced against his will into a way\nin which he is loath to go.\n\nNot only does truth point out the direction a man's life _should_\ntake, but it opens the only road he _can_ take. Hence, all men will\ninvariably, free or not, follow the road of truth;--some willingly,\ndoing the work they have set themselves to do; others involuntarily,\nby submitting in spite of themselves to the law of life. It is in\nthe power of choice that a man's freedom lies.\n\nFreedom, in limits so narrow as these, appears to men so\ninsignificant that they fail to perceive it. The believers in\ncausation prefer to overlook it; the believers in unlimited free\nwill, keeping in view their own ideal, disdain a freedom to them\nso insignificant. Freedom, confined between the limits of entire\nignorance of the truth, or of the knowledge of only a part of it,\ndoes not seem to them to be freedom, the more so that whether a man\nis or is not willing to recognize the truth revealed unto him, he\nwill inevitably be forced to obey it in life.\n\nA horse harnessed to a load in company with other horses is not free\nto remain in one place. If he does not pull the load, the load will\nstrike him and force him to move in the direction it is going, thus\ncompelling him to advance. Still, in spite of this limitation of\nfreedom, the horse is still free to pull the load of his own accord,\nor be pushed forward by it. The same reasoning can be applied to\nhuman freedom.\n\nBe this freedom great or small as compared with the chimerical\nfreedom for which we sigh, it is the only true freedom, and through\nit alone is to be found all the happiness accessible to man. And not\nonly does this freedom promote the happiness of men, but it is the\nonly means through which the work of the world can be accomplished.\n\nAccording to the doctrine of Christ, a man who limits his\nobservation of life to the sphere in which there is no freedom--to\nthe sphere of effects--that is, of acts--does not live a true\nlife. He only lives a true life who has transferred his life\ninto the sphere in which freedom lies,--into the domain of first\ncauses,--that is to say, by the recognition and practice of the\ntruth revealed to him.\n\nThe man who consecrates his life to sensual acts is ever performing\nacts that depend on temporary causes beyond his control. Of\nhimself he does nothing; it only seems to him that he is acting\nindependently, whereas in reality all that he imagines he is doing\nby himself is done through him by a superior force; he is not the\ncreator of life, but its slave. But the man who devotes his life to\nthe acknowledgment and practice of the truth revealed to him unites\nhimself with the source of universal life, and accomplishes, not\npersonal, individual acts, that depend on the conditions of time and\nspace, but acts that have no causes, but are in themselves causes of\nall else, and have an endless and unlimited significance.\n\nBecause of their setting aside the essence of true life, which\nconsists in the recognition and practice of the truth, and directing\ntheir efforts toward the improvement of the external conditions\nof life, men of the pagan life-conception may be likened to\npassengers on a steamer, who should, in their anxiety to reach their\ndestination, extinguish the engine-fires, and instead of making use\nof steam and screw, try during a storm to row with oars which cannot\nreach the water.\n\nThe Kingdom of God is attained by effort, and it is only those who\nmake the effort that do attain it. It is this effort, which consists\nin sacrificing outward conditions for the sake of the truth, by\nwhich the Kingdom of God is attained,--an effort which can and ought\nto be made now, in our own epoch.\n\nMen have but to understand this: that they must cease to care for\nmaterial and external matters, in which they are not free; let them\napply one hundredth part of the energy now used by them in outward\nconcerns to those in which they are free,--to the recognition and\nprofession of the truth that confronts them, to the deliverance of\nthemselves and others from the falsehood and hypocrisy which conceal\nthe truth,--and then the false system of life which now torments us,\nwhich threatens us with still greater suffering, will be destroyed\nat once without struggle. Then the Kingdom of Heaven, at least in\nthat first stage for which men through the development of their\nconsciousness are already prepared, will be established.\n\nAs one shake is sufficient to precipitate into crystals a liquid\nsaturated with salt, so at the present time it may be that only the\nleast effort is needed in order that the truth, already revealed\nto us, should spread among hundreds, thousands, millions of men,\nand a public opinion become established in conformity with the\nexisting consciousness, and the entire social organization become\ntransformed. It depends upon us to make this effort.\n\nIf only each of us would try to understand and recognize the\nChristian truth, which in the most varied forms surrounds us on\nall sides, pleading to be admitted into our hearts; if we would\ncease to lie and pretend that we do not see this truth, or that\nwe are anxious to fulfil it, excepting in the one thing that it\nreally demands; if we would only recognize this truth which calls\nus, and would fearlessly profess it,--we should find forthwith that\nhundreds, thousands, and millions of men are in the same position as\nourselves, fearing like ourselves to stand alone in its recognition,\nand waiting only to hear its avowal from others.\n\nIf men would only cease to be hypocrites they would perceive at once\nthat this cruel organization of society, which alone hampers them\nand yet appears to them like something immutable, necessary, and\nsacred, established by God, is already wavering, and is maintained\nonly by the hypocrisy and the falsehood of ourselves and our\nfellow-men.\n\nBut if it be true that it depends only on ourselves to change the\nexisting order of life, have we the right to do it without knowing\nwhat we shall put in its place? What will become of the world if the\npresent system be destroyed?\n\n\"What is there beyond the walls of the world we leave behind us?\n\n\"Fear seizes us,--emptiness, space, freedom....--how is one to go\non, not knowing whither? How is one to lose, without the hope of\ngain?...\n\n\"Had Columbus reasoned thus he never would have weighed anchor. It\nwas madness to attempt to cross an unknown ocean, to set sail for a\ncountry whose very existence was doubtful. But he discovered a new\nworld through this madness. To be sure, if people had only to move\nfrom one furnished house into another and a more commodious one, it\nwould be an easy matter, but the trouble lies in there being no one\nto prepare the new apartments. The future looks more uncertain still\nthan the ocean,--it promises nothing,--it will only be what men and\ncircumstances make it.\n\n\"If you are content with the old world, try to preserve it; it is\nsick, and will not live long. But if you can no longer live in the\neternal conflict between your convictions and life, thinking one way\nand acting another, take it upon yourselves to leave the shelter\nof the blanched and ruinous arches of the Middle Ages. I am aware\nthat this is not an easy matter. It is hard to part with all one has\nbeen accustomed to from birth. Men are ready for great sacrifices,\nbut not those which the new life demands of them. Are they ready\nto sacrifice their present civilization, their mode of life,\ntheir religion, their conventional morality? Are they ready to be\ndeprived of all the results of such prolonged efforts, the results\nwe have boasted of for three centuries, of all the conveniences and\nattractions of our existence, to give the preference to wild youth\nrather than to civilized senility, to pull down the palace built\nby our fathers simply for the pleasure of laying the foundation\nof a new house, which, without doubt, will not be completed till\nlong after our time.\"[32] Thus wrote, almost half a century ago, a\nRussian author, who, with penetrating vision, clearly discerned even\nat that time what is recognized by every man to-day who reflects a\nlittle,--the impossibility of continuing life on the former basis,\nand the necessity of establishing some new mode of existence.\n\n [32] Herzen, vol. v., p. 55.\n\nIt is plain from the simplest and most ordinary point of view that\nit is folly to remain under a roof that threatens to fall, and\nthat one must leave it. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more\nmiserable situation than that of the present Christian world,\nwith its nations arrayed in arms one against the other, with its\never increasing taxes for the purpose of supporting its growing\narmaments, with the burning hatred of the working-classes for the\nrich, with war suspended above all like the sword of Damocles ready\nto fall, as it may, at any moment.\n\nIt is doubtful whether any revolution could be more disastrous than\nthe present social order, or rather disorder, with its perpetual\nvictims of overwork, misery, drunkenness, dissipation, with all the\nhorrors of impending war that in one year will sacrifice more lives\nthan all the revolutions of the present century.\n\nWhat will become of mankind if each one fulfils that which God\ndemands through the conscience that is in him. Shall I be safe if,\nunder the orders of my master, I accomplish in his great workshop\nthe tasks he has set me, although, ignorant of his final plans, I\nmay think it strange? Nor is it alone the question of the future\nthat troubles men when they hesitate to do the master's bidding.\nThey are concerned about the question as to how they are to live\nwithout the familiar conditions which we call science, art,\ncivilization, culture. We feel individually all the burden of our\npresent way of living; we see that were this order of things to\ncontinue, it would inevitably ruin us; and yet we are anxious to\nhave these conditions continue, to have our science, our art, our\ncivilization, and culture remain unchanged. It is as though a man\nwho dwells in an old house, suffering from cold and discomfort, who\nis moreover aware that its walls may tumble at any moment, should\nconsent to the remodeling of it, only on condition that he may be\nallowed to remain there, a condition that is equivalent to a refusal\nto have his dwelling rebuilt. \"What, if I should leave my house,\"\nhe says, \"I should be temporarily deprived of its comforts; the\nnew house may not be built after all, or it may be constructed on\na new plan, which will lack the conveniences to which I have been\naccustomed!\" But if the materials and the workmen are ready, it is\nprobable that the new house will be built, and in a better manner\nthan the old one; while it is not only probable but certain that\nthe old house will soon fall into ruins, crushing those who remain\nwithin its walls. In order that the old, everyday conditions of life\nmay disappear and make room for new and better ones, we must surely\nleave behind the old conditions, which are at length become fatal\nand impossible, and issue forth to meet the future.\n\n\"But science, art, civilization, and culture will cease to be!\" But\nif all these are only diverse manifestations of truth, the impending\nchange is to be accomplished for the sake of a further advance\ntoward truth and its realization. \"How, then, can the manifestations\nof truth disappear, in consequence of further realization of truth?\"\nThe manifestations of truth will be different, better, loftier, the\nerror that has been in them will perish, while the verity that is in\nthem will remain and flourish with renewed vigor.\n\nReturn to yourselves, sons of men, and have faith in the gospel, and\nin its doctrine of eternal happiness! If you heed not this warning,\nyou shall all perish like the men slain by Pilate, like those upon\nwhom the tower of Siloam fell; like millions of other men, who slew\nand were slain, who executed and suffered execution, who tortured\nand were tortured; as perished the man who so foolishly filled his\ngranaries, counting on a long life, on the very night when his soul\nwas required of him. Return, sons of men, and believe in the words\nwhich Christ uttered 1800 years ago, words which He repeats to-day\nwith greater force, warning us that the evil day He foretold is at\nhand, and that our life has reached its last descent of folly and\nwickedness.\n\nNow, after so many centuries of futile effort to protect ourselves\nby the methods of the pagan system of violence, it should be evident\nto every man that all such effort, far from insuring our safety,\ntends only to add a new element of danger both to individual and\nsocial existence.\n\nNo matter by what names we may be called, nor what garments we may\nwear, nor in the presence of what priest we may be anointed, nor\nhow many millions our subjects may number, nor how many guards\nmay be posted on our journey, nor how many policemen may protect\nour property, nor how many so-called criminals, revolutionists, or\nanarchists we may execute; no matter what exploits we may perform,\nnor what states we may establish, nor what fortresses and towers\nwe may erect, from the Tower of Babel to the Eiffel Tower,--we\nhave before us two ever present and unavoidable conditions, that\ndeprive our mode of life of all significance: (1) death, that may\novertake each of us at any moment, and (2) the transitory nature\nof all our undertakings, that disappear, leaving no trace behind\nthem. No matter what we may do, found kingdoms, build palaces and\nmonuments, write poems and songs,--all is but fleeting and leaves no\ntrace behind. Therefore no matter how much we may attempt to conceal\nthis from ourselves, we cannot fail to perceive that the true\nsignificance of our life lies neither in our individual, physical\nexistence, subjected to unavoidable suffering and death, nor in any\ninstitution or social organization.\n\nWhoever you are, you who read these lines, reflect upon your\nposition and your duties, not upon the position of landowner,\nmerchant, judge, emperor, president, minister, priest, or\nsoldier, which you may assume but for a time, not upon the\nimaginary duties which these positions impose upon you, but upon\nyour actual and eternal position as a being, who, after a whole\neternity of non-existence, is called by the will of Some One from\nunconsciousness into life, and who may at any moment return whence\nhe came by the same will. Consider your duties! Not your imaginary\nduties of landowner in regard to your estate, nor of merchant to\nyour capital, nor of emperor, minister, or governor to the State,\nbut of your real duties, of a being called forth into life and\nendowed with love and reason. Do that which He who has sent you\ninto this world, and to whom you will shortly return, demands of\nyou. Are you doing what he requires? Are you doing right when, as\nlandowner or manufacturer, you take the products of the labor of\nthe poor, and establish your life on this spoliation; or when, as\ngovernor or judge, you do violence in condemning men to death; or\nwhen, as soldier, you prepare for war, for fighting, robbery, and\nmurder,--are you doing right?\n\nYou say that the world is as you find it, that it is inevitable\nthat it should be as it is, that what you do you are compelled to\ndo. But can it be that, having so strongly rooted an aversion to\nthe suffering of men, to violence, to murder; having such a need of\nloving your fellow-men, and of being loved by them; seeing clearly,\ntoo, that the greatest good possible to men comes from acknowledging\nhuman brotherhood, from one serving another: can it be that your\nheart tells you all this, that you are taught it by your reason,\nthat science repeats it to you, and yet regardless of it, on the\nstrength of some mysterious and complicated argument, you are forced\nto contradict it all in your daily conduct? Is it possible that,\nbeing a landowner or a capitalist, you should establish your life on\nthe oppression of the people; that, being an emperor or a president,\nyou should command armies, and be a leader of murderers; that,\nbeing a functionary of State, you should take from the poor their\nhard-earned money for your own benefit, or for the benefit of the\nrich; that, being a judge or juror, you should condemn erring men to\ntorture and death, because the truth has not been revealed to them;\nor, above all, is it possible that you, a youth, should enter the\narmy, doing that upon which all the evil of the world is founded,\nthat, renouncing your own will, all your human sympathy, you should\nengage at the will of others to murder those whom they bid you\nmurder?\n\nIt is impossible!\n\nIf you are told that all this is essential for the support of the\nexisting system of life; that this system, with its pauperism,\nfamine, prisons, executions, armies, wars, is necessary for society,\nand that if it were to be abolished worse evils would follow, you\nare told so only by those who benefit by this system; while those\nwho suffer from it,--and their numbers are ten times greater,--all\nthink and say the opposite. And at the bottom of your heart you\nknow that this is false,--that the existing system has had its day,\nand must inevitably be remodeled on new foundations; and that there\nis no need whatsoever to support it by the sacrifice of human life.\n\nEven supposing that the existing system is necessary, how is it\nthat you should have to support it by trampling upon all finer\nfeelings? But who has made you a guardian of this crumbling\nstructure? Neither has the State, nor society, nor has any one\nrequested you individually to support it by occupying your position\nof landowner, merchant, emperor, priest, or soldier, and you are\nwell aware that you have accepted and are holding it, not for\npurposes of self-denial, for the good of your fellow-men, but for\nyour own selfish interest; for your greed of gain, vainglory,\nambition, through your indolence or your cowardice. If you do not\ndesire this position you should not persist in doing what is cruel,\nfalse, and contemptible in order to retain it. If you would once\nrefrain from these things which you do continually for the purpose\nof retaining it, you would lose it at once. If you are a ruler or\nan official, make only an attempt to cease polite lying, cease to\ntake part in violences and executions; if you are a priest, desist\nfrom deceiving; if a soldier, cease killing; if a land-owner or\nmanufacturer, cease defending your property by roguery and violence;\nand forthwith you will lose the position which, as you say, is\nforced upon you and seems to you burdensome.\n\nIt cannot be that a man should be placed against his will in a\nposition contrary to conscience.\n\nIf you are put in such a position, it is not because it is necessary\nfor some one to be there, but only because you are willing to accept\nit. And therefore, knowing that such a position is directly opposed\nto the mandates of your heart, your reason, your faith, and even to\nthe teaching of that science you believe in, you cannot but pause\nto consider, if you wish to keep it, and especially if you try to\njustify it, if you are doing what you ought to do.\n\nYou might run the risk if you had but the time to see your mistake\nand correct it, and if you ran the risk for something worth having.\nBut when you know for certain that you are liable to die at any\nmoment, without the slightest possibility either for yourself or for\nthose whom you have drawn in with you of rectifying your mistake;\nand, moreover, since you know that no matter what those about you\nmay accomplish in the material organization of the world, it will\nall very shortly disappear as certainly as you yourself, leaving no\ntrace behind,--it is surely obvious that you have no inducement to\nrun the risk of making a mistake so terrible.\n\nThis would seem perfectly plain and simple if we did not veil with\nhypocrisy the truth that is indubitably revealed to us.\n\nShare what you have with others; do not amass riches; be not vain;\ndo not rob, torture, or murder men; do not to others what you would\nnot that others should do to you,--these things have been said\nnot eighteen hundred but five thousand years ago, and there can\nbe no doubt of the truth of them. Save for hypocrisy, it would be\nimpossible, even if one did not obey these rules, not to acknowledge\nthat they ought to be obeyed, and that those who do not obey them do\nwrong.\n\nBut you say that there is still the general well-being, for the sake\nof which one should deviate from these rules. It is allowable for\nthe general well-being to kill, torture, and rob. \"It is better that\none man should perish than a whole nation,\" you say, like Caiaphas,\nwhen you are signing death-warrants; or you load your gun to shoot\nyour fellow-man, who is to perish for the general good; or you\nimprison him or take away his goods.\n\nYou say that you do these cruel things because you are a part of\nsociety, of the State, and must serve your government and carry out\nits laws, as landowner, judge, emperor, or soldier. But if you are\na part of the State and have duties in consequence, you are also a\npartaker of the infinite life of God's universe, and have higher\nduties in consequence of that.\n\nAs your duties to your family or to society are always subject to\nthe higher duties that depend upon your citizenship in the State, so\nyour duties of citizenship are subject to the duties arising from\nyour relations to the life of the universe, from your sonship to\nGod. And as it would be unwise to cut down telegraph poles in order\nto furnish fuel for the benefit of a family or a few people, because\nthis would be breaking the laws that protect the welfare of the\nState; so it is equally unwise, in order to promote the welfare of\nthe State, to execute or murder a man, because this is breaking the\nimmutable laws which preserve the welfare of the world.\n\nThe obligations of citizenship must be subject to the higher and\neternal obligations on your part in the everlasting life of God, and\nmust not contradict them. As it was said eighteen hundred years ago\nby the disciples of Christ, \"Whether it be right in the sight of God\nto hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.\"[33] \"We ought to\nobey God rather than men.\"[34]\n\n [33] Acts iv. 19.\n\n [34] Acts v. 29.\n\nYou are told to believe that in order to maintain an ever changing\nsystem, established but yesterday by a few men in a corner of the\nglobe, you should commit violent deeds that are against the fixed\nand eternal order established by God or reason. Can it be possible?\n\nDo not fail, then, to reflect upon your position of land-owner,\nmerchant, judge, emperor, president, minister, priest, or\nsoldier--associated with violence, oppression, deceit, torture, and\nmurder; refuse to recognize the lawfulness of these crimes. I do\nnot mean that if you are a landowner you should forthwith give your\nland to the poor; or if a capitalist, your money or your factory to\nyour workmen; or if a czar, a minister, a magistrate, a judge, or a\ngeneral, you should forthwith abdicate all your advantages; or if a\nsoldier, whose occupation in its very nature is based on violence,\nyou should at once refuse to continue longer a soldier, despite\nall the dangers of such a refusal. Should you do this, it will\nindeed be an heroic act; but it may happen--and most probably--that\nyou will not be able to do it. You have connections, a family,\nsubordinates, chiefs; you may be surrounded by temptations so\nstrong that you cannot overcome them; but to acknowledge the truth\nto be the truth, and not to lie--that you are always able to do.\nYou can refrain from affirming that you continue to be a landowner\nor factory-owner, a merchant, an artist, an author, because you\nare thus useful to men; from declaring that you are a governor, an\nattorney-general, a czar, not because it is agreeable or you are\naccustomed to be such, but for the good of men; from saying that you\nremain a soldier, not through fear of punishment, but because you\nconsider the army indispensable for the protection of men's lives.\nTo keep from speaking thus falsely before yourself and others--this\nyou are always able to do, and not only able, but in duty bound to\ndo, because in this alone--in freeing yourself from falsehood and in\nworking out the truth--lies the highest duty of your life. And do\nbut this and it will be sufficient for the situation to change at\nonce of itself.\n\nOne only thing in which you are free and all-powerful has been given\nyou; all others are beyond you. It is this,--to know the truth and\nto profess it. And it is only because of other miserable and erring\nmen like yourself that you have become a soldier, an emperor, a\nlandowner, a capitalist, a priest, or a general; that you commit\nevil deeds so obviously contrary to the dictates of your heart and\nreason; that you torture, rob, and murder men, establishing your\nlife on their sufferings; and that, above all, instead of performing\nyour paramount duty of acknowledging and professing the truth which\nis known to you, you pretend not to know it, concealing it from\nyourself and others, doing the very opposite of what you have been\ncalled to do.\n\nAnd under what conditions are you doing this? Being liable to die\nat any moment, you sign a death-warrant, declare war or take part\nin it, pass judgment, torture and rob workmen, live in luxury\nsurrounded by misery, and teach weak and trusting men that all\nthis is right and for you is a matter of duty, while all the time\nyou are in danger of your life being destroyed by a bullet or a\nbacillus, and you may be deprived forever of the power to rectify or\ncounteract the evil you have done to others and to yourself; having\nwasted a life given you but once in all eternity, having left undone\nin it the one thing for which it was given you.\n\nNo matter how trite it may appear to state it, nor how we may\nhypocritically deceive ourselves, nothing can destroy the certainty\nof the simple and obvious truth that external conditions can\nnever render safe this life of ours, so fraught with unavoidable\nsuffering, and ended infallibly by death, that human life can have\nno other meaning than the constant fulfilment of that for which the\nAlmighty Power has sent us here, and for which He has given us one\nsure guide in this life, namely, our conscious reason.\n\nThis Power does not require from us what is unreasonable and\nimpossible,--the organization of our temporal, material life,\nthe life of society, or of the State. He demands of us only what\nis reasonable and possible,--to serve the Kingdom of God, which\nestablishes the unity of mankind, a unity possible only in the\ntruth; to recognize and profess the truth revealed to us, which it\nis always in our power to do.\n\n\"Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all\nthese things shall be added unto you.\"[35]\n\n [35] Matt. vi. 33.\n\nThe only significance of life consists in helping to establish\nthe Kingdom of God; and this can be done only by means of the\nacknowledgment and profession of the truth by each one of us. \"The\nkingdom of God cometh not with observation: neither shall they say,\nLo here! or, lo there! for, behold the kingdom of God is within\nyou.\"[36]\n\n [36] Luke xvii. 20, 21.\n\n\n\n\nWHAT IS ART?\n\n\n\n\nTRANSLATOR'S PREFACE\n\n\nThe fundamental thought expressed in this book leads inevitably\nto conclusions so new, so unexpected, and so contrary to what is\nusually maintained in literary and artistic circles, that although\nit is clearly and emphatically expressed (and this I hope has\nnot been lost in translation), most readers who wish to possess\nthemselves of it will have to read the work carefully, and to digest\nit slowly.\n\nEspecially the introductory Chapters II., III., IV., and V.,\nneed careful perusal by any who, having adopted one or other of\nthe current theories on beauty and art, may find it difficult to\nabandon a preconceived view, and to clear their minds for a fair\nappreciation of what is new to them.\n\nThe first four chapters raise the problem, and tell us briefly\nwhat has been said by previous writers. Chapter III. gives (in\nhighly condensed form) the substance of the teaching of some sixty\nphilosophers on this subject, and since many of them were extremely\nconfused, the chapter cannot, in the nature of things, be easy\nreading.\n\nI should like to remark, in passing, that though Tolsto\u00ef in this\nchapter (presumably for convenience of verification) refers chiefly\nto the compilations of Schasler, Kralik, and Knight, he has gone\nbehind these authorities to the primary sources. To give a single\ninstance: in the paragraph on Darwin, the foot-note refers us to\nKnight, but the remark that the origin of the art of music may be\ntraced back to the call of the males to the females in the animal\nworld will be found in Darwin, but will not be found in Knight.\n\nIn Chapter V. we come to Tolsto\u00ef's definition of art, which\ndefinition should be kept well in mind while reading the rest of the\nbook.\n\nNo doubt most of those to whom it is an end in itself, who live by\nit, or make it their chief occupation, will read this book (or leave\nit unread) and go on in their former way, much as Pharaoh, of old,\nhardened his heart, and did not sympathize with what Moses had to\nsay on the labor question. But for those of us who have felt that\nart is too valuable a matter to be lost out of our lives, and who,\nin their quest for social justice, have met the reproach that they\nwere sacrificing the pleasures and advantages of art, this book is\nof inestimable value, in that it solves a perplexed question of\nfar-reaching importance to practical life.\n\nTo this class of readers neither the masterly elucidation of\nthe former theories contained in the opening chapters, nor the\nexplanation of how it has come about that such great importance\nis attached to the activity we call art (Chapters VI. and VII.),\nnor the explanation and illustrations of the perversion that art\nhas undergone, nor even the elucidation of the terrible evils this\nperversion is producing (XVII.), will equal in significance the\nremaining chapters of the book. These show us what to look for\nin art, how to distinguish it from counterfeits (XV., XVI., and\nXVIII.), treat of the true art of the future (XIX.), and explain how\nscience and art are linked together in man's life, are directed by\nhis perception of the meaning of life, and inevitably react on all\nhe thinks and feels.\n\n\n\n\nTHE AUTHOR'S PREFACE\n\n\nThis book of mine, \"What is Art?\" appears now for the first time\nin its true form. More than one edition has already been issued in\nRussia, but in each case it has been so mutilated by the \"Censor,\"\nthat I request all who are interested in my views on art only to\njudge of them by the work in its present shape. The causes which led\nto the publication of the book--with my name attached to it--in a\nmutilated form were the following: In accordance with a decision I\narrived at long ago,--not to submit my writings to the \"Censorship\"\n(which I consider to be an immoral and irrational institution),\nbut to print them only in the shape in which they were written,--I\nintended not to attempt to print this work in Russia. However, my\ngood acquaintance, Professor Grote, editor of a Moscow psychological\nmagazine, having heard of the contents of my work, asked me to\nprint it in his magazine, and promised me that he would get the\nbook through the \"Censor's\" office unmutilated if I would but agree\nto a few very unimportant alterations, merely toning down certain\nexpressions. I was weak enough to agree to this, and it has resulted\nin a book appearing under my name, from which not only have some\nessential thoughts been excluded, but into which the thoughts of\nother men--even thoughts utterly opposed to my own convictions--have\nbeen introduced.\n\nThe thing occurred in this way. First, Grote softened my\nexpressions, and in some cases weakened them. For instance, he\nreplaced the words: _always_ by _sometimes_, _all_ by _some_,\n_Church_ religion by _Roman Catholic_ religion, \"_Mother of God_\"\nby _Madonna_, _patriotism_ by _pseudo-patriotism_, _palaces_\nby _palatii_,[37] etc., and I did not consider it necessary\nto protest. But when the book was already in type, the Censor\nrequired that whole sentences should be altered, and that instead\nof what I said about the evil of landed property, a remark should\nbe substituted on the evils of a landless proletariate.[38] I\nagreed to this also, and to some further alterations. It seemed\nnot worth while to upset the whole affair for the sake of one\nsentence, and when one alteration had been agreed to it seemed not\nworth while to protest against a second and a third. So, little by\nlittle, expressions crept into the book which altered the sense\nand attributed things to me that I could not have wished to say.\nSo that by the time the book was printed it had been deprived of\nsome part of its integrity and sincerity. But there was consolation\nin the thought that the book, even in this form, if it contains\nsomething that is good, would be of use to Russian readers whom\nit would otherwise not have reached. Things, however, turned out\notherwise. _Nous comptions sans notre h\u00f4te._ After the legal term\nof four days had already elapsed, the book was seized, and, on\ninstructions received from Petersburg, it was handed over to the\n\"Spiritual Censor.\" Then Grote declined all further participation\nin the affair, and the \"Spiritual Censor\" proceeded to do what he\nwould with the book. The \"Spiritual Censorship\" is one of the most\nignorant, venal, stupid, and despotic institutions in Russia. Books\nwhich disagree in any way with the recognized state religion of\nRussia, if once it gets hold of them, are almost always totally\nsuppressed and burnt; which is what happened to all my religious\nworks when attempts were made to print them in Russia. Probably\na similar fate would have overtaken this work also, had not the\neditors of the magazine employed all means to save it. The result\nof their efforts was that the \"Spiritual Censor,\" a priest who\nprobably understands art and is interested in art as much as I\nunderstand or am interested in church services, but who gets a good\nsalary for destroying whatever is likely to displease his superiors,\nstruck out all that seemed to him to endanger his position, and\nsubstituted his thoughts for mine wherever he considered it\nnecessary to do so. For instance, where I speak of Christ going\nto the Cross for the sake of the truth He professed, the \"Censor\"\nsubstituted a statement that Christ died for mankind, _i.e_. he\nattributed to me an assertion of the dogma of the Redemption, which\nI consider to be one of the most untrue and harmful of Church\ndogmas. After correcting the book in this way, the \"Spiritual\nCensor\" allowed it to be printed.\n\n [37] Tolsto\u00ef's remarks on Church religion were re-worded so as to\n seem to relate only to the Western Church, and his disapproval of\n luxurious life was made to apply, not, say, to Queen Victoria or\n Nicholas II., but to the C\u00e6sars or the Pharaohs.--TR.\n\n [38] The Russian peasant is usually a member of a village commune,\n and has therefore a right to a share in the land belonging to the\n village. Tolsto\u00ef disapproves of the order of society which allows\n less land for the support of a village full of people than is\n sometimes owned by a single landed proprietor. The \"Censor\" will not\n allow disapproval of this state of things to be expressed, but is\n prepared to admit that the laws and customs, say, of England--where\n a yet more extreme form of landed property exists, and the men who\n actually labor on the land usually possess none of it--deserve\n criticism.--TR.\n\nTo protest in Russia is impossible--no newspaper would publish such\na protest; and to withdraw my book from the magazine, and place the\neditor in an awkward position with the public, was also not possible.\n\nSo the matter has remained. A book has appeared under my name\ncontaining thoughts attributed to me which are not mine.\n\nI was persuaded to give my article to a Russian magazine in order\nthat my thoughts, which may be useful, should become the possession\nof Russian readers; and the result has been that my name is affixed\nto a work from which it might be assumed that I quite arbitrarily\nassert things contrary to the general opinion, without adducing my\nreasons; that I only consider false patriotism bad, but patriotism\nin general a very good feeling; that I merely deny the absurdities\nof the Roman Catholic Church and disbelieve in the Madonna, but\nthat I believe in the Orthodox Eastern faith and in the \"Mother of\nGod\"; that I consider all the writings collected in the Bible to be\nholy books, and see the chief importance of Christ's life in the\nRedemption of mankind by His death.\n\nI have narrated all this in such detail because it strikingly\nillustrates the indubitable truth that all compromise with\ninstitutions of which your conscience disapproves,--compromises\nwhich are usually made for the sake of the general good,--instead\nof producing the good you expected, inevitably lead you, not only\nto acknowledge the institution you disapprove of, but also to\nparticipate in the evil that institution produces.\n\nI am glad to be able by this statement at least to do something to\ncorrect the error into which I was led by my compromise.\n\nI have also to mention that besides reinstating the parts excluded\nby the Censor from the Russian editions, other corrections and\nadditions of importance have been made in this edition.\n\n _29th March, 1898._\n\n\n\n\nWHAT IS ART?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\n\nTake up any one of our ordinary newspapers, and you will find a part\ndevoted to the theater and music. In almost every number you will\nfind a description of some art exhibition, or of some particular\npicture, and you will always find reviews of new works of art that\nhave appeared, of volumes of poems, of short stories, or of novels.\n\nPromptly, and in detail, as soon as it has occurred, an account is\npublished of how such and such an actress or actor played this or\nthat r\u00f4le in such and such a drama, comedy, or opera; and of the\nmerits of the performance, as well as of the contents of the new\ndrama, comedy, or opera, with its defects and merits. With as much\ncare and detail, or even more, we are told how such and such an\nartist has sung a certain piece, or has played it on the piano or\nviolin, and what were the merits and defects of the piece and of the\nperformance. In every large town there is sure to be at least one,\nif not more than one, exhibition of new pictures, the merits and\ndefects of which are discussed in the utmost detail by critics and\nconnoisseurs.\n\nNew novels and poems, in separate volumes or in the magazines,\nappear almost every day, and the newspapers consider it their\nduty to give their readers detailed accounts of these artistic\nproductions.\n\nFor the support of art in Russia (where for the education of the\npeople only a hundredth part is spent of what would be required to\ngive every one the opportunity of instruction) the government grants\nmillions of roubles in subsidies to academies, conservatoires, and\ntheaters. In France twenty million francs are assigned for art, and\nsimilar grants are made in Germany and England.\n\nIn every large town enormous buildings are erected for museums,\nacademies, conservatoires, dramatic schools, and for performances\nand concerts. Hundreds of thousands of workmen--carpenters, masons,\npainters, joiners, paperhangers, tailors, hairdressers, jewelers,\nmolders, type-setters--spend their whole lives in hard labor to\nsatisfy the demands of art, so that hardly any other department of\nhuman activity, except the military, consumes so much energy as this.\n\nNot only is enormous labor spent on this activity, but in it, as in\nwar, the very lives of men are sacrificed. Hundreds of thousands\nof people devote their lives from childhood to learning to twirl\ntheir legs rapidly (dancers), or to touch notes and strings very\nrapidly (musicians), or to draw with paint and represent what\nthey see (artists), or to turn every phrase inside out and find a\nrhyme to every word. And these people, often very kind and clever,\nand capable of all sorts of useful labor, grow savage over their\nspecialized and stupefying occupations, and become one-sided and\nself-complacent specialists, dull to all the serious phenomena\nof life, and skilful only at rapidly twisting their legs, their\ntongues, or their fingers.\n\nBut even this stunting of human life is not the worst. I remember\nbeing once at the rehearsal of one of the most ordinary of the new\noperas which are produced at all the opera houses of Europe and\nAmerica.\n\nI arrived when the first act had already commenced. To reach the\nauditorium I had to pass through the stage entrance. By dark\nentrances and passages, I was led through the vaults of an enormous\nbuilding, past immense machines for changing the scenery and for\nilluminating; and there in the gloom and dust I saw workmen busily\nengaged. One of these men, pale, haggard, in a dirty blouse, with\ndirty, work-worn hands and cramped fingers, evidently tired and out\nof humor, went past me, angrily scolding another man. Ascending by\na dark stair, I came out on the boards behind the scenes. Amid\nvarious poles and rings and scattered scenery, decorations and\ncurtains, stood and moved dozens, if not hundreds, of painted and\ndressed-up men, in costumes fitting tight to their thighs and\ncalves, and also women, as usual, as nearly nude as might be. These\nwere all singers, or members of the chorus, or ballet-dancers,\nawaiting their turns. My guide led me across the stage and, by means\nof a bridge of boards across the orchestra (in which perhaps a\nhundred musicians of all kinds, from kettledrum to flute and harp,\nwere seated), to the dark pit-stalls.\n\nOn an elevation, between two lamps with reflectors, and in an\narm-chair placed before a music-stand, sat the director of the\nmusical part, _b\u00e2ton_ in hand, managing the orchestra and singers,\nand, in general, the production of the whole opera.\n\nThe performance had already commenced, and on the stage a procession\nof Indians who had brought home a bride was being presented. Besides\nmen and women in costume, two other men in ordinary clothes bustled\nand ran about on the stage; one was the director of the dramatic\npart, and the other, who stepped about in soft shoes and ran from\nplace to place with unusual agility, was the dancing-master, whose\nsalary per month exceeded what ten laborers earn in a year.\n\nThese three directors arranged the singing, the orchestra, and\nthe procession. The procession, as usual, was enacted by couples,\nwith tinfoil halberds on their shoulders. They all came from one\nplace, and walked round and round again, and then stopped. The\nprocession took a long time to arrange: first the Indians with\nhalberds came on too late; then too soon; then at the right time,\nbut crowded together at the exit; then they did not crowd, but\narranged themselves badly at the sides of the stage; and each\ntime the whole performance was stopped and recommenced from the\nbeginning. The procession was introduced by a recitative, delivered\nby a man dressed up like some variety of Turk, who, opening his\nmouth in a curious way, sang, \"Home I bring the bri-i-ide.\" He\nsings and waves his arm (which is of course bare) from under his\nmantle. The procession commences, but here the French horn, in\nthe accompaniment of the recitative, does something wrong; and the\ndirector, with a shudder as if some catastrophe had occurred, raps\nwith his stick on the stand. All is stopped, and the director,\nturning to the orchestra, attacks the French horn, scolding him in\nthe rudest terms, as cabmen abuse each other, for taking the wrong\nnote. And again the whole thing recommences. The Indians with their\nhalberds again come on, treading softly in their extraordinary\nboots; again the singer sings, \"Home I bring the bri-i-ide.\" But\nhere the pairs get too close together. More raps with the stick,\nmore scolding, and a recommencement. Again, \"Home I bring the\nbri-i-ide,\" again the same gesticulation with the bare arm from\nunder the mantle, and again the couples, treading softly with\nhalberds on their shoulders, some with sad and serious faces, some\ntalking and smiling, arrange themselves in a circle and begin to\nsing. All seems to be going well, but again the stick raps, and\nthe director, in a distressed and angry voice, begins to scold the\nmen and women of the chorus. It appears that when singing they had\nomitted to raise their hands from time to time in sign of animation.\n\"Are you all dead, or what? Cows that you are! Are you corpses,\nthat you can't move?\" Again they recommence, \"Home I bring the\nbri-i-ide,\" and again, with sorrowful faces, the chorus-women sing,\nfirst one and then another of them raising their hands. But two\nchorus-girls speak to each other,--again a more vehement rapping\nwith the stick. \"Have you come here to talk? Can't you gossip at\nhome? You there in red breeches, come nearer. Look toward me!\nRecommence!\" Again, \"Home I bring the bri-i-ide.\" And so it goes\non for one, two, three hours. The whole of such a rehearsal lasts\nsix hours on end. Raps with the stick, repetitions, placings,\ncorrections of the singers, of the orchestra, of the procession, of\nthe dancers,--all seasoned with angry scolding. I heard the words,\n\"asses,\" \"fools,\" \"idiots,\" \"swine,\" addressed to the musicians\nand singers at least forty times in the course of one hour. And\nthe unhappy individual to whom the abuse is addressed,--flautist,\nhorn-blower, or singer,--physically and mentally demoralized,\ndoes not reply, and does what is demanded of him. Twenty times is\nrepeated the one phrase, \"Home I bring the bri-i-ide,\" and twenty\ntimes the striding about in yellow shoes with a halberd over the\nshoulder. The conductor knows that these people are so demoralized\nthat they are no longer fit for anything but to blow trumpets and\nwalk about with halberds and in yellow shoes, and that they are also\naccustomed to dainty, easy living, so that they will put up with\nanything rather than lose their luxurious life. He therefore gives\nfree vent to his churlishness, especially as he has seen the same\nthing done in Paris and Vienna, and knows that this is the way the\nbest conductors behave, and that it is a musical tradition of great\nartists to be so carried away by the great business of their art\nthat they cannot pause to consider the feelings of other artists.\n\nIt would be difficult to find a more repulsive sight. I have seen\none workman abuse another for not supporting the weight piled upon\nhim when goods were being unloaded, or, at hay-stacking, the village\nelder scold a peasant for not making the rick right, and the man\nsubmitted in silence. And, however unpleasant it was to witness the\nscene, the unpleasantness was lessened by the consciousness that the\nbusiness in hand was needful and important, and that the fault for\nwhich the head man scolded the laborer was one which might spoil a\nneedful undertaking.\n\nBut what was being done here? For what, and for whom? Very likely\nthe conductor was tired out, like the workman I passed in the\nvaults; it was even evident that he was; but who made him tire\nhimself? And for what was he tiring himself? The opera he was\nrehearsing was one of the most ordinary of operas for people who are\naccustomed to them, but also one of the most gigantic absurdities\nthat could possibly be devised. An Indian king wants to marry; they\nbring him a bride; he disguises himself as a minstrel; the bride\nfalls in love with the minstrel and is in despair, but afterwards\ndiscovers that the minstrel is the king, and every one is highly\ndelighted.\n\nThat there never were, or could be, such Indians, and that they\nwere not only unlike Indians, but that what they were doing was\nunlike anything on earth except other operas, was beyond all manner\nof doubt; that people do not converse in such a way as recitative,\nand do not place themselves at fixed distances, in a quartet,\nwaving their arms to express their emotions; that nowhere, except\nin theaters, do people walk about in such a manner, in pairs, with\ntinfoil halberds and in slippers; that no one ever gets angry in\nsuch a way, or is affected in such a way, or laughs in such a way,\nor cries in such a way; and that no one on earth can be moved by\nsuch performances; all this is beyond the possibility of doubt.\n\nInstinctively the question presents itself: For whom is this being\ndone? Whom _can_ it please? If there are, occasionally, good\nmelodies in the opera, to which it is pleasant to listen, they could\nhave been sung simply, without these stupid costumes and all the\nprocessions and recitatives and hand-wavings.\n\nThe ballet, in which half-naked women make voluptuous movements,\ntwisting themselves into various sensual wreathings, is simply a\nlewd performance.\n\nSo one is quite at a loss as to whom these things are done for. The\nman of culture is heartily sick of them, while to a real working-man\nthey are utterly incomprehensible. If any one can be pleased by\nthese things (which is doubtful), it can only be some young footman\nor depraved artisan, who has contracted the spirit of the upper\nclasses but is not yet satiated with their amusements, and wishes to\nshow his breeding.\n\nAnd all this nasty folly is prepared, not simply, nor with kindly\nmerriment, but with anger and brutal cruelty.\n\nIt is said that it is all done for the sake of art, and that art\nis a very important thing. But is it true that art is so important\nthat such sacrifices should be made for its sake? This question is\nespecially urgent, because art, for the sake of which the labor of\nmillions, the lives of men, and, above all, love between man and\nman, are being sacrificed,--this very art is becoming something more\nand more vague and uncertain to human perception.\n\nCriticism, in which the lovers of art used to find support for their\nopinions, has latterly become so self-contradictory, that, if we\nexclude from the domain of art all that to which the critics of\nvarious schools themselves deny the title, there is scarcely any art\nleft.\n\nThe artists of various sects, like the theologians of the various\nsects, mutually exclude and destroy themselves. Listen to the\nartists of the schools of our times, and you will find, in all\nbranches, each set of artists disowning others. In poetry the old\nromanticists deny the parnassiens and the decadents; the parnassiens\ndisown the romanticists and the decadents; the decadents disown\nall their predecessors and the symbolists; the symbolists disown\nall their predecessors and _les mages_; and _les mages_ disown\nall, all their predecessors. Among novelists we have naturalists,\npsychologists, and \"nature-ists,\" all rejecting each other. And it\nis the same in dramatic art, in painting, and in music. So that art,\nwhich demands such tremendous labor-sacrifices from the people,\nwhich stunts human lives and transgresses against human love, is not\nonly _not_ a thing clearly and firmly defined, but is understood in\nsuch contradictory ways by its own devotees that it is difficult\nto say what is meant by art, and especially what is good, useful\nart,--art for the sake of which we might condone such sacrifices as\nare being offered at its shrine.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\n\nFor the production of every ballet, circus, opera, operetta,\nexhibition, picture, concert, or printed book, the intense and\nunwilling labor of thousands and thousands of people is needed at\nwhat is often harmful and humiliating work. It were well if artists\nmade all they require for themselves, but, as it is, they all need\nthe help of workmen, not only to produce art, but also for their own\nusually luxurious maintenance. And, one way or other, they get it;\neither through payments from rich people, or through subsidies given\nby government (in Russia, for instance, in grants of millions of\nroubles to theaters, conservatoires, and academies). This money is\ncollected from the people, some of whom have to sell their only cow\nto pay the tax, and who never get those \u00e6sthetic pleasures which art\ngives.\n\nIt was all very well for a Greek or Roman artist, or even for a\nRussian artist of the first half of our century (when there were\nstill slaves, and it was considered right that there should be),\nwith a quiet mind to make people serve him and his art; but in our\nday, when in all men there is at least some dim perception of the\nequal rights of all, it is impossible to constrain people to labor\nunwillingly for art, without first deciding the question whether it\nis true that art is so good and so important an affair as to redeem\nthis evil.\n\nIf not, we have the terrible probability to consider, that while\nfearful sacrifices of the labor and lives of men, and of morality\nitself, are being made to art, that same art may be not only useless\nbut even harmful.\n\nAnd therefore it is necessary for a society in which works of art\narise and are supported, to find out whether all that professes to\nbe art is really art; whether (as is presupposed in our society) all\nthat which is art is good; and whether it is important and worth\nthose sacrifices which it necessitates. It is still more necessary\nfor every conscientious artist to know this, that he may be sure\nthat all he does has a valid meaning; that it is not merely an\ninfatuation of the small circle of people among whom he lives which\nexcites in him the false assurance that he is doing a good work; and\nthat what he takes from others for the support of his often very\nluxurious life, will be compensated for by those productions at\nwhich he works. And that is why answers to the above questions are\nespecially important in our time.\n\nWhat is this art, which is considered so important and necessary for\nhumanity that for its sake these sacrifices of labor, of human life,\nand even of goodness may be made?\n\n\"What is art? What a question! Art is architecture, sculpture,\npainting, music, and poetry in all its forms,\" usually replies the\nordinary man, the art amateur, or even the artist himself, imagining\nthe matter about which he is talking to be perfectly clear, and\nuniformly understood by everybody. But in architecture, one inquires\nfurther, are there not simple buildings which are not objects of\nart, and buildings with artistic pretensions which are unsuccessful\nand ugly and therefore cannot be considered as works of art? Wherein\nlies the characteristic sign of a work of art?\n\nIt is the same in sculpture, in music, and in poetry. Art, in all\nits forms, is bounded on one side by the practically useful, and on\nthe other by unsuccessful attempts at art. How is art to be marked\noff from each of these? The ordinary educated man of our circle,\nand even the artist who has not occupied himself especially with\n\u00e6sthetics, will not hesitate at this question either. He thinks the\nsolution has been found long ago, and is well known to every one.\n\n\"Art is such activity as produces beauty,\" says such a man.\n\nIf art consists in that, then is a ballet or an operetta art? you\ninquire.\n\n\"Yes,\" says the ordinary man, though with some hesitation, \"a good\nballet or a graceful operetta is also art, in so far as it manifests\nbeauty.\"\n\nBut without even asking the ordinary man what differentiates the\n\"good\" ballet and the \"graceful\" operetta from their opposites\n(a question he would have much difficulty in answering), if you\nask him whether the activity of costumiers and hairdressers, who\nornament the figures and faces of the women for the ballet and\nthe operetta, is art; or the activity of Worth, the dressmaker;\nof scent-makers and men cooks,--then he will, in most cases, deny\nthat their activity belongs to the sphere of art. But in this the\nordinary man makes a mistake, just because he is an ordinary man\nand not a specialist, and because he has not occupied himself with\n\u00e6sthetic questions. Had he looked into these matters, he would\nhave seen in the great Renan's book, \"Marc Aurele,\" a dissertation\nshowing that the tailor's work is art, and that those who do not\nsee in the adornment of woman an affair of the highest art are very\nsmall-minded and dull. \"_C'est le grand art_,\" says Renan. Moreover,\nhe would have known that in many \u00e6sthetic systems--for instance,\nin the \u00e6sthetics of the learned Professor Kralik, \"Weltsch\u00f6nheit,\nVersuch einer allgemeinen \u00c6sthetik, von Richard Kralik,\" and in \"Les\nProbl\u00e8mes de l'Esth\u00e9tique Contemporaine,\" by Guyau--the arts of\ncostume, of taste, and of touch are included.\n\n\"_Es Folgt nun ein F\u00fcnfblatt von K\u00fcnsten, die der subjectiven\nSinnlichkeit entkeimen_\" (There results then a pentafoliate of arts,\ngrowing out of the subjective perceptions), says Kralik (p. 175).\n\"_Sie sind die \u00e4sthetische Behandlung der f\u00fcnf Sinne._\" (They are\nthe \u00e6sthetic treatment of the five senses.)\n\nThese five arts are the following:--\n\n_Die Kunst des Geschmacksinns_--The art of the sense of taste (p.\n175).\n\n_Die Kunst des Geruchsinns_--The art of the sense of smell (p. 177).\n\n_Die Kunst des Tastsinns_--The art of the sense of touch (p. 180).\n\n_Die Kunst des Geh\u00f6rsinns_--The art of the sense of hearing (p. 182).\n\n_Die Kunst des Gesichtsinns_--The art of the sense of sight (p. 184).\n\nOf the first of these--_die Kunst des Geschmacksinns_--he says:\n\"_Man h\u00e4lt zwar gew\u00f6hnlich nur zwei oder h\u00f6chstens drei Sinne f\u00fcr\nw\u00fcrdig, den Stoff k\u00fcnstlerischer Behandlung abzugeben, aber ich\nglaube nur mit bedingtem Recht. Ich will kein allzugrosses Gewicht\ndarauf legen, dass der gemeine Sprachgebrauch manch andere K\u00fcnste,\nwie zum Beispiel die Kochkunst kennt._\"[39]\n\n [39] Only two, or at most three, senses are generally held worthy\n to supply matter for artistic treatment, but I think this opinion\n is only conditionally correct. I will not lay too much stress on\n the fact that our common speech recognizes many other arts, as, for\n instance, the art of cookery.\n\nAnd further: \"_Und es ist doch gewiss eine \u00e4sthetische Leistung,\nwenn es der Kochkunst gelingt ans einem thierischen Kadaver einen\nGegenstand des Geschmacks in jedem Sinne zu machen. Der Grundsatz\nder Kunst des Geschmacksinns (die weiter ist als die sogenannte\nKochkunst) ist also dieser: Es soll alles Geniessbare als Sinnbild\neiner Idee behandelt werden und in jedesmaligem Einklang zur\nauszudr\u00fcckenden Idee._\"[40]\n\n [40] And yet it is certainly an \u00e6sthetic achievement when the art of\n cooking succeeds in making of an animal's corpse an object in all\n respects tasteful. The principle of the Art of Taste (which goes\n beyond the so-called Art of Cookery) is therefore this: All that is\n eatable should be treated as the symbol of some Idea, and always in\n harmony with the Idea to be expressed.\n\nThis author, like Renan, acknowledges a _Kost\u00fcmkunst_ (Art of\nCostume) (p. 200), etc.\n\nSuch is also the opinion of the French writer, Guyau, who is highly\nesteemed by some authors of our day. In his book, \"Les Probl\u00e8mes\nde l'Esth\u00e9tique Contemporaine,\" he speaks seriously of touch,\ntaste, and smell as giving, or being capable of giving, \u00e6sthetic\nimpressions: \"_Si la couleur manque au toucher, il nous fournit en\nrevanche une notion que l'\u0153il seul ne peut nous donner, et qui a\nune valeur esth\u00e9tique consid\u00e9rable, celle du_ doux, _du_ soyeux,\n_du_ poli. _Ce qui caract\u00e9rise la beaut\u00e9 du velours, c'est sa\ndouceur au toucher non moins que son brillant. Dans l'id\u00e9e que nous\nnous faisons de la beaut\u00e9 d'une femme, le velout\u00e9 de sa peau entre\ncomme \u00e9l\u00e9ment essentiel._\"\n\n\"_Chacun de nous probablement avec un peu d'attention se rappellera\ndes jouissances du go\u00fbt, qui ont \u00e9t\u00e9 de v\u00e9ritables jouissances\nesth\u00e9tiques._\"[41] And he recounts how a glass of milk drunk by him\nin the mountains gave him \u00e6sthetic enjoyment.\n\n [41] If the sense of touch lacks color, it gives us, on the\n other hand, a notion which the eye alone cannot afford, and one\n of considerable \u00e6sthetic value, namely, that of _softness_,\n _silkiness_, _polish_. The beauty of velvet is characterized not\n less by its softness to the touch than by its luster. In the idea\n we form of a woman's beauty, the softness of her skin enters as an\n essential element.\n\n Each of us, probably, with a little attention, can recall pleasures\n of taste which have been real \u00e6sthetic pleasures.\n\nSo it turns out that the conception of art, as consisting in making\nbeauty manifest, is not at all so simple as it seemed, especially\nnow, when in this conception of beauty are included our sensations\nof touch and taste and smell, as they are by the latest \u00e6sthetic\nwriters.\n\nBut the ordinary man either does not know, or does not wish to know,\nall this, and is firmly convinced that all questions about art may\nbe simply and clearly solved by acknowledging beauty to be the\nsubject-matter of art. To him it seems clear and comprehensible that\nart consists in manifesting beauty, and that a reference to beauty\nwill serve to explain all questions about art.\n\nBut what is this beauty which forms the subject-matter of art? How\nis it defined? What is it?\n\nAs is always the case, the more cloudy and confused the conception\nconveyed by a word, with the more _aplomb_ and self-assurance do\npeople use that word, pretending that what is understood by it is so\nsimple and clear that it is not worth while even to discuss what it\nactually means.\n\nThis is how matters of orthodox religion are usually dealt with,\nand this is how people now deal with the conception of beauty.\nIt is taken for granted that what is meant by the word beauty is\nknown and understood by every one. And yet not only is this not\nknown, but, after whole mountains of books have been written on\nthe subject by the most learned and profound thinkers during one\nhundred and fifty years (ever since Baumgarten founded \u00e6sthetics in\nthe year 1750), the question, What is beauty? remains to this day\nquite unsolved, and in each new work on \u00e6sthetics it is answered\nin a new way. One of the last books I read on \u00e6sthetics is a not\nill-written booklet by Julius Mithalter, called \"R\u00e4tsel des Sch\u00f6nen\"\n(The Enigma of the Beautiful). And that title precisely expresses\nthe position of the question, What is beauty? After thousands of\nlearned men have discussed it during one hundred and fifty years,\nthe meaning of the word beauty remains an enigma still. The Germans\nanswer the question in their manner, though in a hundred different\nways. The physiologist-\u00e6stheticians, especially the Englishmen,\nHerbert Spencer, Grant Allen, and his school, answer it, each in\nhis own way; the French eclectics, and the followers of Guyau and\nTaine, also each in his own way; and all these people know all the\npreceding solutions given by Baumgarten, and Kant, and Schelling,\nand Schiller, and Fichte, and Winckelmann, and Lessing, and Hegel,\nand Schopenhauer, and Hartmann, and Schasler, and Cousin, and\nL\u00e9v\u00eaque, and others.\n\nWhat is this strange conception \"beauty,\" which seems so simple\nto those who talk without thinking, but in defining which all the\nphilosophers of various tendencies and different nationalities can\ncome to no agreement during a century and a half? What is this\nconception of beauty, on which the dominant doctrine of art rests?\n\nIn Russian, by the word _krasota_ (beauty) we mean only that which\npleases the sight. And though latterly people have begun to speak of\n\"an ugly deed,\" or of \"beautiful music,\" it is not good Russian.\n\nA Russian of the common folk, not knowing foreign languages, will\nnot understand you if you tell him that a man who has given his last\ncoat to another, or done anything similar, has acted \"beautifully,\"\nthat a man who has cheated another has done an \"ugly\" action, or\nthat a song is \"beautiful.\"\n\nIn Russian a deed may be kind and good, or unkind and bad. Music may\nbe pleasant and good, or unpleasant and bad; but there can be no\nsuch thing as \"beautiful\" or \"ugly\" music.\n\nBeautiful may relate to a man, a horse, a house, a view, or a\nmovement. Of actions, thoughts, character, or music, if they please\nus, we may say that they are good, or, if they do not please us,\nthat they are not good. But beautiful can be used only concerning\nthat which pleases the sight. So that the word and conception \"good\"\nincludes the conception of \"beautiful,\" but the reverse is not\nthe case; the conception \"beauty\" does not include the conception\n\"good.\" If we say \"good\" of an article which we value for its\nappearance, we thereby say that the article is beautiful; but if we\nsay it is \"beautiful,\" it does not at all mean that the article is a\ngood one.\n\nSuch is the meaning ascribed by the Russian language, and therefore\nby the sense of the people, to the words and conceptions \"good\" and\n\"beautiful.\"\n\nIn all the European languages, _i.e._ the languages of those nations\namong whom the doctrine has spread that beauty is the essential\nthing in art, the words \"beau,\" \"sch\u00f6n,\" \"beautiful,\" \"bello,\"\netc., while keeping their meaning of beautiful in form, have come\nto also express \"goodness,\" \"kindness,\" _i.e._ have come to act as\nsubstitutes for the word \"good.\"\n\nSo that it has become quite natural in those languages to use such\nexpressions as \"belle ame,\" \"sch\u00f6ne Gedanken,\" of \"beautiful deed.\"\nThose languages no longer have a suitable word wherewith expressly\nto indicate beauty of form, and have to use a combination of words\nsuch as \"beau par la forme,\" \"beautiful to look at,\" etc., to convey\nthat idea.\n\nObservation of the divergent meanings which the words \"beauty\" and\n\"beautiful\" have in Russian on the one hand, and in those European\nlanguages now permeated by this \u00e6sthetic theory on the other hand,\nshows us that the word \"beauty\" has, among the latter, acquired a\nspecial meaning, namely, that of \"good.\"\n\nWhat is remarkable, moreover, is that since we Russians have begun\nmore and more to adopt the European view of art, the same evolution\nhas begun to show itself in our language also, and some people\nspeak and write quite confidently, and without causing surprise, of\nbeautiful music and ugly actions, or even thoughts; whereas forty\nyears ago, when I was young, the expressions \"beautiful music\"\nand \"ugly actions\" were not only unusual, but incomprehensible.\nEvidently this new meaning given to beauty by European thought\nbegins to be assimilated by Russian society.\n\nAnd what really is this meaning? What is this \"beauty\" as it is\nunderstood by the European peoples?\n\nIn order to answer this question, I must here quote at least a\nsmall selection of those definitions of beauty most generally\nadopted in existing \u00e6sthetic systems. I especially beg the reader\nnot to be overcome by dullness, but to read these extracts through,\nor, still better, to read some one of the erudite \u00e6sthetic authors.\nNot to mention the voluminous German \u00e6stheticians, a very good\nbook for this purpose would be either the German book by Kralik,\nthe English work by Knight, or the French one by L\u00e9v\u00eaque. It is\nnecessary to read one of the learned \u00e6sthetic writers in order to\nform at firsthand a conception of the variety in opinion and the\nfrightful obscurity which reigns in this region of speculation; not,\nin this important matter, trusting to another's report.\n\nThis, for instance, is what the German \u00e6sthetician Schasler says\nin the preface to his famous, voluminous, and detailed work on\n\u00e6sthetics:--\n\n\"Hardly in any sphere of philosophic science can we find such\ndivergent methods of investigation and exposition, amounting even to\nself-contradiction, as in the sphere of \u00e6sthetics. On the one hand,\nwe have elegant phraseology without any substance, characterized\nin great part by most one-sided superficiality; and on the other\nhand, accompanying undeniable profundity of investigation and\nrichness of subject-matter, we get a revolting awkwardness of\nphilosophic terminology, infolding the simplest thoughts in an\napparel of abstract science, as though to render them worthy to\nenter the consecrated palace of the system; and finally, between\nthese two methods of investigation and exposition there is a third,\nforming, as it were, the transition from one to the other, a method\nconsisting of eclecticism, now flaunting an elegant phraseology, and\nnow a pedantic erudition.... A style of exposition that falls into\nnone of these three defects but it is truly concrete, and, having\nimportant matter, expresses it in clear and popular philosophic\nlanguage, can nowhere be found less frequently than in the domain of\n\u00e6sthetics.\"[42]\n\n [42] M. Schasler, \"Kritische Geschichte der \u00c6sthetik,\" 1872, vol.\n i., p. 13.\n\nIt is only necessary, for instance, to read Schasler's own book to\nconvince oneself of the justice of this observation of his.\n\nOn the same subject the French writer V\u00e9ron, in the preface to\nhis very good work on \u00e6sthetics, says: \"_Il n'y a pas de science,\nqui ait \u00e9t\u00e9 plus que l'esth\u00e9tique livr\u00e9e aux r\u00eaveries des\nm\u00e9taphysiciens. Depuis Platon jusqu'aux doctrines officielles de nos\njours, on a fait de l'art je ne sais quel amalgame de fantaisies\nquintessenci\u00e9es, et de myst\u00e8res transcendantaux qui trouvent leur\nexpression supr\u00eame dans la conception absolue du Beau id\u00e9al,\nprototype immuable et divin des choses r\u00e9elles_\" (\"L'Esth\u00e9tique,\"\n1878, p. 5).[43]\n\n [43] There is no science which, more than \u00e6sthetics, has been handed\n over to the reveries of the metaphysicians. From Plato down to the\n received doctrines of our day, people have made of art a strange\n amalgam of quintessential fancies and transcendental mysteries,\n which find their supreme expression in the conception of an absolute\n ideal Beauty, immutable and divine prototype of actual things.\n\nIf the reader will only be at the pains to peruse the following\nextracts, defining beauty, taken from the chief writers on\n\u00e6sthetics, he may convince himself that this censure is thoroughly\ndeserved.\n\nI shall not quote the definitions of beauty attributed to\nthe ancients,--Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc., down to\nPlotinus,--because, in reality, the ancients had not that conception\nof beauty separated from goodness which forms the basis and aim of\n\u00e6sthetics in our time. By referring the judgments of the ancients on\nbeauty to our conception of it, as is usually done in \u00e6sthetics, we\ngive the words of the ancients a meaning which is not theirs.[44]\n\n [44] See on this matter Benard's admirable book, \"L'Esth\u00e9tique\n d'Aristote,\" also Walter's \"Geschichte der \u00c6sthetik in Altertum.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\n\nI begin with the founder of \u00e6sthetics, Baumgarten (1714-1762).\n\nAccording to Baumgarten,[45] the object of logical knowledge is\nTruth, the object of \u00e6sthetic (_i.e._ sensuous) knowledge is Beauty.\nBeauty is the Perfect (the Absolute) recognized through the senses;\nTruth is the Perfect perceived through reason; Goodness is the\nPerfect reached by moral will.\n\n [45] Schasler, p. 361.\n\nBeauty is defined by Baumgarten as a correspondence, _i.e._ an order\nof the parts in their mutual relations to each other and in their\nrelation to the whole. The aim of beauty itself is to please and\nexcite a desire, \"_Wohlgefallen und Erregung eines Verlangens_.\" (A\nposition precisely the opposite of Kant's definition of the nature\nand sign of beauty.)\n\nWith reference to the manifestations of beauty, Baumgarten considers\nthat the highest embodiment of beauty is seen by us in nature, and\nhe therefore thinks that the highest aim of art is to copy nature.\n(This position also is directly contradicted by the conclusions of\nthe latest \u00e6stheticians.)\n\nPassing over the unimportant followers of Baumgarten,--Maier,\nEschenburg, and Eberhard,--who only slightly modified the doctrine\nof their teacher by dividing the pleasant from the beautiful, I will\nquote the definitions given by writers who came immediately after\nBaumgarten, and defined beauty quite in another way. These writers\nwere Sulzer, Mendelssohn, and Moritz. They, in contradiction to\nBaumgarten's main position, recognize as the aim of art, not beauty,\nbut goodness. Thus Sulzer (1720-1777) says that only that can be\nconsidered beautiful which contains goodness. According to his\ntheory, the aim of the whole life of humanity is welfare in social\nlife. This is attained by the education of the moral feelings, to\nwhich end art should be subservient. Beauty is that which evokes and\neducates this feeling.\n\nBeauty is understood almost in the same way by Mendelssohn\n(1729-1786). According to him, art is the carrying forward of the\nbeautiful, obscurely recognized by feeling, till it becomes the true\nand good. The aim of art is moral perfection.[46]\n\n [46] Schasler, p. 369.\n\nFor the \u00e6stheticians of this school, the ideal of beauty is a\nbeautiful soul in a beautiful body. So that these \u00e6stheticians\ncompletely wipe out Baumgarten's division of the Perfect (the\nAbsolute), into the three forms of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty; and\nBeauty is again united with the Good and the True.\n\nBut this conception is not only not maintained by the later\n\u00e6stheticians, but the \u00e6sthetic doctrine of Winckelmann arises, again\nin complete opposition. This divides the mission of art from the aim\nof goodness in the sharpest and most positive manner, makes external\nbeauty the aim of art, and even limits it to visible beauty.\n\nAccording to the celebrated work of Winckelmann (1717-1767), the law\nand aim of all art is beauty only, beauty quite separated from and\nindependent of goodness. There are three kinds of beauty: (1) beauty\nof form, (2) beauty of idea, expressing itself in the position of\nthe figure (in plastic art), (3) beauty of expression, attainable\nonly when the two first conditions are present. This beauty of\nexpression is the highest aim of art, and is attained in antique\nart; modern art should therefore aim at imitating ancient art.[47]\n\n [47] Schasler, pp. 388-390.\n\nArt is similarly understood by Lessing, Herder, and afterwards by\nGoethe and by all the distinguished \u00e6stheticians of Germany till\nKant, from whose day, again, a different conception of art commences.\n\nNative \u00e6sthetic theories arose during this period in England,\nFrance, Italy, and Holland, and they, though not taken from the\nGerman, were equally cloudy and contradictory. And all these\nwriters, just like the German \u00e6stheticians, founded their theories\non a conception of the Beautiful, understanding beauty in the sense\nof a something existing absolutely, and more or less intermingled\nwith Goodness or having one and the same root. In England, almost\nsimultaneously with Baumgarten, even a little earlier, Shaftesbury,\nHutcheson, Home, Burke, Hogarth, and others, wrote on art.\n\nAccording to Shaftesbury (1670-1713), \"That which is beautiful\nis harmonious and proportionable, what is harmonious and\nproportionable is true, and what is at once both beautiful and true\nis of consequence agreeable and good.\"[48] Beauty, he taught, is\nrecognized by the mind only. God is fundamental beauty; beauty and\ngoodness proceed from the same fount.\n\n [48] Knight, \"Philosophy of the Beautiful,\" i., pp. 165, 166.\n\nSo that, although Shaftesbury regards beauty as being something\nseparate from goodness, they again merge into something inseparable.\n\nAccording to Hutcheson (1694-1747--\"Inquiry into the Original of our\nIdeas of Beauty and Virtue\"), the aim of art is beauty, the essence\nof which consists in evoking in us the perception of uniformity amid\nvariety. In the recognition of what is art we are guided by \"an\ninternal sense.\" This internal sense may be in contradiction to the\nethical one. So that, according to Hutcheson, beauty does not always\ncorrespond with goodness, but separates from it and is sometimes\ncontrary to it.[49]\n\n [49] Schasler, p. 289. Knight, pp. 168, 169.\n\nAccording to Home, Lord Kames (1696-1782), beauty is that which is\npleasant. Therefore beauty is defined by taste alone. The standard\nof true taste is that the maximum of richness, fullness, strength,\nand variety of impression should be contained in the narrowest\nlimits. That is the ideal of a perfect work of art.\n\nAccording to Burke (1729-1797--\"Philosophical Inquiry into the\nOrigin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful\"), the sublime\nand beautiful, which are the aim of art, have their origin in the\npromptings of self-preservation and of society. These feelings,\nexamined in their source, are means for the maintenance of the race\nthrough the individual. The first (self-preservation) is attained by\nnourishment, defense, and war; the second (society) by intercourse\nand propagation. Therefore self-defense, and war, which is bound\nup with it, is the source of the sublime; sociability, and the\nsex-instinct, which is bound up with it, is the source of beauty.[50]\n\n [50] R. Kralik, \"Weltsch\u00f6nheit, Versuch einer allgemeinen \u00c6sthetik,\"\n pp. 304-306.\n\nSuch were the chief English definitions of art and beauty in the\neighteenth century.\n\nDuring that period, in France, the writers on art were P\u00e8re Andr\u00e9\nand Batteux, with Diderot, D'Alembert, and, to some extent,\nVoltaire, following later.\n\nAccording to P\u00e8re Andr\u00e9 (\"Essai sur le Beau,\" 1741), there are three\nkinds of beauty,--divine beauty, natural beauty, and artificial\nbeauty.[51]\n\n [51] Knight, p. 101.\n\nAccording to Batteux (1713-1780), art consists in imitating the\nbeauty of nature, its aim being enjoyment.[52] Such is also\nDiderot's definition of art.\n\n [52] Schasler, p. 316.\n\nThe French writers, like the English, consider that it is taste that\ndecides what is beautiful. And the laws of taste are not only not\nlaid down, but it is granted that they cannot be settled. The same\nview was held by D'Alembert and Voltaire.[53]\n\n [53] Knight, pp. 102-104.\n\nAccording to the Italian \u00e6sthetician of that period, Pagano, art\nconsists in uniting the beauties dispersed in nature. The capacity\nto perceive these beauties is taste, the capacity to bring them\ninto one whole is artistic genius. Beauty commingles with goodness,\nso that beauty is goodness made visible, and goodness is inner\nbeauty.[54]\n\n [54] R. Kralik, p. 124.\n\nAccording to the opinion of other Italians: Muratori\n(1672-1750),--\"_Riflessioni sopra il buon gusto intorno le science\ne le arti_,\"--and especially Spaletti,[55]--\"_Saggio sopra la\nbellezza_\" (1765),--art amounts to an egotistical sensation, founded\n(as with Burke) on the desire for self-preservation and society.\n\n [55] Spaletti, Schasler, p. 328.\n\nAmong Dutch writers, Hemsterhuis (1720-1790), who had an influence\non the German \u00e6stheticians and on Goethe, is remarkable. According\nto him, beauty is that which gives most pleasure, and that gives\nmost pleasure which gives us the greatest number of ideas in the\nshortest time. Enjoyment of the beautiful, because it gives the\ngreatest quantity of perceptions in the shortest time, is the\nhighest notion to which man can attain.[56]\n\n [56] Schasler, pp. 331-333.\n\nSuch were the \u00e6sthetic theories outside Germany during the last\ncentury. In Germany, after Winckelmann, there again arose a\ncompletely new \u00e6sthetic theory, that of Kant (1724-1804), which,\nmore than all others, clears up what this conception of beauty, and\nconsequently of art, really amounts to.\n\nThe \u00e6sthetic teaching of Kant is founded as follows: Man has a\nknowledge of nature outside him and of himself in nature. In\nnature, outside himself, he seeks for truth; in himself, he seeks\nfor goodness. The first is an affair of pure reason, the other of\npractical reason (free will). Besides these two means of perception,\nthere is yet the judging capacity (_Urteilskraft_), which forms\njudgments without reasonings and produces pleasure without desire\n(_Urtheil ohne Begriff und Vergn\u00fcgen ohne Begehren_). This capacity\nis the basis of \u00e6sthetic feeling. Beauty, according to Kant, in\nits subjective meaning is that which, in general and necessarily,\nwithout reasonings and without practical advantage, pleases. In its\nobjective meaning it is the form of a suitable object, in so far as\nthat object is perceived without any conception of its utility.[57]\n\n [57] Schasler, pp. 525-528.\n\nBeauty is defined in the same way by the followers of Kant, among\nwhom was Schiller (1759-1805). According to Schiller, who wrote much\non \u00e6sthetics, the aim of art is, as with Kant, beauty, the source of\nwhich is pleasure without practical advantage. So that art may be\ncalled a game, not in the sense of an unimportant occupation, but in\nthe sense of a manifestation of the beauties of life itself without\nother aim than that of beauty.[58]\n\n [58] Knight, pp. 61-63.\n\nBesides Schiller, the most remarkable of Kant's followers in the\nsphere of \u00e6sthetics was Wilhelm Humboldt, who, though he added\nnothing to the definition of beauty, explained various forms of\nit,--the drama, music, the comic, etc.[59]\n\n [59] Schasler, pp. 740-743.\n\nAfter Kant, besides the second-rate philosophers, the writers on\n\u00e6sthetics were Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, and their followers.\nFichte (1762-1814) says that perception of the beautiful proceeds\nfrom this: the world--_i.e._ nature--has two sides: it is the\nsum of our limitations, and it is the sum of our free idealistic\nactivity. In the first aspect the world is limited, in the second\naspect it is free. In the first aspect every object is limited,\ndistorted, compressed, confined--and we see deformity; in the second\nwe perceive its inner completeness, vitality, regeneration--and\nwe see beauty. So that the deformity or beauty of an object,\naccording to Fichte, depends on the point of view of the observer.\nBeauty therefore exists, not in the world, but in the beautiful\nsoul (_sch\u00f6ner Geist_). Art is the manifestation of this beautiful\nsoul, and its aim is the education, not only of the mind--that is\nthe business of the _savant_, not only of the heart--that is the\naffair of the moral preacher, but of the whole man. And so the\ncharacteristic of beauty lies, not in anything external, but in the\npresence of a beautiful soul in the artist.[60]\n\n [60] Schasler, pp, 769-771.\n\nFollowing Fichte, and in the same direction, Friedrich Schlegel and\nAdam M\u00fcller also defined beauty. According to Schlegel (1772-1829),\nbeauty in art is understood too incompletely, one-sidedly, and\ndisconnectedly. Beauty exists, not only in art, but also in nature\nand in love; so that the truly beautiful is expressed by the union\nof art, nature, and love. Therefore, as inseparably one with\n\u00e6sthetic art, Schlegel acknowledges moral and philosophic art.[61]\n\n [61] Schasler, pp. 786, 787.\n\nAccording to Adam M\u00fcller (1779-1829), there are two kinds of beauty:\nthe one, general beauty, which attracts people as the sun attracts\nthe planet--this is found chiefly in antique art; and the other,\nindividual beauty, which results from the observer himself becoming\na sun, attracting beauty--this is the beauty of modern art. A world\nin which all contradictions are harmonized is the highest beauty.\nEvery work of art is a reproduction of this universal harmony.[62]\nThe highest art is the art of life.[63]\n\n [62] Kralik, p. 148.\n\n [63] Kralik, p. 820.\n\nNext after Fichte and his followers came a contemporary of his, the\nphilosopher Schelling (1775-1854), who has had a great influence\non the \u00e6sthetic conceptions of our times. According to Schelling's\nphilosophy, art is the production or result of that conception of\nthings by which the subject becomes its own object, or the object\nits own subject. Beauty is the perception of the infinite in the\nfinite. And the chief characteristic of works of art is unconscious\ninfinity. Art is the uniting of the subjective with the objective,\nof nature with reason, of the unconscious with the conscious, and\ntherefore art is the highest means of knowledge. Beauty is the\ncontemplation of things in themselves as they exist in the prototype\n(_In den Urbildern_). It is not the artist who by his knowledge or\nskill produces the beautiful, but the idea of beauty in him itself\nproduces it.[64]\n\n [64] Schasler, pp. 828, 829, 834-841.\n\nOf Schelling's followers the most noticeable was Solger\n(1780-1819--\"Vorlesungen \u00fcber \u00c6sthetik\"). According to him, the idea\nof beauty is the fundamental idea of everything. In the world we see\nonly distortions of the fundamental idea, but art, by imagination,\nmay lift itself to the height of this idea. Art is therefore akin to\ncreation.[65]\n\n [65] Schasler, p. 891.\n\nAccording to another follower of Schelling, Krause (1781-1832),\ntrue, positive beauty is the manifestation of the Idea in an\nindividual form; art is the actualization of the beauty existing in\nthe sphere of man's free spirit. The highest stage of art is the art\nof life, which directs its activity toward the adornment of life so\nthat it may be a beautiful abode for a beautiful man.[66]\n\n [66] Schasler, p. 917.\n\nAfter Schelling and his followers came the new \u00e6sthetic doctrine\nof Hegel, which is held to this day, consciously by many, but by\nthe majority unconsciously. This teaching is not only no clearer or\nbetter defined than the preceding ones, but is, if possible, even\nmore cloudy and mystical.\n\nAccording to Hegel (1770-1831), God manifests himself in nature\nand in art in the form of beauty. God expresses himself in two\nways: in the object and in the subject, in nature and in spirit.\nBeauty is the shining of the Idea through matter. Only the soul,\nand what pertains to it, is truly beautiful; and therefore the\nbeauty of nature is only the reflection of the natural beauty of\nthe spirit--the beautiful has only a spiritual content. But the\nspiritual must appear in sensuous form. The sensuous manifestation\nof spirit is only appearance (_schein_), and this appearance is\nthe only reality of the beautiful. Art is thus the production of\nthis appearance of the Idea, and is a means, together with religion\nand philosophy, of bringing to consciousness and of expressing the\ndeepest problems of humanity and the highest truths of the spirit.\n\nTruth and beauty, according to Hegel, are one and the same thing;\nthe difference being only that truth is the Idea itself as it exists\nin itself, and is thinkable. The Idea, manifested externally,\nbecomes to the apprehension not only true but beautiful. The\nbeautiful is the manifestation of the Idea.[67]\n\n [67] Schasler, pp. 946, 1085, 984, 985, 990.\n\nFollowing Hegel came his many adherents, Weisse, Arnold Ruge,\nRosenkrantz, Theodor Vischer, and others.\n\nAccording to Weisse (1801-1867), art is the introduction\n(_Einbildung_) of the absolute spiritual reality of beauty into\nexternal, dead, indifferent matter, the perception of which latter,\napart from the beauty brought into it, presents the negation of all\nexistence in itself (_Negation alles F\u00fcrsichseins_).\n\nIn the idea of truth, Weisse explains, lies a contradiction between\nthe subjective and the objective sides of knowledge, in that an\nindividual _I_ discerns the Universal. This contradiction can be\nremoved by a conception that should unite into one the universal and\nthe individual, which fall asunder in our conceptions of truth. Such\na conception would be reconciled (_aufgehoben_) truth. Beauty is\nsuch a reconciled truth.[68]\n\n [68] Schasler, pp. 966, 655, 956.\n\nAccording to Ruge (1802-1880), a strict follower of Hegel, beauty is\nthe Idea expressing itself. The spirit, contemplating itself, either\nfinds itself expressed completely, and then that full expression\nof itself is beauty; or incompletely, and then it feels the need\nto alter this imperfect expression of itself, and becomes creative\nart.[69]\n\n [69] Schasler, p. 1017.\n\nAccording to Vischer (1807-1887), beauty is the Idea in the form\nof a finite phenomenon. The Idea itself is not indivisible, but\nforms a system of ideas, which may be represented by ascending and\ndescending lines. The higher the idea, the more beauty it contains;\nbut even the lowest contains beauty, because it forms an essential\nlink of the system. The highest form of the Idea is personality, and\ntherefore the highest art is that which has for its subject-matter\nthe highest personality.[70]\n\n [70] Schasler, pp. 1065, 1066.\n\nSuch were the theories of the German \u00e6stheticians in the Hegelian\ndirection, but they did not monopolize \u00e6sthetic dissertations. In\nGermany, side by side and simultaneously with the Hegelian theories,\nthere appeared theories of beauty not only independent of Hegel's\nposition (that beauty is the manifestation of the Idea), but\ndirectly contrary to this view, denying and ridiculing it. Such was\nthe line taken by Herbart and, more particularly, by Schopenhauer.\n\nAccording to Herbart (1776-1841), there is not, and cannot be, any\nsuch thing as beauty existing in itself. What does exist is only\nour opinion, and it is necessary to find the base of this opinion\n(_\u00c4sthetisches Elementarurtheil_). Such bases are connected with our\nimpressions. There are certain relations which we term beautiful;\nand art consists in finding these relations, which are simultaneous\nin painting, the plastic art, and architecture, successive and\nsimultaneous in music, and purely successive in poetry. In\ncontradiction to the former \u00e6stheticians, Herbart holds that objects\nare often beautiful which express nothing at all, as, for instance,\nthe rainbow, which is beautiful for its lines and colors, and not\nfor its mythological connection with Iris or Noah's rainbow.[71]\n\n [71] Schasler, pp. 1097-1100.\n\nAnother opponent of Hegel was Schopenhauer, who denied Hegel's whole\nsystem, his \u00e6sthetics included.\n\nAccording to Schopenhauer (1788-1860), Will objectivizes itself\nin the world on various planes; and although the higher the plane\non which it is objectivized the more beautiful it is, yet each\nplane has its own beauty. Renunciation of one's individuality and\ncontemplation of one of these planes of manifestation of Will gives\nus a perception of beauty. All men, says Schopenhauer, possess the\ncapacity to objectivize the Idea on different planes. The genius of\nthe artist has this capacity in a higher degree, and therefore makes\na higher beauty manifest.[72]\n\n [72] Schasler, pp. 1124, 1107.\n\nAfter these more eminent writers there followed, in Germany, less\noriginal and less influential ones, such as Hartmann, Kirkmann,\nSchnasse, and, to some extent, Helmholtz (as an \u00e6sthetician),\nBergmann, Jungmann, and an innumerable host of others.\n\nAccording to Hartmann (1842), beauty lies, not in the external\nworld, nor in \"the thing in itself,\" neither does it reside in the\nsoul of man, but it lies in the \"seeming\" (_Schein_) produced by the\nartist. The thing in itself is not beautiful, but is transformed\ninto beauty by the artist.[73]\n\n [73] Knight, pp. 81, 82.\n\nAccording to Schnasse (1798-1875), there is no perfect beauty in the\nworld. In nature there is only an approach toward it. Art gives what\nnature cannot give. In the energy of the free _ego_, conscious of\nharmony not found in nature, beauty is disclosed.[74]\n\n [74] Knight, p. 83.\n\nKirkmann wrote on experimental \u00e6sthetics. All aspects of history\nin his system are joined by pure chance. Thus, according to\nKirkmann (1802-1884), there are six realms of history: The realm of\nKnowledge, of Wealth, of Morality, of Faith, of Politics, and of\nBeauty; and activity in the last-named realm is art.[75]\n\n [75] Schasler, p. 1121.\n\nAccording to Helmholtz (1821), who wrote on beauty as it relates to\nmusic, beauty in musical productions is attained only by following\nunalterable laws. These laws are not known to the artist; so that\nbeauty is manifested by the artist unconsciously, and cannot be\nsubjected to analysis.[76]\n\n [76] Knight, pp. 85, 86.\n\nAccording to Bergmann (1840) (\"Ueber das Sch\u00f6ne,\" 1887), to\ndefine beauty objectively is impossible. Beauty is only perceived\nsubjectively, and therefore the problem of \u00e6sthetics is to define\nwhat pleases whom.[77]\n\n [77] Knight, p. 88.\n\nAccording to Jungmann (d. 1885), firstly, beauty is a suprasensible\nquality of things; secondly, beauty produces in us pleasure by\nmerely being contemplated; and, thirdly, beauty is the foundation of\nlove.[78]\n\n [78] Knight, p. 88.\n\nThe \u00e6sthetic theories of the chief representatives of France,\nEngland, and other nations in recent times have been the following:--\n\nIn France, during this period, the prominent writers on \u00e6sthetics\nwere Cousin, Jouffroy, Pictet, Ravaisson, L\u00e9v\u00eaque.\n\nCousin (1792-1867) was an eclectic, and a follower of the German\nidealists. According to his theory, beauty always has a moral\nfoundation. He disputes the doctrine that art is imitation and\nthat the beautiful is what pleases. He affirms that beauty may be\ndefined objectively, and that it essentially consists in variety in\nunity.[79]\n\n [79] Knight, p. 112.\n\nAfter Cousin came Jouffroy (1796-1842), who was a pupil of Cousin's\nand also a follower of the German \u00e6stheticians. According to his\ndefinition, beauty is the expression of the invisible by those\nnatural signs which manifest it. The visible world is the garment by\nmeans of which we see beauty.[80]\n\n [80] Knight, p. 116.\n\nThe Swiss writer Pictet repeated Hegel and Plato, supposing beauty\nto exist in the direct and free manifestation of the divine Idea\nrevealing itself in sense forms.[81]\n\n [81] Knight, pp. 118, 119.\n\nL\u00e9v\u00eaque was a follower of Schelling and Hegel. He holds that beauty\nis something invisible behind nature--a force or spirit revealing\nitself in ordered energy.[82]\n\n [82] Knight, pp. 123, 124.\n\nSimilar vague opinions about the nature of beauty were expressed by\nthe French metaphysician Ravaisson, who considered beauty to be the\nultimate aim and purpose of the world. \"_La beaut\u00e9 la plus divine et\nprincipalement la plus parfaite contient le secret du monde._\"[83]\nAnd again, \"_Le monde entier est l'\u0153uvre d'une beaut\u00e9 absolue, qui\nn'est la cause des choses que par l'amour qu'elle met en elles._\"\n\n [83] \"La Philosophie en France,\" p. 232.\n\nI purposely abstain from translating these metaphysical expressions,\nbecause, however cloudy the Germans may be, the French, once\nthey absorb the theories of the Germans and take to imitating\nthem, far surpass them in uniting heterogeneous conceptions\ninto one expression, and putting forward one meaning or another\nindiscriminately. For instance, the French philosopher Renouvier,\nwhen discussing beauty, says, \"_Ne craignons pas de dire qu'une\nv\u00e9rit\u00e9 qui ne serait pas belle, ne serait qu'un jeu logique de notre\nesprit et que la seule v\u00e9rit\u00e9 solide et digne de ce nom c'est la\nbeaut\u00e9._\"[84]\n\n [84] \"Du Fondement de l'Induction.\"\n\nBesides the \u00e6sthetic idealists who wrote and still write under the\ninfluence of German philosophy, the following recent writers have\nalso influenced the comprehension of art and beauty in France:\nTaine, Guyau, Cherbuliez, Coster, and V\u00e9ron.\n\nAccording to Taine (1828-1893), beauty is the manifestation of the\nessential characteristic of any important idea more completely than\nit is expressed in reality.[85]\n\n [85] \"Philosophie de l'Art,\" vol. i., 1893, p. 47.\n\nGuyau (1854-1888) taught that beauty is not something exterior\nto the object itself,--is not, as it were, a parasitic growth on\nit,--but is itself the very blossoming forth of that on which it\nappears. Art is the expression of reasonable and conscious life,\nevoking in us both the deepest consciousness of existence and\nthe highest feelings and loftiest thoughts. Art lifts man from\nhis personal life into the universal life by means, not only of\nparticipation in the same ideas and beliefs, but also by means of\nsimilarity in feeling.[86]\n\n [86] Knight, pp. 139-141.\n\nAccording to Cherbuliez, art is an activity, (1) satisfying our\ninnate love of forms (_apparences_), (2) endowing these forms with\nideas, (3) affording pleasure alike to our senses, heart, and\nreason. Beauty is not inherent in objects, but is an act of our\nsouls. Beauty is an illusion; there is no absolute beauty. But what\nwe consider characteristic and harmonious appears beautiful to us.\n\nCoster held that the ideas of the beautiful, the good, and the true\nare innate. These ideas illuminate our minds and are identical with\nGod, who is Goodness, Truth, and Beauty. The idea of Beauty includes\nunity of essence, variety of constitutive elements, and order, which\nbrings unity into the various manifestations of life.[87]\n\n [87] Knight, p. 134.\n\nFor the sake of completeness, I will further cite some of the very\nlatest writings upon art.\n\n\"La Psychologie du Beau et de l'Art, par Mario Pilo\" (1895), says\nthat beauty is a product of our physical feelings. The aim of art\nis pleasure, but this pleasure (for some reason) he considers to be\nnecessarily highly moral.\n\nThe \"Essai sur l'Art Contemporain, par Fierens Gevaert\" (1897), says\nthat art rests on its connection with the past, and on the religious\nideal of the present which the artist holds when giving to his work\nthe form of his individuality.\n\nThen again, Sar Peladan's \"L'Art Idealiste et Mystique\" (1894),\nsays that beauty is one of the manifestations of God. \"_Il n'y\na pas d'autre R\u00e9alit\u00e9 que Dieu, il n'y a pas d'autre V\u00e9rit\u00e9 que\nDieu, il n'y a pas d'autre Beaut\u00e9 que Dieu_\" (p. 33). This book\nis very fantastic and very illiterate, but is characteristic in\nthe positions it takes up, and noticeable on account of a certain\nsuccess it is having with the younger generation in France.\n\nAll the \u00e6sthetics diffused in France up to the present time are\nsimilar in kind, but among them V\u00e9ron's \"L'Esth\u00e9tique\" (1878) forms\nan exception, being reasonable and clear. That work, though it does\nnot give an exact definition of art, at least rids \u00e6sthetics of the\ncloudy conception of an absolute beauty.\n\nAccording to V\u00e9ron (1825-1889), art is the manifestation of emotion\ntransmitted externally by a combination of lines, forms, colors, or\nby a succession of movements, sounds, or words subjected to certain\nrhythms.[88]\n\n [88] \"L'Esth\u00e9tique,\" p. 106.\n\nIn England, during this period, the writers on \u00e6sthetics define\nbeauty more and more frequently, not by its own qualities, but by\ntaste; and the discussion about beauty is superseded by a discussion\non taste.\n\nAfter Reid (1704-1796), who acknowledged beauty as being entirely\ndependent on the spectator, Alison, in his \"Essay on the Nature and\nPrinciples of Taste\" (1790), proved the same thing. From another\nside this was also asserted by Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802), the\ngrandfather of the celebrated Charles Darwin.\n\nHe says that we consider beautiful that which is connected in our\nconception with what we love. Richard Knight's work, \"An Analytical\nInquiry into the Principles of Taste,\" also tends in the same\ndirection.\n\nMost of the English theories of \u00e6sthetics are on the same lines. The\nprominent writers on \u00e6sthetics in England during the present century\nhave been Charles Darwin (to some extent), Herbert Spencer, Grant\nAllen, Ker, and Knight.\n\nAccording to Charles Darwin (1809-1882--\"Descent of Man,\" 1871),\nbeauty is a feeling natural not only to man, but also to animals,\nand consequently to the ancestors of man. Birds adorn their\nnests and esteem beauty in their mates. Beauty has an influence\non marriages. Beauty includes a variety of diverse conceptions.\nThe origin of the art of music is the call of the males to the\nfemales.[89]\n\n [89] Knight, p. 238.\n\nAccording to Herbert Spencer (b. 1820), the origin of art is\nplay, a thought previously expressed by Schiller. In the lower\nanimals all the energy of life is expended in life-maintenance\nand race-maintenance; in man, however, there remains, after these\nneeds are satisfied, some superfluous strength. This excess is\nused in play, which passes over into art. Play is an imitation\nof real activity; so is art. The sources of \u00e6sthetic pleasure are\nthreefold: (1) That \"which exercises the faculties affected in the\nmost complete ways, with the fewest drawbacks from exercise,\" (2)\n\"the difference of a stimulus in large amount, which awakens a glow\nof agreeable feeling,\" (3) the partial revival of the same, with\nspecial combinations.[90]\n\n [90] Knight, pp. 239, 240.\n\nIn Todhunter's \"Theory of the Beautiful\" (1872), beauty is\ninfinite loveliness, which we apprehend both by reason and by the\nenthusiasm of love. The recognition of beauty as being such depends\non taste; there can be no criterion for it. The only approach\nto a definition is found in culture. (What culture is, is not\ndefined.) Intrinsically, art--that which affects us through lines,\ncolors, sounds, or words--is not the product of blind forces, but\nof reasonable ones, working, with mutual helpfulness toward a\nreasonable aim. Beauty is the reconciliation of contradictions.[91]\n\n [91] Knight, pp. 240-243.\n\nGrant Allen is a follower of Spencer, and in his \"Physiological\n\u00c6sthetics\" (1877) he says that beauty has a physical origin.\n\u00c6sthetic pleasures come from the contemplation of the beautiful, but\nthe conception of beauty is obtained by a physiological process.\nThe origin of art is play; when there is a superfluity of physical\nstrength man gives himself to play; when there is a superfluity\nof receptive power man gives himself to art. The beautiful is\nthat which affords the maximum of stimulation with the minimum of\nwaste. Differences in the estimation of beauty proceed from taste.\nTaste can be educated. We must have faith in the judgments \"of the\nfinest-nurtured and most discriminative\" men. These people form the\ntaste of the next generation.[92]\n\n [92] Knight, pp. 250-252.\n\nAccording to Ker's \"Essay on the Philosophy of Art\" (1883), beauty\nenables us to make part of the objective world intelligible to\nourselves without being troubled by reference to other parts\nof it, as is inevitable for science. So that art destroys the\nopposition between the one and the many, between the law and its\nmanifestation, between the subject and its object, by uniting them.\nArt is the revelation and vindication of freedom, because it is free\nfrom the darkness and incomprehensibility of finite things.[93]\n\n [93] Knight, pp. 258, 259.\n\nAccording to Knight's \"Philosophy of the Beautiful,\" Part II.\n(1893), beauty is (as with Schelling) the union of object and\nsubject, the drawing forth from nature of that which is cognate to\nman, and the recognition in oneself of that which is common to all\nnature.\n\nThe opinions on beauty and on art here mentioned are far from\nexhausting what has been written on the subject. And every day fresh\nwriters on \u00e6sthetics arise, in whose disquisitions appear the same\nenchanted confusion and contradictoriness in defining beauty. Some,\nby inertia, continue the mystical \u00e6sthetics of Baumgarten and Hegel\nwith sundry variations; others transfer the question to the region\nof subjectivity, and seek for the foundation of the beautiful in\nquestions of taste; others--the \u00e6stheticians of the very latest\nformation--seek the origin of beauty in the laws of physiology; and\nfinally, others again investigate the question quite independently\nof the conception of beauty. Thus Sully, in his \"Sensation and\nIntuition: Studies in Psychology and \u00c6sthetics\" (1874), dismisses\nthe conception of beauty altogether, art, by his definition, being\nthe production of some permanent object or passing action fitted\nto supply active enjoyment to the producer, and a pleasurable\nimpression to a number of spectators or listeners, quite apart from\nany personal advantage derived from it.[94]\n\n [94] Knight, p. 243.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\n\nTo what do these definitions of beauty amount? Not reckoning the\nthoroughly inaccurate definitions of beauty which fail to cover\nthe conception of art, and which suppose beauty to consist either\nin utility, or in adjustment to a purpose, or in symmetry, or in\norder, or in proportion, or in smoothness, or in harmony of the\nparts, or in unity amid variety, or in various combinations of\nthese--not reckoning these unsatisfactory attempts at objective\ndefinition, all the \u00e6sthetic definitions of beauty lead to two\nfundamental conceptions. The first is that beauty is something\nhaving an independent existence (existing in itself), that it is one\nof the manifestations of the absolutely Perfect, of the Idea, of\nthe Spirit, of Will, or of God; the other is that beauty is a kind\nof pleasure received by us, not having personal advantage for its\nobject.\n\nThe first of these definitions was accepted by Fichte, Schelling,\nHegel, Schopenhauer, and the philosophizing Frenchmen, Cousin,\nJouffroy, Ravaisson, and others, not to enumerate the second-rate\n\u00e6sthetic philosophers. And this same objective-mystical definition\nof beauty is held by a majority of the educated people of our day.\nIt is a conception very widely spread, especially among the elder\ngeneration.\n\nThe second view, that beauty is a certain kind of pleasure received\nby us, not having personal advantage for its aim, finds favor\nchiefly among the English \u00e6sthetic writers, and is shared by the\nother part of our society, principally by the younger generation.\n\nSo there are (and it could not be otherwise) only two definitions\nof beauty: the one objective, mystical, merging this conception\ninto that of the highest perfection, God--a fantastic definition,\nfounded on nothing; the other, on the contrary, a very simple and\nintelligible subjective one, which considers beauty to be that which\npleases (I do not add to the word \"pleases\" the words \"without the\naim of advantage,\" because \"pleases\" naturally presupposes the\nabsence of the idea of profit).\n\nOn the one hand, beauty is viewed as something mystical and very\nelevated, but unfortunately at the same time very indefinite, and\nconsequently embracing philosophy, religion, and life itself (as in\nthe theories of Schelling and Hegel, and their German and French\nfollowers); or, on the other hand (as necessarily follows from the\ndefinition of Kant and his adherents), beauty is simply a certain\nkind of disinterested pleasure received by us. And this conception\nof beauty, although it seems very clear is, unfortunately, again\ninexact; for it widens out on the other side, _i.e._ it includes the\npleasure derived from drink, from food, from touching a delicate\nskin, etc., as is acknowledged by Guyau, Kralik, and others.\n\nIt is true that, following the development of the \u00e6sthetic doctrines\non beauty, we may notice that, though at first (in the times when\nthe foundations of the science of \u00e6sthetics were being laid) the\nmetaphysical definition of beauty prevailed, yet the nearer we get\nto our own times the more does an experimental definition (recently\nassuming a physiological form) come to the front, so that at last\nwe even meet with such \u00e6stheticians as V\u00e9ron and Sully, who try to\nescape entirely from the conception of beauty. But such \u00e6stheticians\nhave very little success, and with the majority of the public, as\nwell as of artists and the learned, a conception of beauty is firmly\nheld which agrees with the definitions contained in most of the\n\u00e6sthetic treatises, _i.e._ which regards beauty either as something\nmystical or metaphysical, or as a special kind of enjoyment.\n\nWhat, then, is this conception of beauty, so stubbornly held to by\npeople of our circle and day as furnishing a definition of art?\n\nIn the subjective aspect, we call beauty that which supplies us with\na particular kind of pleasure.\n\nIn the objective aspect, we call beauty something absolutely\nperfect, and we acknowledge it to be so only because we receive,\nfrom the manifestation of this absolute perfection, a certain kind\nof pleasure; so that this objective definition is nothing but\nthe subjective conception differently expressed. In reality both\nconceptions of beauty amount to one and the same thing; namely,\nthe reception by us of a certain kind of pleasure; _i.e._ we call\n\"beauty\" that which pleases us without evoking in us desire.\n\nSuch being the position of affairs, it would seem only natural\nthat the science of art should decline to content itself with a\ndefinition of art based on beauty (_i.e._ on that which pleases),\nand seek a general definition, which should apply to all artistic\nproductions, and by reference to which we might decide whether a\ncertain article belonged to the realm of art or not. But no such\ndefinition is supplied, as the reader may see from those summaries\nof the \u00e6sthetic theories which I have given, and as he may discover\neven more clearly from the original \u00e6sthetic works, if he will be\nat the pains to read them. All attempts to define absolute beauty\nin itself--whether as an imitation of nature, or as suitability to\nits object, or as a correspondence of parts, or as symmetry, or as\nharmony, or as unity in variety, etc.--either define nothing at all,\nor define only some traits of some artistic productions, and are far\nfrom including all that everybody has always held, and still holds,\nto be art.\n\nThere is no objective definition of beauty. The existing definitions\n(both the metaphysical and the experimental) amount only to one and\nthe same subjective definition, which (strange as it seems to say\nso) is, that art is that which makes beauty manifest, and beauty\nis that which pleases (without exciting desire). Many \u00e6stheticians\nhave felt the insufficiency and instability of such a definition,\nand, in order to give it a firm basis, have asked themselves why\na thing pleases. And they have converted the discussion on beauty\ninto a question concerning taste, as did Hutcheson, Voltaire,\nDiderot, and others. But all attempts to define what taste is must\nlead to nothing, as the reader may see both from the history of\n\u00e6sthetics and experimentally. There is and can be no explanation\nof why one thing pleases one man and displeases another, or _vice\nversa_. So that the whole existing science of \u00e6sthetics fails to\ndo what we might expect from it, being a mental activity calling\nitself a science; namely, it does not define the qualities and laws\nof art, or of the beautiful (if that be the content of art), or\nthe nature of taste (if taste decides the question of art and its\nmerit), and then, on the basis of such definitions, acknowledge as\nart those productions which correspond to these laws, and reject\nthose which do not come under them. But this science of \u00e6sthetics\nconsists in first acknowledging a certain set of productions to be\nart (because they please us), and then framing such a theory of art\nthat all those productions which please a certain circle of people\nshould fit into it. There exists an art canon, according to which\ncertain productions favored by our circle are acknowledged as being\nart,--Phidias, Sophocles, Homer, Titian, Raphael, Bach, Beethoven,\nDante, Shakespear, Goethe, and others,--and the \u00e6sthetic laws must\nbe such as to embrace all these productions. In \u00e6sthetic literature\nyou will incessantly meet with opinions on the merit and importance\nof art, founded not on any certain laws by which this or that is\nheld to be good or bad, but merely on the consideration whether this\nart tallies with the art canon we have drawn up.\n\nThe other day I was reading a far from ill-written book by Folgeldt.\nDiscussing the demand for morality in works of art, the author\nplainly says that we must not demand morality in art. And in proof\nof this he advances the fact that if we admit such a demand,\nShakespear's \"Romeo and Juliet,\" and Goethe's \"Wilhelm Meister,\"\nwould not fit into the definition of good art; but since both these\nbooks are included in our canon of art, he concludes that the demand\nis unjust. And therefore it is necessary to find a definition of art\nwhich shall fit the works; and instead of a demand for morality,\nFolgeldt postulates as the basis of art a demand for the important\n(_Bedeutungsvolles_).\n\nAll the existing \u00e6sthetic standards are built on this plan. Instead\nof giving a definition of true art, and then deciding what is and\nwhat is not good art by judging whether a work conforms or does\nnot conform to the definition, a certain class of works, which\nfor some reason please a certain circle of people, is accepted as\nbeing art, and a definition of art is then devised to cover all\nthese productions. I recently came upon a remarkable instance of\nthis method in a very good German work, \"The History of Art in the\nNineteenth Century,\" by Muther. Describing the pre-Raphaelites, the\nDecadents and the Symbolists (who are already included in the canon\nof art), he not only does not venture to blame their tendency, but\nearnestly endeavors to widen his standard so that it may include\nthem all, they appearing to him to represent a legitimate reaction\nfrom the excesses of realism. No matter what insanities appear in\nart, when once they find acceptance among the upper classes of our\nsociety, a theory is quickly invented to explain and sanction them;\njust as if there had never been periods in history when certain\nspecial circles of people recognized and approved false, deformed,\nand insensate art which subsequently left no trace and has been\nutterly forgotten. And to what lengths the insanity and deformity\nof art may go, especially when, as in our days, it knows that it is\nconsidered infallible, may be seen by what is being done in the art\nof our circle to-day.\n\nSo that the theory of art, founded on beauty, expounded by\n\u00e6sthetics, and, in dim outline, professed by the public, is nothing\nbut the setting up as good of that which has pleased and pleases us,\n_i.e._ pleases a certain class of people.\n\nIn order to define any human activity, it is necessary to understand\nits sense and importance. And, in order to do that, it is primarily\nnecessary to examine that activity in itself, in its dependence on\nits causes, and in connection with its effects, and not merely in\nrelation to the pleasure we can get from it.\n\nIf we say that the aim of any activity is merely our pleasure, and\ndefine it solely by that pleasure, our definition will evidently be\na false one. But this is precisely what has occurred in the efforts\nto define art. Now, if we consider the food question, it will not\noccur to anyone to affirm that the importance of food consists\nin the pleasure we receive when eating it. Every one understands\nthat the satisfaction of our taste cannot serve as a basis for our\ndefinition of the merits of food, and that we have therefore no\nright to presuppose that the dinners with cayenne pepper, Limburg\ncheese, alcohol, etc., to which we are accustomed and which please\nus, form the very best human food.\n\nAnd in the same way, beauty, or that which pleases us, can in no\nsense serve as the basis for the definition of art; nor can a series\nof objects which afford us pleasure serve as the model of what art\nshould be.\n\nTo see the aim and purpose of art in the pleasure we get from it, is\nlike assuming (as is done by people of the lowest moral development,\n_e.g._ by savages) that the purpose and aim of food is the pleasure\nderived when consuming it.\n\nJust as people who conceive the aim and purpose of food to be\npleasure cannot recognize the real meaning of eating, so people\nwho consider the aim of art to be pleasure cannot realize its true\nmeaning and purpose, because they attribute to an activity, the\nmeaning of which lies in its connection with other phenomena of\nlife, the false and exceptional aim of pleasure. People come to\nunderstand that the meaning of eating lies in the nourishment of\nthe body only when they cease to consider that the object of that\nactivity is pleasure. And it is the same with regard to art. People\nwill come to understand the meaning of art only when they cease to\nconsider that the aim of that activity is beauty, _i.e._ pleasure.\nThe acknowledgment of beauty (_i.e._ of a certain kind of pleasure\nreceived from art) as being the aim of art, not only fails to assist\nus in finding a definition of what art is, but, on the contrary, by\ntransferring the question into a region quite foreign to art (into\nmetaphysical, psychological, physiological, and even historical\ndiscussions as to why such a production pleases one person, and\nsuch another displeases or pleases some one else), it renders such\ndefinition impossible. And since discussions as to why one man\nlikes pears and another prefers meat do not help toward finding a\ndefinition of what is essential in nourishment, so the solution\nof questions of taste in art (to which the discussions on art\ninvoluntarily come), not only does not help to make clear what this\nparticular human activity which we call art really consists in, but\nrenders such elucidation quite impossible, until we rid ourselves\nof a conception which justifies every kind of art, at the cost of\nconfusing the whole matter.\n\nTo the question, What is this art, to which is offered up the labor\nof millions, the very lives of men, and even morality itself? we\nhave extracted replies from the existing \u00e6sthetics, which all amount\nto this that the aim of art is beauty, that beauty is recognized\nby the enjoyment it gives, and that artistic enjoyment is a good\nand important thing, because it _is_ enjoyment. In a word, that\nenjoyment is good because it is enjoyment. Thus, what is considered\nthe definition of art is no definition at all, but only a shuffle\nto justify existing art. Therefore, however strange it may seem to\nsay so, in spite of the mountains of books written about art, no\nexact definition of art has been constructed. And the reason of this\nis that the conception of art has been based on the conception of\nbeauty.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\n\nWhat is art, if we put aside the conception of beauty, which\nconfuses the whole matter? The latest and most comprehensible\ndefinitions of art, apart from the conception of beauty, are the\nfollowing: (1 _a_) Art is an activity arising even in the animal\nkingdom, and springing from sexual desire and the propensity to\nplay (Schiller, Darwin, Spencer), and (1 _b_) accompanied by a\npleasurable excitement of the nervous system (Grant Allen). This is\nthe physiological-evolutionary definition. (2) Art is the external\nmanifestation, by means of lines, colors, movements, sounds, or\nwords, of emotions felt by man (V\u00e9ron). This is the experimental\ndefinition. According to the very latest definition (Sully), (3) Art\nis \"the production of some permanent object or passing action, which\nis fitted, not only to supply an active enjoyment to the producer,\nbut to convey a pleasurable impression to a number of spectators or\nlisteners, quite apart from any personal advantage to be derived\nfrom it.\"\n\nNotwithstanding the superiority of these definitions to the\nmetaphysical definitions which depended on the conception of\nbeauty, they are yet far from exact. (1 _a_) The first, the\nphysiological-evolutionary definition, is inexact, because, instead\nof speaking about the artistic activity itself, which is the real\nmatter in hand, it treats of the derivation of art. The modification\nof it (1 _b_), based on the physiological effects on the human\norganism, is inexact, because within the limits of such definition\nmany other human activities can be included, as has occurred in\nthe neo-\u00e6sthetic theories, which reckon as art the preparation of\nhandsome clothes, pleasant scents, and even of victuals.\n\nThe experimental definition (2), which makes art consist in the\nexpression of emotions, is inexact, because a man may express his\nemotions by means of lines, colors, sounds, or words, and yet may\nnot act on others by such expression; and then the manifestation of\nhis emotions is not art.\n\nThe third definition (that of Sully) is inexact, because in the\nproduction of objects or actions affording pleasure to the producer\nand a pleasant emotion to the spectators or hearers apart from\npersonal advantage may be included the showing of conjuring tricks\nor gymnastic exercises, and other activities which are not art.\nAnd, further, many things, the production of which does not afford\npleasure to the producer, and the sensation received from which\nis unpleasant, such as gloomy, heartrending scenes in a poetic\ndescription or a play, may nevertheless be undoubted works of art.\n\nThe inaccuracy of all these definitions arises from the fact that\nin them all (as also in the metaphysical definitions) the object\nconsidered is the pleasure art may give, and not the purpose it may\nserve in the life of man and of humanity.\n\nIn order correctly to define art, it is necessary, first of all,\nto cease to consider it as a means to pleasure, and to consider it\nas one of the conditions of human life. Viewing it in this way, we\ncannot fail to observe that art is one of the means of intercourse\nbetween man and man.\n\nEvery work of art causes the receiver to enter into a certain\nkind of relationship both with him who produced, or is producing,\nthe art, and with all those who, simultaneously, previously, or\nsubsequently, receive the same artistic impression.\n\nSpeech, transmitting the thoughts and experiences of men, serves as\na means of union among them, and art acts in a similar manner. The\npeculiarity of this latter means of intercourse, distinguishing it\nfrom intercourse by means of words, consists in this, that whereas\nby words a man transmits his thoughts to another, by means of art he\ntransmits his feelings.\n\nThe activity of art is based on the fact that a man, receiving\nthrough his sense of hearing or sight another man's expression\nof feeling, is capable of experiencing the emotion which moved\nthe man who expressed it. To take the simplest example: one man\nlaughs, and another, who hears, becomes merry; or a man weeps, and\nanother, who hears, feels sorrow. A man is excited or irritated, and\nanother man, seeing him, comes to a similar state of mind. By his\nmovements, or by the sounds of his voice, a man expresses courage\nand determination, or sadness and calmness, and this state of mind\npasses on to others. A man suffers, expressing his sufferings by\ngroans and spasms, and this suffering transmits itself to other\npeople; a man expresses his feeling of admiration, devotion, fear,\nrespect, or love to certain objects, persons, or phenomena, and\nothers are infected by the same feelings of admiration, devotion,\nfear, respect, or love to the same objects, persons, and phenomena.\n\nAnd it is on this capacity of man to receive another man's\nexpression of feeling, and experience those feelings himself, that\nthe activity of art is based.\n\nIf a man infects another or others, directly, immediately, by his\nappearance, or by the sounds he gives vent to at the very time he\nexperiences the feeling; if he causes another man to yawn when he\nhimself cannot help yawning, or to laugh or cry when he himself\nis obliged to laugh or cry, or to suffer when he himself is\nsuffering--that does not amount to art.\n\nArt begins when one person, with the object of joining another\nor others to himself in one and the same feeling, expresses that\nfeeling by certain external indications. To take the simplest\nexample: a boy, having experienced, let us say, fear on encountering\na wolf, relates that encounter; and, in order to evoke in others\nthe feeling he has experienced, describes himself, his condition\nbefore the encounter, the surroundings, the wood, his own\nlight-heartedness, and then the wolf's appearance, its movements,\nthe distance between himself and the wolf, etc. All this, if only\nthe boy, when telling the story, again experiences the feelings he\nhad lived through and infects the hearers and compels them to feel\nwhat the narrator had experienced, is art. If even the boy had not\nseen a wolf but had frequently been afraid of one, and if, wishing\nto evoke in others the fear he had felt, he invented an encounter\nwith a wolf, and recounted it so as to make his hearers share the\nfeelings he experienced when he feared the wolf, that also would be\nart. And just in the same way it is art if a man, having experienced\neither the fear of suffering or the attraction of enjoyment (whether\nin reality or in imagination), expresses these feelings on canvas or\nin marble so that others are infected by them. And it is also art if\na man feels or imagines to himself feelings of delight, gladness,\nsorrow, despair, courage, or despondency, and the transition from\none to another of these feelings, and expresses these feelings by\nsounds, so that the hearers are infected by them, and experience\nthem as they were experienced by the composer.\n\nThe feelings with which the artist infects others may be most\nvarious,--very strong or very weak, very important or very\ninsignificant, very bad or very good: feelings of love for native\nland, self-devotion and submission to fate or to God expressed\nin a drama, raptures of lovers described in a novel, feelings of\nvoluptuousness expressed in a picture, courage expressed in a\ntriumphal march, merriment evoked by a dance, humor evoked by a\nfunny story, the feeling of quietness transmitted by an evening\nlandscape or by a lullaby, or the feeling of admiration evoked by a\nbeautiful arabesque--it is all art.\n\nIf only the spectators or auditors are infected by the feelings\nwhich the author has felt, it is art.\n\n_To evoke in oneself a feeling one has once experienced, and having\nevoked it in oneself, then, by means of movements, lines, colors,\nsounds, or forms expressed in words, so to transmit that feeling\nthat others may experience the same feeling--this is the activity of\nart._\n\n_Art is a human activity, consisting in this, that one man\nconsciously, by means of certain external signs, hands on to others\nfeelings he has lived through, and that other people are infected by\nthese feelings, and also experience them._\n\nArt is not, as the metaphysicians say, the manifestation of some\nmysterious Idea of beauty, or God; it is not, as the \u00e6sthetical\nphysiologists say, a game in which man lets off his excess of\nstored-up energy; it is not the expression of man's emotions by\nexternal signs; it is not the production of pleasing objects; and,\nabove all, it is not pleasure; but it is a means of union among\nmen, joining them together in the same feelings, and indispensable\nfor the life and progress toward well-being of individuals and of\nhumanity.\n\nAs, thanks to man's capacity to express thoughts by words, every man\nmay know all that has been done for him in the realms of thought by\nall humanity before his day, and can, in the present, thanks to this\ncapacity to understand the thoughts of others, become a sharer in\ntheir activity, and can himself hand on to his contemporaries and\ndescendants the thoughts he has assimilated from others, as well as\nthose which have arisen within himself; so, thanks to man's capacity\nto be infected with the feelings of others by means of art, all that\nis being lived through by his contemporaries is accessible to him,\nas well as the feelings experienced by men thousands of years ago,\nand he has also the possibility of transmitting his own feelings to\nothers.\n\nIf people lacked this capacity to receive the thoughts conceived\nby the men who preceded them, and to pass on to others their own\nthoughts, men would be like wild beasts, or like Kaspar Hauser.[95]\n\n [95] \"The foundling of Nuremberg,\" found in the market-place of\n that town on 26th May, 1828, apparently some sixteen years old.\n He spoke little, and was almost totally ignorant even of common\n objects. He subsequently explained that he had been brought up in\n confinement underground, and visited by only one man, whom he saw\n but seldom.--TR.\n\nAnd if men lacked this other capacity of being infected by art,\npeople might be almost more savage still, and, above all, more\nseparated from, and more hostile to, one another.\n\nAnd therefore the activity of art is a most important one, as\nimportant as the activity of speech itself, and as generally\ndiffused.\n\nWe are accustomed to understand art to be only what we hear and see\nin theaters, concerts, and exhibitions; together with buildings,\nstatues, poems, novels.... But all this is but the smallest part of\nthe art by which we communicate with each other in life. All human\nlife is filled with works of art of every kind,--from cradle-song,\njest, mimicry, the ornamentation of houses, dress, and utensils, up\nto church services, buildings, monuments, and triumphal processions.\nIt is all artistic activity. So that by art, in the limited sense of\nthe word, we do not mean all human activity transmitting feelings,\nbut only that part which we for some reason select from it and to\nwhich we attach special importance.\n\nThis special importance has always been given by all men to that\npart of this activity which transmits feelings flowing from\ntheir religious perception, and this small part of art they have\nspecifically called art, attaching to it the full meaning of the\nword.\n\nThat was how men of old--Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle--looked on\nart. Thus did the Hebrew prophets and the ancient Christians regard\nart; thus it was, and still is, understood by the Mahommedans,\nand thus is it still understood by religious folk among our own\npeasantry.\n\nSome teachers of mankind--as Plato in his \"Republic,\" and people\nsuch as the primitive Christians, the strict Mahommedans, and the\nBuddhists--have gone so far as to repudiate all art.\n\nPeople viewing art in this way (in contradiction to the prevalent\nview of to-day, which regards any art as good if only it affords\npleasure) considered, and consider, that art (as contrasted with\nspeech, which need not be listened to) is so highly dangerous in its\npower to infect people against their wills, that mankind will lose\nfar less by banishing all art than by tolerating each and every art.\n\nEvidently such people were wrong in repudiating all art, for they\ndenied that which cannot be denied,--one of the indispensable means\nof communication, without which mankind could not exist. But not\nless wrong are the people of civilized European society of our class\nand day, in favoring any art if it but serves beauty, _i.e._ gives\npeople pleasure.\n\nFormerly, people feared lest among the works of art there might\nchance to be some causing corruption, and they prohibited art\naltogether. Now, they only fear lest they should be deprived of any\nenjoyment art can afford, and patronize any art. And I think the\nlast error is much grosser than the first, and that its consequences\nare far more harmful.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\n\nBut how could it happen that that very art, which in ancient times\nwas merely tolerated (if tolerated at all), should have come, in our\ntimes, to be invariably considered a good thing if only it affords\npleasure?\n\nIt has resulted from the following causes. The estimation of the\nvalue of art (_i.e._ of the feelings it transmits) depends on men's\nperception of the meaning of life; depends on what they consider to\nbe the good and the evil of life. And what is good and what is evil\nis defined by what are termed religions.\n\nHumanity unceasingly moves forward from a lower, more partial, and\nobscure understanding of life, to one more general and more lucid.\nAnd in this, as in every movement, there are leaders,--those who\nhave understood the meaning of life more clearly than others,--and\nof these advanced men there is always one who has, in his words and\nby his life, expressed this meaning more clearly, accessibly, and\nstrongly than others. This man's expression of the meaning of life,\ntogether with those superstitions, traditions, and ceremonies which\nusually form themselves round the memory of such a man, is what\nis called a religion. Religions are the exponents of the highest\ncomprehension of life accessible to the best and foremost men at\na given time in a given society; a comprehension toward which,\ninevitably and irresistibly, all the rest of that society must\nadvance. And therefore only religions have always served, and still\nserve, as bases for the valuation of human sentiments. If feelings\nbring men nearer the ideal their religion indicates, if they are in\nharmony with it and do not contradict it, they are good; if they\nestrange men from it and oppose it, they are bad.\n\nIf the religion places the meaning of life in worshiping one God\nand fulfilling what is regarded as His will, as was the case among\nthe Jews, then the feelings flowing from love to that God, and\nto His law, successfully transmitted through the art of poetry\nby the prophets, by the psalms, or by the epic of the book of\nGenesis, is good, high art. All opposing that, as, for instance,\nthe transmission of feelings of devotion to strange gods, or of\nfeelings incompatible with the law of God, would be considered bad\nart. Or if, as was the case among the Greeks, the religion places\nthe meaning of life in earthly happiness, in beauty and in strength,\nthen art successfully transmitting the joy and energy of life\nwould be considered good art, but art which transmitted feelings\nof effeminacy or despondency would be bad art. If the meaning of\nlife is seen in the well-being of one's nation, or in honoring\none's ancestors and continuing the mode of life led by them, as\nwas the case among the Romans and the Chinese respectively, then\nart transmitting feelings of joy at sacrificing one's personal\nwell-being for the common weal, or at exalting one's ancestors and\nmaintaining their traditions, would be considered good art, but\nart expressing feelings contrary to this would be regarded as bad.\nIf the meaning of life is seen in freeing oneself from the yoke of\nanimalism, as is the case among the Buddhists, then art successfully\ntransmitting feelings that elevate the soul and humble the flesh\nwill be good art, and all that transmits feelings strengthening the\nbodily passions will be bad art.\n\nIn every age, and in every human society, there exists a religious\nsense, common to that whole society, of what is good and what is\nbad, and it is this religious conception that decides the value of\nthe feelings transmitted by art. And therefore, among all nations,\nart which transmitted feelings considered to be good by this general\nreligious sense was recognized as being good and was encouraged;\nbut art which transmitted feelings considered to be bad by this\ngeneral religious conception, was recognized as being bad, and was\nrejected. All the rest of the immense field of art by means of which\npeople communicate one with another, was not esteemed at all, and\nwas only noticed when it ran counter to the religious conception of\nits age, and then merely to be repudiated. Thus it was among all\nnations,--Greeks, Jews, Indians, Egyptians, and Chinese,--and so it\nwas when Christianity appeared.\n\nThe Christianity of the first centuries recognized as productions\nof good art only legends, lives of saints, sermons, prayers, and\nhymn-singing, evoking love of Christ, emotion at His life, desire to\nfollow His example, renunciation of worldly life, humility, and the\nlove of others; all productions transmitting feelings of personal\nenjoyment they considered to be bad, and therefore rejected: for\ninstance, tolerating plastic representations only when they were\nsymbolical, they rejected all the pagan sculptures.\n\nThis was so among the Christians of the first centuries, who\naccepted Christ's teaching, if not quite in its true form, at least\nnot in the perverted, paganized form in which it was accepted\nsubsequently.\n\nBut besides this Christianity, from the time of the wholesale\nconversion of nations by order of the authorities, as in the days of\nConstantine, Charlemagne, and Vladimir, there appeared another, a\nChurch Christianity, which was nearer to paganism than to Christ's\nteaching. And this Church Christianity, in accordance with its own\nteaching, estimated quite otherwise the feelings of people and the\nproductions of art which transmitted those feelings.\n\nThis Church Christianity not only did not acknowledge the\nfundamental and essential positions of true Christianity,--the\nimmediate relationship of each man to the Father, the consequent\nbrotherhood and equality of all men, and the substitution of\nhumility and love in place of every kind of violence,--but, on the\ncontrary, having set up a heavenly hierarchy similar to the pagan\nmythology, and having introduced the worship of Christ, of the\nVirgin, of angels, of apostles, of saints, and of martyrs, and not\nonly of these divinities themselves, but also of their images, it\nmade blind faith in the Church and its ordinances the essential\npoint of its teaching.\n\nHowever foreign this teaching may have been to true Christianity;\nhowever degraded, not only in comparison with true Christianity,\nbut even with the life-conception of Romans such as Julian and\nothers,--it was, for all that, to the barbarians who accepted it,\na higher doctrine than their former adoration of gods, heroes, and\ngood and bad spirits. And therefore this teaching was a religion\nto them, and on the basis of that religion the art of the time\nwas assessed. And art transmitting pious adoration of the Virgin,\nJesus, the saints and the angels, a blind faith in and submission\nto the Church, fear of torments and hope of blessedness in a life\nbeyond the grave, was considered good; all art opposed to this was\nconsidered bad.\n\nThe teaching on the basis of which this art arose was a perversion\nof Christ's teaching, but the art which sprang up on this perverted\nteaching was nevertheless a true art, because it corresponded to the\nreligious view of life held by the people among whom it arose.\n\nThe artists of the Middle Ages, vitalized by the same source of\nfeeling--religion--as the mass of the people, and transmitting,\nin architecture, sculpture, painting, music, poetry or drama, the\nfeelings and states of mind they experienced, were true artists;\nand their activity, founded on the highest conceptions accessible\nto their age and common to the entire people, though, for our times\na mean art, was, nevertheless a true one, shared by the whole\ncommunity.\n\nAnd this was the state of things until, in the upper, rich, more\neducated classes of European society, doubt arose as to the truth\nof that understanding of life which was expressed by Church\nChristianity. When, after the Crusades and the maximum development\nof papal power and its abuses, people of the rich classes became\nacquainted with the wisdom of the classics, and saw, on the one\nhand, the reasonable lucidity of the teaching of the ancient sages,\nand, on the other hand, the incompatibility of the Church doctrine\nwith the teaching of Christ, they lost all possibility of continuing\nto believe the Church teaching.\n\nIf, in externals, they still kept to the forms of Church teaching,\nthey could no longer believe in it, and held to it only by inertia\nand for the sake of influencing the masses, who continued to believe\nblindly in Church doctrine, and whom the upper classes, for their\nown advantage, considered it necessary to support in those beliefs.\n\nSo that a time came when Church Christianity ceased to be the\ngeneral religious doctrine of all Christian people; some--the\nmasses--continued blindly to believe in it, but the upper\nclasses--those in whose hands lay the power and wealth, and\ntherefore the leisure to produce art and the means to stimulate\nit--ceased to believe in that teaching.\n\nIn respect to religion, the upper circles of the Middle Ages found\nthemselves in the same position in which the educated Romans were\nbefore Christianity arose, _i.e._ they no longer believed in the\nreligion of the masses, but had no beliefs to put in place of the\nworn-out Church doctrine which for them had lost its meaning.\n\nThere was only this difference: that whereas for the Romans,\nwho lost faith in their emperor-gods and household-gods, it was\nimpossible to extract anything further from all the complex\nmythology they had borrowed from all the conquered nations, and it\nwas consequently necessary to find a completely new conception of\nlife, the people of the Middle Ages, when they doubted the truth of\nthe Church teaching, had no need to seek a fresh one. That Christian\nteaching which they professed in a perverted form as Church doctrine\nhad mapped out the path of human progress so far ahead that they\nhad but to rid themselves of those perversions which hid the\nteaching announced by Christ, and to adopt its real meaning--if not\ncompletely, then at least in some greater degree than that in which\nthe Church had held it. And this was partially done, not only in the\nreformations of Wyclif, Huss, Luther, and Calvin, but by all that\ncurrent of non-Church Christianity represented in earlier times by\nthe Paulicians, the Bogomili,[96] and, afterward, by the Waldenses\nand the other non-Church Christians who were called heretics. But\nthis could be, and was, done chiefly by poor people--who did not\nrule. A few of the rich and strong, like Francis of Assisi and\nothers, accepted the Christian teaching in its full significance,\neven though it undermined their privileged positions. But most\npeople of the upper classes (though in the depth of their souls\nthey had lost faith in the Church teaching) could not or would not\nact thus, because the essence of that Christian view of life, which\nstood ready to be adopted when once they rejected the Church faith,\nwas a teaching of the brotherhood (and therefore the equality) of\nman, and this negatived those privileges on which they lived, in\nwhich they had grown up and been educated, and to which they were\naccustomed. Not, in the depth of their hearts, believing in the\nChurch teaching,--which had outlived its age and had no longer any\ntrue meaning for them,--and not being strong enough to accept true\nChristianity, men of these rich, governing classes--popes, kings,\ndukes, and all the great ones of the earth--were left without any\nreligion, with but the external forms of one, which they supported\nas being profitable and even necessary for themselves, since these\nforms screened a teaching which justified those privileges which\nthey made use of. In reality, these people believed in nothing, just\nas the Romans of the first centuries of our era believed in nothing.\nBut at the same time these were the people who had the power and the\nwealth, and these were the people who rewarded art and directed it.\n\n [96] Eastern sects well known in early Church history, who rejected\n the Church's rendering of Christ's teaching, and were cruelly\n persecuted.--TR.\n\nAnd, let it be noticed, it was just among these people that there\ngrew up an art esteemed, not according to its success in expressing\nmen's religious feelings, but in proportion to its beauty,--in other\nwords, according to the enjoyment it gave.\n\nNo longer able to believe in the Church religion, whose falsehood\nthey had detected, and incapable of accepting true Christian\nteaching, which denounced their whole manner of life, these rich and\npowerful people, stranded without any religious conception of life,\ninvoluntarily returned to that pagan view of things which places\nlife's meaning in personal enjoyment. And then took place among the\nupper classes what is called the \"Renaissance of science and art,\"\nand which was really not only a denial of every religion, but also\nan assertion that religion is unnecessary.\n\nThe Church doctrine is so coherent a system that it cannot be\naltered or corrected without destroying it altogether. As soon\nas doubt arose with regard to the infallibility of the Pope (and\nthis doubt was then in the minds of all educated people), doubt\ninevitably followed as to the truth of tradition. But doubt as to\nthe truth of tradition is fatal not only to popery and Catholicism,\nbut also to the whole Church creed, with all its dogmas: the\ndivinity of Christ, the resurrection, and the Trinity; and it\ndestroys the authority of the Scriptures, since they were considered\nto be inspired only because the tradition of the Church decided it\nso.\n\nSo that the majority of the highest classes of that age, even the\npopes and the ecclesiastics, really believed in nothing at all.\nIn the Church doctrine these people did not believe, for they saw\nits insolvency; but neither could they follow Francis of Assisi,\nKeltchitsky,[97] and most of the heretics, in acknowledging the\nmoral, social teaching of Christ, for that teaching undermined their\nsocial position. And so these people remained without any religious\nview of life. And, having none, they could have no standard\nwherewith to estimate what was good and what was bad art but that of\npersonal enjoyment. And, having acknowledged their criterion of what\nwas good to be pleasure, _i.e._ beauty, these people of the upper\nclasses of European society went back in their comprehension of art\nto the gross conception of the primitive Greeks which Plato had\nalready condemned. And conformably to this understanding of life, a\ntheory of art was formulated.\n\n [97] Keltchitsky, a Bohemian of the fifteenth century, was the\n author of a remarkable book, \"The Net of Faith,\" directed against\n Church and State. It is mentioned in Tolsto\u00ef's \"The Kingdom of God\n is Within You.\"--TR.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\n\nFrom the time that people of the upper classes lost faith in Church\nChristianity, beauty (_i.e._ the pleasure received from art) became\ntheir standard of good and bad art. And, in accordance with that\nview, an \u00e6sthetic theory naturally sprang up among those upper\nclasses justifying such a conception,--a theory according to which\nthe aim of art is to exhibit beauty. The partizans of this \u00e6sthetic\ntheory, in confirmation of its truth, affirmed that it was no\ninvention of their own, but that it existed in the nature of things,\nand was recognized even by the ancient Greeks. But this assertion\nwas quite arbitrary, and has no foundation other than the fact that\namong the ancient Greeks, in consequence of the low grade of their\nmoral ideal (as compared with the Christian), their conception of\nthe good, \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd, was not yet sharply divided from their\nconception of the beautiful, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd.\n\nThat highest perfection of goodness (not only not identical with\nbeauty, but, for the most part, contrasting with it) which was\ndiscerned by the Jews even in the times of Isaiah, and fully\nexpressed by Christianity, was quite unknown to the Greeks. They\nsupposed that the beautiful must necessarily also be the good. It is\ntrue that their foremost thinkers--Socrates, Plato, Aristotle--felt\nthat goodness may happen not to coincide with beauty. Socrates\nexpressly subordinated beauty to goodness; Plato, to unite the two\nconceptions, spoke of spiritual beauty; while Aristotle demanded\nfrom art that it should have a moral influence on people \u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2).\nBut, notwithstanding all this, they could not quite dismiss the\nnotion that beauty and goodness coincide.\n\nAnd consequently, in the language of that period, a compound word\n(\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf-\u03ba\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03b1, beauty-goodness) came into use to express that notion.\n\nEvidently the Greek sages began to draw near to that perception of\ngoodness which is expressed in Buddhism and in Christianity, and\nthey got entangled in defining the relation between goodness and\nbeauty. Plato's reasonings about beauty and goodness are full of\ncontradictions. And it was just this confusion of ideas that those\nEuropeans of a later age, who had lost all faith, tried to elevate\ninto a law. They tried to prove that this union of beauty and\ngoodness is inherent in the very essence of things; that beauty and\ngoodness must coincide; and that the word and conception \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf-\u03ba\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03b1\n(which had a meaning for Greeks, but has none at all for Christians)\nrepresents the highest ideal of humanity. On this misunderstanding\nthe new science of \u00e6sthetics was built up. And, to justify its\nexistence, the teachings of the ancients on art were so twisted as\nto make it appear that this invented science of \u00e6sthetics had\nexisted among the Greeks.\n\nIn reality, the reasoning of the ancients on art was quite unlike\nours. As Benard, in his book on the \u00e6sthetics of Aristotle, quite\njustly remarks, \"_Pour qui veut y regarder de pr\u00e8s, la th\u00e9orie du\nbeau et celle de l'art sont tout \u00e0 fait s\u00e9par\u00e9es dans Aristote,\ncomme elles le sont dans Platon et chez tous leurs successeurs_\"\n(\"L'Esth\u00e9tique d'Aristote et de ses Successeurs,\" Paris, 1889, p.\n28).[98] And indeed the reasoning of the ancients on art not only\ndoes not confirm our science of \u00e6sthetics, but rather contradicts\nits doctrine of beauty. But nevertheless all the \u00e6sthetic\nguides, from Schasler to Knight, declare that the science of the\nbeautiful--\u00e6sthetic science--was commenced by the ancients, by\nSocrates, Plato, Aristotle; and was continued, they say, partially\nby the Epicureans and Stoics: by Seneca and Plutarch, down to\nPlotinus. But it is supposed that this science, by some unfortunate\naccident, suddenly vanished in the fourth century, and stayed away\nfor about 1500 years, and only after these 1500 years had passed did\nit revive in Germany, 1750 A.D., in Baumgarten's doctrine.\n\n [98] Any one examining closely may see that the theory of beauty and\n that of art are quite separated in Aristotle as they are in Plato\n and in all their successors.\n\nAfter Plotinus, says Schasler, fifteen centuries passed away during\nwhich there was not the slightest scientific interest felt for the\nworld of beauty and art. These one and a half thousand years, says\nhe, have been lost to \u00e6sthetics, and have contributed nothing toward\nthe erection of the learned edifice of this science.[99]\n\n [99] Die L\u00fccke von f\u00fcnf Jahrhunderten, welche zwischen den\n Kunst-philosophischen Betrachtungen des Plato und Aristoteles und\n die des Plotins f\u00e4llt, kann zwar auff\u00e4llig erscheinen; dennoch kann\n man eigentlich nicht sagen, dass in dieser Zwischenzeit \u00fcberhaupt\n von \u00e4sthetischen Dingen nicht die Rede gewesen; oder dass gar ein\n v\u00f6lliger Mangel an Zusammenhang zwischen den Kunst-anschauungen\n des letztgenannten Philosophen und denen der ersteren existire.\n Freilich wurde die von Aristoteles begr\u00fcndete Wissenschaft in Nichts\n dadurch gef\u00f6rdert; immerhin aber zeigt sich in jener Zwischenzeit\n noch ein gewisses Interesse f\u00fcr \u00e4sthetische Fragen. Nach Plotin\n aber, die wenigen, ihm in der Zeit nahestehenden Philosophen,\n wie Longin, Augustin, u. s. f. kommen, wie wir gesehen, kaum in\n Betracht und schliessen sich \u00fcbrigens in ihrer Anschauungsweise an\n ihn an,--vergehen nicht f\u00fcnf, sondern _f\u00fcnfzehn Jahrhunderte_, in\n denen von irgend einer wissenschaftlichen Interesse f\u00fcr die Welt des\n Sch\u00f6nen und der Kunst nichts zu sp\u00fcren ist.\n\n Diese anderthalbtausend Jahre, innerhalb deren der Weltgeist durch\n die mannigfachsten K\u00e4mpfe hindurch zu einer v\u00f6llig neuen Gestaltung\n des Lebens sich durcharbeitete, sind f\u00fcr die Aesthetik, hinsichtlich\n des weiteren Ausbaus dieser Wissenschaft verloren.--MAX SCHASLER.\n\nIn reality nothing of the kind happened. The science of \u00e6sthetics,\nthe science of the beautiful, neither did nor could vanish, because\nit never existed. Simply, the Greeks (just like everybody else,\nalways and everywhere) considered art (like everything else) good\nonly when it served goodness (as they understood goodness), and\nbad when it was in opposition to that goodness. And the Greeks\nthemselves were so little developed morally, that goodness and\nbeauty seemed to them to coincide. On that obsolete Greek view\nof life was erected the science of \u00e6sthetics, invented by men\nof the eighteenth century, and especially shaped and mounted in\nBaumgarten's theory. The Greeks (as any one may see who will read\nBenard's admirable book on Aristotle and his successors and Walter's\nwork on Plato) never had a science of \u00e6sthetics.\n\n\u00c6sthetic theories arose about one hundred and fifty years ago among\nthe wealthy classes of the Christian European world, and arose\nsimultaneously among different nations,--German, Italian, Dutch,\nFrench, and English. The founder and organizer of it, who gave it a\nscientific, theoretic form, was Baumgarten.\n\nWith a characteristically German, external exactitude, pedantry,\nand symmetry, he devised and expounded this extraordinary theory.\nAnd, notwithstanding its obvious insolidity, nobody else's theory\nso pleased the cultured crowd, or was accepted so readily and with\nsuch an absence of criticism. It so suited the people of the upper\nclasses, that to this day, notwithstanding its entirely fantastic\ncharacter and the arbitrary nature of its assertions, it is repeated\nby learned and unlearned as though it were something indubitable and\nself-evident.\n\n_Habent sua fata libelli pro capite lectoris_, and so, or even\nmore so, theories _habent sua fata_ according to the condition of\nerror in which that society is living, among whom and for whom the\ntheories are invented. If a theory justifies the false position\nin which a certain part of a society is living, then, however\nunfounded or even obviously false the theory may be, it is accepted,\nand becomes an article of faith to that section of society. Such,\nfor instance, was the celebrated and unfounded theory, expounded\nby Malthus, of the tendency of that population of the world to\nincrease in geometrical progression, but of the means of sustenance\nto increase only in arithmetical progression, and of the consequent\nover-population of the world; such, also, was the theory (an\noutgrowth of the Malthusian) of selection and struggle for existence\nas the basis of human progress. Such, again, is Marx's theory, which\nregards the gradual destruction of small private production by large\ncapitalistic production, now going on around us, as an inevitable\ndecree of fate. However unfounded such theories are, however\ncontrary to all that is known and confessed by humanity, and however\nobviously immoral they may be, they are accepted with credulity,\npass uncriticized, and are preached, perchance for centuries, until\nthe conditions are destroyed which they served to justify, or until\ntheir absurdity has become too evident. To this class belongs this\nastonishing theory of the Baumgartenian Trinity,--Goodness, Beauty,\nand Truth,--according to which it appears that the very best that\ncan be done by the art of nations after 1900 years of Christian\nteaching, is to choose as the ideal of their life the ideal that\nwas held by a small, semi-savage, slave-holding people who lived\n2000 years ago, who imitated the nude human body extremely well, and\nerected buildings pleasant to look at. All these incompatibilities\npass completely unnoticed. Learned people write long, cloudy\ntreatises on beauty as a member of the \u00e6sthetic trinity of Beauty,\nTruth, and Goodness: _das Sch\u00f6ne_, _das Wahre_, _das Gute_; _le\nBeau_, _le Vrai_, _le Bon_, are repeated, with capital letters, by\nphilosophers, \u00e6stheticians, and artists, by private individuals,\nby novelists, and by _feuilletonistes_, and they all think, when\npronouncing these sacrosanct words, that they speak of something\nquite definite and solid--something on which they can base their\nopinions. In reality, these words not only have no definite meaning,\nbut they hinder us in attaching any definite meaning to existing\nart; they are wanted only for the purpose of justifying the false\nimportance we attribute to an art that transmits every kind of\nfeeling, if only those feelings afford us pleasure.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\n\nBut if art is a human activity having for its purpose the\ntransmission to others of the highest and best feelings to which\nmen have risen, how could it be that humanity for a certain rather\nconsiderable period of its existence (from the time people ceased\nto believe in Church doctrine down to the present day) should exist\nwithout this important activity, and, instead of it, should put up\nwith an insignificant artistic activity only affording pleasure?\n\nIn order to answer this question, it is necessary, first of all, to\ncorrect the current error people make in attributing to our art the\nsignificance of true, universal art. We are so accustomed, not only\nna\u00efvely to consider the Circassian family the best stock of people,\nbut also the Anglo-Saxon race the best race if we are Englishmen or\nAmericans, or the Teutonic if we are Germans, or the Gallo-Latin\nif we are French, or the Slavonic if we are Russians, that, when\nspeaking of our own art, we feel fully convinced, not only that our\nart is true art, but even that it is the best and only true art.\nBut in reality our art is not only not the only art (as the Bible\nonce was held to be the only book), but it is not even the art of\nthe whole of Christendom--only of a small section of that part of\nhumanity. It was correct to speak of a national Jewish, Grecian, or\nEgyptian art, and one may speak of a now-existing Chinese, Japanese,\nor Indian art shared in by a whole people. Such art, common to a\nwhole nation, existed in Russia till Peter the First's time, and\nexisted in the rest of Europe until the thirteenth or fourteenth\ncentury; but since the upper classes of European society, having\nlost faith in the Church teaching, did not accept real Christianity\nbut remained without any faith, one can no longer speak of an art\nof the Christian nations in the sense of the whole of art. Since\nthe upper classes of the Christian nations lost faith in Church\nChristianity, the art of those upper classes has separated itself\nfrom the art of the rest of the people, and there have been two\narts,--the art of the people and genteel art. And therefore the\nanswer to the question, How it could occur that humanity lived for\na certain period without real art, replacing it by art which served\nenjoyment only? is, that not all humanity, nor even any considerable\nportion of it, lived without real art, but only the highest\nclasses of European Christian society, and even they only for a\ncomparatively short time,--from the commencement of the Renaissance\ndown to our own day.\n\nAnd the consequence of this absence of true art showed itself,\ninevitably, in the corruption of that class which nourished itself\non the false art. All the confused, unintelligible theories of art,\nall the false and contradictory judgments on art, and particularly\nthe self-confident stagnation of our art in its false path, all\narise from the assertion, which has come into common use and is\naccepted as an unquestioned truth, but is yet amazingly and palpably\nfalse, the assertion, namely, that the art of our upper classes[100]\nis the whole of art, the true, the only, the universal art. And\nalthough this assertion (which is precisely similar to the assertion\nmade by religious people of the various Churches who consider that\ntheirs is the only true religion) is quite arbitrary and obviously\nunjust, yet it is calmly repeated by all the people of our circle\nwith full faith in its infallibility.\n\n [100] The contrast made is between the classes and the masses;\n between those who do not and those who do earn their bread by\n productive manual labor; the middle classes being taken as an\n offshoot of the upper classes.--TR.\n\nThe art we have is the whole of art, the real, the only art, and yet\ntwo-thirds of the human race (all the peoples of Asia and Africa)\nlive and die knowing nothing of this sole and supreme art. And even\nin our Christian society hardly one per cent of the people make\nuse of this art which we speak of as being the _whole_ of art;\nthe remaining ninety-nine per cent live and die, generation after\ngeneration, crushed by toil, and never tasting this art, which,\nmoreover, is of such a nature that, if they could get it, they would\nnot understand anything of it. We, according to the current \u00e6sthetic\ntheory, acknowledge art as one of the highest manifestations of\nthe Idea, God, Beauty, or as the highest spiritual enjoyment;\nfurthermore, we hold that all people have equal rights, if not to\nmaterial, at any rate to spiritual well-being; and yet ninety-nine\nper cent of our European population live and die, generation after\ngeneration, crushed by toil, much of which toil is necessary for the\nproduction of our art which they never use, and we, nevertheless,\ncalmly assert that the art which we produce is the real, true, only\nart--all of art!\n\nTo the remark that if our art is the true art every one should have\nthe benefit of it, the usual reply is that if not everybody at\npresent makes use of existing art, the fault lies, not in the art,\nbut in the false organization of society; that one can imagine to\noneself, in the future, a state of things in which physical labor\nwill be partly superseded by machinery, partly lightened by its just\ndistribution, and that labor for the production of art will be taken\nin turns; that there is no need for some people always to sit below\nthe stage moving the decorations, winding up the machinery, working\nat the piano or French horn, and setting type and printing books,\nbut that the people who do all this work might be engaged only a\nfew hours per day, and in their leisure time might enjoy all the\nblessings of art.\n\nThat is what the defenders of our exclusive art say. But I think\nthey do not themselves believe it. They cannot help knowing that\nfine art can arise only on the slavery of the masses of the people,\nand can continue only as long as that slavery lasts, and they\ncannot help knowing that only under conditions of intense labor\nfor the workers, can specialists--writers, musicians, dancers, and\nactors--arrive at that fine degree of perfection to which they\ndo attain, or produce their refined works of art; and only under\nthe same conditions can there be a fine public to esteem such\nproductions. Free the slaves of capital, and it will be impossible\nto produce such refined art.\n\nBut even were we to admit the inadmissible, and say that means may\nbe found by which art (that art which among us is considered to be\nart) may be accessible to the whole people, another consideration\npresents itself showing that fashionable art cannot be the whole\nof art, viz., the fact that it is completely unintelligible to the\npeople. Formerly men wrote poems in Latin, but now their artistic\nproductions are as unintelligible to the common folk as if they were\nwritten in Sanscrit. The usual reply to this is, that if the people\ndo not now understand this art of ours, it only proves that they are\nundeveloped, and that this has been so at each fresh step forward\nmade by art. First it was not understood, but afterward people got\naccustomed to it.\n\n\"It will be the same with our present art; it will be understood\nwhen everybody is as well educated as we are--the people of the\nupper classes--who produce this art,\" say the defenders of our\nart. But this assertion is evidently even more unjust than the\nformer; for we know that the majority of the productions of the\nart of the upper classes, such as various odes, poems, dramas,\ncantatas, pastorals, pictures, etc., which delighted the people of\nthe upper classes when they were produced, never were afterward\neither understood or valued by the great masses of mankind, but have\nremained, what they were at first, a mere pastime for rich people\nof their time, for whom alone they ever were of any importance. It\nis also often urged, in proof of the assertion that the people will\nsome day understand our art, that some productions of so-called\n\"classical\" poetry, music, or painting, which formerly did not\nplease the masses, do--now that they have been offered to them\nfrom all sides--begin to please these same masses; but this only\nshows that the crowd, especially the half-spoilt town crowd, can\neasily (its taste having been perverted) be accustomed to any\nsort of art. Moreover, this art is not produced by these masses,\nnor even chosen by them, but is energetically thrust upon them\nin those public places in which art is accessible to the people.\nFor the great majority of working-people, our art, besides being\ninaccessible on account of its costliness, is strange in its very\nnature, transmitting, as it does, the feelings of people far removed\nfrom those conditions of laborious life which are natural to the\ngreat body of humanity. That which is enjoyment to a man of the\nrich classes is incomprehensible, as a pleasure, to a working-man,\nand evokes in him, either no feeling at all, or only a feeling\nquite contrary to that which it evokes in an idle and satiated man.\nSuch feelings as form the chief subjects of present-day art--say,\nfor instance, honor,[101] patriotism, and amorousness--evoke in a\nworking-man only bewilderment and contempt, or indignation. So that\neven if a possibility were given to the laboring classes, in their\nfree time, to see, to read, and to hear all that forms the flower of\ncontemporary art (as is done to some extent, in towns, by means of\npicture galleries, popular concerts, and libraries), the working-man\n(to the extent to which he is a laborer, and has not begun to pass\ninto the ranks of those perverted by idleness) would be able to make\nnothing of our fine art, and if he did understand it, that which\nhe understood would not elevate his soul, but would certainly, in\nmost cases, pervert it. To thoughtful and sincere people there can,\ntherefore, be no doubt that the art of our upper classes never can\nbe the art of the whole people. But if art is an important matter, a\nspiritual blessing, essential for all men (\"like religion,\" as the\ndevotees of art are fond of saying), then it should be accessible\nto every one. And if, as in our day, it is not accessible to all\nmen, then one of two things: either art is not the vital matter it\nis represented to be, or that art which we call art is not the real\nthing.\n\n [101] Dueling is still customary among the higher circles in Russia,\n as in other continental countries.--TR.\n\nThe dilemma is inevitable, and therefore clever and immoral people\navoid it by denying one side of it, viz., denying that the common\npeople have a right to art. These people simply and boldly speak\nout (what lies at the heart of the matter), and say that the\nparticipators in and utilizers of what, in their esteem, is highly\nbeautiful art, _i.e._ art furnishing the greatest enjoyment, can\nonly be \"sch\u00f6ne Geister,\" \"the elect,\" as the romanticists called\nthem, the \"Uebermenschen,\" as they are called by the followers of\nNietzsche; the remaining vulgar herd, incapable of experiencing\nthese pleasures, must serve the exalted pleasures of this superior\nbreed of people. The people who express these views at least do not\npretend, and do not try, to combine the incombinable, but frankly\nadmit, what is the case, that our art is an art of the upper classes\nonly. So essentially art has been, and is, understood by every one\nengaged on it in our society.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\n\nThe unbelief of the upper classes of the European world had this\neffect--that instead of an artistic activity aiming at transmitting\nthe highest feelings to which humanity has attained,--those flowing\nfrom religious perception,--we have an activity which aims at\naffording the greatest enjoyment to a certain class of society. And\nof all the immense domain of art, that part has been fenced off, and\nis alone called art, which affords enjoyment to the people of this\nparticular circle.\n\nApart from the moral effects on European society of such a\nselection from the whole sphere of art of what did not deserve\nsuch a valuation, and the acknowledgment of it as important art,\nthis perversion of art has weakened art itself, and well-nigh\ndestroyed it. The first great result was that art was deprived of\nthe infinite, varied, and profound religious subject-matter proper\nto it. The second result was that having only a small circle of\npeople in view, it lost its beauty of form and became affected and\nobscure; and the third and chief result was that it ceased to be\neither natural or even sincere, and became thoroughly artificial and\nbrain-spun.\n\nThe first result--the impoverishment of subject-matter--followed\nbecause only that is a true work of art which transmits fresh\nfeelings not before experienced by man. As thought-product is only\nthen real thought-product when it transmits new conceptions and\nthoughts, and does not merely repeat what was known before, so also\nan art-product is only then a genuine art-product when it brings a\nnew feeling (however insignificant) into the current of human life.\nThis explains why children and youths are so strongly impressed by\nthose works of art which first transmit to them feelings they had\nnot before experienced.\n\nThe same powerful impression is made on people by feelings which\nare quite new, and have never before been expressed by man. And it\nis the source from which such feelings flow of which the art of the\nupper classes has deprived itself by estimating feelings, not in\nconformity with religious perception, but according to the degree\nof enjoyment they afford. There is nothing older and more hackneyed\nthan enjoyment, and there is nothing fresher than the feelings\nspringing from the religious consciousness of each age. It could\nnot be otherwise: man's enjoyment has limits established by his\nnature, but the movement forward of humanity, that which is voiced\nby religious perception, has no limits. At every forward step taken\nby humanity--and such steps are taken in consequence of the greater\nand greater elucidation of religious perception--men experience new\nand fresh feelings. And therefore only on the basis of religious\nperception (which shows the highest level of life-comprehension\nreached by the men of a certain period) can fresh emotion, never\nbefore felt by man, arise. From the religious perception of the\nancient Greeks flowed the really new, important, and endlessly\nvaried feelings expressed by Homer and the tragic writers. It was\nthe same among the Jews, who attained the religious conception of a\nsingle God,--from that perception flowed all those new and important\nemotions expressed by the prophets. It was the same for the poets\nof the Middle Ages, who if they believed in a heavenly hierarchy,\nbelieved also in the Catholic commune; and it is the same for a\nman of to-day who has grasped the religious conception of true\nChristianity,--the brotherhood of man.\n\nThe variety of fresh feelings flowing from religious perception\nis endless, and they are all new; for religious perception is\nnothing else than the first indication of that which is coming into\nexistence, viz., the new relation of man to the world around him.\nBut the feelings flowing from the desire for enjoyment are, on\nthe contrary, not only limited, but were long ago experienced and\nexpressed. And therefore the lack of belief of the upper classes of\nEurope has left them with an art fed on the poorest subject-matter.\n\nThe impoverishment of the subject-matter of upper-class art was\nfurther increased by the fact that, ceasing to be religious, it\nceased also to be popular, and this again diminished the range of\nfeelings which it transmitted. For the range of feelings experienced\nby the powerful and the rich, who have no experience of labor\nfor the support of life, is far poorer, more limited, and more\ninsignificant than the range of feelings natural to working-people.\n\nPeople of our circle, \u00e6stheticians, usually think and say just\nthe contrary of this. I remember how Gontchareff, the author,\na very clever and educated man, but a thorough townsman and an\n\u00e6sthetician, said to me that after Tourgenieff's \"Memoirs of a\nSportsman\" there was nothing left to write about in peasant life.\nIt was all used up. The life of working-people seemed to him so\nsimple that Tourgenieff's peasant stories had used up all there\nwas to describe. The life of our wealthy people, with their\nlove-affairs and dissatisfaction with themselves, seemed to him\nfull of inexhaustible subject-matter. One hero kissed his lady on\nher palm, another on her elbow, and a third somewhere else. One man\nis discontented through idleness, and another because people don't\nlove him. And Gontchareff thought that in this sphere there is no\nend of variety. And this opinion--that the life of working-people is\npoor in subject-matter, but that our life, the life of the idle, is\nfull of interest--is shared by very many people in our society. The\nlife of a laboring man, with its endlessly varied forms of labor,\nand the dangers connected with this labor on sea and underground;\nhis migrations, the intercourse with his employers, overseers, and\ncompanions, and with men of other religions and other nationalities;\nhis struggles with nature and with wild beasts, the associations\nwith domestic animals, the work in the forest, on the steppe, in\nthe field, the garden, the orchard; his intercourse with wife and\nchildren, not only as with people near and dear to him, but as\nwith co-workers and helpers in labor, replacing him in time of\nneed; his concern in all economic questions, not as matters of\ndisplay or discussion, but as problems of life for himself and his\nfamily; his pride in self-suppression and service to others, his\npleasures of refreshment; and with all these interests permeated\nby a religious attitude toward these occurrences--all this to us,\nwho have not these interests and possess no religious perception,\nseems monotonous in comparison with those small enjoyments and\ninsignificant cares of our life,--a life, not of labor nor of\nproduction, but of consumption and destruction of that which others\nhave produced for us. We think the feelings experienced by people of\nour day and our class are very important and varied; but in reality\nalmost all the feelings of people of our class amount to but three\nvery insignificant and simple feelings,--the feeling of pride, the\nfeeling of sexual desire, and the feeling of weariness of life.\nThese three feelings, with their outgrowths, form almost the only\nsubject-matter of the art of the rich classes.\n\nAt first, at the very beginning of the separation of the\nexclusive art of the upper classes from universal art, its chief\nsubject-matter was the feeling of pride. It was so at the time of\nthe Renaissance and after it, when the chief subject of works of art\nwas the laudation of the strong,--popes, kings, and dukes: odes and\nmadrigals were written in their honor, and they were extolled in\ncantatas and hymns; their portraits were painted, and their statues\ncarved, in various adulatory ways. Next, the element of sexual\ndesire began more and more to enter into art, and (with very few\nexceptions, and in novels and dramas almost without exception) it\nhas now become an essential feature of every art-product of the rich\nclasses.\n\nThe third feeling transmitted by the art of the rich--that of\ndiscontent with life--appeared yet later in modern art. This\nfeeling, which, at the commencement of the present century,\nwas expressed only by exceptional men: by Byron, by Leopardi,\nand afterward by Heine, has latterly become fashionable, and\nis expressed by most ordinary and empty people. Most justly\ndoes the French critic Doumic characterize the works of the new\nwriters: \"_C'est la lassitude de vivre, le m\u00e9pris de l'\u00e9poque\npr\u00e9sente, le regret d'un autre temps aper\u00e7u \u00e0 travers l'illusion\nde l'art, le go\u00fbt du paradoxe, le besoin de se singulariser, une\naspiration de raffin\u00e9s vers la simplicit\u00e9, l'adoration enfantine du\nmerveilleux, la s\u00e9duction maladive de la r\u00eaverie, l'\u00e9branlement des\nnerfs,--surtout l'appel exasp\u00e9r\u00e9 de la sensualit\u00e9_\" (\"Les Jeunes,\"\nRen\u00e9 Doumic).[102] And, as a matter of fact, of these three feelings\nit is sensuality, the lowest (accessible not only to all men, but\neven to all animals), which forms the chief subject-matter of works\nof art of recent times.\n\n [102] It is the weariness of life, contempt for the present epoch,\n regret for another age seen through the illusion of art, a taste\n for paradox, a desire to be singular, a sentimental aspiration\n after simplicity, an infantine adoration of the marvelous, a sickly\n tendency toward reverie, a shattered condition of nerves, and, above\n all, the exasperated demand of sensuality.\n\nFrom Boccaccio to Marcel Pr\u00e9vost, all the novels, poems, and verses\ninvariably transmit the feeling of sexual love in its different\nforms. Adultery is not only the favorite, but almost the only theme\nof all the novels. A performance is not a performance unless, under\nsome pretense, women appear with naked busts and limbs. Songs and\n_romances_--all are expressions of lust, idealized in various\ndegrees.\n\nA majority of the pictures by French artists represent female\nnakedness in various forms. In recent French literature there is\nhardly a page or a poem in which nakedness is not described, and\nin which, relevantly or irrelevantly, their favorite thought and\nword _nu_ is not repeated a couple of times. There is a certain\nwriter, Ren\u00e9 de Gourmond, who gets printed, and is considered\ntalented. To get an idea of the new writers, I read his novel,\n\"Les Chevaux de Diom\u00e8de.\" It is a consecutive and detailed account\nof the sexual connections some gentleman had with various women.\nEvery page contains lust-kindling descriptions. It is the same in\nPierre Lou s' book, \"Aphrodite,\" which met with success; it is the\nsame in a book I lately chanced upon, Huysmans' \"Certains,\" and,\nwith but few exceptions, it is the same in all the French novels.\nThey are all the productions of people suffering from erotic mania.\nAnd these people are evidently convinced that as their whole life,\nin consequence of their diseased condition, is concentrated on\namplifying various sexual abominations, therefore the life of all\nthe world is similarly concentrated. And these people, suffering\nfrom erotic mania, are imitated throughout the whole artistic world\nof Europe and America.\n\nThus in consequence of the lack of belief and the exceptional manner\nof life of the wealthy classes, the art of those classes became\nimpoverished in its subject-matter, and has sunk to the transmission\nof the feelings of pride, discontent with life, and, above all, of\nsexual desire.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\n\nIn consequence of their unbelief, the art of the upper classes\nbecame poor in subject-matter. But besides that, becoming\ncontinually more and more exclusive, it became at the same time\ncontinually more and more involved, affected, and obscure.\n\nWhen a universal artist (such as were some of the Grecian artists\nor the Jewish prophets) composed his work, he naturally strove to\nsay what he had to say in such a manner that his production should\nbe intelligible to all men. But when an artist composed for a small\ncircle of people placed in exceptional conditions, or even for a\nsingle individual and his courtiers,--for popes, cardinals, kings,\ndukes, queens, or for a king's mistress,--he naturally only aimed\nat influencing these people, who were well known to him, and lived\nin exceptional conditions familiar to him. And this was an easier\ntask, and the artist was involuntarily drawn to express himself\nby allusions comprehensible only to the initiated, and obscure to\nevery one else. In the first place, more could be said in this way;\nand secondly, there is (for the initiated) even a certain charm in\nthe cloudiness of such a manner of expression. This method, which\nshowed itself both in euphemism and in mythological and historical\nallusions, came more and more into use, until it has, apparently,\nat last reached its utmost limits in the so-called art of the\nDecadents. It has come, finally, to this: that not only is haziness,\nmysteriousness, obscurity, and exclusiveness (shutting out the\nmasses) elevated to the rank of a merit and a condition of poetic\nart, but even incorrectness, indefiniteness, and lack of eloquence\nare held in esteem.\n\nTh\u00e9ophile Gautier, in his preface to the celebrated \"Fleurs du Mal,\"\nsays that Baudelaire, as far as possible, banished from poetry\neloquence, passion, and truth too strictly copied (\"_l'\u00e9loquence, la\npassion, et la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 calqu\u00e9e trop exactement_\").\n\nAnd Baudelaire not only expressed this, but maintained his thesis\nin his verses, and yet more strikingly in the prose of his \"Petits\nPo\u00e8mes en Prose,\" the meanings of which have to be guessed like a\nrebus, and remain for the most part undiscovered.\n\nThe poet Verlaine (who followed next after Baudelaire, and was also\nesteemed great) even wrote an \"Art Po\u00e9tique,\" in which he advises\nthis style of composition:--\n\n _De la musique avant toute chose,\n Et pour cela pr\u00e9f\u00e8re l'Impair\n Plus vague et plus soluble dans l'air,\n Sans rien en lui qui p\u00e8se ou qui pose._\n\n _Il faut aussi que tu n'ailles point\n Choisir tes mots sans quelque m\u00e9prise:\n Rien de plus cher que la chanson grise\n O\u00f9 l'Ind\u00e9cis au Pr\u00e9cis se joint._\n\nAnd again:--\n\n _De la musique encore et toujours!\n Que ton vers soit la chose envol\u00e9e\n Qu'on sent qui fuit d'une \u00e2me en all\u00e9e\n Vers d'autres cieux \u00e0 d'autres amours._\n\n _Que ton vers soit la bonne aventure\n Eparse au vent crisp\u00e9 du matin,\n Qui va fleurant la menthe et le thym....\n Et tout le reste est litt\u00e9rature._[103]\n\n [103]\n\n Music, music before all things\n The eccentric still prefer,\n Vague in air, and nothing weighty,\n Soluble. Yet do not err,\n\n Choosing words; still do it lightly,\n Do it too with some contempt;\n Dearest is the song that's tipsy,\n Clearness, dimness not exempt.\n\n * * * *\n\n Music always, now and ever\n Be thy verse the thing that flies\n From a soul that's gone, escaping,\n Gone to other loves and skies.\n\n Gone to other loves and regions,\n Following fortunes that allure,\n Mint and thyme and morning crispness....\n All the rest's mere literature.\n\nAfter these two comes Mallarm\u00e9, considered the most important of the\nyoung poets, and he plainly says that the charm of poetry lies in\nour having to guess its meaning--that in poetry there should always\nbe a puzzle:--\n\n_Je pense qu'il faut qu'il n'y ait qu'allusion_, says he. _La\ncontemplation des objets, l'image s'envolant des r\u00eaveries suscit\u00e9es\npar eux, sont le chant: les Parnassiens, eux, prennent la chose\nenti\u00e8rement et la montrent; par l\u00e0 ils manquent de myst\u00e8re; ils\nretirent aux esprits cette joie d\u00e9licieuse de croire qu'ils cr\u00e9ent._\nNommer un objet, c'est supprimer les trois quarts de la jouissance\ndu po\u00e8me, qui est faite du bonheur de deviner peu \u00e0 peu: le\nsugg\u00e9rer, voil\u00e0 le r\u00eave. _C'est le par fait usage de ce myst\u00e8re qui\nconstitue le symbole: \u00e9voquer petit \u00e0 petit un objet pour montrer un\n\u00e9tat d'\u00e2me, ou, inversement, choisir un objet et en d\u00e9gager un \u00e9tat\nd'\u00e2me, par une s\u00e8rie de d\u00e9chiffrements._\n\n.... _Si un \u00eatre d'une intelligence moyenne, et d'une pr\u00e9paration\nlitt\u00e9raire insuffisante, ouvre par hasard un livre ainsi fait et\npr\u00e9tend en jouir, il y a malentendu, il faut remettre les choses \u00e0\nleur place._ Il doit y avoir toujours \u00e9nigme en po\u00e8sie, _et c'est\nle but de la litt\u00e9rature, il n'y en a pas d'autre,--d'\u00e9voquer les\nobjets_.--\"Enqu\u00eate sur l'\u00c9volution Litt\u00e9raire,\" Jules Huret, pp. 60,\n61.[104]\n\n [104] I think there should be nothing but allusions. The\n contemplation of objects, the flying image of reveries evoked by\n them, are the song. The Parnassiens state the thing completely, and\n show it, and thereby lack mystery; they deprive the mind of that\n delicious joy of imagining that it creates. To _name an object is to\n take three-quarters from the enjoyment of the poem, which consists\n in the happiness of guessing little by little: to suggest, that is\n the dream_. It is the perfect use of this mystery that constitutes\n the symbol: little by little, to evoke an object in order to show a\n state of the soul; or, inversely, to choose an object, and from it\n to disengage a state of the soul by a series of decipherings.\n\n .... If a being of mediocre intelligence and insufficient literary\n preparation chance to open a book made in this way and pretends to\n enjoy it, there is a misunderstanding--things must be returned to\n their places. _There should always be an enigma in poetry_, and the\n aim of literature--it has no other--is to evoke objects.\n\nThus is obscurity elevated into a dogma among the new poets. As the\nFrench critic Doumic (who has not yet accepted the dogma) quite\ncorrectly says:--\n\n\"_Il serait temps aussi d'en finir avec cette fameuse 'th\u00e9orie de\nl'obscurite' que la nouvelle \u00e9cole a \u00e9lev\u00e9e, en effet, \u00e0 la hauteur\nd'un dogme._\"--\"Les Jeunes, par Ren\u00e9 Doumic.\"[105]\n\n [105] It were time also to have done with this famous \"theory of\n obscurity,\" which the new school have practically raised to the\n height of a dogma.\n\nBut it is not French writers only who think thus. The poets of\nall other countries think and act in the same way: German, and\nScandinavian, and Italian, and Russian, and English. So also do\nthe artists of the new period in all branches of art: in painting,\nin sculpture, and in music. Relying on Nietzsche and Wagner, the\nartists of the new age conclude that it is unnecessary for them to\nbe intelligible to the vulgar crowd; it is enough for them to evoke\npoetic emotion in \"the finest nurtured,\" to borrow a phrase from an\nEnglish \u00e6sthetician.\n\nIn order that what I am saying may not seem to be mere assertion,\nI will quote at least a few examples from the French poets who\nhave led this movement. The name of these poets is legion. I have\ntaken French writers, because they, more decidedly than any others,\nindicate the new direction of art, and are imitated by most European\nwriters.\n\nBesides those whose names are already considered famous, such as\nBaudelaire and Verlaine, here are the names of a few of them: Jean\nMor\u00e9as, Charles Morice, Henri de R\u00e9gnier, Charles Vignier, Adrien\nRemacle, Ren\u00e9 Ghil, Maurice Maeterlinck, G. Albert Aurier, R\u00e9my de\nGourmont, Saint-Pol-Roux-le-Magnifique, Georges Rodenbach, le comte\nRobert de Montesquiou-Fezensac. These are Symbolists and Decadents.\nNext we have the \"Magi\": Jos\u00e9phin P\u00e9ladan, Paul Adam, Jules Bois, M.\nPapus, and others.\n\nBesides these, there are yet one hundred and forty-one others, whom\nDoumic mentions in the book referred to above.\n\nHere are some examples from the work of those of them who are\nconsidered to be the best, beginning with that most celebrated man,\nacknowledged to be a great artist worthy of a monument--Baudelaire.\nThis is a poem from his celebrated \"Fleurs du Mal\":--\n\n\nNo. XXIV\n\n _Je t'adore \u00e0\u00a0l'\u00e9gal de la vo\u00fbte nocturne,\n O vase de tristesse, \u00f4 grande taciturne,\n Et t'aime d'autant plus, belle, que tu me fuis,\n Et que tu me parais, ornement de mes nuits,\n Plus ironiquement accumuler les lieues\n Qui s\u00e9parent mes bras des immensit\u00e9s bleues._\n\n _Je m'avance \u00e0 l'attaque, et je grimpe aux assauts,\n Comme apr\u00e8s un cadavre un ch\u0153ur de vermisseaux,\n Et je ch\u00e9ris, \u00f4 b\u00eate implacable et cruelle,\n Jusqu'\u00e0\u00a0cette froideur par o\u00f9 tu m'es plus belle!_[106]\n\n [106] For translation, see Appendix IV.\n\nAnd this is another by the same writer:--\n\n\nNo. XXXVI\n\n_DUELLUM_\n\n _Deux guerriers ont couru l'un sur l'autre; leurs armes\n Ont \u00e9clabouss\u00e9 l'air de lueurs et de sang.\n Ces jeux, ces cliquetis du fer sont les vacarmes\n D'une jeunesse en proie \u00e0 l'amour vagissant._\n\n _Les glaives sont bris\u00e9s! comme notre jeunesse,\n Ma ch\u00e8re! Mais les dents, les ongles ac\u00e9r\u00e9s,\n Vengent bient\u00f4t l'\u00e9p\u00e9e et la dague tra\u00eetresse.\n O fureur des c\u0153urs m\u00fbrs par l'amour ulc\u00e9r\u00e9s!_\n\n _Dans le ravin hant\u00e9 des chats-pards et des onces\n Nos h\u00e9ros, s'\u00e9treignant m\u00e9chamment, ont roul\u00e9,\n Et leur peau fleurira l'aridit\u00e9 des ronces._\n\n _Ce gouffre, c'est l'enfer, de nos amis peupl\u00e9!\n Roulons-y sans remords, amazone inhumaine,\n Afin d'\u00e9terniser l'ardeur de notre haine!_[107]\n\n [107] For translation, see Appendix IV.\n\nTo be exact, I should mention that the collection contains verses\nless comprehensible than these, but not one poem which is plain\nand can be understood without a certain effort--an effort seldom\nrewarded; for the feelings which the poet transmits are evil and\nvery low ones. And these feelings are always, and purposely,\nexpressed by him with eccentricity and lack of clearness. This\npremeditated obscurity is especially noticeable in his prose, where\nthe author could, if he liked, speak plainly.\n\nTake, for instance, the first piece from his \"Petits Po\u00e8mes\":--\n\n\n_L'ETRANGER_\n\n _Qui aimes-tu le mieux, homme \u00e9nigmatique, dis? ton p\u00e8re, ta\n m\u00e8re, ta s\u0153ur, ou ton fr\u00e8re?_\n\n _Je n'ai ni p\u00e8re, ni m\u00e8re, ni s\u0153ur, ni fr\u00e8re._\n\n _Tes amis?_\n\n _Vous vous servez l\u00e0 d'une parole dont le sens m'est rest\u00ea\n jusqu'\u00e0 ce jour inconnu._\n\n _Ta patrie?_\n\n _J'ignore sous quelle latitude elle est situ\u00e9e._\n\n _La beaut\u00e9?_\n\n _Je l'aimerais volontiers, desse et immortelle._\n\n _L'or?_\n\n _Je le hais comme vous ha\u00efssez Dieu._\n\n _Et qu'aimes-tu donc, extraordinaire \u00e9tranger?_\n\n _J'aime les nuages .... les nuages qui passent .... l\u00e0 bas, ....\n les merveilleux nuages!_[108]\n\nThe piece called \"La Soupe et les Nuages\" is probably intended to\nexpress the unintelligibility of the poet even to her whom he loves.\nThis is the piece in question:--\n\n _Ma petite folle bien-aim\u00e9e me donnait \u00e0 d\u00eener, et par la\n fen\u00eatre ouverte de la salle \u00e0 manger je contemplais les\n mouvantes architectures que Dieu fait avec les vapeurs, les\n merveilleuses constructions de l'impalpable. Et je me disais,\n \u00e0 travers ma contemplation: \"Toutes ces fantasmagories sont\n presque aussi belles que les yeux de ma belle bien-aim\u00e9e, la\n petite folle monstrueuse aux yeux verts.\"_\n\n _Et tout \u00e0 coup je re\u00e7us un violent coup de poing dans le dos,\n et j'entendis une voix rauque et charmante, une voix hyst\u00e9rique\n et comme enrou\u00e9e par l'eau-de-vie, la voix de ma ch\u00e8re petite\n bien-aim\u00e9e, qui me disait, \"Allez-vous bient\u00f4t manger votre\n soupe, s.... b.... de marchand de nuages?\"_[108]\n\n [108] For translation, see Appendix IV.\n\nHowever artificial these two pieces may be, it is still possible,\nwith some effort, to guess at what the author meant them to express,\nbut some of the pieces are absolutely incomprehensible--at least to\nme. \"Le Galant Tireur\" is a piece I was quite unable to understand.\n\n\n_LE GALANT TIREUR_\n\n _Comme la voiture traversait le bois, il la fit arr\u00eater dans le\n voisinage d'un tir, disant qu'il lui serait agr\u00e9able de tirer\n quelques balles pour tuer le Temps. Tuer ce monstre-l\u00e0, n'est-ce\n pas l'occupation la plus ordinaire et la plus l\u00e9gitime de\n chacun?--Et il offrit galamment la main \u00e0 sa ch\u00e8re, d\u00e9licieuse\n et ex\u00e9crable femme, \u00e0 cette myst\u00e9rieuse femme \u00e0 laquelle il\n doit tant de plaisirs, tant de douleurs, et peut-\u00eatre aussi une\n grande partie de son g\u00e9nie._\n\n _Plusieurs balles frapp\u00e8rent loin du but propos\u00e8, l'une d'elles\n s'enfon\u00e7a m\u00eame dans le plafond; et comme la charmante cr\u00e9ature\n riait follement, se moquant de la maladresse de son \u00e9poux,\n celui-ci se tourna brusquement vers elle, et lui dit: \"Observez\n cette poup\u00e9e, l\u00e0-bas, \u00e0 droite, qui porte le nez en l'air et qui\n a la mine si hautaine. Eh bien! cher ange_, je me figure que\n c'est vous.\" _Et il ferma les yeux et il l\u00e2cha la d\u00e9tente. La\n poup\u00e9e fut nettement d\u00e9capit\u00e9e._\n\n _Alors s'inclinant vers sa ch\u00e8re, sa d\u00e9licieuse, son ex\u00e9crable\n femme, son in\u00e9vitable et impitoyable Muse, et lui baisant\n respectueusement la main, il ajouta: \"Ah! mon cher ange, combien\n je vous remercie de mon adresse!\"_[109]\n\n [109] For translation, see Appendix IV.\n\nThe productions of another celebrity, Verlaine, are not less\naffected and unintelligible. This, for instance, is the first poem\nin the section called \"Ariettes Oubli\u00e9s.\"\n\n \"_Le vent dans la plaine\n Suspend son haleine._\"--FAVART.\n\n _C'est l'extase langoureuse,\n C'est la fatigue amoureuse,\n C'est tous les frissons des bois\n Parmi l'\u00e9treinte des brises,\n C'est, vers les ramures grises,\n Le ch\u0153ur des petites voix._\n\n _O le fr\u00eale et frais murmure!\n Cela gazouille et susurre,\n Cela ressemble au cri doux\n Que l'herbe agit\u00e9e expire....\n Tu dirais, sous l'eau qui vire,\n Le roulis sourd des cailloux._\n\n _Cette \u00e2me qui se lamente\n En cette plainte dormante\n C'est la n\u00f4tre, n'est-ce pas?_\n _La mienne, dis, et la tienne,\n Dont s'exhale l'humble antienne\n Par ce ti\u00e8de soir, tout bas?_[110]\n\n [110] For translation, see Appendix IV.\n\nWhat \"_ch\u0153ur des petites voix_\"? and what \"_cri doux que l'herbe\nagit\u00e9e expire_\"? and what it all means, remains altogether\nunintelligible to me.\n\nAnd here is another \"Ariette\":--\n\n\n_VIII_\n\n _Dans l'interminable\n Ennui de la plaine,\n La neige incertaine\n Luit comme du sable._\n\n _Le ciel est de cuivre,\n Sans lueur aucune.\n On croirait voir vivre\n Et mourir la lune._\n\n _Comme des nu\u00e9es\n Flottent gris les ch\u00eanes\n Des for\u00eats prochaines\n Parmi les bu\u00e9es._\n\n _Le ciel est de cuivre,\n Sans lueur aucune.\n On croirait voir vivre\n Et mourir la lune._\n\n _Corneille poussive\n Et vous, les loups maigres,\n Par ces bises aigres\n Quoi donc vous arrive?_\n\n _Dans l'interminable\n Ennui de la plaine,_\n _La neige incertaine\n Luit comme du sable._[111]\n\n [111] For translation, see Appendix IV.\n\nHow does the moon seem to live and die in a copper heaven? And\nhow can snow shine like sand? The whole thing is not merely\nunintelligible, but, under pretense of conveying an impression, it\npasses off a string of incorrect comparisons and words.\n\nBesides these artificial and obscure poems there are others which\nare intelligible, but which make up for it by being altogether\nbad, both in form and in subject. Such are all the poems under the\nheading \"La Sagesse.\" The chief place in these verses is occupied by\na very poor expression of the most commonplace Roman Catholic and\npatriotic sentiments. For instance, one meets with verses such as\nthis:--\n\n _Je ne veux plus penser qu'\u00e0\u00a0ma m\u00e8re Marie,\n Si\u00e8ge de la sagesse et source de pardons,\n M\u00e8re de France aussi_ de qui nous attendons\n In\u00e9branlablement l'honneur de la patrie.[112]\n\n [112]\n\n I do not wish to think any more, except about my mother Mary,\n Seat of wisdom and source of pardon,\n Also Mother of France, _from whom we\n Steadfastly expect the honor of our country_.\n\nBefore citing examples from other poets, I must pause to note\nthe amazing celebrity of these two versifiers, Baudelaire and\nVerlaine, who are now accepted as being great poets. How the French,\nwho had Ch\u00e9nier, Musset, Lamartine, and, above all, Hugo,--and\namong whom quite recently flourished the so-called Parnassiens:\nLeconte de Lisle, Sully-Prudhomme, etc.,--could attribute such\nimportance to these two versifiers, who were far from skilful in\nform and most contemptible and commonplace in subject-matter, is\nto me incomprehensible. The conception of life of one of them,\nBaudelaire, consisted in elevating gross egotism into a theory, and\nreplacing morality by a cloudy conception of beauty, and especially\nartificial beauty. Baudelaire had a preference, which he expressed,\nfor a woman's face painted rather than showing its natural color,\nand for metal trees and a theatrical imitation of water rather than\nreal trees and real water.\n\nThe life-conception of the other, Verlaine, consisted in weak\nprofligacy, confession of his moral impotence, and, as an antidote\nto that impotence, in the grossest Roman Catholic idolatry. Both,\nmoreover, were quite lacking in na\u00efvet\u00e9, sincerity, and simplicity,\nand both overflowed with artificiality, forced originality and\nself-assurance. So that in their least bad productions one sees more\nof M. Baudelaire or M. Verlaine than of what they were describing.\nBut these two indifferent versifiers form a school, and lead\nhundreds of followers after them.\n\nThere is only one explanation of this fact: it is that the art\nof the society in which these versifiers lived is not a serious,\nimportant matter of life, but is a mere amusement. And all\namusements grow wearisome by repetition. And, in order to make\nwearisome amusement again tolerable, it is necessary to find some\nmeans to freshen it up. When, at cards, ombre grows stale, whist\nis introduced; when whist grows stale, \u00e9cart\u00e9 is substituted; when\n\u00e9cart\u00e9 grows stale, some other novelty is invented, and so on. The\nsubstance of the matter remains the same, only its form is changed.\nAnd so it is with this kind of art. The subject-matter of the art of\nthe upper classes growing continually more and more limited, it has\ncome at last to this, that to the artists of these exclusive classes\nit seems as if everything has already been said, and that to find\nanything new to say is impossible. And therefore, to freshen up this\nart, they look out for fresh forms.\n\nBaudelaire and Verlaine invent such a new form, furbish it up,\nmoreover, with hitherto unused pornographic details, and--the\ncritics and the public of the upper classes hail them as great\nwriters.\n\nThis is the only explanation of the success, not of Baudelaire and\nVerlaine only, but of all the Decadents.\n\nFor instance, there are poems by Mallarm\u00e9 and Maeterlinck which have\nno meaning, and yet for all that, or perhaps on that very account,\nare printed by tens of thousands, not only in various publications,\nbut even in collections of the best works of the younger poets.\n\nThis, for example, is a sonnet by Mallarm\u00e9:--\n\n _A la nue accablante tu\n Basse de basalte et de laves\n A m\u00eame les \u00e9chos esclaves\n Par une trompe sans vertu._\n\n _Quel s\u00e9pulcral naufrage (tu\n Le soir, \u00e9cume, mais y baves)\n Supr\u00eame une entre les \u00e9paves\n Abolit le m\u00e2t d\u00e9v\u00eatu._\n\n _Ou cela que furibond faute\n De quelque perdition haute\n Tout l'ab\u00eeme vain \u00e9ploy\u00e9\n Dans le si blanc cheveu qui tra\u00eene\n Avarement aura noy\u00e9\n Le flanc enfant d'une sir\u00e8ne._[113]\n\n (\"Pan,\" 1895, No. 1.)\n\n [113] This sonnet seems too unintelligible for translation.--TR.\n\nThis poem is not exceptional in its incomprehensibility. I have read\nseveral poems by Mallarm\u00e9, and they also had no meaning whatever. I\ngive a sample of his prose in Appendix I. There is a whole volume of\nthis prose called \"Divagations.\" It is impossible to understand any\nof it. And that is evidently what the author intended.\n\nAnd here is a song by Maeterlinck, another celebrated author of\nto-day:--\n\n _Quand il est sorti,\n (J'entendis la porte)_\n _Quand il est sorti\n Elle avait souri ...._\n\n _Mais quand il entra\n (J'entendis la lampe)\n Mais quand il entra\n Une autre \u00e9tait l\u00e0 ...._\n\n _Et j'ai vu la mort,\n (J'entendis son \u00e2me)\n Et j'ai vu la mort\n Qui l'attend encore ...._\n\n _On est venu dire,\n (Mon enfant j'ai peur)\n On est venu dire\n Qu'il allait partir ...._\n\n _Ma lampe allum\u00e9e,\n (Mon enfant j'ai peur)\n Ma lampe allum\u00e9e\n Me suis approch\u00e9e ...._\n\n _A la premi\u00e8re porte,\n (Mon enfant j'ai peur)\n A la premi\u00e8re porte,\n La flamme a trembl\u00e9 ...._\n\n _A la seconde porte,\n (Mon enfant j'ai peur)\n A la seconde porte,\n La flamme a parl\u00e9 ...._\n\n _A la troisi\u00e8me porte,\n (Mon enfant j'ai peur)\n A la troisi\u00e8me porte,\n La lumi\u00e8re est morte ...._\n\n _Et s'il revenait un jour\n Que faut-il lui dire?_\n _Dites-lui qu'on l'attendit\n Jusqu'\u00e0 s'en mourir ...._\n\n _Et s'il demande o\u00f9 vous \u00eates\n Que faut-il r\u00e9pondre?\n Donnez-lui mon anneau d'or\n Sans rien lui r\u00e9pondre ...._\n\n _Et s'il m'interroge alors\n Sur la derni\u00e8re heure?\n Dites lui que j'ai souri\n De peur qu'il ne pleure ...._\n\n _Et s'il m'interroge encore\n Sans me reconna\u00eetre?\n Parlez-lui comme une s\u0153ur,\n Il souffre peut-\u00eatre ...._\n\n _Et s'il veut savoir pourquoi\n La salle est d\u00e9serte?\n Montrez lui la lampe \u00e9teinte\n Et la porte ouverte ...._[114]\n\n (\"Pan,\" 1895, No. 2.)\n\n [114] For translation, see Appendix IV.\n\nWho went out? Who came in? Who is speaking? Who died?\n\nI beg the reader to be at the pains of reading through the samples\nI cite in Appendix II. of the celebrated and esteemed young\npoets--Griffin, Verhaeren, Mor\u00e9as, and Montesquiou. It is important\nto do so in order to form a clear conception of the present position\nof art, and not to suppose, as many do, that Decadentism is an\naccidental and transitory phenomenon. To avoid the reproach of\nhaving selected the worst verses, I have copied out of each volume\nthe poem which happened to stand on page 28.\n\nAll the other productions of these poets are equally unintelligible,\nor can only be understood with great difficulty, and then not\nfully. All the productions of those hundreds of poets, of whom I\nhave named a few, are the same in kind. And among the Germans,\nSwedes, Norwegians, Italians, and us Russians, similar verses are\nprinted. And such productions are printed and made up into book\nform, if not by the million, then by the hundred thousand (some of\nthese works sell in tens of thousands). For type-setting, paging,\nprinting, and binding these books, millions and millions of working\ndays are spent--not less, I think, than went to build the great\npyramid. And this is not all. The same is going on in all the other\narts: millions and millions of working days are being spent on the\nproduction of equally incomprehensible works in painting, in music,\nand in the drama.\n\nPainting not only does not lag behind poetry in this matter, but\nrather outstrips it. Here is an extract from the diary of an amateur\nof art, written when visiting the Paris exhibitions in 1894:--\n\n\"I was to-day at three exhibitions: the Symbolists', the\nImpressionists', and the Neo-Impressionists'. I looked at the\npictures conscientiously and carefully, but again felt the same\nstupefaction and ultimate indignation. The first exhibition, that of\nCamille Pissarro, was comparatively the most comprehensible, though\nthe pictures were out of drawing, had no subject, and the colorings\nwere most improbable. The drawing was so indefinite that you were\nsometimes unable to make out which way an arm or a head was turned.\nThe subject was generally '_effets_'--_Effet de brouillard_, _Effet\ndu soir_, _Soleil couchant_. There were some pictures with figures,\nbut without subjects.\n\n\"In the coloring, bright blue and bright green predominated. And\neach picture had its special color, with which the whole picture\nwas, as it were, splashed. For instance, in 'A Girl Guarding\nGeese,' the special color is _vert de gris_, and dots of it were\nsplashed about everywhere; on the face, the hair, the hands, and the\nclothes. In the same gallery--'Durand Ruel'--were other pictures\nby Puvis de Chavannes, Manet, Monet, Renoir, Sisley--who are all\nImpressionists. One of them, whose name I could not make out,--it\nwas something like Redon,--had painted a blue face in profile. On\nthe whole face there is only this blue tone, with white-of-lead.\nPissarro has a water-color all done in dots. In the foreground is a\ncow, entirely painted with various-colored dots. The general color\ncannot be distinguished, however much one stands back from, or draws\nnear to, the picture. From there I went to see the Symbolists. I\nlooked at them long without asking any one for an explanation,\ntrying to guess the meaning; but it is beyond human comprehension.\nOne of the first things to catch my eye was a wooden _haut-relief_,\nwretchedly executed, representing a woman (naked) who with both\nhands is squeezing from her two breasts streams of blood. The blood\nflows down, becoming lilac in color. Her hair first descends, and\nthen rises again, and turns into trees. The figure is all colored\nyellow, and the hair is brown.\n\n\"Next--a picture: a yellow sea, on which swims something which is\nneither a ship nor a heart; on the horizon is a profile with a halo\nand yellow hair, which changes into a sea, in which it is lost.\nSome of the painters lay on their colors so thickly that the effect\nis something between painting and sculpture. A third exhibit was\neven less comprehensible: a man's profile; before him a flame and\nblack stripes--leeches, as I was afterwards told. At last I asked\na gentleman who was there what it meant, and he explained to me\nthat the _haut-relief_ was a symbol, and that it represented '_La\nTerre_.' The heart swimming in a yellow sea was '_Illusion perdue_,'\nand the gentleman with the leeches '_Le Mal_.' There were also some\nImpressionist pictures: elementary profiles, holding some sort of\nflowers in their hands: in monotone, out of drawing, and either\nquite blurred or else marked out with wide black outlines.\"\n\nThis was in 1894; the same tendency is now even more strongly\ndefined, and we have B\u00f6cklin, Stuck, Klinger, Sasha Schneider, and\nothers.\n\nThe same thing is taking place in the drama. The play-writers\ngive us an architect who, for some reason, has not fulfilled his\nformer high intentions, and who consequently climbs on to the roof\nof a house he has erected, and tumbles down head foremost; or an\nincomprehensible old woman (who exterminates rats), and who, for an\nunintelligible reason, takes a poetic child to the sea, and there\ndrowns him; or some blind men who, sitting on the seashore, for some\nreason always repeat one and the same thing; or a bell of some kind,\nwhich flies into a lake, and there rings.\n\nAnd the same is happening in music--in that art which, more than any\nother, one would have thought, should be intelligible to everybody.\n\nAn acquaintance of yours, a musician of repute, sits down to the\npiano and plays you what he says is a new composition of his own,\nor of one of the new composers. You hear the strange, loud sounds,\nand admire the gymnastic exercises performed by his fingers; and you\nsee that the performer wishes to impress upon you that the sounds\nhe is producing express various poetic strivings of the soul. You\nsee his intention, but no feeling whatever is transmitted to you\nexcept weariness. The execution lasts long, or at least it seems\nvery long to you, because you do not receive any clear impression,\nand involuntarily you remember the words of Alphonse Karr, \"_Plus\n\u00e7a va vite, plus \u00e7a dure longtemps_.\"[115] And it occurs to you\nthat perhaps it is all a mystification; perhaps the performer is\ntrying you--just throwing his hands and fingers wildly about the\nkeyboard in the hope that you will fall into the trap and praise\nhim, and then he will laugh and confess that he only wanted to see\nif he could hoax you. But when at last the piece does finish, and\nthe perspiring and agitated musician rises from the piano evidently\nanticipating praise, you see that it was all done in earnest.\n\n [115] The quicker it goes the longer it lasts.\n\nThe same thing takes place at all the concerts, with pieces by\nLiszt, Wagner, Berlioz, Brahms, and (newest of all) Richard\nStrauss, and the numberless other composers of the new school, who\nunceasingly produce opera after opera, symphony after symphony,\npiece after piece.\n\nThe same is occurring in a domain in which it seemed hard to be\nunintelligible,--in the sphere of novels and short stories.\n\nRead \"L\u00e0 Bas,\" by Huysmans, or some of Kipling's short stories, or\n\"L'Annonciateur,\" by Villiers de l'Isle Adam in his \"Contes Cruels,\"\netc., and you will find them not only \"abscons\" (to use a word\nadopted by the new writers), but absolutely unintelligible both in\nform and in substance. Such, again, is the work by E. Morel, \"Terre\nPromise,\" now appearing in the _Revue Blanche_, and such are most of\nthe new novels. The style is very high-flown, the feelings seem to\nbe most elevated, but you can't make out what is happening, to whom\nit is happening, and where it is happening. And such is the bulk of\nthe young art of our time.\n\nPeople who grew up in the first half of this century, admiring\nGoethe, Schiller, Musset, Hugo, Dickens, Beethoven, Chopin, Raphael,\nda Vinci, Michael Angelo, Delaroche, being unable to make head or\ntail of this new art, simply attribute its productions to tasteless\ninsanity, and wish to ignore them. But such an attitude toward\nthis new art is quite unjustifiable, because, in the first place,\nthat art is spreading more and more, and has already conquered for\nitself a firm position in society, similar to the one occupied by\nthe Romanticists in the third decade of this century; and, secondly\nand chiefly, because, if it is permissible to judge in this way of\nthe productions of the latest form of art, called by us Decadent\nart, merely because we do not understand it, then remember there are\nan enormous number of people,--all the laborers, and many of the\nnon-laboring folk,--who, in just the same way, do not comprehend\nthose productions of art which we consider admirable: the verses\nof our favorite artists--Goethe, Schiller, and Hugo; the novels of\nDickens, the music of Beethoven and Chopin, the pictures of Raphael,\nMichael Angelo, da Vinci, etc.\n\nIf I have a right to think that great masses of people do not\nunderstand and do not like what I consider undoubtedly good because\nthey are not sufficiently developed, then I have no right to deny\nthat perhaps the reason why I cannot understand and cannot like the\nnew productions of art is merely that I am still insufficiently\ndeveloped to understand them. If I have a right to say that I,\nand the majority of people who are in sympathy with me, do not\nunderstand the productions of the new art, simply because there is\nnothing in it to understand, and because it is bad art, then, with\njust the same right, the still larger majority, the whole laboring\nmass, who do not understand what I consider admirable art, can say\nthat what I reckon as good art is bad art, and there is nothing in\nit to understand.\n\nI once saw the injustice of such condemnation of the new art\nwith especial clearness, when, in my presence, a certain poet,\nwho writes incomprehensible verses, ridiculed incomprehensible\nmusic with gay self-assurance; and, shortly afterwards, a certain\nmusician, who composes incomprehensible symphonies, laughed at\nincomprehensible poetry with equal self-confidence. I have no right,\nand no authority, to condemn the new art on the ground that I (a man\neducated in the first half of the century) do not understand it; I\ncan only say that it is incomprehensible to me. The only advantage\nthe art I acknowledge has over the Decadent art, lies in the fact\nthat the art I recognize is comprehensible to a somewhat larger\nnumber of people than the present-day art.\n\nThe fact that I am accustomed to a certain exclusive art, and\ncan understand it, but am unable to understand another still\nmore exclusive art, does not give me a right to conclude that my\nart is the real true art, and that the other one, which I do not\nunderstand, is an unreal, a bad art. I can only conclude that art,\nbecoming ever more and more exclusive, has become more and more\nincomprehensible to an ever increasing number of people, and that,\nin this its progress toward greater and greater incomprehensibility\n(on one level of which I am standing, with the art familiar to me),\nit has reached a point where it is understood by a very small number\nof the elect, and the number of these chosen people is ever becoming\nsmaller and smaller.\n\nAs soon as ever the art of the upper classes separated itself from\nuniversal art, a conviction arose that art may be art and yet be\nincomprehensible to the masses. And as soon as this position was\nadmitted, it had inevitably to be admitted also that art may be\nintelligible only to the very smallest number of the elect, and,\neventually, to two, or to one, of our nearest friends, or to oneself\nalone. Which is practically what is being said by modern artists: \"I\ncreate and understand myself, and if any one does not understand me,\nso much the worse for him.\"\n\nThe assertion that art may be good art, and at the same time\nincomprehensible to a great number of people, is extremely unjust,\nand its consequences are ruinous to art itself; but at the same time\nit is so common and has so eaten into our conceptions, that it is\nimpossible sufficiently to elucidate all the absurdity of it.\n\nNothing is more common than to hear it said of reputed works of art,\nthat they are very good but very difficult to understand. We are\nquite used to such assertions, and yet to say that a work of art\nis good, but incomprehensible to the majority of men, is the same\nas saying of some kind of food that it is very good, but that most\npeople can't eat it. The majority of men may not like rotten cheese\nor putrefying grouse--dishes esteemed by people with perverted\ntastes; but bread and fruit are only good when they please the\nmajority of men. And it is the same with art. Perverted art may not\nplease the majority of men, but good art always pleases every one.\n\nIt is said that the very best works of art are such that they cannot\nbe understood by the mass, but are accessible only to the elect who\nare prepared to understand these great works. But if the majority of\nmen do not understand, the knowledge necessary to enable them to\nunderstand should be taught and explained to them. But it turns out\nthat there is no such knowledge, that the works cannot be explained,\nand that those who say the majority do not understand good works of\nart, still do not explain those works, but only tell us that, in\norder to understand them, one must read, and see, and hear these\nsame works over and over again. But this is not to explain, it is\nonly to habituate! And people may habituate themselves to anything,\neven to the very worst things. As people may habituate themselves to\nbad food, to spirits, tobacco, and opium, just in the same way they\nmay habituate themselves to bad art--and that is exactly what is\nbeing done.\n\nMoreover, it cannot be said that the majority of people lack the\ntaste to esteem the highest works of art. The majority always\nhave understood, and still understand, what we also recognize as\nbeing the very best art: the epic of Genesis, the gospel parables,\nfolk-legends, fairy-tales, and folk-songs, are understood by all.\nHow can it be that the majority has suddenly lost its capacity to\nunderstand what is high in our art?\n\nOf a speech it may be said that it is admirable, but\nincomprehensible to those who do not know the language in which it\nis delivered. A speech delivered in Chinese may be excellent, and\nmay yet remain incomprehensible to me if I do not know Chinese; but\nwhat distinguishes a work of art from all other mental activity\nis just the fact that its language is understood by all, and that\nit infects all without distinction. The tears and laughter of a\nChinese infect me just as the laughter and tears of a Russian;\nand it is the same with painting and music and poetry, when it is\ntranslated into a language I understand. The songs of a Kirghiz or\nof a Japanese touch me, though in a lesser degree than they touch\na Kirghiz or a Japanese. I am also touched by Japanese painting,\nIndian architecture, and Arabian stories. If I am but little\ntouched by a Japanese song and a Chinese novel, it is not that I do\nnot understand these productions, but that I know and am accustomed\nto higher works of art. It is not because their art is above me.\nGreat works of art are only great because they are accessible\nand comprehensible to every one. The story of Joseph, translated\ninto the Chinese language, touches a Chinese. The story of Sakya\nMuni touches us. And there are, and must be, buildings, pictures,\nstatues, and music of similar power. So that, if art fails to move\nmen, it cannot be said that this is due to the spectators' or\nhearers' lack of understanding; but the conclusion to be drawn may\nand should be, that such art is either bad art, or is not art at all.\n\nArt is differentiated from activity of the understanding, which\ndemands preparation and a certain sequence of knowledge (so that one\ncannot learn trigonometry before knowing geometry), by the fact that\nit acts on people independently of their state of development and\neducation, that the charm of a picture, sounds, or of forms, infects\nany man whatever his plane of development.\n\nThe business of art lies just in this,--to make that understood and\nfelt which, in the form of an argument, might be incomprehensible\nand inaccessible. Usually it seems to the recipient of a truly\nartistic impression that he knew the thing before but had been\nunable to express it.\n\nAnd such has always been the nature of good, supreme art; the\n\"Iliad,\" the \"Odyssey,\" the stories of Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph,\nthe Hebrew prophets, the psalms, the gospel parables, the story\nof Sakya Muni, and the hymns of the Vedas: all transmit very\nelevated feelings, and are nevertheless quite comprehensible now\nto us, educated or uneducated, as they were comprehensible to\nthe men of those times, long ago, who were even less educated\nthan our laborers. People talk about incomprehensibility; but if\nart is the transmission of feelings flowing from man's religious\nperception, how can a feeling be incomprehensible which is founded\non religion, _i.e._ on man's relation to God? Such art should be,\nand has actually always been, comprehensible to everybody, because\nevery man's relation to God is one and the same. And therefore\nthe churches and the images in them were always comprehensible to\nevery one. The hindrance to understanding the best and highest\nfeelings (as is said in the gospel) does not at all lie in\ndeficiency of development or learning, but, on the contrary, in\nfalse development and false learning. A good and lofty work of art\nmay be incomprehensible, but not to simple, unperverted peasant\nlaborers (all that is highest is understood by them)--it may be,\nand often is, unintelligible to erudite, perverted people destitute\nof religion. And this continually occurs in our society, in which\nthe highest feelings are simply not understood. For instance, I\nknow people who consider themselves most refined, and who say that\nthey do not understand the poetry of love to one's neighbor, of\nself-sacrifice, or of chastity.\n\nSo that good, great, universal, religious art may be\nincomprehensible to a small circle of spoilt people, but certainly\nnot to any large number of plain men.\n\nArt cannot be incomprehensible to the great masses only because it\nis very good--as artists of our day are fond of telling us. Rather\nwe are bound to conclude that this art is unintelligible to the\ngreat masses only because it is very bad art, or even is not art at\nall. So that the favorite argument (na\u00efvely accepted by the cultured\ncrowd), that in order to feel art one has first to understand it\n(which really only means habituate oneself to it), is the truest\nindication that what we are asked to understand by such a method is\neither very bad, exclusive art, or is not art at all.\n\nPeople say that works of art do not please the people because they\nare incapable of understanding them. But if the aim of works of art\nis to infect people with the emotion the artist has experienced, how\ncan one talk about not understanding?\n\nA man of the people reads a book, sees a picture, hears a play or\na symphony, and is touched by no feeling. He is told that this is\nbecause he cannot understand. People promise to let a man see a\ncertain show; he enters and sees nothing. He is told that this is\nbecause his sight is not prepared for this show. But the man well\nknows that he sees quite well, and if he does not see what people\npromised to show him, he only concludes (as is quite just) that\nthose who undertook to show him the spectacle have not fulfilled\ntheir engagement. And it is perfectly just for a man who does feel\nthe influence of some works of art to come to this conclusion\nconcerning artists who do not, by their works, evoke feeling in him.\nTo say that the reason a man is not touched by my art is because\nhe is still too stupid, besides being very self-conceited and also\nrude, is to reverse the r\u00f4les, and for the sick to send the hale to\nbed.\n\nVoltaire said that \"_Tous les genres sont bons, hors le genre\nennuyeux_;\"[116] but with even more right one may say of art that\n_Tous les genres sont bons, hors celui qu'on ne comprend pas, or\nqui ne produit pas son effet_,[117] for of what value is an article\nwhich fails to do that for which it was intended?\n\n [116] All styles are good except the wearisome style.\n\n [117] All styles are good except that which is not understood, or\n which fails to produce its effect.\n\nMark this above all: if only it be admitted that art may be art\nand yet be unintelligible to any one of sound mind, there is no\nreason why any circle of perverted people should not compose works\ntickling their own perverted feelings and comprehensible to no one\nbut themselves, and call it \"art,\" as is actually being done by the\nso-called Decadents.\n\nThe direction art has taken may be compared to placing on a large\ncircle other circles, smaller and smaller, until a cone is formed,\nthe apex of which is no longer a circle at all. That is what has\nhappened to the art of our times.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\n\nBecoming ever poorer and poorer in subject-matter, and more and\nmore unintelligible in form, the art of the upper classes, in its\nlatest productions, has even lost all the characteristics of art,\nand has been replaced by imitations of art. Not only has upper-class\nart, in consequence of its separation from universal art, become\npoor in subject-matter, and bad in form, _i.e._ ever more and more\nunintelligible, it has, in course of time, ceased even to be art at\nall, and has been replaced by counterfeits.\n\nThis has resulted from the following causes: Universal art arises\nonly when some one of the people, having experienced a strong\nemotion, feels the necessity of transmitting it to others. The\nart of the rich classes, on the other hand, arises not from the\nartist's inner impulse, but chiefly because people of the upper\nclasses demand amusement and pay well for it. They demand from art\nthe transmission of feelings that please them, and this demand\nartists try to meet. But it is a very difficult task; for people of\nthe wealthy classes, spending their lives in idleness and luxury,\ndesire to be continually diverted by art; and art, even the lowest,\ncannot be produced at will, but has to generate spontaneously in\nthe artist's inner self. And therefore, to satisfy the demands of\npeople of the upper classes, artists have had to devise methods of\nproducing imitations of art. And such methods have been devised.\n\nThese methods are those of (1) borrowing, (2) imitating, (3)\nstriking (effects), and (4) interesting.\n\nThe first method consists in borrowing whole subjects, or merely\nseparate features, from former works recognized by every one as\nbeing poetical, and in so re-shaping them, with sundry additions,\nthat they should have an appearance of novelty.\n\nSuch works, evoking in people of a certain class memories of\nartistic feelings formerly experienced, produce an impression\nsimilar to art, and, provided only that they conform to other\nneedful conditions, they pass for art among those who seek for\npleasure from art. Subjects borrowed from previous works of art are\nusually called poetical subjects. Objects and people thus borrowed\nare called poetical objects and people. Thus, in our circle, all\nsorts of legends, sagas, and ancient traditions are considered\npoetical subjects. Among poetical people and objects we reckon\nmaidens, warriors, shepherds, hermits, angels, devils of all sorts,\nmoonlight, thunder, mountains, the sea, precipices, flowers, long\nhair, lions, lambs, doves, and nightingales. In general, all those\nobjects are considered poetical which have been most frequently used\nby former artists in their productions.\n\nSome forty years ago a stupid but highly cultured--_ayant beaucoup\nd'acquis_--lady (since deceased) asked me to listen to a novel\nwritten by herself. It began with a heroine who, in a poetic white\ndress, and with poetically flowing hair, was reading poetry near\nsome water in a poetic wood. The scene was in Russia, but suddenly\nfrom behind the bushes the hero appears, wearing a hat with a\nfeather _\u00e0 la Guillaume Tell_ (the book specially mentioned this)\nand accompanied by two poetical white dogs. The authoress deemed\nall this highly poetical, and it might have passed muster if only\nit had not been necessary for the hero to speak. But as soon as the\ngentleman in the hat _\u00e0 la Guillaume Tell_ began to converse with\nthe maiden in the white dress, it became obvious that the authoress\nhad nothing to say, but had merely been moved by poetic memories\nof other works, and imagined that by ringing the changes on those\nmemories she could produce an artistic impression. But an artistic\nimpression, _i.e._ infection, is only received when an author has,\nin the manner peculiar to himself, experienced the feeling which\nhe transmits, and not when he passes on another man's feeling\npreviously transmitted to him. Such poetry from poetry cannot infect\npeople, it can only simulate a work of art, and even that only to\npeople of perverted \u00e6sthetic taste. The lady in question being very\nstupid and devoid of talent, it was at once apparent how the case\nstood; but when such borrowing is resorted to by people who are\nerudite and talented and have cultivated the technique of their art,\nwe get those borrowings from the Greek, the antique, the Christian\nor mythological world which have become so numerous, and which,\nparticularly in our day, continue to increase and multiply, and are\naccepted by the public as works of art, if only the borrowings are\nwell mounted by means of the technique of the particular art to\nwhich they belong.\n\nAs a characteristic example of such counterfeits of art in the realm\nof poetry, take Rostand's \"Princesse Lointaine,\" in which there is\nnot a spark of art, but which seems very poetical to many people,\nand probably also to its author.\n\nThe second method of imparting a semblance of art is that which\nI have called imitating. The essence of this method consists in\nsupplying details accompanying the thing described or depicted.\nIn literary art this method consists in describing, in the\nminutest details, the external appearance, the faces, the clothes,\nthe gestures, the tones, and the habitations of the characters\nrepresented, with all the occurrences met with in life. For\ninstance, in novels and stories, when one of the characters speaks,\nwe are told in what voice he spoke, and what he was doing at the\ntime. And the things said are not given so that they should have as\nmuch sense as possible, but, as they are in life, disconnectedly,\nand with interruptions and omissions. In dramatic art, besides\nsuch imitation of real speech, this method consists in having all\nthe accessories and all the people just like those in real life.\nIn painting, this method assimilates painting to photography, and\ndestroys the difference between them. And, strange to say, this\nmethod is used also in music: music tries to imitate, not only by\nits rhythm but also by its very sounds, the sounds which in real\nlife accompany the thing it wishes to represent.\n\nThe third method is by action, often purely physical, on the outer\nsenses. Work of this kind is said to be \"striking,\" \"effectful.\" In\nall arts these effects consist chiefly in contrasts; in bringing\ntogether the terrible and the tender, the beautiful and the hideous,\nthe loud and the soft, darkness and light, the most ordinary and\nthe most extraordinary. In verbal art, besides effects of contrast,\nthere are also effects consisting in the description of things that\nhave never before been described. These are usually pornographic\ndetails evoking sexual desire, or details of suffering and death\nevoking feelings of horror, as, for instance, when describing a\nmurder, to give a detailed medical account of the lacerated tissues,\nof the swellings, of the smell, quantity, and appearance of the\nblood. It is the same in painting: besides all kinds of other\ncontrasts, one is coming into vogue which consists in giving careful\nfinish to one object and being careless about all the rest. The\nchief and usual effects in painting are effects of light and the\ndepiction of the horrible. In the drama, the most common effects,\nbesides contrasts, are tempests, thunder, moonlight, scenes at sea\nor by the seashore, changes of costume, exposure of the female body,\nmadness, murders, and death generally: the dying person exhibiting\nin detail all the phases of agony. In music the most usual effects\nare a _crescendo_, passing from the softest and simplest sounds\nto the loudest and most complex crash of the full orchestra; a\nrepetition of the same sounds _arpeggio_ in all the octaves and on\nvarious instruments; or that the harmony, tone, and rhythm be not at\nall those naturally flowing from the course of the musical thought,\nbut such as strike one by their unexpectedness. Besides these, the\ncommonest effects in music are produced in a purely physical manner\nby strength of sound, especially in an orchestra.\n\nSuch are some of the most usual effects in the various arts, but\nthere yet remains one common to them all; namely, to convey by\nmeans of one art what it would be natural to convey by another: for\ninstance, to make music describe (as is done by the programme music\nof Wagner and his followers), or to make painting, the drama, or\npoetry, induce a frame of mind (as is aimed at by all the Decadent\nart).\n\nThe fourth method is that of interesting (that is, absorbing the\nmind) in connection with works of art. The interest may lie in\nan intricate plot--a method till quite recently much employed in\nEnglish novels and French plays, but now going out of fashion and\nbeing replaced by authenticity, _i.e._ by detailed description of\nsome historical period or some branch of contemporary life. For\nexample, in a novel, interestingness may consist in a description of\nEgyptian or Roman life, the life of miners, or that of the clerks\nin a large shop. The reader becomes interested and mistakes this\ninterest for an artistic impression. The interest may also depend on\nthe very method of expression; a kind of interest that has now come\nmuch into use. Both verse and prose, as well as pictures, plays, and\nmusic, are constructed so that they must be guessed like riddles,\nand this process of guessing again affords pleasure and gives a\nsemblance of the feeling received from art.\n\nIt is very often said that a work of art is very good because it is\npoetic, or realistic, or striking, or interesting; whereas not only\ncan neither the first, nor the second, nor the third, nor the fourth\nof these attributes supply a standard of excellence in art, but they\nhave not even anything in common with art.\n\nPoetic--means borrowed. All borrowing merely recalls to the reader,\nspectator, or listener some dim recollection of artistic impressions\nthey have received from previous works of art, and does not infect\nthem with feeling which the artist has himself experienced. A\nwork founded on something borrowed, like Goethe's \"Faust,\" for\ninstance, may be very well executed and be full of mind and every\nbeauty, but because it lacks the chief characteristic of a work\nof art--completeness, oneness, the inseparable unity of form and\ncontents expressing the feeling the artist has experienced--it\ncannot produce a really artistic impression. In availing himself\nof this method, the artist only transmits the feeling received by\nhim from a previous work of art; therefore every borrowing, whether\nit be of whole subjects, or of various scenes, situations, or\ndescriptions, is but a reflection of art, a simulation of it, but\nnot art itself. And therefore, to say that a certain production is\ngood because it is poetic--_i.e._ resembles a work of art--is like\nsaying of a coin that it is good because it resembles real money.\n\nEqually little can imitation, realism, serve, as many people think,\nas a measure of the quality of art. Imitation cannot be such a\nmeasure; for the chief characteristic of art is the infection of\nothers with the feelings the artist has experienced, and infection\nwith a feeling is not only not identical with description of the\naccessories of what is transmitted, but is usually hindered by\nsuperfluous details. The attention of the receiver of the artistic\nimpression is diverted by all these well-observed details, and they\nhinder the transmission of feeling even when it exists.\n\nTo value a work of art by the degree of its realism, by the\naccuracy of the details reproduced, is as strange as to judge of\nthe nutritive quality of food by its external appearance. When we\nappraise a work according to its realism, we only show that we are\ntalking, not of a work of art, but of its counterfeit.\n\nNeither does the third method of imitating art--by the use of\nwhat is striking or effectual--coincide with real art any better\nthan the two former methods; for in effectfulness--the effects of\nnovelty, of the unexpected, of contrasts, of the horrible--there\nis no transmission of feeling, but only an action on the nerves.\nIf an artist were to paint a bloody wound admirably, the sight of\nthe wound would strike me, but it would not be art. One prolonged\nnote on a powerful organ will produce a striking impression, will\noften even cause tears, but there is no music in it, because\nno feeling is transmitted. Yet such physiological effects are\nconstantly mistaken for art by people of our circle, and this not\nonly in music, but also in poetry, painting, and the drama. It is\nsaid that art has become refined. On the contrary, thanks to the\npursuit of effectfulness, it has become very coarse. A new piece\nis brought out and accepted all over Europe, such, for instance,\nas \"Hannele,\" in which play the author wishes to transmit to the\nspectators pity for a persecuted girl. To evoke this feeling in the\naudience by means of art, the author should either make one of the\ncharacters express this pity in such a way as to infect every one,\nor he should describe the girl's feelings correctly. But he cannot,\nor will not, do this, and chooses another way, more complicated\nin stage management, but easier for the author. He makes the girl\ndie on the stage; and, still further to increase the physiological\neffect on the spectators, he extinguishes the lights in the theater,\nleaving the audience in the dark, and to the sound of dismal music\nhe shows how the girl is pursued and beaten by her drunken father.\nThe girl shrinks--screams--groans--and falls. Angels appear and\ncarry her away. And the audience, experiencing some excitement while\nthis is going on, are fully convinced that this is true \u00e6sthetic\nfeeling. But there is nothing \u00e6sthetic in such excitement; for there\nis no infecting of man by man, but only a mingled feeling of pity\nfor another, and of self-congratulation that it is not I who am\nsuffering: it is like what we feel at the sight of an execution, or\nwhat the Romans felt in their circuses.\n\nThe substitution of effectfulness for \u00e6sthetic feeling is\nparticularly noticeable in musical art--that art which by its nature\nhas an immediate physiological action on the nerves. Instead of\ntransmitting by means of a melody the feelings he has experienced,\na composer of the new school accumulates and complicates sounds,\nand by now strengthening, now weakening them, he produces on the\naudience a physiological effect of a kind that can be measured by an\napparatus invented for the purpose.[118] And the public mistake this\nphysiological effect for the effect of art.\n\n [118] An apparatus exists by means of which a very sensitive arrow,\n in dependence on the tension of a muscle of the arm, will indicate\n the physiological action of music on the nerves and muscles.\n\nAs to the fourth method--that of interesting--it also is frequently\nconfounded with art. One often hears it said, not only of a poem,\na novel, or a picture, but even of a musical work, that it is\ninteresting. What does this mean? To speak of an interesting work of\nart means either that we receive from a work of art information new\nto us, or that the work is not fully intelligible, and that little\nby little, and with effort, we arrive at its meaning, and experience\na certain pleasure in this process of guessing it. In neither case\nhas the interest anything in common with artistic impression. Art\naims at infecting people with feeling experienced by the artist.\nBut the mental effort necessary to enable the spectator, listener,\nor reader to assimilate the new information contained in the work,\nor to guess the puzzles propounded, by distracting him, hinders the\ninfection. And therefore the interestingness of a work, not only\nhas nothing to do with its excellence as a work of art, but rather\nhinders than assists artistic impression.\n\nWe may, in a work of art, meet with what is poetic, and realistic,\nand striking, and interesting, but these things cannot replace the\nessential of art,--feeling experienced by the artist. Latterly, in\nupper-class art, most of the objects given out as being works of\nart are of the kind which only resemble art, and are devoid of its\nessential quality,--feeling experienced by the artist. And, for the\ndiversion of the rich, such objects are continually being produced\nin enormous quantities by the artisans of art.\n\nMany conditions must be fulfilled to enable a man to produce a real\nwork of art. It is necessary that he should stand on the level of\nthe highest life-conception of his time, that he should experience\nfeeling and have the desire and capacity to transmit it, and that\nhe should, moreover, have a talent for some one of the forms of\nart. It is very seldom that all these conditions necessary to the\nproduction of true art are combined. But in order--aided by the\ncustomary methods of borrowing, imitating, introducing effects, and\ninteresting--unceasingly to produce counterfeits of art which pass\nfor art in our society and are well paid for, it is only necessary\nto have a talent for some branch of art; and this is very often\nto be met with. By talent I mean ability: in literary art, the\nability to express one's thoughts and impressions easily and to\nnotice and remember characteristic details; in the depictive arts,\nto distinguish and remember lines, forms, and colors; in music, to\ndistinguish the intervals, and to remember and transmit the sequence\nof sounds. And a man, in our times, if only he possesses such a\ntalent and selects some specialty, may, after learning the methods\nof counterfeiting used in his branch of art,--if he has patience\nand if his \u00e6sthetic feeling (which would render such productions\nrevolting to him) be atrophied,--unceasingly, till the end of his\nlife, turn out works which will pass for art in our society.\n\nTo produce such counterfeits, definite rules or recipes exist in\neach branch of art. So that the talented man, having assimilated\nthem, may produce such works _\u00e0 froid_, cold drawn, without any\nfeeling.\n\nIn order to write poems a man of literary talent needs only\nthese qualifications: to acquire the knack, conformably with the\nrequirements of rhyme and rhythm, of using, instead of the one\nreally suitable word, ten others meaning approximately the same;\nto learn how to take any phrase which, to be clear, has but one\nnatural order of words, and despite all possible dislocations still\nto retain some sense in it; and lastly, to be able, guided by the\nwords required for the rhymes, to devise some semblance of thoughts,\nfeelings, or descriptions to suit these words. Having acquired these\nqualifications, he may unceasingly produce poems--short or long,\nreligious, amatory, or patriotic, according to the demand.\n\nIf a man of literary talent wishes to write a story or novel, he\nneed only form his style--_i.e._ learn how to describe all that he\nsees--and accustom himself to remember or note down details. When he\nhas accustomed himself to this, he can, according to his inclination\nor the demand, unceasingly produce novels or stories--historical,\nnaturalistic, social, erotic, psychological, or even religious, for\nwhich latter kind a demand and fashion begins to show itself. He can\ntake subjects from books or from the events of life, and can copy\nthe characters of the people in his book from his acquaintances.\n\nAnd such novels and stories, if only they are decked out with\nwell-observed and carefully noted details, preferably erotic ones,\nwill be considered works of art, even though they may not contain a\nspark of feeling experienced.\n\nTo produce art in dramatic form, a talented man, in addition to all\nthat is required for novels and stories, must also learn to furnish\nhis characters with as many smart and witty sentences as possible,\nmust know how to utilize theatrical effects, and how to entwine\nthe action of his characters so that there should not be any long\nconversations, but as much bustle and movement on the stage as\npossible. If the writer is able to do this, he may produce dramatic\nworks one after another without stopping, selecting his subjects\nfrom the reports of the law courts, or from the latest society\ntopic, such as hypnotism, heredity, etc., or from deep antiquity, or\neven from the realms of fancy.\n\nIn the sphere of painting and sculpture it is still easier for the\ntalented man to produce imitations of art. He need only learn to\ndraw, paint, and model--especially naked bodies. Thus equipped he\ncan continue to paint pictures, or model statues, one after another,\nchoosing subjects according to his bent--mythological, or religious,\nor fantastic, or symbolical; or he may depict what is written about\nin the papers--a coronation, a strike, the Turko-Grecian war, famine\nscenes; or, commonest of all, he may just copy anything he thinks\nbeautiful--from naked women to copper basins.\n\nFor the production of musical art the talented man needs still\nless of what constitutes the essence of art, _i.e._ feeling\nwherewith to infect others: but on the other hand, he requires\nmore physical, gymnastic labor than for any other art, unless it\nbe dancing. To produce works of musical art, he must first learn\nto move his fingers on some instrument as rapidly as those who\nhave reached the highest perfection; next, he must know how in\nformer times polyphonic music was written, must study what are\ncalled counterpoint and fugue; and, furthermore, he must learn\norchestration, _i.e._ how to utilize the effects of the instruments.\nBut once he has learned all this, the composer may unceasingly\nproduce one work after another; whether programme-music, opera, or\nsong (devising sounds more or less corresponding to the words), or\nchamber music, _i.e._ he may take another man's themes and work\nthem up into definite forms by means of counterpoint and fugue; or,\nwhat is commonest of all, he may compose fantastic music, _i.e._ he\nmay take a conjunction of sounds which happens to come to hand, and\npile every sort of complication and ornamentation on to this chance\ncombination.\n\nThus, in all realms of art, counterfeits of art are manufactured to\na ready-made, prearranged recipe, and these counterfeits the public\nof our upper classes accept for real art.\n\nAnd this substitution of counterfeits for real works of art was the\nthird and most important consequence of the separation of the art of\nthe upper classes from universal art.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\n\nIn our society three conditions co\u00f6perate to cause the production of\nobjects of counterfeit art. They are--(1) the considerable remuneration\nof artists for their productions, and the professionalization of\nartists which this has produced, (2) art criticism, and (3) schools of\nart.\n\nWhile art was as yet undivided, and only religious art was valued\nand rewarded while indiscriminate art was left unrewarded, there\nwere no counterfeits of art, or, if any existed, being exposed to\nthe criticism of the whole people, they quickly disappeared. But as\nsoon as that division occurred, and the upper classes acclaaimed\nevery kind of art as good if only it afforded them pleasure, and\nbegan to reward such art more highly than any other social activity,\nimmediately a large number of people devoted themselves to this\nactivity, and art assumed quite a different character, and became a\nprofession.\n\nAnd as soon as this occurred, the chief and most precious quality\nof art--its sincerity--was at once greatly weakened and eventually\nquite destroyed.\n\nThe professional artist lives by his art, and has continually\nto invent subjects for his works, and does invent them. And it\nis obvious how great a difference must exist between works of\nart produced on the one hand by men such as the Jewish prophets,\nthe authors of the Psalms, Francis of Assisi, the authors of the\n\"Iliad\" and \"Odyssey,\" of folk-stories, legends, and folk-songs,\nmany of whom not only received no remuneration for their work, but\ndid not even attach their names to it; and, on the other hand,\nworks produced by court poets, dramatists and musicians receiving\nhonors and remuneration; and later on by professional artists, who\nlived by the trade, receiving remuneration from newspaper editors,\npublishers, impresarios, and in general from those agents who come\nbetween the artists and the town public--the consumers of art.\n\nProfessionalism is the first condition of the diffusion of false,\ncounterfeit art.\n\nThe second condition is the growth, in recent times, of artistic\ncriticism, _i.e._ the valuation of art, not by everybody, and, above\nall, not by plain men, but by erudite, that is, by perverted and at\nthe same time self-confident individuals.\n\nA friend of mine, speaking of the relation of critics to artists,\nhalf jokingly defined it thus: \"Critics are the stupid who discuss\nthe wise.\" However partial, inexact, and rude this definition may\nbe, it is yet partly true, and is incomparably juster than the\ndefinition which considers critics to be men who can explain works\nof art.\n\n\"Critics explain!\" What do they explain?\n\nThe artist, if a real artist, has by his work transmitted to others\nthe feeling he experienced. What is there, then, to explain?\n\nIf a work be good as art, then the feeling expressed by the\nartist--be it moral or immoral--transmits itself to other people. If\ntransmitted to others, then they feel it, and all interpretations\nare superfluous. If the work does not infect people, no explanation\ncan make it contagious. An artist's work cannot be interpreted.\nHad it been possible to explain in words what he wished to convey,\nthe artist would have expressed himself in words. He expressed it\nby his art only because the feeling he experienced could not be\notherwise transmitted. The interpretation of works of art by words\nonly indicates that the interpreter is himself incapable of feeling\nthe infection of art. And this is actually the case; for, however\nstrange it may seem to say so, critics have always been people less\nsusceptible than other men to the contagion of art. For the most\npart they are able writers, educated and clever, but with their\ncapacity of being infected by art quite perverted or atrophied. And\ntherefore their writings have always largely contributed, and still\ncontribute, to the perversion of the taste of that public which\nreads them and trusts them.\n\nArtistic criticism did not exist--could not and cannot exist--in\nsocieties where art is undivided, and where, consequently, it is\nappraised by the religious understanding of life common to the whole\npeople. Art criticism grew, and could grow, only on the art of the\nupper classes, who did not acknowledge the religious perception of\ntheir time.\n\nUniversal art has a definite and indubitable internal\ncriterion,--religious perception; upper-class art lacks this, and\ntherefore the appreciators of that art are obliged to cling to\nsome external criterion. And they find it in \"the judgments of the\nfinest-nurtured,\" as an English \u00e6sthetician has phrased it, that\nis, in the authority of the people who are considered educated,\nnor in this alone, but also in a tradition of such authorities.\nThis tradition is extremely misleading, both because the opinions\nof \"the finest-nurtured\" are often mistaken, and also because\njudgments which were valid once cease to be so with the lapse of\ntime. But the critics, having no basis for their judgments, never\ncease to repeat their traditions. The classical tragedians were\nonce considered good, and therefore criticism considers them to be\nso still. Dante was esteemed a great poet, Raphael a great painter,\nBach a great musician--and the critics, lacking a standard by which\nto separate good art from bad, not only consider these artists\ngreat, but regard all their productions as admirable and worthy of\nimitation. Nothing has contributed, and still contributes, so much\nto the perversion of art as these authorities set up by criticism. A\nman produces a work of art, like every true artist expressing in his\nown peculiar manner a feeling he has experienced. Most people are\ninfected by the artist's feeling; and his work becomes known. Then\ncriticism, discussing the artist, says that the work is not bad,\nbut all the same the artist is not a Dante, nor a Shakespear, nor a\nGoethe, nor a Raphael, nor what Beethoven was in his last period.\nAnd the young artist sets to work to copy those who are held up for\nhis imitation, and he produces not only feeble works, but false\nworks,--counterfeits of art.\n\nThus, for instance, our Pushkin writes his short poems, \"Evgeniy\nOnegin,\" \"The Gipsies,\" and his stories--works all varying in\nquality, but all true art. But then, under the influence of false\ncriticism extolling Shakespear, he writes \"Boris Godunoff,\" a cold,\nbrain-spun work, and this production is lauded by the critics, set\nup as a model, and imitations of it appear: \"Minin,\" by Ostrovsky,\nand \"Tsar Boris,\" by Alex\u00e9e Tolsto\u00ef, and such imitations of\nimitations as crowd all literatures with insignificant productions.\nThe chief harm done by the critics is this,--that themselves lacking\nthe capacity to be infected by art (and that is the characteristic\nof all critics; for did they not lack this they could not attempt\nthe impossible--the interpretation of works of art), they pay most\nattention to, and eulogize, brain-spun, invented works, and set\nthese up as models worthy of imitation. That is the reason they so\nconfidently extol, in literature, the Greek tragedians, Dante,\nTasso, Milton, Shakespear, Goethe (almost all he wrote), and, among\nrecent writers, Zola and Ibsen; in music, Beethoven's last period,\nand Wagner. To justify their praise of these brain-spun, invented\nworks, they devise entire theories (of which the famous theory of\nbeauty is one); and not only dull but also talented people compose\nworks in strict deference to these theories; and often even real\nartists, doing violence to their genius, submit to them.\n\nEvery false work extolled by the critics serves as a door through\nwhich the hypocrites of art at once crowd in.\n\nIt is solely due to the critics, who in our times still praise rude,\nsavage, and, for us, often meaningless works of the ancient Greeks:\nSophocles, Euripides, \u00c6schylus, and especially Aristophanes; or,\nof modern writers, Dante, Tasso, Milton, Shakespear; in painting,\nall of Raphael, all of Michael Angelo, including his absurd \"Last\nJudgment\"; in music, the whole of Bach, and the whole of Beethoven,\nincluding his last period,--thanks only to them have the Ibsens,\nMaeterlincks, Verlaines, Mallarm\u00e9s, Puvis de Chavannes, Klingers,\nB\u00f6cklins, Stucks, Schneiders; in music, the Wagners, Liszts,\nBerliozes, Brahmses, and Richard Strausses, etc., and all that\nimmense mass of good-for-nothing imitators of these imitators,\nbecome possible in our day.\n\nAs a good illustration of the harmful influence of criticism, take\nits relation to Beethoven. Among his innumerable hasty productions\nwritten to order, there are, notwithstanding their artificiality\nof form, works of true art. But he grows deaf, cannot hear, and\nbegins to write invented, unfinished works, which are consequently\noften meaningless and musically unintelligible. I know that\nmusicians can imagine sounds vividly enough, and can almost hear\nwhat they read, but imaginary sounds can never replace real ones,\nand every composer must hear his production in order to perfect it.\nBeethoven, however, could not hear, could not perfect his work, and\nconsequently published productions which are artistic ravings. But\ncriticism, having once acknowledged him to be a great composer,\nseizes on just these abnormal works with special gusto, and searches\nfor extraordinary beauties in them. And, to justify its laudations\n(perverting the very meaning of musical art), it attributed to music\nthe property of describing what it cannot describe. And imitators\nappear--an innumerable host of imitators of these abnormal attempts\nat artistic productions which Beethoven wrote when he was deaf.\n\nThen Wagner appears, who at first in critical articles praises just\nBeethoven's last period, and connects this music with Schopenhauer's\nmystical theory that music is the expression of Will--not of\nseparate manifestations of will objectivized on various planes,\nbut its very essence--which is in itself as absurd as this music\nof Beethoven. And afterward he composes music of his own on this\ntheory, in conjunction with another still more erroneous system of\nthe union of all the arts. After Wagner yet new imitators appear,\ndiverging yet further from art: Brahms, Richard Strauss, and others.\n\nSuch are the results of criticism. But the third condition of the\nperversion of art, namely, art schools, is almost more harmful still.\n\nAs soon as art became, not art for the whole people, but for a rich\nclass, it became a profession; as soon as it became a profession,\nmethods were devised to teach it; people who chose this profession\nof art began to learn these methods, and thus professional schools\nsprang up: classes of rhetoric or literature in the public schools,\nacademies for painting, conservatoires for music, schools for\ndramatic art.\n\nIn these schools art is taught! But art is the transmission to\nothers of a special feeling experienced by the artist. How can this\nbe taught in schools?\n\nNo school can evoke feeling in a man, and still less can it teach\nhim how to manifest it in the one particular manner natural to him\nalone. But the essence of art lies in these things.\n\nThe one thing these schools can teach is how to transmit feelings\nexperienced by other artists in the way those other artists\ntransmitted them. And this is just what the professional schools do\nteach; and such instruction not only does not assist the spread of\ntrue art, but, on the contrary, by diffusing counterfeits of art,\ndoes more than anything else to deprive people of the capacity to\nunderstand true art.\n\nIn literary art people are taught how, without having anything they\nwish to say, to write a many-paged composition on a theme about\nwhich they have never thought, and, moreover, to write it so that\nit should resemble the work of an author admitted to be celebrated.\nThis is taught in schools.\n\nIn painting, the chief training consists in learning to draw and\npaint from copies and models, the naked body chiefly (the very\nthing that is never seen, and which a man occupied with real art\nhardly ever has to depict), and to draw and paint as former masters\ndrew and painted. The composition of pictures is taught by giving\nout themes similar to those which have been treated by former\nacknowledged celebrities.\n\nSo also in dramatic schools, the pupils are taught to recite\nmonologues just as tragedians, considered celebrated, declaimed them.\n\nIt is the same in music. The whole theory of music is nothing but\na disconnected repetition of those methods which the acknowledged\nmasters of composition made use of.\n\nI have elsewhere quoted the profound remark of the Russian artist\nBruloff on art, but I cannot here refrain from repeating it, because\nnothing better illustrates what can and what cannot be taught in\nthe schools. Once when correcting a pupil's study, Bruloff just\ntouched it in a few places, and the poor dead study immediately\nbecame animated. \"Why, you only touched it a _wee bit_, and it is\nquite another thing!\" said one of the pupils. \"Art begins where\nthe _wee bit_ begins,\" replied Bruloff, indicating by these words\njust what is most characteristic of art. The remark is true of\nall the arts, but its justice is particularly noticeable in the\nperformance of music. That musical execution should be artistic,\nshould be art, _i.e._ should infect, three chief conditions must\nbe observed,--there are many others needed for musical perfection;\nthe transition from one sound to another must be interrupted or\ncontinuous; the sound must increase or diminish steadily; it must\nbe blended with one and not with another sound; the sound must\nhave this or that timbre, and much besides,--but take the three\nchief conditions; the pitch, the time, and the strength of the\nsound. Musical execution is only then art, only then infects, when\nthe sound is neither higher nor lower than it should be, that is,\nwhen exactly the infinitely small center of the required note is\ntaken; when that note is continued exactly as long as is needed;\nand when the strength of the sound is neither more nor less than\nis required. The slightest deviation of pitch in either direction,\nthe slightest increase or decrease in time, or the slightest\nstrengthening or weakening of the sound beyond what is needed,\ndestroys the perfection and, consequently, the infectiousness of\nthe work. So that the feeling of infection by the art of music,\nwhich seems so simple and so easily obtained, is a thing we receive\nonly when the performer finds those infinitely minute degrees which\nare necessary to perfection in music. It is the same in all arts:\na wee bit lighter, a wee bit darker, a wee bit higher, lower, to\nthe right or the left--in painting; a wee bit weaker or stronger in\nintonation, or a wee bit sooner or later--in dramatic art; a wee bit\nomitted, over-emphasized, or exaggerated--in poetry, and there is\nno contagion. Infection is only obtained when an artist finds those\ninfinitely minute degrees of which a work of art consists, and only\nto the extent to which he finds them. And it is quite impossible to\nteach people by external means to find these minute degrees; they\ncan only be found when a man yields to his feeling. No instruction\ncan make a dancer catch just the tact of the music, or a singer or\na fiddler take exactly the infinitely minute center of his note, or\na sketcher draw of all possible lines the only right one, or a poet\nfind the only meet arrangement of the only suitable words. All this\nis found only by feeling. And therefore schools may teach what is\nnecessary in order to produce something resembling art, but not art\nitself.\n\nThe teaching of the schools stops there where the _wee bit_\nbegins--consequently where art begins.\n\nAccustoming people to something resembling art, disaccustoms them to\nthe comprehension of real art. And that is how it comes about that\nnone are more dull to art than those who have passed through the\nprofessional schools and been most successful in them. Professional\nschools produce an hypocrisy of art precisely akin to that hypocrisy\nof religion which is produced by theological colleges for training\npriests, pastors, and religious teachers generally. As it is\nimpossible in a school to train a man so as to make a religious\nteacher of him, so it is impossible to teach a man how to become an\nartist.\n\nArt schools are thus doubly destructive of art: first, in that they\ndestroy the capacity to produce real art in those who have the\nmisfortune to enter them and go through a seven or eight years'\ncourse; secondly, in that they generate enormous quantities of that\ncounterfeit art which perverts the taste of the masses and overflows\nour world. In order that born artists may know the methods of the\nvarious arts elaborated by former artists, there should exist in\nall elementary schools such classes for drawing and music (singing)\nthat, after passing through them, every talented scholar may, by\nusing existing models accessible to all, be able to perfect himself\nin his art independently.\n\nThese three conditions--the professionalization of artists, art\ncriticism, and art schools--have had this effect: that most people\nin our times are quite unable even to understand what art is, and\naccept as art the grossest counterfeits of it.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII\n\n\nTo what an extent people of our circle and time have lost the\ncapacity to receive real art, and have become accustomed to accept\nas art things that have nothing in common with it, is best seen from\nthe works of Richard Wagner, which have latterly come to be more and\nmore esteemed, not only by the Germans, but also by the French and\nthe English, as the very highest art, revealing new horizons to us.\n\nThe peculiarity of Wagner's music, as is known, consists in\nthis,--that he considered that music should serve poetry, expressing\nall the shades of a poetical work.\n\nThe union of the drama with music, devised in the fifteenth century\nin Italy for the revival of what they imagined to have been the\nancient Greek drama with music, is an artificial form which had,\nand has, success only among the upper classes, and that only when\ngifted composers, such as Mozart, Weber, Rossini, and others,\ndrawing inspiration from a dramatic subject, yielded freely to the\ninspiration and subordinated the text to the music, so that in their\noperas the important thing to the audience was merely the music on\na certain text, and not the text at all, which latter, even when it\nwas utterly absurd, as, for instance, in the \"Magic Flute,\" still\ndid not prevent the music from producing an artistic impression.\n\nWagner wishes to correct the opera by letting music submit to the\ndemands of poetry and unite with it. But each art has its own\ndefinite realm, which is not identical with the realm of other\narts, but merely comes in contact with them; and therefore, if the\nmanifestation of, I will not say several, but even of two arts--the\ndramatic and the musical--be united in one complete production,\nthen the demands of the one art will make it impossible to fulfil\nthe demands of the other, as has always occurred in the ordinary\noperas, where the dramatic art has submitted to, or rather yielded\nplace to, the musical. Wagner wishes that musical art should submit\nto dramatic art, and that both should appear in full strength. But\nthis is impossible; for every work of art, if it be a true one,\nis an expression of intimate feelings of the artist, which are\nquite exceptional, and not like anything else. Such is a musical\nproduction, and such is a dramatic work, if they be true art.\nAnd therefore, in order that a production in the one branch of\nart should coincide with a production in the other branch, it is\nnecessary that the impossible should happen: that two works from\ndifferent realms of art should be absolutely exceptional, unlike\nanything that existed before, and yet should coincide, and be\nexactly alike.\n\nAnd this cannot be, just as there cannot be two men, or even two\nleaves on a tree, exactly alike. Still less can two works from\ndifferent realms of art, the musical and the literary, be absolutely\nalike. If they coincide, then either one is a work of art and the\nother a counterfeit, or both are counterfeits. Two live leaves\ncannot be exactly alike, but two artificial leaves may be. And so it\nis with works of art. They can only coincide completely when neither\nthe one nor the other is art, but only cunningly devised semblances\nof it.\n\nIf poetry and music may be joined, as occurs in hymns, songs,\nand _romances_--(though even in these the music does not follow\nthe changes of each verse of the text, as Wagner wants to, but\nthe song and the music merely produce a coincident effect on the\nmind)--this occurs only because lyrical poetry and music have, to\nsome extent, one and the same aim: to produce a mental condition and\nthe conditions produced by lyrical poetry and by music can, more or\nless, coincide. But even in these conjunctions the center of gravity\nalways lies in one of the two productions, so that it is one of\nthem that produces the artistic impression while the other remains\nunregarded. And still less is it possible for such union to exist\nbetween epic or dramatic poetry and music.\n\nMoreover, one of the chief conditions of artistic creation is the\ncomplete freedom of the artist from every kind of preconceived\ndemand. And the necessity of adjusting his musical work to a work\nfrom another realm of art is a preconceived demand of such a kind\nas to destroy all possibility of creative power; and therefore works\nof this kind, adjusted to one another, are, and must be, as has\nalways happened, not works of art, but only imitations of art, like\nthe music of a melodrama, signatures to pictures, illustrations, and\nlibrettos to operas.\n\nAnd such are Wagner's productions. And a confirmation of this is\nto be seen in the fact that Wagner's new music lacks the chief\ncharacteristic of every true work of art; namely, such entirety\nand completeness that the smallest alteration in its form would\ndisturb the meaning of the whole work. In a true work of art--poem,\ndrama, picture, song, or symphony--it is impossible to extract one\nline, one scene, one figure, or one bar from its place and put it\nin another, without infringing the significance of the whole work;\njust as it is impossible, without infringing the life of an organic\nbeing, to extract an organ from one place and insert it in another.\nBut in the music of Wagner's last period, with the exception of\ncertain parts of little importance which have an independent musical\nmeaning, it is possible to make all kinds of transpositions, putting\nwhat was in front behind, and _vice versa_, without altering the\nmusical sense. And the reason why these transpositions do not alter\nthe sense of Wagner's music is because the sense lies in the words\nand not in the music.\n\nThe musical score of Wagner's later operas is like what the result\nwould be should one of those versifiers--of whom there are now\nmany, with tongues so broken that they can write verses on any\ntheme to any rhymes in any rhythm, which sound as if they had a\nmeaning--conceive the idea of illustrating by his verses some\nsymphony or sonata of Beethoven, or some ballade of Chopin, in\nthe following manner. To the first bars, of one character, he\nwrites verses corresponding in his opinion to those first bars.\nNext come some bars of a different character, and he also writes\nverses corresponding in his opinion to them, but with no internal\nconnection with the first verses, and, moreover, without rhymes and\nwithout rhythm. Such a production, without the music, would be\nexactly parallel in poetry to what Wagner's operas are in music, if\nheard without the words.\n\nBut Wagner is not only a musician, he is also a poet, or both\ntogether; and therefore, to judge of Wagner, one must know his\npoetry also--that same poetry which the music has to subserve. The\nchief poetical production of Wagner is \"The Nibelung's Ring.\" This\nwork has attained such enormous importance in our time, and has such\ninfluence on all that now professes to be art, that it is necessary\nfor every one to-day to have some idea of it. I have carefully read\nthrough the four booklets which contain this work, and have drawn\nup a brief summary of it, which I give in Appendix III. I would\nstrongly advise the reader (if he has not perused the poem itself,\nwhich would be the best thing to do) at least to read my account of\nit, so as to have an idea of this extraordinary work. It is a model\nwork of counterfeit art, so gross as to be even ridiculous.\n\nBut we are told that it is impossible to judge of Wagner's works\nwithout seeing them on the stage. The Second Day of this drama,\nwhich, as I was told, is the best part of the whole work, was given\nin Moscow last winter, and I went to see the performance.\n\nWhen I arrived the enormous theater was already filled from top to\nbottom. There were grand dukes, and the flower of the aristocracy,\nof the merchant class, of the learned, and of the middle-class\nofficial public. Most of them held the libretto, fathoming its\nmeaning. Musicians--some of them elderly, gray-haired men--followed\nthe music, score in hand. Evidently the performance of this work was\nan event of importance.\n\nI was rather late, but I was told that the short prelude, with\nwhich the act begins, was of little importance, and that it did not\nmatter having missed it. When I arrived, an actor sat on the stage\namid decorations intended to represent a cave, and before something\nwhich was meant to represent a smith's forge. He was dressed in\ntrico-tights, with a cloak of skins, wore a wig and an artificial\nbeard, and with white, weak genteel hands (his easy movements,\nand especially the shape of his stomach and his lack of muscle\nrevealed the actor) beat an impossible sword with an unnatural\nhammer in a way in which no one ever uses a hammer; and at the\nsame time, opening his mouth in a strange way, he sang something\nincomprehensible. The music of various instruments accompanied the\nstrange sounds which he emitted. From the libretto one was able\nto gather that the actor had to represent a powerful gnome, who\nlived in the cave, and who was forging a sword for Siegfried, whom\nhe had reared. One could tell he was a gnome by the fact that the\nactor walked all the time bending the knees of his trico-covered\nlegs. This gnome, still opening his mouth in the same strange way,\nlong continued to sing or shout. The music meanwhile runs over\nsomething strange, like beginnings which are not continued and do\nnot get finished. From the libretto one could learn that the gnome\nis telling himself about a ring which a giant had obtained, and\nwhich the gnome wishes to procure through Siegfried's aid, while\nSiegfried wants a good sword, on the forging of which the gnome is\noccupied. After this conversation or singing to himself has gone\non rather a long time, other sounds are heard in the orchestra,\nalso like something beginning and not finishing, and another actor\nappears, with a horn slung over his shoulder, and accompanied by a\nman running on all fours dressed up as a bear, whom he sets at the\nsmith-gnome. The latter runs away without unbending the knees of\nhis trico-covered legs. This actor with the horn represented the\nhero, Siegfried. The sounds which were emitted in the orchestra on\nthe entrance of this actor were intended to represent Siegfried's\ncharacter, and are called Siegfried's _leit-motiv_. And these\nsounds are repeated each time Siegfried appears. There is one fixed\ncombination of sounds, or _leit-motiv_, for each character, and this\n_leit-motiv_ is repeated every time the person whom it represents\nappears; and when any one is mentioned the _motiv_ is heard which\nrelates to that person. Moreover, each article also has its own\n_leit-motiv_ or chord. There is a _motiv_ of the ring, a _motiv_\nof the helmet, a _motiv_ of the apple, a _motiv_ of fire, spear,\nsword, water, etc.; and as soon as the ring, helmet, or apple is\nmentioned, the _motiv_ or chord of the ring, helmet, or apple is\nheard. The actor with the horn opens his mouth as unnaturally as the\ngnome, and long continues in a chanting voice to shout some words,\nand in a similar chant Mime (that is the gnome's name) answers\nsomething or other to him. The meaning of this conversation can\nonly be discovered from the libretto; and it is that Siegfried was\nbrought up by the gnome, and therefore, for some reason, hates him\nand always wishes to kill him. The gnome has forged a sword for\nSiegfried, but Siegfried is dissatisfied with it. From a ten-page\nconversation (by the libretto), lasting half an hour and conducted\nwith the same strange openings of the mouth, and chantings, it\nappears that Siegfried's mother gave birth to him in the wood, and\nthat concerning his father all that is known is that he had a sword\nwhich was broken, the pieces of which are in Mime's possession,\nand that Siegfried does not know fear and wishes to go out of\nthe wood. Mime, however, does not want to let him go. During the\nconversation the music never omits, at the mention of father, sword,\netc., to sound the _motiv_ of these people and things. After these\nconversations fresh sounds are heard--those of the god Wotan--and a\nwanderer appears. This wanderer is the god Wotan. Also dressed up in\na wig, and also in tights, this god Wotan, standing in a stupid pose\nwith a spear, thinks proper to recount what Mime must have known\nbefore, but what it is necessary to tell the audience. He does not\ntell it simply, but in the form of riddles which he orders himself\nto guess, staking his head (one does not know why) that he will\nguess right. Moreover, whenever the wanderer strikes his spear on\nthe ground, fire comes out of the ground, and in the orchestra the\nsounds of spear and of fire are heard. The orchestra accompanies the\nconversation, and the _motiv_ of the people and things spoken of\nare always artfully intermingled. Besides this the music expresses\nfeelings in the most na\u00efve manner: the terrible by sounds in the\nbass, the frivolous by rapid touches in the treble, etc.\n\nThe riddles have no meaning except to tell the audience what the\n_nibelungs_ are, what the giants are, what the gods are, and\nwhat has happened before. This conversation also is chanted with\nstrangely opened mouths and continues for eight libretto pages,\nand correspondingly long on the stage. After this the wanderer\ndeparts, and Siegfried returns and talks with Mime for thirteen\npages more. There is not a single melody the whole of this time,\nbut merely intertwinings of the _leit-motiv_ of the people and\nthings mentioned. The conversation tells that Mime wishes to teach\nSiegfried fear, and that Siegfried does not know what fear is.\nHaving finished this conversation, Siegfried seizes one of the\npieces of what is meant to represent the broken sword, saws it up,\nputs it on what is meant to represent the forge, melts it, and then\nforges it and sings: Heiho! heiho! heiho! Ho! ho! Aha! oho! aha!\nHeiaho! heiaho! heiaho! Ho! ho! Hahei! hoho! hahei! and Act I.\nfinishes.\n\nAs far as the question I had come to the theater to decide was\nconcerned, my mind was fully made up, as surely as on the question\nof the merits of my lady acquaintance's novel when she read me the\nscene between the loose-haired maiden in the white dress and the\nhero with two white dogs and a hat with a feather _\u00e0 la Guillaume\nTell_.\n\nFrom an author who could compose such spurious scenes, outraging all\n\u00e6sthetic feeling, as those which I had witnessed, there was nothing\nto be hoped; it may safely be decided that all that such an author\ncan write will be bad, because he evidently does not know what a\ntrue work of art is. I wished to leave, but the friends I was with\nasked me to remain, declaring that one could not form an opinion by\nthat one act, and that the second would be better. So I stopped for\nthe second act.\n\nAct II., night. Afterward, dawn. In general, the whole piece is\ncrammed with lights, clouds, moonlight, darkness, magic fires,\nthunder, etc.\n\nThe scene represents a wood, and in the wood there is a cave. At the\nentrance of the cave sits a third actor in tights, representing\nanother gnome. It dawns. Enter the god Wotan, again with a spear,\nand again in the guise of a wanderer. Again his sounds, together\nwith fresh sounds of the deepest bass that can be produced. These\nlatter indicate that the dragon is speaking. Wotan awakens the\ndragon. The same bass sounds are repeated, growing yet deeper and\ndeeper. First the dragon says, \"I want to sleep,\" but afterward he\ncrawls out of the cave. The dragon is represented by two men; it\nis dressed in a green, scaly skin, waves a tail at one end, while\nat the other it opens a kind of crocodile's jaw that is fastened\non, and from which flames appear. The dragon (who is meant to be\ndreadful, and may appear so to five-year-old children) speaks some\nwords in a terribly bass voice. This is all so stupid, so like what\nis done in a booth at a fair, that it is surprising that people\nover seven years of age can witness it seriously; yet thousands of\nquasi-cultured people sit and attentively hear and see it, and are\ndelighted.\n\nSiegfried, with his horn, reappears, as does Mime also. In the\norchestra the sounds denoting them are emitted, and they talk about\nwhether Siegfried does or does not know what fear is. Mime goes\naway, and a scene commences which is intended to be most poetical.\nSiegfried, in his tights, lies down in a would-be beautiful pose,\nand alternately keeps silent and talks to himself. He ponders,\nlistens to the song of birds, and wishes to imitate them. For this\npurpose he cuts a reed with his sword and makes a pipe. The dawn\ngrows brighter and brighter; the birds sing. Siegfried tries to\nimitate the birds. In the orchestra is heard the imitation of birds,\nalternating with sounds corresponding to the words he speaks. But\nSiegfried does not succeed with his pipe-playing, so he plays on\nhis horn instead. This scene is unendurable. Of music, _i.e._ of\nart serving as a means to transmit a state of mind experienced by\nthe author, there is not even a suggestion. There is something that\nis absolutely unintelligible musically. In a musical sense a hope\nis continually experienced, followed by disappointment, as if a\nmusical thought were commenced only to be broken off. If there are\nsomething like musical commencements, these commencements are so\nshort, so encumbered with complications of harmony and orchestration\nand with effects of contrast, are so obscure and unfinished, and\nwhat is happening on the stage meanwhile is so abominably false,\nthat it is difficult even to perceive these musical snatches, let\nalone to be infected by them. Above all, from the very beginning to\nthe very end, and in each note, the author's purpose is so audible\nand visible that one sees and hears neither Siegfried nor the birds,\nbut only a limited, self-opinionated German, of bad taste and bad\nstyle, who has a most false conception of poetry, and who, in the\nrudest and most primitive manner, wishes to transmit to me these\nfalse and mistaken conceptions of his.\n\nEvery one knows the feeling of distrust and resistance which is\nalways evoked by an author's evident predetermination. A narrator\nneed only say in advance, Prepare to cry or to laugh, and you are\nsure neither to cry nor to laugh. But when you see that an author\nprescribes emotion at what is not touching, but only laughable or\ndisgusting, and when you see, moreover, that the author is fully\nassured that he has captivated you, a painfully tormenting feeling\nresults, similar to what one would feel if an old, deformed woman\nput on a ball-dress, and smilingly coquetted before you, confident\nof your approbation. This impression was strengthened by the fact\nthat around me I saw a crowd of three thousand people, who not only\npatiently witnessed all this absurd nonsense, but even considered it\ntheir duty to be delighted with it.\n\nI somehow managed to sit out the next scene also, in which the\nmonster appears, to the accompaniment of his bass notes intermingled\nwith the _motiv_ of Siegfried; but after the fight with the monster,\nand all the roars, fires, and sword-wavings, I could stand no more\nof it, and escaped from the theater with a feeling of repulsion\nwhich, even now, I cannot forget.\n\nListening to this opera, I involuntarily thought of a respected,\nwise, educated country laborer,--one, for instance, of those wise\nand truly religious men whom I know among the peasants,--and I\npictured to myself the terrible perplexity such a man would be in\nwere he to witness what I was seeing that evening.\n\nWhat would he think if he knew of all the labor spent on such\na performance, and saw that audience, those great ones of the\nearth,--old, bald-headed, gray-bearded men, whom he had been\naccustomed to respect,--sit silent and attentive, listening to and\nlooking at all these stupidities for five hours on end? Not to speak\nof an adult laborer, one can hardly imagine even a child of over\nseven occupying himself with such a stupid, incoherent fairy tale.\n\nAnd yet an enormous audience, the cream of the cultured upper\nclasses, sits out five hours of this insane performance, and goes\naway imagining that by paying tribute to this nonsense it has\nacquired a fresh right to esteem itself advanced and enlightened.\n\nI speak of the Moscow public. But what is the Moscow public? It is\nbut a hundredth part of that public which, while considering itself\nmost highly enlightened, esteems it a merit to have so lost the\ncapacity of being infected by art, that not only can it witness this\nstupid sham without being revolted, but can even take delight in it.\n\nIn Bayreuth, where these performances were first given, people who\nconsider themselves finely cultured assembled from the ends of the\nearth, spent, say one hundred pounds each, to see this performance,\nand for four days running they went to see and hear this nonsensical\nrubbish, sitting it out for six hours each day.\n\nBut why did people go, and why do they still go to these\nperformances, and why do they admire them? The question naturally\npresents itself: How is the success of Wagner's works to be\nexplained?\n\nThat success I explain to myself in this way: thanks to his\nexceptional position in having at his disposal the resources of a\nking, Wagner was able to command all the methods for counterfeiting\nart which have been developed by long usage, and, employing these\nmethods with great ability, he produced a model work of counterfeit\nart. The reason why I have selected his work for my illustration is,\nthat in no other counterfeit of art known to me are all the methods\nby which art is counterfeited--namely, borrowings, imitation,\neffects, and interestingness--so ably and powerfully united.\n\nFrom the subject, borrowed from antiquity, to the clouds and the\nrisings of the sun and moon, Wagner, in this work, has made use of\nall that is considered poetical. We have here the sleeping beauty,\nand nymphs, and subterranean fires, and gnomes, and battles, and\nswords, and love, and incest, and a monster, and singing-birds--the\nwhole arsenal of the poetical is brought into action.\n\nMoreover, everything is imitative; the decorations are imitated,\nand the costumes are imitated. All are just as, according to the\ndata supplied by arch\u00e6ology, they would have been in antiquity. The\nvery sounds are imitative; for Wagner, who was not destitute of\nmusical talent, invented just such sounds as imitate the strokes of\na hammer, the hissing of molten iron, the singing of birds, etc.\n\nFurthermore, in this work everything is in the highest degree\nstriking in its effects and in its peculiarities: its monsters, its\nmagic fires, and its scenes under water; the darkness in which the\naudience sit, the invisibility of the orchestra, and the hitherto\nunemployed combinations of harmony.\n\nAnd besides, it is all interesting. The interest lies not only in\nthe question who will kill whom, and who will marry whom, and who\nis whose son, and what will happen next?--the interest lies also\nin the relation of the music to the text. The rolling waves of the\nRhine--now how is that to be expressed in music? An evil gnome\nappears--how is the music to express an evil gnome?--and how is it\nto express the sensuality of this gnome? How will bravery, fire,\nor apples be expressed in music? How are the _leit-motiv_ of the\npeople speaking to be interwoven with the _leit-motiv_ of the\npeople and objects about whom they speak? Besides, the music has a\nfurther interest. It diverges from all formerly accepted laws, and\nmost unexpected and totally new modulations crop up (as is not only\npossible, but even easy in music having no inner law of its being);\nthe dissonances are new, and are allowed in a new way--and this,\ntoo, is interesting.\n\nAnd it is this poeticality, imitativeness, effectfulness, and\ninterestingness which, thanks to the peculiarities of Wagner's\ntalent, and to the advantageous position in which he was placed, are\nin these productions carried to the highest pitch of perfection,\nthat so act on the spectator, hypnotizing him as one would be\nhypnotized who should listen for several consecutive hours to the\nravings of a maniac pronounced with great oratorical power.\n\nPeople say: \"You cannot judge without having seen Wagner performed\nat Bayreuth: in the dark, where the orchestra is out of sight\nconcealed under the stage, and where the performance is brought\nto the highest perfection.\" And this just proves that we have\nhere no question of art, but one of hypnotism. It is just what\nthe spiritualists say. To convince you of the reality of their\napparitions they usually say, \"You cannot judge; you must try it,\nbe present at several s\u00e9ances,\" _i.e._ come and sit silent in the\ndark for hours together in the same room with semi-sane people, and\nrepeat this some ten times over, and you shall see all that we see.\n\nYes, naturally! Only place yourself in such conditions, and you\nmay see what you will. But this can be still more quickly attained\nby getting drunk or smoking opium. It is the same when listening\nto an opera of Wagner's. Sit in the dark for four days in company\nwith people who are not quite normal, and, through the auditory\nnerves, subject your brain to the strongest action of the sounds\nbest adapted to excite it, and you will no doubt be reduced to an\nabnormal condition, and be enchanted by absurdities. But to attain\nthis end you do not even need four days; the five hours during\nwhich one \"day\" is enacted, as in Moscow, are quite enough. Nor\nare five hours needed; even one hour is enough for people who have\nno clear conception of what art should be, and who have come to the\nconclusion in advance that what they are going to see is excellent,\nand that indifference or dissatisfaction with this work will serve\nas a proof of their inferiority and lack of culture.\n\nI observed the audience present at this representation. The people\nwho led the whole audience and gave the tone to it were those who\nhad previously been hypnotized, and who again succumbed to the\nhypnotic influence to which they were accustomed. These hypnotized\npeople, being in an abnormal condition, were perfectly enraptured.\nMoreover, all the art critics, who lack the capacity to be infected\nby art and therefore always especially prize works like Wagner's\nopera where it is all an affair of the intellect, also, with much\nprofundity, expressed their approval of a work affording such ample\nmaterial for ratiocination. And following these two groups went\nthat large city crowd (indifferent to art, with their capacity to\nbe infected by it perverted and partly atrophied), headed by the\nprinces, millionaires, and art patrons, who, like sorry harriers,\nkeep close to those who most loudly and decidedly express their\nopinion.\n\n\"Oh, yes, certainly! What poetry! Marvelous! Especially the birds!\"\n\"Yes, yes! I am quite vanquished!\" exclaim these people, repeating\nin various tones what they have just heard from men whose opinion\nappears to them authoritative.\n\nIf some people do feel insulted by the absurdity and spuriousness of\nthe whole thing, they are timidly silent, as sober men are timid and\nsilent when surrounded by tipsy ones.\n\nAnd thus, thanks to the masterly skill with which it counterfeits\nart while having nothing in common with it, a meaningless, coarse,\nspurious production finds acceptance all over the world, costs\nmillions of roubles to produce, and assists more and more to pervert\nthe taste of people of the upper classes and their conception of\nwhat is art.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV\n\n\nI know that most men--not only those considered clever, but even\nthose who are very clever, and capable of understanding most\ndifficult scientific, mathematical, or philosophic problems--can\nvery seldom discern even the simplest and most obvious truth if it\nbe such as to oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions they\nhave formed, perhaps with much difficulty--conclusions of which\nthey are proud, which they have taught to others, and on which they\nhave built their lives. And therefore I have little hope that what\nI adduce as to the perversion of art and taste in our society will\nbe accepted or even seriously considered. Nevertheless, I must state\nfully the inevitable conclusion to which my investigation into the\nquestion of art has brought me. This investigation has brought me\nto the conviction that almost all that our society considers to\nbe art, good art, and the whole of art, far from being real and\ngood art, and the whole of art, is not even art at all, but only a\ncounterfeit of it. This position, I know, will seem very strange and\nparadoxical; but if we once acknowledge art to be a human activity\nby means of which some people transmit their feelings to others (and\nnot a service of Beauty, nor a manifestation of the Idea, and so\nforth), we shall inevitably have to admit this further conclusion\nalso. If it is true that art is an activity by means of which one\nman, having experienced a feeling, intentionally transmits it to\nothers, then we have inevitably to admit further, that of all that\namong us is termed the art of the upper classes--of all those\nnovels, stories, dramas, comedies, pictures, sculptures, symphonies,\noperas, operettas, ballets, etc., which profess to be works of\nart--scarcely one in a hundred thousand proceeds from an emotion\nfelt by its author, all the rest being but manufactured counterfeits\nof art, in which borrowing, imitating, effects, and interestingness\nreplace the contagion of feeling. That the proportion of real\nproductions of art is to the counterfeits as one to some hundreds of\nthousands or even more, may be seen by the following calculation.\nI have read somewhere that the artist painters in Paris alone\nnumber 30,000; there will probably be as many in England, as many\nin Germany, and as many in Russia, Italy, and the smaller states\ncombined. So that in all there will be in Europe, say, 120,000\npainters; and there are probably as many musicians and as many\nliterary artists. If these 360,000 individuals produce three works\na year each (and many of them produce ten or more), then each year\nyields over a million so-called works of art. How many, then, must\nhave been produced in the last ten years, and how many in the whole\ntime since upper-class art broke off from the art of the whole\npeople? Evidently millions. Yet who of all the connoisseurs of art\nhas received impressions from all these pseudo works of art? Not to\nmention all the laboring classes who have no conception of these\nproductions, even people of the upper classes cannot know one in a\nthousand of them all, and cannot remember those they have known.\nThese works all appear under the guise of art, produce no impression\non any one (except when they serve as pastimes for the idle crowd of\nrich people), and vanish utterly.\n\nIn reply to this it is usually said that without this enormous\nnumber of unsuccessful attempts we should not have the real works of\nart. But such reasoning is as though a baker, in reply to a reproach\nthat his bread was bad, were to say that if it were not for the\nhundreds of spoiled loaves there would not be any well-baked ones.\nIt is true that where there is gold there is also much sand; but\nthat cannot serve as a reason for talking a lot of nonsense in order\nto say something wise.\n\nWe are surrounded by productions considered artistic. Thousands\nof verses, thousands of poems, thousands of novels, thousands of\ndramas, thousands of pictures, thousands of musical pieces, follow\none after another. All the verses describe love, or nature, or the\nauthor's state of mind, and in all of them rhyme and rhythm are\nobserved. All the dramas and comedies are splendidly mounted and\nare performed by admirably trained actors. All the novels are\ndivided into chapters; all of them describe love, contain effective\nsituations, and correctly describe the details of life. All the\nsymphonies contain _allegro_, _andante_, _scherzo_, and _finale_;\nall consist of modulations and chords, and are played by highly\ntrained musicians. All the pictures, in gold frames, saliently\ndepict faces and sundry accessories. But among these productions\nin the various branches of art, there is in each branch one among\nhundreds of thousands, not only somewhat better than the rest, but\ndiffering from them as a diamond differs from paste. The one is\npriceless, the others not only have no value, but are worse than\nvalueless, for they deceive and pervert taste. And yet, externally,\nthey are, to a man of perverted or atrophied artistic perception,\nprecisely alike.\n\nIn our society the difficulty of recognizing real works of art is\nfurther increased by the fact that the external quality of the work\nin false productions is not only no worse, but often better, than in\nreal ones; the counterfeit is often more effective than the real,\nand its subject more interesting. How is one to discriminate? How is\none to find a production in no way distinguished in externals from\nhundreds of thousands of others intentionally made to imitate it\nprecisely?\n\nFor a country peasant of unperverted taste this is as easy as it is\nfor an animal of unspoilt scent to follow the trace he needs among\na thousand others in wood or forest. The animal unerringly finds\nwhat he needs. So also the man, if only his natural qualities have\nnot been perverted, will, without fail, select from among thousands\nof objects the real work of art he requires,--that infecting him\nwith the feeling experienced by the artist. But it is not so with\nthose whose taste has been perverted by their education and life.\nThe receptive feeling for art of these people is atrophied, and in\nvaluing artistic productions they must be guided by discussion and\nstudy, which discussion and study completely confuse them. So that\nmost people in our society are quite unable to distinguish a work of\nart from the grossest counterfeit. People sit for whole hours in\nconcert-rooms and theaters listening to the new composers, consider\nit a duty to read the novels of the famous modern novelists, and to\nlook at pictures representing either something incomprehensible, or\njust the very things they see much better in real life; and, above\nall, they consider it incumbent on them to be enraptured by all\nthis, imagining it all to be art, while at the same time they will\npass real works of art by, not only without attention, but even\nwith contempt, merely because, in their circle, these works are not\nincluded in the list of works of art.\n\nA few days ago I was returning home from a walk feeling depressed,\nas occurs sometimes. On nearing the house I heard the loud singing\nof a large choir of peasant women. They were welcoming my daughter,\ncelebrating her return home after her marriage. In this singing,\nwith its cries and clanging of scythes, such a definite feeling\nof joy, cheerfulness, and energy was expressed, that, without\nnoticing how it infected me, I continued my way toward the house\nin a better mood, and reached home smiling, and quite in good\nspirits. That same evening, a visitor, an admirable musician,\nfamed for his execution of classical music, and particularly of\nBeethoven, played us Beethoven's sonata, Opus 101. For the benefit\nof those who might otherwise attribute my judgment of that sonata\nof Beethoven to non-comprehension of it, I should mention that,\nwhatever other people understand of that sonata and of other\nproductions of Beethoven's later period, I, being very susceptible\nto music, equally understood. For a long time I used to attune\nmyself so as to delight in those shapeless improvisations which\nform the subject-matter of the works of Beethoven's later period,\nbut I had only to consider the question of art seriously, and to\ncompare the impression I received from Beethoven's later works with\nthose pleasant, clear, and strong musical impressions which are\ntransmitted, for instance, by the melodies of Bach (his arias),\nHaydn, Mozart, Chopin, (when his melodies are not overloaded with\ncomplications and ornamentation), and of Beethoven himself in\nhis earlier period, and, above all, with the impressions produced\nby folk-songs,--Italian, Norwegian, or Russian,--by the Hungarian\n_tzardas_, and other such simple, clear, and powerful music, and the\nobscure, almost unhealthy excitement from Beethoven's later pieces\nthat I had artificially evoked in myself was immediately destroyed.\n\nOn the completion of the performance (though it was noticeable that\nevery one had become dull) those present, in the accepted manner,\nwarmly praised Beethoven's profound production, and did not forget\nto add that formerly they had not been able to understand that last\nperiod of his, but that they now saw that he was really then at his\nvery best. And when I ventured to compare the impression made on me\nby the singing of the peasant women--an impression which had been\nshared by all who heard it--with the effect of this sonata, the\nadmirers of Beethoven only smiled contemptuously, not considering it\nnecessary to reply to such strange remarks.\n\nBut, for all that, the song of the peasant women was real art,\ntransmitting a definite and strong feeling; while the 101st sonata\nof Beethoven was only an unsuccessful attempt at art, containing no\ndefinite feeling, and therefore not infectious.\n\nFor my work on art I have this winter read diligently, though with\ngreat effort, the celebrated novels and stories, praised by all\nEurope, written by Zola, Bourget, Huysmans, and Kipling. At the\nsame time I chanced on a story in a child's magazine, and by a\nquite unknown writer, which told of the Easter preparations in a\npoor widow's family. The story tells how the mother managed with\ndifficulty to obtain some wheat-flour, which she poured on the\ntable ready to knead. She then went out to procure some yeast,\ntelling the children not to leave the hut, and to take care of the\nflour. When the mother had gone, some other children ran shouting\nnear the window, calling those in the hut to come to play. The\nchildren forgot their mother's warning, ran into the street, and\nwere soon engrossed in the game. The mother, on her return with\nthe yeast, finds a hen on the table throwing the last of the flour\nto her chickens, who were busily picking it out of the dust of the\nearthen floor. The mother, in despair, scolds the children, who\ncry bitterly. And the mother begins to feel pity for them--but the\nwhite flour has all gone. So to mend matters she decides to make the\nEaster cake with sifted rye-flour, brushing it over with white of\negg, and surrounding it with eggs. \"Rye-bread which we bake is akin\nto any cake,\" says the mother, using a rhyming proverb to console\nthe children for not having an Easter cake made with white flour.\nAnd the children, quickly passing from despair to rapture, repeat\nthe proverb and await the Easter cake more merrily even than before.\n\nWell! the reading of the novels and stories by Zola, Bourget,\nHuysmans, Kipling, and others, handling the most harrowing subjects,\ndid not touch me for one moment, and I was provoked with the authors\nall the while, as one is provoked with a man who considers you so\nna\u00efve that he does not even conceal the trick by which he intends to\ntake you in. From the first lines you see the intention with which\nthe book is written, and the details all become superfluous, and\none feels dull. Above all, one knows that the author had no other\nfeeling all the time than a desire to write a story or a novel, and\nso one receives no artistic impression. On the other hand, I could\nnot tear myself away from the unknown author's tale of the children\nand the chickens, because I was at once infected by the feeling\nwhich the author had evidently experienced, re\u00ebvoked in himself, and\ntransmitted.\n\nVasnetsoff is one of our Russian painters. He has painted\necclesiastical pictures in Kieff Cathedral, and every one praises\nhim as the founder of some new, elevated kind of Christian art. He\nworked at those pictures for ten years, was paid tens of thousands\nof roubles for them, and they are all simply bad imitations of\nimitations of imitations, destitute of any spark of feeling. And\nthis same Vasnetsoff drew a picture for Tourgenieff's story, \"The\nQuail\" (in which it is told how, in his son's presence, a father\nkilled a quail and felt pity for it), showing the boy asleep with\npouting upper lip, and above him, as a dream, the quail. And this\npicture is a true work of art.\n\nIn the English Academy of 1897 two pictures were exhibited together;\none of which, by J. C. Dolman, was the temptation of St. Anthony.\nThe saint is on his knees praying. Behind him stands a naked woman\nand animals of some kind. It is apparent that the naked woman\npleased the artist very much, but that Anthony did not concern him\nat all; and that, so far from the temptation being terrible to him\n(the artist) it is highly agreeable. And therefore if there be any\nart in this picture, it is very nasty and false. Next in the same\nbook of academy pictures comes a picture by Langley, showing a stray\nbeggar-boy, who has evidently been called in by a woman who has\ntaken pity on him. The boy, pitifully drawing his bare feet under\nthe bench, is eating; the woman is looking on, probably considering\nwhether he will not want some more; and a girl of about seven,\nleaning on her arm, is carefully and seriously looking on, not\ntaking her eyes from the hungry boy, and evidently understanding for\nthe first time what poverty is, and what inequality among people is,\nand asking herself why she has everything provided for her while\nthis boy goes barefoot and hungry? She feels sorry, and yet pleased.\nAnd she loves both the boy and goodness.... And one feels that the\nartist loved this girl, and that she too loves. And this picture, by\nan artist who, I think, is not very widely known, is an admirable\nand true work of art.\n\nI remember seeing a performance of \"Hamlet\" by Rossi. Both the\ntragedy itself and the performer who took the chief part are\nconsidered by our critics to represent the climax of supreme\ndramatic art. And yet, both from the subject-matter of the drama\nand from the performance, I experienced all the time that peculiar\nsuffering which is caused by false imitations of works of art. And\nI lately read of a theatrical performance among the savage tribe,\nthe Voguls. A spectator describes the play. A big Vogul and a little\none, both dressed in reindeer skins, represent a reindeer-doe and\nits young. A third Vogul, with a bow, represents a huntsman on\nsnow-shoes, and a fourth imitates with his voice a bird that warns\nthe reindeer of their danger. The play is that the huntsman follows\nthe track that the doe with its young one has traveled. The deer run\noff the scene, and again reappear. (Such performances take place\nin a small tent-house.) The huntsman gains more and more on the\npursued. The little deer is tired, and presses against its mother.\nThe doe stops to draw breath. The hunter comes up with them and\ndraws his bow. But just then the bird sounds its note, warning the\ndeer of their danger. They escape. Again there is a chase, and again\nthe hunter gains on them, catches them, and lets fly his arrow. The\narrow strikes the young deer. Unable to run, the little one presses\nagainst its mother. The mother licks its wound. The hunter draws\nanother arrow. The audience, as the eye-witness describes them, are\nparalyzed with suspense; deep groans and even weeping is heard among\nthem. And, from the mere description, I felt that this was a true\nwork of art.\n\nWhat I am saying will be considered irrational paradox, at which\none can only be amazed; but for all that I must say what I think;\nnamely, that people of our circle, of whom some compose verses,\nstories, novels, operas, symphonies, and sonatas, paint all\nkinds of pictures and make statues, while others hear and look\nat these things, and again others appraise and criticize it all,\ndiscuss, condemn, triumph, and raise monuments to one another,\ngeneration after generation,--that all these people, with very few\nexceptions, artists, and public, and critics, have never (except\nin childhood and earliest youth, before hearing any discussions\non art) experienced that simple feeling familiar to the plainest\nman and even to a child, that sense of infection with another's\nfeeling,--compelling us to joy in another's gladness, to sorrow at\nanother's grief, and to mingle souls with another,--which is the\nvery essence of art. And therefore these people not only cannot\ndistinguish true works of art from counterfeits, but continually\nmistake for real art the worst and most artificial, while they do\nnot even perceive works of real art, because the counterfeits are\nalways more ornate, while true art is modest.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV\n\n\nArt, in our society, has been so perverted that not only has bad art\ncome to be considered good, but even the very perception of what\nart really is has been lost. In order to be able to speak about the\nart of our society, it is, therefore, first of all necessary to\ndistinguish art from counterfeit art.\n\nThere is one indubitable indication distinguishing real art from\nits counterfeit, namely, the infectiousness of art. If a man,\nwithout exercising effort and without altering his standpoint,\non reading, hearing, or seeing another man's work, experiences a\nmental condition which unites him with that man and with other\npeople who also partake of that work of art, then the object evoking\nthat condition is a work of art. And however poetical, realistic,\neffectful, or interesting a work may be, it is not a work of art\nif it does not evoke that feeling (quite distinct from all other\nfeelings) of joy, and of spiritual union with another (the author)\nand with others (those who are also infected by it).\n\nIt is true that this indication is an _internal_ one, and that there\nare people who have forgotten what the action of real art is, who\nexpect something else from art (in our society the great majority\nare in this state), and that therefore such people may mistake for\nthis \u00e6sthetic feeling the feeling of divertisement and a certain\nexcitement which they receive from counterfeits of art. But though\nit is impossible to undeceive these people, just as it is impossible\nto convince a man suffering from \"Daltonism\" that green is not red,\nyet, for all that, this indication remains perfectly definite to\nthose whose feeling for art is neither perverted nor atrophied, and\nit clearly distinguishes the feeling produced by art from all other\nfeelings.\n\nThe chief peculiarity of this feeling is that the receiver of a\ntrue artistic impression is so united to the artist that he feels\nas if the work were his own and not some one else's,--as if what\nit expresses were just what he had long been wishing to express. A\nreal work of art destroys, in the consciousness of the receiver, the\nseparation between himself and the artist; nor that alone, but also\nbetween himself and all whose minds receive this work of art. In\nthis freeing of our personality from its separation and isolation,\nin this uniting of it with others, lies the chief characteristic and\nthe great attractive force of art.\n\nIf a man is infected by the author's condition of soul, if he feels\nthis emotion and this union with others, then the object which has\neffected this is art; but if there be no such infection, if there be\nnot this union with the author and with others who are moved by the\nsame work--then it is not art. And not only is infection a sure sign\nof art, but the degree of infectiousness is also the sole measure of\nexcellence in art.\n\n_The stronger the infection the better is the art; as art_, speaking\nnow apart from its subject-matter, _i.e._ not considering the\nquality of the feelings it transmits.\n\nAnd the degree of the infectiousness of art depends on three\nconditions:--\n\n(1) On the greater or lesser individuality of the feeling\ntransmitted; (2) on the greater or lesser clearness with which the\nfeeling is transmitted; (3) on the sincerity of the artist, _i.e._\non the greater or lesser force with which the artist himself feels\nthe emotion he transmits.\n\nThe more individual the feeling transmitted the more strongly does\nit act on the receiver; the more individual the state of soul into\nwhich he is transferred the more pleasure does the receiver obtain,\nand therefore the more readily and strongly does he join in it.\n\nThe clearness of expression assists infection, because the receiver,\nwho mingles in consciousness with the author, is the better\nsatisfied the more clearly the feeling is transmitted, which, as it\nseems to him, he has long known and felt, and for which he has only\nnow found expression.\n\nBut most of all is the degree of infectiousness of art increased by\nthe degree of sincerity in the artist. As soon as the spectator,\nhearer, or reader feels that the artist is infected by his own\nproduction, and writes, sings, or plays for himself, and not merely\nto act on others, this mental condition of the artist infects the\nreceiver; and, contrariwise, as soon as the spectator, reader, or\nhearer feels that the author is not writing, singing, or playing\nfor his own satisfaction,--does not himself feel what he wishes\nto express,--but is doing it for him, the receiver, a resistance\nimmediately springs up, and the most individual and the newest\nfeelings and the cleverest technique not only fail to produce any\ninfection, but actually repel.\n\nI have mentioned three conditions of contagiousness in art, but they\nmay be all summed up into one, the last, sincerity, _i.e._ that the\nartist should be impelled by an inner need to express his feeling.\nThat condition includes the first; for if the artist is sincere he\nwill express the feeling as he experienced it. And as each man is\ndifferent from every one else, his feeling will be individual for\nevery one else; and the more individual it is,--the more the artist\nhas drawn it from the depths of his nature,--the more sympathetic\nand sincere will it be. And this same sincerity will impel the\nartist to find a clear expression of the feeling which he wishes to\ntransmit.\n\nTherefore this third condition--sincerity--is the most important\nof the three. It is always complied with in peasant art, and this\nexplains why such art always acts so powerfully; but it is a\ncondition almost entirely absent from our upper-class art, which\nis continually produced by artists actuated by personal aims of\ncovetousness or vanity.\n\nSuch are the three conditions which divide art from its\ncounterfeits, and which also decide the quality of every work of art\napart from its subject-matter.\n\nThe absence of any one of these conditions excludes a work from the\ncategory of art and relegates it to that of art's counterfeits. If\nthe work does not transmit the artist's peculiarity of feeling, and\nis therefore not individual, if it is unintelligibly expressed,\nor if it has not proceeded from the author's inner need for\nexpression--it is not a work of art. If all these conditions are\npresent, even in the smallest degree, then the work, even if a weak\none, is yet a work of art.\n\nThe presence in various degrees of these three\nconditions--individuality, clearness, and sincerity--decides the\nmerit of a work of art, as art, apart from subject-matter. All works\nof art take rank of merit according to the degree in which they\nfulfil the first, the second, and the third of these conditions. In\none the individuality of the feeling transmitted may predominate;\nin another, clearness of expression; in a third, sincerity; while\na fourth may have sincerity and individuality, but be deficient in\nclearness; a fifth, individuality and clearness, but less sincerity;\nand so forth, in all possible degrees and combinations.\n\nThus is art divided from not art, and thus is the quality of art, as\nart, decided, independently of its subject-matter, _i.e._ apart from\nwhether the feelings it transmits are good or bad.\n\nBut how are we to define good and bad art with reference to its\nsubject-matter?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI\n\n\nHow in art are we to decide what is good and what is bad in\nsubject-matter?\n\nArt, like speech, is a means of communication, and therefore\nof progress, _i.e._ of the movement of humanity forward toward\nperfection. Speech renders accessible to men of the latest\ngenerations all the knowledge discovered by the experience and\nreflection, both of preceding generations and of the best and\nforemost men of their own times; art renders accessible to men\nof the latest generations all the feelings experienced by their\npredecessors, and those also which are being felt by their best and\nforemost contemporaries. And as the evolution of knowledge proceeds\nby truer and more necessary knowledge dislodging and replacing\nwhat is mistaken and unnecessary, so the evolution of feeling\nproceeds through art,--feelings less kind and less needful for the\nwell-being of mankind are replaced by others kinder and more needful\nfor that end. That is the purpose of art. And, speaking now of its\nsubject-matter, the more art fulfils that purpose the better the\nart, and the less it fulfils it the worse the art.\n\nAnd the appraisement of feelings (_i.e._ the acknowledgment of these\nor those feelings as being more or less good, more or less necessary\nfor the well-being of mankind) is made by the religious perception\nof the age.\n\nIn every period of history, and in every human society, there\nexists an understanding of the meaning of life which represents\nthe highest level to which men of that society have attained,--an\nunderstanding defining the highest good at which that society aims.\nAnd this understanding is the religious perception of the given\ntime and society. And this religious perception is always clearly\nexpressed by some advanced men, and more or less vividly perceived\nby all the members of the society. Such a religious perception and\nits corresponding expression exists always in every society. If it\nappears to us that in our society there is no religious perception,\nthis is not because there really is none, but only because we do\nnot want to see it. And we often wish not to see it because it\nexposes the fact that our life is inconsistent with that religious\nperception.\n\nReligious perception in a society is like the direction of a flowing\nriver. If the river flows at all, it must have a direction. If a\nsociety lives, there must be a religious perception indicating the\ndirection in which, more or less consciously, all its members tend.\n\nAnd so there always has been, and there is, a religious perception\nin every society. And it is by the standard of this religious\nperception that the feelings transmitted by art have always been\nestimated. Only on the basis of this religious perception of their\nage have men always chosen from the endlessly varied spheres of art\nthat art which transmitted feelings making religious perception\noperative in actual life. And such art has always been highly\nvalued and encouraged; while art transmitting feelings already\noutlived, flowing from the antiquated religious perceptions of a\nformer age, has always been condemned and despised. All the rest\nof art, transmitting those most diverse feelings by means of which\npeople commune together, was not condemned, and was tolerated, if\nonly it did not transmit feelings contrary to religious perception.\nThus, for instance, among the Greeks, art transmitting the feeling\nof beauty, strength, and courage (Hesiod, Homer, Phidias) was\nchosen, approved, and encouraged; while art transmitting feelings\nof rude sensuality, despondency, and effeminacy was condemned and\ndespised. Among the Jews, art transmitting feelings of devotion\nand submission to the God of the Hebrews and to His will (the epic\nof Genesis, the prophets, the Psalms) was chosen and encouraged,\nwhile art transmitting feelings of idolatry (the golden calf) was\ncondemned and despised. All the rest of art--stories, songs, dances,\nornamentation of houses, of utensils, and of clothes--which was\nnot contrary to religious perception, was neither distinguished\nnor discussed. Thus, in regard to its subject-matter, has art been\nappraised always and everywhere, and thus it should be appraised;\nfor this attitude toward art proceeds from the fundamental\ncharacteristics of human nature, and those characteristics do not\nchange.\n\nI know that according to an opinion current in our times religion is\na superstition which humanity has outgrown, and that it is therefore\nassumed that no such thing exists as a religious perception, common\nto us all, by which art, in our time, can be estimated. I know\nthat this is the opinion current in the pseudo-cultured circles\nof to-day. People who do not acknowledge Christianity in its true\nmeaning because it undermines all their social privileges, and who,\ntherefore, invent all kinds of philosophic and \u00e6sthetic theories\nto hide from themselves the meaninglessness and wrongness of their\nlives, cannot think otherwise. These people intentionally, or\nsometimes unintentionally, confusing the conception of a religious\ncult with the conception of religious perception, think that by\ndenying the cult they get rid of religious perception. But even\nthe very attacks on religion, and the attempts to establish a\nlife-conception contrary to the religious perception of our times,\nmost clearly demonstrate the existence of a religious perception\ncondemning the lives that are not in harmony with it.\n\nIf humanity progresses, _i.e._ moves forward, there must inevitably\nbe a guide to the direction of that movement. And religions have\nalways furnished that guide. All history shows that the progress\nof humanity is accomplished not otherwise than under the guidance\nof religion. But if the race cannot progress without the guidance\nof religion,--and progress is always going on, and consequently\nalso in our own times,--then there must be a religion of our times.\nSo that, whether it pleases or displeases the so-called cultured\npeople of to-day, they must admit the existence of religion,--not\nof a religious cult, Catholic, Protestant, or another, but of\nreligious perception,--which, even in our times, is the guide always\npresent where there is any progress. And if a religious perception\nexists amongst us, then our art should be appraised on the basis\nof that religious perception; and, as has always and everywhere\nbeen the case, art transmitting feelings flowing from the religious\nperception of our time should be chosen from all the indifferent\nart, should be acknowledged, highly esteemed, and encouraged; while\nart running counter to that perception should be condemned and\ndespised, and all the remaining indifferent art should neither be\ndistinguished nor encouraged.\n\nThe religious perception of our time, in its widest and most\npractical application, is the consciousness that our well-being,\nboth material and spiritual, individual and collective, temporal\nand eternal, lies in the growth of brotherhood among all men--in\ntheir loving harmony with one another. This perception is not only\nexpressed by Christ and all the best men of past ages, it is not\nonly repeated in the most varied forms and from most diverse sides\nby the best men of our own times, but it already serves as a clue to\nall the complex labor of humanity, consisting as this labor does,\non the one hand, in the destruction of physical and moral obstacles\nto the union of men, and, on the other hand, in establishing the\nprinciples common to all men which can and should unite them into\none universal brotherhood. And it is on the basis of this perception\nthat we should appraise all the phenomena of our life, and, among\nthe rest, our art also; choosing from all its realms whatever\ntransmits feelings flowing from this religious perception, highly\nprizing and encouraging such art, rejecting whatever is contrary\nto this perception, and not attributing to the rest of art an\nimportance not properly pertaining to it.\n\nThe chief mistake made by people of the upper classes of the time of\nthe so-called Renaissance--a mistake which we still perpetuate--was\nnot that they ceased to value and to attach importance to religious\nart (people of that period could not attach importance to it,\nbecause, like our own upper classes, they could not believe in what\nthe majority considered to be religion), but their mistake was\nthat they set up in place of religious art, which was lacking, an\ninsignificant art which aimed only at giving pleasure, _i.e._ they\nbegan to choose, to value, and to encourage, in place of religious\nart, something which, in any case, did not deserve such esteem and\nencouragement.\n\nOne of the Fathers of the Church said that the great evil is, not\nthat men do not know God, but that they have set up, instead of\nGod, that which is not God. So also with art. The great misfortune\nof the people of the upper classes of our time is not so much that\nthey are without a religious art, as that, instead of a supreme\nreligious art, chosen from all the rest as being specially important\nand valuable, they have chosen a most insignificant and, usually,\nharmful art, which aims at pleasing certain people, and which,\ntherefore, if only by its exclusive nature, stands in contradiction\nto that Christian principle of universal union which forms the\nreligious perception of our time. Instead of religious art, an empty\nand often vicious art is set up, and this hides from men's notice\nthe need of that true religious art which should be present in life\nin order to improve it.\n\nIt is true that art which satisfies the demands of the\nreligious perception of our time is quite unlike former art,\nbut, notwithstanding this dissimilarity, to a man who does not\nintentionally hide the truth from himself, it is very clear and\ndefinite what does form the religious art of our age. In former\ntimes, when the highest religious perception united only some people\n(who, even if they formed a large society, were yet but one society\nsurrounded by others--Jews, or Athenian or Roman citizens), the\nfeelings transmitted by the art of that time flowed from a desire\nfor the might, greatness, glory, and prosperity of that society, and\nthe heroes of art might be people who contributed to that prosperity\nby strength, by craft, by fraud, or by cruelty (Ulysses, Jacob,\nDavid, Samson, Hercules, and all the heroes). But the religious\nperception of our times does not select any one society of men; on\nthe contrary, it demands the union of all,--absolutely of all people\nwithout exception,--and above every other virtue it sets brotherly\nlove to all men. And, therefore, the feelings transmitted by the art\nof our time not only cannot coincide with the feelings transmitted\nby former art, but must run counter to them.\n\nChristian, truly Christian, art has been so long in establishing\nitself, and has not yet established itself, just because the\nChristian religious perception was not one of those small steps by\nwhich humanity advances regularly, but was an enormous revolution,\nwhich, if it has not already altered, must inevitably alter the\nentire life-conception of mankind, and, consequently, the whole\ninternal organization of their life. It is true that the life of\nhumanity, like that of an individual, moves regularly; but in that\nregular movement come, as it were, turning-points, which sharply\ndivide the preceding from the subsequent life. Christianity was such\na turning-point; such, at least, it must appear to us who live by\nthe Christian perception of life. Christian perception gave another,\na new, direction to all human feelings, and therefore completely\naltered both the contents and the significance of art. The Greeks\ncould make use of Persian art and the Romans could use Greek art,\nor, similarly, the Jews could use Egyptian art,--the fundamental\nideals were one and the same. Now the ideal was the greatness and\nprosperity of the Persians, now the greatness and prosperity of the\nGreeks, now that of the Romans. The same art was transferred into\nother conditions, and served new nations. But the Christian ideal\nchanged and reversed everything, so that, as the gospel puts it,\n\"That which was exalted among men has become an abomination in the\nsight of God.\" The ideal is no longer the greatness of Pharaoh or\nof a Roman emperor, not the beauty of a Greek, nor the wealth of\nPh\u0153nicia, but humility, purity, compassion, love. The hero is no\nlonger Dives, but Lazarus the beggar; not Mary Magdalene in the\nday of her beauty, but in the day of her repentance; not those who\nacquire wealth, but those who have abandoned it; not those who dwell\nin palaces, but those who dwell in catacombs and huts; not those\nwho rule over others, but those who acknowledge no authority but\nGod's. And the greatest work of art is no longer a cathedral of\nvictory[119] with statues of conquerors, but the representation of\na human soul so transformed by love that a man who is tormented and\nmurdered yet pities and loves his persecutors.\n\n [119] There is in Moscow a magnificent \"Cathedral of our Saviour,\"\n erected to commemorate the defeat of the French in the war of\n 1812.--TR.\n\nAnd the change is so great that men of the Christian world find\nit difficult to resist the inertia of the heathen art to which\nthey have been accustomed all their lives. The subject-matter\nof Christian religious art is so new to them, so unlike the\nsubject-matter of former art, that it seems to them as though\nChristian art were a denial of art, and they cling desperately to\nthe old art. But this old art, having no longer, in our day, any\nsource in religious perception, has lost its meaning, and we shall\nhave to abandon it whether we wish to or not.\n\nThe essence of the Christian perception consists in the recognition\nby every man of his sonship to God, and of the consequent union of\nmen with God and with one another, as is said in the gospel (John\nxvii. 21[120]). Therefore the subject-matter of Christian art is\nsuch feeling as can unite men with God and with one another.\n\n [120] \"That they may be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I\n in thee, that they also may be in us.\"\n\nThe expression _unite men with God and with one another_ may seem\nobscure to people accustomed to the misuse of these words which\nis so customary, but the words have a perfectly clear meaning\nnevertheless. They indicate that the Christian union of man (in\ncontradiction to the partial, exclusive union of only some men) is\nthat which unites all without exception.\n\nArt, all art, has this characteristic, that it unites people. Every\nart causes those to whom the artist's feeling is transmitted to\nunite in soul with the artist, and also with all who receive the\nsame impression. But non-Christian art, while uniting some people\ntogether, makes that very union a cause of separation between these\nunited people and others; so that union of this kind is often a\nsource, not only of division, but even of enmity toward others.\nSuch is all patriotic art, with its anthems, poems, and monuments;\nsuch is all Church art, _i.e._ the art of certain cults, with their\nimages, statues, processions, and other local ceremonies. Such art\nis belated and non-Christian art, uniting the people of one cult\nonly to separate them yet more sharply from the members of other\ncults, and even to place them in relations of hostility to each\nother. Christian art is only such as tends to unite all without\nexception, either by evoking in them the perception that each man\nand all men stand in like relation toward God and toward their\nneighbor, or by evoking in them identical feelings, which may even\nbe the very simplest, provided only that they are not repugnant to\nChristianity and are natural to every one without exception.\n\nGood Christian art of our time may be unintelligible to people\nbecause of imperfections in its form, or because men are inattentive\nto it, but it must be such that all men can experience the feelings\nit transmits. It must be the art, not of some one group of people,\nnor of one class, nor of one nationality, nor of one religious\ncult; that is, it must not transmit feelings which are accessible\nonly to a man educated in a certain way, or only to an aristocrat,\nor a merchant, or only to a Russian, or a native of Japan, or a\nRoman Catholic, or a Buddhist, etc., but it must transmit feelings\naccessible to every one. Only art of this kind can be acknowledged\nin our time to be good art, worthy of being chosen out from all the\nrest of art and encouraged.\n\nChristian art, _i.e._ the art of our time, should be catholic in\nthe original meaning of the word, _i.e._ universal, and therefore\nit should unite all men. And only two kinds of feeling do unite all\nmen: first, feelings flowing from the perception of our sonship to\nGod and of the brotherhood of man; and next, the simple feelings of\ncommon life, accessible to every one without exception--such as the\nfeeling of merriment, of pity, of cheerfulness, of tranquillity,\netc. Only these two kinds of feelings can now supply material for\nart good in its subject-matter.\n\nAnd the action of these two kinds of art, apparently so dissimilar,\nis one and the same. The feelings flowing from perception of our\nsonship to God and of the brotherhood of man--such as a feeling of\nsureness in truth, devotion to the will of God, self-sacrifice,\nrespect for and love of man--evoked by Christian religious\nperception; and the simplest feelings--such as a softened or a merry\nmood caused by a song or an amusing jest intelligible to every one,\nor by a touching story, or a drawing, or a little doll: both alike\nproduce one and the same effect,--the loving union of man with\nman. Sometimes people who are together are, if not hostile to one\nanother, at least estranged in mood and feeling, till perchance a\nstory, a performance, a picture, or even a building, but oftenest of\nall, music, unites them all as by an electric flash, and, in place\nof their former isolation or even enmity, they are all conscious\nof union and mutual love. Each is glad that another feels what he\nfeels; glad of the communion established, not only between him\nand all present, but also with all now living who will yet share\nthe same impression; and more than that, he feels the mysterious\ngladness of a communion which, reaching beyond the grave, unites us\nwith all men of the past who have been moved by the same feelings,\nand with all men of the future who will yet be touched by them. And\nthis effect is produced both by the religious art which transmits\nfeelings of love to God and one's neighbor, and by universal art,\ntransmitting the very simplest feelings common to all men.\n\nThe art of our time should be appraised differently from former art\nchiefly in this, that the art of our time, _i.e._ Christian art\n(basing itself on a religious perception which demands the union\nof man), excludes from the domain of art good in subject-matter\neverything transmitting exclusive feelings, which do not unite\nbut divide men. It relegates such work to the category of art bad\nin its subject-matter, while, on the other hand, it includes in\nthe category of art good in subject-matter a section not formerly\nadmitted to deserve to be chosen out and respected, namely,\nuniversal art, transmitting even the most trifling and simple\nfeelings if only they are accessible to all men without exception,\nand therefore unite them. Such art cannot, in our time, but be\nesteemed good, for it attains the end which the religious perception\nof our time, _i.e._ Christianity, sets before humanity.\n\nChristian art either evokes in men those feelings which, through\nlove of God and of one's neighbor, draw them to greater and ever\ngreater union, and make them ready for and capable of such union; or\nevokes in them those feelings which show them that they are already\nunited in the joys and sorrows of life. And therefore the Christian\nart of our time can be and is of two kinds: (1) art transmitting\nfeelings flowing from a religious perception of man's position\nin the world in relation to God and to his neighbor--religious\nart in the limited meaning of the term; and (2) art transmitting\nthe simplest feelings of common life, but such, always, as are\naccessible to all men in the whole world--the art of common\nlife--the art of a people--universal art. Only these two kinds of\nart can be considered good art in our time.\n\nThe first, religious art,--transmitting both positive feelings of\nlove to God and one's neighbor, and negative feelings of indignation\nand horror at the violation of love,--manifests itself chiefly\nin the form of words, and to some extent also in painting and\nsculpture: the second kind (universal art), transmitting feelings\naccessible to all, manifests itself in words, in painting, in\nsculpture, in dances, in architecture, and, most of all, in music.\n\nIf I were asked to give modern examples of each of these kinds of\nart, then, as examples of the highest art, flowing from love of God\nand man (both of the higher, positive, and of the lower, negative\nkind), in literature I should name, \"The Robbers,\" by Schiller;\nVictor Hugo's \"Les Pauvres Gens\" and \"Les Mis\u00e9rables\"; the novels\nand stories of Dickens,--\"The Tale of Two Cities,\" \"The Christmas\nCarol,\" \"The Chimes,\" and others; \"Uncle Tom's Cabin;\" Dostoievsky's\nworks--especially his \"Memoirs from the House of Death\"; and \"Adam\nBede,\" by George Eliot.\n\nIn modern painting, strange to say, works of this kind, directly\ntransmitting the Christian feeling of love of God and of one's\nneighbor, are hardly to be found, especially among the works of\nthe celebrated painters. There are plenty of pictures treating of\nthe gospel stories; they, however, depict historical events with\ngreat wealth of detail, but do not, and cannot, transmit religious\nfeeling not possessed by their painters. There are many pictures\ntreating of the personal feelings of various people, but of pictures\nrepresenting great deeds of self-sacrifice and of Christian love\nthere are very few, and what there are, are principally by artists\nwho are not celebrated, and are, for the most part, not pictures,\nbut merely sketches. Such, for instance, is the drawing by Kramskoy\n(worth many of his finished pictures), showing a drawing-room with a\nbalcony, past which troops are marching in triumph on their return\nfrom the war. On the balcony stands a wet-nurse holding a baby and a\nboy. They are admiring the procession of the troops, but the mother,\ncovering her face with a handkerchief, has fallen back on the sofa,\nsobbing. Such also is the picture by Walter Langley, to which I have\nalready referred, and such again is a picture by the French artist\nMorlon, depicting a lifeboat hastening, in a heavy storm, to the\nrelief of a steamer that is being wrecked. Approaching these in kind\nare pictures which represent the hard-working peasant with respect\nand love. Such are the pictures by Millet, and, particularly, his\ndrawing, \"The Man with the Hoe\"; also pictures in this style by\nJules Breton, L'Hermitte, Defregger, and others. As examples of\npictures evoking indignation and horror at the violation of love\nto God and man, Gay's picture, \"Judgment,\" may serve, and also\nLeizen-Mayer's, \"Signing the Death Warrant.\" But there are also very\nfew of this kind. Anxiety about the technique and the beauty of\nthe picture for the most part obscures the feeling. For instance,\nG\u00e9r\u00f4me's \"Pollice Verso\" expresses, not so much horror at what is\nbeing perpetrated as attraction by the beauty of the spectacle.[121]\n\n [121] In this picture the spectators in the Roman Amphitheater are\n turning down their thumbs to show that they wish the vanquished\n gladiator to be killed.--TR.\n\nTo give examples, from the modern art of our upper classes, of art\nof the second kind, good universal art or even of the art of a whole\npeople, is yet more difficult, especially in literary art and music.\nIf there are some works which by their inner contents might be\nassigned to this class (such as \"Don Quixote,\" Moli\u00e8re's comedies,\n\"David Copperfield\" and \"The Pickwick Papers\" by Dickens, Gogol's\nand Pushkin's tales, and some things of Maupassant's), these works\nare for the most part--from the exceptional nature of the feelings\nthey transmit, and the superfluity of special details of time\nand locality, and, above all, on account of the poverty of their\nsubject-matter in comparison with examples of universal ancient\nart (such, for instance, as the story of Joseph)--comprehensible\nonly to people of their own circle. That Joseph's brethren, being\njealous of his father's affection, sell him to the merchants; that\nPotiphar's wife wishes to tempt the youth; that having attained the\nhighest station, he takes pity on his brothers, including Benjamin,\nthe favorite,--these and all the rest are feelings accessible alike\nto a Russian peasant, a Chinese, an African, a child, or an old man,\neducated or uneducated; and it is all written with such restraint,\nis so free from any superfluous detail, that the story may be told\nto any circle and will be equally comprehensible and touching to\nevery one. But not such are the feelings of Don Quixote or of\nMoli\u00e8re's heroes (though Moli\u00e8re is perhaps the most universal,\nand therefore the most excellent, artist of modern times), nor of\nPickwick and his friends. These feelings are not common to all\nmen, but very exceptional; and therefore, to make them infectious,\nthe authors have surrounded them with abundant details of time and\nplace. And this abundance of detail makes the stories difficult\nof comprehension to all people not living within reach of the\nconditions described by the author.\n\nThe author of the novel of Joseph did not need to describe in\ndetail, as would be done nowadays, the blood-stained coat of\nJoseph, the dwelling and dress of Jacob, the pose and attire of\nPotiphar's wife, and how, adjusting the bracelet on her left arm,\nshe said, \"Come to me,\" and so on, because the subject-matter of\nfeelings in this novel is so strong that all details, except the\nmost essential,--such as that Joseph went out into another room to\nweep,--are superfluous, and would only hinder the transmission of\nfeelings. And therefore this novel is accessible to all men, touches\npeople of all nations and classes, young and old, and has lasted to\nour times, and will yet last for thousands of years to come. But\nstrip the best novels of our times of their details, and what will\nremain?\n\nIt is therefore impossible in modern literature to indicate works\nfully satisfying the demands of universality. Such works as exist\nare, to a great extent, spoilt by what is usually called \"realism,\"\nbut would be better termed \"provincialism,\" in art.\n\nIn music the same occurs as in verbal art, and for similar reasons.\nIn consequence of the poorness of the feeling they contain,\nthe melodies of the modern composers are amazingly empty and\ninsignificant. And to strengthen the impression produced by these\nempty melodies, the new musicians pile complex modulations on to\neach trivial melody, not only in their own national manner, but\nalso in the way characteristic of their own exclusive circle and\nparticular musical school. Melody--every melody--is free, and may\nbe understood of all men; but as soon as it is bound up with a\nparticular harmony, it ceases to be accessible except to people\ntrained to such harmony, and it becomes strange, not only to\ncommon men of another nationality, but to all who do not belong\nto the circle whose members have accustomed themselves to certain\nforms of harmonization. So that music, like poetry, travels in a\nvicious circle. Trivial and exclusive melodies, in order to make\nthem attractive, are laden with harmonic, rhythmic, and orchestral\ncomplications, and thus become yet more exclusive; and, far from\nbeing universal, are not even national, _i.e._ they are not\ncomprehensible to the whole people but only to some people.\n\nIn music, besides marches and dances by various composers, which\nsatisfy the demands of universal art, one can indicate very few\nworks of this class: Bach's famous violin _aria_, Chopin's nocturne\nin E-flat major, and perhaps a dozen bits (not whole pieces,\nbut parts) selected from the works of Haydn, Mozart, Schubert,\nBeethoven, and Chopin.[122]\n\n [122] While offering as examples of art those that seem to me the\n best, I attach no special importance to my selection; for, besides\n being insufficiently informed in all branches of art, I belong\n to the class of people whose taste has, by false training, been\n perverted. And therefore my old, inured habits may cause me to\n err, and I may mistake for absolute merit the impression a work\n produced on me in my youth. My only purpose in mentioning examples\n of works of this or that class is to make my meaning clearer, and\n to show how, with my present views, I understand excellence in art\n in relation to its subject-matter. I must, moreover, mention that\n I consign my own artistic productions to the category of bad art,\n excepting the story \"God sees the Truth,\" which seeks a place in the\n first class, and \"The Prisoner of the Caucasus,\" which belongs to\n the second.\n\nAlthough in painting the same thing is repeated as in poetry and\nmusic,--namely, that in order to make them more interesting, works\nweak in conception are surrounded by minutely studied accessories\nof time and place, which give them a temporary and local interest\nbut make them less universal,--still, in painting, more than in the\nother spheres of art, may be found works satisfying the demands\nof universal Christian art; that is to say, there are more works\nexpressing feelings in which all men may participate.\n\nIn the arts of painting and sculpture, all pictures and statues\nin so-called genre style, depictions of animals, landscapes and\ncaricatures with subjects comprehensible to every one, and also\nall kinds of ornaments, are universal in subject-matter. Such\nproductions in painting and sculpture are very numerous (_e.g._\nchina dolls), but for the most part such objects (for instance,\nornaments of all kinds) are either not considered to be art or are\nconsidered to be art of a low quality. In reality all such objects,\nif only they transmit a true feeling experienced by the artist and\ncomprehensible to every one (however insignificant it may seem to us\nto be) are works of real good Christian art.\n\nI fear it will here be urged against me that having denied that\nthe conception of beauty can supply a standard for works of art, I\ncontradict myself by acknowledging ornaments to be works of good\nart. The reproach is unjust, for the subject-matter of all kinds of\nornamentation consists not in the beauty, but in the feeling (of\nadmiration of, and delight in, the combination of lines and colors)\nwhich the artist has experienced and with which he infects the\nspectator. Art remains what it was and what it must be: nothing\nbut the infection by one man of another, or of others, with the\nfeelings experienced by the infector. Among those feelings is the\nfeeling of delight at what pleases the sight. Objects pleasing the\nsight may be such as please a small or a large number of people,\nor such as please all men. And ornaments for the most part are of\nthe latter kind. A landscape representing a very unusual view, or a\ngenre picture of a special subject, may not please every one, but\nornaments, from Yakutsk ornaments to Greek ones, are intelligible\nto every one and evoke a similar feeling of admiration in all, and\ntherefore this despised kind of art should, in Christian society, be\nesteemed far above exceptional, pretentious pictures and sculptures.\n\nSo that there are only two kinds of good Christian art: all the rest\nof art not comprised in these two divisions should be acknowledged\nto be bad art, deserving not to be encouraged, but to be driven\nout, denied, and despised, as being art not uniting but dividing\npeople. Such, in literary art, are all novels and poems which\ntransmit Church or patriotic feelings, and also exclusive feelings\npertaining only to the class of the idle rich; such as aristocratic\nhonor, satiety, spleen, pessimism, and refined and vicious feelings\nflowing from sex-love--quite incomprehensible to the great majority\nof mankind.\n\nIn painting we must similarly place in the class of bad art all\nthe Church, patriotic, and exclusive pictures; all the pictures\nrepresenting the amusements and allurements of a rich and idle life;\nall the so-called symbolic pictures, in which the very meaning of\nthe symbol is comprehensible only to the people of a certain circle;\nand, above all, pictures with voluptuous subjects--all that odious\nfemale nudity which fills all the exhibitions and galleries. And to\nthis class belongs almost all the chamber and opera music of our\ntimes,--beginning especially from Beethoven (Schumann, Berlioz,\nLiszt, Wagner), by its subject-matter devoted to the expression of\nfeelings accessible only to people who have developed in themselves\nan unhealthy, nervous irritation evoked by this exclusive,\nartificial, and complex music.\n\n\"What! the '_Ninth Symphony_' not a good work of art!\" I hear\nexclaimed by indignant voices.\n\nAnd I reply, Most certainly it is not. All that I have written I\nhave written with the sole purpose of finding a clear and reasonable\ncriterion by which to judge the merits of works of art. And this\ncriterion, coinciding with the indications of plain and sane sense,\nindubitably shows me that that symphony by Beethoven is not a good\nwork of art. Of course, to people educated in the adoration of\ncertain productions and of their authors, to people whose taste\nhas been perverted just by being educated in such adoration, the\nacknowledgment that such a celebrated work is bad is amazing and\nstrange. But how are we to escape the indications of reason and of\ncommon sense?\n\nBeethoven's \"Ninth Symphony\" is considered a great work of art.\nTo verify its claim to be such, I must first ask myself whether\nthis work transmits the highest religious feeling? I reply in the\nnegative, for music in itself cannot transmit those feelings; and\ntherefore I ask myself next, Since this work does not belong to the\nhighest kind of religious art, has it the other characteristic of\nthe good art of our time,--the quality of uniting all men in one\ncommon feeling: does it rank as Christian universal art? And again I\nhave no option but to reply in the negative; for not only do I not\nsee how the feelings transmitted by this work could unite people not\nspecially trained to submit themselves to its complex hypnotism,\nbut I am unable to imagine to myself a crowd of normal people who\ncould understand anything of this long, confused, and artificial\nproduction, except short snatches which are lost in a sea of what\nis incomprehensible. And therefore, whether I like it or not, I am\ncompelled to conclude that this work belongs to the rank of bad art.\nIt is curious to note in this connection, that attached to the end\nof this very symphony is a poem of Schiller's which (though somewhat\nobscurely) expresses this very thought, namely, that feeling\n(Schiller speaks only of the feeling of gladness) unites people and\nevokes love in them. But though this poem is sung at the end of the\nsymphony, the music does not accord with the thought expressed in\nthe verses; for the music is exclusive and does not unite all men,\nbut unites only a few, dividing them off from the rest of mankind.\n\nAnd just in this same way, in all branches of art, many and many\nworks considered great by the upper classes of our society will have\nto be judged. By this one sure criterion we shall have to judge the\ncelebrated \"Divine Comedy\" and \"Jerusalem Delivered,\" and a great\npart of Shakespear's and Goethe's works, and in painting every\nrepresentation of miracles, including Raphael's \"Transfiguration,\"\netc.\n\nWhatever the work may be and however it may have been extolled,\nwe have first to ask whether this work is one of real art or a\ncounterfeit. Having acknowledged, on the basis of the indication of\nits infectiousness even to a small class of people, that a certain\nproduction belongs to the realm of art, it is necessary, on the\nbasis of the indication of its accessibility, to decide the next\nquestion, Does this work belong to the category of bad, exclusive\nart, opposed to religious perception, or to Christian art, uniting\npeople? And having acknowledged an article to belong to real\nChristian art, we must then, according to whether it transmits\nthe feelings flowing from love to God and man, or merely the\nsimple feelings uniting all men, assign it a place in the ranks of\nreligious art or in those of universal art.\n\nOnly on the basis of such verification shall we find it possible to\nselect from the whole mass of what, in our society, claims to be\nart, those works which form real, important, necessary spiritual\nfood, and to separate them from all the harmful and useless art,\nand from the counterfeits of art which surround us. Only on the\nbasis of such verification shall we be able to rid ourselves of\nthe pernicious results of harmful art, and to avail ourselves of\nthat beneficent action which is the purpose of true and good art,\nand which is indispensable for the spiritual life of man and of\nhumanity.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII\n\n\nArt is one of two organs of human progress. By words man\ninterchanges thoughts, by the forms of art he interchanges feelings,\nand this with all men, not only of the present time, but also of the\npast and the future. It is natural to human beings to employ both\nthese organs of intercommunication, and therefore the perversion of\neither of them must cause evil results to the society in which it\noccurs. And these results will be of two kinds: first, the absence,\nin that society, of the work which should be performed by the organ;\nand secondly, the harmful activity of the perverted organ. And just\nthese results have shown themselves in our society. The organ of\nart has been perverted, and therefore the upper classes of society\nhave, to a great extent, been deprived of the work that it should\nhave performed. The diffusion in our society of enormous quantities\nof, on the one hand, those counterfeits of art which only serve\nto amuse and corrupt people, and, on the other hand, of works of\ninsignificant, exclusive art, mistaken for the highest art, have\nperverted most men's capacity to be infected by true works of art,\nand have thus deprived them of the possibility of experiencing the\nhighest feelings to which mankind has attained, and which can only\nbe transmitted from man to man by art.\n\nAll the best that has been done in art by man remains strange to\npeople who lack the capacity to be infected by art, and is replaced\neither by spurious counterfeits of art or by insignificant art,\nwhich they mistake for real art. People of our time and of our\nsociety are delighted with Baudelaires, Verlaines, Mor\u00e9ases, Ibsens,\nand Maeterlincks in poetry; with Monets, Manets, Puvis de Chavannes,\nBurne-Joneses, Stucks, and B\u00f6cklins in painting; with Wagners,\nLiszts, Richard Strausses, in music; and they are no longer capable\nof comprehending either the highest or the simplest art.\n\nIn the upper classes, in consequence of this loss of capacity to be\ninfected by works of art, people grow up, are educated, and live,\nlacking the fertilizing, improving influence of art, and therefore\nnot only do not advance toward perfection, do not become kinder,\nbut, on the contrary, possessing highly developed external means of\ncivilization, they yet tend to become continually more savage, more\ncoarse, and more cruel.\n\nSuch is the result of the absence from our society of the activity\nof that essential organ--art. But the consequences of the perverted\nactivity of that organ are yet more harmful. And they are numerous.\n\nThe first consequence, plain for all to see, is the enormous\nexpenditure of the labor of working people on things which are\nnot only useless, but which, for the most part, are harmful;\nand more than that, the waste of priceless human lives on this\nunnecessary and harmful business. It is terrible to consider with\nwhat intensity, and amid what privations, millions of people--who\nlack time and opportunity to attend to what they and their families\nurgently require--labor for 10, 12, or 14 hours on end, and even at\nnight, setting the type for pseudo-artistic books which spread vice\namong mankind, or working for theaters, concerts, exhibitions, and\npicture-galleries, which, for the most part, also serve vice; but\nit is yet more terrible to reflect that lively, kindly children,\ncapable of all that is good, are devoted from their early years to\nsuch tasks as these: that for 6, 8, or 10 hours a day, and for 10\nor 15 years, some of them should play scales and exercises; others\nshould twist their limbs, walk on their toes, and lift their legs\nabove their heads; a third set should sing solfeggios; a fourth\nset, showing themselves off in all manner of ways, should pronounce\nverses; a fifth set should draw from busts or from nude models and\npaint studies; a sixth set should write compositions according\nto the rules of certain periods; and that in these occupations,\nunworthy of a human being, which are often continued long after full\nmaturity, they should waste their physical and mental strength and\nlose all perception of the meaning of life. It is often said that\nit is horrible and pitiful to see little acrobats putting their\nlegs over their necks, but it is not less pitiful to see children\nof 10 giving concerts, and it is still worse to see school-boys of\n10 who, as a preparation for literary work, have learnt by heart\nthe exceptions to the Latin grammar. These people not only grow\nphysically and mentally deformed, but also morally deformed, and\nbecome incapable of doing anything really needed by man. Occupying\nin society the r\u00f4le of amusers of the rich, they lose their sense of\nhuman dignity, and develop in themselves such a passion for public\napplause that they are always a prey to an inflated and unsatisfied\nvanity which grows in them to diseased dimensions, and they expend\ntheir mental strength in efforts to obtain satisfaction for this\npassion. And what is most tragic of all is that these people, who\nfor the sake of art are spoilt for life, not only do not render\nservice to this art, but, on the contrary, inflict the greatest harm\non it. They are taught in academies, schools, and conservatoires how\nto counterfeit art, and by learning this they so pervert themselves\nthat they quite lose the capacity to produce works of real art, and\nbecome purveyors of that counterfeit, or trivial, or depraved art\nwhich floods our society. This is the first obvious consequence of\nthe perversion of the organ of art.\n\nThe second consequence is that the productions of amusement-art,\nwhich are prepared in such terrific quantities by the armies of\nprofessional artists, enable the rich people of our times to live\nthe lives they do, lives not only unnatural, but in contradiction\nto the humane principles these people themselves profess. To live\nas do the rich, idle people, especially the women, far from nature\nand from animals, in artificial conditions, with muscles atrophied\nor misdeveloped by gymnastics, and with enfeebled vital energy,\nwould be impossible were it not for what is called art--for this\noccupation and amusement which hides from them the meaninglessness\nof their lives, and saves them from the dullness that oppresses\nthem. Take from all these people the theaters, concerts,\nexhibitions, piano-playing, songs, and novels with which they now\nfill their time, in full confidence that occupation with these\nthings is a very refined, \u00e6sthetical, and therefore good occupation;\ntake from the patrons of art who buy pictures, assist musicians,\nand are acquainted with writers, their r\u00f4le of protectors of that\nimportant matter art, and they will not be able to continue such a\nlife, but will all be eaten up by ennui and spleen, and will become\nconscious of the meaninglessness and wrongness of their present mode\nof life. Only occupation with what, among them, is considered art\nrenders it possible for them to continue to live on, infringing all\nnatural conditions, without perceiving the emptiness and cruelty of\ntheir lives. And this support afforded to the false manner of life\npursued by the rich is the second consequence, and a serious one, of\nthe perversion of art.\n\nThe third consequence of the perversion of art is the perplexity\nproduced in the minds of children and of plain folk. Among people\nnot perverted by the false theories of our society, among workers\nand children, there exists a very definite conception of what\npeople may be respected and praised for. In the minds of peasants\nand children the ground for praise or eulogy can only be either\nphysical strength: Hercules, the heroes and conquerors; or moral,\nspiritual, strength: Sakya Muni giving up a beautiful wife and a\nkingdom to save mankind, Christ going to the cross for the truth he\nprofessed, and all the martyrs and the saints. Both are understood\nby peasants and children. They understand that physical strength\nmust be respected, for it compels respect; and the moral strength of\ngoodness an unperverted man cannot fail to respect, because all his\nspiritual being draws him toward it. But these people, children, and\npeasants, suddenly perceive that besides those praised, respected,\nand rewarded for physical or moral strength, there are others who\nare praised, extolled, and rewarded much more than the heroes\nof strength and virtue, merely because they sing well, compose\nverses, or dance. They see that singers, composers, painters,\nballet-dancers, earn millions of roubles and receive more honor than\nthe saints do: and peasants and children are perplexed.\n\nWhen fifty years had elapsed after Pushkin's death, and,\nsimultaneously, the cheap edition of his works began to circulate\namong the people and a monument was erected to him in Moscow, I\nreceived more than a dozen letters from different peasants asking\nwhy Pushkin was raised to such dignity. And only the other day a\nliterate[123] man from Saratoff called on me who had evidently gone\nout of his mind over this very question. He was on his way to Moscow\nto expose the clergy for having taken part in raising a \"monament\"\nto Mr. Pushkin.\n\n [123] In Russian it is customary to make a distinction between\n literate and illiterate people, _i.e._ between those who can and\n those who cannot read. _Literate_ in this sense does not imply that\n the man would speak or write correctly.--TR.\n\nIndeed, one need only imagine to oneself what the state of mind\nof such a man of the people must be when he learns, from such\nrumors and newspapers as reach him, that the clergy, the Government\nofficials, and all the best people in Russia are triumphantly\nunveiling a statue to a great man, the benefactor, the pride of\nRussia--Pushkin, of whom till then he had never heard. From all\nsides he reads or hears about this, and he naturally supposes that\nif such honors are rendered to any one, then without doubt he must\nhave done something extraordinary--either some feat of strength\nor of goodness. He tries to learn who Pushkin was, and having\ndiscovered that Pushkin was neither a hero nor a general, but was\na private person and a writer, he comes to the conclusion that\nPushkin must have been a holy man and a teacher of goodness, and he\nhastens to read or to hear his life and works. But what must be his\nperplexity when he learns that Pushkin was a man of more than easy\nmorals, who was killed in a duel, _i.e._ when attempting to murder\nanother man, and that all his service consisted in writing verses\nabout love, which were often very indecent.\n\nThat a hero, or Alexander the Great, or Genghis Khan, or Napoleon\nwere great, he understands, because any one of them could have\ncrushed him and a thousand like him; that Buddha, Socrates, and\nChrist were great he also understands, for he knows and feels that\nhe and all men should be such as they were; but why a man should be\ngreat because he wrote verses about the love of women he cannot make\nout.\n\nA similar perplexity must trouble the brain of a Breton or Norman\npeasant who hears that a monument, \"_une statue_\" (as to the\nMadonna), is being erected to Baudelaire, and reads, or is told,\nwhat the contents of his \"Fleurs du Mal\" are; or, more amazing\nstill, to Verlaine, when he learns the story of that man's wretched,\nvicious life, and reads his verses. And what confusion it must\ncause in the brains of peasants when they learn that some Patti or\nTaglioni is paid \u00a310,000 for a season, or that a painter gets as\nmuch for a picture, or that authors of novels describing love-scenes\nhave received even more than that.\n\nAnd it is the same with children. I remember how I passed through\nthis stage of amazement and stupefaction, and only reconciled myself\nto this exaltation of artists to the level of heroes and saints by\nlowering in my own estimation the importance of moral excellence,\nand by attributing a false, unnatural meaning to works of art. And a\nsimilar confusion must occur in the soul of each child and each man\nof the people when he learns of the strange honors and rewards that\nare lavished on artists. This is the third consequence of the false\nrelation in which our society stands toward art.\n\nThe fourth consequence is that people of the upper classes, more\nand more frequently encountering the contradictions between\nbeauty and goodness, put the ideal of beauty first, thus freeing\nthemselves from the demands of morality. These people, reversing\nthe r\u00f4les, instead of admitting, as is really the case, that the\nart they serve is an antiquated affair, allege that morality is an\nantiquated affair, which can have no importance for people situated\non that high plane of development on which they opine that they are\nsituated.\n\nThis result of the false relation to art showed itself in our\nsociety long ago; but recently, with its prophet Nietzsche and his\nadherents, and with the decadents and certain English \u00e6sthetes who\ncoincide with him, it is being expressed with especial impudence.\nThe decadents, and \u00e6sthetes of the type at one time represented by\nOscar Wilde, select as a theme for their productions the denial of\nmorality and the laudation of vice.\n\nThis art has partly generated, and partly coincides with, a similar\nphilosophic theory. I recently received from America a book\nentitled, \"The Survival of the Fittest: Philosophy of Power,\" 1896,\nby Ragnar Redbeard, Chicago. The substance of this book, as it is\nexpressed in the editor's preface, is that to measure \"right\" by the\nfalse philosophy of the Hebrew prophets and \"weepful\" Messiahs is\nmadness. Right is not the offspring of doctrine, but of power. All\nlaws, commandments, or doctrines as to not doing to another what\nyou do not wish done to you, have no inherent authority whatever,\nbut receive it only from the club, the gallows, and the sword. A\nman truly free is under no obligation to obey any injunction, human\nor divine. Obedience is the sign of the degenerate. Disobedience\nis the stamp of the hero. Men should not be bound by moral rules\ninvented by their foes. The whole world is a slippery battlefield.\nIdeal justice demands that the vanquished should be exploited,\nemasculated, and scorned. The free and brave may seize the world.\nAnd, therefore, there should be eternal war for life, for land, for\nlove, for women, for power, and for gold. (Something similar was\nsaid a few years ago by the celebrated and refined academician,\nVog\u00fc\u00e9.) The earth and its treasures is \"booty for the bold.\"\n\nThe author has evidently by himself, independently of Nietzsche,\ncome to the same conclusions which are professed by the new artists.\n\nExpressed in the form of a doctrine these positions startle us. In\nreality they are implied in the ideal of art serving beauty. The\nart of our upper classes has educated people in this ideal of the\nover-man,[124]--which is, in reality, the old ideal of Nero, Stenka\nRazin,[125] Genghis Khan, Robert Macaire,[126] or Napoleon, and all\ntheir accomplices, assistants, and adulators--and it supports this\nideal with all its might.\n\n[Foootnote 124: The over-man (Uebermensch), in the Nietzschean\nphilosophy, is that superior type of man whom the struggle for\nexistence is to evolve, and who will seek only his own power and\npleasure, will know nothing of pity, and will have the right,\nbecause he will possess the power, to make ordinary people serve\nhim.--TR.]\n\n[125] Stenka Razin was by origin a common Cossack. His brother\nwas hung for a breach of military discipline, and to this event\nStenka Razin's hatred of the governing classes has been attributed.\nHe formed a robber band, and subsequently headed a formidable\nrebellion, declaring himself in favor of freedom for the serfs,\nreligious toleration, and the abolition of taxes. Like the\ngovernment he opposed, he relied on force, and, though he used it\nlargely in defense of the poor against the rich, he still held to\n\n \"The good old rule, the simple plan,\n That they should take who have the power,\n And they should keep who can.\"\n\nLike Robin Hood, he is favorably treated in popular legends.--TR.\n\n[126] Robert Macaire is a modern type of adroit and audacious\nrascality. He was the hero of a popular play produced in Paris in\n1834.--TR.\n\nIt is this supplanting of the ideal of what is right by the ideal of\nwhat is beautiful, _i.e._ of what is pleasant, that is the fourth\nconsequence, and a terrible one, of the perversion of art in our\nsociety. It is fearful to think of what would befall humanity were\nsuch art to spread among the masses of the people. And it already\nbegins to spread.\n\nFinally, the fifth and chief result is, that the art which\nflourishes in the upper classes of European society has a directly\nvitiating influence, infecting people with the worst feelings and\nwith those most harmful to humanity,--superstition, patriotism, and,\nabove all, sensuality.\n\nLook carefully into the causes of the ignorance of the masses, and\nyou may see that the chief cause does not at all lie in the lack\nof schools and libraries, as we are accustomed to suppose, but in\nthose superstitions, both ecclesiastical and patriotic, with which\nthe people are saturated, and which are unceasingly generated by\nall the methods of art. Church superstitions are supported and\nproduced by the poetry of prayers, hymns, painting, by the sculpture\nof images and of statues, by singing, by organs, by music, by\narchitecture, and even by dramatic art in religious ceremonies.\nPatriotic superstitions are supported and produced by verses and\nstories, which are supplied even in schools, by music, by songs, by\ntriumphal processions, by royal meetings, by martial pictures, and\nby monuments.\n\nWere it not for this continual activity in all departments of art,\nperpetuating the ecclesiastical and patriotic intoxication and\nembitterment of the people, the masses would long ere this have\nattained to true enlightenment.\n\nBut it is not only in Church matters and patriotic matters that art\ndepraves; it is art in our time that serves as the chief cause of\nthe perversion of people in the most important question of social\nlife,--in their sexual relations. We nearly all know by our own\nexperience, and those who are fathers and mothers know in the case\nof their grown-up children also, what fearful mental and physical\nsuffering, what useless waste of strength, people suffer merely as a\nconsequence of dissoluteness in sexual desire.\n\nSince the world began, since the Trojan war, which sprang from\nthat same sexual dissoluteness, down to and including the suicides\nand murders of lovers described in almost every newspaper, a great\nproportion of the sufferings of the human race have come from this\nsource.\n\nAnd what is art doing? All art, real and counterfeit, with very\nfew exceptions, is devoted to describing, depicting, and inflaming\nsexual love in every shape and form. When one remembers all those\nnovels and their lust-kindling descriptions of love, from the most\nrefined to the grossest, with which the literature of our society\noverflows; if one only remembers all those pictures and statues\nrepresenting women's naked bodies, and all sorts of abominations\nwhich are reproduced in illustrations and advertisements; if one\nonly remembers all the filthy operas and operettas, songs, and\n_romances_ with which our world teems, involuntarily it seems as\nif existing art had but one definite aim,--to disseminate vice as\nwidely as possible.\n\nSuch, though not all, are the most direct consequences of that\nperversion of art which has occurred in our society. So that what in\nour society is called art not only does not conduce to the progress\nof mankind, but, more than almost anything else, hinders the\nattainment of goodness in our lives.\n\nAnd therefore the question which involuntarily presents itself to\nevery man free from artistic activity and therefore not bound to\nexisting art by self-interest, the question asked by me at the\nbeginning of this work: Is it just that to what we call art, to a\nsomething belonging to but a small section of society, should be\noffered up such sacrifices of human labor, of human lives, and of\ngoodness as are now being offered up? receives the natural reply:\nNo; it is unjust, and these things should not be! So also replies\nsound sense and unperverted moral feeling. Not only should these\nthings not be, not only should no sacrifices be offered up to what\namong us is called art, but, on the contrary, the efforts of those\nwho wish to live rightly should be directed toward the destruction\nof this art, for it is one of the most cruel of the evils that\nharass our section of humanity. So that, were the question put:\nWould it be preferable for our Christian world to be deprived of\n_all_ that is now esteemed to be art, and, together with the false,\nto lose _all_ that is good in it? I think that every reasonable\nand moral man would again decide the question as Plato decided it\nfor his \"Republic,\" and as all the Church Christian and Mohammedan\nteachers of mankind decided it, _i.e._ would say, \"Rather let there\nbe no art at all than continue the depraving art, or simulation of\nart, which now exists.\" Happily, no one has to face this question,\nand no one need adopt either solution. All that man can do, and that\nwe--the so-called educated people, who are so placed that we have\nthe possibility of understanding the meaning of the phenomena of our\nlife--can and should do, is to understand the error we are involved\nin, and not harden our hearts in it, but seek for a way of escape.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII\n\n\nThe cause of the lie into which the art of our society has fallen\nwas that people of the upper classes, having ceased to believe in\nthe Church teaching (called Christian), did not resolve to accept\ntrue Christian teaching in its real and fundamental principles\nof sonship to God and brotherhood to man, but continued to live\non without any belief, endeavoring to make up for the absence of\nbelief--some by hypocrisy, pretending still to believe in the\nnonsense of the Church creeds; others by boldly asserting their\ndisbelief; others by refined agnosticism; and others, again, by\nreturning to the Greek worship of beauty, proclaiming egotism to be\nright, and elevating it to the rank of a religious doctrine.\n\nThe cause of the malady was the non-acceptance of Christ's teaching\nin its real, _i.e._ its full, meaning. And the only cure for the\nillness lies in acknowledging that teaching in its full meaning.\nAnd such acknowledgment in our time is not only possible, but\ninevitable. Already to-day a man, standing on the height of the\nknowledge of our age, whether he be nominally a Catholic or a\nProtestant, cannot say that he really believes in the dogmas of\nthe Church: in God being a Trinity, in Christ being God, in the\nscheme of redemption, and so forth; nor can he satisfy himself by\nproclaiming his unbelief or skepticism, nor by relapsing into the\nworship of beauty and egotism. Above all, he can no longer say\nthat we do not know the real meaning of Christ's teaching. That\nmeaning has not only become accessible to all men of our times, but\nthe whole life of man to-day is permeated by the spirit of that\nteaching, and, consciously or unconsciously, is guided by it.\n\nHowever differently in form people belonging to our Christian\nworld may define the destiny of man; whether they see it in human\nprogress in whatever sense of the words, in the union of all men in\na socialistic realm, or in the establishment of a commune; whether\nthey look forward to the union of mankind under the guidance of\none universal Church, or to the federation of the world,--however\nvarious in form their definitions of the destination of human\nlife may be, all men in our times already admit that the highest\nwell-being attainable by men is to be reached by their union with\none another.\n\nHowever people of our upper classes (feeling that their ascendancy\ncan only be maintained as long as they separate themselves--the rich\nand learned--from the laborers, the poor, and the unlearned) may\nseek to devise new conceptions of life by which their privileges\nmay be perpetuated,--now the ideal of returning to antiquity, now\nmysticism, now Hellenism, now the cult of the superior person\n(over-man-ism),--they have, willingly or unwillingly, to admit the\ntruth which is elucidating itself from all sides, voluntarily and\ninvoluntarily, namely, that our welfare lies only in the unification\nand the brotherhood of man.\n\nUnconsciously this truth is confirmed by the construction of means\nof communication,--telegraphs, telephones, the press, and the ever\nincreasing attainability of material well-being for every one,--and\nconsciously it is affirmed by the destruction of superstitions which\ndivide men, by the diffusion of the truths of knowledge, and by the\nexpression of the ideal of the brotherhood of man in the best works\nof art of our time.\n\nArt is a spiritual organ of human life which cannot be destroyed,\nand therefore, notwithstanding all the efforts made by people of\nthe upper classes to conceal the religious ideal by which humanity\nlives, that ideal is more and more clearly recognized by man, and\neven in our perverted society is more and more often partially\nexpressed by science and by art. During the present century works\nof the higher kind of religious art have appeared more and more\nfrequently, both in literature and in painting, permeated by a truly\nChristian spirit, as also works of the universal art of common\nlife, accessible to all. So that even art knows the true ideal of\nour times, and tends toward it. On the one hand, the best works\nof art of our times transmit religious feelings urging toward the\nunion and the brotherhood of man (such are the works of Dickens,\nHugo, Dostoievsky; and in painting, of Millet, Bastien Lepage, Jules\nBreton, L'Hermitte, and others); on the other hand, they strive\ntoward the transmission, not of feelings which are natural to people\nof the upper classes only, but of such feelings as may unite every\none without exception. There are as yet few such works, but the\nneed of them is already acknowledged. In recent times we also meet\nmore and more frequently with attempts at publications, pictures,\nconcerts, and theaters for the people. All this is still very far\nfrom accomplishing what should be done, but already the direction\nin which good art instinctively presses forward to regain the path\nnatural to it can be discerned.\n\nThe religious perception of our time--which consists in\nacknowledging that the aim of life (both collective and individual)\nis the union of mankind--is already so sufficiently distinct that\npeople have now only to reject the false theory of beauty, according\nto which enjoyment is considered to be the purpose of art, and\nreligious perception will naturally take its place as the guide of\nthe art of our time.\n\nAnd as soon as the religious perception, which already unconsciously\ndirects the life of man, is consciously acknowledged, then\nimmediately and naturally the division of art, into art for the\nlower and art for the upper classes, will disappear. There will\nbe one common, brotherly, universal art; and first, that art will\nnaturally be rejected which transmits feelings incompatible with\nthe religious perception of our time,--feelings which do not unite,\nbut divide men,--and then that insignificant, exclusive art will be\nrejected to which an importance is now attached to which it has no\nright.\n\nAnd as soon as this occurs, art will immediately cease to be what\nit has been in recent times,--a means of making people coarser and\nmore vicious; and it will become, what it always used to be and\nshould be, a means by which humanity progresses toward unity and\nblessedness.\n\nStrange as the comparison may sound, what has happened to the art\nof our circle and time is what happens to a woman who sells her\nwomanly attractiveness, intended for maternity, for the pleasure of\nthose who desire such pleasures.\n\nThe art of our time and of our circle has become a prostitute. And\nthis comparison holds good even in minute details. Like her it is\nnot limited to certain times, like her it is always adorned, like\nher it is always salable, and like her it is enticing and ruinous.\n\nA real work of art can only arise in the soul of an artist\noccasionally as the fruit of the life he has lived, just as a child\nis conceived by its mother. But counterfeit art is produced by\nartisans and handicraftsmen continually, if only consumers can be\nfound.\n\nReal art, like the wife of an affectionate husband, needs no\nornaments. But counterfeit art, like a prostitute, must always be\ndecked out.\n\nThe cause of the production of real art is the artist's inner need\nto express a feeling that has accumulated, just as for a mother the\ncause of sexual conception is love. The cause of counterfeit art, as\nof prostitution, is gain.\n\nThe consequence of true art is the introduction of a new feeling\ninto the intercourse of life, as the consequence of a wife's love is\nthe birth of a new man into life.\n\nThe consequences of counterfeit art are the perversion of man,\npleasure which never satisfies, and the weakening of man's spiritual\nstrength.\n\nAnd this is what people of our day and of our circle should\nunderstand, in order to avoid the filthy torrent of depraved and\nprostituted art with which we are deluged.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX\n\n\nPeople talk of the art of the future, meaning by \"art of the future\"\nsome especially refined, new art, which, as they imagine, will\nbe developed out of that exclusive art of one class which is now\nconsidered the highest art. But no such new art of the future can\nor will be found. Our exclusive art, that of the upper classes of\nChristendom, has found its way into a blind alley. The direction\nin which it has been going leads nowhere. Having once let go of\nthat which is most essential for art (namely, the guidance given\nby religious perception), that art has become ever more and more\nexclusive, and therefore ever more and more perverted, until,\nfinally, it has come to nothing. The art of the future, that which\nis really coming, will not be a development of present-day art, but\nwill arise on completely other and new foundations, having nothing\nin common with those by which our present art of the upper classes\nis guided.\n\nArt of the future, that is to say, such part of art as will be\nchosen from among all the art diffused among mankind, will consist,\nnot in transmitting feelings accessible only to members of the rich\nclasses, as is the case to-day, but in transmitting such feelings\nas embody the highest religious perception of our times. Only\nthose productions will be considered art which transmit feelings\ndrawing men together in brotherly union, or such universal feelings\nas can unite all men. Only such art will be chosen, tolerated,\napproved, and diffused. But art transmitting feelings flowing from\nantiquated, worn-out religious teaching,--Church art, patriotic art,\nvoluptuous art, transmitting feelings of superstitious fear, of\npride, of vanity, of ecstatic admiration of national heroes,--art\nexciting exclusive love of one's own people, or sensuality, will\nbe considered bad, harmful art, and will be censured and despised\nby public opinion. All the rest of art, transmitting feelings\naccessible only to a section of people, will be considered\nunimportant, and will be neither blamed nor praised. And the\nappraisement of art in general will devolve, not, as is now the\ncase, on a separate class of rich people, but on the whole people;\nso that for a work to be esteemed good, and to be approved of and\ndiffused, it will have to satisfy the demands, not of a few people\nliving in identical and often unnatural conditions, but it will have\nto satisfy the demands of all those great masses of people who are\nsituated in the natural conditions of laborious life.\n\nAnd the artists producing art will also not be, as now, merely a\nfew people selected from a small section of the nation, members of\nthe upper classes or their hangers-on, but will consist of all those\ngifted members of the whole people who prove capable of, and are\ninclined toward, artistic activity.\n\nArtistic activity will then be accessible to all men. It will\nbecome accessible to the whole people, because, in the first place,\nin the art of the future, not only will that complex technique,\nwhich deforms the productions of the art of to-day and requires so\ngreat an effort and expenditure of time, not be demanded, but, on\nthe contrary, the demand will be for clearness, simplicity, and\nbrevity--conditions mastered, not by mechanical exercises, but by\nthe education of taste. And secondly, artistic activity will become\naccessible to all men of the people because, instead of the present\nprofessional schools which only some can enter, all will learn music\nand depictive art (singing and drawing) equally with letters in\nthe elementary schools, and in such a way that every man, having\nreceived the first principles of drawing and music, and feeling a\ncapacity for, and a call to, one or other of the arts, will be able\nto perfect himself in it.\n\nPeople think that if there are no special art schools the technique\nof art will deteriorate. Undoubtedly, if by technique we understand\nthose complications of art which are now considered an excellence,\nit will deteriorate; but if by technique is understood clearness,\nbeauty, simplicity, and compression in works of art, then, even\nif the elements of drawing and music were not to be taught in the\nnational schools, the technique will not only not deteriorate, but,\nas is shown by all peasant art, will be a hundred times better.\nIt will be improved, because all the artists of genius now hidden\namong the masses will become producers of art and will give models\nof excellence, which (as has always been the case) will be the best\nschools of technique for their successors. For every true artist,\neven now, learns his technique, chiefly, not in the schools, but\nin life, from the examples of the great masters; then--when the\nproducers of art will be the best artists of the whole nation,\nand there will be more such examples, and they will be more\naccessible--such part of the school training as the future artist\nwill lose will be a hundredfold compensated for by the training he\nwill receive from the numerous examples of good art diffused in\nsociety.\n\nSuch will be one difference between present and future art. Another\ndifference will be that art will not be produced by professional\nartists receiving payment for their work and engaged on nothing else\nbesides their art. The art of the future will be produced by all the\nmembers of the community who feel the need of such activity, but\nthey will occupy themselves with art only when they feel such need.\n\nIn our society people think that an artist will work better, and\nproduce more, if he has a secured maintenance. And this opinion\nwould serve once more to show clearly, were such demonstration\nstill needed, that what among us is considered art is not art, but\nonly its counterfeit. It is quite true that for the production of\nboots or loaves division of labor is very advantageous, and that\nthe bootmaker or baker who need not prepare his own dinner or fetch\nhis own fuel will make more boots or loaves than if he had to busy\nhimself about these matters. But art is not a handicraft; it is\nthe transmission of feeling the artist has experienced. And sound\nfeeling can only be engendered in a man when he is living on all\nits sides the life natural and proper to mankind. And therefore\nsecurity of maintenance is a condition most harmful to an artist's\ntrue productiveness, since it removes him from the condition natural\nto all men,--that of struggle with nature for the maintenance of\nboth his own life and that of others,--and thus deprives him of\nopportunity and possibility to experience the most important and\nnatural feelings of man. There is no position more injurious to an\nartist's productiveness than that position of complete security and\nluxury in which artists usually live in our society.\n\nThe artist of the future will live the common life of man, earning\nhis subsistence by some kind of labor. The fruits of that highest\nspiritual strength which passes through him he will try to\nshare with the greatest possible number of people, for in such\ntransmission to others of the feelings that have arisen in him he\nwill find his happiness and his reward. The artist of the future\nwill be unable to understand how an artist, whose chief delight is\nin the wide diffusion of his works, could give them only in exchange\nfor a certain payment.\n\nUntil the dealers are driven out, the temple of art will not be a\ntemple. But the art of the future will drive them out.\n\nAnd therefore the subject-matter of the art of the future, as I\nimagine it to myself, will be totally unlike that of to-day. It\nwill consist, not in the expression of exclusive feelings: pride,\nspleen, satiety, and all possible forms of voluptuousness, available\nand interesting only to people who, by force, have freed themselves\nfrom the labor natural to human beings; but it will consist in the\nexpression of feelings experienced by a man living the life natural\nto all men and flowing from the religious perception of our times,\nor of such feelings as are open to all men without exception.\n\nTo people of our circle who do not know and cannot or will not\nunderstand the feelings which will form the subject-matter of\nthe art of the future, such subject-matter appears very poor in\ncomparison with those subtleties of exclusive art with which they\nare now occupied. \"What is there fresh to be said in the sphere of\nthe Christian feeling of love of one's fellow-man? The feelings\ncommon to every one are so insignificant and monotonous,\" think\nthey. And yet, in our time, the really fresh feelings can only be\nreligious, Christian feelings, and such as are open, accessible,\nto all. The feelings flowing from the religious perception of our\ntimes, Christian feelings, are infinitely new and varied, only not\nin the sense some people imagine,--not that they can be evoked by\nthe depiction of Christ and of gospel episodes, or by repeating in\nnew forms the Christian truths of unity, brotherhood, equality, and\nlove,--but in that all the oldest, commonest, and most hackneyed\nphenomena of life evoke the newest, most unexpected, and touching\nemotions as soon as a man regards them from the Christian point of\nview.\n\nWhat can be older than the relations between married couples, of\nparents to children, of children to parents; the relations of men\nto their fellow-countrymen and to foreigners, to an invasion, to\ndefense, to property, to the land, or to animals? But as soon as\na man regards these matters from the Christian point of view,\nendlessly varied, fresh, complex, and strong emotions immediately\narise.\n\nAnd, in the same way, that realm of subject-matter for the art of\nthe future which relates to the simplest feelings of common life\nopen to all will not be narrowed, but widened. In our former art\nonly the expression of feelings natural to people of a certain\nexceptional position was considered worthy of being transmitted\nby art, and even then only on condition that these feelings were\ntransmitted in a most refined manner, incomprehensible to the\nmajority of men; all the immense realm of folk-art, and children's\nart--jests, proverbs, riddles, songs, dances, children's games, and\nmimicry--was not esteemed a domain worthy of art.\n\nThe artist of the future will understand that to compose a\nfairy-tale, a little song which will touch, a lullaby or a riddle\nwhich will entertain, a jest which will amuse, or to draw a sketch\nwhich will delight dozens of generations or millions of children and\nadults, is incomparably more important and more fruitful than to\ncompose a novel or a symphony, or paint a picture which will divert\nsome members of the wealthy classes for a short time, and then be\nforever forgotten. The region of this art of the simple feelings\naccessible to all is enormous, and it is as yet almost untouched.\n\nThe art of the future, therefore, will not be poorer, but infinitely\nricher in subject-matter. And the form of the art of the future will\nalso not be inferior to the present forms of art, but infinitely\nsuperior to them. Superior, not in the sense of having a refined and\ncomplex technique, but in the sense of the capacity briefly, simply,\nand clearly to transmit, without any superfluities, the feeling\nwhich the artist has experienced and wishes to transmit.\n\nI remember once speaking to a famous astronomer who had given public\nlectures on the spectrum analysis of the stars of the Milky Way,\nand saying it would be a good thing if, with his knowledge and\nmasterly delivery, he would give a lecture merely on the formation\nand movements of the earth, for certainly there were many people\nat his lecture on the spectrum analysis of the stars of the Milky\nWay, especially among the women, who did not well know why night\nfollows day and summer follows winter. The wise astronomer smiled as\nhe answered, \"Yes, it would be a good thing, but it would be very\ndifficult. To lecture on the spectrum analysis of the Milky Way is\nfar easier.\"\n\nAnd so it is in art. To write a rhymed poem dealing with the times\nof Cleopatra, or paint a picture of Nero burning Rome, or compose\na symphony in the manner of Brahms or Richard Strauss, or an opera\nlike Wagner's, is far easier than to tell a simple story without any\nunnecessary details, yet so that it should transmit the feelings of\nthe narrator, or to draw a pencil-sketch which should touch or amuse\nthe beholder, or to compose four bars of clear and simple melody,\nwithout any accompaniment, which should convey an impression and be\nremembered by those who hear it.\n\n\"It is impossible for us, with our culture, to return to a primitive\nstate,\" say the artists of our time. \"It is impossible for us now to\nwrite such stories as that of Joseph or the 'Odyssey,' to produce\nsuch statues as the Venus of Milo, or to compose such music as the\nfolk-songs.\"\n\nAnd indeed, for the artists of our society and day, it is\nimpossible, but not for the future artist, who will be free from\nall the perversion of technical improvements hiding the absence\nof subject-matter, and who, not being a professional artist and\nreceiving no payment for his activity, will only produce art when he\nfeels impelled to do so by an irresistible inner impulse.\n\nThe art of the future will thus be completely distinct, both in\nsubject-matter and in form, from what is now called art. The only\nsubject-matter of the art of the future will be either feelings\ndrawing men toward union, or such as already unite them; and\nthe forms of art will be such as will be open to every one. And\ntherefore, the ideal of excellence in the future will not be the\nexclusiveness of feeling, accessible only to some, but, on the\ncontrary, its universality. And not bulkiness, obscurity, and\ncomplexity of form, as is now esteemed, but, on the contrary,\nbrevity, clearness, and simplicity of expression. Only when art has\nattained to that, will art neither divert nor deprave men as it\ndoes now, calling on them to expend their best strength on it, but\nbe what it should be,--a vehicle wherewith to transmit religious,\nChristian perception from the realm of reason and intellect into\nthat of feeling, and really drawing people in actual life nearer\nto that perfection and unity indicated to them by their religious\nperception.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX\n\nTHE CONCLUSION\n\n\nI have accomplished, to the best of my ability, this work which\nhas occupied me for fifteen years, on a subject near to me--that\nof art. By saying that this subject has occupied me for fifteen\nyears, I do not mean that I have been writing this book fifteen\nyears, but only that I began to write on art fifteen years ago,\nthinking that when once I undertook the task I should be able to\naccomplish it without a break. It proved, however, that my views\non the matter then were so far from clear that I could not arrange\nthem in a way that satisfied me. From that time I have never ceased\nto think on the subject, and I have recommenced to write on it six\nor seven times; but each time, after writing a considerable part of\nit, I have found myself unable to bring the work to a satisfactory\nconclusion, and have had to put it aside. Now I have finished it;\nand however badly I may have performed the task, my hope is that\nmy fundamental thought as to the false direction the art of our\nsociety has taken and is following, as to the reasons of this, and\nas to the real destination of art, is correct, and that therefore my\nwork will not be without avail. But that this should come to pass,\nand that art should really abandon its false path and take the new\ndirection, it is necessary that another equally important human\nspiritual activity,--science,--in intimate dependence on which art\nalways rests, should abandon the false path which it too, like art,\nis following.\n\nScience and art are as closely bound together as the lungs and the\nheart, so that if one organ is vitiated the other cannot act rightly.\n\nTrue science investigates and brings to human perception such\ntruths and such knowledge as the people of a given time and society\nconsider most important. Art transmits these truths from the region\nof perception to the region of emotion. Therefore, if the path\nchosen by science be false, so also will be the path taken by art.\nScience and art are like a certain kind of barge with kedge-anchors\nwhich used to ply on our rivers. Science, like the boats which took\nthe anchors up-stream and made them secure, gives direction to the\nforward movement; while art, like the windlass worked on the barge\nto draw it toward the anchor, causes the actual progression. And\nthus a false activity of science inevitably causes a correspondingly\nfalse activity of art.\n\nAs art in general is the transmission of every kind of feeling,\nbut in the limited sense of the word we only call that art which\ntransmits feelings acknowledged by us to be important, so also\nscience in general is the transmission of all possible knowledge;\nbut in the limited sense of the word we call science that which\ntransmits knowledge acknowledged by us to be important.\n\nAnd the degree of importance, both of the feelings transmitted by\nart and of the information transmitted by science, is decided by the\nreligious perception of the given time and society, _i.e._ by the\ncommon understanding of the purpose of their lives possessed by the\npeople of that time or society.\n\nThat which most of all contributes to the fulfilment of that purpose\nwill be studied most; that which contributes less will be studied\nless; that which does not contribute at all to the fulfilment of the\npurpose of human life will be entirely neglected, or, if studied,\nsuch study will not be accounted science. So it always has been, and\nso it should be now; for such is the nature of human knowledge and\nof human life. But the science of the upper classes of our time,\nwhich not only does not acknowledge any religion, but considers\nevery religion to be mere superstition, could not and cannot make\nsuch distinctions.\n\nScientists of our day affirm that they study _everything_\nimpartially; but as everything is too much (is in fact an infinite\nnumber of objects), and as it is impossible to study all alike, this\nis only said in the theory, while in practice not everything is\nstudied, and study is applied far from impartially, only that being\nstudied which, on the one hand, is most wanted by, and on the other\nhand, is pleasantest to, those people who occupy themselves with\nscience. And what the people, belonging to the upper classes, who\nare occupying themselves with science most want is the maintenance\nof the system under which those classes retain their privileges; and\nwhat is pleasantest are such things as satisfy idle curiosity, do\nnot demand great mental efforts, and can be practically applied.\n\nAnd therefore one side of science, including theology and philosophy\nadapted to the existing order, as also history and political economy\nof the same sort, are chiefly occupied in proving that the existing\norder is the very one which ought to exist; that it has come into\nexistence and continues to exist by the operation of immutable\nlaws not amenable to human will, and that all efforts to change\nit are therefore harmful and wrong. The other part, experimental\nscience,--including mathematics, astronomy, chemistry, physics,\nbotany, and all the natural sciences,--is exclusively occupied with\nthings that have no direct relation to human life: with what is\ncurious, and with things of which practical application advantageous\nto people of the upper classes can be made. And to justify that\nselection of objects of study which (in conformity to their own\nposition) the men of science of our times have made, they have\ndevised a theory of science for science's sake, quite similar to the\ntheory of art for art's sake.\n\nAs by the theory of art for art's sake it appears that occupation\nwith all those things that please us--is art, so, by the theory of\nscience for science's sake, the study of that which interests us--is\nscience.\n\nSo that one side of science, instead of studying how people should\nlive in order to fulfil their mission in life, demonstrates the\nrighteousness and immutability of the bad and false arrangements\nof life which exist around us; while the other part, experimental\nscience, occupies itself with questions of simple curiosity or with\ntechnical improvements.\n\nThe first of these divisions of science is harmful, not only because\nit confuses people's perceptions and gives false decisions, but also\nbecause it exists, and occupies the ground which should belong to\ntrue science. It does this harm, that each man, in order to approach\nthe study of the most important questions of life, must first refute\nthese erections of lies which have during ages been piled around\neach of the most essential questions of human life, and which are\npropped up by all the strength of human ingenuity.\n\nThe second division--the one of which modern science is so\nparticularly proud, and which is considered by many people to be the\nonly real science--is harmful in that it diverts attention from the\nreally important subjects to insignificant subjects, and is also\ndirectly harmful in that, under the evil system of society which the\nfirst division of science justifies and supports, a great part of\nthe technical gains of science are turned, not to the advantage, but\nto the injury of mankind.\n\nIndeed, it is only to those who are devoting their lives to such\nstudy that it seems as if all the inventions which are made in the\nsphere of natural science were very important and useful things.\nAnd to these people it seems so only when they do not look around\nthem and do not see what is really important. They only need tear\nthemselves away from the psychological microscope under which they\nexamine the objects of their study, and look about them, in order\nto see how insignificant is all that has afforded them such na\u00efve\npride, all that knowledge not only of geometry of _n_-dimensions,\nspectrum analysis of the Milky Way, the form of atoms, dimensions\nof human skulls of the Stone Age, and similar trifles, but even our\nknowledge of micro-organisms, X-rays, etc., in comparison with such\nknowledge as we have thrown aside and handed over to the perversions\nof the professors of theology, jurisprudence, political economy,\nfinancial science, etc. We need only look around us to perceive that\nthe activity proper to real science is not the study of whatever\nhappens to interest us, but the study of how man's life should be\nestablished,--the study of those questions of religion, morality,\nand social life, without the solution of which all our knowledge of\nnature will be harmful or insignificant.\n\nWe are highly delighted and very proud that our science renders it\npossible to utilize the energy of a waterfall and make it work in\nfactories, or that we have pierced tunnels through mountains, and so\nforth. But the pity of it is that we make the force of the waterfall\nlabor, not for the benefit of the workmen, but to enrich capitalists\nwho produce articles of luxury or weapons of man-destroying war.\nThe same dynamite with which we blast the mountains to pierce\ntunnels we use for wars, from which latter we not only do not intend\nto abstain, but which we consider inevitable, and for which we\nunceasingly prepare.\n\nIf we are now able to inoculate preventatively with diphtheritic\nmicrobes, to find a needle in a body by means of X-rays, to\nstraighten a hunched-back, cure syphilis, and perform wonderful\noperations, we should not be proud of these acquisitions either\n(even were they all established beyond dispute) if we fully\nunderstood the true purpose of real science. If but one-tenth of\nthe efforts now spent on objects of pure curiosity or of merely\npractical application were expended on real science organizing the\nlife of man, more than half the people now sick would not have the\nillnesses from which a small minority of them now get cured in\nhospitals. There would be no poor-blooded and deformed children\ngrowing up in factories, no death-rates, as now, of fifty per\ncent among children, no deterioration of whole generations, no\nprostitution, no syphilis, and no murdering of hundreds of thousands\nin wars, nor those horrors of folly and of misery which our present\nscience considers a necessary condition of human life.\n\nWe have so perverted the conception of science that it seems strange\nto men of our day to allude to sciences which should prevent the\nmortality of children, prostitution, syphilis, the deterioration\nof whole generations, and the wholesale murder of men. It seems\nto us that science is only then real science when a man in a\nlaboratory pours liquids from one jar into another, or analyzes\nthe spectrum, or cuts up frogs and porpoises, or weaves in a\nspecialized, scientific jargon an obscure network of conventional\nphrases--theological, philosophical, historical, juridical, or\npolitico-economical--semi-intelligible to the man himself, and\nintended to demonstrate that what now is, is what should be.\n\nBut science, true science,--such science as would really deserve\nthe respect which is now claimed by the followers of one (the\nleast important) part of science,--is not at all such as this:\nreal science lies in knowing what we should and what we should not\nbelieve, in knowing how the associated life of man should and should\nnot be constituted; how to treat sexual relations, how to educate\nchildren, how to use the land, how to cultivate it oneself without\noppressing other people, how to treat foreigners, how to treat\nanimals, and much more that is important for the life of man.\n\nSuch has true science ever been and such it should be. And such\nscience is springing up in our times; but, on the one hand, such\ntrue science is denied and refuted by all those scientific people\nwho defend the existing order of society, and, on the other hand, it\nis considered empty, unnecessary, unscientific science by those who\nare engrossed in experimental science.\n\nFor instance, books and sermons appear, demonstrating the\nantiquatedness and absurdity of Church dogmas, as well as the\nnecessity of establishing a reasonable religious perception suitable\nto our times, and all the theology that is considered to be real\nscience is only engaged in refuting these works and in exercising\nhuman intelligence again and again to find support and justification\nfor superstitions long since outlived, and which have now become\nquite meaningless. Or a sermon appears showing that land should\nnot be an object of private possession, and that the institution\nof private property in land is a chief cause of the poverty of\nthe masses. Apparently science, real science, should welcome such\na sermon and draw further deductions from this position. But the\nscience of our times does nothing of the kind: on the contrary,\npolitical economy demonstrates the opposite position; namely, that\nlanded property, like every other form of property, must be more\nand more concentrated in the hands of a small number of owners.\nAgain, in the same way, one would suppose it to be the business of\nreal science to demonstrate the irrationality, unprofitableness,\nand immorality of war and of executions; or the inhumanity and\nharmfulness of prostitution; or the absurdity, harmfulness,\nand immorality of using narcotics or of eating animals; or the\nirrationality, harmfulness, and antiquatedness of patriotism. And\nsuch works exist, but are all considered unscientific; while works\nto prove that all these things ought to continue, and works intended\nto satisfy an idle thirst for knowledge lacking any relation to\nhuman life, are considered to be scientific.\n\nThe deviation of the science of our time from its true purpose is\nstrikingly illustrated by those ideals which are put forward by some\nscientists, and are not denied, but admitted, by the majority of\nscientific men.\n\nThese ideals are expressed not only in stupid, fashionable books,\ndescribing the world as it will be in 1000 or 3000 years' time, but\nalso by sociologists who consider themselves serious men of science.\nThese ideals are that food, instead of being obtained from the land\nby agriculture, will be prepared in laboratories by chemical means,\nand that human labor will be almost entirely superseded by the\nutilization of natural forces.\n\nMan will not, as now, eat an egg laid by a hen he has kept, or bread\ngrown on his field, or an apple from a tree he has reared and which\nhas blossomed and matured in his sight; but he will eat tasty,\nnutritious, food which will be prepared in laboratories by the\nconjoint labor of many people in which he will take a small part.\nMan will hardly need to labor, so that all men will be able to yield\nto idleness as the upper, ruling classes now yield to it.\n\nNothing shows more plainly than these ideals to what a degree the\nscience of our times has deviated from the true path.\n\nThe great majority of men in our times lack good and sufficient food\n(as well as dwellings and clothes and all the first necessaries of\nlife). And this great majority of men is compelled, to the injury of\nits well-being, to labor continually beyond its strength. Both these\nevils can easily be removed by abolishing mutual strife, luxury, and\nthe unrighteous distribution of wealth, in a word, by the abolition\nof a false and harmful order and the establishment of a reasonable,\nhuman manner of life. But science considers the existing order of\nthings to be as immutable as the movements of the planets, and\ntherefore assumes that the purpose of science is--not to elucidate\nthe falseness of this order and to arrange a new, reasonable way of\nlife--but, under the existing order of things, to feed everybody and\nenable all to be as idle as the ruling classes, who live a depraved\nlife, now are.\n\nAnd, meanwhile, it is forgotten that nourishment with corn,\nvegetables, and fruit raised from the soil by one's own labor is the\npleasantest, healthiest, easiest, and most natural nourishment, and\nthat the work of using one's muscles is as necessary a condition of\nlife as is the oxidation of the blood by breathing.\n\nTo invent means whereby people might, while continuing our false\ndivision of property and labor, be well nourished by means of\nchemically prepared food, and might make the forces of nature work\nfor them, is like inventing means to pump oxygen into the lungs of a\nman kept in a closed chamber, the air of which is bad, when all that\nis needed is to cease to confine the man in the closed chamber.\n\nIn the vegetable and animal kingdoms a laboratory for the\nproduction of food has been arranged, such as can be surpassed by\nno professors, and to enjoy the fruits of this laboratory, and\nto participate in it, man has only to yield to that ever joyful\nimpulse to labor, without which man's life is a torment. And lo and\nbehold! the scientists of our times, instead of employing all their\nstrength to abolish whatever hinders man from utilizing the good\nthings prepared for him, acknowledge the conditions under which man\nis deprived of these blessings to be unalterable, and instead of\narranging the life of man so that he might work joyfully and be fed\nfrom the soil, they devise methods which will cause him to become an\nartificial abortion. It is like not helping a man out of confinement\ninto the fresh air, but devising means, instead, to pump into him\nthe necessary quantity of oxygen and arranging so that he may live\nin a stifling cellar instead of living at home.\n\nSuch false ideals could not exist if science were not on a false\npath.\n\nAnd yet the feelings transmitted by art grow up on the bases\nsupplied by science.\n\nBut what feelings can such misdirected science evoke? One side of\nthis science evokes antiquated feelings, which humanity has used\nup, and which, in our times, are bad and exclusive. The other side,\noccupied with the study of subjects unrelated to the conduct of\nhuman life, by its very nature cannot serve as a basis for art.\n\nSo that art in our times, to be art, must either open up its own\nroad independently of science, or must take direction from the\nunrecognized science which is denounced by the orthodox section of\nscience. And this is what art, when it even partially fulfils its\nmission, is doing.\n\nIt is to be hoped that the work I have tried to perform concerning\nart will be performed also for science--that the falseness of the\ntheory of science for science's sake will be demonstrated; that\nthe necessity of acknowledging Christian teaching in its true\nmeaning will be clearly shown, that on the basis of that teaching\na reappraisement will be made of the knowledge we possess, and of\nwhich we are so proud; that the secondariness and insignificance\nof experimental science, and the primacy and importance of\nreligious, moral, and social knowledge will be established; and\nthat such knowledge will not, as now, be left to the guidance of\nthe upper classes only, but will form a chief interest of all free,\ntruth-loving men, such as those who, not in agreement with the\nupper classes, but in their despite, have always forwarded the real\nscience of life.\n\nAstronomical, physical, chemical, and biological science, as also\ntechnical and medical science, will be studied only in so far as\nthey can help to free mankind from religious, juridical, or social\ndeceptions, or can serve to promote the well-being of all men, and\nnot of any single class.\n\nOnly then will science cease to be what it is now,--on the one hand\na system of sophistries, needed for the maintenance of the existing\nworn-out order of society, and, on the other hand, a shapeless mass\nof miscellaneous knowledge, for the most part good for little or\nnothing,--and become a shapely and organic whole, having a definite\nand reasonable purpose comprehensible to all men; namely, the\npurpose of bringing to the consciousness of men the truths that flow\nfrom the religious perception of our times.\n\nAnd only then will art, which is always dependent on science, be\nwhat it might and should be, an organ co-equally important with\nscience for the life and progress of mankind.\n\nArt is not a pleasure, a solace, or an amusement; art is a great\nmatter. Art is an organ of human life, transmitting man's reasonable\nperception into feeling. In our age the common religious perception\nof men is the consciousness of the brotherhood of man--we know\nthat the well-being of man lies in union with his fellow-men.\nTrue science should indicate the various methods of applying this\nconsciousness to life. Art should transform this perception into\nfeeling.\n\nThe task of art is enormous. Through the influence of real art,\naided by science guided by religion, that peaceful co\u00f6peration of\nman which is now obtained by external means--by our law-courts,\npolice, charitable institutions, factory inspection, etc.--should\nbe obtained by man's free and joyous activity. Art should cause\nviolence to be set aside.\n\nAnd it is only art that can accomplish this.\n\nAll that now, independently of the fear of violence and punishment,\nmakes the social life of man possible (and already now this is\nan enormous part of the order of our lives)--all this has been\nbrought about by art. If by art it has been inculcated how people\nshould treat religious objects, their parents, their children,\ntheir wives, their relations, strangers, foreigners; how to conduct\nthemselves to their elders, their superiors, to those who suffer,\nto their enemies, and to animals; and if this has been obeyed\nthrough generations by millions of people, not only unenforced by\nany violence, but so that the force of such customs can be shaken in\nno way but by means of art--then, by the same art, other customs,\nmore in accord with the religious perception of our time, may be\nevoked. If art has been able to convey the sentiment of reverence\nfor images, for the eucharist, and for the king's person; of shame\nat betraying a comrade, devotion to a flag, the necessity of revenge\nfor an insult, the need to sacrifice one's labor for the erection\nand adornment of churches, the duty of defending one's honor or\nthe glory of one's native land--then that same art can also evoke\nreverence for the dignity of every man and for the life of every\nanimal; can make men ashamed of luxury, of violence, of revenge, or\nof using for their pleasure that of which others are in need; can\ncompel people freely, gladly, and without noticing it, to sacrifice\nthemselves in the service of man.\n\nThe task for art to accomplish is to make that feeling of\nbrotherhood and love of one's neighbor, now attained only by the\nbest members of society, the customary feeling and the instinct of\nall men. By evoking, under imaginary conditions, the feeling of\nbrotherhood and love, religious art will train men to experience\nthose same feelings under similar circumstances in actual life; it\nwill lay in the souls of men the rails along which the actions of\nthose whom art thus educates will naturally pass. And universal\nart, by uniting the most different people in one common feeling,\nby destroying separation, will educate people to union, will show\nthem, not by reason, but by life itself, the joy of universal union\nreaching beyond the bounds set by life.\n\nThe destiny of art in our time is to transmit from the realm of\nreason to the realm of feeling the truth that well-being for men\nconsists in being united together, and to set up, in place of the\nexisting reign of force, that kingdom of God, _i.e._ of love, which\nwe all recognize to be the highest aim of human life.\n\nPossibly, in the future, science may reveal to art yet newer and\nhigher ideals, which art may realize; but, in our time, the destiny\nof art is clear and definite. The task for Christian art is to\nestablish brotherly union among men.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX I\n\n\nThis is the first page of Mallarm\u00e9's book, \"Divagations\":--\n\nLE PH\u00c9NOM\u00c8NE FUTUR\n\n Un ciel p\u00e2le, sur le monde qui finit de d\u00e9cr\u00e9pitude, va\n peut-\u00eatre partir avec les nuages: les lambeaux de la pourpre\n us\u00e9e des couchants d\u00e9teignent dans une rivi\u00e8re dormant \u00e0\n l'horizon submerg\u00e9 de rayons et d'eau. Les arbres s'ennuient,\n et, sous leur feuillage blanchi (de la poussi\u00e8re du temps plut\u00f4t\n que celle des chemins) monte la maison en toile de Montreur\n de choses Pass\u00e9es: maint r\u00e9verb\u00e8re attend le cr\u00e9puscule et\n ravive les visages d'une malheureuse foule, vaincue par la\n maladie immortelle et le p\u00e9ch\u00e9 des si\u00e8cles, d'hommes pr\u00e8s de\n leurs ch\u00e9tives complices enceintes des fruits mis\u00e9rables avec\n lesquels p\u00e9rira la terre. Dans le silence inquiet de tous les\n yeux suppliant l\u00e0-bas le soleil qui, sous l'eau, s'enfonce\n avec le d\u00e9sespoir d'un cri, voici le simple boniment: \"Nulle\n enseigne ne vous r\u00e9gale du spectacle int\u00e9rieur, car il n'est\n pas maintenant un peintre capable d'en donner une ombre triste.\n J'apporte, vivante (et pr\u00e9serv\u00e9e \u00e0 travers les ans par la\n science souveraine) une Femme d'autrefois. Quelque folie,\n originelle et na\u00efve, une extase d'or, je ne sais quoi! par elle\n nomm\u00e9 sa chevelure, se ploie avec la gr\u00e2ce des \u00e9toffes autour\n d'un visage qu' \u00e9claire la nudit\u00e9 sanglante de ses l\u00e8vres. A la\n place du v\u00eatement vain, elle a un corps; et les yeux, semblables\n aux pierres rares! ne valent pas ce regard qui sort de sa chair\n heureuse: des seins lev\u00e9s comme s'ils \u00e9taient pleins d'un lait\n \u00e9ternel, la pointe vers le ciel, les jambes lisses qui gardent\n le sel de la mer premi\u00e8re.\" Se rappelant leurs pauvres \u00e9pouses,\n chauves, morbides et pleines d'horreur, les maris se pressent:\n elles aussi par curiosit\u00e9, m\u00e9lancoliques, veulent voir.\n\n Quand tous auront contempl\u00e9 la noble cr\u00e9ature, vestige de\n quelque \u00e9poque d\u00e9j\u00e0 maudite, les uns indiff\u00e9rents, car ils\n n'auront pas eu la force de comprendre, mais d'autres navr\u00e9s et\n la paupi\u00e8re humide de larmes r\u00e9sign\u00e9es, se regarderont; tandis\n que les po\u00e8tes de ces temps, sentant se rallumer leur yeux\n \u00e9teints, s'achemineront vers leur lampe, le cerveau ivre un\n instant d'une gloire confuse, hant\u00e9s du Rythme et dans l'oubli\n d'exister \u00e0 une \u00e9poque qui survit \u00e0 la beaut\u00e9.\n\nTHE FUTURE PHENOMENON--BY MALLARM\u00c9.\n\n A pale sky, above the world that is ending through decrepitude,\n going, perhaps, to pass away with the clouds: shreds of worn-out\n purple of the sunsets wash off their color in a river sleeping\n on the horizon, submerged with rays and water. The trees are\n weary and, beneath their foliage, whitened (by the dust of\n time rather than that of the roads), rises the canvas house\n of \"Showman of things Past.\" Many a lamp awaits the gloaming,\n and brightens the faces of a miserable crowd vanquished by the\n immortal illness and the sin of ages, of men by the sides of\n their puny accomplices pregnant with the miserable fruit with\n which the world will perish. In the anxious silence of all the\n eyes supplicating the sun there, which sinks under the water\n with the desperation of a cry, this is the plain announcement:\n \"No sign-board now regales you with the spectacle that is\n inside, for there is no painter now capable of giving even a\n shadow of it. I bring living (and preserved by sovereign science\n through the years) a Woman of other days. Some kind of folly,\n na\u00efve and original, an ecstasy of gold, I know not what, by her\n called her hair, clings with the grace of some material round a\n face brightened by the blood-red nudity of her lips. In place of\n vain clothing, she has a body; and her eyes, resembling precious\n stones! are not worth that look, which comes from her happy\n flesh: breasts raised as if full of eternal milk, the points\n toward the sky; the smooth legs, that keep the salt of the first\n sea.\" Remembering their poor spouses, bald, morbid, and full\n of horrors, the husbands press forward: the women, too, from\n curiosity, gloomily wish to see.\n\n When all shall have contemplated the noble creature, vestige of\n some epoch already damned, some indifferently, for they will not\n have had strength to understand, but others, broken-hearted, and\n with eyelids wet with tears of resignation, will look at each\n other; while the poets of those times, feeling their dim eyes\n rekindled, will make their way toward their lamp, their brain\n for an instant drunk with confused glory, haunted by Rhythm, and\n forgetful that they exist at an epoch which has survived beauty.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX II[127]\n\n[127] The translations in Appendices I., II., and IV., are by Louise\nMaude. The aim of these renderings has been to keep as close to the\noriginals as the obscurity of meaning allowed. The sense (or absence\nof sense) has therefore been more considered than the form of the\nverses.\n\n\nNo. 1\n\nThe following verses are by Viel\u00e9-Griffin, from page 28 of a volume\nof his Poems:--\n\nOISEAU BLEU COULEUR DU TEMPS\n\n 1\n\n Sait-tu l'oubli\n D'un vain doux r\u00eave,\n Oiseau moqueur\n De la for\u00eat?\n Le jour p\u00e2lit,\n La nuit se l\u00e8ve,\n Et dans mon c\u0153ur\n L'ombre a pleur\u00e9;\n\n 2\n\n O chante-moi\n Ta folle gamme,\n Car j'ai dormi\n Ce jour durant;\n Le l\u00e2che emoi\n O\u00f9 fut mon \u00e2me\n Sanglote ennui\n Le jour mourant....\n\n 3\n\n Sais-tu le chant\n De sa parole\n Et de sa voix,\n Toi qui redis\n Dans le couchant\n Ton air frivole\n Comme autrefois\n Sous les midis?\n\n 4\n\n O chante alors\n La m\u00e9lodie\n De son amour,\n Mon fol espoir,\n Parmi les ors\n Et l'incendie\n Du vain doux jour\n Qui meurt ce soir.\n\n FRANCIS VIEL\u00c9-GRIFFIN.\n\nBLUE BIRD\n\n 1\n\n Canst thou forget,\n In dreams so vain,\n Oh, mocking bird\n Of forest deep?\n The day doth set,\n Night comes again,\n My heart has heard\n The shadows weep;\n\n 2\n\n Thy tones let flow\n In maddening scale,\n For I have slept\n The livelong day;\n Emotions low\n In me now wail,\n My soul they've kept:\n Light dies away....\n\n 3\n\n That music sweet,\n Ah, do you know\n Her voice and speech?\n Your airs so light\n You who repeat\n In sunset's glow,\n As you sang, each,\n At noonday's height.\n\n 4\n\n Of my desire,\n My hope so bold,\n Her love--up, sing,\n Sing, 'neath this light,\n This flaming fire,\n And all the gold\n The eve doth bring\n Ere comes the night.\n\n\nNo. 2\n\nAnd here are some verses by the esteemed young poet Verhaeren, which\nI also take from page 28 of his Works:--\n\nATTIRANCES\n\n Lointainement, et si \u00e9trangement pareils,\n De grands masques d'argent que la brume recule,\n Vaguent, au jour tombant, autour des vieux soleils.\n\n Les doux lointaines!--et comme, au fond du cr\u00e9puscule,\n Ils nous fixent le c\u0153ur, immens\u00e9ment le c\u0153ur,\n Avec les yeux _d\u00e9funts de leur_ visage d'\u00e2me.\n\n C'est toujours du silence, \u00e0 moins, dans la p\u00e2leur\n Du soir, un jet de feu soudain, un cri de flamme,\n Un d\u00e9part de lumi\u00e8re inattendu vers Dieu.\n\n On se laisse charmer et troubler de myst\u00e8re,\n Et l'on dirait des morts qui taisent un adieu\n Trop mystique, pour \u00eatre \u00e9cout\u00e9 par la terre!\n\n Sont-ils le souvenir mat\u00e9riel et clair\n Des \u00e9ph\u00e8bes chr\u00e9tiens couch\u00e9s aux catacombes\n Parmi les lys? Sont-ils leur regard et leur chair?\n\n Ou seul, ce qui survit de merveilleux aux tombes\n De ceux qui sont partis, vers leurs r\u00eaves, un soir,\n Conqu\u00e9rir la folie \u00e0 l'assaut des nu\u00e9es?\n\n Lointainement, combien nous les sentons vouloir\n Un peu d'amour pour leurs \u0153uvres destitu\u00e9es,\n Pour leur errance et leur tristesse aux horizons.\n\n Toujours! aux horizons du c\u0153ur et des pens\u00e9es,\n Alors que les vieux soirs \u00e9clatent en blasons\n Soudains, pour les gloires noires et angoiss\u00e9es.\n\n \u00c9MILE VERHAEREN,\n _Po\u00e8mes_.\n\nATTRACTIONS\n\n Large masks of silver, by mists drawn away,\n So strangely alike, yet so far apart.\n Float round the old suns when faileth the day.\n\n They transfix our heart, so immensely our heart,\n Those distances mild, in the twilight deep,\n Looking out of dead faces with their spirit eyes.\n\n All around is now silence, except when there leap\n In the pallor of evening, with fiery cries,\n Some fountains of flame that God-ward do fly.\n\n Mysterious trouble and charms us infold,\n You might think that the dead spoke a silent good-by,\n Oh! too mystical far on earth to be told!\n\n Are they the memories, material and bright,\n Of the Christian youths that in catacombs sleep\n 'Mid the lilies? Are they their flesh or their sight?\n\n Or the marvel alone that survives, in the deep,\n Of those that, one night, returned to their dream\n Of conquering folly by assaulting the skies?\n\n For their destitute works--we feel it seems,\n For a little love their longing cries\n From horizons far--for their errings and pain.\n\n In horizons ever of heart and thought,\n While the evenings old in bright blaze wane\n Suddenly, for black glories anguish fraught.\n\n\nNo. 3\n\nAnd the following is a poem by Mor\u00e9as, evidently an admirer of Greek\nbeauty. It is from page 28 of a volume of his Poems:--\n\nENONE AU CLAIR VISAGE\n\n Enone, j'avais cru qu'en aimant ta beaut\u00e9\n O\u00f9 l'\u00e2me avec le corps trouvent leur unit\u00e9,\n J'allais, m'affermissant et le c\u0153ur et l'esprit,\n Monter jusqu'\u00e0 cela qui jamais ne p\u00e9rit,\n N'ayant \u00e9t\u00e9 cr\u00e9e, qui n'est froideur ou feu,\n Qui n'est beau quelque part et laid en autre lieu;\n Et me flattais encor' d'une belle harmonie\n Que j'eusse compos\u00e9 du meilleur et du pire,\n Ainsi que le chanteur qui ch\u00e9rit Polimnie,\n En accordant le grave avec l'aigu, retire\n Un son bien \u00e9lev\u00e9 sur les nerfs de sa lyre.\n Mais mon courage, h\u00e9las! se p\u00e2mant comme mort,\n M'enseigna que le trait qui m'avait fait amant\n Ne fut pas de cet arc que courbe sans effort\n La V\u00e9nus qui naquit du m\u00e2le seulement,\n Mais que j'avais souffert cette V\u00e9nus derni\u00e8re,\n Qui a le c\u0153ur couard, n\u00e9 d'une faible m\u00e8re.\n Et pourtant, ce mauvais gar\u00e7on, chasseur habile,\n Qui charge son carquois de sagette subtile,\n Qui secoue en riant sa torche, pour un jour,\n Qui ne pose jamais que sur de tendres fleurs,\n C'est sur un teint charmant qu'il essuie les pleurs,\n Et c'est encore un Dieu, Enone, cet Amour.\n Mais, laisse, les oiseaux du printemps sont partis,\n Et je vois les rayons du soleil amortis.\n Enone, ma douleur, harmonieux visage,\n Superbe humilit\u00e9, doux honn\u00eate langage,\n Hier me remirant dans cet \u00e9tang glac\u00e9\n Qui au bout du jardin se couvre de feuillage,\n Sur ma face je vis que les jours ont pass\u00e9.\n\n JEAN MOR\u00c9AS.\n\nENONE\n\n Enone, in loving thy beauty, I thought,\n Where the soul and the body to union are brought,\n That mounting by steadying my heart and my mind,\n In that which can't perish, myself I should find.\n For it ne'er was created, is not ugly and fair;\n Is not coldness in one part, while on fire it is there.\n Yes, I flattered myself that a harmony fine\n I'd succeed to compose of the worst and the best,\n Like the bard who adores Polyhymnia divine,\n And mingling sounds different from the nerves of his lyre,\n From the grave and the smart draws melodies higher.\n But, alas! my courage, so faint and nigh spent,\n The dart that has struck me proves without fail\n Not to be from that bow which is easily bent\n By the Venus that's born alone of the male.\n No, 'twas that other Venus that caused me to smart,\n Born of frail mother with cowardly heart.\n And yet that naughty lad, that little hunter bold,\n Who laughs and shakes his flowery torch just for a day,\n Who never rests but upon tender flowers and gay,\n On sweetest skin who dries the tears his eyes that fill,\n Yet oh, Enone mine, a God's that Cupid still.\n Let it pass; for the birds of the Spring are away,\n And dying I see the sun's lingering ray.\n Enone, my sorrow, oh, harmonious face,\n Humility grand, words of virtue and grace,\n I looked yestere'en in the pond frozen fast,\n Strewn with leaves at the end of the garden's fair space,\n And I read in my face that those days are now past.\n\n\nNo. 4\n\nAnd this is also from page 28 of a thick book, full of similar\npoems, by M. Montesquiou.\n\nBERCEUSE D'OMBRE\n\n Des formes, des formes, des formes\n Blanche, bleue, et rose, et d'or\n Descendront du haut des ormes\n Sur l'enfant qui se rendort.\n Des formes!\n\n Des plumes, des plumes, des plumes\n Pour composer un doux nid.\n Midi sonne: les enclumes\n Cessent; la rumeur finit....\n Des plumes!\n\n Des roses, des roses, des roses\n Pour embaumer son sommeil,\n Vos p\u00e9tales sont moroses\n Pr\u00e8s du sourire vermeil.\n O roses!\n\n Des ailes, des ailes, des ailes\n Pour bourdonner \u00e0 sont front,\n Abeilles et demoiselles,\n Des rythmes qui berceront.\n Des ailes!\n\n Des branches, des branches, des branches\n Pour tresser un pavillon,\n Par o\u00f9 des clart\u00e9s moins franches\n Descendront sur l'oisillon.\n Des branches!\n\n Des songes, des songes, des songes\n Dans ses pensers entr' ouverts\n Glissez un peu de mensonges\n A voir le vie au travers\n Des songes!\n\n Des f\u00e9es, des f\u00e9es, des f\u00e9es\n Pour filer leurs \u00e9cheveaux\n Des mirages, de bouff\u00e9es\n Dans tous ces petits cerveaux.\n Des f\u00e9es!\n\n Des anges, des anges, des anges\n Pour emporter dans l'\u00e9ther\n Les petits enfants \u00e9tranges\n Qui ne veulent pas rester....\n Nos anges!\n\n COMTE ROBERT DE MONTESQUIOU-FEZENSAC,\n _Les Hortensias Bleus_.\n\nTHE SHADOW LULLABY\n\n Oh forms, oh forms, oh forms\n White, blue, and gold, and red\n Descending from the elm trees,\n On sleeping baby's head.\n Oh forms!\n\n Oh feathers, feathers, feathers\n To make a cozy nest.\n Twelve striking: stops the clamor;\n The anvils are at rest....\n Oh feathers!\n\n Oh roses, roses, roses\n To scent his sleep awhile,\n Pale are your fragrant petals\n Beside his ruby smile.\n Oh roses!\n\n Oh wings, oh wings, oh wings\n Of bees and dragon-flies,\n To hum around his forehead,\n And lull him with your sighs.\n Oh wings!\n\n Branches, branches, branches\n A shady bower to twine,\n Through which, oh daylight, faintly\n Descend on birdie mine.\n Branches!\n\n Oh dreams, oh dreams, oh dreams\n Into his opening mind,\n Let in a little falsehood\n With sights of life behind.\n Dreams!\n\n Oh fairies, fairies, fairies\n To twine and twist their threads\n With puffs of phantom visions\n Into these little heads.\n Fairies!\n\n Angels, angels, angels\n To the ether far away,\n Those children strange to carry\n That here don't wish to stay....\n Our angels!\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX III\n\n\nThese are the contents of \"The Nibelung's Ring\":--\n\nThe first part tells that the nymphs, the daughters of the Rhine,\nfor some reason guard gold in the Rhine, and sing: Weia, Waga, Woge\ndu Welle, Walle zur Wiege, Wagala-weia, Wallala, Weiala, Weia, and\nso forth.\n\nThese singing nymphs are pursued by a gnome (a nibelung) who desires\nto seize them. The gnome cannot catch any of them. Then the nymphs\nguarding the gold tell the gnome just what they ought to keep\nsecret, namely, that whoever renounces love will be able to steal\nthe gold they are guarding. And the gnome renounces love, and steals\nthe gold. This ends the first scene.\n\nIn the second scene a god and a goddess lie in a field in sight of\na castle which giants have built for them. Presently they wake up\nand are pleased with the castle, and they relate that in payment for\nthis work they must give the goddess Freia to the giants. The giants\ncome for their pay. But the god Wotan objects to parting with Freia.\nThe giants get angry. The gods hear that the gnome has stolen the\ngold, promise to confiscate it, and to pay the giants with it. But\nthe giants won't trust them, and seize the goddess Freia in pledge.\n\nThe third scene takes place underground. The gnome Alberich, who\nstole the gold, for some reason beats a gnome, Mime, and takes from\nhim a helmet which has the power both of making people invisible\nand of turning them into other animals. The gods, Wotan and others,\nappear and quarrel with one another and with the gnomes, and wish to\ntake the gold, but Alberich won't give it up, and (like everybody\nall through the piece) behaves in a way to insure his own ruin. He\nputs on the helmet, and becomes first a dragon and then a toad. The\ngods catch the toad, take the helmet off it, and carry Alberich away\nwith them.\n\nScene IV. The gods bring Alberich to their home, and order him to\ncommand his gnomes to bring them all the gold. The gnomes bring\nit. Alberich gives up the gold, but keeps a magic ring. The gods\ntake the ring. So Alberich curses the ring, and says it is to bring\nmisfortune on any one who has it. The giants appear; they bring\nthe goddess Freia, and demand her ransom. They stick up staves of\nFreia's height, and gold is poured in between these staves: this is\nto be the ransom. There is not enough gold, so the helmet is thrown\nin, and they also demand the ring. Wotan refuses to give it up,\nbut the goddess Erda appears and commands him to do so, because it\nbrings misfortune. Wotan gives it up. Freia is released. The giants,\nhaving received the ring, fight, and one of them kills the other.\nThis ends the Prelude, and we come to the First Day.\n\nThe scene shows a house in a tree. Siegmund runs in tired, and lies\ndown. Sieglinda, the mistress of the house (and wife of Hunding),\ngives him a drugged draught, and they fall in love with each other.\nSieglinda's husband comes home, learns that Siegmund belongs to\na hostile race, and wishes to fight him next day; but Sieglinda\ndrugs her husband, and comes to Siegmund. Siegmund discovers that\nSieglinda is his sister, and that his father drove a sword into the\ntree so that no one can get it out. Siegmund pulls the sword out,\nand commits incest with his sister.\n\nAct II. Siegmund is to fight with Hunding. The gods discuss the\nquestion to whom they shall award the victory. Wotan, approving of\nSiegmund's incest with his sister, wishes to spare him, but, under\npressure from his wife, Fricka, he orders the Valkyrie Br\u00fcnnhilda to\nkill Siegmund. Siegmund goes to fight; Sieglinda faints. Br\u00fcnnhilda\nappears and wishes to slay Siegmund. Siegmund wishes to kill\nSieglinda also, but Br\u00fcnnhilda does not allow it; so he fights with\nHunding. Br\u00fcnnhilda defends Siegmund, but Wotan defends Hunding.\nSiegmund's sword breaks, and he is killed. Sieglinda runs away.\n\nAct III. The Valkyries (divine Amazons) are on the stage. The\nValkyrie Br\u00fcnnhilda arrives on horseback, bringing Siegmund's body.\nShe is flying from Wotan, who is chasing her for her disobedience.\nWotan catches her, and as a punishment dismisses her from her post\nas a Valkyrie. He casts a spell on her, so that she has to go to\nsleep and to continue asleep until a man wakes her. When some one\nwakes her she will fall in love with him. Wotan kisses her; she\nfalls asleep. He lets off fire, which surrounds her.\n\nWe now come to the Second Day. The gnome Mime forges a sword in\na wood. Siegfried appears. He is a son born from the incest of\nbrother with sister (Siegmund with Sieglinda), and has been brought\nup in this wood by the gnome. In general the motives of the actions\nof everybody in this production are quite unintelligible. Siegfried\nlearns his own origin, and that the broken sword was his father's.\nHe orders Mime to reforge it, and then goes off. Wotan comes in the\nguise of a wanderer, and relates what will happen: that he who has\nnot learnt to fear will forge the sword, and will defeat everybody.\nThe gnome conjectures that this is Siegfried, and wants to poison\nhim. Siegfried returns, forges his father's sword, and runs off,\nshouting, Heiho! heiho! heiho! Ho! ho! Aha! oho! aha! Heiaho!\nheiaho! heiaho! Ho! ho! Hahei! hoho! hahei!\n\nAnd we get to Act II. Alberich sits guarding a giant, who, in form\nof a dragon, guards the gold he has received. Wotan appears, and\nfor some unknown reason foretells that Siegfried will come and kill\nthe dragon. Alberich wakes the dragon, and asks him for the ring,\npromising to defend him from Siegfried. The dragon won't give up\nthe ring. Exit Alberich. Mime and Siegfried appear. Mime hopes the\ndragon will teach Siegfried to fear. But Siegfried does not fear.\nHe drives Mime away and kills the dragon, after which he puts his\nfinger, smeared with the dragon's blood, to his lips. This enables\nhim to know men's secret thoughts, as well as the language of birds.\nThe birds tell him where the treasure and the ring are, and also\nthat Mime wishes to poison him. Mime returns, and says out loud\nthat he wishes to poison Siegfried. This is meant to signify that\nSiegfried, having tasted dragon's blood, understands people's secret\nthoughts. Siegfried, having learnt Mime's intentions, kills him. The\nbirds tell Siegfried where Br\u00fcnnhilda is, and he goes to find her.\n\nAct III. Wotan calls up Erda. Erda prophesies to Wotan, and gives\nhim advice. Siegfried appears, quarrels with Wotan, and they fight.\nSuddenly Siegfried's sword breaks Wotan's spear, which had been\nmore powerful than anything else. Siegfried goes into the fire to\nBr\u00fcnnhilda: kisses her; she wakes up, abandons her divinity, and\nthrows herself into Siegfried's arms.\n\nThird Day. Prelude. Three Norns plait a golden rope, and talk about\nthe future. They go away. Siegfried and Br\u00fcnnhilda appear. Siegfried\ntakes leave of her, gives her the ring, and goes away.\n\nAct I. By the Rhine. A king wants to get married, and also to give\nhis sister in marriage. Hagen, the king's wicked brother, advises\nhim to marry Br\u00fcnnhilda and to give his sister to Siegfried.\nSiegfried appears; they give him a drugged draught, which makes\nhim forget all the past and fall in love with the king's sister,\nGutrune. So he rides off with Gunther, the king, to get Br\u00fcnnhilda\nto be the king's bride. The scene changes. Br\u00fcnnhilda sits with\nthe ring. A Valkyrie comes to her and tells her that Wotan's spear\nis broken, and advises her to give the ring to the Rhine nymphs.\nSiegfried comes, and by means of the magic helmet turns himself into\nGunther, demands the ring from Br\u00fcnnhilda, seizes it, and drags her\noff to sleep with him.\n\nAct II. By the Rhine. Alberich and Hagen discuss how to get the\nring. Siegfried comes, tells how he has obtained a bride for Gunther\nand spent the night with her, but put a sword between himself and\nher. Br\u00fcnnhilda rides up, recognizes the ring on Siegfried's hand,\nand declares that it was he, and not Gunther, who was with her.\nHagen stirs everybody up against Siegfried, and decides to kill him\nnext day when hunting.\n\nAct III. Again the nymphs in the Rhine relate what has happened.\nSiegfried, who has lost his way, appears. The nymphs ask him for\nthe ring, but he won't give it up. Hunters appear. Siegfried tells\nthe story of his life. Hagen then gives him a draught, which causes\nhis memory to return to him. Siegfried relates how he aroused and\nobtained Br\u00fcnnhilda, and every one is astonished. Hagen stabs him\nin the back, and the scene is changed. Gutrune meets the corpse of\nSiegfried. Gunther and Hagen quarrel about the ring, and Hagen\nkills Gunther. Br\u00fcnnhilda cries. Hagen wishes to take the ring\nfrom Siegfried's hand, but the hand of the corpse raises itself\nthreateningly. Br\u00fcnnhilda takes the ring from Siegfried's hand, and\nwhen Siegfried's corpse is carried to the pyre, she gets on to a\nhorse and leaps into the fire. The Rhine rises, and the waves reach\nthe pyre. In the river are three nymphs. Hagen throws himself into\nthe fire to get the ring, but the nymphs seize him and carry him\noff. One of them holds the ring; and that is the end of the matter.\n\nThe impression obtainable from my recapitulation is, of course,\nincomplete. But however incomplete it may be, it is certainly\ninfinitely more favorable than the impression which results from\nreading the four booklets in which the work is printed.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX IV\n\n\nTranslations of French poems and prose quoted in Chapter X.\n\nBAUDELAIRE'S \"FLOWERS OF EVIL\"\n\nNo. XXIV\n\n I adore thee as much as the vaults of night,\n O vase full of grief, taciturnity great,\n And I love thee the more because of thy flight.\n It seemeth, my night's beautifier, that you\n Still heap up those leagues--yes! ironically heap!\n That divide from my arms the immensity blue.\n\n I advance to attack, I climb to assault,\n Like a choir of young worms at a corpse in the vault;\n Thy coldness, oh cruel, implacable beast!\n Yet heightens thy beauty, on which my eyes feast!\n\n\nBAUDELAIRE'S \"FLOWERS OF EVIL\"\n\nNo. XXXVI\n\nDUELLUM\n\n Two warriors come running, to fight they begin,\n With gleaming and blood they bespatter the air;\n These games, and this clatter of arms, is the din\n Of youth that's a prey to the surgings of love.\n\n The rapiers are broken! and so is our youth,\n But the dagger's avenged, dear! and so is the sword,\n By the nail that is steeled and the hardened tooth.\n Oh, the fury of hearts aged and ulcered by love!\n\n In the ditch, where the ounce and the pard have their lair,\n Our heroes have rolled in an angry embrace;\n Their skin blooms on brambles that erewhile were bare.\n\n That ravine is a friend-inhabited hell!\n Then let us roll in, oh woman inhuman,\n To immortalize hatred that nothing can quell!\n\n\nFROM BAUDELAIRE'S PROSE WORK ENTITLED \"LITTLE POEMS\"\n\nTHE STRANGER\n\nWhom dost thou love best? say, enigmatical man--thy father, thy\nmother, thy brother, or thy sister?\n\n\"I have neither father, nor mother, nor sister, nor brother.\"\n\nThy friends?\n\n\"You there use an expression the meaning of which till now remains\nunknown to me.\"\n\nThy country?\n\n\"I ignore in what latitude it is situated.\"\n\nBeauty?\n\n\"I would gladly love her, goddess and immortal.\"\n\nGold?\n\n\"I hate it as you hate God.\"\n\nThen what do you love, extraordinary stranger?\n\n\"I love the clouds ... the clouds that pass ... there ... the\nmarvelous clouds!\"\n\n\nBAUDELAIRE'S PROSE POEM\n\nTHE SOUP AND THE CLOUDS\n\nMy beloved little silly was giving me my dinner, and I was\ncontemplating, through the open window of the dining-room, those\nmoving architectures which God makes out of vapors, the marvelous\nconstructions of the impalpable. And I said to myself, amid my\ncontemplations, \"All these phantasmagoria are almost as beautiful as\nthe eyes of my beautiful beloved, the monstrous little silly with\nthe green eyes.\"\n\nSuddenly I felt the violent blow of a fist on my back, and I heard a\nharsh, charming voice, an hysterical voice, as it were hoarse with\nbrandy, the voice of my dear little well-beloved, saying, \"Are you\ngoing to eat your soup soon, you d---- b---- of a dealer in clouds?\"\n\n\nBAUDELAIRE'S PROSE POEM\n\nTHE GALLANT MARKSMAN\n\nAs the carriage was passing through the forest, he ordered it to be\nstopped near a shooting-gallery, saying that he wished to shoot off\na few bullets to _kill_ Time. To kill this monster, is it not the\nmost ordinary and the most legitimate occupation of every one? And\nhe gallantly offered his arm to his dear, delicious, and execrable\nwife--that mysterious woman to whom he owed so much pleasure, so\nmuch pain, and perhaps also a large part of his genius.\n\nSeveral bullets struck far from the intended mark--one even\npenetrated the ceiling; and as the charming creature laughed madly,\nmocking her husband's awkwardness, he turned abruptly toward her and\nsaid, \"Look at that doll there on the right with the haughty mien\nand her nose in the air; well, dear angel, _I imagine to myself that\nit is you!_\" And he closed his eyes and pulled the trigger. The doll\nwas neatly decapitated.\n\nThen, bowing toward his dear one, his delightful, execrable wife,\nhis inevitable pitiless muse, and kissing her hand respectfully, he\nadded, \"Ah! my dear angel, how I thank you for my skill!\"\n\n\nVERLAINE'S \"FORGOTTEN AIRS\"\n\nNo. I\n\n \"The wind in the plain\n Suspends its breath.\"--FAVART.\n\n 'Tis ecstasy languishing,\n Amorous fatigue,\n Of woods all the shudderings\n Embraced by the breeze,\n 'Tis the choir of small voices\n Toward the gray trees.\n\n Oh, the frail and fresh murmuring!\n The twitter and buzz,\n The soft cry resembling\n That's expired by the grass....\n Oh, the roll of the pebbles\n 'Neath waters that pass!\n\n Oh, this soul that is groaning\n In sleepy complaint!\n In us is it moaning?\n In me and in you?\n Low anthem exhaling\n While soft falls the dew.\n\n\nVERLAINE'S \"FORGOTTEN AIRS\"\n\nNo. VIII\n\n In the unending\n Dullness of this land,\n Uncertain the snow\n Is gleaming like sand.\n\n No kind of brightness\n In copper-hued sky,\n The moon you might see\n Now live and now die.\n\n Gray float the oak trees--\n Cloudlike they seem--\n Of neighboring forests,\n The mists in between.\n\n Wolves hungry and lean,\n And famishing crow,\n What happens to you\n When acid winds blow?\n\n In the unending\n Dullness of this land,\n Uncertain the snow\n Is gleaming like sand.\n\n\nSONG BY MAETERLINCK\n\n When he went away,\n (Then I heard the door)\n When he went away,\n On her lips a smile there lay....\n\n Back he came to her,\n (Then I heard the lamp)\n Back he came to her,\n Someone else was there....\n\n It was death I met,\n (And I heard her soul)\n It was death I met,\n For her he's waiting yet....\n\n Someone came to say,\n (Child, I am afraid)\n Someone came to say\n That he would go away....\n\n With my lamp alight,\n (Child, I am afraid)\n With my lamp alight,\n Approached I in affright....\n\n To one door I came,\n (Child, I am afraid)\n To one door I came,\n A shudder shook the flame....\n\n At the second door,\n (Child, I am afraid)\n At the second door\n Forth words of flame did pour....\n\n To the third I came,\n (Child, I am afraid)\n To the third I came,\n Then died the little flame....\n\n Should he one day return\n Then what shall we say?\n Waiting, tell him, one\n And dying for him lay....\n\n If he asks for you,\n Say what answer then?\n Give him my gold ring\n And answer not a thing....\n\n Should he question me\n Concerning the last hour?\n Say I smiled for fear\n That he should shed a tear....\n\n Should he question more\n Without knowing me?\n Like a sister speak;\n Suffering he may be....\n\n Should he question why\n Empty is the hall?\n Show the gaping door,\n The lamp alight no more....\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\nPage 5: The transcriber has completed the word \"meeting\". \"In 1838,\non the occasion of a meet- of the Society for the Promotion of\nPeace\" ...\n\nPage 372: Footnote 86, Knight, pp. 139-141. The number the\ntranscriber has rendered as 139 is unclear.","title":"The Kingdom of God is Within You; What is Art?","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":192440}