MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_01D08C29.12EAA620" This document is a Single File Web Page, also known as a Web Archive file. If you are seeing this message, your browser or editor doesn't support Web Archive files. Please download a browser that supports Web Archive, such as Windows® Internet Explorer®. ------=_NextPart_01D08C29.12EAA620 Content-Location: file:///C:/D8F3F255/TheKingdomOfGodIsWithinYou.htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
The Kingdom Of God Is Within You=
By
Leo Tolstoy
Contents
PREFACE. =
CHAPTER
III - CHRISTIANITY MISUNDERSTOOD BY BELIEVERS.
CHAPTER
IV - CHRISTIANITY MISUNDERSTOOD BY MEN OF SCIENCE.
CHAPTER
V - CONTRADICTION BETWEEN OUR LIFE AND OUR CHRISTIAN CONSCIENCE. =
CHAPTER
VI - ATTITUDE OF MEN OF THE PRESENT DAY TO WAR.
CHAPTER
VII - SIGNIFICANCE OF COMPULSORY SERVICE.
CHAPTER XII - CONCLUSION--REPENT YE, FOR T=
HE
KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS AT HAND.
In the year 1884 I
wrote a book under the title "What I Believe," in which I did in =
fact
make a sincere statement of my beliefs.
In affirming my
belief in Christ's teaching, I could not help explaining why I do not belie=
ve,
and consider as mistaken, the Church's doctrine, which is usually called
Christianity.
Among the many po=
ints
in which this doctrine falls short of the doctrine of Christ I pointed out =
as
the principal one the absence of any commandment of non-resistance to evil =
by
force. The perversion of Chri=
st's
teaching by the teaching of the Church is more clearly apparent in this tha=
n in
any other point of difference.
I know--as we all
do--very little of the practice and the spoken and written doctrine of form=
er
times on the subject of non-resistance to evil. I knew what had been said on
the subject by the fathers of the Church--Origen, Tertullian, and others--I
knew too of the existence of some so-called sects of Mennonites, Herrnhuter=
s,
and Quakers, who do not allow a Christian the use of weapons, and do not en=
ter
military service; but I knew little of what had been done by these so-called
sects toward expounding the question.
My book was, as I=
had
anticipated, suppressed by the Russian censorship; but partly owing to my
literary reputation, partly because the book had excited people's curiosity=
, it
circulated in manuscript and in lithographed copies in Russia and through t=
ranslations
abroad, and it evolved, on one side, from those who shared my convictions, a
series of essays with a great deal of information on the subject, on the ot=
her
side a series of criticisms on the principles laid down in my book.
A great deal was =
made
clear to me by both hostile and sympathetic criticism, and also by the
historical events of late years; and I was led to fresh results and
conclusions, which I wish now to expound.
First I will spea=
k of
the information I received on the history of the question of non-resistance=
to
evil; then of the views of this question maintained by spiritual critics, t=
hat
is, by professed believers in the Christian religion, and also by temporal
ones, that is, those who do not profess the Christian religion; and lastly I
will speak of the conclusions to which I have been brought by all this in t=
he light
of the historical events of late years.
L. TOLSTOI. YASNA=
ÏA
POLIANA, May 14/26, 1893.
CONTENTS.
I. THE DOCTRINE OF
NON-RESISTANCE TO EVIL BY FORCE HAS BEEN PROFESSED BY A MINORITY OF MEN FRO=
M THE
VERY FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIANITY
II. CRITICISMS OF=
THE
DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO EVIL BY FORCE ON THE PART OF BELIEVERS AND OF
UNBELIEVERS
III. CHRISTIANITY
MISUNDERSTOOD BY BELIEVERS
IV. CHRISTIANITY
MISUNDERSTOOD BY MEN OF SCIENCE
V. CONTRADICTION
BETWEEN OUR LIFE AND OUR CHRISTIAN CONSCIENCE
VI. ATTITUDE OF M=
EN
OF THE PRESENT DAY TO WAR
VII. SIGNIFICANCE=
OF
COMPULSORY SERVICE
VIII. DOCTRINE OF
NON-RESISTANCE TO EVIL BY FORCE MUST INEVITABLY BE ACCEPTED BY MEN OF THE
PRESENT DAY
IX. THE ACCEPTANC=
E OF
THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPTION OF LIFE WILL EMANCIPATE MEN FROM THE MISERIES OF O=
UR
PAGAN LIFE
X. EVIL CANNOT BE
SUPRESSED BY THE PHYSICAL FORCE OF THE GOVERNMENT--THE MORAL PROGRESS OF
HUMANITY IS BROUGHT ABOUT NOT ONLY BY INDIVIDUAL RECOGNITION OF THE TRUTH B=
UT
ALSO THROUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PUBLIC OPINION
XI. THE CHRISTIAN
CONCEPTION OF LIFE HAS ALREADY ARISEN IN OUR SOCIETY, AND WILL INFALLIBLY P=
UT AN
END TO THE PRESENT ORGANIZATION OF OUR LIFE BASED ON FORCE--WHEN THAT WILL =
BE
XII.
CONCLUSION--REPENT YE, FOR THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS AT HAND
"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
"--John viii. 32.
"Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill
the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy
both soul and body in hell."--MATT. x. 28.
"Ye have been bought with a price; be not ye the servants of
men."--I COR. vii. 23.
"THE
KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU."
Of the Book
"What I Believe"--The Correspondence Evoked by it--Letters from
Quakers--Garrison's Declaration--Adin Ballou, his Works, his Catechism--Hel=
chitsky's
"Net of Faith"--The Attitude of the World to Works Elucidating
Christ's Teaching--Dymond's Book "On War"--Musser's "Non-res=
istance
Asserted"--Attitude of the Government in 1818 to Men who Refused to Se=
rve
in the Army--Hostile Attitude of Governments Generally and of Liberals to T=
hose
who Refuse to Assist in Acts of State Violence, and their Conscious Efforts=
to
Silence and Suppress these Manifestations of Christian Non-resistance.
Among the first responses called fo=
rth by
my book were some letters from American Quakers. In these letters, expressi=
ng their
sympathy with my views on the unlawfulness for a Christian of war and the u=
se
of force of any kind, the Quakers gave me details of their own so-called se=
ct,
which for more than two hundred years has actually professed the teaching o=
f Christ
on non-resistance to evil by force, and does not make use of weapons in
self-defense. The Quakers sent me books, from which I learnt how they had,
years ago, established beyond doubt the duty for a Christian of fulfilling =
the
command of non-resistance to evil by force, and had exposed the error of the
Church's teaching in allowing war and capital punishment.
In a whole series=
of
arguments and texts showing that war--that is, the wounding and killing of
men--is inconsistent with a religion founded on peace and good will toward =
men,
the Quakers maintain and prove that nothing has contributed so much to the =
obscuring
of Christian truth in the eyes of the heathen, and has hindered so much the
diffusion of Christianity through the world, as the disregard of this comma=
nd by
men calling themselves Christians, and the permission of war and violence to
Christians.
"Christ's
teaching, which came to be known to men, not by means of violence and the
sword," they say, "but by means of non-resistance to evil,
gentleness, meekness, and peaceableness, can only be diffused through the w=
orld
by the example of peace, harmony, and love among its followers."
"A Christian,
according to the teaching of God himself, can act only peaceably toward all
men, and therefore there can be no authority able to force the Christian to=
act
in opposition to the teaching of God and to the principal virtue of the
Christian in his relation with his neighbors."
"The law of
state necessity," they say, "can force only those to change the l=
aw
of God who, for the sake of earthly gains, try to reconcile the irreconcila=
ble;
but for a Christian who sincerely believes that following Christ's teaching
will give him salvation, such considerations of state can have no force.&qu=
ot;
Further acquainta=
nce
with the labors of the Quakers and their works--with Fox, Penn, and especia=
lly
the work of Dymond (published in 1827)--showed me not only that the
impossibility of reconciling Christianity with force and war had been
recognized long, long ago, but that this irreconcilability had been long ag=
o proved
so clearly and so indubitably that one could only wonder how this impossible
reconciliation of Christian teaching with the use of force, which has been,=
and
is still, preached in the churches, could have been maintained in spite of =
it.
In addition to wh=
at I
learned from the Quakers I received about the same time, also from America,
some information on the subject from a source perfectly distinct and previo=
usly
unknown to me.
The son of William
Lloyd Garrison, the famous champion of the emancipation of the negroes, wro=
te
to me that he had read my book, in which he found ideas similar to those
expressed by his father in the year 1838, and that, thinking it would be
interesting to me to know this, he sent me a declaration or proclamation of
"non-resistance" drawn up by his father nearly fifty years ago.
This declaration =
came
about under the following circumstances: William Lloyd Garrison took part i=
n a
discussion on the means of suppressing war in the Society for the Establish=
ment
of Peace among Men, which existed in 1838 in America. He came to the conclusion that the
establishment of universal peace can only be founded on the open profession=
of
the doctrine of non-resistance to evil by violence (Matt. v. 39), in its fu=
ll
significance, as understood by the Quakers, with whom Garrison happened to =
be
on friendly relations. Having come to this conclusion, Garrison thereupon
composed and laid before the society a declaration, which was signed at the
time--in 1838--by many members.
"DECLARATION OF SENTIME=
NTS
ADOPTED BY PEACE CONVENTION. "Boston, 1838.
"We the undersigned, re=
gard
it as due to ourselves, to the cause which we love, to=
the
country in which we live, to publish a declaration
expressive of the purposes we aim to accomplish and the measures we
shall adopt to carry forward the work of peaceful univer=
sal
reformation.
"We do not acknowledge
allegiance to any human government.
We recogni=
ze but
one King and Lawgiver, one Judge and Ruler of mankind. Our country is the world, our coun=
trymen
are all mankind.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> We love the land of our nativity o=
nly as
we love all other
lands. The interests and righ=
ts of
American citizens are not dearer to us than t=
hose
of the whole human race. Henc=
e we can allow no appeal to
patriotism to revenge any national insult or injury...
"We conceive that a nat=
ion
has no right to defend itself against foreign enemies=
or to
punish its invaders, and no individual possesses th=
at
right in his own case, and the unit cannot be of greater
importance than the aggregate. If soldiers thronging from
abroad with intent to commit rapine and destroy life may not be
resisted by the people or the magistracy, then ought =
no
resistance to be offered to domestic troublers of the public=
peace
or of private security.
"The dogma that all the
governments of the world are approvingly ordained of=
God,
and that the powers that be in the United States, in Russi=
a, in
Turkey, are in accordance with his will, is no less absurd=
than
impious. It makes the imparti=
al Author of our existence
unequal and tyrannical. It cannot be affirmed that the power=
s that
be in any nation are actuated by the spirit or guided by=
the
example of Christ in the treatment of enemies; therefore t=
hey
cannot be agreeable to the will of God, and therefore their
overthrow by a spiritual regeneration of their subjects is
inevitable.
"We regard as unchristi=
an and
unlawful not only all wars, whether offensive or
defensive, but all preparations for war; every naval ship, every
arsenal, every fortification, we regard as unchristian and unla=
wful;
the existence of any kind of standing army, all
military chieftains, all monuments commemorative of victor=
y over
a fallen foe, all trophies won in battle, all celebration=
s in
honor of military exploits, all appropriations for defe=
nse by
arms; we regard as unchristian and unlawful every edic=
t of
government requiring of its subjects military servi=
ce.
"Hence we deem it unlaw=
ful to
bear arms, and we cannot hold any office which imposes on=
its
incumbent the obligation to compel men to do right on pain=
of
imprisonment or death. We the=
refore
voluntarily exclu=
de
ourselves from every legislative and judicial body, and repu=
diate
all human politics, worldly honors, and stations of
authority. If we cannot occup=
y a
seat in the legis=
lature
or on the bench, neither can we elect others to act as our substitut=
es in
any such capacity. It follows=
that we cannot sue any =
man at
law to force him to return anything he may have wr=
ongly
taken from us; if he has seized our coat, we shall surr=
ender
him our cloak also rather than subject him to punishme=
nt.
"We believe that the pe=
nal
code of the old covenant--an eye for an eye, and a tooth for=
a
tooth--has been abrogated by Jesus Christ, and that under =
the
new covenant the forgiveness instead of the punishment of en=
emies
has been enjoined on all his disciples in all cases
whatsoever. To extort money f=
rom enemies, cast them into
prison, exile or execute them, is obviously not to forgiv=
e but
to take retribution.
"The history of mankind=
is
crowded with evidences proving that physical coercion is not
adapted to moral regeneration, and that the sinful disposi=
tions
of men can be subdued only by love; that evil can be
exterminated only by good; that it is not safe to rely upon t=
he
strength of an arm to preserve us from harm; that there is
great security in being gentle, long-suffering, and abundant =
in
mercy; that it is only the meek who shall inherit the e=
arth;
for those who take up the sword shall perish by the swo=
rd.
"Hence as a measure of =
sound
policy--of safety to property, life, and liberty--of p=
ublic quietude
and private enjoyment--as well as on the ground of
allegiance to Him who is King of kings and Lord of lords, we
cordially adopt the non-resistance principle, being confid=
ent
that it provides for all possible consequences, is armed =
with
omnipotent power, and must ultimately triumph over=
every
assailing force.
"We advocate no Jacobin=
ical
doctrines. The spirit of Jacobinism is the spiri=
t of
retaliation, violence, and murder. It neither fears God nor
regards man. We would be fill=
ed
with the spirit of
Christ. If we abide evil by o=
ur
fundamental princ=
iple
of not opposing evil by evil we cannot participate in sedition, treason, or
violence. We shall submit to =
every ordinance and every
requirement of government, except such as are contrary to the com=
mands
of the Gospel, and in no case resist the operation of=
law,
except by meekly submitting to the penalty of disobedience=
.
"But while we shall adh=
ere to
the doctrine of non-resistance and passive submission =
to
enemies, we purpose, in a moral and spiritual sense, to ass=
ail
iniquity in high places and in low places, to apply our
principles to all existing evil, political, legal, and
ecclesiastical institutions, and to hasten the time when th=
e kingdoms
of this world will have become the kingdom of o=
ur
Lord Jesus Christ. It appears=
to us
a self-evident tr=
uth
that whatever the Gospel is designed to destroy at any period o=
f the
world, being contrary to it, ought now to be abandoned.
"Having thus stated our
principles, we proceed to specify the measures we propose to =
adopt
in carrying our object into effect.
"We expect to prevail t=
hrough
the Foolishness of Preaching. We shall endeavor to promu=
lgate
our views among all persons, to whatever nation, sect, =
or
grade of society they may belong. Hence we shall organize
public lectures, circulate tracts and publications, form soci=
eties,
and petition every governing body. It will be our leading object to d=
evise
ways and means for
effecting a radical change in the views, feelings, and practices of society
respecting the sinfulness of war and the treatment of enemies.
"In entering upon the g=
reat
work before us, we are not unmindful that in its
prosecution we may be called to test our sincerity even as i=
n a
fiery ordeal. It may subject =
us to insult, outrage, suffer=
ing,
yea, even death itself. We anticipate no small amo=
unt of
misconception, misrepresentation, and calumny. Tumults may arise against us. The proud and pharisaical, the ambiti=
ous
and tyrannical, principalities and powers, may combine to =
crush
us. So they treated the Messi=
ah whose example we are hu=
mbly striving
to imitate. We shall not be afraid of their
terror. Our confidence is in =
the
Lord Almighty and=
not
in man. Having withdrawn from=
human
protection, what =
can
sustain us but that faith which overcomes the world? We shall not think it strange conc=
erning
the fiery trial w=
hich
is to try us, but rejoice inasmuch as we are partakers of Christ's
sufferings.
"Wherefore we commit the
keeping of our souls to God. For every one that forsakes house=
s, or
brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or
children, or lands for Christ's sake, shall receive a hundred=
fold,
and shall inherit everlasting life.
"Firmly relying upon the
certain and universal triumph of the sentiments contained in=
this
declaration, however formidable may be the opposition a=
rrayed
against them, we hereby affix our signatures to it; comme=
nding
it to the reason and conscience of mankind, and resolving,=
in
the strength of the Lord God, to calmly and meekly abide=
the
issue."
Immediately after
this declaration a Society for Non-resistance was founded by Garrison, and a
journal called the NON-RESISTANT, in which the doctrine of non-resistance w=
as
advocated in its full significance and in all its consequences, as it had b=
een
expounded in the declaration.
Further information as to the ultimate destiny of the society and the
journal I gained from the excellent biography of W. L. Garrison, the work of
his son.
The society and t=
he
journal did not exist for long. The
greater number of Garrison's fellow-workers in the movement for the liberat=
ion
of the slaves, fearing that the too radical programme of the journal, the
NON-RESISTANT, might keep people away from the practical work of
negro-emancipation, gave up the profession of the principle of non-resistan=
ce
as it had been expressed in the declaration, and both society and journal
ceased to exist.
This declaration =
of
Garrison's gave so powerful and eloquent an expression of a confession of f=
aith
of such importance to men, that one would have thought it must have produce=
d a
strong impression on people, and have become known throughout the world and=
the
subject of discussion on every side.
But nothing of the kind occurred.&n=
bsp;
Not only was it unknown in Europe, even the Americans, who have such=
a high
opinion of Garrison, hardly knew of the declaration.
Another champion =
of
non-resistance has been overlooked in the same way--the American Adin Ballo=
u,
who lately died, after spending fifty years in preaching this doctrine. Lord
God, to calmly and meekly abide the doctrine. How great the ignorance is of
everything relating to the question of non-resistance may be seen from the =
fact
that Garrison the son, who has written an excellent biography of his father=
in
four great volumes, in answer to my inquiry whether there are existing now =
societies
for non-resistance, and adherents of the doctrine, told me that as far as he
knew that society had broken up, and that there were no adherents of that
doctrine, while at the very time when he was writing to me there was living=
, at
Hopedale in Massachusetts, Adin Ballou, who had taken part in the labors of
Garrison the father, and had devoted fifty years of his life to advocating,
both orally and in print, the doctrine of non-resistance. Later on I receiv=
ed a
letter from Wilson, a pupil and colleague of Ballou's, and entered into
correspondence with Ballou himself. I wrote to Ballou, and he answered me a=
nd
sent me his works. Here is the summary of some extracts from them:
"Jesus Christ is my Lor=
d and
teacher," says Ballou in one of his essays exposing the
inconsistency of Christians who allowed a right of self-defense=
and
of warfare. "I have prom=
ised leaving all else, to fo=
llow
good and through evil, to death itself. But I am a citizen of the democrat=
ic
republic of the U=
nited
States; and in allegiance to it I have sworn to defend the Constitution of my
country, if need be, with my life. Christ requires of me t=
o do
unto others as I would they should do unto me. The Constitution of the United Sta=
tes
requires of me to=
do
unto two millions of slaves [at that time there were slaves; now one might v=
enture
to substitute the word 'laborers'] the very op=
posite
of what I would they should do unto me--that is to hel=
p to
keep them in their present condition of slavery. And, in spite of this, I continue =
to elect or be elected, I
propose to vote, I am even ready to be appointed to any office=
under
government. That will not hin=
der me from being a
Christian. I shall still prof=
ess Christianity,
and shall find no
difficulty in carrying out my covenant with Christ and with the
government.
"Jesus Christ forbids m=
e to
resist evil doers, and to take from them an eye for an eye,=
a
tooth for a tooth, bloodshed for bloodshed, and life for=
life.
"My government demands =
from
me quite the opposite, and bases a system of self-defense =
on
gallows, musket, and sword, to be used against its foreig=
n and
domestic foes. And the land i=
s filled accordingly with
gibbets, prisons, arsenals, ships of war, and soldiers.
"In the maintenance and=
use
of these expensive appliances for murder, we can very sui=
tably
exercise to the full the virtues of forgiveness to those=
who
injure us, love toward our enemies, blessings to those who =
curse
us, and doing good to those who hate us.
"For this we have a
succession of Christian priests to pray for us and beseech the bles=
sing
of Heaven on the holy work of slaughter.
"I see all this (i. e.,=
the
contradiction between profession and practice), and I contin=
ue to
profess religion and take part in government, and pride m=
yself
on being at the same time a devout Christian and a devoted
servant of the government. I =
do not
want to agree with
these senseless notions of non-resistance. I cannot renounce my
authority and leave only immoral men in control of the
government. The Constitution =
says
the government ha=
s the
right to declare war, and I assent to this and support it, and swe=
ar
that I will support it. And I=
do
not for that ceas=
e to
be a Christian. War, too, is a Christian duty. Is it not a Christian duty to kill
hundreds of thousands of one's fellow-men, to
outrage women, to raze and burn towns, and to practice every
possible cruelty? It is time =
to
dismiss all these=
false
sentimentalities. It is the t=
ruest
means of forgiving
injuries and loving enemies. =
If we
only do it in the spirit of love, nothing=
can
be more Christian than such murder."
In another pamphl=
et,
entitled "How many Men are Necessary to Change a Crime into a
Virtue?" he says: "One man may not kill. If he kills a fellow-creature, he =
is a
murderer. If two, ten, a hund=
red
men do so, they, too, are murderers.
But a government or a nation may kill as many men as it chooses, and
that will not be murder, but a great and noble action. Only gather the people together on=
a
large scale, and a battle of ten thousand men becomes an innocent action. But precisely how many people must=
there
be to make it so?--that is the question.&n=
bsp;
One man cannot plunder and pillage, but a whole nation can. But precisely how many are needed =
to
make it permissible? Why is i=
t that
one man, ten, a hundred, may not break the law of God, but a great number m=
ay?"
And here is a ver=
sion
of Ballou's catechism composed for his flock:
CATECHISM OF NON-RESISTANCE.=
Q. Whence is the word
"non-resistance" derived?
A. From the command, "R=
esist
not evil." (M. v. 39.)
Q. What does this word expre=
ss?
A. It expresses a lofty Chri=
stian
virtue enjoined on us by Christ.
Q. Ought the word
"non-resistance" to be taken in its widest sense--that is to say, =
as
intending that we should not offer any resistance of any k=
ind to
evil?
A. No; it ought to be taken =
in the
exact sense of our Saviour's teaching--that is, not
repaying evil for evil. We ou=
ght to
oppose evil by ev=
ery
righteous means in our power, but not by evil.
Q. What is there to show that
Christ enjoined non-resistance in that sense?
A. It is shown by the words =
he
uttered at the same time. He =
said: "Ye have hea=
rd, it
was said of old, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth=
. But I say unto you Resist not evil=
. But if one smites thee =
on the
right cheek, turn him the other also; and if one will g=
o to
law with thee to take thy coat from thee, give him thy cloak
also."
Q. Of whom was he speaking i=
n the
words, "Ye have heard it was said of old"?
A. Of the patriarchs and the
prophets, contained in the Old Testament, which the He=
brews
ordinarily call the Law and the Prophets.
Q. What utterances did Christ
refer to in the words, "It was said of old"?
A. The utterances of Noah, M=
oses,
and the other prophets, in which they admit the ri=
ght of
doing bodily harm to those who inflict harm, so as to =
punish
and prevent evil deeds.
Q. Quote such utterances.
A. "Whoso sheddeth man's
blood, by man shall his blood be shed."--GEN. ix. 6=
.
"He that smiteth a man,=
so
that he die, shall be surely put to death... And if any mis=
chief
follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, =
tooth
for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burni=
ng,
wound for wound, stripe for stripe." --Ex. xxi. 12 and 23-25=
.
"He that killeth any ma=
n shall
surely be put to death. And i=
f a man cause a blemish i=
n his
neighbor, as he hath done, so shall it be done unto h=
im:
breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth."-=
-LEV.
xxiv. 17, 19, 20.
"Then the judges shall =
make
diligent inquisition; and behold, if the witness be a fal=
se
witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother, th=
en
shall ye do unto him as he had thought to have done un=
to his
brother... And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go=
for
life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for
foot."--DEUT. xix. 18, 21.
Noah, Moses, and the Prophets
taught that he who kills, maims, or injures his neighbor=
s does
evil. To resist such evil, an=
d to prevent it, the evil=
doer
must be punished with death, or maiming, or some physic=
al
injury. Wrong must be opposed=
by wrong, murder by murder,
injury by injury, evil by evil.
Thus taught
Noah, Moses, and the Prophets. But
Christ rejects all this. "I say unto you," is wri=
tten
in the Gospel, "resist not evil," do not oppo=
se
injury with injury, but rather bear repeated injury from th=
e evil
doer. What was permitted is <=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> forbidden. When we understand what kind of
resistance they t=
aught,
we know exactly what resistance Christ forbade.
Q. Then the ancients allowed=
the
resistance of injury by injury?
A. Yes. But Jesus forbids it=
. The
Christian has in no case the right to put to death h=
is
neighbor who has done him evil, or to do him injury in return=
.
Q. May he kill or maim him in
self-defense?
A. No.
Q. May he go with a complain=
t to
the judge that he who has wronged him may be puni=
shed?
A. No. What he does through
others, he is in reality doing himself.
Q. Can he fight in conflict =
with
foreign enemies or disturbers of the peace?
A. Certainly not. He cannot =
take
any part in war or in preparations for war. He cannot make use of a deadly wea=
pon. He cannot oppose injury=
to
injury, whether he is alone or with others, either in perso=
n or
through other people.
Q. Can he voluntarily vote or
furnish soldiers for the government?
A. He can do nothing of that=
kind
if he wishes to be faithful to Christ's law.
Q. Can he voluntarily give m=
oney
to aid a government resting on military force, capital punis=
hment,
and violence in general?
A. No, unless the money is
destined for some special object, right in itself, and go=
od
both in aim and means.
Q. Can he pay taxes to such a
government?
A. No; he ought not voluntar=
ily to
pay taxes, but he ought not to resist the collectin=
g of
taxes. A tax is levied by the=
government, and is exac=
ted
independently of the will of the subject. It is impossible to resist it with=
out
having recourse to
violence of some kind. Since =
the
Christian cannot employ violence, he is obliged=
to
offer his property at once to the loss by violence inflic=
ted on
it by the authorities.
Q. Can a Christian give a vo=
te at
elections, or take part in government or law busin=
ess?
A. No; participation in election,
government, or law business is participation in
government by force.
Q. Wherein lies the chief
significance of the doctrine of non-resistance?
A. In the fact that it alone
allows of the possibility of eradicating evil from o=
ne's
own heart, and also from one's neighbor's. This doctrine forbids doing that w=
hereby
evil has endured =
for
ages and multiplied in the world.
He who attacks another and injures him,
kindles in the other a feeling of hatred, the root of eve=
ry
evil. To injure another becau=
se he has injured us, even wi=
th the
aim of overcoming evil, is doubling the harm for h=
im and
for oneself; it is begetting, or at least setting free a=
nd
inciting, that evil spirit which we should wish to drive
out. Satan can never be drive=
n out
by Satan. Error can never be corrected by er=
ror,
and evil cannot be
vanquished by evil.
True non-resistance is the o=
nly
real resistance to evil. It i=
s crushing the serpent's
head. It destroys and in the =
end extirpates the evil fee=
ling.
Q. But if that is the true m=
eaning
of the rule of non-resistance, can it always put into
practice?
A. It can be put into practi=
ce
like every virtue enjoined by the law of God. A virtue cannot be practiced in al=
l circumstances without
self-sacrifice, privation, suffering, and in extreme cases loss o=
f life
itself. But he who esteems li=
fe more than fulfilling th=
e will
of God is already dead to the only true life. Trying to save his life he loses
it. Besides, generally speaking, whe=
re
non-resistance costs the sacrifice of a single life or of some
material welfare, resistance costs a thousand such sacrifice=
s.
Non-resistance is Salvation;
Resistance is Ruin.
It is incomparably less dang=
erous
to act justly than unjustly, to submit to injuries t=
han to
resist them with violence, less dangerous even in one's
relations to the present life. If
all men refused to
resist evil by evil our world would be happy.
Q. But so long as only a few=
act
thus, what will happen to them?
A. If only one man acted thu=
s, and
all the rest agreed to
crucify him, would it not be nobler for him to die in the glory of non-resisting =
love,
praying for his enemies, than to live to wear the crown of Caesar st=
ained
with the blood of the slain? However, one man, or a thousand me=
n,
firmly resolved n=
ot to
oppose evil by evil are far more free from danger by violence than those who
resort to violence, whether among civilized or savage
neighbors. The robber, the
murderer, and the=
cheat
will leave them in peace, sooner than those who oppose them with arms, =
and
those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword, but
those who seek after peace, and behave kindly and harmlessly,
forgiving and forgetting injuries, for the most part enjoy pea=
ce,
or, if they die, they die blessed. In this way, if all kep=
t the
ordinance of non-resistance, there would obviously be no e=
vil
nor crime. If the majority ac=
ted thus they would establi=
sh the
rule of love and good will even over evil doers, never
opposing evil with evil, and never resorting to force. If there were a moderately large
minority of such =
men,
they would exercise such a salutary moral influence on society th=
at
every cruel punishment would be abolished, and violence=
and
feud would be replaced by peace and love. Even if there were only a small mi=
nority
of them, they wou=
ld
rarely experience anything worse than the world's contempt, and meantime =
the
world, though unconscious of it, and not grateful for it, wo=
uld be
continually becoming wiser and better for their unseen
action on it. And if in the w=
orst
case some members=
of
the minority were persecuted to death, in dying for the truth they woul=
d have
left behind them their doctrine, sanctified by the blood=
of
their martyrdom. Peace, then,=
to all who seek peace, and=
may
overruling love be the imperishable heritage of every soul =
who
obeys willingly Christ's word, "Resist not evil.&=
quot;
ADIN BALLOU.
For fifty years
Ballou wrote and published books dealing principally with the question of
non-resistance to evil by force. In these works, which are distinguished by=
the
clearness of their thought and eloquence of exposition, the question is loo=
ked
at from every possible side, and the binding nature of this command on every
Christian who acknowledges the Bible as the revelation of God is firmly
established. All the ordinary
objections to the doctrine of non-resistance from the Old and New Testaments
are brought forward, such as the expulsion of the moneychangers from the
Temple, and so on, and arguments follow in disproof of them all. The practical reasonableness of th=
is
rule of conduct is shown independently of Scripture, and all the objections=
ordinarily
made against its practicability are stated and refuted. Thus one chapter in=
a
book of his treats of non-resistance in exceptional cases, and he owns in t=
his
connection that if there were cases in which the rule of non-resistance were
impossible of application, it would prove that the law was not universally =
authoritative. Quoting these cases, he shows that=
it is
precisely in them that the application of the rule is both necessary and re=
asonable. There is no aspect of the question,
either on his side or on his opponents', which he has not followed up in hi=
s writings. I mention all this to show the
unmistakable interest which such works ought to have for men who make a
profession of Christianity, and because one would have thought Ballou's wor=
k would
have been well known, and the ideas expressed by him would lave been either
accepted or refuted; but such has not been the case.
The work of Garri=
son,
the father, in his foundation of the Society of Non-resistants and his
Declaration, even more than my correspondence with the Quakers, convinced m=
e of
the fact that the departure of the ruling form of Christianity from the law=
of Christ
on non-resistance by force is an error that has long been observed and poin=
ted
out, and that men have labored, and are still laboring, to correct. Ballou's work confirmed me still m=
ore in
this view. But the fate of
Garrison, still more that of Ballou, in being completely unrecognized in sp=
ite
of fifty years of obstinate and persistent work in the same direction,
confirmed me in the idea that there exists a kind of tacit but steadfast co=
nspiracy
of silence about all such efforts.
Ballou died in
August, 1890, and there was as obituary notice of him in an American journa=
l of
Christian views (RELIGIO-PHILOSOPHICAL JOURNAL, August 23). In this laudato=
ry
notice it is recorded that Ballou was the spiritual director of a parish, t=
hat
he delivered from eight to nine thousand sermons, married one thousand coup=
les,
and wrote about five hundred articles; but there is not a single word said =
of
the object to which he devoted his life; even the word
"non-resistance" is not mentioned. Precisely as it was with all t=
he
preaching of the Quakers for two hundred years and, too, with the efforts of
Garrison the father, the foundation of his society and journal, and his
Declaration, so it is with the life-work of Ballou. It seems just as though=
it
did not exist and never had existed.
We have an astoun=
ding
example of the obscurity of works which aim at expounding the doctrine of
non-resistance to evil by force, and at confuting those who do not recognize
this commandment, in the book of the Tsech Helchitsky, which has only lately
been noticed and has not hitherto been printed.
Soon after the
appearance of my book in German, I received a letter from Prague, from a
professor of the university there, informing me of the existence of a work,
never yet printed, by Helchitsky, a Tsech of the fifteenth century, entitled
"The Net of Faith." In
this work, the professor told me, Helchitsky expressed precisely the same v=
iew
as to true and false Christianity as I had expressed in my book "What I
Believe." The professor =
wrote
to me that Helchitsky's work was to be published for the first time in the
Tsech language in the JOURNAL OF THE PETERSBURG ACADEMY OF SILENCE. Since I could not obtain the book
itself, I tried to make myself acquainted with what was known of Helchitsky,
and I gained the following information from a German book sent me by the Pr=
ague
professor and from Pypin's history of Tsech literature. This was Pypin's
account:
"'The Net of Faith' is
Christ's teaching, which ought to draw man up out of the dark =
depths
of the sea of worldliness and his own iniquity. True faith consists in believing G=
od's
Word; but now a t=
ime
has come when men mistake the true faith for heresy, and therefore it is for=
the
reason to point out what the true faith consists in, if a=
nyone
does not know this. It is hid=
den in darkness from men, a=
nd
they do not recognize the true law of Christ.
"To make this law plain,
Helchitsky points to the primitive organization of Christi=
an
society--the organization which, he says, is now regarded i=
n the
Roman Church as an abominable heresy. This Primitive =
Church
was his special ideal of social organization, founded on
equality, liberty, and fraternity. Christianity, in Helchi=
tsky's
view, still preserves these elements, and it is only
necessary for society to return to its pure doctrine to render
unnecessary every other form of social order in which kings and
popes are essential; the law of love would alone be sufficie=
nt in
every case.
"Historically, Helchits=
ky
attributes the degeneration of Christianity to the tim=
es of
Constantine the Great, whom he Pope Sylvester admitted=
into
the Christian Church with all his heathen morals and life=
. Constantine, in his turn, endowed =
the Pope with worldly riche=
s and
power. From that time forward=
these two ruling powers=
were
constantly aiding one another to strive for nothing but
outward glory. Divines and ecclesiastical dignitar=
ies
began to concern themselves only about subduing the whole
world to their authority, incited men against one another to =
murder
and plunder, and in creed and life reduced Christiani=
ty to
a nullity. Helchitsky denies completely the right to=
make
war and to inflict the punishment of death; every soldier=
, even
the 'knight,' is only a violent evil doer--a murderer.&=
quot;
The same account =
is
given by the German book, with the addition of a few biographical details a=
nd
some extracts from Helchitsky's writings.
Having learnt the
drift of Helchitsky's teaching in this way, I awaited all the more impatien=
tly
the appearance of "The Net of Faith" in the journal of the
Academy. But one year passed,=
then two
and three, and still the book did not appear. It was only in 1888 that I learned=
that
the printing of the book, which had been begun, was stopped. I obtained the proofs of what had =
been printed
and read them through. It is a
marvelous book from every point of view.
Its general tenor=
is
given with perfect accuracy by Pypin. Helchitsky's fundamental idea is that
Christianity, by allying itself with temporal power in the days of Constant=
ine,
and by continuing to develop in such conditions, has become completely dist=
orted,
and has ceased to be Christian altogether.=
Helchitsky gave the title "The Net of Faith" to his book,
taking as his motto the verse of the Gospel about the calling of the discip=
les
to be fishers of men; and, developing this metaphor, he says:
"Christ, by means of his
disciples, would have caught all the world in his net of fai=
th,
but the greater fishes broke the net and escaped out of it, =
and
all the rest have slipped through the holes made by the g=
reater
fishes, so that the net has remained quite empty. The greater fishes who broke the n=
et are
the rulers, emper=
ors,
popes, kings, who have not renounced power, and instead of t=
rue
Christianity have put on what is simply a mask of it.&qu=
ot;
Helchitsky teaches
precisely what has been and is taught in these days by the non-resistant
Mennonites and Quakers, and in former tunes by the Bogomilites, Paulicians,=
and
many others. He teaches that
Christianity, expecting from its adherents gentleness, meekness, peaceablen=
ess,
forgiveness of injuries, turning the other cheek when one is struck, and lo=
ve
for enemies, is inconsistent with the use of force, which is an indispensab=
le condition
of authority.
The Christian,
according to Helchitsky's reasoning, not only cannot be a ruler or a soldie=
r;
he cannot take any part in government nor in trade, or even be a landowner;=
he
can only be an artisan or a husbandman.
This book is one =
of
the few works attacking official Christianity which has escaped being
burned. All such so-called
heretical works were burned at the stake, together with their authors, so t=
hat
there are few ancient works exposing the errors of official Christianity. The book has a special interest fo=
r this
reason alone. But apart from =
its
interest from every point of view, it is one of the most remarkable product=
s of
thought for its depth of aim, for the astounding strength and beauty of the
national language in which it is written, and for its antiquity. And yet for
more than four centuries it has remained unprinted, and is still unknown,
except to a few learned specialists.
One would have
thought that all such works, whether of the Quakers, of Garrison, of Ballou=
, or
of Helchitsky, asserting and proving as they do, on the principles of the
Gospel, that our modern world takes a false view of Christ's teaching, would
have awakened interest, excitement, talk, and discussion among spiritual
teachers and their flocks alike.
Works of this kin=
d,
dealing with the very essence of Christian doctrine, ought, one would have
thought, to have been examined and accepted as true, or refuted and
rejected. But nothing of the =
kind
has occurred, and the same fate has been repeated with all those works. Men of the most diverse views,
believers, and, what is surprising, unbelieving liberals also, as though by
agreement, all preserve the same persistent silence about them, and all tha=
t has
been done by people to explain the true meaning of Christ's doctrine remains
either ignored or forgotten.
But it is still m=
ore
astonishing that two other books, of which I heard on the appearance of my
book, should be so little known, I mean Dymond's book "On War,"
published for the first time in London in 1824, and Daniel Musser's book on
"Non-resistance," written in 1864. It is particularly astonishing that
these books should be unknown, because, apart from their intrinsic merits, =
both
books treat not so much of the theory as of the practical application of the
theory to life, of the attitude of Christianity to military service, which =
is
especially important and interesting now in these clays of universal
conscription.
People will ask,
perhaps: How ought a subject to behave who believes that war is inconsistent
with his religion while the government demands from him that he should enter
military service?
This question is,=
I
think, a most vital one, and the answer to it is specially important in the=
se
days of universal conscription. All--or at least the great majority of the
people--are Christians, and all men are called upon for military service. How ought a man, as a Christian, t=
o meet
this demand? This is the gist=
of Dymond's
answer:
"His duty is humbly but
steadfastly to refuse to serve."
There are some
people, who, without any definite reasoning about it, conclude straightway =
that
the responsibility of government measures rests entirely on those who resol=
ve
on them, or that the governments and sovereigns decide the question of what=
is
good or bad for their subjects, and the duty of the subjects is merely to o=
bey.
I think that arguments of this kind only obscure men's conscience. I cannot take part in the councils=
of
government, and therefore I am not responsible for its misdeeds.. Indeed, but we are responsible for=
our
own misdeeds. And the misdeed=
s of our
rulers become our own, if we, knowing that they are misdeeds, assist in
carrying, them out. Those who
suppose that they are bound to obey the government, and that the responsibi=
lity
for the misdeeds they commit is transferred from them to their rulers, dece=
ive
themselves. They say: "We give our acts up to the w=
ill of
others, and our acts cannot be good or bad; there is no merit in what is go=
od
nor responsibility for what is evil in our actions, since they are not done=
of
our own will."
It is remarkable =
that
the very same thing is said in the instructions to soldiers which they make
them learn--that is, that the officer is alone responsible for the conseque=
nces
of his command. But this is n=
ot
right. A man cannot get rid o=
f the responsibility,
for his own actions. And that=
is
clear from the following example.
If your officer commands you to kill your neighbor's child, to kill =
your
father or your mother, would you obey?&nbs=
p;
If you would not obey, the whole argument falls to the ground, for if
you can disobey the governors in one case, where do you draw the line up to
which you can obey them? Ther=
e is
no line other than that laid down by Christianity, and that line is both re=
asonable
and practicable.
And therefore we
consider it the duty of every man who thinks war inconsistent with
Christianity, meekly but firmly to refuse to serve in the army. And let those whose lot it is to a=
ct
thus, remember that the fulfillment of a great duty rests with them. The
destiny of humanity in the world depends, so far as it depends on men at al=
l,
on their fidelity to their religion.
Let them confess their conviction, and stand up for it, and not in w=
ords
alone, but in sufferings too, if need be.&=
nbsp;
If you believe that Christ forbade murder, pay no heed to the argume=
nts
nor to the commands of those who call on you to bear a hand in it. By such a steadfast refusal to mak=
e use
of force, you call down on yourselves the blessing promised to those "=
who
hear these sayings and do them," and the time will come when the world
will recognize you as having aided in the reformation of mankind.
Musser's book is
called "Non-resistance Asserted," or "Kingdom of Christ and
Kingdoms of this World Separated."&nb=
sp;
This book is devoted to the same question, and was written when the
American Government was exacting military service from its citizens at the =
time
of the Civil War. And it has,=
too,
a value for all time, dealing with the question how, in such circumstances,
people should and can refuse to enter military service. Here is the tenor o=
f the
author's introductory remarks:
"It is well known that =
there
are many persons in the United States who refuse to fi=
ght on
grounds of conscience. They a=
re called the 'defenseless=
,' or
'non-resistant' Christians. T=
hese Christians refuse to de=
fend
their country, to bear arms, or at the call of government =
to
make war on its enemies. Till
lately this relig=
ious
scruple seemed a valid excuse to the government, and those who urged it =
were
let off service. But at the <=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> beginning of our Civil =
War
public opinion was agitated on this subject. It was natural that persons who
considered it their duty to bear all the
hardships and dangers of war in defense of their country should fe=
el
resentment against those persons who had for long shared wit=
h them
the advantages of the protection of government, and who =
now in
time of need and danger would not share in bearing the la=
bors
and dangers of its defense. I=
t was even natural that they =
should
declare the attitude of such men monstrous, irrational, =
and
suspicious."
A host of orators=
and
writers, our author tells us, arose to oppose this attitude, and tried to p=
rove
the sinfulness of non-resistance, both from Scripture and on common-sense
grounds. And this was perfectly natural, and in many cases the authors were
right--right, that is, in regard to persons who did not renounce the benefi=
ts
they received from the government and tried to avoid the hardships of milit=
ary
service, but not right in regard to the principle of non-resistance itself.
Above all, our author proves the binding nature of the rule of non-resistan=
ce
for a Christian, pointing out that this command is perfectly clear, and is =
enjoined
upon every Christian by Christ without possibility of misinterpretation.
"Bethink yourselves whether it is righteous to obey man more than
God," said Peter and John. And this is precisely what ought to be the
attitude to every man who wishes to be Christian to the claim on him for
military service, when Christ has said, "Resist not evil by force.&quo=
t;
As for the question of the principle itself, the author regards that as
decided. As to the second question, whether people have the right to refuse=
to
serve in the army who have not refused the benefits conferred by a governme=
nt
resting on force, the author considers it in detail, and arrives at the
conclusion that a Christian following the law of Christ, since he does not =
go
to war, ought not either to take advantage of any institutions of governmen=
t,
courts of law, or elections, and that in his private concerns he must not h=
ave recourse
to the authorities, the police, or the law. Further on in the book he treat=
s of
the relation of the Old Testament to the New, the value of government for t=
hose
who are Christians, and makes some observations on the doctrine of
non-resistance and the attacks made on it. The author concludes his book by
saying: "Christians do not need government, and therefore they cannot
either obey it in what is contrary to Christ's teaching nor, still less, ta=
ke
part in it." Christ took his disciples out of the world, he says. They=
do
not expect worldly blessings and worldly happiness, but they expect eternal
life. The Spirit in whom they live makes them contented and happy in every =
position.
If the world tolerates them, they are always happy. If the world will not l=
eave
them in peace, they will go elsewhere, since they are pilgrims on the earth=
and
they have no fixed place of habitation. They believe that "the dead may
bury their dead." One thing only is needful for them, "to follow
their Master."
Even putting aside
the question as to the principle laid down in these two books as to the
Christian's duty in his attitude to war, one cannot help perceiving the
practical importance and the urgent need of deciding the question.
There are people,
hundreds of thousands of Quakers, Mennonites, all our Douhobortsi, Molokani,
and others who do not belong to any definite sect, who consider that the us=
e of
force--and, consequently, military service--is inconsistent with Christiani=
ty. Consequently
there are every year among us in Russia some men called upon for military
service who refuse to serve on the ground of their religious convictions. Does the government let them off t=
hen? No.
Does it compel them to go, and in case of disobedience punish them?<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> No. This was how the government tr=
eated
them in 1818. Here is an extr=
act
from the diary of Nicholas Myravyov of Kars, which was not passed by the
censor, and is not known in Russia:
"Tiflis, October 2, 181=
8.
"In the morning the com=
mandant
told me that five peasants belonging to a landowne=
r in
the Tamboff government had lately been sent to Georgia. These men had been sent for soldie=
rs, but they would not serv=
e;
they had been several times flogged and made to run the gau=
ntlet,
but they would submit readily to the cruelest tortures, =
and
even to death, rather than serve. 'Let us go,' they said,=
'and
leave us alone; we will not hurt anyone; all men are equ=
al,
and the Tzar is a man like us; why should we pay him tribu=
te;
why should I expose my life to danger to kill in battl=
e some
man who has done me no harm? =
You can cut us to pieces an=
d we
will not be soldiers. He who =
has compassion on us will g=
ive us
charity, but as for the government rations, we =
have
not had them and we do not want to have them.' These were the words of those peas=
ants,
who declare that =
there
are numbers like them Russia. They
brought them four=
times
before the Committee of Ministers, and at last decided to lay the matt=
er
before the Tzar who gave orders that they should be taken to
Georgia for correction, and commanded the commander-in-chief =
to
send him a report every month of their gradual success in
bringing these peasants to a better mind."
How the correction
ended is not known, as the whole episode indeed was unknown, having been ke=
pt
in profound secrecy.
This was how the
government behaved seventy-five years ago--this is how it has behaved in a
great cumber of cases, studiously concealed from the people. And this is how the government beha=
ves now,
except in the case of the German Mennonites, living in the province of Kher=
son,
whose plea against military service is considered well grounded. They are made to work off their te=
rm of service
in labor in the forests.
But in the recent
cases of refusal on the part of Mennonites to serve in the army on religious
grounds, the government authorities have acted in the following manner:
To begin with, th=
ey
have recourse to every means of coercion used in our times to
"correct" the culprit and bring him to "a better mind,"=
and
these measures are carried out with the greatest secrecy. I know that in the case of one man=
who
declined to serve in 1884 in Moscow, the official correspondence on the sub=
ject
had two months after his refusal accumulated into a big folio, and was kept
absolutely secret among the Ministry.
They usually begi=
n by
sending the culprit to the priests, and the latter, to their shame be it sa=
id,
always exhort him to obedience. But since the exhortation in Christ's name =
to
forswear Christ is for the most part unsuccessful, after he has received th=
e admonitions
of the spiritual authorities, they send him to the gendarmes, and the latte=
r,
finding, as a rule, no political cause for offense in him, dispatch him back
again, and then he is sent to the learned men, to the doctors, and to the
madhouse. During all these
vicissitudes he is deprived of liberty and has to endure every kind of
humiliation and suffering as a convicted criminal. (All this has been repea=
ted
in four cases.) The doctors l=
et him
out of the madhouse, and then every kind of secret shift is employed to pre=
vent
him from going free--whereby others would be encouraged to refuse to serve =
as
he has done--and at the same time to avoid leaving him among the soldiers, =
for
fear they too should learn from him that military service is not at all the=
ir
duty by the law of God, as they are assured, but quite contrary to it.
The most convenie=
nt
thing for the government would be to kill the non-resistant by flogging him=
to
death or some other means, as was done in former days. But to put a man openly to death b=
ecause
he believes in the creed we all confess is impossible. To let a man alone who has refused
obedience is also impossible. And
so the government tries either to compel the man by ill-treatment to renoun=
ce
Christ, or in some way or other to get rid of him unobserved, without openly
putting him to death, and to hide somehow both the action and the man himse=
lf
from other people. And so all kinds of shifts and wiles and cruelties are s=
et
on foot against him. They eit=
her
send him to the frontier or provoke him to insubordination, and then try him
for breach of discipline and shut him up in the prison of the disciplinary
battalion, where they can ill treat him freely unseen by anyone, or they
declare him mad, and lock him up in a lunatic asylum. They sent one man in this way to
Tashkend--that is, they pretended to transfer to the Tashkend army; another=
to
Omsk; a third him they convicted of insubordination and shut up in prison; a
fourth they sent to a lunatic asylum.
Everywhere the sa=
me
story is repeated. Not only t=
he
government, but the great majority of liberal, advanced people, as they are=
called,
studiously turn away from everything that has been said, written, or done, =
or
is being done by men to prove the incompatibility of force in its most awfu=
l,
gross, and glaring form--in the form, that is, of an army of soldiers prepa=
red
to murder anyone, whoever it may be--with the teachings of Christianity, or
even of the humanity which society professes as its creed.
So that the
information I have gained of the attitude of the higher ruling classes, not
only in Russia but in Europe and America, toward the elucidation of this
question has convinced me that there exists in these ruling classes a
consciously hostile attitude to true Christianity, which is shown pre-emine=
ntly
in their reticence in regard to all manifestations of it.
Fate of the Book
"What I Believe"--Evasive Character of Religious Criticisms of
Principles of my Book--1st Reply: Use of Force not Opposed to Christianity-=
-2d
Reply: Use of Force Necessary to Restrain Evil Doers--3d Reply: Duty of Usi=
ng
Force in Defense of One's Neighbor--4th Reply: The Breach of the Command of
Non-resistance to be Regarded Simply as a Weakness--5th Reply: Reply Evaded=
by
Making Believe that the Question has long been Decided--To Devise such Subt=
erfuges
and to take Refuge Behind the Authority of the Church, of Antiquity, and of=
Religion
is all that Ecclesiastical Critics can do to get out of the Contradiction
between Use of Force and Christianity in Theory and in Practice--General
Attitude of the Ecclesiastical World and of the Authorities to Profession of
True Christianity--General Character of Russian Freethinking Critics--Forei=
gn
Freethinking Critics--Mistaken Arguments of these Critics the Result of
Misunderstanding the True Meaning of Christ's Teaching.
The impression I gained of a desire=
to
conceal, to hush up, what I had tried to express in my book, led me to judge
the book itself afresh.
On its appearance=
it
had, as I had anticipated, been forbidden, and ought therefore by law to ha=
ve
been burnt. But, at the same =
time,
it was discussed among officials, and circulated in a great number of
manuscript and lithograph copies, and in translations printed abroad.
And very quickly
after the book, criticisms, both religious and secular in character, made t=
heir
appearance, and these the government tolerated, and even encouraged. So that the refutation of a book w=
hich
no one was supposed to know anything about was even chosen as the subject f=
or
theological dissertations in the academies.
The criticisms of=
my
book, Russian and foreign alike, fall under two general divisions--the
religious criticisms of men who regard themselves as believers, and secular
criticisms, that is, those of freethinkers.
I will begin with=
the
first class. In my book I mad=
e it
an accusation against the teachers of the Church that their teaching is opp=
osed
to Christ's commands clearly and definitely expressed in the Sermon on the
Mount, and opposed in especial to his command in regard to resistance to ev=
il,
and that in this way they deprive Christ's teaching of all value. The Church authorities accept the =
teaching
of the Sermon on the Mount on non-resistance to evil by force as divine
revelation; and therefore one would have thought that if they felt called u=
pon
to write about my book at all, they would have found it inevitable before
everything else to reply to the principal point of my charge against them, =
and
to say plainly, do they or do they not admit the teaching of the Sermon on =
the Mount
and the commandment of non-resistance to evil as binding on a Christian.
These questions w=
ere
put plainly and directly, and seemed to require a plain and direct answer; =
but
in all the criticisms of my book there was no such plain and direct
answer. No; my book received
precisely the same treatment as all the attacks upon the teachers of the Ch=
urch
for their defection from the Law of Christ of which history from the days of
Constantine is full.
A very great deal=
was
said in connection with my book of my having incorrectly interpreted this a=
nd
other passages of the Gospel, of my being in error in not recognizing the
Trinity, the redemption, and the immortality of the soul. A very great deal was said, but no=
t a
word about the one thing which for every Christian is the most essential
question in life--how to reconcile the duty of forgiveness, meekness, patie=
nce,
and love for all, neighbors and enemies alike, which is so clearly expresse=
d in
the words of our teacher, and in the heart of each of us--how to reconcile =
this
duty with the obligation of using force in war upon men of our own or a for=
eign
people.
All that are worth
calling answers to this question can be brought under the following five
heads. I have tried to bring
together in this connection all I could, not only from the criticisms on my=
book,
but from what has been written in past times on this theme.
The first and cru=
dest
form of reply consists in the bold assertion that the use of force is not
opposed by the teaching of Christ; that it is permitted, and even enjoined,=
on
the Christian by the Old and New Testaments.
Assertions of this
kind proceed, for the most part, from men who have attained the highest ran=
ks
in the governing or ecclesiastical hierarchy, and who are consequently
perfectly assured that no one will dare to contradict their assertion, and =
that
if anyone does contradict it they will hear nothing of the contradiction. These men have, for the most part,=
through
the intoxication of power, so lost the right idea of what that Christianity=
is
in the name of which they hold their position that what is Christian in Chr=
istianity
presents itself to them as heresy, while everything in the Old and New
Testaments which can be distorted into an antichristian and heathen meaning
they regard as the foundation of Christianity. In support of their assertion that
Christianity is not opposed to the use of force, these men usually, with th=
e greatest
audacity, bring together all the most obscure passages from the Old and New
Testaments, interpreting them in the most unchristian way--the punishment of
Ananias and Sapphira, of Simon the Sorcerer, etc. They quote all those sayings of Ch=
rist's
which can possibly be interpreted as justification of cruelty: the expulsion
from the Temple; "It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom than
for this city," etc., etc.
According to these people's notions, a Christian government is not in
the least bound to be guided by the spirit of peace, forgiveness of injurie=
s,
and love for enemies.
To refute such an
assertion is useless, because the very people who make this assertion refute
themselves, or, rather, renounce Christ, inventing a Christianity and a Chr=
ist
of their own in the place of him in whose name the Church itself exists, as=
well
as their office in it. If all=
men
were to learn that the Church professes to believe in a Christ of punishment
and warfare, not of forgiveness, no one would believe in the Church and it =
could
not prove to anyone what it is trying to prove.
The second, somew=
hat
less gross, form of argument consists in declaring that, though Christ did
indeed preach that we should turn the left cheek, and give the cloak also, =
and
this is the highest moral duty, yet that there are wicked men in the world,=
and
if these wicked men mere not restrained by force, the whole world and all g=
ood
men would come to ruin through them.
This argument I found for the first time in John Chrysostom, and I s=
how how
he is mistaken in my book "What I believe."
This argument is =
ill
grounded, because if we allow ourselves to regard any men as intrinsically
wicked men, then in the first place we annul, by so doing, the whole idea of
the Christian teaching, according to which we are all equals and brothers, =
as sons
of one father in heaven. Seco=
ndly,
it is ill founded, because even if to use force against wicked men had been
permitted by God, since it is impossible to find a perfect and unfailing di=
stinction
by which one could positively know the wicked from the good, so it would co=
me
to all individual men and societies of men mutually regarding each other as
wicked men, as is the case now. Thirdly, even if it were possible to
distinguish the wicked from the good unfailingly, even then it would be imp=
ossible
to kill or injure or shut up in prison these wicked men, because there woul=
d be
no one in a Christian society to carry out such punishment, since every
Christian, as a Christian, has been commanded to use no force against the
wicked.
The third kind of
answer, still more subtle than the preceding, consists in asserting that th=
ough
the command of non-resistance to evil by force is binding on the Christian =
when
the evil is directed against himself personally, it ceases to be binding wh=
en the
evil is directed against his neighbors, and that then the Christian is not =
only
not bound to fulfill the commandment, but is even bound to act in oppositio=
n to
it in defense of his neighbors, and to use force against transgressors by
force. This assertion is an
absolute assumption, and one cannot find in all Christ's teaching any
confirmation of such an argument.
Such an argument is not only a limitation, but a direct contradiction
and negation of the commandment. If
every man has the right to have recourse to force in face of a danger
threatening an other, the question of the use of force is reduced to a ques=
tion
of the definition of danger for another.&n=
bsp;
If my private judgment is to decide the question of what is danger f=
or
another, there is no occasion for the use of force which could not be justi=
fied
on the ground of danger threatening some other man. They killed and burnt witches, they
killed aristocrats and girondists, they killed their enemies because those =
who
were in authority regarded them as dangerous for the people.
If this important
limitation, which fundamentally undermines the whole value of the commandme=
nt,
had entered into Christ's meaning, there must have been mention of it
somewhere. This restriction i=
s made
nowhere in our Saviour's life or preaching. On the contrary, warning is given
precisely against this treacherous and scandalous restriction which nullifi=
es
the commandment. The error an=
d impossibility
of such a limitation is shown in the Gospel with special clearness in the
account of the judgment of Caiaphas, who makes precisely this distinction.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He acknowledged that it was wrong =
to
punish the innocent Jesus, but he saw in him a source of danger not for
himself, but for the whole people, and therefore he said: It is better for =
one
man to die, that the whole people perish not. And the erroneousness of such a
limitation is still more clearly expressed in the words spoken to Peter whe=
n he
tried to resist by force evil directed against Jesus (Matt. xxvi. 52). Peter
was not defending himself, but his beloved and heavenly Master. And Christ at once reproved him for
this, saying, that he who takes up the sword shall perish by the sword.
Besides, apologies
for violence used against one's neighbor in defense of another neighbor from
greater violence are always untrustworthy, because when force is used again=
st
one who has not yet carried out his evil intent, I can never know which wou=
ld
be greater--the evil of my act of violence or of the act I want to prevent.=
We
kill the criminal that society may be rid of him, and we never know whether=
the
criminal of to-day would not have been a changed man tomorrow, and whether =
our punishment
of him is not useless cruelty. We shut up the dangerous--as we think--membe=
r of
society, but the next day this man might cease to be dangerous and his
imprisonment might be for nothing. I see that a man I know to be a ruffian =
is
pursuing a young girl. I have a gun in my hand--I kill the ruffian and save=
the
girl. But the death or the wounding of the ruffian has positively taken pla=
ce,
while what would have happened if this had not been I cannot know. And what=
an
immense mass of evil must result, and indeed does result, from allowing men=
to assume
the right of anticipating what may happen. Ninety-nine per cent of the evil=
of
the world is founded on this reasoning--from the Inquisition to dynamite bo=
mbs,
and the executions or punishments of tens of thousands of political crimina=
ls.
A fourth, still m=
ore
refined, reply to the question, What ought to be the Christian's attitude to
Christ's command of non-resistance to evil by force? consists in declaring =
that
they do not deny the command of non-resisting evil, but recognize it; but t=
hey
only do not ascribe to this command the special exclusive value attached to=
it
by sectarians. To regard this
command as the indispensable condition of Christian life, as Garrison, Ball=
ou,
Dymond, the Quakers, the Mennonites and the Shakers do now, and as the Mora=
vian
brothers, the Waldenses, the Albigenses, the Bogomilites, and the Paulicians
did in the past, is a one-sided heresy.&nb=
sp;
This command has neither more nor less value than all the other comm=
ands,
and the man who through weakness transgresses any command whatever, the com=
mand
of non-resistance included, does not cease to be a Christian if he hold the
true faith. This is a very sk=
illful
device, and many people who wish to be deceived are easily deceived by it.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The device consists in reducing a =
direct
conscious denial of a command to a casual breach of it. But one need only compare the atti=
tude
of the teachers of the Church to this and to other commands which they real=
ly
do recognize, to be convinced that their attitude to this is completely
different from their attitude to other duties.
The command again=
st
fornication they do really recognize, and consequently they do not admit th=
at
in any case fornication can cease to be wrong. The Church preachers never point o=
ut
cases in which the command against fornication can be broken, and always te=
ach
that we must avoid seductions which lead to temptation to fornication. But not so with the command of
non-resistance. All church
preachers recognize cases in which that command can be broken, and teach the
people accordingly. And they =
not
only do not teach teat we should avoid temptations to break it, chief of wh=
ich
is the military oath, but they themselves administer it. The preachers of t=
he
Church never in any other case advocate the breaking of any other
commandment. But in connectio=
n with
the commandment of non-resistance they openly teach that we must not unders=
tand
it too literally, but that there are conditions and circumstances in which =
we
must do the direct opposite, that is, go to law, fight, punish. So that occasions for fulfilling t=
he commandment
of non-resistance to evil by force are taught for the most part as occasions
for not fulfilling it. The
fulfillment of this command, they say, is very difficult and pertains only =
to perfection. And how can it not be difficult, w=
hen
the breach of it is not only not forbidden, but law courts, prisons, cannon=
s, guns,
armies, and wars are under the immediate sanction of the Church? It cannot be true, then, that this
command is recognized by the preachers of the Church as on a level with oth=
er
commands.
The preachers of =
the
Church clearly, do not recognize it; only not daring to acknowledge this, t=
hey
try to conceal their not recognizing it.
So much for the
fourth reply.
The fifth kind of
answer, which is the subtlest, the most often used, and the most effective,
consists in avoiding answering, in making believe that this question is one
which has long ago been decided perfectly clearly and satisfactorily, and t=
hat
it is not worth while to talk about it.&nb=
sp;
This method of reply is employed by all the more or less cultivated
religious writers, that is to say, those who feel the laws of Christ binding
for themselves. Knowing that =
the
contradiction existing between the teaching of Christ which we profess with=
our
lips and the whole order of our lives cannot be removed by words, and that
touching upon it can only make it more obvious, they, with more or less
ingenuity, evade it, pretending that the question of reconciling Christiani=
ty
with the use of force has been decided already, or does not exist at all.
[Footnote: I only know= one work which differs somewhat from this general definition, and that is not a criticism in the precise meaning o= f the word, but an article treating of the same subject and = having my book in view. I mean the pamphlet of= Mr. Troizky (published at Kazan), "A Sermon for the People." The author obviously accepts Chris= t's teaching in its true meaning. He says that the prohibition of resistance to evil by force = means exactly what it does mean; and the same with the prohibit= ion of swearing. He does not, as oth= ers do, deny the meaning of Christ's teaching, but unfortunately he does not draw fro= m this admission the inevitable deductions which present themselves spontaneously in our life when we understand Christ= 's teaching in that way. If we m= ust not oppose = evil by force, nor swear, everyone naturally asks, "How, then, = about military service? and the oath of obedience?"<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> To this question the author gives = no reply; but = it must be answered. And if he c= annot answer, then he would do better no to s= peak on the subject at all, as such silence leads to error.]<= o:p>
The majority of
religious critics of my book use this fifth method of replying to it. I cou=
ld
quote dozens of such critics, in all of whom, without exception, we find the
same thing repeated: everything is discussed except what constitutes the
principal subject of the book. As a
characteristic example of such criticisms, I will quote the article of a
well-known and ingenious English writer and preacher--Farrar--who, like many
learned theologians, is a great master of the art of circuitously evading a
question. The article was pub=
lished
in an American journal, the FORUM, in October, 1888.
After conscientio=
usly
explaining in brief the contents of my book, Farrar says:
"Tolstoy came to the
conclusion that a coarse deceit had been palmed upon the world w=
hen
these words 'Resist not evil,' were held by civil society t=
o be
compatible with war, courts of justice, capital punish=
ment,
divorce, oaths, national prejudice, and, indeed,=
with
most of the institutions of civil and social life. He now believes that the kingdom o=
f God
would come if all=
men
kept these five commandments of Christ, viz.: 1. Live in peace with a=
ll
men. 2. Be pure. 3. Take no oaths. 4. Resist not evil. 5. Renounce national distinctions.=
"Tolstoy," he says,
"rejects the inspiration of the Old Testament; hence he rej=
ects
the chief doctrines of the Church--that of the Atonement by blo=
od,
the Trinity, the descent of the Holy Ghost on the Apost=
les,
and his transmission through the priesthood." And he recognizes only the words a=
nd
commands of Christ. "But is this interpretation of
Christ a true one?" he says. "Are all men bound to act as
Tolstoy teaches--i. e., to carry out these five
commandments of Christ?"
You expect, then,
that in answer to this essential question, which is the only one that could
induce a man to write an article about the book, he will say either that th=
is
interpretation of Christ's teaching is true and we ought to follow it, or he
will say that such an interpretation is untrue, will show why, and will giv=
e some
other correct interpretation of those words which I interpret incorrectly.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> But nothing of this kind is done.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Farrar only expresses his
"belief" that,
"although actuated by t=
he
noblest sincerity, Count Tolstoy has been misled by partial =
and
one-sided interpretations of the meaning of the Gospel a=
nd the
mind and will of Christ." What
this error consis=
ts in
is not made clear; it is only said: "To enter into the=
proof
of this is impossible in this article, for I have already exce=
eded
the space at my command."
And he concludes =
in a
tranquil spirit:
"Meanwhile, the reader =
who
feels troubled lest it should be his duty also to forsake al=
l the
conditions of his life and to take up the position and wor=
k of a
common laborer, may rest for the present on the principl=
e,
SECURUS JUDICAT ORBIS TERRARUM.
With few a=
nd
rare exceptions," he continues, "the whole of Christendom, from the d=
ays of
the Apostles down to our own, has come to the firm conclu=
sion
that it was the object of Christ to lay down great eternal
principles, but not to disturb the bases and revolutionize the
institutions of all human society, which themselves rest on divi=
ne
sanctions as well as on inevitable conditions. Were it my object to prove how unt=
enable
is the doctrine of
communism, based by Count Tolstoy upon the divine paradoxes [sic], which =
can be
interpreted only on historical principles in accordanc=
e with
the whole method of the teaching of Jesus, it would requ=
ire an
ampler canvas than I have here at my disposal."
What a pity he has
not an "ampler canvas at his disposal"! And what a strange thing =
it
is that for all these last fifteen centuries no one has had a "canvas
ample enough" to prove that Christ, whom we profess to believe in, says
something utterly unlike what he does say! Still, they could prove it if th=
ey
wanted to. But it is not worth while to prove what everyone knows; it is en=
ough
to say "SECURUS JUDICAT ORBIS TERRARUM."
And of this kind,
without exception, are all the criticisms of educated believers, who must, =
as
such, understand the danger of their position. The sole escape from it for =
them
lies in their hope that they may be able, by using the authority of the Chu=
rch,
of antiquity, and of their sacred office, to overawe the reader and draw him
away from the idea of reading the Gospel for himself and thinking out the
question in his own mind for himself. And in this they are successful; for,
indeed, how could the notion occur to any one that all that has been repeat=
ed
from century to century with such earnestness and solemnity by all those ar=
chdeacons,
bishops, archbishops, holy synods, and popes, is all of it a base lie and a
calumny foisted upon Christ by them for the sake of keeping safe the money =
they
must have to live luxuriously on the necks of other men? And it is a lie an=
d a
calumny so transparent that the only way of keeping it up consists in overa=
wing
people by their earnestness, their conscientiousness. It is just what has t=
aken
place of late years at recruiting sessions; at a table before the zertzal--=
the
symbol of the Tzars authority--in the seat of honor under the life-size
portrait of the Tzar, sit dignified old officials, wearing decorations,
conversing freely and easily, writing notes, summoning men before them, and
giving orders. Here, wearing a cross on his breast, near them, is prosperou=
s-looking
old Priest in a silken cassock, with long gray hair flowing on to his cope;
before a lectern who wears the golden cross and has a Gospel bound in gold.=
They summon Iran
Petroff. A young man comes in,
wretchedly, shabbily dressed, and in terror, the muscles of his face workin=
g, his
eyes bright and restless; and in a broken voice, hardly above a whisper, he
says: "I--by Christ's law--as a Christian--I cannot." "What is he muttering?" =
asks
the president, frowning impatiently and raising his eyes from his book to
listen. "Speak louder," the colonel with shining epaulets shouts =
to
him. "I--I as a Christian--"&nbs=
p;
And at last it appears that the young man refuses to serve in the ar=
my
because he is a Christian.
"Don't talk nonsense.
Stand to be measured.
Doctor, may I trouble you to measure him. He is all right?" "Yes." "Reverend father, administer =
the
oath to him."
No one is the lea=
st
disturbed by what the poor scared young man is muttering. They do not even =
pay
attention to it. "They a=
ll
mutter something, but we've no time to listen to it, we have to enroll so m=
any."
The recruit tries=
to
say something still. "It=
's
opposed to the law of Christ."
"Go along, go along; we know without your help what is opposed =
to
the law and what's not; and you soothe his mind, reverend father, soothe
him. Next: Vassily
Nikitin." And they lead =
the
trembling youth away. And it does not strike anyone --the guards, or Vassily
Nikitin, whom they are bringing in, or any of the spectators of this
scene--that these inarticulate words of the young man, at once suppressed by
the authorities, contain the truth, and that the loud, solemnly uttered
sentences of the calm, self-confident official and the priest are a lie and=
a deception.
Such is the
impression produced not only by Farrar's article, but by all those solemn
sermons, articles, and books which make their appearance from all sides
directly there is anywhere a glimpse of truth exposing a predominant
falsehood. At once begins the
series of long, clever, ingenious, and solemn speeches and writings, which =
deal
with questions nearly related to the subject, but skillfully avoid touching=
the
subject itself.
That is the essen=
ce
of the fifth and most effective means of getting out of the contradictions =
in
which Church Christianity has placed itself, by professing its faith in
Christ's teaching in words, while it denies it in its life, and teaches peo=
ple
to do the same.
Those who justify
themselves by the first method, directly, crudely asserting that Christ
sanctioned violence, wars, and murder, repudiate Christ's doctrine directly;
those who find their defense in the second, the third, or the fourth method=
are
confused and can easily be convicted of error; but this last class, who do =
not
argue, who do not condescend to argue about it, but take shelter behind the=
ir
own grandeur, and make a show of all this having been decided by them or at
least by someone long ago, and no longer offering a possibility of doubt to
anyone--they seem safe from attack, and will be beyond attack till men come=
to realize
that they are under the narcotic influence exerted on them by governments a=
nd
churches, and are no longer affected by it.
Such was the atti=
tude
of the spiritual critics--i. e., those professing faith in Christ--to my
book. And their attitude coul=
d not
have been different. They are=
bound
to take up this attitude by the contradictory position in which they find
themselves between belief in the divinity of their Master and disbelief in =
his
clearest utterances, and they want to escape from this contradiction. So that one cannot expect from the=
m free
discussion of the very essence of the question--that is, of the change in m=
en's
life which must result from applying Christ's teaching to the existing orde=
r of
the world. Such free discussi=
on I
only expected from worldly, freethinking critics who are not bound to Chris=
t's
teaching in any way, and can therefore take an independent view of it. I had anticipated that freethinkin=
g writers
would look at Christ, not merely, like the Churchmen, as the founder of a
religion of personal salvation, but, to express it in their language, as a
reformer who laid down new principles of life and destroyed the old, and wh=
ose
reforms are not yet complete, but are still in progress even now.
Such a view of Ch=
rist
and his teaching follows from my book. But to my astonishment, out of the g=
reat
number of critics of my book there was not one, either Russian or foreign, =
who
treated the subject from the side from which it was approached in the
book--that is, who criticised Christ's doctrines as philosophical, moral, a=
nd
social principles, to use their scientific expressions. This was not done i=
n a
single criticism. The freethinking Russian critics taking my book as though=
its
whole contents could be reduced to non-resistance to evil, and understanding
the doctrine of non-resistance to evil itself (no doubt for greater conveni=
ence
in refuting it) as though it would prohibit every kind of conflict with evi=
l,
fell vehemently upon this doctrine, and for some years past have been very
successfully proving that Christ's teaching is mistaken in so far as it for=
bids
resistance to evil. Their refutations of this hypothetical doctrine of Chri=
st
were all the more successful since they knew beforehand that their argument=
s could
not be contested or corrected, for the censorship, not having passed the bo=
ok,
did not pass articles in its defense.
It is a remarkable
thing that among us, where one cannot say a word about the Holy Scriptures
without the prohibition of the censorship, for some years past there have b=
een
in all the journals constant attacks and criticisms on the command of Chris=
t simply
and directly stated in Matt. v. 39.
The Russian advanced critics, obviously unaware of all that has been
done to elucidate the question of non-resistance, and sometimes even imagin=
ing apparently
that the rule of non-resistance to evil had been invented by me personally,
fell foul of the very idea of it.
They opposed it and attacked it, and advancing with great heat argum=
ents
which had long ago been analyzed and refuted from every point of view, they
demonstrated that a man ought invariably to defend (with violence) all the
injured and oppressed, and that thus the doctrine of non-resistance to evil=
is
an immoral doctrine.
To all Russian
critics the whole import of Christ's command seemed reducible to the fact t=
hat
it would hinder them from the active opposition to evil to which they are
accustomed. So that the princ=
iple
of non-resistance to evil by force has been attacked by two opposing camps:=
the
conservatives, because this principle would hinder their activity in resist=
ance
to evil as applied to the revolutionists, in persecution and punishment of
them; the revolutionists, too, because this principle would hinder their re=
sistance
to evil as applied to the conservatives and the overthrowing of them. The conservatives were indignant a=
t the doctrine
of non-resistance to evil by force hindering the energetic destruction of t=
he
revolutionary elements, which may ruin the national prosperity; the
revolutionists were indignant at the doctrine of non-resistance to evil by
force hindering the overthrow of the conservatives, who are ruining the
national prosperity. It is wo=
rthy
of remark in this connection that the revolutionists have attacked the
principle of non-resistance to evil by force, in spite of the fact that it =
is
the greatest terror and danger for every despotism. For ever since the beginning of the
world, the use of violence of every kind, from the Inquisition to the
Schlüsselburg fortress, has rested and still rests on the opposite
principle of the necessity of resisting evil by force.
Besides this, the
Russian critics have pointed out the fact that the application of the comma=
nd
of non-resistance to practical life would turn mankind aside out of the pat=
h of
civilization along which it is moving.&nbs=
p;
The path of civilization on which mankind in Europe is moving is in
their opinion the one along which all mankind ought always to move.
So much for the
general character of the Russian critics.
Foreign critics
started from the same premises, but their discussions of my book were somew=
hat
different from those of Russian critics, not only in being less bitter, and=
in
showing more culture, but even in the subject-matter.
In discussing my =
book
and the Gospel teaching generally, as it is expressed in the Sermon on the
Mount, the foreign critics maintained that such doctrine is not peculiarly
Christian (Christian doctrine is either Catholicism or Protestantism accord=
ing
to their views)--the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount is only a string of
very pretty impracticable dreams DU CHARMANT DOCTEUR, as Reran says, fit for
the simple and half-savage inhabitants of Galilee who lived eighteen hundred
years ago, and for the half-savage Russian peasants--Sutaev and Bondarev--a=
nd
the Russian mystic Tolstoy, but not at all consistent with a high degree of
European culture.
The foreign
freethinking critics have tried in a delicate manner, without being offensi=
ve
to me, to give the impression that my conviction that mankind could be guid=
ed
by such a naïve doctrine as that of the Sermon on the Mount proceeds f=
rom
two causes: that such a conviction is partly due to my want of knowledge, m=
y ignorance
of history, my ignorance of all the vain attempts to apply the principles of
the Sermon on the Mount to life, which have been made in history and have l=
ed
to nothing; and partly it is due to my failing to appreciate the full value=
of
the lofty civilization to which mankind has attained at present, with its K=
rupp
cannons, smokeless powder, colonization of Africa, Irish Coercion Bill,
parliamentary government, journalism, strikes, and the Eiffel Tower.
So wrote de
Vogüé and Leroy Beaulieu and Matthew Arnold; so wrote the Ameri=
can
author Savage, and Ingersoll, the popular freethinking American preacher, a=
nd
many others.
"Christ's
teaching is no use, because it is inconsistent with our industrial age,&quo=
t;
says Ingersoll naïvely, expressing in this utterance, with perfect
directness and simplicity, the exact notion of Christ's teaching held by
persons of refinement and culture of our times. The teaching is no use for our
industrial age, precisely as though the existence of this industrial age we=
re a
sacred fact which ought not to and could not be changed. It is just as though drunkards when
advised how they could be brought to habits of sobriety should answer that =
the
advice is incompatible with their habit of taking alcohol.
The arguments of =
all
the freethinking critics, Russian and foreign alike, different as they may =
be
in tone and manner of presentation, all amount essentially to the same stra=
nge misapprehension--namely,
that Christ's teaching, one of the consequences of which is non-resistance =
to
evil, is of no use to us because it requires a change of our life.
Christ's teaching=
is
useless because, if it were carried into practice, life could not go on as =
at
present; we must add: if we have begun by living sinfully, as we do live and
are accustomed to live. Not only is the question of non-resistance to evil =
not
discussed; the very mention of the fact that the duty of non-resistance ent=
ers
into Christ's teaching is regarded as satisfactory proof of the
impracticability of the whole teaching.
Meanwhile one wou=
ld
have thought it was necessary to point out at least some kind of solution of
the following question, since it is at the root of almost everything that
interests us.
The question amou=
nts
to this: In what way are we to decide men's disputes, when some men consider
evil what others consider good, and VICE VERSA? And to reply that that is evil whi=
ch I
think evil, in spite of the fact that my opponent thinks it good, is not a
solution of the difficulty. T=
here
can only be two solutions: either to find a real unquestionable criterion of
what is evil or not to resist evil by force.
The first course =
has
been tried ever since the beginning of historical times, and, as we all kno=
w,
it has not hitherto led to any successful results.
The second
solution--not forcibly to resist what we consider evil until we have found a
universal criterion--that is the solution given by Christ.
We may consider t=
he
answer given by Christ unsatisfactory; we may replace it by another and bet=
ter,
by finding a criterion by which evil could be defined for all men unanimous=
ly
and simultaneously; we may simply, like savage nations, not recognize the
existence of the question. Bu=
t we
cannot treat the question as the learned critics of Christianity do. They pretend either that no such q=
uestion
exists at all or that the question is solved by granting to certain persons=
or
assemblies of persons the right to define evil and to resist it by force. But we know all the while that gra=
nting
such a right to certain persons does not decide the question (still less so
when we are ourselves the certain persons), since there are always people w=
ho
do not recognize this right in the authorized persons or assemblies.
But this assumpti=
on,
that what seems evil to us is really evil, shows a complete misunderstandin=
g of
the question, and lies at the root of the argument of freethinking critics =
about
the Christian religion. In th=
is
way, then, the discussions of my book on the part of Churchmen and freethin=
king
critics alike showed me that the majority of men simply do not understand
either Christ's teaching or the questions which Christ's teaching solves.
CHAPTER III - CHRISTIANITY
MISUNDERSTOOD BY BELIEVERS.
Meaning of Christ=
ian
Doctrine, Understood by a Minority, has Become Completely Incomprehensible =
for
the Majority of Men--Reason of this to be Found in Misinterpretation of
Christianity and Mistaken Conviction of Believers and Unbelievers Alike that
they Understand it--The Meaning of Christianity Obscured for Believers by t=
he
Church--The First Appearance of Christ's Teaching--Its Essence and Differen=
ce
from Heathen Religions--Christianity not Fully Comprehended at the Beginnin=
g,
Became More and More Clear to those who Accepted it from its Correspondence=
with
Truth--Simultaneously with this Arose the Claim to Possession of the Authen=
tic
Meaning of the Doctrine Based on the Miraculous Nature of its
Transmission--Assembly of Disciples as Described in the Acts--The Authorita=
tive
Claim to the Sole Possession of the True Meaning of Christ's Teaching Suppo=
rted
by Miraculous Evidence has Led by Logical Development to the Creeds of the
Churches--A Church Could Not be Founded by Christ--Definitions of a Church
According to the Catechisms--The Churches have Always been Several in Number
and Hostile to One Another--What is Heresy--The Work of G. Arnold on
Heresies--Heresies the Manifestations of Progress in the Churches--Churches
Cause Dissension among Men, and are Always Hostile to Christianity--Account=
of
the Work Done by the Russian Church--Matt. xxiii. 23--The Sermon on the Mou=
nt
or the Creed--The Orthodox Church Conceals from the People the True Meaning=
of
Christianity--The Same Thing is Done by the Other Churches--All the External
Conditions of Modern Life are such as to Destroy the Doctrine of the Church,
and therefore the Churches use Every Effort to Support their Doctrines.
Thus the information I received, af=
ter my
book came out, went to show that the Christian doctrine, in its direct and
simple sense, was understood, and had always been understood, by a minority=
of men,
while the critics, ecclesiastical and freethinking alike, denied the
possibility of taking Christ's teaching in its direct sense. All this convinced me that while o=
n one
hand the true understanding of this doctrine had never been lost to a minor=
ity,
but had been established more and more clearly, on the other hand the meani=
ng
of it had been more and more obscured for the majority. So that at last such a depth of
obscurity has been reached that men do not take in their direct sense even =
the simplest
precepts, expressed in the simplest words, in the Gospel.
Christ's teaching=
is
not generally understood in its true, simple, and direct sense even in these
days, when the light of the Gospel has penetrated even to the darkest reces=
ses
of human consciousness; when, in the words of Christ, that which was spoken=
in
the ear is proclaimed from the housetops; and when the Gospel is influencing
every side of human life--domestic, economic, civic, legislative, and
international. This lack of t=
rue understanding
of Christ's words at such a time would be inexplicable, if there were not
causes to account for it.
One of these caus=
es
is the fact that believers and unbelievers alike are firmly persuaded that =
they
have understood Christ's teaching a long time, and that they understand it =
so
fully, indubitably, and conclusively that it can have no other significance
than the one they attribute to it.
And the reason of this conviction is that the false interpretation a=
nd
consequent misapprehension of the Gospel is an error of such long standing.=
Even
the strongest current of water cannot add a drop to a cup which is already
full.
The most difficult
subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed =
any
idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the mo=
st
intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a
shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.
The Christian
doctrine is presented to the men of our world to-day as a doctrine which
everyone has known so long and accepted so unhesitatingly in all its minute=
st
details that it cannot be understood in any other way than it is understood
now.
Christianity is
understood now by all who profess the doctrines of the Church as a supernat=
ural
miraculous revelation of everything which is repeated in the Creed. By unbelievers it is regarded as a=
n illustration
of man's craving for a belief in the supernatural, which mankind has now
outgrown, as an historical phenomenon which has received full expression in
Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy, and Protestantism, and has no longer any livi=
ng
significance for us. The significance of the Gospel is hidden from believer=
s by
the Church, from unbelievers by Science.
I will speak firs=
t of
the former. Eighteen hundred =
years
ago there appeared in the midst of the heathen Roman world a strange new
doctrine, unlike any of the old religions, and attributed to a man, Christ.=
This new doctrine=
was
in both form and content absolutely new to the Jewish world in which it
originated, and still more to the Roman world in which it was preached and
diffused.
In the midst of t=
he
elaborate religious observances of Judaism, in which, in the words of Isaia=
h,
law was laid upon law, and in the midst of the Roman legal system worked ou=
t to
the highest point of perfection, a new doctrine appeared, which denied not =
only
every deity, and all fear and worship of them, but even all human instituti=
ons
and all necessity for them. In place of all the rules of the old religions,
this doctrine sets up only a type of inward perfection, truth, and love in =
the
person of Christ, and--as a result of this inward perfection being attained=
by men--also
the outward perfection foretold by the Prophets--the kingdom of God, when a=
ll
men will cease to learn to make war, when all shall be taught of God and un=
ited
in love, and the lion will lie down with the lamb. Instead of the threats of
punishment which all the old laws of religions and governments alike laid d=
own
for non-fulfillment of their rules, instead of promises of rewards for
fulfillment of them, this doctrine called men to it only because it was the=
truth.
John vii. 17: "If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctr=
ine
whether it be of God." John viii. 46: "If I say the truth, why do=
ye
not believe me? But ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth.=
Ye
shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. God is a spirit, a=
nd they
that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. Keep my sayings, =
and
ye shall know of my sayings whether they be true." No proofs of this
doctrine were offered except its truth, the correspondence of the doctrine =
with
the truth. The whole teaching consisted in the recognition of truth and
following it, in a greater and greater attainment of truth, and a closer and
closer following of it in the acts of life. There are no acts in this doctr=
ine
which could justify a man and make him saved. There is only the image of tr=
uth
to guide-him, for inward perfection in the person of Christ, and for outwar=
d perfection
in the establishment of the kingdom of God. The fulfillment of this teaching
consists only in walking in the chosen way, in getting nearer to inward
perfection in the imitation of Christ, and outward perfection in the
establishment of the kingdom of God. The greater or less blessedness of a m=
an
depends, according to this doctrine, not on the degree of perfection to whi=
ch
he has attained, but on the greater or less swiftness with which he is purs=
uing
it.
The progress towa=
rd
perfection of the publican Zaccheus, of the woman that was a sinner, of the
robber on the cross, is a greater state of blessedness, according to this
doctrine, than the stationary righteousness of the Pharisee. The lost sheep=
is
dearer than ninety-nine that were not lost. The prodigal son, the piece of
money that was lost and found again, are dearer, more precious to God than =
those
which have not been lost.
Every condition,
according to this doctrine, is only a particular step in the attainment of
inward and outward perfection, and therefore has no significance of
itself. Blessedness consists =
in progress
toward perfection; to stand still in any condition whatever means the cessa=
tion
of this blessedness.
"Let not thy
left hand know what they right hand doeth." "No man having put his hand t=
o the
plow and looking back is fit for the Kingdom of God." "Rejoice not that the spirits=
are
subject to you, but seek rather that your names be written in
heaven." "Be ye per=
fect
even as your Father in heaven is perfect." "Seek ye first the kingdom of
heaven and its righteousness."
The fulfillment of
this precept is only to be found in uninterrupted progress toward the
attainment of ever higher truth, toward establishing more and more firmly an
ever greater love within oneself, and establishing more and more widely the
kingdom of God outside oneself.
It is obvious tha=
t,
appearing as it did in the midst of the Jewish and heathen world, such teac=
hing
could not be accepted by the majority of men, who were living a life absolu=
tely
different from what was required by it.&nb=
sp;
It is obvious, too, that even for those by whom it was accepted, it =
was so
absolutely opposed to all their old views that it could not be comprehensib=
le
in its full significance.
It has been only =
by a
succession of misunderstandings, errors, partial explanations, and the
corrections and additions of generations that the meaning of the Christian
doctrine has grown continually more and more clear to men. The Christian view of life has exe=
rted
an influence on the Jewish and heathen, and the heathen and Jewish view of =
life
has, too, exerted an influence on the Christian. And Christianity, as the living fo=
rce,
has gained more and more upon the extinct Judaism and heathenism, and has g=
rown
continually clearer and clearer, as it freed itself from the admixture of
falsehood which had overlaid it.
Men went further and further in the attainment of the meaning of
Christianity, and realized it more and more in life.
The longer mankind
lived, the clearer and clearer became the meaning of Christianity, as must
always be the case with every theory of life.
Succeeding
generations corrected the errors of their predecessors, and grew ever nearer
and nearer to a comprehension of the true meaning. It was thus from the very earliest=
times
of Christianity. And so, too,=
from
the earliest times of Christianity there were men who began to assert on th=
eir
own authority that the meaning they attribute to the doctrine is the only t=
rue
one, and as proof bring forward supernatural occurrences in support of the
correctness of their interpretation.
This was the
principal cause at first of the misunderstanding of the doctrine, and after=
ward
of the complete distortion of it.
It was supposed t=
hat
Christ's teaching was transmitted to men not like every other truth, but in=
a
special miraculous way. Thus =
the truth
of the teaching was not proved by its correspondence with the needs of the =
mind
and the whole nature of man, but by the miraculous manner of its transmissi=
on,
which was advanced as an irrefutable proof of the truth of the interpretati=
on
put on it. This hypothesis originated from misunderstanding of the teaching=
, and
its result was to make it impossible to understand it rightly.
And this happened
first in the earliest times, when the doctrine was still not so fully
understood and often interpreted wrongly, as we see by the Gospels and the
Acts. The less the doctrine w=
as understood,
the more obscure it appeared and the more necessary were external proofs of=
its
truth. The proposition that we
ought not to do unto others as we would not they should do unto us, did not
need to be proved by miracles and needed no exercise of faith, because this
proposition is in itself convincing and in harmony with man's mind and natu=
re;
but the proposition that Christ was God had to be proved by miracles comple=
tely
beyond our comprehension.
The more the
understanding of Christ's teaching was obscured, the more the miraculous was
introduced into it; and the more the miraculous was introduced into it, the
more the doctrine was strained from its meaning and the more obscure it bec=
ame;
and the more it was strained from its meaning and the more obscure it becam=
e,
the more strongly its infallibility had to be asserted, and the less
comprehensible the doctrine became.
One can see by the
Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles how from the earliest times the
non-comprehension of the doctrine called forth the need for proofs through =
the
miraculous and incomprehensible.
The first example=
in
the book of Acts is the assembly which gathered together in Jerusalem to de=
cide
the question which had arisen, whether to baptize or not the uncircumcised =
and
those who had eaten of food sacrificed to idols.
The very fact of =
this
question being raised showed that those who discussed it did not understand=
the
teaching of Christ, who rejected all outward observances--ablutions,
purifications, fasts, and sabbaths.
It was plainly said, "Not that which goeth into a man's mouth, =
but
that which cometh out of a man's mouth, defileth him," and therefore t=
he
question of baptizing the uncircumcised could only have arisen among men wh=
o,
though they loved their Master and dimly felt the grandeur of his teaching,=
still
did not understand the teaching itself very clearly. And this was the fact.=
Just in proportio=
n to
the failure of the members of the assembly to understand the doctrine was t=
heir
need of external confirmation of their incomplete interpretation of it. And then to settle this question, =
the
very asking of which proved their misunderstanding of the doctrine, there w=
as
uttered in this assembly, as is described in the Acts, that strange phrase,
which was for the first time found necessary to give external confirmation =
to certain
assertions, and which has been productive of so much evil.
That is, it was
asserted that the correctness of what they had decided was guaranteed by the
miraculous participation of the Holy Ghost, that is, of God, in their
decision. But the assertion t=
hat the
Holy Ghost, that is, God, spoke through the Apostles, in its turn wanted
proof. And thus it was necess=
ary,
to confirm this, that the Holy Ghost should descend at Pentecost in tongues=
of
fire upon those who made this assertion.&n=
bsp;
(In the account of it, the descent of the Holy Ghost precedes the
assembly, but the book of Acts was written much later than both events.)
Thus it was from =
the
earliest times, and so it went on, constantly increasing, till it reached in
our day the logical climax of the dogmas of transubstantiation and the
infallibility of the Pope, or of the bishops, or of Scripture, and of requi=
ring
a blind faith rendered incomprehensible and utterly meaningless, not in God,
but in Christ, not in a doctrine, but in a person, as in Catholicism, or in
persons, as in Greek Orthodoxy, or in a book, as in Protestantism. The more
widely Christianity was diffused, and the greater the number of people unpr=
epared
for it who were brought under its sway, the less it was understood, the more
absolutely was its infallibility insisted on, and the less possible it beca=
me
to understand the true meaning of the doctrine. In the times of Constantine=
the
whole interpretation of the doctrine had been already reduced to a
RÉSUMÉ--supported by the temporal authority--of the disputes =
that
had taken place in the Council--to a creed which reckoned off--I believe in=
so
and so, and so and so, and so and so to the end--to one holy, Apostolic Chu=
rch,
which means the infallibility of those persons who call themselves the Chur=
ch.
So that it all amounts to a man no longer believing in God nor Christ, as t=
hey are
revealed to him, but believing in what the Church orders him to believe in.=
But the Church is
holy; the Church was founded by Christ.&nb=
sp;
God could not leave men to interpret his teaching at random--therefo=
re he
founded the Church. All those
statements are so utterly untrue and unfounded that one is ashamed to refute
them. Nowhere nor in anything,
except in the assertion of the Church, can we find that God or Christ found=
ed
anything like what Churchmen understand by the Church. In the Gospels there is a warning =
against
the Church, as it is an external authority, a warning most clear and obviou=
s in
the passage where it is said that Christ's followers should "call no m=
an
master." But nowhere is
anything said of the foundation of what Churchmen call the Church.
The word church is
used twice in the Gospels--once in the sense of an assembly of men to decid=
e a
dispute, the other time in connection with the obscure utterance about a
stone--Peter, and the gates of hell.
From these two passages in which the word church is used, in the
signification merely of an assembly, has been deduced all that we now
understand by the Church.
But Christ could =
not
have founded the Church, that is, what we now understand by that word. For nothing like the idea of the C=
hurch as
we know it now, with its sacraments, miracles, and above all its claim to
infallibility, is to be found either in Christ's words or in the ideas of t=
he
men of that time.
The fact that men
called what was formed afterward by the same word as Christ used for someth=
ing
totally different, does not give them the right to assert that Christ found=
ed
the one, true Church.
Besides, if Christ had really founded such an institution as the Church for the foundation of = all his teaching and the whole faith, he would certainly have described this institution clearly and definitely, and would have given the only true Chur= ch, besides tales of miracles, which are used to support every kind of supersti= tion, some tokens so unmistakable that no doubt of its genuineness could ever have arisen. But nothing of the so= rt was done by him. And there have b= een and still are different institutions, each calling itself the true Church.<= o:p>
The Catholic
catechism says: "L'Église est la société des
fidéles établie par notre Seigneur Jésus Christ, r&eac=
ute;pandue
sur toute la terre et soumise à l'authorité des pasteurs
légitimes, principalement notre Saint Père le Pape," [see
Footnote] understanding by the words "pasteurs légitimes" =
an
association of men having the Pope at its head, and consisting of certain i=
ndividuals
bound together by a certain organization.
[Footnote: "The C=
hurch
is the society of the faithful, established by ou=
r Lord
Jesus Christ, spread over the whole earth, and
subject to the authority of its lawful pastors, and chie=
f of
them our Holy Father the Pope."]
The Greek Orthodox
catechism says: "The Church is a society founded upon earth by Jesus
Christ, which is united into one whole, by one divine doctrine and by
sacraments, under the rule and guidance of a priesthood appointed by God,&q=
uot;
meaning by the "priesthood appointed by God" the Greek Orthodox
priesthood, consisting of certain individuals who happen to be in such or s=
uch positions.
The Lutheran
catechism says: "The Church is holy Christianity, or the collection of=
all
believers under Christ, their head, to whom the Holy Ghost through the Gosp=
els
and sacraments promises, communicates, and administers heavenly
salvation," meaning that the Catholic Church is lost in error, and that
the true means of salvation is in Lutheranism.
For Catholics the
Church of God coincides with the Roman priesthood and the Pope. For the Greek Orthodox believer th=
e Church
of God coincides with the establishment and priesthood of Russia. [See
Footnote]
[Footnote: Homyakov's
definition of the Church, which was received with=
some
favor among Russians, does not improve matters, =
if we
are to agree with Homyakov in considering the G=
reek
Orthodox Church as the one true Church. Homyakov asserts that a church is a
collection =
of men
(all without distinction of clergy and laymen) united together by
love, and that only to men united by love is the truth
revealed (let us love each other, that in the unity of
thought, etc.), and that such a church is the church whi=
ch, in
the first place, recognizes the Nicene Creed, and=
in
the second place does not, after the division of t=
he
churches, recognize the popes and new dogmas. But with such a definition of the
church, the=
re is
still more difficulty in reconciling, as Homyakov tries to=
do,
the church united by love with the church that
recognizes the Nicene Creed and the doctrine of
Photius. So that Homyakov's
assertion that this church, unit=
ed by
love, and consequently holy, is the same churc=
h as
the Greek Orthodox priesthood profess faith in,=
is
even more arbitrary than the assertions of the
Catholics or the Orthodox. If=
we admit the idea of=
a
church in the sense Homyakov gives to it--that=
is, a
body of men bound together by love and truth=
--then
all that any man can predicate in regard to this=
body,
if such an one exists, is its love and trut=
h, but
there can be no outer signs by which one could
reckon oneself or another as a member of this ho=
ly
body, nor by which one could put anyone outside it=
; so
that no institution having an external exist=
ence
can correspond to this idea.]
For Lutherans the
Church of God coincides with a body of men who recognize the authority of t=
he
Bible and Luther's catechism.
Ordinarily, when
speaking of the rise of Christianity, men belonging to one of the existing
churches use the word church in the singular, as though there were and had =
been
only one church. But this is absolutely incorrect. The Church, as an institution which
asserted that it possessed infallible truth, did not make its appearance
singly; there were at least two churches directly this claim was made.
While believers w=
ere
agreed among themselves and the body was one, it had no need to declare its=
elf as
a church. It was only when be=
lievers
were split up into opposing parties, renouncing one another, that it seemed
necessary to each party to confirm their own truth by ascribing to themselv=
es
infallibility. The conception=
of
one church only arose when there were two sides divided and disputing, who =
each
called the other side heresy, and recognized their own side only as the
infallible church.
If we knew that t=
here
was a church which decided in the year 51 to receive the uncircumcised, it =
is
only so because there was another church--of the Judaists--who decided to k=
eep
the uncircumcised out.
If there is a
Catholic Church now which asserts its own infallibility, that is only becau=
se
there are churches--Greco-Russian, Old Orthodox, and Lutheran--each asserti=
ng
its own infallibility and denying that of all other churches. So that the o=
ne
Church is only a fantastic imagination which has not the least trace of rea=
lity
about it.
As a real histori=
cal
fact there has existed, and still exist, several bodies of men, each assert=
ing
that it is the one Church, founded by Christ, and that all the others who c=
all
themselves churches are only sects and heresies.
The catechisms of=
the
churches of the most world-wide influence--the Catholic, the Old Orthodox, =
and
the Lutheran--openly assert this.
In the Catholic
catechism it is said: "Quels sont ceux qui sont hors de
l'église? Les
infidèles, les hérétiques, les schismatiques."
[Footnote: "Who are those who are outside the Church? Infidels, hereti=
cs,
and schismatics."] The
so-called Greek Orthodox are regarded as schismatics, the Lutherans as here=
tics;
so that according to the Catholic catechism the only people in the Church a=
re
Catholics.
In the so-called
Orthodox catechism it is said: By the one Christian Church is understood the
Orthodox, which remains fully in accord with the Universal Church. As for the Roman Church and other =
sects
(the Lutherans and the rest they do not even dignify by the name of church),
they cannot be included in the one true Church, since they have themselves
separated from it.
According to this
definition the Catholics and Lutherans are outside the Church, and there are
only Orthodox in the Church.
The Lutheran
catechism says: "Die wahre kirche wird darein erkannt, dass in ihr das
Wort Gottes lauter und rein ohne Menschenzusätze gelehrt and die
Sacramente treu nach Christi Einsetzung gewahret werden." [Footnote:
"The true Church will be known by the Word of God being studied clear =
and
unmixed with man's additions and the sacraments being maintained faithful t=
o Christ's
teaching."]
According to this
definition all those who have added anything to the teaching of Christ and =
the
apostles, as the Catholic and Greek churches have done, are outside the
Church. And in the Church the=
re are
only Protestants.
The Catholics ass=
ert
that the Holy Ghost has been transmitted without a break in their
priesthood. The Orthodox asse=
rt
that the same Holy Ghost has been transmitted without a break in their prie=
sthood. The Arians asserted that the Holy =
Ghost
was transmitted in their priesthood (they asserted this with just as much r=
ight
as the churches in authority now).
The Protestants of every kind--Lutherans, Reformed Church,
Presbyterians, Methodists, Swedenborgians, Mormons--assert that the Holy Gh=
ost
is only present in their communities.
If the Catholics assert that the Holy Ghost, at the time of the divi=
sion
of the Church into Arian and Greek, left the Church that fell away and rema=
ined
in the one true Church, with precisely the same right the Protestants of ev=
ery
denomination can assert that at the time of the separation of their Church =
from
the Catholic the Holy Ghost left the Catholic and passed into the Church th=
ey
professed. And this is just w=
hat they
do.
Every church trac=
es
its creed through an uninterrupted transmission from Christ and the
Apostles. And truly every Chr=
istian
creed that has been derived from Christ must have come down to the present
generation through a certain transmission. But that does not prove that it
alone of all that has been transmuted, excluding all the rest, can be the s=
ole
truth, admitting of no doubt.
Every branch in a
tree comes from the root in unbroken connection; but the fact that each bra=
nch
comes from the one root, does not prove at all that each branch was the only
one. It is precisely the same=
with
the Church. Every church pres=
ents
exactly the same proofs of the succession, and even the same miracles, in
support of its authenticity, as every other. So that there is but one strict and
exact definition of what is a church (not of something fantastic which we w=
ould
wish it to be, but of what it is and has been in reality)--a church is a bo=
dy
of men who claim for themselves that they are in complete and sole possessi=
on
of the truth. And these bodie=
s,
having in course of time, aided by the support of the temporal authorities,
developed into powerful institutions, have been the principal obstacles to =
the
diffusion of a true comprehension of the teaching of Christ.
It could not be
otherwise. The chief peculiar=
ity which
distinguished Christ's teaching from previous religions consisted in the fa=
ct
that those who accepted it strove ever more and more to comprehend and real=
ize
its teaching. But the Church
doctrine asserted its own complete and final comprehension and realization =
of
it.
Strange though it=
may
seem to us who have been brought up in the erroneous view of the Church as a
Christian institution, and in contempt for heresy, yet the fact is that onl=
y in
what was called heresy was there any true movement, that is, true Christian=
ity,
and that it only ceased to be so when those heresies stopped short in their
movement and also petrified into the fixed forms of a church.
And, indeed what =
is a
heresy? Read all the theologi=
cal
works one after another. In a=
ll of
them heresy is the subject which first presents itself for definition; since
every theological work deals with the true doctrine of Christ as distinguis=
hed
from the erroneous doctrines which surround it, that is, heresies. Yet you will not find anywhere any=
thing
like a definition of heresy.
The treatment of =
this
subject by the learned historian of Christianity, E. de Pressensé, in
his "Histoire du Dogme" (Paris, 1869), under the heading "Ubi
Christus, ibi Ecclesia," may serve as an illustration of the complete
absence of anything like a definition of what is understood by the word her=
esy.
Here is what he says in his introduction (p. 3):
"Je sais que l'on nous conteste le droit de
qualifier ainsi [=
that
is, to call heresies] les tendances qui furent si vivement combattues par=
les
premiers Pères. La
désignation même
d'hérésie semble une atteinte portée à la
liberté de conscience et de
pensée. Nous ne pouvons
partager ce scrupule, car il n'irait à=
rien
moins qu'à enlever au Christianisme tout caractère
distinctif." [see Footnote]
[Footnote: "I kno=
w that
our right to qualify thus the tendencies which =
were
so actively opposed by the early Fathers is
contested. The very use of th=
e word
heresy seem=
s an
attack upon liberty of conscience and thought. We cannot share t=
his
scruple; for it would amount to nothing less than
depriving Christianity of all distinctive
character."]
And though he tel=
ls
us that after Constantine's time the Church did actually abuse its power by
designating those who dissented from it as heretics and persecuting them, y=
et
he says, when speaking of early times:
"L'église est une
libre association; il y a tout profit a se séparer d'elle.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> La polémique contre l'erreu=
r n'a
d'autres ressourc=
es que
la pensée et le sentiment. Un type doctrinal uniforme n'a pas encore
été élaboré; les divergences secondaires se produise=
nt en
Orient et en Occident avec une entière
liberté; la théologie n'est point liée a d'invariables=
formules. Si au sein de cette diversit&eacut=
e;
apparait un fonds commun de croyances, n'=
est-on
pas en droit d'y voir non pas un système formul&e=
acute;
et composé par les représentants d'une autorité
d'école, mais la foi elle-même dons son instinct le plus sûr et sa ma=
nifestation
la plus spontanée? Si =
cette
même unanimité qui se
révèle dans les croyances essentielles, se retrouve pour repousser
telles ou telles tendances ne serons nous pas en droit de co=
nclure
que ces tendances étaient en désacord flagran=
t avec
les principes fondamentaux du christianisme? Cette présomption ne se
transformerait-elle pas
en certitude si nous reconnaissons dans la doctrine
universellement repouss&eacu=
te;e
par l'Église les traits caractéristiques=
de
l'une des religions du passé?
Pour dire =
que le
gnosticisme ou l'ébionitisme sont les formes légitimes de la pensée
chrétienne il faut dire hardiment qu'il n'y a pas de pensée
chrétienne, ni de caractère spécifique qui la fasse reconnaître. Sous prétexte de
l'élargir, on la dissout. Personne au temps de Pl=
aton
n'eût osé couvrir de son nom une doctrine qui n'eut pas =
fait
place à la théorie des idées; et l'on eût excit&ea=
cute;
les justes moqueries de la Grèce, en voulant faire d'Epicure ou de
Zénon un disciple de l'Académie. Reconnaissons donc que =
s'il
existe une religion ou une doctrine qui s'appelle
christianisme, elle peut avoir ses hérésies.=
"
[see Footnote]
[Footnote: "The C= hurch is a free association; there is much to be gained by sepa= ration from it. Conflict with error = has no weapons oth= er than thought and feeling. One uniform type of doctrine has not = yet been elaborated; divergencies in secondary matters= arise freely in East and West; theology is not wedded to invariable formulas. If in the midst of this diversity a mass = of beliefs common to all is apparent, is one not justified in = seeing in it, not a formulated system, framed by the representa= tives of pedantic authority, but faith itself in its surest ins= tinct and its most spontaneous manifestation? If the same unani= mity which is revealed in essential points of belief is found a= lso in rejecting certain tendencies, are we not justified in concluding that these tendencies were in flagrant oppositi= on to the fundamental principles of Christianity? And will not this presumption be transformed into certainty if we recognize in the doctrine universally rejected by the C= hurch the characteristic features of one of the religions of = the past? To say that gnosticism = or ebionitism are legitimate forms of Christian thought, one must boldly deny the existence of Christian thought at all, or any specific characte= r by which it could be recognized. While ostensibly widening its realm, one undermines it.&nbs= p; No one in the time of Plato= would have ventured to give his name to a doctrine in which= the theory of ideas had no place, and one would deservedly = have excited the ridicule of Greece by trying to pass off Epicu= rus or Zeno as a disciple of the Academy. Let us recognize,= then, that if a religion or a doctrine exists which is c= alled Christianity, it may have its heresies."]<= o:p>
The author's whole
argument amounts to this: that every opinion which differs from the code of
dogmas we believe in at a given time, is heresy. But of course at any given time and
place men always believe in something or other; and this belief in somethin=
g,
indefinite at any place, at some time, cannot be a criterion of truth.
It all amounts to
this: since ubi Christus ibi Ecclesia, then Christus is where we are.
Every so-called
heresy, regarding, as it does, its own creed as the truth, can just as easi=
ly
find in Church history a series of illustrations of its own creed, can use =
all
Pressensé's arguments on its own behalf, and can call its own creed =
the
one truly Christian creed. An=
d that
is just what all heresies do and have always done.
The only definiti=
on
of heresy (the word [GREEK WORD], means a part) is this: the name given by =
a body
of men to any opinion which rejects a part of the Creed professed by that
body. The more frequent meani=
ng,
more often ascribed to the word heresy, is --that of an opinion which rejec=
ts
the Church doctrine founded and supported by the temporal authorities.
[TRANSCRIBIST'S NOTE: =
The
GREEK WORD above used Greek letters, spelled: alpha(fo=
llowed
by an apostrophe)-iota(with accent)- rho-epsilon-sigma=
-iota-zeta]
There is a remark=
able
and voluminous work, very little known, "Unpartheyische Kirchen- und
Ketzer-Historie," 1729, by Gottfried Arnold, which deals with precisely
this subject, and points out all the unlawfulness, the arbitrariness, the
senselessness, and the cruelty of using the word heretic in the sense of
reprobate. This book is an attempt to write the history of Christianity in =
the
form of a history of heresy.
In the introducti=
on
the author propounds a series of questions: (1) Of those who make heretics;=
(2)
Of those whom they made heretics; (3) Of heretical subjects themselves; (4)=
Of
the method of making heretics; and (5) Of the object and result of making h=
eretics.
On each of these
points he propounds ten more questions, the answers to which he gives later=
on
from the works of well-known theologians.&=
nbsp;
But he leaves the reader to draw for himself the principal conclusion
from the expositions in the whole book.&nb=
sp;
As examples of these questions, in which the answers are to some ext=
ent
included also, I will quote the following. Under the 4th head, of the manne=
r in
which heretics are made, he says, in one of the questions (in the 7th):
"Does not all history s=
how
that the greatest makers of heretics and masters of=
that
craft were just these wise men, from whom the Father hi=
d his
secrets, that is, the hypocrites, the Pharisees, and lawy=
ers,
men utterly godless and perverted (Question 20-21)? And in the corrupt times of Christ=
ianity
were not these ve=
ry men
cast out, denounced by the hypocrites and envious, who were e=
ndowed
by God with great gifts and who would in the days of pu=
re
Christianity have been held in high honor? And, on the other hand, would not =
the
men who, in the d=
ecline
of Christianity raised themselves above all, and regarded themselves as =
the
teachers of the purest Christianity, would not these very me=
n, in
the times of the apostles and disciples of Christ, ha=
ve
been regarded as the most shameless heretics and
anti-Christians?"
He expounds, among
other things in these questions, the theory that any verbal expression of
faith, such as was demanded by the Church, and the departure from which was
reckoned as heresy, could never fully cover the exact religious ideas of a
believer, and that therefore the demand for an expression of faith in certa=
in words
was ever productive of heresy, and he says, in Question 21:
"And if heavenly things=
and
thoughts present themselves to a man's mind as so great =
and so
profound that he does not find corresponding words to
express them, ought one to call him a heretic, because he can=
not
express his idea with perfect exactness?"
And in Question 3=
3:
"And is not the fact th=
at
there was no heresy in the earliest days due to the fact th=
at the
Christians did not judge one another by verbal
expressions, but by deed and by heart, since they had perfect libert=
y to
express their ideas without the dread of being called
heretics; was it not the easiest and most ordinary ecclesiastical
proceeding, if the clergy wanted to get rid of or to ruin anyon=
e, for
them to cast suspicion on the person's belief, and to throw a clo=
ak of
heresy upon him, and by
this means to procure his condemnation and removal?
"True though it may be =
that
there were sins and errors among the so-called heretics,=
it is
no less true and evident," he says farther on, "=
from
the innumerable examples quoted here (i. e., in the history =
of the
Church and of heresy), that there was not a single sincer=
e and
conscientious man of any importance whom the Chu=
rchmen
would not from envy or other causes have ruined.&quo=
t;
Thus, almost two
hundred years ago, the real meaning of heresy was understood. And notwithstanding that, the same
conception of it has gone on existing up to now. And it cannot fail to exist so lon=
g as
the conception of a church exists.
Heresy is the obverse side of the Church. Wherever there is a church, there =
must
be the conception of heresy. A
church is a body of men who assert that they are in possession of infallible
truth. Heresy is the opinion =
of the
men who do not admit the infallibility of the Church's truth.
Heresy makes its
appearance in the Church. It =
is the
effort to break through the petrified authority of the Church. All effort after a living comprehe=
nsion
of the doctrine has been made by heretics.=
Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, Luther, Huss, Savonarola, Helchitsky,=
and
the rest were heretics. It co=
uld
not be otherwise.
The follower of
Christ, whose service means an ever-growing understanding of his teaching, =
and
an ever-closer fulfillment of it, in progress toward perfection, cannot, ju=
st
because he is a follower, of Christ, claim for himself or any other that he=
understands
Christ's teaching fully and fulfills it.&n=
bsp;
Still less can he claim this for any body of men.
To whatever degre=
e of
understanding and perfection the follower of Christ may have attained, he
always feels the insufficiency of his understanding and fulfillment of it, =
and
is always striving toward a fuller understanding and fulfillment. And therefore, to assert of one's =
self
or of any body of men, that one is or they are in possession of perfect
understanding and fulfillment of Christ's word, is to renounce the very spi=
rit
of Christ's teaching.
Strange as it may
seem, the churches as churches have always been, and cannot but be,
institutions not only alien in spirit to Christ's teaching, but even direct=
ly
antagonistic to it. With good
reason Voltaire calls the Church l'infâme; with good reason have all =
or
almost all so-called sects of Christians recognized the Church as the scarl=
et
woman foretold in the Apocalypse; with good reason is the history of the Ch=
urch
the history of the greatest cruelties and horrors.
The churches as
churches are not, as many people suppose, institutions which have Christian
principles for their basis, even though they may have strayed a little away
from the straight path. The churches as churches, as bodies which assert th=
eir
own infallibility, are institutions opposed to Christianity. There is not only nothing in common
between the churches as such and Christianity, except the name, but they
represent two principles fundamentally opposed and antagonistic to one
another. One represents pride,
violence, self-assertion, stagnation, and death; the other, meekness,
penitence, humility, progress, and life.
We cannot serve t=
hese
two masters; we have to choose between them.
The servants of t=
he
churches of all denominations, especially of later times, try to show
themselves champions of progress in Christianity. They make concessions, wish to cor=
rect
the abuses that have slipped into the Church, and maintain that one cannot,=
on
account of these abuses, deny the principle itself of a Christian church, w=
hich
alone can bind all men together in unity and be a mediator between men and
God. But this is all a mistak=
e. Not
only have churches never bound men together in unity; they have always been=
one
of the principal causes of division between men, of their hatred of one
another, of wars, battles, inquisitions, massacres of St. Bartholomew, and =
so
on. And the churches have nev=
er
served as mediators between men and God.&n=
bsp;
Such mediation is not wanted, and was directly forbidden by Christ, =
who has
revealed his teaching directly and immediately to each man. But the churches
set up dead forms in the place of God, and far from revealing God, they obs=
cure
him from men's sight. The chu=
rches,
which originated from misunderstanding of Christ's teaching and have mainta=
ined
this misunderstanding by their immovability, cannot but persecute and refus=
e to
recognize all true understanding of Christ's words. They try to conceal this, but in v=
ain;
for every step forward along the path pointed out for us by Christ is a step
toward their destruction.
To hear and to re=
ad
the sermons and articles in which Church writers of later times of all
denominations speak of Christian truths and virtues; to hear or read these
skillful arguments that have been elaborated during centuries, and exhortat=
ions
and professions, which sometimes seem like sincere professions, one is read=
y to
doubt whether the churches can be antagonistic to Christianity. "It ca=
nnot
be," one says, "that these people who can point to such men as
Chrysostom, Fénelon, Butler, and others professing the Christian fai=
th,
were antagonistic to Christianity." One is tempted to say, "The
churches may have strayed away from Christianity, they may be in error, but
they cannot be hostile to it." But we must look to the fruit to judge =
the
tree, as Christ taught us. And if we see that their fruits were evil, that =
the
results of their activity were antagonistic to Christianity, we cannot but
admit that however good the men were--the work of the Church in which these=
men
took part was not Christian. The goodness and worth of these men who served=
the
churches was the goodness and worth of the men, and not of the institution =
they
served. All the good men, such as Francis of Assisi, and Francis of Sales, =
our
Tihon Zadonsky, Thomas à Kempis, and others, were good men in spite =
of
their serving an institution hostile to Christianity, and they would have b=
een
still better if they had not been under the influence of the error which th=
ey
were serving.
But why should we
speak of the past and judge from the past, which may have been misrepresent=
ed
and misunderstood by us? The =
churches,
with their principles and their practice, are not a thing of the past. The churches are before us to-day,=
and
we can judge of them to some purpose by their practical activity, their inf=
luence
on men.
What is the pract=
ical
work of the churches to-day? =
What
is their influence upon men? =
What
is done by the churches among us, among the Catholics and the Protestants of
all denominations--what is their practical work? and what are the results of
their practical work?
The practice of o=
ur
Russian so-called Orthodox Church is plain to all. It is an enormous fact which there=
is no
possibility of hiding and about which there can be no disputing.
What constitutes =
the
practical work of this Russian Church, this immense, intensely active
institution, which consists of a regiment of half a million men and costs t=
he
people tens of millions of rubles?
The practical
business of the Church consists in instilling by every conceivable means in=
to
the mass of one hundred millions of the Russian people those extinct relics=
of
beliefs for which there is nowadays no kind of justification, "in which
scarcely anyone now believes, and often not even those whose duty it is to
diffuse these false beliefs."
To instill into the people the formulas of Byzantine theology, of the
Trinity, of the Mother of God, of Sacraments, of Grace, and so on, extinct
conceptions, foreign to us, and having no kind of meaning for men of our ti=
mes,
forms only one part of the work of the Russian Church. Another part of its practice consi=
sts in
the maintenance of idol-worship in the most literal meaning of the word; in=
the
veneration of holy relics, and of ikons, the offering of sacrifices to them,
and the expectation of their answers to prayer. I am not going to speak of what is
preached and what is written by clergy of scientific or liberal tendencies =
in
the theological journals. I am
going to speak of what is actually done by the clergy through the wide expa=
nse
of the Russian land among a people of one hundred millions. What do they, diligently, assiduou=
sly,
everywhere alike, without intermission, teach the people? What do they demand from the peopl=
e in
virtue of their (so-called) Christian faith?
I will begin from=
the
beginning with the birth of a child.
At the birth of a child they teach them that they must recite a pray=
er over
the child and mother to purify them, as though without this prayer the moth=
er
of a newborn child were unclean. To
do this the priest holds the child in his arms before the images of the sai=
nts (called
by the people plainly gods) and reads words of exorcizing power, and this
purifies the mother. Then it =
is
suggested to the parents, and even exacted of them, under fear of punishment
for non-fulfillment, that the child must be baptized; that is, be dipped by=
the
priest three times into the water, while certain words, understood by no on=
e,
are read aloud, and certain actions, still less understood, are performed;
various parts of the body are rubbed with oil, and the hair is cut, while t=
he
sponsors blow and spit at an imaginary devil. All this is necessary to purify th=
e child
and to make him a Christian. =
Then
it is instilled into the parents that they ought to administer the sacramen=
t to
the child, that is, give him, in the guise of bread and wine, a portion of
Christ's body to eat, as a result of which the child receives the grace of =
God
within it, and so on. Then it=
is suggested
that the child as it grows up must be taught to pray. To pray means to place
himself directly before the wooden boards on which are painted the faces of
Christ, the Mother of God, and the saints, to bow his head and his whole bo=
dy,
and to touch his forehead, his shoulders and his stomach with his right han=
d, holding
his fingers in a certain position, and to utter some words of Slavonic, the
most usual of which as taught to all children are: Mother of God, virgin,
rejoice thee, etc., etc.
Then it is instil=
led
into the child as it is brought up that at the sight of any church or ikon =
he
must repeat the same action--i. e., cross himself. Then it is instilled into him that=
on
holidays (holidays are the days on which Christ was born, though no one kno=
ws
when that was, on which he was circumcised, on which the Mother of God died=
, on
which the cross was carried in procession, on which ikons have been set up,=
on
which a lunatic saw a vision, and so on)--on holidays he must dress himself=
in
his best clothes and go to church, and must buy candles and place them there
before the images of the saints.
Then he must give offerings and prayers for the dead, and little loa=
ves
to be cut up into three-cornered pieces, and must pray many times for the
health and prosperity of the Tzar and the bishops, and for himself and his =
own
affairs, and then kiss the cross and the hand of the priest. Besides these
observances, it is instilled into him that at least once a year he must
confess. To confess means to =
go to
the church and to tell the priest his sins, on the theory that this informi=
ng a
stranger of his sins completely purifies him from them. And after that he must eat with a =
little
spoon a morsel of bread with wine, which will purify him still more. Next it is instilled into him that=
if a
man and woman want their physical union to be sanctified they must go to
church, put on metal crowns, drink certain potions, walk three times round a
table to the sound of singing, and that then the physical union of a man and
woman becomes sacred and altogether different from all other such unions.
Further it is
instilled into him in his life that he must observe the following rules: no=
t to
eat butter or milk on certain days, and on certain other days to sing Te De=
ums
and requiems for the dead, on holidays to entertain the priest and give him
money, and several times in the year to bring the ikons from the church, an=
d to
carry them slung on his shoulders through the fields and houses. It is instilled into him that on h=
is
death-bed a man must not fail to eat bread and wine with a spoon, and that =
it
will be still better if he has time to be rubbed with sacred oil. This will guarantee his welfare in=
the
future life. After his death =
it is
instilled into his relatives that it is a good thing for the salvation of t=
he
dead man to place a printed paper of prayers in his hands; it is a good thi=
ng
further to read aloud a certain book over the dead body, and to pronounce t=
he
dead man's name in church at a certain time. All this is regarded as faith obli=
gatory
on everyone.
But if anyone wan=
ts
to take particular care of his soul, then according to this faith he is
instructed that the greatest security of the salvation of the soul in the w=
orld
is attained by offering money to the churches and monasteries, and engaging=
the
holy men by this means to pray for him. Entering monasteries too and kissing
relics and miraculous ikons, are further means of salvation for the soul.
According to this
faith ikons and relics communicate a special sanctity, power, and grace, and
even proximity to these objects, touching them, kissing them, putting candl=
es
before them, crawling under them while they are being carried along, are all
efficacious for salvation, as well as Te Deums repeated before these holy t=
hings.
So this, and noth=
ing
else, is the faith called Orthodox, that is the actual faith which, under t=
he
guise of Christianity, has been with all the forces of the Church, and is n=
ow
with especial zeal, instilled into the people.
And let no one say that the Orthodox teachers place the essential part of their teaching in something else, and that all these are only ancient forms, which it is not thought necessary to do away with. That is false. This, a= nd nothing but this, is the faith taught through the whole of Russia by the wh= ole of the Russian clergy, and of late years with especial zeal. There is nothing else taught. Something different may be talked = of and written of in the capitals; but among the hundred millions of the people th= is is what is done, this is what is taught, and nothing more. Churchmen may talk = of something else, but this is what they teach by every means in their power.<= o:p>
All this, and the
worship of relics and of ikons, has been introduced into works of theology =
and
into the catechisms. Thus they
teach it to the people in theory and in practice, using every resource of
authority, solemnity, pomp, and violence to impress them. They compel the people, by overawi=
ng
them, to believe in this, and jealously guard this faith from any attempt to
free the people from these barbarous superstitions.
As I said when I
published my book, Christ's teaching and his very words about non-resistanc=
e to
evil were for many years a subject for ridicule and low jesting in my eyes,=
and
Churchmen, far from opposing it, even encouraged this scoffing at sacred
things. But try the experimen=
t of
saying a disrespectful word about a hideous idol which is carried
sacrilegiously about Moscow by drunken men under the name of the ikon of the
Iversky virgin, and you will raise a groan of indignation from these same
Churchmen. All that they prea=
ch is
an external observance of the rites of idolatry. And let it not be said that
the one does not hinder the other, that "These ought ye to have done, =
and
not to leave the other undone."
"All, therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe =
and
do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not" (Matt.
xxiii. 23, 3).
This was spoken of
the Pharisees, who fulfilled all the external observances prescribed by the
law, and therefore the words "whatsoever they bid you observe, that
observe and do," refer to works of mercy and goodness, and the words
"do not ye after their works, for they say and do not," refer to
their observance of ceremonies and their neglect of good works, and have
exactly the opposite meaning to that which the Churchmen try to give to the=
passage,
interpreting it as an injunction to observe ceremonies. External observances
and the service of truth and goodness are for the most part difficult to
combine; the one excludes the other. So it was with the Pharisees, so it is=
now
with Church Christians.
If a man can be s=
aved
by the redemption, by sacraments, and by prayer, then he does not need good
works.
The Sermon on the Mount, or the Creed. One cannot believe in both. And Churchmen have chosen = the latter. The Creed is taught and is read as a prayer in the churches, but the Sermon on the Mount is excluded even from the Gospel passages read in the churches, so that the congregation never hears it in church, except on those days when the whole of the Gospel is read. Indeed, it could not be otherwis= e. People who believe in a wicked and senseless God--who has cursed the human = race and devoted his own Son to sacrifice, and a part of mankind to eternal torm= ent--cannot believe in the God of love. The man who believes in a God, in a Christ comi= ng again in glory to judge and to punish the quick and the dead, cannot believ= e in the Christ who bade us turn the left cheek, judge not, forgive these that w= rong us, and love our enemies. The man who believes in the inspiration of the Old Testament and the sacred character of David, who commanded on his deathbed = the murder of an old man who had cursed him, and whom he could not kill himself because he was bound by an oath to him, and the similar atrocities of which= the Old Testament is full, cannot believe in the holy love of Christ. The man w= ho believes in the Church's doctrine of the compatibility of warfare and capit= al punishment with Christianity cannot believe in the brotherhood of all men.<= o:p>
And what is most
important of all--the man who believes in salvation through faith in the
redemption or the sacraments, cannot devote all his powers to realizing
Christ's moral teaching in his life.
The man who has b=
een
instructed by the Church in the profane doctrine that a man cannot be saved=
by
his own powers, but that there is another means of salvation, will infallib=
ly
rely upon this means and not on his own powers, which, they assure him, it =
is
sinful to trust in.
The teaching of e=
very
Church, with its redemption and sacraments, excludes the teaching of Christ;
most of all the teaching of the Orthodox Church with its idolatrous
observances.
"But the peo=
ple
have always believed of their own accord as they believe now," will be
said in answer to this. "=
;The
whole history of the Russian people proves it. One cannot deprive the people of t=
heir
traditions." This statem=
ent,
too, is misleading. The peopl=
e did
certainly at one time believe in something like what the Church believes in
now, though it was far from being the same thing. In spite of their superstitious re=
gard
for ikons, housespirits, relics, and festivals with wreaths of birch leaves=
, there
has still always been in the people a profound moral and living understandi=
ng
of Christianity, which there has never been in the Church as a whole, and w=
hich
is only met with in its best representatives. But the people, notwithstanding al=
l the prejudices
instilled into them by the government and the Church, have in their best
representatives long outgrown that crude stage of understanding, a fact whi=
ch
is proved by the springing up everywhere of the rationalist sects with which
Russia is swarming to-day, and on which Churchmen are now carrying on an
ineffectual warfare. The peop=
le are
advancing to a consciousness of the moral, living side of Christianity. And then the Church comes forward,=
not
borrowing from the people, but zealously instilling into them the petrified
formalities of an extinct paganism, and striving to thrust them back again =
into
the darkness from which they are emerging with such effort.
"We teach the
people nothing new, nothing but what they believe, only in a more perfect
form," say the Churchmen. This
is just what the man did who tied up the full-grown chicken and thrust it b=
ack
into the shell it had come out of.
I have often been
irritated, though it would be comic if the consequences were not so awful, =
by
observing how men shut one another in a delusion and cannot get out of this
magic circle.
The first questio=
n,
the first doubt of a Russian who is beginning to think, is a question about=
the
ikons, and still more the miraculous relics: Is it true that they are genui=
ne,
and that miracles are worked through them?=
Hundreds of thousands of men put this question to themselves, and th=
eir
principal difficulty in answering it is the fact that bishops, metropolitan=
s,
and all men in positions of authority kiss the relics and wonder-working ik=
ons. Ask the bishops and men in positio=
ns of
authority why they do so, and they will say they do it for the sake of the
people, while the people kiss them because the bishops and men in authority=
do
so.
In spite of all t=
he
external varnish of modernity, learning, and spirituality which the members=
of
the Church begin nowadays to assume in their works, their articles, their
theological journals, and their sermons, the practical work of the Russian
Church consists of nothing more than keeping the people in their present co=
ndition
of coarse and savage idolatry, and worse still, strengthening and diffusing
superstition and religious ignorance, and suppressing that living understan=
ding
of Christianity which exists in the people side by side with idolatry.
I remember once b=
eing
present in the monks' bookshop of the Optchy Hermitage while an old peasant=
was
choosing books for his grandson, who could read. A monk pressed on him accounts of =
relics,
holidays, miraculous ikons, a psalter, etc. I asked the old man, "Has he =
the
Gospel?" "No."=
"Give him the Gospel in Russia=
n,"
I said to the monk. "Tha=
t will
not do for him," answered the monk.&n=
bsp;
There you have an epitome of the work of our Church.
But this is only =
in
barbarous Russia, the European and American reader will observe. And such an observation is just, b=
ut
only so far as it refers to the government, which aids the Church in its ta=
sk
of stultification and corruption in Russia.
It is true that t=
here
is nowhere in Europe a government so despotic and so closely allied with the
ruling Church. And therefore =
the
share of the temporal power in the corruption of the people is greatest in
Russia. But it is untrue that=
the
Russian Church in its influence on the people is in any respect different f=
rom
any other church.
The churches are
everywhere the same, and if the Catholic, the Anglican, or the Lutheran Chu=
rch
has not at hand a government as compliant as the Russian, it is not due to =
any
indisposition to profit by such a government.
The Church as a
church, whatever it may be--Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian--eve=
ry
church, in so far as it is a church, cannot but strive for the same object =
as
the Russian Church. That object is to conceal the real meaning of Christ's
teaching and to replace it by their own, which lays no obligation on them, =
excludes
the possibility of understanding the true teaching of Christ, and what is t=
he
chief consideration, justifies the existence of priests supported at the
people's expense.
What else has
Catholicism done, what else is it doing in its prohibition of reading the
Gospel, and in its demand for unreasoning submission to Church authorities =
and
to an infallible Pope? Is the
religion of Catholicism any other than that of the Russian Church? There is the same external ritual,=
the
same relics, miracles, and wonder-working images of Notre Dame, and the same
processions; the same loftily vague discussions of Christianity in books and
sermons, and when it comes to practice, the same supporting of the present
idolatry. And is not the same=
thing
done in Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and every denomination of Protestantism w=
hich
has been formed into a church?
There is the same duty laid on their congregations to believe in the
dogmas expressed in the fourth century, which have lost all meaning for men=
of
our times, and the same duty of idolatrous worship, if not of relics and ik=
ons,
then of the Sabbath Day and the letter of the Bible. There is always the same activity
directed to concealing the real duties of Christianity, and to putting in t=
heir
place an external respectability and cant, as it is so well described by the
English, who are peculiarly oppressed by it. In Protestantism this tendency is
specially remarkable because it has not the excuse of antiquity. And does not exactly the same thin=
g show
itself even in contemporary revivalism--the revived Calvinism and Evangelic=
alism,
to which the Salvation Army owes its origin?
Uniform is the
attitude of all the churches to the teaching of Christ, whose name they ass=
ume
for their own advantage.
The inconsistency=
of
all church forms of religion with the teaching of Christ is, of course, the
reason why special efforts are necessary to conceal this inconsistency from
people. Truly, we need only i=
magine
ourselves in the position of any grown-up man, not necessarily educated, ev=
en
the simplest man of the present day, who has picked up the ideas that are
everywhere in the air nowadays of geology, physics, chemistry, cosmography,=
or history,
when he, for the first time, consciously compares them with the articles of
belief instilled into him in childhood, and maintained by the churches--that
God created the world in six days, and light before the sun; that Noah shut=
up
all the animals in his ark, and so on; that Jesus is also God the Son, who
created all before time was; that this God came down upon earth to atone for
Adam's sin; that he rose again, ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the ri=
ght
hand of the Father, and will come in the clouds to judge the world, and so
on. All these propositions, e=
laborated
by men of the fourth century, had a certain meaning for men of that time, b=
ut
for men of to-day they have no meaning whatever. Men of the present day can repeat =
these
words with their lips, but believe them they cannot. For such sentences as that God liv=
es in
heaven, that the heavens opened and a voice from somewhere said something, =
that
Christ rose again, and ascended somewhere in heaven, and again will come fr=
om
somewhere on the clouds, and so on, have no meaning for us.
A man who regarded
the heavens as a solid, finite vault could believe or disbelieve that God
created the heavens, that the heavens opened, that Christ ascended into hea=
ven,
but for us all these phrases have no sense whatever. Men of the present can only believ=
e, as
indeed they do, that they ought to believe in this; but believe it they can=
not,
because it has no meaning for them.
Even if all these
phrases ought to be interpreted in a figurative sense and are allegories, we
know that in the first place all Churchmen are not agreed about it, but, on=
the
contrary, the majority stick to understanding the Holy Scripture in its lit=
eral
sense; and secondly, that these allegorical interpretations are very varied=
and
are not supported by any evidence.
But even if a man
wants to force himself to believe in the doctrines of the Church just as th=
ey
are taught to him, the universal diffusion of education and of the Gospel a=
nd
of communication between people of different forms of religion presents a s=
till
more insurmountable obstacle to his doing so.
A man of the pres=
ent
day need only buy a Gospel for three copecks and read through the plain wor=
ds,
admitting of no misinterpretation, that Christ said to the Samaritan woman
"that the Father seeketh not worshipers at Jerusalem, nor in this moun=
tain
nor in that, but worshipers in spirit and in truth," or the saying that
"the Christian must not pray like the heathen, nor for show, but secre=
tly,
that is, in his closet," or that Christ's follower must call no man ma=
ster
or father--he need only read these words to be thoroughly convinced that the
Church pastors, who call themselves teachers in opposition to Christ's prec=
ept,
and dispute among themselves, constitute no kind of authority, and that what
the Churchmen teach us is not Christianity. Less even than that is necessar=
y.
Even if a man nowadays did continue to believe in miracles and did not read=
the
Gospel, mere association with people of different forms of religion and fai=
th,
which happens so easily in these days, compels him to doubt of the truth of=
his
own faith. It was all very well when a man did not see men of any other for=
m of
religion than his own; he believed that his form of religion was the one tr=
ue
one. But a thinking man has only to come into contact--as constantly happen=
s in
these days--with people, equally good and bad, of different denominations, =
who
condemn each other's beliefs, to doubt of the truth of the belief he profes=
ses
himself. In these days only a man who is absolutely ignorant or absolutely
indifferent to the vital questions with which religion deals, can remain in=
the
faith of the Church.
What deceptions a=
nd
what strenuous efforts the churches must employ to continue, in spite of all
these tendencies subversive of the faith, to build churches, to perform mas=
ses,
to preach, to teach, to convert, and, most of all, to receive for it all
immense emoluments, as do all these priests, pastors, incumbents, superinte=
ndents,
abbots, archdeacons, bishops, and archbishops. They need special supernatur=
al
efforts. And the churches do,=
with ever-increasing
intensity and zeal, make such efforts.&nbs=
p;
With us in Russia, besides other means, they employ, simple brute fo=
rce,
as there the temporal power is willing to obey the Church. Men who refuse an external assent =
to the
faith, and say so openly, are either directly punished or deprived of their
rights; men who strictly keep the external forms of religion are rewarded a=
nd given
privileges.
That is how the
Orthodox clergy proceed; but indeed all churches without exception avail
themselves of every means for the purpose --one of the most important of wh=
ich
is what is now called hypnotism.
Every art, from
architecture to poetry, is brought into requisition to work its effect on m=
en's
souls and to reduce them to a state of stupefaction, and this effect is
constantly produced. This use=
of
hypnotizing influence on men to bring them to a state of stupefaction is
especially apparent in the proceedings of the Salvation Army, who employ new
practices to which we are unaccustomed: trumpets, drums, songs, flags, cost=
umes,
marching, dancing, tears, and dramatic performances.
But this only
displeases us because these are new practices. Were not the old practices in chur=
ches
essentially the same, with their special lighting, gold, splendor, candles,
choirs, organ, bells, vestments, intoning, etc.?
But however power=
ful
this hypnotic influence may be, it is not the chief nor the most pernicious
activity of the Church. The c=
hief
and most pernicious work of the Church is that which is directed to the
deception of children--these very children of whom Christ said: "Woe to
him that offendeth one of these little ones." From the very first awakening of t=
he consciousness
of the child they begin to deceive him, to instill into him with the utmost
solemnity what they do not themselves believe in, and they continue to inst=
ill
it into him till the deception has by habit grown into the child's nature.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> They studiously deceive the child =
on the
most important subject in life, and when the deception has so grown into his
life that it would be difficult to uproot it, then they reveal to him the w=
hole
world of science and reality, which cannot by any means be reconciled with =
the
beliefs that have been instilled into him, leaving it to him to find his wa=
y as
best he can out of these contradictions.
If one set oneself
the task of trying to confuse a man so that he could not think clearly nor =
free
himself from the perplexity of two opposing theories of life which had been
instilled into him from childhood, one could not invent any means more effe=
ctual
than the treatment of every young man educated in our so-called Christian
society.
It is terrible to
think what the churches do to men. But if one imagines oneself in the posit=
ion
of the men who constitute the Church, we see they could not act differently=
. The churches are placed in a dilem=
ma:
the Sermon on the Mount or the Nicene Creed--the one excludes the other.
Let the Church st=
op
its work of hypnotizing the masses, and deceiving children even for the
briefest interval of time, and men would begin to understand Christ's
teaching. But this understand=
ing
will be the end of the churches and all their influence. And therefore the churches will no=
t for
an instant relax their zeal in the business of hypnotizing grown-up people =
and
deceiving children. This, the=
n, is
the work of the churches: to instill a false interpretation of Christ's
teaching into men, and to prevent a true interpretation of it for the major=
ity
of so-called believers.
CHAPTER IV - CHRISTIANITY
MISUNDERSTOOD BY MEN OF SCIENCE.
Attitude of Men of
Science to Religions in General--What Religion is, and What is its Signific=
ance
for the Life of Humanity--Three Conceptions of Life--Christian Religion the
Expression of the Divine Conception of Life--Misinterpretation of Christian=
ity
by Men of Science, who Study it in its External Manifestations Due to their
Criticising it from Standpoint of Social Conception of Life--Opinion, Resul=
ting
from this Misinterpretation, that Christ's Moral Teaching is Exaggerated an=
d Cannot
be put into Practice--Expression of Divine Conception of Life in the
Gospel--False Ideas of Men of Science on Christianity Proceed from their Co=
nviction
that they have an Infallible Method of Criticism--From which come Two
Misconceptions in Regard to Christian Doctrine--First Misconception, that t=
he
Teaching Cannot be put into Practice, Due to the Christian Religion Directi=
ng
Life in a Way Different from that of the Social Theory of Life--Christianity
holds up Ideal, does not lay down Rules--To the Animal Force of Man Christ =
Adds
the Consciousness of a Divine Force--Christianity Seems to Destroy Possibil=
ity
of Life only when the Ideal held up is Mistaken for Rule--Ideal Must Not be=
Lowered--Life,
According to Christ's Teaching, is Movement--The Ideal and the Precepts--Se=
cond
Misconception Shown in Replacing Love and Service of God by Love and Servic=
e of
Humanity--Men of Science Imagine their Doctrine of Service of Humanity and
Christianity are Identical--Doctrine of Service of Humanity Based on Social
Conception of Life--Love for Humanity, Logically Deduced from Love of Self,=
has
No Meaning because Humanity is a Fiction--Christian Love Deduced from Love =
of
God, Finds its Object in the whole World, not in Humanity Alone--Christiani=
ty
Teaches Man to Live in Accordance with his Divine Nature--It Shows that the
Essence of the Soul of Man is Love, and that his Happiness Ensues from Love=
of
God, whom he Recognizes as Love within himself.
Now I will speak of the other view =
of
Christianity which hinders the true understanding of it--the scientific vie=
w.
Churchmen substit=
ute
for Christianity the version they have framed of it for themselves, and this
view of Christianity they regard as the one infallibly true one.
Men of science re=
gard
as Christianity only the tenets held by the different churches in the past =
and
present; and finding that these tenets have lost all the significance of
Christianity, they accept it as a religion which has outlived its age.
To see clearly how
impossible it is to understand the Christian teaching from such a point of
view, one must form for oneself an idea of the place actually held by relig=
ions
in general, by the Christian religion in particular, in the life of mankind,
and of the significance attributed to them by science.
Just as the
individual man cannot live without having some theory of the meaning of his
life, and is always, though often unconsciously, framing his conduct in
accordance with the meaning he attributes to his life, so too associations =
of
men living in similar conditions--nations--cannot but have theories of the =
meaning
of their associated life and conduct ensuing from those theories. And as the individual man, when he
attains a fresh stage of growth, inevitably changes his philosophy of life,=
and
the grown-up man sees a different meaning in it from the child, so too
associations of men--nations--are bound to change their philosophy of life =
and
the conduct ensuing from their philosophy, to correspond with their
development.
The difference, as
regards this, between the individual man and humanity as a whole, lies in t=
he
fact that the individual, in forming the view of life proper to the new per=
iod
of life on which he is entering and the conduct resulting from it, benefits=
by
the experience of men who have lived before him, who have already passed
through the stage of growth upon which he is entering. But humanity cannot have this aid,
because it is always moving along a hitherto untrodden track, and has no on=
e to
ask how to understand life, and to act in the conditions on which it is
entering and through which no one has ever passed before.
Nevertheless, jus=
t as
a man with wife and children cannot continue to look at life as he looked a=
t it
when he was a child, so too in the face of the various changes that are tak=
ing
place, the greater density of population, the establishment of communication
between different peoples, the improvements of the methods of the struggle =
with
nature, and the accumulation of knowledge, humanity cannot continue to look=
at
life as of old, and it must frame a new theory of life, from which conduct =
may
follow adapted to the new conditions on which it has entered and is enterin=
g.
To meet this need
humanity has the special power of producing men who give a new meaning to t=
he
whole of human life--a theory of life from which follow new forms of activi=
ty
quite different from all preceding them.&n=
bsp;
The formation of this philosophy of life appropriate to humanity in =
the
new conditions on which it is entering, and of the practice resulting from =
it,
is what is called religion.
And therefore, in=
the
first place, religion is not, as science imagines, a manifestation which at=
one
time corresponded with the development of humanity, but is afterward outgro=
wn
by it. It is a manifestation =
always
inherent in the life of humanity, and is as indispensable, as inherent in
humanity at the present time as at any other. Secondly, religion is always the t=
heory
of the practice of the future and not of the past, and therefore it is clear
that investigation of past manifestations cannot in any case grasp the esse=
nce
of religion.
The essence of ev=
ery
religious teaching lies not in the desire for a symbolic expression of the
forces of nature, nor in the dread of these forces, nor in the craving for =
the
marvelous, nor in the external forms in which it is manifested, as men of
science imagine; the essence of religion lies in the faculty of men of fore=
seeing
and pointing out the path of life along which humanity must move in the
discovery of a new theory of life, as a result of which the whole future
conduct of humanity is changed and different from all that has been before.=
This faculty of
foreseeing the path along which humanity must move, is common in a greater =
or
less degree to all men. But i=
n all
times there have been men in whom this faculty was especially strong, and t=
hese
men have given clear and definite expression to what all men felt vaguely, =
and
formed a new philosophy of life from which new lines of action followed for
hundreds and thousands of years.
Of such philosoph=
ies
of life we know three; two have already been passed through by humanity, and
the third is that we are passing through now in Christianity. These philosophies of life are thre=
e in
number, and only three, not because we have arbitrarily brought the various
theories of life together under these three heads, but because all men's
actions are always based on one of these three views of life--because we ca=
nnot
view life otherwise than in these three ways.
These three views=
of
life are as follows: First, embracing the individual, or the animal view of
life; second, embracing the society, or the pagan view of life; third,
embracing the whole world, or the divine view of life.
In the first theo=
ry
of life a man's life is limited to his one individuality; the aim of life is
the satisfaction of the will of this individuality. In the second theory of life a man=
's
life is limited not to his own individuality, but to certain societies and =
classes
of individuals: to the tribe, the family, the clan, the nation; the aim of =
life
is limited to the satisfaction of the will of those associations of
individuals. In the third the=
ory of
life a man's life is limited not to societies and classes of individuals, b=
ut
extends to the principle and source of life--to God.
These three
conceptions of life form the foundation of all the religious that exist or =
have
existed.
The savage recogn= izes life only in himself and his personal desires. His interest in life is concentrated on himself alone. The highest happiness for him is the fullest satisfaction of his desires. The motive power of his life is personal enjoyment. His religion consists in propitiating his deity and in worshiping his gods, whom he imagines as persons living only for their personal aims.<= o:p>
The civilized pag=
an
recognizes life not in himself alone, but in societies of men--in the tribe,
the clan, the family, the kingdom --and sacrifices his personal good for th=
ese
societies. The motive power o=
f his
life is glory. His religion
consists in the exaltation of the glory of those who are allied to him--the=
founders
of his family, his ancestors, his rulers--and in worshiping gods who are
exclusively protectors of his clan, his family, his nation, his government =
[see
Footnote].
[Footnote: The fact th=
at so
many varied forms of existence, as the=
life
of the family, of the tribe, of the clan, of t=
he
state, and even the life of humanity theoreti=
cally
conceived by the Positivists, are founded on th=
is
social or pagan theory of life, does not destroy =
the
unity of this theory of life. All these varied =
forms
of life are founded on the same conception, =
that
the life of the individual is not a sufficient =
aim of
life--that the meaning of life can be found=
only
in societies of individuals.]
The man who holds=
the
divine theory of life recognizes life not in his own individuality, and not=
in
societies of individualities (in the family, the clan, the nation, the trib=
e,
or the government), but in the eternal undying source of life--in God; and =
to
fulfill the will of God he is ready to sacrifice his individual and family =
and
social welfare. The motor pow=
er of
his life is love. And his rel=
igion is
the worship in deed and in truth of the principle of the whole--God.
The whole historic
existence of mankind is nothing else than the gradual transition from the
personal, animal conception of life to the social conception of life, and f=
rom
the social conception of life to the divine conception of life. The whole history of the ancient
peoples, lasting through thousands of years and ending with the history of
Rome, is the history of the transition from the animal, personal view of li=
fe
to the social view of life. T=
he whole
of history from the time of the Roman Empire and the appearance of Christia=
nity
is the history of the transition, through which we are still passing now, f=
rom
the social view of life to the divine view of life.
This view of life=
is the
last, and founded upon it is the Christian teaching, which is a guide for t=
he
whole of our life and lies at the root of all our activity, practical and
theoretic. Yet men of what is falsely called science, pseudo-scientific men=
, looking
at it only in its externals, regard it as something outgrown and having no
value for us.
Reducing it to its dogmatic side only--to the doctrines of the Trinity, the redemption, the miracles, the Church, the sacraments, and so on--men of science regard it as only one of an immense number of religions which have arisen among mankind,= and now, they say, having played out its part in history, it is outliving its o= wn age and fading away before the light of science and of true enlightenment.<= o:p>
We come here upon
what, in a large proportion of cases, forms the source of the grossest erro=
rs
of mankind. Men on a lower le=
vel of
understanding, when brought into contact with phenomena of a higher order,
instead of making efforts to understand them, to raise themselves up to the
point of view from which they must look at the subject, judge it from their
lower standpoint, and the less they understand what they are talking about,=
the
more confidently and unhesitatingly they pass judgment on it.
To the majority of
learned then, looking at the living, moral teaching of Christ from the lower
standpoint of the conception of life, this doctrine appears as nothing but =
very
indefinite and incongruous combination of Indian asceticism, Stoic and
Neoplatonic philosophy, and insubstantial anti-social visions, which have no
serious significance for our times. Its whole meaning is concentrated for t=
hem
in its external manifestations--in Catholicism, Protestantism, in certain d=
ogmas,
or in the conflict with the temporal power. Estimating the value of Christi=
anity
by these phenomena is like a deaf man's judging of the character and qualit=
y of
music by seeing the movements of the musicians.
The result of thi=
s is
that all these scientific men, from Kant, Strauss, Spencer, and Renan down,=
do
not understand the meaning of Christ's sayings, do not understand the
significance, the object, or the reason of their utterance, do not understa=
nd
even the question to which they form the answer. Yet, without even taking the pains=
to
enter into their meaning, they refuse, if unfavorably disposed, to recognize
any reasonableness in his doctrines; or if they want to treat them indulgen=
tly,
they condescend, from the height of their superiority, to correct them, on =
the
supposition that Christ meant to express precisely their own ideas, but did=
not
succeed in doing so. They beh=
ave to
his teaching much as self-assertive people talk to those whom they consider
beneath them, often supplying their companions' words: "Yes, you mean =
to say
this and that." This
correction is always with the aim of reducing the teaching of the higher,
divine conception of life to the level of the lower, state conception of li=
fe.
They usually say =
that
the moral teaching of Christianity is very fine, but overexaggerated; that =
to
make it quite right we must reject all in it that is superfluous and
unnecessary to our manner of life.
"And the doctrine that asks too much, and requires what cannot =
be
performed, is worse than that which requires of men what is possible and
consistent with their powers," these learned interpreters of Christian=
ity
maintain, repeating what was long ago asserted, and could not but be assert=
ed,
by those who crucified the Teacher because they did not understand him--the
Jews.
It seems that in =
the
judgment of the learned men of our time the Hebrew law--a tooth for a tooth,
and an eye for an eye--is a law of just retaliation, known to mankind five =
thousand
years before the law of holiness which Christ taught in its place.
It seems that all
that has been done by those men who understood Christ's teaching literally =
and
lived in accordance with such an understanding of it, all that has been said
and done by all true Christians, by all the Christian saints, all that is n=
ow
reforming the world in the shape of socialism and communism--is simply exag=
geration,
not worth talking about.
After eighteen
hundred years of education in Christianity the civilized world, as represen=
ted
by its most advanced thinkers, holds the conviction that the Christian reli=
gion
is a religion of dogmas; that its teaching in relation to life is unreasona=
ble,
and is an exaggeration, subversive of the real lawful obligations of morali=
ty
consistent with the nature of man; and that very doctrine of retribution wh=
ich
Christ rejected, and in place of which he put his teaching, is more practic=
ally
useful for us.
To learned men the
doctrine of non-resistance to evil by force is exaggerated and even
irrational. Christianity is m=
uch
better without it, they think, not observing closely what Christianity, as
represented by them, amounts to.
They do not see t=
hat
to say that the doctrine of non-resistance to evil is an exaggeration in
Christ's teaching is just like saying that the statement of the equality of=
the
radii of a circle is an exaggeration in the definition of a circle. And those who speak thus are acting
precisely like a man who, having no idea of what a circle is, should declare
that this requirement, that every point of the circumference should be an e=
qual
distance from the center, is exaggerated.&=
nbsp;
To advocate the rejection of Christ's command of non-resistance to e=
vil,
or its adaptation to the needs of life, implies a misunderstanding of the
teaching of Christ.
And those who do =
so
certainly do not understand it.
They do not understand that this teaching is the institution of a new
theory of life, corresponding to the new conditions on which men have enter=
ed
now for eighteen hundred years, and also the definition of the new conduct =
of
life which results from it. T=
hey do
not believe that Christ meant to say what he said; or he seems to them to h=
ave
said what he said in the Sermon on the Mount and in other places accidental=
ly,
or through his lack of intelligence or of cultivation.
[Footnote: Here, for
example, is a characteristic view of that kind=
from
the American journal the ARENA (October, 1890):
"New Basis of Church Life."
Treating of the significan=
ce of
the Sermon on the Mount and non-resistance to=
evil
in particular, the author, being under no
necessity, like the Churchmen, to hide its signific=
ance,
says:
"Chri=
st in
fact preached complete communism and anarc=
hy;
but one must learn to regard Christ always in his
historical and psychological significance. Like =
every
advocate of the love of humanity, Christ went to the furthest extreme in his
teaching. Every step
forward toward the moral perfection of humanity is al=
ways
guided by men who see nothing but their vocat=
ion. Christ, in no disparaging sense be=
it said,=
had
the typical temperament of such a reformer. And
therefore we must remember that his precepts canno=
t be
understood literally as a complete philo=
sophy
of life. We ought to analyze =
his
words with
respect for them, but in the spirit of criticism, accepting what is true,"=
etc.
Christ would have been=
happy
to say what he ought, but he was not able to
express himself as exactly and clearly as we can=
in
the spirit of criticism, and therefore let us
correct him. All that he said=
about
meekness,
sacrifice, lowliness, not caring for the morrow, was said =
by
accident, through lack of knowing how to express hi=
mself
scientifically.]
Matt. vi. 25-34:
"Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall
eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, an=
d the
body than rainment? Behold the
fouls of the air; for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into
barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? =
Which
of you by taking thought can add one cubit onto his stature? And why take ye
thought for rainment? Consider the lilies of the field how they grow; they =
toil
not, neither do they spin; and yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all=
his
glory was not arrayed like one of these.&n=
bsp;
Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is,=
and
to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of
little faith? Therefore take =
no
thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal
shall we be clothed? (For aft=
er all
these things do the Gentiles seek), for your heavenly Father knoweth that y=
e have
need of all these things. But=
seek
ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness, and all these things sh=
all
be added unto you. Take there=
fore
no thought for the morrow; for the morrow shall take thought for the things=
of
itself. Sufficient unto the d=
ay is
the evil thereof." Luke =
xii.
33-34: "Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which
wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief app=
roacheth,
neither moth corrupteth. For =
where
your treasure is, there will your heart be also." Sell all thou hast and follow me; =
and he
who will not leave father, or mother, or children, or brothers, or fields, =
or
house, he cannot be my disciple.
Deny thyself, take up thy cross each day and follow me. My meat is to do the will of him t=
hat
sent me, and to perform his works.
Not my will, but thine be done; not what I will, but as thou wilt. Life is to do not one's will, but =
the
will of God.
All these princip=
les
appear to men who regard them from the standpoint of a lower conception of =
life
as the expression of an impulsive enthusiasm, having no direct application =
to
life. These principles, howev=
er,
follow from the Christian theory of life, just as logically as the principl=
es
of paying a part of one's private gains to the commonwealth and of sacrific=
ing
one's life in defense of one's country follow from the state theory of life=
.
As the man of the
stale conception of life said to the savage: Reflect, bethink yourself! The
life of your individuality cannot be true life, because that life is pitiful
and passing. But the life of a society and succession of individuals, famil=
y,
clan, tribe, or state, goes on living, and therefore a man must sacrifice h=
is
own individuality for the life of the family or the state. In exactly the s=
ame
way the Christian doctrine says to the man of the social, state conception =
of
life, Repent ye--[GREEK WORD]-i. e., bethink yourself, or you will be ruine=
d. Understand
that this casual, personal life which now comes into being and to-morrow is=
no
more can have no permanence, that no external means, no construction of it =
can
give it consecutiveness and permanence. Take thought and understand that the
life you are living is not real life--the life of the family, of society, of
the state will not save you from annihilation. The true, the rational life =
is
only possible for man according to the measure in which he can participate,=
not
in the family or the state, but in the source of life--the Father; accordin=
g to
the measure in which he can merge his life in the life of the Father. Such =
is
undoubtedly the Christian conception of life, visible in every utterance of=
the
Gospel.
[TRANSCRIBIST'S NOTE: =
The
GREEK WORD above used Greek letters, spelled:
mu-epsilon-tau-alpha-nu-omicron-zeta-epsilon-tau- epsilon]
One may not share
this view of life, one may reject it, one may show its inaccuracy and its
erroneousness, but we cannot judge of the Christian teaching without master=
ing
this view of life. Still less can one criticise a subject on a higher plane
from a lower point of view. From the basement one cannot judge of the effec=
t of
the spire. But this is just what the learned critics of the day try to do. =
For
they share the erroneous idea of the orthodox believers that they are in
possession of certain infallible means for investigating a subject. They fa=
ncy
if they apply their so-called scientific methods of criticism, there can be=
no doubt
of their conclusion being correct.
This testing the
subject by the fancied infallible method of science is the principal obstac=
le
to understanding the Christian religion for unbelievers, for so-called educ=
ated
people. From this follow all =
the
mistakes made by scientific men about the Christian religion, and especially
two strange misconceptions which, more than everything else, hinder them fr=
om a
correct understanding of it. =
One of
these misconceptions is that the Christian moral teaching cannot be carried
out, and that therefore it has either no force at all--that is, it should n=
ot
be accepted as the rule of conduct--or it must be transformed, adapted to t=
he limits
within which its fulfillment is possible in our society. Another misconcept=
ion
is that the Christian doctrine of love of God, and therefore of his service=
, is
an obscure, mystic principle, which gives no definite object for love, and
should therefore be replaced by the more exact and comprehensible principle=
s of
love for men and the service of humanity.
The first
misconception in regard to the impossibility of following the principle is =
the
result of men of the state conception of life unconsciously taking that
conception as the standard by which the Christian religion directs men, and
taking the Christian principle of perfection as the rule by which that life=
is
to be ordered; they think and say that to follow Christ's teaching is
impossible, because the complete fulfillment of all that is required by this
teaching would put an end to life.
"If a man were to carry out all that Christ teaches, he would
destroy his own life; and if all men carried it out, then the human race wo=
uld
come to an end," they say.
"If we take =
no thought
for the morrow, what we shall eat and what we shall drink, and wherewithal =
we
shall be clothed, do not defend our life, nor resist evil by force, lay down
our life for others, and observe perfect chastity, the human race cannot
exist," they say.
And they are
perfectly right if they take the principle of perfection given by Christ's
teaching as a rule which everyone is bound to fulfill, just as in the state
principles of life everyone is bound to carry out the rule of paying taxes,
supporting the law, and so on.
The misconception=
is
based precisely on the fact that the teaching of Christ guides men differen=
tly
from the way in which the precepts founded on the lower conception of life
guide men. The precepts of the
state conception of life only guide men by requiring of them an exact
fulfillment of rules or laws.
Christ's teaching guides men by pointing them to the infinite perfec=
tion
of their heavenly Father, to which every man independently and voluntarily
struggles, whatever the degree of his imperfection in the present.
The misunderstand=
ing
of men who judge of the Christian principle from the point of view of the s=
tate
principle, consists in the fact that on the supposition that the perfection
which Christ points to, can be fully attained, they ask themselves (just as=
they
ask the same question on the supposition that state laws will be carried ou=
t)
what will be the result of all this being carried out? This supposition cannot be made, b=
ecause
the perfection held up to Christians is infinite and can never be attained;=
and
Christ lays down his principle, having in view the fact that absolute perfe=
ction
can never be attained, but that striving toward absolute, infinite perfecti=
on
will continually increase the blessedness of men, and that this blessedness=
may
be increased to infinity thereby.
Christ is teaching
not angels, but men, living and moving in the animal life. And so to this
animal force of movement Christ, as it were, applies the new force-the
recognition of Divine perfection-and thereby directs the movement by the
resultant of these two forces..
To suppose that h=
uman
life is going in the direction to which Christ pointed it, is just like
supposing that a little boat afloat on a rabid river, and directing its cou=
rse
almost exactly against the current, will progress in that direction.
Christ recognizes=
the
existence of both sides of the parallelogram, of both eternal indestructible
forces of which the life of man is compounded: the force of his animal natu=
re
and the force of the consciousness of Kinship to God. Saying nothing of the animal force=
which
asserts itself, remains always the same, and is therefore independent of hu=
man
will, Christ speaks only of the Divine force, calling upon a man to know it
more closely, to set it more free from all that retards it, and to carry it=
to
a higher degree of intensity.
In the process of
liberating, of strengthening this force, the true life of man, according to
Christ's teaching, consists. =
The true
life, according to preceding religions, consists in carrying out rules, the
law; according to Christ's teaching it consists in an ever closer approxima=
tion
to the divine perfection held up before every man, and recognized within
himself by every man, in an ever closer and closer approach to the perfect =
fusion
of his will in the will of God, that fusion toward which man strives, and t=
he
attainment of which would be the destruction of the life me know.
The divine perfec=
tion
is the asymptote of human life to which it is always striving, and always
approaching, though it can only be reached in infinity.
The Christian
religion seems to exclude the possibility of life only when men mistake the
pointing to an ideal as the laying down of a rule. It is only then that the principles
presented in Christ's teaching appear to be destructive of life. These principles, on the contrary,=
are
the only ones that make true life possible. Without these principles true l=
ife
could not be possible.
"One ought n=
ot
to expect so much," is what people usually say in discussing the
requirements of the Christian religion.&nb=
sp;
"One cannot expect to take absolutely no thought for the morrow=
, as
is said in the Gospel, but only not to take too much thought for it; one ca=
nnot
give away all to the poor, but one must give away a certain definite part; =
one
need not aim at virginity, but one must avoid debauchery; one need not fors=
ake
wife and children, but one must not give too great a place to them in one's
heart," and so on.
But to speak like
this is just like telling a man who is struggling on a swift river and is
directing his course against the current, that it is impossible to cross the
river rowing against the current, and that to cross it he must float in the=
direction
of the point he wants to reach.
In reality, in or=
der
to reach the place to which he wants to go, he must row with all his streng=
th
toward a point much higher up.
To let go the
requirements of the ideal means not only to diminish the possibility of
perfection, but to make an end of the ideal itself. The ideal that has power over men =
is not
an ideal invented by someone, but the ideal that every man carries within h=
is
soul. Only this ideal of comp=
lete
infinite perfection has power over men, and stimulates them to action. A moderate perfection loses its po=
wer of
influencing men's hearts.
Christ's teaching
only has power when it demands absolute perfection--that is, the fusion of =
the
divine nature which exists in every man's soul with the will of God--the un=
ion
of the Son with the Father. L=
ife
according to Christ's teaching consists of nothing but this setting free of=
the
Son of God, existing in every man, from the animal, and in bringing him clo=
ser
to the Father.
The animal existe=
nce
of a man does not constitute human life alone. Life, according to the will =
of God
only, is also not human life. Human
life is a combination of the animal life and the divine life. And the more this combination appr=
oaches
to the divine life, the more life there is in it.
Life, according to
the Christian religion, is a progress toward the divine perfection. No one condition, according to thi=
s doctrine,
can be higher or lower than another.
Every condition, according to this doctrine, is only a particular st=
age,
of no consequence in itself, on the way toward unattainable perfection, and
therefore in itself it does not imply a greater or lesser degree of life. Increase of life, according to thi=
s,
consists in nothing but the quickening of the progress toward perfection. And therefore the progress toward
perfection of the publican Zaccheus, of the woman that was a sinner, and of=
the
robber on the cross, implies a higher degree of life than the stagnant
righteousness of the Pharisee. And
therefore for this religion there cannot be rules which it is obligatory to
obey. The man who is at a low=
er level
but is moving onward toward perfection is living a more moral, a better lif=
e,
is more fully carrying out Christ's teaching, than the man on a much higher
level of morality who is not moving onward toward perfection.
It is in this sen=
se
that the lost sheep is dearer to the Father than those that were not lost.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The prodigal son, the piece of mon=
ey
lost and found again, were more precious than those that were not lost.
The fulfillment of
Christ's teaching consists in moving away from self toward God. It is obvious that there cannot be
definite laws and rules for this fulfillment of the teaching. Every degree of perfection and eve=
ry
degree of imperfection are equal in it; no obedience to laws constitutes a
fulfillment of this doctrine, and therefore for it there can be no binding
rules and laws.
From this fundame=
ntal
distinction between the religion of Christ and all preceding religions base=
d on
the state conception of life, follows a corresponding difference in the spe=
cial
precepts of the state theory and the Christian precepts. The precepts of the state theory o=
f life
insist for the most part on certain practical prescribed acts, by which men=
are
justified and secure of being right.
The Christian precepts (the commandment of love is not a precept in =
the
strict sense of the word, but the expression of the very essence of the
religion) are the five commandments of the Sermon on the Mount--all negativ=
e in
character. They show only wha=
t at a
certain stage of development of humanity men may not do.
These commandments
are, as it were, signposts on the endless road to perfection, toward which
humanity is moving, showing the point of perfection which is possible at a
certain period in the development of humanity.
Christ has given
expression in the Sermon on the Mount to the eternal ideal toward which men=
are
spontaneously struggling, and also the degree of attainment of it to which =
men
may reach in our times.
The ideal is not =
to
desire to do ill to anyone, not to provoke ill will, to love all men. The precept, showing the level bel=
ow
which we cannot fall in the attainment of this ideal, is the prohibition of
evil speaking. And that is the
first command.
The ideal is perf=
ect
chastity, even in thought. The
precept, showing the level below which we cannot fall in the attainment of =
this
ideal, is that of purity of married life, avoidance of debauchery. That is the second command.
The ideal is to t=
ake
no thought for the future, to live in the present moment. The precept, showing the level bel=
ow
which we cannot fall, is the prohibition of swearing, of promising anything=
in
the future. And that is the t=
hird
command.
The ideal is never
for any purpose to use force. The
precept, showing the level below which we cannot fall is that of returning =
good
for evil, being patient under wrong, giving the cloak also. That is the fou=
rth
command.
The ideal is to l=
ove
the enemies who hate us. The
precept, showing the level below which we cannot fall, is not to do evil to=
our
enemies, to speak well of them, and to make no difference between them and =
our
neighbors.
All these precepts
are indications of what, on our journey to perfection, we are already fully
able to avoid, and what we must labor to attain now, and what we ought by
degrees to translate into instinctive and unconscious habits. But these precepts, far from
constituting the whole of Christ's teaching and exhausting it, are simply
stages on the way to perfection.
These precepts must and will be followed by higher and higher precep=
ts
on the way to the perfection held up by the religion.
And therefore it =
is
essentially a part of the Christian religion to make demands higher than th=
ose
expressed in its precepts; and by no means to diminish the demands either of
the ideal itself, or of the precepts, as people imagine who judge it from t=
he standpoint
of the social conception of life.
So much for one misunderstanding of the scientific men, in relation to the import and aim of Christ's teaching. Another mi= sunderstanding arising from the same source consists in substituting love for men, the ser= vice of humanity, for the Christian principles of love for God and his service.<= o:p>
The Christian
doctrine to love God and serve him, and only as a result of that love to lo=
ve
and serve one's neighbor, seems to scientific men obscure, mystic, and
arbitrary. And they would abs=
olutely
exclude the obligation of love and service of God, holding that the doctrin=
e of
love for men, for humanity alone, is far more clear, tangible, and reasonab=
le.
Scientific men te=
ach
in theory that the only good and rational life is that which is devoted to =
the
service of the whole of humanity.
That is for them the import of the Christian doctrine, and to that t=
hey
reduce Christ's teaching. The=
y seek
confirmation of their own doctrine in the Gospel, on the supposition that t=
he two
doctrines are really the same.
This idea is an
absolutely mistaken one. The
Christian doctrine has nothing in common with the doctrine of the Positivis=
ts, Communists,
and all the apostles of the universal brotherhood of mankind, based on the
general advantage of such a brotherhood. They differ from one another
especially in Christianity's having a firm and clear basis in the human sou=
l,
while love for humanity is only a theoretical deduction from analogy.
The doctrine of l=
ove
for humanity alone is based on the social conception of life.
The essence of the
social conception of life consists in the transference of the aim of the
individual life to the life of societies of individuals: family, clan, trib=
e,
or state. This transference is
accomplished easily and naturally in its earliest forms, in the transferenc=
e of
the aim of life from the individual to the family and the clan. The transference to the tribe or t=
he nation
is more difficult and requires special training. And the transference of the sentim=
ent to
the state is the furthest limit which the process can reach.
To love one's sel=
f is
natural to everyone, and no one needs any encouragement to do so. To love one's clan who support and=
protect
one, to love one's wife, the joy and help of one's existence, one's childre=
n,
the hope and consolation of one's life, and one's parents, who have given o=
ne
life and education, is natural. And
such love, though far from being so strong as love of self, is met with pre=
tty
often.
To love--for one's
own sake, through personal pride--one's tribe, one's nation, though not so
natural, is nevertheless common.
Love of one's own people who are of the same blood, the same tongue,=
and
the same religion as one's self is possible, though far from being so stron=
g as
love of self, or even love of family or clan. But love for a state, such as
Turkey, Germany, England, Austria, or Russia is a thing almost impossible.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> And though it is zealously inculca=
ted,
it is only an imagined sentiment; it has no existence in reality. And at that limit man's power of t=
ransferring
his interest ceases, and he cannot feel any direct sentiment for that
fictitious entity. The Positi=
vists,
however, and all the apostles of fraternity on scientific principles, witho=
ut taking
into consideration the weakening of sentiment in proportion to the extensio=
n of
its object, draw further deductions in theory in the same direction. "Since," they say, "=
;it
was for the advantage of the individual to extend his personal interest to =
the
family, the tribe, and subsequently to the nation and the state, it would be
still more advantageous to extend his interest in societies of men to the w=
hole
of mankind, and so all to live for humanity just as men live for the family=
or
the state."
Theoretically it
follows, indeed, having extended the love and interest for the personality =
to
the family, the tribe, and thence to the nation and the state, it would be
perfectly logical for men to save themselves the strife and calamities which
result from the division of mankind into nations and states by extending th=
eir love
to the whole of humanity. This
would be most logical, and theoretically nothing would appear more natural =
to
its advocates, who do not observe that love is a sentiment which may or may=
not
be felt, but which it is useless to advocate; and moreover, that love must =
have
an object, and that humanity is not an object. It is nothing but a fiction.
The family, the
tribe, even the state were not invented by men, but formed themselves spont=
aneously,
like ant-hills or swarms of bees, and have a real existence. The man who, for the sake of his o=
wn
animal personality, loves his family, knows whom he loves: Anna, Dolly, Joh=
n,
Peter, and so on. The man who=
loves
his tribe and takes pride in it, knows that he loves all the Guelphs or all=
the
Ghibellines; the man who loves the state knows that he loves France bounded=
by
the Rhine, and the Pyrenees, and its principal city Paris, and its history =
and
so on. But the man who loves =
humanity--what
does he love? There is such a=
thing
as a state, as a nation; there is the abstract conception of man; but human=
ity
as a concrete idea does not, and cannot exist.
Humanity! Where is the definition of
humanity? Where does it end a=
nd
where does it begin? Does hum=
anity
end with the savage, the idiot, the dipsomaniac, or the madman? If we draw a line excluding from
humanity its lowest representatives, where are we to draw the line? Shall we exclude the negroes like =
the Americans,
or the Hindoos like some Englishmen, or the Jews like some others? If we include all men without exce=
ption,
why should we not include also the higher animals, many of whom are superio=
r to
the lowest specimens of the human race.
We know nothing of
humanity as an eternal object, and we know nothing of its limits. Humanity is a fiction, and it is i=
mpossible
to love it. It would, doubtle=
ss, be
very advantageous if men could love humanity just as they love their
family. It would be very
advantageous, as Communists advocate, to replace the competitive,
individualistic organization of men's activity by a social universal
organization, so that each would be for all and all for each.
Only there are no
motives to lead men to do this. The
Positivists, the Communists, and all the apostles of fraternity on scientif=
ic
principles advocate the extension to the whole of humanity of the love men =
feel
for themselves, their families, and the state. They forget that the love which th=
ey are
discussing is a personal love, which might expand in a rarefied form to emb=
race
a man's native country, but which disappears before it can embrace an
artificial state such as Austria, England, or Turkey, and which we cannot e=
ven
conceive of in relation to all humanity, an absolutely mystic conception.
"A man loves=
himself
(his animal personality), he loves his family, he even loves his native
country. Why should he not lo=
ve humanity? That would be such an excellent
thing. And by the way, it is
precisely what is taught by Christianity." So think the advocates of Positivi=
st,
Communistic, or Socialistic fraternity.
It would indeed b=
e an
excellent thing. But it can n=
ever
be, for the love that is based on a personal or social conception of life c=
an
never rise beyond love for the state.
The fallacy of the
argument lies in the fact that the social conception of life, on which love=
for
family and nation is founded, rests itself on love of self, and that love g=
rows
weaker and weaker as it is extended from self to family, tribe, nationality,
and slate; and in the state we reach the furthest limit beyond which it can=
not
go.
The necessity of
extending the sphere of love is beyond dispute. But in reality the possibil=
ity
of this love is destroyed by the necessity of extending its object
indefinitely. And thus the in=
sufficiency
of personal human love is made manifest.
And here the
advocates of Positivist, Communistic, Socialistic fraternity propose to draw
upon Christian love to make up the default of this bankrupt human love; but
Christian love only in its results, not in its foundations. They propose love for humanity alo=
ne,
apart from love for God.
But such a love
cannot exist. There is no mot=
ive to
produce it. Christian love is the result only of the Christian conception o=
f life,
in which the aim of life is to love and serve God.
The social concep=
tion
of life has led men, by a natural transition from love of self and then of
family, tribe, nation, and state, to a consciousness of the necessity of lo=
ve
for humanity, a conception which has no definite limits and extends to all
living things. And this neces=
sity
for love of what awakens no kind of sentiment in a man is a contradiction w=
hich
cannot be solved by the social theory of life.
The Christian
doctrine in its full significance can alone solve it, by giving a new meani=
ng
to life. Christianity recogni=
zes
love of self, of family, of nation, and of humanity, and not only of humani=
ty,
but of everything living, everything existing; it recognizes the necessity =
of
an infinite extension of the sphere of love. But the object of this love is not=
found
outside self in societies of individuals, nor in the external world, but wi=
thin
self, in the divine self whose essence is that very love, which the animal =
self
is brought to feel the need of through its consciousness of its own perisha=
ble
nature.
The difference
between the Christian doctrine and those which preceded it is that the soci=
al
doctrine said: "Live in opposition to your nature [understanding by th=
is
only the animal nature], make it subject to the external law of family, soc=
iety,
and state." Christianity=
says:
"Live according to your nature [understanding by this the divine natur=
e];
do not make it subject to anything--neither you (an animal self) nor that of
others--and you will attain the very aim to which you are striving when you=
subject
your external self."
The Christian
doctrine brings a man to the elementary consciousness of self, only not of =
the
animal self, but of the divine self, the divine spark, the self as the Son =
of
God, as much God as the Father himself, though confined in an animal husk.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The consciousness of being the Son=
of
God, whose chief characteristic is love, satisfies the need for the extensi=
on
of the sphere of love to which the man of the social conception of life had
been brought. For the latter,=
the
welfare of the personality demanded an ever-widening extension of the spher=
e of
love; love was a necessity and was confined to certain objects--self, famil=
y, society. With the Christian conception of l=
ife,
love is not a necessity and is confined to no object; it is the essential f=
aculty
of the human soul. Man loves =
not
because it is his interest to love this or that, but because love is the
essence of his soul, because he cannot but love.
The Christian
doctrine shows man that the essence of his soul is love--that his happiness
depends not on loving this or that object, but on loving the principle of t=
he
whole--God, whom he recognizes within himself as love, and therefore he lov=
es
all things and all men.
In this is the
fundamental difference between the Christian doctrine and the doctrine of t=
he
Positivists, and all the theorizers about universal brotherhood on
non-Christian principles.
Such are the two
principal misunderstandings relating to the Christian religion, from which =
the
greater number of false reasonings about it proceed. The first consists in the belief t=
hat
Christ's teaching instructs men, like all previous religions, by rules, whi=
ch
they are bound to follow, and that these rules cannot be fulfilled. The second is the idea that the wh=
ole purport
of Christianity is to teach men to live advantageously together, as one fam=
ily,
and that to attain this we need only follow the rule of love to humanity,
dismissing all thought of love of God altogether.
The mistaken noti=
on
of scientific men that the essence of Christianity consists in the
supernatural, and that its moral teaching is impracticable, constitutes ano=
ther
reason of the failure of men of the present day to understand Christianity.=
CHAPTER V - CONTRADICTION
BETWEEN OUR LIFE AND OUR CHRISTIAN CONSCIENCE.
Men Think they can
Accept Christianity without Altering their Life--Pagan Conception of Life d=
oes
not Correspond with Present Stage of Development of Humanity, and Christian
Conception Alone Can Accord with it--Christian Conception of Life not yet
Understood by Men, but the Progress of Life itself will Lead them Inevitabl=
y to
Adopt it--The Requirements of a New Theory of Life Always Seem
Incomprehensible, Mystic, and Supernatural--So Seem the Requirements of the
Christian Theory of Life to the Majority of Men--The Absorption of the
Christian Conception of Life will Inevitably be Brought About as the Result=
of Material
and Spiritual Causes--The Fact of Men Knowing the Requirements of the Higher
View of Life, and yet Continuing to Preserve Inferior Organizations of Life,
Leads to Contradictions and Sufferings which Embitter Existence and Must Re=
sult
in its Transformation--The Contradictions of our Life--The Economic
Contradiction and the Suffering Induced by it for Rich and Poor Alike--The =
Political
Contradiction and the Sufferings Induced by Obedience to the Laws of the
State--The International Contradiction and the Recognition of it by
Contemporaries: Komarovsky, Ferri, Booth, Passy, Lawson, Wilson, Bartlett,
Defourney, Moneta--The Striking Character of the Military Contradiction.
There are many reasons why Christ's
teaching is not understood. One reason is that people suppose they have
understood it when they have decided, as the Churchmen do, that it was reve=
aled
by supernatural means, or when they have studied, as the scientific men do,=
the
external forms in which it has been manifested. Another reason is the mista=
ken
notion that it is impracticable, and ought to be replaced by the doctrine of
love for humanity. But the principal reason, which is the source of all the
other mistaken ideas about it, is the notion that Christianity is a doctrine
which can be accepted or rejected without any change of life.
Men who are used =
to
the existing order of things, who like it and dread its being changed, try =
to
take the doctrine as a collection of revelations and rules which one can ac=
cept
without their modifying one's life.
While Christ's teaching is not only a doctrine which gives rules whi=
ch a
man must follow, it unfolds a new meaning in life, and defines a whole worl=
d of
human activity quite different from all that has preceded it and appropriat=
e to
the period on which man is entering.
The life of human=
ity
changes and advances, like the life of the individual, by stages, and every
stage has a theory of life appropriate to it, which is inevitably absorbed =
by
men. Those who do not absorb =
it
consciously, absorb it unconsciously.
It is the same with the changes in the beliefs of peoples and of all=
humanity
as it is with the changes of belief of individuals. If the father of a family continue=
s to
be guided in his conduct by his childish conceptions of life, life becomes =
so
difficult for him that he involuntarily seeks another philosophy and readil=
y absorbs
that which is appropriate to his age.
That is just what=
is
happening now to humanity at this time of transition through which we are
passing, from the pagan conception of life to the Christian. The socialized man of the present =
day is
brought by experience of life itself to the necessity of abandoning the pag=
an
conception of life, which is inappropriate to the present stage of humanity,
and of submitting to the obligation of the Christian doctrines, the truths =
of
which, however corrupt and misinterpreted, are still known to him, and alone
offer him a solution of the contradictions surrounding him.
If the requiremen=
ts
of the Christian doctrine seem strange and even alarming to the man of the
social theory of life, no less strange, incomprehensible, and alarming to t=
he
savage of ancient times seemed the requirements of the social doctrine when=
it
was not fully understood and could not be foreseen in its results.
"It is
unreasonable," said the savage, "to sacrifice my peace of mind or=
my
life in defense of something incomprehensible, impalpable, and
conventional--family, tribe, or nation; and above all it is unsafe to put
oneself at the disposal of the power of others."
But the time came
when the savage, on one hand, felt, though vaguely, the value of the social
conception of life, and of its chief motor power, social censure, or social
approbation--glory, and when, on the other hand, the difficulties of his
personal life became so great that he could not continue to believe in the
value of his old theory of life.
Then he accepted the social, state theory of life and submitted to i=
t.
That is just what=
the
man of the social theory of life is passing through now.
"It is
unreasonable," says the socialized man, "to sacrifice my welfare =
and
that of my family and my country in order to fulfill some higher law, which
requires me to renounce my most natural and virtuous feelings of love of se=
lf,
of family, of kindred, and of country; and above all, it is unsafe to part =
with
the security of life afforded by the organization of government."
But the time is c=
oming
when, on one hand, the vague consciousness in his soul of the higher law, of
love to God and his neighbor, and, on the other hand, the suffering, result=
ing
from the contradictions of life, will force the man to reject the social th=
eory
and to assimilate the new one prepared ready for him, which solves all the
contradictions and removes all his sufferings--the Christian theory of
life. And this time has now c=
ome.
We, who thousands=
of
years ago passed through the transition, from the personal, animal view of =
life
to the socialized view, imagine that that transition was an inevitable and
natural one; but this transition through which we have been passing for the
last eighteen hundred years seems arbitrary, unnatural, and alarming. But we only fancy this because that
first transition has been so fully completed that the practice attained by =
it
has become unconscious and instinctive in us, while the present transition =
is
not yet over and we have to complete it consciously.
It took ages,
thousands of years, for the social conception of life to permeate men's
consciousness. It went through
various forms and has now passed into the region of the instinctive through
inheritance, education, and habit.
And therefore it seems natural to us. But five thousand years ago it see=
med as
unnatural and alarming to men as the Christian doctrine in its true sense s=
eems
to-day.
We think to-day t=
hat
the requirements of the Christian doctrine--of universal brotherhood,
suppression of national distinctions, abolition of private property, and the
strange injunction of non-resistance to evil by force--demand what is
impossible. But it was just the same thousands of years ago, with every soc=
ial
or even family duty, such as the duty of parents to support their children,=
of
the young to maintain the old, of fidelity in marriage. Still more strange,=
and
even unreasonable, seemed the state duties of submitting to the appointed a=
uthority,
and paying taxes, and fighting in defense of the country, and so on. All su=
ch
requirements seem simple, comprehensible, and natural to us to-day, and we =
see
nothing mysterious or alarming in them. But three or five thousand years ago
they seemed to require what was impossible.
The social concep=
tion
of life served as the basis of religion because at the time when it was fir=
st
presented to men it seemed to them absolutely incomprehensible, mystic, and
supernatural. Now that we have outlived that phase of the life of humanity,=
we understand
the rational grounds for uniting men in families, communities, and states.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> But in antiquity the duties involv=
ed by such
association were presented under cover of the supernatural and were confirm=
ed
by it.
The patriarchal religions exalted the family, the tribe, the nation. State religions deified emperors a= nd states. Even now most ignorant people--like our peasants, who call the Tzar an earthly god--obey state law= s, not through any rational recognition of their necessity, nor because they h= ave any conception of the meaning of state, but through a religious sentiment.<= o:p>
In precisely the =
same
way the Christian doctrine is presented to men of the social or heathen the=
ory
of life to-day, in the guise of a supernatural religion, though there is in
reality nothing mysterious, mystic, or supernatural about it. It is simply the theory of life wh=
ich is
appropriate to the present degree of material development, the present stag=
e of
growth of humanity, and which must therefore inevitably be accepted.
The time will
come--it is already coming--when the Christian principles of equality and
fraternity, community of property, non-resistance of evil by force, will ap=
pear
just as natural and simple as the principles of family or social life seem =
to
us now.
Humanity can no m=
ore
go backward in its development than the individual man. Men have outlived the social, famil=
y, and
state conceptions of life. Now they must go forward and assimilate the next=
and
higher conception of life, which is what is now taking place. This change is brought about in two
ways: consciously through spiritual causes, and unconsciously through mater=
ial causes.
Just as the
individual man very rarely changes his way of life at the dictates of his
reason alone, but generally continues to live as before, in spite of the new
interests and aims revealed to him by his reason, and only alters his way of
living when it has become absolutely opposed to his conscience, and
consequently intolerable to him; so, too, humanity, long after it has learn=
t through
its religions the new interests and aims of life, toward which it must stri=
ve,
continues in the majority of its representatives to live as before, and is =
only
brought to accept the new conception by finding it impossible to go on livi=
ng
its old life as before.
Though the need o= f a change of life is preached by the religious leaders and recognized and real= ized by the most intelligent men, the majority, in spite of their reverential attitude to their leaders, that is, their faith in their teaching, continue= to be guided by the old theory of life in their present complex existence. As though the father of a family, knowing how he ought to behave at his age, should yet continue through habit and thoughtlessness to live in the same childish way as he did in boyhood.<= o:p>
That is just what=
is
happening in the transition of humanity from one stage to another, through
which we are passing now. Hum=
anity has
outgrown its social stage and has entered upon a new period. It recognizes =
the
doctrine which ought to be made the basis of life in this new period. But through inertia it continues t=
o keep
up the old forms of life. Fro=
m this
inconsistency between the new conception of life and practical life follows=
a
whole succession of contradictions and sufferings which embitter our life a=
nd necessitate
its alteration.
One need only com=
pare
the practice of life with the theory of it, to be dismayed at the glaring
antagonism between our conditions of life and our conscience.
Our whole life is=
in
flat contradiction with all we know, and with all we regard as necessary and
right. This contradiction run=
s through
everything, in economic life, in political life, and in international
life. As though we had forgot=
ten
what we knew and put away for a time the principles we believe in (we cannot
help still believing in them because they are the only foundation we have to
base our life on) we do the very opposite of all that our conscience and our
common sense require of us.
We are guided in
economical, political, and international questions by the principles which =
were
appropriate to men of three or five thousand years ago, though they are
directly opposed to our conscience and the conditions of life in which we a=
re
placed to-day.
It was very well =
for
the man of ancient times to live in a society based on the division of mank=
ind
into masters and slaves, because he believed that such a distinction was
decreed by God and must always exist.
But is such a belief possible in these days?
The man of antiqu=
ity
could believe he had the right to enjoy the good things of this world at the
expense of other men, and to keep them in misery for generations, since he
believed that men came from different origins, were base or noble in blood,
children of Ham or of Japhet. The
greatest sages of the world, the teachers of humanity, Plato and Aristotle,
justified the existence of slaves and demonstrated the lawfulness of slaver=
y;
and even three centuries ago, the men who described an imaginary society of=
the
future, Utopia, could not conceive of it without slaves.
Men of ancient and
medieval times believed, firmly believed, that men are not equal, that the =
only
true men are Persians, or Greeks, or Romans, or Franks. But we cannot believe that now.
We all know and
cannot help knowing--even though we may never have heard the idea clearly
expressed, may never have read of it, and may never have put it into words,
still through unconsciously imbibing the Christian sentiments that are in t=
he
air--with our whole heart we know and cannot escape knowing the fundamental=
truth
of the Christian doctrine, that we are all sons of one Father, wherever we =
may
live and whatever language we may speak; we are all brothers and are subjec=
t to
the same law of love implanted by our common Father in our hearts.
Whatever the opin=
ions
and degree of education of a man of to-day, whatever his shade of liberalis=
m,
whatever his school of philosophy, or of science, or of economics, however
ignorant or superstitious he may be, every man of the present day knows tha=
t all
men have an equal right to life and the good things of life, and that one s=
et
of people are no better nor worse than another, that all are equal. Everyone knows this, beyond doubt;
everyone feels it in his whole being.
Yet at the same time everyone sees all round him the division of men
into two castes--the one, laboring, oppressed, poor, and suffering, the oth=
er
idle, oppressing, luxurious, and profligate. And everyone not only sees this, b=
ut
voluntarily or involuntarily, in one way or another, he takes part in
maintaining this distinction which his conscience condemns. And he cannot help suffering from =
the
consciousness of this contradiction and his share in it.
Whether he be mas=
ter
or slave, the man of to-day cannot help constantly feeling the painful
opposition between his conscience and actual life, and the miseries resulti=
ng
from it.
The toiling masse=
s,
the immense majority of mankind who are suffering under the incessant, mean=
ingless,
and hopeless toil and privation in which their whole life is swallowed up,
still find their keenest suffering in the glaring contrast between what is =
and
what ought to be, according to all the beliefs held by themselves, and those
who have brought them to that condition and keep them in it.
They know that th=
ey
are in slavery and condemned to privation and darkness to minister to the l=
usts
of the minority who keep them down.
They know it, and they say so plainly. And this knowledge increases their=
sufferings
and constitutes its bitterest sting.
The slave of
antiquity knew that he was a slave by nature, but our laborer, while he fee=
ls
he is a slave, knows that he ought not to be, and so he tastes the agony of
Tantalus, forever desiring and never gaining what might and ought to be his=
.
The sufferings of=
the
working classes, springing from the contradiction between what is and what
ought to be, are increased tenfold by the envy and hatred engendered by the=
ir
consciousness of it.
The laborer of the
present day would not cease to suffer even if his toil were much lighter th=
an
that of the slave of ancient times, even if he gained an eight-hour working=
day
and a wage of three dollars a day.
For he is working at the manufacture of things which he will not enj=
oy,
working not by his own will for his own benefit, but through necessity, to
satisfy the desires of luxurious and idle people in general, and for the pr=
ofit
of a single rich man, the owner of a factory or workshop in particular. And=
he
knows that all this is going on in a world in which it is a recognized
scientific principle that labor alone creates wealth, and that to profit by=
the
labor of others is immoral, dishonest, and punishable by law; in a world,
moreover, which professes to believe Christ's doctrine that we are all
brothers, and that true merit and dignity is to be found in serving one's
neighbor, not in exploiting him.
All this he knows, and he cannot but suffer keenly from the sharp
contrast between what is and what ought to be.
"According to
all principles, according to all I know, and what everyone professes,"=
the
workman says to himself. &quo=
t;I
ought to be free, equal to everyone else, and loved; and I am--a slave, hum=
iliated
and hated." And he too is
filled with hatred and tries to find means to escape from his position, to
shake off the enemy who is over-riding him, and to oppress him in turn. People say, "Workmen have no
business to try to become capitalists, the poor to try to put themselves in=
the
place of the rich." That=
is a mistake. The workingmen and the poor would =
be
wrong if they tried to do so in a world in which slaves and masters were
regarded as different species created by God; but they are living in a worl=
d which
professes the faith of the Gospel, that all are alike sons of God, and so
brothers and equal. And howev=
er men
may try to conceal it, one of the first conditions of Christian life is lov=
e, not
in words but in deeds.
The man of the
so-called educated classes lives in still more glaring inconsistency and
suffering. Every educated man=
, if
he believes in anything, believes in the brotherhood of all men, or at leas=
t he
has a sentiment of humanity, or else of justice, or else he believes in
science. And all the while he=
knows
that his whole life is framed on principles in direct opposition to it all,=
to
all the principles of Christianity, humanity, justice, and science.
He knows that all=
the
habits in which he has been brought up, and which he could not give up with=
out
suffering, can only be satisfied through the exhausting, often fatal, toil =
of
oppressed laborers, that is, through the most obvious and brutal violation =
of
the principles of Christianity, humanity, and justice, and even of science
(that is, economic science). =
He
advocates the principles of fraternity, humanity, justice, and science, and=
yet
he lives so that he is dependent on the oppression of the working classes,
which he denounces, and his whole life is based on the advantages gained by
their oppression. Moreover he=
is
directing every effort to maintaining this state of things so flatly oppose=
d to
all his beliefs.
We are all
brothers--and yet every morning a brother or a sister must empty the bedroom
slops for me. We are all brot=
hers,
but every morning I must have a cigar, a sweetmeat, an ice, and such things,
which my brothers and sisters have been wasting their health in manufacturi=
ng,
and I enjoy these things and demand them. We are all brothers, yet I live by
working in a bank, or mercantile house, or shop at making all goods dearer =
for
my brothers. We are all broth=
ers,
but I live on a salary paid me for prosecuting, judging, and condemning the
thief or the prostitute whose existence the whole tenor of my life tends to
bring about, and who I know ought not to be punished but reformed. We are all brothers, but I live on=
the
salary I gain by collecting taxes from needy laborers to be spent on the
luxuries of the rich and idle. We are all brothers, but I take a stipend for
preaching a false Christian religion, which I do not myself believe in, and=
which
only serve's to hinder men from understanding true Christianity. I take a
stipend as priest or bishop for deceiving men in the matter of the greatest
importance to them. We are all
brothers, but I will not give the poor the benefit of my educational, medic=
al,
or literary labors except for money.
We are all brothers, yet I take a salary for being ready to commit
murder, for teaching men to murder, or making firearms, gunpowder, or forti=
fications.
The whole life of=
the
upper classes is a constant inconsistency. The more delicate a man's consci=
ence
is, the more painful this contradiction is to him.
A man of sensitive
conscience cannot but suffer if he lives such a life. The only means by which he can esc=
ape
from this suffering is by blunting his conscience, but even if some men succeed in dulling their consc=
ience
they cannot dull their fears.
The men of the hi=
gher
dominating classes whose conscience is naturally not sensitive or has become
blunted, if they don't suffer through conscience, suffer from fear and
hatred. They are bound to
suffer. They know all the hat=
red of
them existing, and inevitably existing in the working classes. They are aware that the working cl=
asses
know that they are deceived and exploited, and that they are beginning to o=
rganize
themselves to shake off oppression and revenge themselves on their
oppressors. The higher classe=
s see
the unions, the strikes, the May Day Celebrations, and feel the calamity th=
at
is threatening them, and their terror passes into an instinct of self-defen=
se
and hatred. They know that if=
for
one instant they are worsted in the struggle with their oppressed slaves, t=
hey
will perish, because the slaves are exasperated and their exasperation is
growing more intense with every day of oppression. The oppressors, even if they wishe=
d to do
so, could not make an end to oppression.&n=
bsp;
They know that they themselves will perish directly they even relax =
the
harshness of their oppression. And
they do not relax it, in spite of all their pretended care for the welfare =
of
the working classes, for the eight-hour day, for regulation of the labor of
minors and of women, for savings banks and pensions. All that is humbug, or else simply
anxiety to keep the slave fit to do his work. But the slave is still a slave, an=
d the
master who cannot live without a slave is less disposed to set him free than
ever.
The attitude of t= he ruling classes to the laborers is that of a man who has felled his adversar= y to the earth and holds him down, not so much because he wants to hold him down= , as because he knows that if he let him go, even for a second, he would himself= be stabbed, for his adversary is infuriated and has a knife in his hand. And therefore, whether their consc= ience is tender or the reverse, our rich men cannot enjoy the wealth they have filched from the poor as the ancients did who believed in their right to it= . Their whole life and all their enjoyments are embittered either by the stings of conscience or by terror.<= o:p>
So much for the
economic contradiction. The
political contradiction is even more striking.
All men are broug=
ht
up to the habit of obeying the laws of the state before everything. The whole existence of modern time=
s is defined
by laws. A man marries and is
divorced, educates his children, and even (in many countries) professes his
religious faith in accordance with the law. What about the law then which defi=
nes
our whole existence? Do men b=
elieve
in it? Do they regard it as
good? Not at all. In the majority of cases people of=
the
present time do not believe in the justice of the law, they despise it, but
still they obey it. It was ve=
ry
well for the men of the ancient world to observe their laws. They firmly believed that their la=
w (it
was generally of a religious character) was the only just law, which everyo=
ne
ought to obey. But is it so with us? we know and cannot help knowing that t=
he
law of our country is not the one eternal law; that it is only one of the m=
any
laws of different countries, which are equally imperfect, often obviously w=
rong
and unjust, and are criticised from every point of view in the newspapers.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The Jew might well obey his laws, =
since
he had not the slightest doubt that God had written them with his finger; t=
he
Roman too might well obey the laws which he thought had been dictated by the
nymph Egeria. Men might well =
observe
the laws if they believed the Tzars who made them were God's anointed, or e=
ven
if they thought they were the work of assemblies of lawgivers who had the p=
ower
and the desire to make them as good as possible. But we all know how our laws are m=
ade. We have all been behind the scenes=
, we
know that they are the product of covetousness, trickery, and party struggl=
es;
that there is not and cannot be any real justice in them. And so modern men cannot believe t=
hat
obedience to civic or political laws can satisfy the demands of the reason =
or
of human nature. Men have long ago recognized that it is irrational to obey=
a
law the justice of which is very doubtful, and so they cannot but suffer in
obeying a law which they do not accept as judicious and binding.
A man cannot but
suffer when his whole life is defined beforehand for him by laws, which he =
must
obey under threat of punishment, though he does not believe in their wisdom=
or
justice, and often clearly perceives their injustice, cruelty, and
artificiality.
We recognize the
uselessness of customs and import duties, and are obliged to pay them. We recognize the uselessness of th=
e expenditure
on the maintenance of the Court and other members of Government, and we reg=
ard
the teaching of the Church as injurious, but we are obliged to bear our sha=
re
of the expenses of these institutions.&nbs=
p;
We regard the punishments inflicted by law as cruel and shameless, b=
ut
we must assist in supporting them.
We regard as unjust and pernicious the distribution of landed proper=
ty,
but we are obliged to submit to it.
We see no necessity for wars and armies, but we must bear terribly h=
eavy
burdens in support of troops and war expenses.
But this
contradiction is nothing in comparison with the contradiction which confron=
ts
us when we turn to international questions, and which demands a solution, u=
nder
pain of the loss of the sanity and even the existence of the human race.
We are all Christ=
ian
nations living the same spiritual life, so that every noble and pregnant
thought, springing up at one end of the world, is at once communicated to t=
he
whole of Christian humanity and evokes everywhere the same emotion at pride=
and
rejoicing without distinction of nationalities. We who love thinkers,
philanthropists, poets, and scientific men of foreign origin, and are as pr=
oud
of the exploits of Father Damien as if he were one of ourselves, we, who ha=
ve a
simple love for men of foreign nationalities, Frenchmen, Germans, Americans,
and Englishmen, who respect their qualities, are glad to meet them and make=
them
so warmly welcome, cannot regard war with them as anything heroic. We cannot
even imagine without horror the possibility of a disagreement between these
people and ourselves which would call for reciprocal murder. Yet we are all
bound to take a hand in this slaughter which is bound to come to pass to-mo=
rrow
not to-day.
It was very well =
for
the Jew, the Greek, and the Roman to defend the independence of his nation =
by
murder. For he piously believ=
ed that
his people was the only true, fine, and good people dear to God, and all the
rest were Philistines, barbarians.
Men of medieval times--even up to the end of the last and beginning =
of this
century--might continue to hold this belief. But however much we work upon ours=
elves
we cannot believe it. And thi=
s contradiction
for men of the present day has become so full of horror that without its
solution life is no longer possible.
"We live in a
time which is full of inconsistencies," writes Count Komarovsky, the
professor of international law, in his learned treatise.
"The press of all count=
ries
is continually expressing the universal desire for pe=
ace,
and the general sense of its <=
/span> necessity for all nations.
"Representatives of
governments, private persons, and official organs say the same thi=
ng; it
is repeated in parliamentary debates, diplomatic
correspondence, and even in state treaties. At the same time govern=
ments are
increasing the strength of their armies every year,
levying fresh taxes, raising loans, and leaving as a beques=
t to
future generations the duty of repairing the blunders =
of the
senseless policy of the present. What a striking contrast
between words and deeds! Of c=
ourse governments will plead =
in
justification of these measures that all their expenditure a=
nd
armament are exclusively for purposes of defense. But it remains a mystery to every
disinterested man
whence they can expect attacks if all the great powers are single-hearted in their
policy, in pursuing nothing but self defense. In reality it looks as if each of =
the
great powers were=
every
instant anticipating an attack on the part of the others. And this results in a general feel=
ing of
insecurity and
superhuman efforts on the part of each government to increase their forces b=
eyond
those of the other powers. Su=
ch a competition of itself
increases the danger of war.
Nations ca=
nnot
endure the constant increase of armies for long, and sooner or later they wi=
ll
prefer war to all the disadvantages of their present positi=
on and
the constant menace of war. T=
hen the most trifling prete=
xt
will be sufficient to throw the whole of Europe into the fire=
of
universal war. And it is a mi=
staken
idea that such a =
crisis
might deliver us from the political and economical troubles tha=
t are
crushing us. The experience o=
f the wars of latter years
teaches us that every war has only intensified national ha=
treds,
made military burdens more crushing and insupporta=
ble,
and rendered the political and economical grievous and
insoluble."
"Modern Euro=
pe
keeps under arms an active army of nine millions of men," writes Enrico
Ferri,
"besides fifteen millio=
ns of
reserve, with an outlay of four hundred millions of fra=
ncs
per annum. By continual incre=
ase of
the armed force, =
the
sources of social and individual prosperity are paralyze=
d, and
the state of the modern world may be compared to that of =
a man
who condemns himself to wasting from lack of nutrition =
in
order to provide himself with arms, losing thereby the stre=
ngth
to use the arms he provides, under the weight of which he =
will
at last succumb."
Charles Booth, in=
his
paper read in London before the Association for the Reform and Codification=
of
the Law of Nations, June 26, 1887, says the same thing. After referring to the same number=
, nine
millions of the active army and fifteen millions of reserve, and the enormo=
us
expenditure of governments on the support and arming of these forces, he sa=
ys:
"These figures represen=
t only
a small part of the real cost, because besides the
recognized expenditure of the war budget of the various nations, we=
ought
also to take into account the enormous loss to society
involved in withdrawing from it such an immense number of it=
s most
vigorous men, who are taken from industrial pursuits and=
every
kind of labor, as well as the enormous interest on th=
e sums
expended on military preparations without any return. The inevitable result of this
expenditure on wa=
r and
preparations for war is a continually growing national debt. The greater number of loans raised=
by
the governments of
Europe were with a view to war. Their
total sum amounts=
to
four hundred millions sterling, and these debts are increasing every year.&=
quot;
The same Professor
Komarovsky says in another place:
"We live in troubled
times. Everywhere we hear
complaints of the
depression of trade and manufactures, and the wretchedness of the economic position
generally, the miserable conditions of existence of the working
classes, and the universal impoverishment of the m=
asses.
But in spite of this, governments in their efforts to mai=
ntain
their independence rush to the greatest extremes of
senselessness. New taxes and duties are being devised everywher=
e, and
the financial oppression of the nations knows no limits=
. If we glance at the budgets of the=
states of Europe for th=
e last
hundred years, what strikes us most of all is their ra=
pid
and continually growing increase.
"How can we explain this
extraordinary phenomenon which sooner or later threatens us a=
ll
with inevitable bankruptcy?
"It is caused beyond di=
spute
by the expenditure for the maintenance of armaments
which swallows up a third and even a half of all the expendi=
ture
of European states. And the m=
ost melancholy thing is tha=
t one
can foresee no limit to this augmentation of the bud=
get
and impoverishment of the masses. What is socialism but a
protest against this abnormal position in which the greater
proportion of the population of our world is placed?
"We are ruin=
ing
ourselves," says Frederick Passy in a letter read before the last Cong=
ress
of Universal Peace (in 1890) in London,
"we are ruining ourselv=
es in
order to be able to take part in the senseless wars of t=
he
future or to pay the interest on debts we have incurred =
by the
senseless and criminal wars of the past. We are dying of hunger so as to se=
cure
the means of kill=
ing
each other."
Speaking later on=
of
the way the subject is looked at in France, he says:
"We believe that, a hun=
dred
years after the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the
citizen, the time has come to recognize the rights of
nations and to renounce at once and forever all those
undertakings based on fraud and force, which, under the name of conqu=
ests,
are veritable crimes against humanity, and which, wh=
atever
the vanity of monarchs and the pride of nations may th=
ink of
them, only weaken even those who are triumphant over
them."
"I am surpri=
sed
at the way religion is carried on in this country," said Sir Wilfrid
Lawson at the same congress.
"You send a boy to Sund=
ay
school, and you tell him: 'Dear boy, you must love your
enemies. If another boy strik=
es
you, you mustn't =
hit
him back, but try to reform him by loving him.' Well. The boy stays in the Sunday school=
till
he is fourteen or
fifteen, and then his friends send him into the army. What has he to do in the
army? He certainly won't love=
his
enemy; quite the
contrary, if he can only get at him, he will run him through with his
bayonet. That is the nature o=
f all
religious teachin=
g in
this country. I do not think =
that
that is a very go=
od way
of carrying out the precepts of religion.&=
nbsp;
I think if it is
a good thing for a boy to love his enemy, it is good for a grown-up man."
"There are in
Europe twenty-eight millions of men under arms," says Wilson,
"to decide disputes, no=
t by
discussion, but by murdering one another. That is the accepted method for de=
ciding
disputes among
Christian nations. This metho=
d is,
at the same time, very
expensive, for, according to the statistics I have read, the nations of Europe s=
pent
in the year 1872 a hundred and fifty millions sterling=
on
preparations for deciding disputes by means of murder. It seems to me, therefore, that in=
such
a state of things=
one
of two alternatives must be admitted: either Christianity is a
failure, or those who have undertaken to expound it have fail=
ed in
doing so. Until our warriors =
are disarmed and our armies
disbanded, the have not the right to call ourselves a Christ=
ian
nation."
In a conference on
the subject of the duty of Christian ministers to preach against war, G. D.
Bartlett said among other things:
"If I understand the
Scriptures, I say that men are only playing with Christiani=
ty so
long as they ignore the question of war. I have lived a longish life and ha=
ve
heard our ministe=
rs
preach on universal peace hardly half a dozen times. Twenty years ago, in a
drawing room, I dared in the presence of forty persons to moot t=
he
proposition that war was incompatible with Christianity; I was rega=
rded
as an arrant fanatic. The
The Catholic prie=
st
Defourney has expressed himself in the same spirit. "One of the first precepts of=
the
eternal law inscribed in the consciences of all men," says the Abby
Defourney,
"is the prohibition of =
taking
the life or shedding the blood of a fellow-creature witho=
ut
sufficient cause, without being forced into the necessi=
ty of
it. This is one of the commandments which is m=
ost
deeply stamped in the heart of man. But so soon as it is a
question of war, that is, of shedding blood in torrents, men =
of the
present day do not trouble themselves about a suff=
icient
cause. Those who take part in=
wars do not even think =
of
asking themselves whether there is any justification for t=
hese
innumerable murders, whether they are justifiable or
unjustifiable, lawful or unlawful, innocent or criminal; whether th=
ey are
breaking that fundamental commandment that forbids
killing without lawful cause. But their conscience is
mute. War has ceased to be
something depende=
nt on
moral considerations. In warf=
are
men have in all t=
he
toil and dangers they endure no other pleasure than that of being conquerors, no so=
rrow
other than that of being conquered. Don't tell me that they=
are
serving their country. A grea=
t genius answered that lo=
ng ago
in the words that have become a proverb: 'Without justi=
ce,
what is an empire but a great band of brigands?' And is not every band of brigands a
little empire?
"The aim of the proposed
institution [the institution of an international board of
arbitration] is that the nations of Europe may cease to be
nations of robbers, and their armies, bands of brigands. And one must add, not only brigand=
s, but
slaves. For our armies are simply gangs of
slaves at the dis=
posal
of one or two commanders or ministers, who exercise a despotic control over t=
hem
without any real responsibility, as we very well know.
"The peculiarity of a s=
lave
is that he is a mere tool in the hands of his master, a =
thing,
not a man. That is just what =
soldiers, officers, and
generals are, going to murder and be murdered at the will of=
a
ruler or rulers. Military sla=
very
is an actual fact=
, and
it is the worst form of slavery, especially now when by means of
compulsory service it lays its fetters on the necks of all the st=
rong
and capable men of a nation, to make them instruments of
murder, butchers of human flesh, for that is all they are ta=
ken
and trained to do.
"The rulers, two or thr=
ee in
number, meet together in cabinets, secretly deliberate wit=
hout
registers, without publicity, and consequently without
responsibility, and send men to be murdered."
"Protests
against armaments, burdensome to the people, have not originated in our
times," says Signor E. G. Moneta.
"Hear what Montesquieu =
wrote
in his day. 'France [and one =
might say, Europe] will=
be
ruined by soldiers. A new pla=
gue is
spreading through=
out
Europe. It attacks sovereigns=
and
forces them to ma=
intain
an incredible number of armed men.
This plagu=
e is
infectious and spreads, because directly one government increases its
armament, all the others do likewise. So that nothing is gain=
ed by
it but general ruin.
"'Every government main=
tains
as great an army as it possibly could maintain if its p=
eople
were threatened with extermination, and peop=
le
call peace this state of tension of all against all. And therefore Europe is so ruined =
that
if private person=
s were
in the position of the governments of our continent, the richest =
of
them would not have enough to live on. We are poor though we have the wea=
lth
and trade of the =
whole
world.'
"That was written almos=
t 150
years ago. The picture seems drawn from the world of to-da=
y. One
thing only has changed-the form of government. In Montesquieu's time it was said =
that
the cause of the
maintenance of great armaments was the despotic power of kings, who mad=
e war
in the hope of augmenting by conquest their personal
revenues and gaining glory. P=
eople used to say then: 'Ah, =
if
only people could elect those who would have the right to
refuse governments the soldiers and the money--then there would=
be an
end to military politics.' No=
w there are representative
governments in almost the whole of Europe, and in spite of=
that,
war expenditures and the preparations for war ha=
ve
increased to alarming proportions.
"It is evident that the
insanity of sovereigns has gained possession of the ruling
classes. War is not made now
because one king =
has
been wanting in civility to the mistress of another king, as it was=
in
Louis XIV.'s time. But the na=
tural and honorable sentiment=
s of
national honor and patriotism are so exaggerated, and the
public opinion of one nation so excited against another, that i=
t is
enough for a statement to be made (even though it may be a
false report) that the ambassador of one state was not recei=
ved by
the principal personage of another state to cause =
the
outbreak of the most awful and destructive war there h=
as
ever been seen. Europe keeps =
more soldiers under arms to-=
day
than in the time of the great Napoleonic wars. All citizens with few exceptions a=
re
forced to spend s=
ome
years in barracks. Fortresses,
arsenals, and shi=
ps are
built, new weapons are constantly being invented, to be replaced in a short =
time
by fresh ones, for, sad to say, science, which ought al=
ways
to be aiming at the good of humanity, assists in th=
e work
of destruction, and is constantly inventing new means for
killing the greatest number of men in the shortest time. And to maintain so great a multitu=
de of soldiers and to make su=
ch
vast preparations for murder, hundreds of millions are
spent annually, sums which would be sufficient for the educ=
ation
of the people and for immense works of public utility=
, and
which would make it possible to find a peaceful solutio=
n of
the social question.
"Europe, then, is, in t=
his
respect, in spite of all the conquests of science, i=
n the
same position as in the darkest and most barbarous days=
of
the Middle Ages. All deplore =
this state of things--neither
peace nor war--and all would be glad to escape from it. The heads of governments all decla=
re
that they all wis=
h for
peace, and vie with one another in the most solemn protestations of
peaceful intentions. But the =
same
day or the next t=
hey
will lay a scheme for the increase of the armament before their
legislative assembly, saying that these are the preventive meas=
ures
they take for the very purpose of securing peace.
"But this is not the ki=
nd of
peace we want. And the nation=
s are not deceived by it.=
True peace is based on mutual confidence, while these=
huge
armaments show open and utter lack of confidence, if not
concealed hostility, between states. What should we say of a=
man
who, wanting to show his friendly feelings for his neighb=
or,
should invite him to discuss their differences with a load=
ed
revolver in his hand?
"It is just this flagra=
nt contradiction
between the peaceful professions and the war=
like
policy of governments which all good citizens desire to=
put
an end to, at any cost."
People are astoni=
shed
that every year there are sixty thousand cases of suicide in Europe, and th=
ose
only the recognized and recorded cases--and excluding Russia and Turkey; but
one ought rather to be surprised that there are so few. Every man of the present day, if w=
e go
deep enough into the contradiction between his conscience and his life, is =
in a
state of despair.
Not to speak of a=
ll
the other contradictions between modern life and the conscience, the
permanently armed condition of Europe together with its profession of
Christianity is alone enough to drive any man to despair, to doubt of the
sanity of mankind, and to terminate an existence in this senseless and brut=
al
world. This contradiction, which is a quintessence of all the other contrad=
ictions,
is so terrible that to live and to take part in it is only possible if one =
does
not think of it--if one is able to forget it.
What! all of us,
Christians, not only profess to love one another, but do actually live one
common life; we whose social existence beats with one common pulse--we aid =
one
another, learn from one another, draw ever closer to one another to our mut=
ual
happiness, and find in this closeness the whole meaning of life!--and to-mo=
rrow
some crazy ruler will say some stupidity, and another will answer in the sa=
me
spirit, and then I must go expose myself to being murdered, and murder men-=
-who
have done me no harm--and more than that, whom I love. And this is not a re=
mote
contingency, but the very thing we are all preparing for, which is not only
probable, but an inevitable certainty.
To recognize this
clearly is enough to drive a man out of his senses or to make him shoot
himself. And this is just wha=
t does
happen, and especially often among military men. A man need only come to himself fo=
r an
instant to be impelled inevitably to such an end.
And this is the o=
nly
explanation of the dreadful intensity with which men of modern times strive=
to
stupefy themselves, with spirits, tobacco, opium, cards, reading newspapers,
traveling, and all kinds of spectacles and amusements. These pursuits are followed up as =
an
important, serious business. =
And indeed
they are a serious business. =
If
there were no external means of dulling their sensibilities, half of mankind
would shoot themselves without delay, for to live in opposition to one's re=
ason
is the most intolerable condition.
And that is the condition of all men of the present day. All men of the modern world exist =
in a
state of continual and flagrant antagonism between their conscience and the=
ir
way of life. This antagonism =
is
apparent in economic as well as political life. But most striking of all is the
contradiction between the Christian law of the brotherhood of men existing =
in
the conscience and the necessity under which all men are placed by compulso=
ry
military service of being prepared for hatred and murder--of being at the s=
ame
time a Christian and a gladiator.
CHAPTER VI - ATTITUDE OF =
MEN
OF THE PRESENT DAY TO WAR.
People do not Try=
to
Remove the Contradiction between Life and Conscience by a Change of Life, b=
ut
their Cultivated Leaders Exert Every Effort to Obscure the Demands of Consc=
ience,
and justify their Life; in this Way they Degrade Society below Paganism to a
State of Primeval Barbarism--Undefined Attitude of Modern Leaders of Though=
t to
War, to Universal Militarism, and to Compulsory Service in Army--One Sectio=
n Regards
War as an Accidental Political Phenomenon, to be Avoided by External Measur=
es
only--Peace Congress--The Article in the REVUE DES REVUES--Proposition of
Maxime du Camp--Value of Boards of Arbitration and Suppression of
Armies--Attitude of Governments to Men of this Opinion and What they
Do--Another Section Regards War as Cruel, but Inevitable--Maupassant--Rod--A
Third Section Regard War as Necessary, and not without its
Advantages--Doucet-Claretie-Zola-Vogüé.
The antagonism between life and the
conscience may be removed in two ways: by a change of life or by a change of
conscience. And there would s=
eem
there can be no doubt as to these alternatives.
A man may cease t=
o do
what he regards as wrong, but he cannot cease to consider wrong what is
wrong. Just in the same way a=
ll humanity
may cease to do what it regards as wrong, but far from being able to change=
, it
cannot even retard for a time the continual growth of a clearer recognition=
of
what is wrong and therefore ought not to be. And therefore it would seem inevit=
able for
Christian men to abandon the pagan forms of society which they condemn, and=
to
reconstruct their social existence on the Christian principles they profess=
.
So it would be we=
re
it not for the law of inertia, as immutable a force in men and nations as in
inanimate bodies. In men it t=
akes the
form of the psychological principle, so truly expressed in the words of the
Gospel, "They have loved darkness better than light because their deeds
were evil." This princip=
le
shows itself in men not trying to recognize the truth, but to persuade
themselves that the life they are leading, which is what they like and are =
used
to, is a life perfectly consistent with truth.
Slavery was oppos=
ed
to all the moral principles advocated by Plato and Aristotle, yet neither of
them saw that, because to renounce slavery would have meant the break up of=
the
life they were living. We see=
the
same thing in our modern world.
The division of m=
en
into two castes, as well as the use of force in government and war, are opp=
osed
to every moral principle professed by our modern society. Yet the cultivated and advanced me=
n of
the day seem not to see it.
The majority, if =
not
all, of the cultivated men of our day try unconsciously to maintain the old
social conception of life, which justifies their position, and to hide from
themselves and others its insufficiency, and above all the necessity of
adopting the Christian conception of life, which will mean the break up of =
the whole
existing social order. They
struggle to keep up the organization based on the social conception of life,
but do not believe in it themselves, because it is extinct and it is imposs=
ible
to believe in it.
All modern
literature--philosophical, political, and artistic--is striking in this
respect. What wealth of idea,=
of
form, of color, what erudition, what art, but what a lack of serious matter,
what dread of any exactitude of thought or expression! Subtleties, allegories, humorous
fancies, the widest generalizations, but nothing simple and clear, nothing =
going
straight to the point, that is, to the problem of life.
But that is not a=
ll;
besides these graceful frivolities, our literature is full of simple nastin=
ess
and brutality, of arguments which would lead men back in the most refined w=
ay
to primeval barbarism, to the principles not only of the pagan, but even of=
the
animal life, which we have left behind us five thousand years ago.
And it could not =
be
otherwise. In their dread of =
the
Christian conception of life which will destroy the social order, which som=
e cling
to only from habit, others also from interest, men cannot but be thrown back
upon the pagan conception of life and the principles based on it. Nowadays =
we
see advocated not only patriotism and aristocratic principles just as they =
were
advocated two thousand years ago, but even the coarsest epicureanism and an=
imalism,
only with this difference, that the men who then professed those views beli=
eved
in them, while nowadays even the advocates of such views do not believe in
them, for they have no meaning for the present day. No one can stand still when the ea=
rth is
shaking under his feet. If we do not go forward we must go back. And strange and terrible to say, t=
he
cultivated men of our day, the leaders of thought, are in reality with their
subtle reasoning drawing society back, not to paganism even, but to a state=
of
primitive barbarism.
This tendency on =
the
part of the leading thinkers of the day is nowhere more apparent than in th=
eir
attitude to the phenomenon in which all the insufficiency of the social
conception of life is presented in the most concentrated form--in their
attitude, that is, to war, to the general arming of nations, and to univers=
al compulsory
service.
The undefined, if=
not
disingenuous, attitude of modern thinkers to this phenomenon is striking. It
takes three forms in cultivated society.&n=
bsp;
One section look at it as an incidental phenomenon, arising out of t=
he
special political situation of Europe, and consider that this state of thin=
gs
can be reformed without a revolution in the whole internal social order of
nations, by external measures of international diplomacy. Another section regard it as somet=
hing
cruel and hideous, but at the same time fated and inevitable, like disease =
and
death. A third party with cool
indifference consider war as an inevitable phenomenon, beneficial in its
effects and therefore desirable.
Men look at the
subject from different points of view, but all alike talk of war as though =
it
were something absolutely independent of the will of those who take part in
it. And consequently they do =
not
even admit the natural question which presents itself to every simple man:
"How about me--ought I to take any part in it?" In their view no question of this =
kind
even exists, and every man, however he may regard war from a personal stand=
point,
must slavishly submit to the requirements of the authorities on the subject=
.
The attitude of t=
he
first section of thinkers, those who see a way out of war in international
diplomatic measures, is well expressed in the report of the last Peace Cong=
ress
in London, and the articles and letters upon war that appeared in No. 8 of =
the
REVUE DES REVUES, 1891. The
congress after gathering together from various quarters the verbal and writ=
ten
opinion of learned men opened the proceedings by a religious service, and a=
fter
listening to addresses for five whole days, concluded them by a public dinn=
er
and speeches. They adopted the
following resolutions:
"1. The congress affirm=
s its
belief that the brotherhood of man involves as a necessary
consequence a brotherhood of nations.
"2. The congress recogn=
izes
the important influence that Christianity exercises =
on the
moral and political progress of mankind, and earnestly =
urges
upon ministers of the Gospel and other religious teacher=
s the
duty of setting forth the principles of peace and=
good
will toward men. AND IT RECOMMENDS THAT THE THIRD SUNDAY IN
DECEMBER BE SET APART FOR THAT PURPOSE.
"3. The congress expres=
ses
the opinion that all teachers of history should call the
attention of the young to the grave evils inflicted on mank=
ind in
all ages by war, and to the fact that such war has been =
waged
for most inadequate causes.
"4. The congress protes=
ts
against the use of military drill in schools by way of physi=
cal
exercise, and suggests the formation of brigades for saving =
life
rather than of a quasi-military character; and urges the
desirability of impressing on the Board of Examiners who
formulate the questions for examination the propriety of guidin=
g the
minds of children in the principles of peace.
"5. The congress holds =
that
the doctrine of the Rights of Man requires that the abori=
ginal
and weaker races, their territories and liberti=
es,
shall be guarded from injustice and fraud, and that these r=
aces
shall be shielded against the vices so prevalent among the
so-called advanced races of men. It
further expresses=
its
conviction that there should be concert of action among the nat=
ions
for the accomplishment of these ends. The congress expresses its hearty
appreciation of the resolutions of the
Anti-slavery Conference held recently at Brussels for the amelio=
ration
of the condition of the peoples of Africa.
"6. The congress believ=
es
that the warlike prejudices and traditions which are st=
ill
fostered in the various nationalities, and the
misrepresentations by leaders of public opinion in legislative
assemblies or through the press, are often indirect causes o=
f war,
and that these evils should be counteracted by the
publication of accurate information tending to the removal of
misunderstanding between nations, and recommends the importan=
ce of
considering the question of commencing an internati=
onal
newspaper with such a purpose.
"7. The congress propos=
es to
the Inter-parliamentary Conference that the utmost support
should be given to every project for unification of weights =
and
measures, coinage, tariff, postage, and telegraphic arrange=
ments,
etc., which would assist in constituting a commerci=
al,
industrial, and scientific union of the peoples.
"8. The congress, in vi=
ew of
the vast social and moral influence of woman, urg=
es
upon every woman to sustain the things that make for pe=
ace,
as otherwise she incurs grave responsibility for the
continuance of the systems of militarism.
"9. The congress expres=
ses
the hope that the Financial Reform Association and other s=
imilar
societies in Europe and America should unite in conside=
ring
means for establishing equitable commercial relations be=
tween
states, by the reduction of import duties. The congress feels that it can aff=
irm
that the whole of
Europe desires peace, and awaits with impatience the suppression of armament=
s,
which, under the plea of defense, become in their turn a =
danger
by keeping alive mutual distrust, and are, at the same ti=
me,
the cause of that general economic disturbance which stand=
s in
the way of settling in a satisfactory manner the
problems of labor and poverty, which ought to take precedenc=
e of
all others.
"10. The congress,
recognizing that a general disarmament would be the best guarantee of
peace and would lead to the solution of the questions which =
now
most divide states, expresses the wish that a congress of
representatives of all the states of Europe may be assembled=
as
soon as possible to consider the means of effecting a gr=
adual
general disarmament.
"11. The congress, in
consideration of the fact that the timidity of a single po=
wer
might delay the convocation of the above-mentioned congres=
s, is
of opinion that the government which should first dism=
iss
any considerable number of soldiers would confer a signal b=
enefit
on Europe and mankind, because it would, by public opinio=
n,
oblige other governments to follow its example, and by the=
moral
force of this accomplished fact would have increased ra=
ther
than diminished the conditions of its national defense.
"12. The congress,
considering the question of disarmament, as of peace in general, de=
pends
on public opinion, recommends the peace societies, as wel=
l as
all friends of peace, to be active in its propaganda, espe=
cially
at the time of parliamentary elections, in order tha=
t the
electors should give their votes to candidates who are p=
ledged
to support Peace, Disarmament, and Arbitration.
"13. The congress
congratulates the friends of peace on the resolution adopted by t=
he
International American Conference, held at Washington in A=
pril
last, by which it was recommended that arbitration should=
be
obligatory in all controversies, whatever their origin, =
except
only those which may imperil the independence of one of =
the
nations involved.
"14. The congress recom=
mends
this resolution to the attention of European statesmen, =
and
expresses the ardent desire that similar treaties may sp=
eedily
be entered into between the other nations of the world.
"15. The congress expre=
sses
its satisfaction at the adoption by the Spanish Senate on J=
une 16
last of a project of law authorizing the governm=
ent to
negotiate general or special treaties of arbitration=
for
the settlement of all disputes except those relating t=
o the
independence or internal government of the states
affected; also at the adoption of resolutions to a like e=
ffect
by the Norwegian Storthing and by the Italian Chamber.
"16. The congress resol=
ves
that a committee be appointed to address communications =
to the
principal political, religious, commercial, and labor a=
nd
peace organizations, requesting them to send petitions to the
governmental authorities praying that measures be taken for t=
he
formation of suitable tribunals for the adjudicature of
international questions so as to avoid the resort to war.
"17. Seeing (1) that the
object pursued by all peace societies is the establishment of
judicial order between nations, and (2) that neutralization by
international treaties constitutes a step toward this judici=
al state
and lessens the number of districts in which war =
can be
carried on, the congress recommends a larger ext=
ension
of the rule of neutralization, and expresses the wish,=
(1)
that all treaties which at present assure to certain state=
s the
benefit of neutrality remain in force, or if necessary =
be
amended in a manner to render the neutrality more effecti=
ve,
either by extending neutralization
to the whole of the state or=
by
ordering the demolition of fortresses, which const=
itute
rather a peril than a guarantee for neutrality; (2) tha=
t new
treaties in harmony with the wishes of the populatio=
ns
concerned be concluded for establishing the
neutralization of other states.
"18. The sub-committee
proposes, (1) that the annual Peace Congress should be held
either immediately before the meeting of the annual
Sub-parliamentary Conference, or immediately after it in the same to=
wn;
(2) that the question of an international peace emb=
lem be
postponed SINE DIE; (3) that the following resolutions be
adopted:
"a. To
express satisfaction at the official overtures of the Presb=
yterian
Church in the United States addressed to the highe=
st
representatives of each church organization in Chris=
tendom
to unite in a general conference to promote the subst=
itution
of international arbitration for war.
"b. To
express in the name of the congress its profound rever=
ence
for the memory of Aurelio Saffi, the great Italian juris=
t, a
member of the committee of the International Leagu=
e of
Peace and Liberty.
"(4) That the memorial
adopted by this congress and signed by the president=
to
the heads of the civilized states should, as far as
practicable, be presented to each power by influential
deputations.
"(5) That the following
resolutions be adopted:
"a. A
resolution of thanks to the presidents of the various sitti=
ngs of
the congress.
"b. A
resolution of thanks to the chairman, the secretaries, and t=
he members
of the bureau of the congress.
"c. A
resolution of thanks to the conveners and members of the
sectional committees.
"d. A
resolution of thanks to Rev. Canon Scott Holland, Rev. Dr. R=
euen
Thomas, and Rev. J. Morgan Gibbon for their pulpit addre=
sses
before the congress, and also to the authorities of St.
Paul's Cathedral, the City Temple, and Stamford Hill Congr=
egational
Church for the use of those buildings for public
services.
"e. A
letter of thanks to her Majesty for permission to visit
Windror Castle.
"f. A=
nd
also a resolution of thanks to the Lord Mayor and Lady
Mayoress, to Mr. Passmore Edwards, and other friends who h=
ave
extended their hospitality to the members of the congr=
ess.
"19. The congress place=
s on
record a heartfelt expression of gratitude to Almighty G=
od for
the remarkable harmony and concord which have
characterized the meetings of the assembly, in which so many men and
women of varied nations, creeds, tongues, and races have
gathered in closest co-operation, and for the conclusion of t=
he
labors of the congress; and expresses its firm and unshaken b=
elief
in the ultimate triumph of the cause of peace and of t=
he
principles advocated at these meetings."
The fundamental i=
dea
of the congress is the necessity (1) of diffusing among all people by all m=
eans
the conviction of the disadvantages of war and the great blessing of peace,=
and
(2) of rousing governments to the sense of the superiority of international
arbitration over war and of the consequent advisability and necessity of
disarmament. To attain the fi=
rst aim
the congress has recourse to teachers of history, to women, and to the cler=
gy,
with the advice to the latter to preach on the evil of war and the blessing=
of
peace every third Sunday in December.
To attain the second object the congress appeals to governments with=
the
suggestion that they should disband their armies and replace war by
arbitration.
To preach to men =
of the
evil of war and the blessing of peace! But the blessing of peace is so well
known to men that, ever since there have been men at all, their best wish h=
as
been expressed in the greeting, "Peace be with you." So why preach about it?
Not only Christia=
ns,
but pagans, thousands of years ago, all recognized the evil of war and the
blessing of peace. So that th=
e recommendation
to ministers of the Gospel to preach on the evil of war and the blessing of
peace every third Sunday in December is quite superfluous.
The Christian can=
not
but preach on that subject every day of his life. If Christians and preachers of
Christianity do not do so, there must be reasons for it. And until these have been removed =
no
recommendations will be effective.
Still less effective will be the recommendations to governments to
disband their armies and replace them by international boards of
arbitration. Governments, too=
, know
very well the difficulty and the burdensomeness of raising and maintaining
forces, and if in spite of that knowledge they do, at the cost of terrible
strain and effort, raise and maintain forces, it is evident that they canno=
t do
otherwise, and the recommendation of the congress can never change it. But the learned gentlemen are unwi=
lling
to see that, and keep hoping to find a political combination, through which
governments shall be induced to limit their powers themselves.
"Can we get =
rid
of war"? asks a learned writer in the REVUE DES REVUES.
"All are agreed that if=
it
were to break out in Europe, its consequences woul=
d be
like those of the great inroads of barbarians. The existence of whole nationaliti=
es
would be at stake=
, and
therefore the war would be desperate, bloody, atrocious.
"This consideration, to=
gether
with the terrible engines of destruction invented by
modern science, retards the moment of declaring war, and main=
tains
the present temporary situation, which might continue fo=
r an
indefinite period, except for the fearful cost of maintai=
ning
armaments which are exhausting the European states and
threatening to reduce nations to a state of misery hardly less than=
that
of war itself.
"Struck by this reflect=
ion,
men of various countries have tried to find means for preve=
nting,
or at least for softening, the results of the terrible
slaughter with which we are threatened.
"Such are the questions
brought forward by the Peace Congress shortly to be held in R=
ome,
and the publication of a pamphlet, Sur le Désarmeme=
nt.'
"It is unhappily beyond=
doubt
that with the present organization of the maj=
ority
of European states, isolated from one another and guided =
by
distinct interests, the absolute suppression of war is an
illusion with which it would be dangerous to cheat
ourselves. Wiser rules and
regulations impos=
ed on
these duels between nations might, however, at least limit its horrors.
"It is equally chimeric=
al to
reckon on projects of disarmament, the execution of which =
is
rendered almost impossible by considerations of a pop=
ular
character present to the mind of all our readers. [This
probably means that France cannot disband its army before
taking its revenge.] Public o=
pinion
is not prepared to
accept them, and moreover, the international relations between diffe=
rent
peoples are not such as to make their acceptance
possible. Disarmament imposed=
on
one nation by ano=
ther
in circumstances threatening its security would be equivalent to a declara=
tion
of war.
"However, one may admit=
that
an exchange of ideas between the nations interested coul=
d aid,
to a certain degree, in bringing about the good understa=
nding
indispensable to any negotiations, and would render possib=
le a
considerable reduction of the military expenditure wh=
ich is
crushing the nations of Europe and greatly hindering t=
he
solution of the social question, which each individually=
must
solve on pain of having internal war as the price for es=
caping
it externally.
"We might at least dema=
nd the
reduction of the enormous expenses of war organiz=
ed as
it is at present with a view to the power of invasion w=
ithin
twenty-four hours and a decisive battle within a week of=
the
declaration of war.
"We ought to manage so =
that
states could not make the attack suddenly and invade each
other's territories within twenty-four hours."
This practical no=
tion
has been put forth by Maxime du Camp, and his article concludes with it.
The propositions =
of
M. du Camp are as follows:
1. A diplomatic congress to =
be
held every year.
2. No war to be declared til=
l two
months after the incident which provoked it. (The difficulty here would be to d=
ecide precisely what incident=
did
provoke the war, since whenever war is declared there are v=
ery
many such incidents, and one would have to decide from whi=
ch to
reckon the two months' interval.)
3. No war to be declared bef=
ore it
has been submitted to a plebiscitum of the nati=
ons
preparing to take part in it.
4. No hostilities to be comm=
enced
till a month after the official declaration of=
war.
"No war to be
declared. No hostilities to be
commenced," etc. But who is to arrange that no war is to be declared?<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Who is to compel people to do this=
and
that? Who is to force states =
to delay
their operations for a certain fixed time?=
All the other states. =
But
all these others are also states which want holding in check and keeping wi=
thin
limits, and forcing, too. Who=
is to
force them, and how? Public
opinion. But if there is a pu=
blic opinion
which can force governments to delay their operations for a fixed period, t=
he
same public opinion can force governments not to declare war at all.
But, it will be
replied, there may be such a balance of power, such a PONDÉRATION DE
FORCES, as would lead states to hold back of their own accord. Well, that has been tried and is b=
eing
tried even now. The Holy Alli=
ance
was nothing but that, the League of Peace was another attempt at the same
thing, and so on.
But, it will be
answered, suppose all were agreed.
If all were agreed there would be no more war certainly, and no need=
for
arbitration either.
"A court of
arbitration! Arbitration shall
replace war. Questions shall be decided by a court of arbitration. The Alab=
ama
question was decided by a court of arbitration, and the question of the Car=
oline
Islands was submitted to the decision of the Pope. Switzerland, Belgium,
Denmark, and Holland have all declared that they prefer arbitration to
war."
I dare say Monaco=
has
expressed the same preference. The
only unfortunate thing is that Germany, Russia, Austria, and France have no=
t so
far shown the same inclination. It
is amazing how men can deceive themselves when they find it necessary! Governments consent to decide their
disagreements by arbitration and to disband their armies! The differences between Russia and
Poland, between England and Ireland, between Austria and Bohemia, between T=
urkey
and the Slavonic states, between France and Germany, to be soothed away by
amiable conciliation!
One might as well
suggest to merchants and bankers that they should sell nothing for a greater
price than they gave for it, should undertake the distribution of wealth fo=
r no
profit, and should abolish money, as it would thus be rendered unnecessary.=
But since commerc=
ial
and banking operations consist in nothing but selling for more than the cost
price, this would be equivalent to an invitation to suppress themselves.
The learned men f=
orm
societies (there are more than a hundred such societies), assemble in congr=
esses
(such as those recently held in London and Paris, and shortly to be held in
Rome), deliver addresses, eat public dinners and make speeches, publish
journals, and prove by every means possible that the nations forced to supp=
ort
millions of troops are strained to the furthest limits of their endurance, =
that
the maintenance of these huge armed forces is in opposition to all the aims,
the interests, and the wishes of the people, and that it is possible, moreo=
ver,
by writing numerous papers, and uttering a great many words, to bring all m=
en
into agreement and to arrange so that they shall have no antagonistic inter=
ests,
and then there will be no more war.
When I was a litt=
le
boy they told me if I wanted to catch a bird I must put salt on its tail. I ran after the birds with the sal=
t in my
hand, but I soon convinced myself that if I could put salt on a bird's tail=
, I
could catch it, and realized that I had been hoaxed.
People ought to
realize the same fact when they read books and articles on arbitration and
disarmament.
If one could put =
salt
on a bird's tail, it would be because it could not fly and there would be no
difficulty in catching it. If=
the
bird had wings and did not want to be caught, it would not let one put salt=
on
its tail, because the specialty of a bird is to fly. In precisely the same way the spec=
ialty
of government is not to obey, but to enforce obedience. And a government is only a governm=
ent so
long as it can make itself obeyed, and therefore it always strives for that=
and
will never willingly abandon its power.&nb=
sp;
But since it is on the army that the power of government rests, it w=
ill
never give up the army, and the use of the army in war.
The error arises =
from
the learned jurists deceiving themselves and others, by asserting that gove=
rnment
is not what it really is, one set of men banded together to oppress another=
set
of men, but, as shown by science, is the representation of the citizens in
their collective capacity. Th=
ey
have so long been persuading other people of this that at last they have
persuaded themselves of it; and thus they often seriously suppose that
government can be bound by considerations of justice. But history shows that from Caesar=
to
Napoleon, and from Napoleon to Bismarck, government is in its essence alway=
s a
force acting in violation of justice, and that it cannot be otherwise. Justice can have no binding force =
on a
ruler or rulers who keep men, deluded and drilled in readiness for acts of
violence--soldiers, and by means of them control others. And so governments can never be br=
ought
to consent to diminish the number of these drilled slaves, who constitute t=
heir
whole power and importance.
Such is the attit=
ude
of certain learned men to the contradiction under which our society is being
crushed, and such are their methods of solving it. Tell these people that the whole m=
atter rests
on the personal attitude of each man to the moral and religious question put
nowadays to everyone, the question, that is, whether it is lawful or unlawf=
ul
for him to take his share of military service, and these learned gentlemen =
will
shrug their shoulders and not condescend to listen or to answer you. The solution of the question in th=
eir
idea is to be found in reading addresses, writing books, electing president=
s,
vice-presidents, and secretaries, and meeting and speaking first in one town
and then in another. From all=
this
speechifying and writing it will come to pass, according to their notions, =
that
governments will cease to levy the soldiers, on whom their whole strength d=
epends,
will listen to their discourses, and will disband their forces, leaving
themselves without any defense, not only against their neighbors, but also
against their own subjects. As
though a band of brigands, who have some unarmed travelers bound and ready =
to
be plundered, should be so touched by their complaints of the pain caused by
the cords they are fastened with as to let them go again.
Still there are
people who believe in this, busy themselves over peace congresses, read
addresses, and write books. A=
nd governments,
we may be quite sure, express their sympathy and make a show of encouraging
them. In the same way they pr=
etend
to support temperance societies, while they are living principally on the
drunkenness of the people; and pretend to encourage education, when their w=
hole
strength is based on ignorance; and to support constitutional freedom, when
their strength rests on the absence of freedom; and to be anxious for the
improvement of the condition of the working classes, when their very existe=
nce
depends on their oppression; and to support Christianity, when Christianity=
destroys
all government.
To be able to do =
this
they have long ago elaborated methods encouraging temperance, which cannot
suppress drunkenness; methods of supporting education, which not only fail =
to
prevent ignorance, but even increase it; methods of aiming at freedom and c=
onstitutionalism,
which are no hindrance to despotism; methods of protecting the working clas=
ses,
which will not free them from slavery; and a Christianity, too, they have
elaborated, which does not destroy, but supports governments.
Now there is
something more for the government to encourage--peace. The sovereigns, who
nowadays take counsel with their ministers, decide by their will alone whet=
her
the butchery of millions is to be begun this year or next. They know very w=
ell
that all these discourses upon peace will not hinder them from sending mill=
ions
of men to butchery when it seems good to them. They listen even with
satisfaction to these discourses, encourage them, and take part in them.
All this, far from
being detrimental, is even of service to governments, by turning people's
attention from the most important and pressing question: Ought or ought not
each man called upon for military service to submit to serve in the army?
"Peace will =
soon
be arranged, thanks to alliances and congresses, to books and pamphlets;
meantime go and put on your uniform, and prepare to cause suffering and to
endure it for our benefit," is the government's line of argument. And the learned gentlemen who get =
up
congresses and write articles are in perfect agreement with it.
This is the attit=
ude
of one set of thinkers. And s=
ince
it is that most beneficial to governments, it is also the most encouraged b=
y all
intelligent governments.
Another attitude =
to
war has something tragical in it.
There are men who maintain that the love for peace and the inevitabi=
lity
of war form a hideous contradiction, and that such is the fate of man. These are mostly gifted and sensit=
ive
men, who see and realize all the horror and imbecility and cruelty of war, =
but through
some strange perversion of mind neither see nor seek to find any way out of
this position, and seem to take pleasure in teasing the wound by dwelling on
the desperate position of humanity.
A notable example of such an attitude to war is to be found in the
celebrated French writer Guy de Maupassant. Looking from his yacht at the dril=
l and
firing practice of the French soldiers the following reflections occur to h=
im:
"When I think only of t=
his
word war, a kind of terror seizes upon me, as though I we=
re
listening to some tale of sorcery, of the Inquisition, some l=
ong
past, remote abomination, monstrous, unnatural.
"When cannibalism is sp=
oken
of, we smile with pride, proclaiming our superio=
rity
to these savages. Which are t=
he savages, the real
savages? Those who fight to e=
at the
conquered, or tho=
se who
fight to kill, for nothing but to kill?
"The young recruits, mo=
ving
about in lines yonder, are destined to death like the flock=
s of
sheep driven by the butcher along the road. They will fall in some plain with a
saber cut in the =
head,
or a bullet through the breast. And
these are young men who
might work, be productive and useful.
Their fathers are old and poor. Their mothers, who have loved them=
for
twenty years, wor=
shiped
them as none but mothers can, will learn in six months' time, or a =
year
perhaps, that their son, their boy, the big boy reared with=
so
much labor, so much expense, so much love, has been thrown i=
n a
hole like some dead dog, after being disemboweled by a bulle=
t, and
trampled, crushed, to a mass of pulp by the charges of
cavalry. Why have they killed=
her
boy, her handsome=
boy,
her one hope, her pride, her life?
She does n=
ot
know. Ah, why?
"War! fighting! slaught=
er!
massacres of men! And we have=
now, in our century, with our
civilization, with the spread of science, and the degree=
of
philosophy which the genius of man is supposed to have att=
ained,
schools for training to kill, to kill very far off, to
perfection, great numbers at once, to kill poor devils of inn=
ocent
men with families and without any kind of trial.
"AND WHAT IS MOST BEWIL=
DERING
IS THAT THE PEOPLE DO NOT RISE AGAINST THEIR
GOVERNMENTS. FOR WHAT DIFFERE=
NCE IS
THERE BETWEEN
MONARCHIES AND REPUBLICS? THE=
MOST
BEWILDERING THING IS
THAT THE WHOLE OF SOCIETY IS NOT IN REVOLT AT THE WORD WAR."
"Ah! we shall always li=
ve
under the burden of the ancient and odious customs, the cri=
minal
prejudices, the ferocious ideas of our barbarous ancestors=
, for
we are beasts, and beasts we shall remain, dominated by in=
stinct
and changed by nothing. Would=
not any other man than =
Victor
Hugo have been exiled for that mighty cry of deliveran=
ce and
truth? 'To-day force is calle=
d violence, and is being
brought to judgment; war has been put on its trial. At the plea of the human race,
civilization arra=
igns
warfare, and draws up the great list of crimes laid at the charge of conqueror=
s and
generals. The nations are com=
ing to understand that the
magnitude of a crime cannot be its extenuation; that if ki=
lling
is a crime, killing many can be no extenuating circumstanc=
e;
that if robbery is disgraceful, invasion cannot be
glorious. Ah! let us proclaim=
these
absolute truths; =
let us
dishonor war!'
"Vain
wrath," continues Maupassant, "a poet's indignation. War is held in more veneration than
ever.
"A skilled proficient i=
n that
line, a slaughterer of genius, Von Moltke, in reply to=
the
peace delegates, once uttered these strange words:
"'War is holy, war is
ordained of God. It is one of=
the
most sacred laws =
of the
world. It maintains among men=
all
the great and nob=
le
sentiments--honor, devotion, virtue, and courage, and saves them in short from
falling into the most hideous materialism.'
"So, then, bringing mil=
lions
of men together into herds, marching by day and by =
night
without rest, thinking of nothing, studying nothing, learn=
ing
nothing, reading nothing, being useful to no one, wallo=
wing
in filth, sleeping in mud, living like brutes in a contin=
ual
state of stupefaction, sacking towns, burning villages,
ruining whole populations, then meeting another mass of=
human
flesh, falling upon them, making pools of blood, and pla=
ins of
flesh mixed with trodden mire and red with heaps of corps=
es,
having your arms or legs carried off, your brains blown =
out
for no advantage to anyone, and dying in some corner of=
a
field while your old parents, your wife and children are
perishing of hunger--that is what is meant by not falling in=
to the
most hideous materialism!
"Warriors are the scour=
ge of
the world. We struggle agains=
t nature and ignorance and
obstacles of all kinds to make our wretched life less hard=
. Learned men--benefactors of all--s=
pend their lives in working,=
in
seeking what can aid, what be of use, what can allevi=
ate
the lot of their fellows. The=
y devote themselves unspa=
ringly
to their task of usefulness, making one discovery af=
ter
another, enlarging the sphere of human intelligence, ext=
ending
the bounds of science, adding each day some new store=
to
the sum of knowledge, gaining each day prosperity, ease,
strength for their country.
"War breaks out. In six months the generals have
destroyed the wor=
k of
twenty years of effort, of patience, and of genius.
"That is what is meant =
by not
falling into the most hideous materialism.
"We have seen it, war.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> "We have seen men turned to b=
rutes,
frenzied, killing=
for
fun, for terror, for bravado, for ostentation. Then when right is no more, law is=
dead,
every notion of j=
ustice
has disappeared. We have seen=
men
shoot innocent cr=
eatures
found on the road, and suspected because they were afraid. We have seen them kill dogs chaine=
d at
their masters' do=
ors to
try their new revolvers, we have seen them fire on cows lying in a=
field
for no reason whatever, simply for the sake of shootin=
g, for
a joke.
"That is what is meant =
by not
falling into the most hideous materialism.
"Going into a country,
cutting the man's throat who defends his house because he wears a
blouse and has not a military cap on his head, burning the
dwellings of wretched beings who have nothing to eat, breaking
furniture and stealing goods, drinking the wine found in the
cellars, violating the women in the streets, burning thousa=
nds of
francs' worth of powder, and leaving misery and chol=
era in
one's track--
"That is what is meant =
by not
falling into the most hideous materialism.
"What have they done, t=
hose
warriors, that proves the least intelligence? Nothing. What have they invented? Cannons and muskets. That is all.
"What remains to us from
Greece? Books and statues.
"Was it the invasions o=
f the
Persians which saved Greece from falling into the most h=
ideous
materialism?
"Were the invasions of =
the
barbarians what saved and regenerated Rome?
"Was it Napoleon I. who
carried forward the great intellectual movement started by the
philosophers of the end of last century?
"Yes, indeed, since
government assumes the right of annihilating peoples th=
us,
there is nothing surprising in the fact that the peoples a=
ssume
the right of annihilating governments.
"They defend themselves=
. They are right. No one has an absolute right to govern
others. It ought only to be d=
one
for the benefit of
those who are governed. And i=
t is
as much the duty =
of
anyone who governs to avoid war as it is the duty of a captain of a ship to av=
oid
shipwreck.
"When a captain has let=
his
ship come to ruin, he is judged and condemned, if he is fou=
nd
guilty of negligence or even incapacity.
"Why should not the
government be put on its trial after every declaration of war? IF THE PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD THAT, IF =
THEY THEMSELVES PASSED JUDGM=
ENT ON
MURDEROUS GOVERNMENTS, IF THEY REFUSED TO LET THEMSELV=
ES BE
KILLED FOR NOTHING, IF THEY WOULD ONLY TURN THEIR ARMS AG=
AINST
THOSE WHO HAVE GIVEN THEM TO THEM FOR MASSACRE, ON THAT D=
AY WAR
WOULD BE NO MORE. BUT THAT DA=
Y WILL NEVER COME"
[Footnote: "Sur l'Eau," pp. 71-80].
The author sees a=
ll
the horror of war. He sees th=
at it
is caused by governments forcing men by deception to go out to slaughter an=
d be
slain without any advantage to themselves.=
And he sees, too, that the men who make up the armies could turn the=
ir
arms against the governments and bring them to judgment. But he thinks that that will never=
come
to pass, and that there is, therefore, no escape from the present position.=
"I think war is terribl=
e, but
that it is inevitable; that compulsory military ser=
vice
is as inevitable as death, and that since government will a=
lways
desire it, war will always exist."
So writes this
talented and sincere writer, who is endowed with that power of penetrating =
to
the innermost core of the subjects which is the essence of the poetic
faculty. He brings before us =
all
the cruelty of the inconsistency between men's moral sense and their action=
s,
but without trying to remove it; seems to admit that this inconsistency must
exist and that it is the poetic tragedy of life.
Another no less
gifted writer, Edouard Rod, paints in still more vivid colors the cruelty a=
nd
madness of the present state of things.&nb=
sp;
He too only aims at presenting its tragic features, without suggesti=
ng
or forseeing any issue from the position.
"What is the good of do=
ing
anything? What is the good of=
undertaking any
enterprise? And how are we to=
love
men in these trou=
bled
times when every fresh day is a menace of danger?... All we have =
begun,
the plans we are developing, our schemes of work, the li=
ttle
good we may have been able to do, will it not all be swep=
t away
by the tempest that is in preparation?... Everywh=
ere
the earth is shaking under our feet and storm-clouds are
gathering on our horizon which will have no pity on us.
"Ah! if all we had to d=
read
were the revolution which is held up as a specter to terr=
ify
us! Since I cannot imagine a =
society more detestable=
than
ours, I feel more skeptical than alarmed in regard to th=
at
which will replace it. If I s=
hould have to suffer from the
change, I should be consoled by thinking that the
executioners of that day were the victims of the previous time, and =
the
hope of something better would help us to endure the worst.=
But it is not that remote peril wh=
ich frightens me. I see another danger, nearer and f=
ar
more cruel; more =
cruel
because there is no excuse for it, because it is absurd, because it can =
lead
to no good. Every day one bal=
ances the chances of war on t=
he
morrow, every day they become more merciless.
"The imagination revolts
before the catastrophe which is coming at the end of our centu=
ry as
the goal of the progress of our era, and yet we must ge=
t used
to facing it. For twenty year=
s past every resource of
science has been exhausted in the invention of engines of
destruction, and soon a few charges of cannon will suffice to
annihilate a whole army. No l=
onger
a few thousands o=
f poor
devils, who were paid a price for their blood, are kept under a=
rms,
but whole nations are under arms to cut each other's
throats. They are robbed of t=
heir
time now (by comp=
ulsory
service) that they may be robbed of their lives later. To prepare them for the work of
massacre, their hatred is kindled by persuadin=
g them
that they are hated. And peaceable men let thems=
elves
be played on thus and go and fall on one another with the
ferocity of wild beasts; furious troops of peaceful citizens ta=
king
up arms at an empty word of command, for some ridic=
ulous
question of frontiers or colonial trade interests--Heaven=
only
knows what... They will go like sheep to the slaughter,
knowing all the while where they are going, knowing that the=
y are
leaving their wives, knowing that their children wil=
l want
for food, full of misgivings, yet intoxicated by the
fine-sounding lies that are dinned into their ears. THEY WILL MARCH WITHOUT REVOLT, PA=
SSIVE,
RESIGNED--THOUGH =
THE
NUMBERS AND THE STRENGTH ARE THEIRS, AND THEY MIGHT, IF THEY KNE=
W HOW
TO CO-OPERATE TOGETHER, ESTABLISH THE REIGN OF GOOD SENSE=
AND
FRATERNITY, instead of the barbarous trickery of
diplomacy. They will march to
battle so deluded=
, so
duped, that they will believe slaughter to be a duty, and will ask the
benediction of God on their lust for blood. They will march to battle trampling
underfoot the har=
vests
they have sown, burning the towns they have built--with songs of triumph, festi=
ve
music, and cries of jubilation. And their sons will rai=
se
statues to those who have done most in their slaughter.
"The destiny of a whole
generation depends on the hour in which some ill-fated politici=
an may
give the signal that will be followed. We know that the best of us will b=
e cut
down and our work=
will
be destroyed in embryo. WE KN=
OW IT
AND TREMBLE WITH =
RAGE,
BUT WE CAN DO NOTHING. We are=
held
fast in the toils of officialdom and red tap=
e, and
too rude a shock would be needed to set us free. We are enslaved by the laws we set=
up
for our protectio=
n,
which have become our oppression.
WE ARE BUT THE TOOLS OF THAT AUTOCRATIC
ABSTRACTION THE STATE, WHICH ENSLAVES EACH INDIVIDUAL IN THE =
NAME
OF THE WILL OF ALL, WHO WOULD ALL, TAKEN INDIVIDUALLY, DES=
IRE
EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THEY WILL BE MADE TO DO.
"And if it were only a
generation that must be sacrificed!
But there =
are
graver interests at stake.
"The paid politicians, =
the
ambitious statesmen, who exploit the evil passions of the
populace, and the imbeciles who are deluded by fine-sounding
phrases, have so embittered national feuds that the existenc=
e of a
whole race will be at stake in the war of the morrow. =
One of
the elements that constitute the modern world is threate=
ned,
the conquered people will be wiped out of existence, and
whichever it may be, we shall see a moral force annihilated, as if
there were too many forces to work for good--we shall have a n=
ew
Europe formed on foundations so unjust, so brutal, so
sanguinary, stained with so monstrous a crime, that it cannot b=
ut be
worse than the Europe of to-day--more iniquitous, more barbar=
ous,
more violent.
"Thus one feels crushed=
under
the weight of an immense discouragement. We are struggling in a CUL DE SAC =
with
muskets aimed at =
us
from the housetops. Our labor=
is
like that of sail=
ors
executing their last task as the ship begins to sink. Our pleasures are=
those
of the condemned victim, who is offered his choice of
dainties a quarter of an hour before his execution. Thought is paralyzed by anguish, a=
nd the
most it is capabl=
e of
is to calculate--interpreting the vague phrases of ministers, spelling out=
the
sense of the speeches of sovereigns, and ruminat=
ing on
the words attributed to diplomatists reported o=
n the
uncertain authority of the newspapers--whether it =
is to
be to-morrow or the day after, this year or the next, =
that
we are to be murdered. So tha=
t one might seek in vain in h=
istory
an epoch more insecure, more crushed under the weigh=
t of
suffering" [footnote: "Le Sens de la Vie," pp. 208-1=
3].
Here it is pointed
out that the force is in the hands of those who work their own destruction,=
in
the hands of the individual men who make up the masses; it is pointed out t=
hat
the source of the evil is the government.&=
nbsp;
It would seem evident that the contradiction between life and consci=
ence
had reached the limit beyond which it cannot go, and after reaching this li=
mit
some solution of it must be found.
But the author do=
es
not think so. He sees in this=
the
tragedy of human life, and after depicting all the horror of the position h=
e concludes
that human life must be spent in the midst of this horror.
So much for the
attitude to war of those who regard it as something tragic and fated by des=
tiny.
The third category
consists of men who have lost all conscience and, consequently, all common
sense and feeling of humanity.
To this category
belongs Moltke, whose opinion has been quoted above by Maupassant, and the
majority of military men, who have been educated in this cruel superstition,
live by it, and consequently are often in all simplicity convinced that war=
is
not only an inevitable, but even a necessary and beneficial thing. This is =
also
the view of some civilians, so-called educated and cultivated people.
Here is what the
celebrated academician Camille Doucet writes in reply to the editor of the
REVUE DES REVUES, where several letters on war were published together:
"Dear Sir: When you ask=
the
least warlike of academicians whether he is a partisa=
n of
war, his answer is known beforehand.
"Alas! sir, you yourself
speak of the pacific ideal inspiring your generous compatrio=
ts as
a dream.
"During my life I have =
heard
a great many good people protest against this frightful =
custom
of international butchery, which all admit and deplore; =
but
how is it to be remedied?
"Often, too, there have=
been
attempts to suppress dueling; one would fancy that seemed=
an
easy task: but not at all! Al=
l that
has been done hit=
herto with
that noble object has never been and never will be of us=
e.
"All the congresses of =
both
hemispheres may vote against war, and against dueling too=
, but
above all arbitrations, conventions, and legisl=
ations
there will always be the personal honor of individual men,
which has always demanded dueling, and the interests of nation=
s,
which will always demand war.
"I wish none the less f=
rom
the depths of my heart that the Congress of Universal P=
eace
may succeed at last in its very honorable and difficult
enterprise.
"I am, dear sir, etc., =
"CAMILLE DOUCET.&q=
uot;
The upshot of thi=
s is
that personal honor requires men to fight, and the interests of nations req=
uire
them to ruin and exterminate each other.&n=
bsp;
As for the efforts to abolish war, they call for nothing but a smile=
.
The opinion of
another well-known academician, Jules Claretie, is of the same kind.
"Dear Sir [he writes]: =
For a
man of sense there can be but one opinion on the subject =
of
peace and war.
"Humanity is created to=
live,
to live free, to perfect and ameliorate its fate by
peaceful labor. The general h=
armony
preached by the
Universal Peace Congress is but a dream perhaps, but at least i=
t is
the fairest of all dreams. Ma=
n is always looking toward t=
he
Promised Land, and there the harvests are to ripen with no fe=
ar of
their being torn up by shells or crushed by cannon wheel=
s...
But! Ah! but----since philoso=
phers and philanthropists are=
not
the controlling powers, it is well for our soldiers to gua=
rd our
frontier and homes, and their arms, skillfully used, =
are
perhaps the surest guarantee of the peace we all love.
"Peace is a gift only g=
ranted
to the strong and the resolute.
"I am, dear sir, etc., =
"JULES CLARETIE.&q=
uot;
The upshot of this
letter is that there is no harm in talking about what no one intends or fee=
ls
obliged to do. But when it co=
mes to
practice, we must fight.
And here now is t=
he
view lately expressed by the most popular novelist in Europe, Émile
Zola:
"I regard war as a fatal
necessity, which appears inevitable for us from its close
connection with human nature and the whole constitution of t=
he
world. I should wish that war=
could
be put off for the
longest possible time.
Nevertheless, the moment will come when we
shall be forced to go to war. I am considering it at this =
moment
from the standpoint of universal humanity, and making no
reference to our misunderstanding with Germany--a most trivial
incident in the history of mankind.
I say that=
war
is necessary and beneficial, since it seems one of the conditions of exist=
ence
for humanity. War confronts u=
s everywhere, not only war
between different races and peoples, but war too, in private=
and
family life. It seems one of =
the principal elements of
progress, and every step in advance that humanity has taken hith=
erto
has been attended by bloodshed.
"Men have talked, and s=
till
talk, of disarmament, while disarmament is something
impossible, to which, even if it were possible, we ought not =
to
consent. I am convinced that =
a general disarmament
throughout the world would involve something like a moral
decadence, which would show itself in general feebleness, and=
would
hinder the progressive advancement of humanity=
. A warlike nation has always been <=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> strong and flourishing.=
The art of war has led to the development of all the =
other
arts. History bears witness t=
o it. So in Athens and in Rome, commerce,
manufactures, and literature never attain=
ed so
high a point of development as when those cities were
masters of the whole world by force of arms. To take an example from times near=
er our
own, we may recal=
l the
age of Louis XIV. The wars of=
the
Grand Monarque we=
re not
only no hindrance to the progress of the arts and sciences, but even, on =
the
contrary, seem to have promoted and favored their
development."
So war is a
beneficial thing!
But the best
expression of this attitude is the view of the most gifted of the writers of
this school, the academician de Vogüé. This is what he writes i=
n an
article on the Military Section of the Exhibition of 1889:
"On the Esplanade des
Invalides, among the exotic and colonial encampments, a building=
in a
more severe style overawes the picturesque bazaar; all=
these
fragments of the globe have come to gather round the Pal=
ace of
War, and in turn our guests mount guard submissively befo=
re the
mother building, but for whom they would not be here.=
Fine subject for the antithesis of=
rhetoric, of humanitari=
ans
who could not fail to whimper over this juxtaposition, and=
to
say that 'CECI TUERA CELA,' [footnote: Phrase quote=
d from
Victor-Hugo, "Notre-Dame de Paris."] that the =
union
of the nations through science and labor will overcome the
instinct of war. Let us leave=
them
to cherish the ch=
imera
of a golden age, which would soon become, if it could be realized=
, an
age of mud. All history teach=
es us that the one is created=
for
the other, that blood is needed to hasten and cement the u=
nion
of the nations. Natural scien=
ce has ratified in our day=
the
mysterious law revealed to Joseph de Maistre by the intui=
tion
of his genius and by meditation on fundamental truths; he =
saw
the world redeeming itself from hereditary degeneration=
s by
sacrifice; science shows it advancing to perfection
through struggle and violent selection; there is the statement =
of the
same law in both, expressed in different formulas. The statement is disagreeable, no =
doubt;
but the laws of t=
he
world are not made for our pleasure, they are made for our
progress. Let us enter this
inevitable, neces=
sary
palace of war; we shall be able to observe there how the most tenacious of o=
ur
instincts, without losing any of its vigor, is transformed a=
nd
adapted to the varying exigencies of historical epochs."=
;
M. de
Vogüé finds the necessity for war, according to his views, well
expressed by the two great writers, Joseph de Maistre and Darwin, whose
statements he likes so much that he quotes them again.
"Dear Sir [he writes to=
the
editor of the REVUE DES REVUES]: You ask me my view as t=
o the
possible success of the Universal Congress of Peace. I hold with Darwin that violent st=
ruggle
is a law of natur=
e which
overrules all other laws; I hold with Joseph de Maistre that =
it is
a divine law; two different ways of describing the same
thing. If by some impossible =
chance
a fraction of hum=
an
society--all the civilized West, let us suppose--were to succee=
d in
suspending the action of this law, some races of stronger
instincts would undertake the task of putting it into action
against us: those races would vindicate nature's reasoning agai=
nst
human reason; they would be successful, because the
certainty of peace--I do not say PEACE, I say the CERTAINTY OF
PEACE--would, in half a century, engender a corruption a=
nd a
decadence more destructive for mankind than the worst =
of
wars. I believe that we must =
do
with war--the cri=
minal
law of humanity--as with all our criminal laws, that is, soften t=
hem,
put them in force as rarely as possible; use every eff=
ort to
make their application unnecessary. But all the experience of history
teaches us that t=
hey
cannot be altogether suppressed so long as two men are left on earth, with bre=
ad,
money, and a woman between them.
"I should be very happy=
if
the Congress would prove me in error. But I doubt if i=
t can
prove history, nature, and God in error also.
"I am, dear sir, etc. <=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> "E. M. DE
VOGÜÉ."
This amounts to
saying that history, human nature, and God show us that so long as there are
two men, and bread, money and a woman--there will be war. That is to say th=
at
no progress will lead men to rise above the savage conception of life, which
regards no participation of bread, money (money is good in this context) and
woman possible without fighting.
They are strange
people, these men who assemble in Congresses, and make speeches to show us =
how
to catch birds by putting salt on their tails, though they must know it is
impossible to do it. And amaz=
ing
are they too, who, like Maupassant, Rod, and many others, see clearly all t=
he
horror of war, all the inconsistency of men not doing what is needful, righ=
t,
and beneficial for them to do; who lament over the tragedy of life, and do =
not
see that the whole tragedy is at an end directly men, ceasing to take accou=
nt
of any unnecessary considerations, refuse to do what is hateful and disastr=
ous
to them. They are amazing peo=
ple
truly, but those who, like De Vogüé and others, who, professing=
the
doctrine of evolution, regard war as not only inevitable, but beneficial an=
d therefore
desirable--they are terrible, hideous, in their moral perversion. The others, at least, say that the=
y hate
evil, and love good, but these openly declare that good and evil do not exi=
st.
All discussion of=
the
possibility of re-establishing peace instead of everlasting war--is the
pernicious sentimentality of phrasemongers. There is a law of evolution by whi=
ch it
follows that I must live and act in an evil way; what is to be done? I am an educated man, I know the l=
aw of
evolution, and therefore I will act in an evil way. "ENTRONS AU PALAIS DE LA
GUERRE." There is the la=
w of
evolution, and therefore there is neither good nor evil, and one must live =
for
the sake of one's personal existence, leaving the rest to the action of the=
law
of evolution. This is the las=
t word
of refined culture, and with it, of that overshadowing of conscience which =
has
come upon the educated classes of our times. The desire of the educated classes=
to support
the ideas they prefer, and the order of existence based on them, has attain=
ed
its furthest limits. They lie, and delude themselves, and one another, with=
the
subtlest forms of deception, simply to obscure, to deaden conscience.
Instead of
transforming their life into harmony with their conscience, they try by eve=
ry
means to stifle its voice. Bu=
t it
is in darkness that the light begins to shine, and so the light is rising u=
pon
our epoch.
CHAPTER VII - SIGNIFICANC=
E OF
COMPULSORY SERVICE.
Universal Compuls=
ory
Service is not a Political Accident, but the Furthest Limit of the
Contradiction Inherent in the Social Conception of Life--Origin of Authorit=
y in
Society--Basis of Authority is Physical Violence--To be Able to Perform its
Acts of Violence Authority Needs a Special Organization--The Army--Authorit=
y,
that is, Violence, is the Principle which is Destroying the Social Concepti=
on
of Life--Attitude of Authority to the Masses, that is, Attitude of Governme=
nt
to Working Oppressed Classes--Governments Try to Foster in Working Classes =
the
Idea that State Force is Necessary to Defend Them from External Enemies--Bu=
t the
Army is Principally Needed to Preserve Government from its own Subjects--The
Working Classes--Speech of M. de Caprivi--All Privileges of Ruling Classes
Based on Violence--The Increase of Armies up to Point of Universal
Service--Universal Compulsory Service Destroys all the Advantages of Social
Life, which Government is Intended to Preserve--Compulsory Service is the
Furthest Limit of Submission, since in Name of the State it Requires Sacrif=
ice
of all that can be Precious to a Man--Is Government Necessary?--The Sacrifi=
ces
Demanded by Government in Compulsory Service have No Longer any Reasonable =
Basis--And
there is More Advantage to be Gained by not Submitting to the Demands of the
State than by Submitting to Them.
Educated people of the upper classe=
s are
trying to stifle the ever-growing sense of the necessity of transforming the
existing social order. But li=
fe,
which goes on growing more complex, and developing in the same direction, a=
nd
increases the inconsistencies and the sufferings of men, brings them to the=
limit
beyond which they cannot go. =
This
furthest limit of inconsistency is universal compulsory military service.
It is usually
supposed that universal military service and the increased armaments connec=
ted
with it, as well as the resulting increase of taxes and national debts, are=
a
passing phenomenon, produced by the particular political situation of Europ=
e,
and that it may be removed by certain political combinations without any mo=
dification
of the inner order of life.
This is absolutely
incorrect. Universal military
service is only the internal inconsistency inherent in the social conceptio=
n of
life, carried to its furthest limits, and becoming evident when a certain s=
tage
of material development is reached.
The social concep=
tion
of life, we have seen, consists in the transfer of the aim of life from the
individual to groups and their maintenance--to the tribe, family, race, or
state.
In the social
conception of life it is supposed that since the aim of life is found in gr=
oups
of individuals, individuals will voluntarily sacrifice their own interests =
for
the interests of the group. A=
nd so
it has been, and still is, in fact, in certain groups, the distinction being
that they are the most primitive forms of association in the family or trib=
e or
race, or even in the patriarchal state.&nb=
sp;
Through tradition handed down by education and supported by religious
sentiment, individuals without compulsion merged their interests in the
interest of the group and sacrificed their own good for the general welfare=
.
But the more comp= lex and the larger societies become, and especially the more often conquest bec= omes the cause of the amalgamation of people into a state, the more often individuals strive to attain their own aims at the public expense, and the = more often it becomes necessary to restrain these insubordinate individuals by recourse to authority, that is, to violence. The champions of the social concep= tion of life usually try to connect the idea of authority, that is, of violence, with the idea of moral influence, but this connection is quite impossible.<= o:p>
The effect of mor=
al
influence on a man is to change his desires and to bend them in the directi=
on
of the duty required of him. The man who is controlled by moral influence a=
cts
in accordance with his own desires.
Authority, in the sense in which the word is ordinarily understood, =
is a
means of forcing a man to act in opposition to his desires. The man who submits to authority d=
oes not
do as he chooses but as he is obliged by authority. Nothing can oblige a man to do wha=
t he
does not choose except physical force, or the threat of it, that
is--deprivation of freedom, blows, imprisonment, or threats--easily carried
out--of such punishments. Thi=
s is
what authority consists of and always has consisted of.
In spite of the
unceasing efforts of those who happen to be in authority to conceal this and
attribute some other significance to it, authority has always meant for man=
the
cord, the chain with which he is bound and fettered, or the knout with whic=
h he
is to be flogged, or the ax with which he is to have hands, ears, nose, or =
head
cut off, or at the very least, the threat of these terrors. So it was under
Nero and Ghenghis Khan, and so it is to-day, even under the most liberal
government in the Republics of the United States or of France. If men submi=
t to
authority, it is only because they are liable to these punishments in case =
of non-submission.
All state obligations, payment of taxes, fulfillment of state duties, and
submission to punishments, exile, fines, etc., to which people appear to su=
bmit
voluntarily, are always based on bodily violence or the threat of it.
The basis of
authority is bodily violence. The possibility of applying bodily violence to
people is provided above all by an organization of armed men, trained to ac=
t in
unison in submission to one will.
These bands of armed men, submissive to a single will, are what
constitute the army. The army=
has
always been and still is the basis of power. Power is always in the hands of th=
ose
who control the army, and all men in power--from the Roman Caesars to the R=
ussian
and German Emperors--take more interest in their army than in anything, and
court popularity in the army, knowing that if that is on their side their p=
ower
is secure.
The formation and
aggrandizement of the army, indispensable to the maintenance of authority, =
is
what has introduced into the social conception of life the principle that is
destroying it.
The object of
authority and the justification for its existence lie in the restraint of t=
hose
who aim at attaining their personal interests to the detriment of the inter=
ests
of society.
But however power=
has
been gained, those who possess it are in no way different from other men, a=
nd
therefore no more disposed than others to subordinate their own interests to
those of the society. On the contrary, having the power to do so at their
disposal, they are more disposed than others to subordinate the public
interests to their own. Whate=
ver
means men have devised for preventing those in authority from over-riding
public interests for their own benefit, or for intrusting power only to the
most faultless people, they have not so far succeeded in either of those ai=
ms.
All the methods of
appointing authorities that have been tried, divine right, and election, and
heredity, and balloting, and assemblies and parliaments and senate--have all
proved ineffectual. Everyone =
knows
that not one of these methods attains the aim either of intrusting power on=
ly
to the incorruptible, or of preventing power from being abused. Everyone knows on the contrary tha=
t men
in authority--be they emperors, ministers, governors, or police officers--a=
re
always, simply from the possession of power, more liable to be demoralized,
that is, to subordinate public interests to their personal aims than those =
who have
not the power to do so. Indee=
d, it
could not be otherwise.
The state concept=
ion
of life could be justified only so long as all men voluntarily sacrificed t=
heir
personal interests to the public welfare.&=
nbsp;
But so soon as there were individuals who would not voluntarily
sacrifice their own interests, and authority, that is, violence, was needed=
to
restrain them, then the disintegrating principle of the coercion of one set=
of
people by another set entered into the social conception of the organization
based on it.
For the authority=
of
one set of men over another to attain its object of restraining those who
override public interests for their personal ends, power ought only to be p=
ut
into the hands of the impeccable, as it is supposed to be among the Chinese,
and as it was supposed to be in the Middle Ages, and is even now supposed t=
o be
by those who believe in the consecration by anointing. Only under those conditions could =
the
social organization be justified.
But since this is=
not
the case, and on the contrary men in power are always far from being saints,
through the very fact of their possession of power, the social organization
based on power has no justification.
Even if there was
once a time when, owing to the low standard of morals, and the disposition =
of
men to violence, the existence of an authority to restrain such violence wa=
s an
advantage, because the violence of government was less than the violence of=
individuals,
one cannot but see that this advantage could not be lasting. As the disposition of individuals =
to
violence diminished, and as the habits of the people became more civilized,=
and
as power grew more social organization demoralized through lack of restrain=
t,
this advantage disappeared.
The whole history=
of
the last two thousand years is nothing but the history of this gradual chan=
ge
of relation between the moral development of the masses on the one hand and=
the
demoralization of governments on the other.
This, put simply,=
is
how it has come to pass.
Men lived in
families, tribes, and races, at feud with one another, plundering, outragin=
g,
and killing one another. Thes=
e violent
hostilities were carried on on a large and on a small scale: man against ma=
n,
family against family, tribe against tribe, race against race, and people
against people. The larger and
stronger groups conquered and absorbed the weaker, and the larger and stron=
ger
they became, the more internal feuds disappeared and the more the continuit=
y of
the group seemed assured.
The members of a
family or tribe, united into one community, are less hostile among themselv=
es,
and families and tribes do not die like one man, but have a continuity of
existence. Between the member=
s of
one state, subject to a single authority, the strife between individuals se=
ems
still less and the life of the state seems even more secure.
Their association
into larger and larger groups was not the result of the conscious recogniti=
on
of the benefits of such associations, as it is said to be in the story of t=
he
Varyagi. It was produced, on =
one
hand, by the natural growth of population, and, on the other, by struggle a=
nd
conquest.
After conquest the
power of the emperor puts an end to internal dissensions, and so the state
conception of life justifies itself. But this justification is never more t=
han
temporary. Internal dissensio=
ns
disappear only in proportion to the degree of oppression exerted by the
authority over the dissentient individuals. The violence of internal feud crus=
hed by
authority reappears in authority itself, which falls into the hands of men =
who,
like the rest, are frequently or always ready to sacrifice the public welfa=
re
to their personal interest, with the difference that their subjects cannot
resist them, and thus they are exposed to all the demoralizing influence of
authority. And thus the evil =
of
violence, when it passes into the hands of authority, is always growing and
growing, and in time becomes greater than the evil it is supposed to suppre=
ss,
while, at the same time, the tendency to violence in the members of the soc=
iety
becomes weaker and weaker, so that the violence of authority is less and le=
ss
needed.
Government author=
ity,
even if it does suppress private violence, always introduces into the life =
of
men fresh forms of violence, which tend to become greater and greater in
proportion to the duration and strength of the government.
So that though the
violence of power is less noticeable in government than when it is employed=
by
members of society against one another, because it finds expression in
submission, and not in strife, it nevertheless exists, and often to a great=
er
degree than in former days.
And it could not =
be
otherwise, since, apart from the demoralizing influence of power, the polic=
y or
even the unconscious tendency of those in power will always be to reduce th=
eir
subjects to the extreme of weakness, for the weaker the oppressed, the less
effort need be made to keep him in subjection.
And therefore the
oppression of the oppressed always goes on growing up to the furthest limit,
beyond which it cannot go without killing the goose with the golden eggs. And if the goose lays no more eggs=
, like
the American Indians, negroes, and Fijians, then it is killed in spite of t=
he
sincere protests of philanthropists.
The most convinci=
ng
example of this is to be found in the condition of the working classes of o=
ur
epoch, who are in reality no better than the slaves of ancient times subdue=
d by
conquest.
In spite of the
pretended efforts of the higher classes to ameliorate the position of the
workers, all the working classes of the present day are kept down by the
inflexible iron law by which they only get just what is barely necessary, so
that they are forced to work without ceasing while still retaining strength=
enough
to labor for their employers, who are really those who have conquered and
enslaved them.
So it has always
been. In ratio to the duratio=
n and
increasing strength of authority its advantages for its subjects disappear =
and
its disadvantages increase.
And this has been=
so,
independently of the forms of government under which nations have lived. The
only difference is that under a despotic form of government the authority is
concentrated in a small number of oppressors and violence takes a cruder fo=
rm;
under constitutional monarchies and republics as in France and America auth=
ority
is divided among a great number of oppressors and the forms assumed by viol=
ence
is less crude, but its effect of making the disadvantages of authority grea=
ter
than its advantages, and of enfeebling the oppressed to the furthest extrem=
e to
which they can be reduced with advantage to the oppressors, remains always =
the same.
Such has been and
still is the condition of all the oppressed, but hitherto they have not
recognized the fact. In the majority of instances they have believed in all
simplicity that governments exist for their benefit; that they would be lost
without a government; that the very idea of living without a government is a
blasphemy which one hardly dare put into words; that this is the--for some
reason terrible--doctrine of anarchism, with which a mental picture of all
kinds of horrors is associated.
People have belie= ved, as though it were something fully proved, and so needing no proof, that sin= ce all nations have hitherto developed in the form of states, that form of organization is an indispensable condition of the development of humanity.<= o:p>
And in that way it
has lasted for hundreds and thousands of years, and governments--those who
happened to be in power--have tried it, and are now trying more zealously t=
han
ever to keep their subjects in this error.
So it was under t=
he
Roman emperors and so it is now. In
spite of the fact that the sense of the uselessness and even injurious effe=
cts
of state violence is more and more penetrating into men's consciousness, th=
ings
might have gone on in the same way forever if governments were not under the
necessity of constantly increasing their armies in order to maintain their
power.
It is generally
supposed that governments strengthen their forces only to defend the state =
from
other states, in oblivion of the fact that armies are necessary, before all
things, for the defense of governments from their own oppressed and enslaved
subjects.
That has always b=
een
necessary, and has become more and more necessary with the increased diffus=
ion
of education among the masses, with the improved communication between peop=
le
of the same and of different nationalities. It has become particularly indispe=
nsable
now in the face of communism, socialism, anarchism, and the labor movement
generally. Governments feel t=
hat it
is so, and strengthen the force of their disciplined armies. [See Footnote]=
[Footnote: The fact th=
at in
America the abuses of authority exist in
spite of the small number of their troops not only f=
ails
to disprove this position, but positively co=
nfirms
it. In America there are fewer soldiers th=
an in
other states. That is why
In the German Reichstag not long ag=
o, in
reply to a question why funds were needed for raising the salaries of the
under-officers, the German Chancellor openly declared that trustworthy
under-officers were necessary to contend against socialism. Caprivi only sa=
id
aloud what every statesman knows and assiduously conceals from the people. =
The reason
to which he gave expression is essentially the same as that which made the
French kings and the popes engage Swiss and Scotch guards, and makes the
Russian authorities of to-day so carefully distribute the recruits, so that=
the
regiments from the frontiers are stationed in central districts, and the
regiments from the center are stationed on the frontiers. The meaning of
Caprivi's speech, put into plain language, is that funds are needed, not to=
resist
foreign foes, but to BUY UNDER-OFFICERS to be ready to act against the ensl=
aved
toiling masses.
Caprivi incautiou=
sly
gave utterance to what everyone knows perfectly well, or at least feels vag=
uely
if he does not recognize it, that is, that the existing order of life is as=
it
is, not, as would be natural and right, because the people wish it to be so=
, but
because it is so maintained by state violence, by the army with its BOUGHT
UNDER-OFFICERS and generals.
If the laborer ha=
s no
land, if he cannot use the natural right of every man to derive subsistence=
for
himself and his family out of the land, that is not because the people wish=
it
to be so, but because a certain set of men, the land-owners, have appropria=
ted the
right of giving or refusing admittance to the land to the laborers. And this abnormal order of things =
is
maintained by the army. If the
immense wealth produced by the labor of the working classes is not regarded=
as
the property of all, but as the property of a few exceptional persons; if l=
abor
is taxed by authority and the taxes spent by a few on what they think fit; =
if strikes
on the part of laborers are repressesd, while on the part of capitalists th=
ey
are encouraged; if certain persons appropriate the right of choosing the fo=
rm
of the education, religious and secular, of children, and certain persons
monopolize the right of making the laws all must obey, and so dispose of the
lives and properties of other people--all this is not done because the peop=
le
wish it and because it is what is natural and right, but because the govern=
ment
and ruling classes wish this to be so for their own benefit, and insist on =
its
being so even by physical violence.
Everyone, if he d=
oes
not recognize this now, will know that it is so at the first attempt at ins=
ubordination
or at a revolution of the existing order.
Armies, then, are
needed by governments and by the ruling classes above all to support the
present order, which, far from being the result of the people's needs, is o=
ften
in direct antagonism to them, and is only beneficial to the government and
ruling classes.
To keep their
subjects in oppression and to be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor the
government must have armed forces.
But there is not =
only
one government. There are oth=
er governments,
exploiting their subjects by violence in the same way, and always ready to
pounce down on any other government and carry off the fruits of the toil of=
its
enslaved subjects. And so eve=
ry
government needs an army also to protect its booty from its neighbor
brigands. Every government is=
thus
involuntarily reduced to the necessity of emulating one another in the incr=
ease
of their armies. This increas=
e is
contagious, as Montesquieu pointed out 150 years ago.
Every increase in=
the
army of one state, with the aim of self-defense against its subjects, becom=
es a
source of danger for neighboring states and calls for a similar increase in
their armies.
The armed forces =
have
reached their present number of millions not only through the menace of dan=
ger
from neighboring states, but principally through the necessity of subduing
every effort at revolt on the part of the subjects.
Both causes, mutu=
ally
dependent, contribute to the same result at once; troops are required again=
st
internal forces and also to keep up a position with other states. One is the result of the other. The
despotism of a government always increases with the strength of the army and
its external successes, and the aggressiveness of a government increases wi=
th
its internal despotism.
The rivalry of the
European states in constantly increasing their forces has reduced them to t=
he
necessity of having recourse to universal military service, since by that m=
eans
the greatest possible number of soldiers is obtained at the least possible =
expense. Germany first hit on this device.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> And directly one state adopted it =
the
others were obliged to do the same.
And by this means all citizens are under arms to support the iniquit=
ies practiced
upon them; all citizens have become their own oppressors.
Universal military
service was an inevitable logical necessity, to which we were bound to
come. But it is also the last
expression of the inconsistency inherent in the social conception of life, =
when
violence is needed to maintain it.
This inconsistency has become obvious in universal military
service. In fact, the whole s=
ignificance
of the social conception of life consists in man's recognition of the barba=
rity
of strife between individuals, and the transitoriness of personal life itse=
lf,
and the transference of the aim of life to groups of persons. But with universal military servic=
e it
comes to pass that men, after making every sacrifice to get rid of the crue=
lty
of strife and the insecurity of existence, are called upon to face all the
perils they had meant to avoid. And
in addition to this the state, for whose sake individuals renounced their
personal advantages, is exposed again to the same risks of insecurity and l=
ack
of permanence as the individual himself was in previous times.
Governments were =
to
give men freedom from the cruelty of personal strife and security in the
permanence of the state order of existence. But instead of doing that they exp=
ose
the individuals to the same necessity of strife, substituting strife with i=
ndividuals
of other states for strife with neighbors.=
And the danger of destruction for the individual, and the state too,
they leave just as it was.
Universal military
service may be compared to the efforts of a man to prop up his falling house
who so surrounds it and fills it with props and buttresses and planks and
scaffolding that he manages to keep the house standing only by making it
impossible to live in it.
In the same way
universal military service destroys all the benefits of the social order of
life which it is employed to maintain.
The advantages of
social organization are security of property and labor and associated action
for the improvement of existence--universal military service destroys all t=
his.
The taxes raised =
from
the people for war preparations absorb the greater part of the produce of l=
abor
which the army ought to defend.
The withdrawing of
all men from the ordinary course of life destroys the possibility of labor
itself. The danger of war, ever ready to break out, renders all reforms of =
life
social life vain and fruitless.
In former days if=
a
man were told that if he did not acknowledge the authority of the state, he
would be exposed to attack from enemies domestic and foreign, that he would
have to resist them alone, and would be liable to be killed, and that there=
fore
it would be to his advantage to put up with some hardships to secure himself
from these calamities, he might well believe it, seeing that the sacrifices=
he
made to the state were only partial and gave him the hope of a tranquil
existence in a permanent state. But now, when the sacrifices have been
increased tenfold and the promised advantages are disappearing, it would be=
a
natural reflection that submission to authority is absolutely useless.
But the fatal
significance of universal military service, as the manifestation of the
contradiction inherent in the social conception of life, is not only appare=
nt
in that. The greatest manifes=
tation
of this contradiction consists in the fact that every citizen in being made=
a
soldier becomes a prop of the government organization, and shares the
responsibility of everything the government does, even though he may not ad=
mit
its legitimacy.
Governments assert
that armies are needed above all for external defense, but that is not
true. They are needed princip=
ally against
their subjects, and every man, under universal military service, becomes an
accomplice in all the acts of violence of the government against the citize=
ns
without any choice of his own.
To convince onese=
lf
of this one need only remember what things are done in every state, in the =
name
of order and the public welfare, of which the execution always falls to the
army. All civil outbreaks for
dynastic or other party reasons, all the executions that follow on such
disturbances, all repression of insurrections, and military intervention to
break up meetings and to suppress strikes, all forced extortion of taxes, a=
ll
the iniquitous distributions of land, all the restrictions on labor--are ei=
ther
carried out directly by the military or by the police with the army at their
back. Anyone who serves his t=
ime in
the army shares the responsibility of all these things, about which he is, =
in
some cases, dubious, while very often they are directly opposed to his cons=
cience. People are unwilling to be turned =
out of
the land they have cultivated for generations, or they are unwilling to dis=
perse
when the government authority orders them, or they are unwilling to pay the
taxes required of them, or to recognize laws as binding on them when they h=
ave
had no hand in making them, or
to be deprived of
their nationality--and I, in the fulfillment of my military duty, must go a=
nd
shoot them for it. How can I =
help asking
myself when I take part in such punishments, whether they are just, and whe=
ther
I ought to assist in carrying them out?
Universal service=
is
the extreme limit of violence necessary for the support of the whole state
organization, and it is the extreme limit to which submission on the part of
the subjects can go. It is the
keystone of the whole edifice, and its fall will bring it all down.
The time has come
when the ever-growing abuse of power by governments and their struggles with
one another has led to their demanding such material and even moral sacrifi=
ces
from their subjects that everyone is forced to reflect and ask himself,
"Can I make these sacrifices? And for the sake of what am I making the=
m? I
am expected for the sake of the state to make these sacrifices, to renounce
everything that can be precious to man--peace, family, security, and human
dignity." What is this state, for whose sake such terrible sacrifices =
have
to be made? And why is it so indispensably necessary? "The state,"
they tell us, "is indispensably needed, in the first place, because
without it we should not be protected against the attacks of evil-disposed
persons; and secondly, except for the state we should be savages and should
have neither religion, culture, education, nor commerce, nor means of commu=
nication,
nor other social institutions; and thirdly, without the state to defend us =
we
should be liable to be conquered and enslaved by neighboring peoples."=
"Except for =
the
state," they say, "we should be exposed to the attacks of
evil-disposed persons in our own country."
But who are these
evil-disposed persons in our midst from whose attacks we are preserved by t=
he
state and its army? Even if, three or four centuries ago, when men prided
themselves on their warlike prowess, when killing men was considered an her=
oic
achievement, there were such persons; we know very well that there are no s=
uch
persons now, that we do not nowadays carry or use firearms, but everyone
professes humane principles and feels sympathy for his fellows, and wants
nothing more than we all do--that is, to be left in peace to enjoy his
existence undisturbed. So that nowadays there are no special malefactors fr=
om
whom the state could defend us. If by these evil disposed persons is meant =
the
men who are punished as criminals, we know very well that they are not a
different kind of being like wild beasts among sheep, but are men just like
ourselves, and no more naturally inclined to crimes than those against whom
they commit them. We know now that threats and punishments cannot diminish
their number; that that can only be done by change of environment and moral
influence. So that the justification of state violence on the ground of the
protection it gives us from evil-disposed persons, even if it had some
foundation three or four centuries ago, has none whatever now. At present o=
ne
would rather say on the contrary that the action of the state with its cruel
methods of punishment, behind the general moral standard of the age, such as
prisons, galleys, gibbets, and guillotines, tends rather to brutalize the
people than to civilize them, and consequently rather to increase than dimi=
nish
the number of malefactors.
"Except for =
the
state," they tell us, "we should not have any religion, education,
culture, means of communication, and so on. Without the state men would not
have been able to form the social institutions needed for doing any
thing." This argument to=
o was well
founded only some centuries ago.
If there was a ti=
me
when people were so disunited, when they had so little means of communicati=
on
and interchange of ideas, that they could not co-operate and agree together=
in
any common action in commerce, economics, or education without the state as=
a center,
this want of common action exists no longer. The great extension of means of
communication and interchange of ideas has made men completely able to disp=
ense
with state aid in forming societies, associations, corporations, and congre=
sses
for scientific, economic, and political objects. Indeed government is more often an
obstacle than an assistance in attaining these aims.
From the end of l=
ast
century there has hardly been a single progressive movement of humanity whi=
ch
has not been retarded by the government.&n=
bsp;
So it has been with abolition of corporal punishment, of trial by
torture, and of slavery, as well as with the establishment of the liberty of
the press and the right of public meeting.=
In our day governments not only fail to encourage, but directly hind=
er
every movement by which people try to work out new forms of life for
themselves. Every attempt at =
the
solution of the problems of labor, land, politics, and religion meets with
direct opposition on the part of government.
"Without
governments nations would be enslaved by their neighbors." It is scarcely necessary to refute=
this
last argument. It carries its
refutation on the face of it. The government,
they tell us, with its army, is necessary to defend us from neighboring sta=
tes
who might enslave us. But we =
know
this is what all governments say of one another, and yet we know that all t=
he
European nations profess the same principles of liberty and fraternity, and
therefore stand in no need of protection against one another. And if defense against barbarous n=
ations
is meant, one-thousandth part of the troops now under arms would be amply s=
ufficient
for that purpose. We see that=
it is
really the very opposite of what we have been told. The power of the state, far from b=
eing a
security against the attacks of our neighbors, exposes us, on the contrary,=
to
much greater danger of such attacks.
So that every man who is led, through his compulsory service in the
army, to reflect on the value of the state for whose sake he is expected to=
be
ready to sacrifice his peace, security, and life, cannot fail to perceive t=
hat
there is no kind of justification in modern times for such a sacrifice.
And it is not only
from the theoretical standpoint that every man must see that the sacrifices
demanded by the state have no justification. Even looking at it practically,
weighing, that is to say, all the burdens laid on him by the state, no man =
can
fail to see that for him personally to comply with state demands and serve =
in
the army, would, in the majority of cases, be more disadvantageous than to
refuse to do so.
If the majority of
men choose to submit rather than to refuse, it is not the result of sober
balancing of advantages and disadvantages, but because they are induced by a
kind of hypnotizing process practiced upon them. In submitting they simply yield to=
the
suggestions given them as orders, without thought or effort of will. To resist would need independent t=
hought
and effort of which every man is not capable. Even apart from the moral signific=
ance
of compliance or non-compliance, considering material advantage only,
non-compliance will be more advantageous in general.
Whoever I may be,
whether I belong to the well-to-do class of the oppressors, or the working
class of the oppressed, in either case the disadvantages of non-compliance =
are
less and its advantages greater than those of compliance. If I belong to the minority of opp=
ressors
the disadvantages of non-compliance will consist in my being brought to
judgment for refusing to perform my duties to the state, and if I am lucky,
being acquitted or, as is done in the case of the Mennonites in Russia, bei=
ng
set to work out my military service at some civil occupation for the state;
while if I am unlucky, I may be condemned to exile or imprisonment for two =
or
three years (I judge by the cases that have occurred in Russia), possibly to
even longer imprisonment, or possibly to death, though the probability of t=
hat
latter is very remote.
So much for the
disadvantages of non-compliance.
The disadvantages of compliance will be as follows: if I am lucky I =
shall
not be sent to murder my fellow-creatures, and shall not be exposed to great
danger of being maimed and killed, but shall only be enrolled into military
slavery. I shall be dressed u=
p like
a clown, I shall be at the beck and call of every man of a higher grade tha=
n my
own from corporal to field-marshal, shall be put through any bodily contort=
ions
at their pleasure, and after being kept from one to five years I shall have=
for
ten years afterward to be in readiness to undertake all of it again at any
minute. If I am unlucky I may=
, in
addition, be sent to war, where I shall be forced to kill men of foreign na=
tions
who have done me no harm, where I may be maimed or killed, or sent to certa=
in
destruction as in the case of the garrison of Sevastopol, and other cases i=
n every
war, or what would be most terrible of all, I may be sent against my own
compatriots and have to kill my own brothers for some dynastic or other sta=
te
interests which have absolutely nothing to do with me. So much for the comparative
disadvantages.
The comparative
advantages of compliance and non-compliance are as follows:
For the man who s=
ubmits,
the advantages will be that, after exposing himself to all the humiliation =
and
performing all the barbarities required of him, he may, if he escapes being
killed, get a decoration of red or gold tinsel to stick on his clown's dres=
s;
he may, if he is very lucky, be put in command of hundreds of thousands of
others as brutalized as himself; be called a field-marshal, and get a lot of
money.
The advantages of=
the
man who refuses to obey will consist in preserving his dignity as a man,
gaining the approbation of good men, and above all knowing that he is doing=
the
work of God, and so undoubtedly doing good to his fellow-men.
So much for the
advantages and disadvantages of both lines of conduct for a man of the weal=
thy
classes, an oppressor. For a =
man of
the poor working class the advantages and disadvantages will be the same, b=
ut
with a great increase of disadvantages.&nb=
sp;
The disadvantages for the poor man who submits will be aggravated by=
the
fact that he will by taking part in it, and, as it were, assenting to it
strengthen the state of subjection in which he is held himself.
But no considerat=
ions
as to how far the state is useful or beneficial to the men who help to supp=
ort
it by serving in the army, nor of the advantages or disadvantages for the i=
ndividual
of compliance or non-compliance with state demands, will decide the questio=
n of
the continued existence or the abolition of government. This question will be finally deci=
ded
beyond appeal by the religious consciousness or conscience of every man who=
is forced,
whether he will or no, through universal conscription, to face the question
whether the state is to continue to exist or not.
Christianity is N=
ot a
System of Rules, but a New Conception of Life, and therefore it was Not
Obligatory and was Not Accepted in its True Significance by All, but only b=
y a
Few--Christianity is, Moreover, Prophetic of the Destruction of the Pagan L=
ife,
and therefore of Necessity of the Acceptance of the Christian Doctrines--No=
n-resistance
of Evil by Force is One Aspect of the Christian Doctrine, which must Inevit=
ably
in Our Times be Accepted by Men--Two Methods of Deciding Every Quarrel--Fir=
st Method
is to Find a Universal Definition of Evil, which All Must Accept, and to Re=
sist
this Evil by Force--Second Method is the Christian One of Complete
Non-resistance by Force--Though the Failure of the First Method was Recogni=
zed
since the Early Days of Christianity, it was Still Proposed, and only as
Mankind has Progressed it has Become More and More Evident that there Canno=
t be
any Universal Definition of Evil--This is Recognized by All at the Present =
Day,
and if Force is Still Used to Resist Evil, it is Not Because it is Now Rega=
rded
as Right, but Because People Don't Know How to Avoid It--The Difficulty of
Avoiding It is the Result of the Subtle and Complex Character of the Govern=
ment
Use of Force--Force is Used in Four Ways: Intimidation, Bribery, Hypnotism,=
and
Coercion by Force of Arms--State Violence Can Never be Suppressed by the
Forcible Overthrow of the Government--Men are Led by the Sufferings of the
Pagan Mode of Life to the Necessity of Accepting Christ's Teaching with its
Doctrine of Non-resistance by Force--The Consciousness of its Truth which is
Diffused Throughout Our Society, Will also Bring About its Acceptance--This=
Consciousness
is in Complete Contradiction with Our Life--This is Specially Obvious in
Compulsory Military Service, but Through Habit and the Application of the F=
our
Methods of Violence by the State, Men do not See this Inconsistency of
Christianity with Life of a Soldier--They do Not even See It, though the
Authorities Themselves Show all the Immorality of a Soldier's Duties with P=
erfect
Clearness--The Call to Military Service is the Supreme Test for Every Man, =
when
the Choice is Offered Him, between Adopting the Christian Doctrine of
Non-resistance, or Slavishly Submitting to the Existing State Organization-=
-Men
Usually Renounce All They Hold Sacred, and Submit to the Demands of Governm=
ent,
Seeming to See No Other Course Open to Them--For Men of the Pagan Conceptio=
n of
Life there is No Other Course Open, and Never Will Be, in Spite of the Grow=
ing
Horrors of War--Society, Made Up of Such Men, Must Perish, and No Social
Reorganization Can Save It--Pagan Life Has Reached Its Extreme Limit, and W=
ill Annihilate
Itself.
It is often said that if Christiani=
ty is
a truth, it ought to have been accepted by everyone directly it appeared, a=
nd
ought to have transformed men's lives for the better. But this is like saying that if th=
e seed
were ripe it ought at once to bring forth stalls, flower, and fruit.
The Christian
religion is not a legal system which, being imposed by violence, may transf=
orm
men's lives. Christianity is =
a new
and higher conception of life. A
new conception of life cannot be imposed on men; it can only be freely
assimilated. And it can only =
be
freely assimilated in two ways: one spiritual and internal, the other
experimental and external.
Some people--a
minority--by a kind of prophetic instinct divine the truth of the doctrine,
surrender themselves to it and adopt it.&n=
bsp;
Others--the majority--only through a long course of mistakes, experi=
ments,
and suffering are brought to recognize the truth of the doctrine and the
necessity of adopting it.
And by this
experimental external method the majority of Christian men have now been
brought to this necessity of assimilating the doctrine. One sometimes wonders what necessi=
tated
the corruption of Christianity which is now the greatest obstacle to its ac=
ceptance
in its true significance.
If Christianity h=
ad
been presented to men in its true, uncorrupted form, it would not have been
accepted by the majority, who would have been as untouched by it as the nat=
ions
of Asia are now. The peoples =
who
accepted it in its corrupt form were subjected to its slow but certain
influence, and by a long course of errors and experiments and their resulta=
nt
sufferings have now been brought to the necessity of assimilating it in its
true significance.
The corruption of
Christianity and its acceptance in its corrupt form by the majority of men =
was
as necessary as it is that the seed should remain hidden for a certain time=
in
the earth in order to germinate.
Christianity is at
once a doctrine of truth and a prophecy. Eighteen centuries ago Christianity
revealed to men the truth in which they ought to live, and at the same time
foretold what human life would become if men would not live by it but conti=
nued
to live by their previous principles, and what it would become if they acce=
pted
the Christian doctrine and carried it out in their lives.
Laying down in the
Sermon on the Mount the principles by which to guide men's lives, Christ sa=
id:
"Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken=
him
unto a wise man, who built his house upon a rock; and the rain descended, a=
nd
the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell =
not,
for it was founded upon a rock. And
everyone that heareth these sayings, and doeth them not, shall be likened u=
nto
a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand; and the rain descended, a=
nd
the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell:=
and
great was the fall of it" (Matt. vii. 24-27).
And now after
eighteen centuries the prophecy has been fulfilled. Not having followed
Christ's teaching generally and its application to social life in
non-resistance to evil, men have been brought in spite of themselves to the
inevitable destruction foretold by Christ for those who do not fulfill his
teaching.
People often think
the question of non-resistance to evil by force is a theoretical one, which=
can
be neglected. Yet this questi=
on is
presented by life itself to all men, and calls for some answer from every
thinking man. Ever since
Christianity has been outwardly professed, this question is for men in their
social life like the question which presents itself to a traveler when the =
road
on which he has been journeying divides into two branches. He must go on an=
d he
cannot say: I will not think about it, but will go on just as I did
before. There was one road, n=
ow
there are two, and he must make his choice.
In the same way s=
ince
Christ's teaching has been known by men they cannot say: I will live as bef=
ore
and will not decide the question of resistance or non-resistance to evil by
force. At every new struggle =
that
arises one must inevitably decide; am I, or am I not, to resist by force wh=
at I
regard as evil.
The question of r=
esistance
or non-resistance to evil arose when the first conflict between men took pl=
ace,
since every conflict is nothing else than resistance by force to what each =
of
the combatants regards as evil. But
before Christ, men did not see that resistance by force to what each regard=
s as
evil, simply because one thinks evil what the other thinks good, is only on=
e of
the methods of settling the dispute, and that there is another method, that=
of
not resisting evil by force at all.
Before Christ's teaching, it seemed to men that the one only means of settling a dispute wa= s by resistance to evil by force. = And they acted accordingly, each of the combatants trying to convince himself and ot= hers that what each respectively regards as evil, is actually, absolutely evil.<= o:p>
And to do this fr= om the earliest time men have devised definitions of evil and tried to make th= em binding on everyone. And such= definitions of evil sometimes took the form of laws, supposed to have been received by supernatural means, sometimes of the commands of rulers or assemblies to wh= om infallibility was attributed. Men resorted to violence against others, and convinced themselves and others th= at they were directing their violence against evil recognized as such by all.<= o:p>
This means was
employed from the earliest times, especially by those who had gained posses=
sion
of authority, and for a long while its irrationality was not detected.
But the longer men
lived in the world and the more complex their relations became, the more
evident it was that to resist by force what each regarded as evil was
irrational, that conflict was in no way lessened thereby, and that no human
definitions can succeed in making what some regard as evil be accepted as s=
uch
by others.
Already at the ti=
me
Christianity arose, it was evident to a great number of people in the Roman
Empire where it arose, that what was regarded as evil by Nero and Caligula
could not be regarded as evil by others.&n=
bsp;
Even at that time men had begun to understand that human laws, though
given out for divine laws, were compiled by men, and cannot be infallible,
whatever the external majesty with which they are invested, and that erring=
men
are not rendered infallible by assembling together and calling themselves a
senate or any other name. Eve=
n at
that time this was felt and understood by many. And it was then that Christ preach=
ed his
doctrine, which consisted not only of the prohibition of resistance to evil=
by force,
but gave a new conception of life and a means of putting an end to conflict
between all men, not by making it the duty of one section only of mankind to
submit without conflict to what is prescribed to them by certain authoritie=
s,
but by making it the duty of all--and consequently of those in authority--n=
ot
to resort to force against anyone in any circumstances.
This doctrine was
accepted at the time by only a very small number of disciples. The majority of men, especially al=
l who
were in power, even after the nominal acceptance of Christianity, continued=
to
maintain for themselves the principle of resistance by force to what they
regarded as evil. So it was u=
nder
the Roman and Byzantine emperors, and so it continued to be later.
The insufficiency=
of
the principle of the authoritative definition of evil and resistance to it =
by
force, evident as it was in the early ages of Christianity, becomes still m=
ore
obvious through the division of the Roman Empire into many states of equal
authority, through their hostilities and the internal conflicts that broke =
out
within them.
But men were not =
ready
to accept the solution given by Christ, and the old definitions of evil, wh=
ich
ought to be resisted, continued to be laid down by means of making laws bin=
ding
on all and enforced by forcible means.&nbs=
p;
The authority who decided what ought to be regarded as evil and resi=
sted
by force was at one time the Pope, at another an emperor or king, an electi=
ve
assembly or a whole nation. B=
ut
both within and without the state there were always men to be found who did=
not
accept as binding on themselves the laws given out as the decrees of a god,=
or
made by men invested with a sacred character, or the institutions supposed =
to represent
the will of the nation; and there were men who thought good what the existi=
ng
authorities regarded as bad, and who struggled against the authorities with=
the
same violence as was employed against them.
The men invested =
with
religious authority regarded as evil what the men and institutions invested
with temporal authority regarded as good and vice versa, and the struggle g=
rew
more and more intense. And the
longer men used violence as the means of settling their disputes, the more
obvious it became that it was an unsuitable means, since there could be no
external authority able to define evil recognized by all.
Things went on li=
ke
this for eighteen centuries, and at last reached the present position in wh=
ich
it is absolutely obvious that there is, and can be, no external definition =
of
evil binding upon all. Men ha=
ve
come to the point of ceasing to believe in the possibility or even desirabi=
lity
of finding and establishing such a general definition. It has come to men in power ceasin=
g to attempt
to prove that what they regard as evil is evil, and simply declaring that t=
hey
regard as evil what they don't like, while their subjects no longer obey th=
em
because they accept the definition of evil laid down by them, but simply ob=
ey
because they cannot help themselves.
It was not because it was a good thing, necessary and beneficial to =
men,
and the contrary course would have been an evil, but simply because it was =
the
will of those in power that Nice was incorporated into France, and Lorraine
into Germany, and Bohemia into Austria, and that Poland was divided, and
Ireland and India ruled by the English government, and that the Chinese are
attacked and the Africans slaughtered, and the Chinese prevented from
immigrating by the Americans, and the Jews persecuted by the Russians, and =
that
landowners appropriate lands they do not cultivate and capitalists enjoy the
fruits of the labor of others. It has
come to the present state of things; one set of men commit acts of violence=
no
longer on the pretext of resistance to evil, but simply for their profit or
their caprice, and another set submit to violence, not because they suppose=
, as
was supposed in former times, that this violence was practised upon them for
the sake of securing them from evil, but simply because they cannot avoid i=
t.
If the Roman, or =
the
man of mediaeval times, or the average Russian of fifty years ago, as I
remember him, was convinced without a shade of doubt that the violence of
authority was indispensable to preserve him from evil; that taxes, dues, se=
rfage,
prisons, scourging, knouts, executions, the army and war were what ought to
be--we know now that one can seldom find a man who believes that all these
means of violence preserve anyone from any evil whatever, and indeed does n=
ot
clearly perceive that most of these acts of violence to which he is exposed,
and in which he has some share, are in themselves a great and useless evil.=
There is no one
to-day who does not see the uselessness and injustice of collecting taxes f=
rom
the toiling masses to enrich idle officials; or the senselessness of inflic=
ting
punishments on weak or depraved persons in the shape of transportation from=
one
place to another, or of imprisonment in a fortress where, living in security
and indolence, they only become weaker and more depraved; or the worse than
uselessness and injustice, the positive insanity and barbarity of preparati=
ons
for war and of wars, causing devastation and ruin, and having no kind of ju=
stification.
Yet these forms of violence continue and are supported by the very people w=
ho
see their uselessness, injustice, and cruelty, and suffer from them. If fif=
ty
years ago the idle rich man and the illiterate laborer were both alike
convinced that their state of everlasting holiday for one and everlasting t=
oil
for the other was ordained by God himself, we know very well that nowadays,
thanks to the growth of population and the diffusion of books and education=
, it
would be hard to find in Europe or even in Russia, either among rich or poo=
r, a
man to whom in one shape or another a doubt as to the justice of this state=
of
things had never presented itself. The rich know that they are guilty in the
very fact of being rich, and try to expiate their guilt by sacrifices to art
and science, as of old they expiated their sins by sacrifices to the Church.
And even the larger half of the working people openly declare that the exis=
ting
order is iniquitous and bound to be destroyed or reformed. One set of relig=
ious
people of whom there are millions in Russia, the so-called sectaries, consi=
der
the existing social order as unjust and to be destroyed on the ground of the
Gospel teaching taken in its true sense. Others regard it as unjust on the =
ground
of the socialistic, communistic, or anarchistic theories, which are springi=
ng
up in the lower strata of the working people. Violence no longer rests on t=
he
belief in its utility, but only on the fact of its having existed so long, =
and
being organized by the ruling classes who profit by it, so that those who a=
re
under their authority cannot extricate themselves from it. The governments =
of
our day--all of them, the most despotic and the liberal alike--have become =
what
Herzen so well called "Ghenghis Khan with the telegraph;" that is=
to
say, organizations of violence based on no principle but the grossest tyran=
ny,
and at the same time taking advantage of all the means invented by science =
for
the peaceful collective social activity of free and equal men, used by them=
to
enslave and oppress their fellows.
Governments and t=
he
ruling classes no longer take their stand on right or even on the semblance=
of
justice, but on a skillful organization carried to such a point of perfecti=
on
by the aid of science that everyone is caught in the circle of violence and=
has
no chance of escaping from it. This circle is made up now of four methods of
working upon men, joined together like the limes of a chain ring.
The first and old=
est
method is intimidation. This consists in representing the existing state
organization--whatever it may be, free republic or the most savage
despotism--as something sacred and immutable, and therefore following any
efforts to alter it with the cruellest punishments. This method is in use
now--as it has been from olden times--wherever there is a government: in Ru=
ssia
against the so-called Nihilists, in America against Anarchists, in France
against Imperialists, Legitimists, Communards, and Anarchists.
Railways, telegra=
phs,
telephones, photographs, and the great perfection of the means of getting r=
id
of men for years, without killing them, by solitary confinement, where, hid=
den
from the world, they perish and are forgotten, and the many other modern in=
ventions
employed by government, give such power that when once authority has come i=
nto
certain hands, the police, open and secret, the administration and prosecut=
ors,
jailers and executioners of all kinds, do their work so zealously that ther=
e is
no chance of overturning the government, however cruel and senseless it may=
be.
The second method= is corruption. It consists in plundering the industrious working people of the= ir wealth by means of taxes and distributing it in satisfying the greed of officials, who are bound in return to support and keep up the oppression of= the people. These bought officials, from the highest ministers to the poorest copying clerks, make up an unbroken network of men bound together by the sa= me interest--that of living at the expense of the people. They become the rich= er the more submissively they carry out the will of the government; and at all times and places, sticking at nothing, in all departments support by word a= nd deed the violence of government, on which their own prosperity also rests.<= o:p>
The third method =
is
what I can only describe as hypnotizing the people. This consists in checki=
ng
the moral development of men, and by various suggestions keeping them back =
in
the ideal of life, outgrown by mankind at large, on which the power of
government rests. This hypnotizing process is organized at the present in t=
he most
complex manner, and starting from their earliest childhood, continues to ac=
t on
men till the day of their death. It begins in their earliest years in the
compulsory schools, created for this purpose, in which the children have
instilled into them the ideas of life of their ancestors, which are in dire=
ct
antagonism with the conscience of the modern world. In countries where ther=
e is
a state religion, they teach the children the senseless blasphemies of the
Church catechisms, together with the duty of obedience to their superiors. =
In
republican states they teach them the savage superstition of patriotism and=
the
same pretended obedience to the governing authorities.
The process is ke=
pt
up during later years by the encouragement of religious and patriotic
superstitions.
The religious
superstition is encouraged by establishing, with money taken from the peopl=
e,
temples, processions, memorials, and festivals, which, aided by painting,
architecture, music, and incense, intoxicate the people, and above all by t=
he
support of the clergy, whose duty consists in brutalizing the people and ke=
eping
them in a permanent state of stupefaction by their teaching, the solemnity =
of
their services, their sermons, and their interference in private life--at
births, deaths, and marriages. The patriotic superstition is encouraged by =
the creation,
with money taken from the people, of national fêtes, spectacles,
monuments, and festivals to dispose men to attach importance to their own
nation, and to the aggrandizement of the state and its rulers, and to feel
antagonism and even hatred for other nations. With these objects under desp=
otic
governments there is direct prohibition against printing and disseminating
books to enlighten the people, and everyone who might rouse the people from=
their
lethargy is exiled or imprisoned. Moreover, under every government without
exception everything is kept back that might emancipate and everything
encouraged that tends to corrupt the people, such as literary works tending=
to
keep them in the barbarism of religious and patriotic superstition, all kin=
ds
of sensual amusements, spectacles, circuses, theaters, and even the physical
means of inducing stupefaction, as tobacco and alcohol, which form the
principal source of revenue of states. Even prostitution is encouraged, and=
not
only recognized, but even organized by the government in the majority of
states. So much for the third method.
The fourth method
consists in selecting from all the men who have been stupefied and enslaved=
by
the three former methods a certain number, exposing them to special and
intensified means of stupefaction and brutalization, and so making them int=
o a
passive instrument for carrying out all the cruelties and brutalities neede=
d by
the government. This result is attained by taking them at the youthful age =
when
men have not had time to form clear and definite principles of morals, and
removing them from all natural and human conditions of life, home, family a=
nd
kindred, and useful labor. They are shut up together in barracks, dressed in
special clothes, and worked upon by cries, drums, music, and shining object=
s to
go through certain daily actions invented for this purpose, and by this mea=
ns
are brought into an hypnotic condition in which they cease to be men and be=
come
mere senseless machines, submissive to the hypnotizer. These physically
vigorous young men (in these days of universal conscription, all young men)=
, hypnotized,
armed with murderous weapons, always obedient to the governing authorities =
and
ready for any act of violence at their command, constitute the fourth and
principal method of enslaving men.
By this method the
circle of violence is completed.
Intimidation,
corruption, and hypnotizing bring people into a condition in which they are
willing to be soldiers; the soldiers give the power of punishing and plunde=
ring
them (and purchasing officials with the spoils), and hypnotizing them and
converting them in time into these same soldiers again.
The circle is
complete, and there is no chance of breaking through it by force.
Some persons main=
tain
that freedom from violence, or at least a great diminution of it, may be ga=
ined
by the oppressed forcibly overturning the oppressive government and replaci=
ng
it by a new one under which such violence and oppression will be unnecessar=
y, but
they deceive themselves and others, and their efforts do not better the
position of the oppressed, but only make it worse. Their conduct only tends=
to
increase the despotism of government. Their efforts only afford a plausible
pretext for government to strengthen their power.
Even if we admit =
that
under a combination of circumstances specially unfavorable for the governme=
nt,
as in France in 1870, any government might be forcibly overturned and the p=
ower
transferred to other hands, the new authority would rarely be less oppressi=
ve
than the old one; on the contrary, always having to defend itself against i=
ts
dispossessed and exasperated enemies, it would be more despotic and cruel, =
as
has always been the rule in all revolutions.
While socialists =
and
communists regard the individualistic, capitalistic organization of society=
as
an evil, and the anarchists regard as an evil all government whatever, there
are royalists, conservatives, and capitalists who consider any socialistic =
or
communistic organization or anarchy as an evil, and all these parties have =
no
means other than violence to bring men to agreement. Whichever of these par=
ties
were successful in bringing their schemes to pass, must resort to support i=
ts authority
to all the existing methods of violence, and even invent new ones.
The oppressed wou=
ld
be another set of people, and coercion would take some new form; but the
violence and oppression would be unchanged or even more cruel, since hatred
would be intensified by the struggle, and new forms of oppression would have
been devised. So it has always been after all revolutions and all attempts =
at revolution,
all conspiracies, and all violent changes of government. Every conflict only
strengthens the means of oppression in the hands of those who happen at a g=
iven
moment to be in power.
The position of o=
ur
Christian society, and especially the ideals most current in it, prove this=
in
a strikingly convincing way.
There remains now
only one sphere of human life not encroached upon by government authority--=
that
is the domestic, economic sphere, the sphere of private life and labor. And
even this is now--thanks to the efforts of communists and socialists--being=
gradually
encroached upon by government, so that labor and recreation, dwellings, dre=
ss,
and food will gradually, if the hopes of the reformers are successful, be
prescribed and regulated by government.
The slow progress=
of
eighteen centuries has brought the Christian nations again to the necessity=
of
deciding the question they have evaded--the question of the acceptance or
non-acceptance of Christ's teaching, and the question following upon it in
social life of resistance or non-resistance to evil by force. But there is =
this
difference, that whereas formerly men could accept or refuse to accept the
solution given by Christ, now that solution cannot be avoided, since it alo=
ne
can save men from the slavery in which they are caught like a net.
But it is not only
the misery of the position which makes this inevitable.
While the pagan
organization has been proved more and more false, the truth of the Christian
religion has been growing more and more evident.
Not in vain have =
the
best men of Christian humanity, who apprehended the truth by spiritual
intuition, for eighteen centuries testified to it in spite of every menace,
every privation, and every suffering. By their martyrdom they passed on the
truth to the masses, and impressed it on their hearts.
Christianity has
penetrated into the consciousness of humanity, not only negatively by the
demonstration of the impossibility of continuing in the pagan life, but also
through its simplification, its increased clearness and freedom from the
superstitions intermingled with it, and its diffusion through all classes of
the population.
Eighteen centurie=
s of
Christianity have not passed without an effect even on those who accepted it
only externally. These eighteen centuries have brought men so far that even
while they continue to live the pagan life which is no longer consistent wi=
th the
development of humanity, they not only see clearly all the wretchedness of
their position, but in the depths of their souls they believe (they can only
live through this belief) that the only salvation from this position is to =
be
found in fulfilling the Christian doctrine in its true significance. As to =
the
time and manner of salvation, opinions are divided according to the intelle=
ctual
development and the prejudices of each society. But every man of the modern
world recognizes that our salvation lies in fulfilling the law of Christ. S=
ome
believers in the supernatural character of Christianity hold that salvation
will come when all men are brought to believe in Christ, whose second comin=
g is
at hand. Other believers in supernatural Christianity hold that salvation w=
ill
come through the Church, which will draw all men into its fold, train them =
in
the Christian virtues, and transform their life. A third section, who do not
admit the divinity of Christ, hold that the salvation of mankind will be br=
ought
about by slow and gradual progress, through which the pagan principles of o=
ur
existence will be replaced by the principles of liberty, equality, and
fraternity--that is, by Christian principles. A fourth section, who believe=
in
the social revolution, hold that salvation will come when through a violent=
revolution
men are forced into community of property, abolition of government, and
collective instead of individual industry--that is to say, the realization =
of
one side of the Christian doctrine. In one way or another all men of our da=
y in
their inner consciousness condemn the existing effete pagan order, and admi=
t,
often unconsciously and while regarding themselves as hostile to Christiani=
ty,
that our salvation is only to be found in the application of the Christian
doctrine, or parts of it, in its true significance to our daily life.
Christianity cann=
ot,
as its Founder said, be realized by the majority of men all at once; it must
grow like a huge tree from a tiny seed. And so it has grown, and now has
reached its full development, not yet in actual life, but in the conscience=
of
men of to-day.
Now not only the
minority, who have always comprehended Christianity by spiritual intuition,=
but
all the vast majority who seem so far from it in their social existence
recognize its true significance.
Look at individual
men in their private life, listen to their standards of conduct in their
judgment of one another; hear not only their public utterances, but the cou=
nsels
given by parents and guardians to the young in their charge; and you will s=
ee
that, far as their social life based on violence may be from realizing Chri=
stian
truth, in their private life what is considered good by all without excepti=
on
is nothing but the Christian virtues; what is considered as bad is nothing =
but
the antichristian vices. Those who consecrate their lives self-sacrificingl=
y to
the service of humanity are regarded as the best men. The selfish, who make=
use
of the misfortunes of others for their own advantage, are regarded as the w=
orst
of men.
Though some
non-Christian ideals, such as strength, courage, and wealth, are still
worshiped by a few who have not been penetrated by the Christian spirit, th=
ese
ideals are out of date and are abandoned, if not by all, at least by all th=
ose
regarded as the best people. There are no ideals, other than the Christian
ideals, which are accepted by all and regarded as binding on all.
The position of o=
ur
Christian humanity, if you look at it from the outside with all its cruelty=
and
degradation of men, is terrible indeed. But if one looks at it within, in i=
ts
inner consciousness, the spectacle it presents is absolutely different.
All the evil of o=
ur
life seems to exist only because it has been so for so long; those who do t=
he
evil have not had time yet to learn how to act otherwise, though they do not
want to act as they do.
All the evil seem=
s to
exist through some cause independent of the conscience of men.
Strange and
contradictory as it seems, all men of the present day hate the very social
order they are themselves supporting.
I think it is Max
Müller who describes the amazement of an Indian convert to Christianit=
y,
who after absorbing the essence of the Christian doctrine came to Europe and
saw the actual life of Christians. He could not recover from his astonishme=
nt
at the complete contrast between the reality and what he had expected to fi=
nd
among Christian nations. If we feel no astonishment at the contrast between=
our
convictions and our conduct, that is because the influences, tending to obs=
cure
the contrast, produce an effect upon us too. We need only look at our life =
from
the point of view of that Indian, who understood Christianity in its true s=
ignificance,
without any compromises or concessions, we need but look at the savage
brutalities of which our life is full, to be appalled at the contradictions=
in
the midst of which we live often without observing them.
We need only reca=
ll
the preparations for war, the mitrailleuses, the silver-gilt bullets, the
torpedoes, and--the Red Cross; the solitary prison cells, the experiments of
execution by electricity--and the care of the hygienic welfare of prisoners=
; the
philanthropy of the rich, and their life, which produces the poor they are
benefiting.
And these
inconsistencies are not, as it might seem, because men pretend to be Christ=
ians
while they are really pagans, but because of something lacking in men, or s=
ome
kind of force hindering them from being what they already feel themselves t=
o be
in their consciousness, and what they genuinely wish to be. Men of the present day do not mere=
ly
pretend to hate oppression, inequality, class distinction, and every kind of
cruelty to animals as well as human beings. They genuinely detest all this, bu=
t they
do not know how to put a stop to it, or perhaps cannot decide to give up wh=
at
preserves it all, and seems to them necessary.
Indeed, ask every=
man
separately whether he thinks it laudable and worthy of a man of this age to
hold a position from which he receives a salary disproportionate to his wor=
k;
to take from the people--often in poverty--taxes to be spent on constructin=
g cannon,
torpedoes, and other instruments of butchery, so as to make war on people w=
ith
whom we wish to be at peace, and who feel the same wish in regard to us; or=
to
receive a salary for devoting one's whole life to constructing these
instruments of butchery, or to preparing oneself and others for the work of
murder. And ask him whether i=
t is
laudable and worthy of a man, and suitable for a Christian, to employ himse=
lf,
for a salary, in seizing wretched, misguided, often illiterate and drunken,
creatures because they appropriate the property of others--on a much smaller
scale than we do--or because they kill men in a different fashion from that=
in
which we undertake to do it--and shutting them in prison for it, ill treati=
ng
them and killing them; and whether it is laudable and worthy of a man and a
Christian to preach for a salary to the people not Christianity, but
superstitions which one knows to be stupid and pernicious; and whether it is
laudable and worthy of a man to rob his neighbor for his gratification of w=
hat
he wants to satisfy his simplest needs, as the great landowners do; or to f=
orce
him to exhausting labor beyond his strength to augment one's wealth, as do
factory owners and manufacturers; or to profit by the poverty of men to
increase one's gains, as merchants do.&nbs=
p;
And everyone taken separately, especially if one's remarks are direc=
ted
at someone else, not himself, will answer, No! And yet the very man who sees all =
the
baseness of those actions, of his own free will, uncoerced by anyone, often
even for no pecuniary profit, but only from childish vanity, for a china cr=
oss,
a scrap of ribbon, a bit of fringe he is allowed to wear, will enter milita=
ry
service, become a magistrate or justice of the peace, commissioner, archbis=
hop,
or beadle, though in fulfilling these offices he must commit acts the basen=
ess
and shamefulness of which he cannot fail to recognize.
I know that many =
of these
men will confidently try to prove that they have reasons for regarding their
position as legitimate and quite indispensable. They will say in their defense tha=
t authority
is given by God, that the functions of the state are indispensable for the =
welfare
of humanity, that property is not opposed to Christianity, that the rich yo=
ung
man was only commanded to sell all he had and give to the poor if he wished=
to be
perfect, that the existing distribution of property and our commercial syst=
em
must always remain as they are, and are to the advantage of all, and so
on. But, however much they tr=
y to deceive
themselves and others, they all know that what they are doing is opposed to=
all
the beliefs which they profess, and in the depths of their souls, when they=
are
left alone with their conscience, they are ashamed and miserable at the
recollection of it, especially if the baseness of their action has been poi=
nted
out to them. A man of the pre=
sent
day, whether he believes in the divinity of Christ or not, cannot fail to s=
ee
that to assist in the capacity of tzar, minister, governor, or commissioner=
in taking
from a poor family its last cow for taxes to be spent on cannons, or on the=
pay
and pensions of idle officials, who live in luxury and are worse than usele=
ss;
or in putting into prison some man we have ourselves corrupted, and throwing
his family on the streets; or in plundering and butchering in war; or in
inculcating savage and idolatrous superstitious in the place of the law of =
Christ;
or in impounding the cow found on one's land, though it belongs to a man who
has no land; or to cheat the workman in a factory, by imposing fines for
accidentally spoiled articles; or making a poor man pay double the value for
anything simply because he is in the direst poverty;--not a man of the pres=
ent
day can fail to know that all these actions are base and disgraceful, and t=
hat
they need not do them. They a=
ll
know it. They know that what =
they
are doing is wrong, and would not do it for anything in the world if they h=
ad
the power of resisting the forces which shut their eyes to the criminality =
of
their actions and impel them to commit them.
In nothing is the
pitch of inconsistency modern life has attained to so evident as in univers=
al
conscription, which is the last resource and the final expression of violen=
ce.
Indeed, it is only
because this state of universal armament has been brought about gradually a=
nd
imperceptibly, and because governments have exerted, in maintaining it, eve=
ry
resource of intimidation, corruption, brutalization, and violence, that we =
do not
see its flagrant inconsistency with the Christian ideas and sentiments by w=
hich
the modern world is permeated.
We are so accusto=
med
to the inconsistency that we do not see all the hideous folly and immoralit=
y of
men voluntarily choosing the profession of butchery as though it were an
honorable career, of poor wretches submitting to conscription, or in countr=
ies
where compulsory service has not been introduced, of people voluntarily aba=
ndoning
a life of industry to recruit soldiers and train them as murderers. We know that all of these men are =
either
Christians, or profess humane and liberal principles, and they know that th=
ey
thus become partly responsible--through universal conscription, personally
responsible--for the most insane, aimless, and brutal murders. And yet they all do it.
More than that, in
Germany, where compulsory service first originated, Caprivi has given
expression to what had been hitherto so assiduously concealed--that is, that
the men that the soldiers will have to kill are not foreigners alone, but t=
heir
own countrymen, the very working people from whom they themselves are taken=
. And this admission has not opened
people's eyes, has not horrified them! They still go like sheep to the slau=
ghter,
and submit to everything required of them.
And that is not a=
ll:
the Emperor of Germany has lately shown still more clearly the duties of the
army, by thanking and rewarding a soldier for killing a defenseless citizen=
who
made his approach incautiously. By
rewarding an action always regarded as base and cowardly even by men on the
lowest level of morality, William has shown that a soldier's chief duty--the
one most appreciated by the authorities--is that of executioner; and not a
professional executioner who kills only condemned criminals, but one ready =
to butcher
any innocent man at the word of command.
And even that is =
not
all. In 1892, the same William, the ENFANT TERRIBLE of state authority, who
says plainly what other people only think, in addressing some soldiers gave
public utterance to the following speech, which was reported next day in
thousands of newspapers: "Conscripts!" he said, "you have sw=
orn
fidelity to ME before the altar and the minister of God! You are still too young to underst=
and
all the importance of what has been said here; let your care before all thi=
ngs
be to obey the orders and instructions given you. You have sworn fidelity TO ME, lad=
s of
my guard; THAT MEANS THAT YOU ARE NOW MY SOLDIERS, that YOU HAVE GIVEN
YOURSELVES TO ME BODY AND SOUL. For
you there is now but one enemy, MY enemy.&=
nbsp;
IN THESE DAYS OF SOCIALISTIC SEDITION IT MAY COME TO PASS THAT I COM=
MAND
YOU TO FIRE ON YOUR OWN KINDRED, YOUR BROTHERS, EVEN YOUR OWN FATHERS AND
MOTHERS--WHICH GOD FORBID!--even then you are bound to obey my orders witho=
ut
hesitation."
This man expresses
what all sensible rulers think, but studiously conceal. He says openly that the soldiers a=
re in
HIS service, at HIS disposal, and must be ready for HIS advantage to murder
even their brothers and fathers.
In the most brutal
words he frankly exposes all the horrors and criminality for which men prep=
are
themselves in entering the army, and the depths of ignominy to which they f=
all
in promising obedience. Like =
a bold
hypnotizer, he tests the degree of insensibility of the hypnotized
subject. He touches his skin =
with a
red-hot iron; the skin smokes and scorches, but the sleeper does not awake.=
This miserable ma=
n,
imbecile and drunk with power, outrages in this utterance everything that c=
an be
sacred for a man of the modern world.
And yet all the Christians, liberals, and cultivated people, far from
resenting this outrage, did not even observe it.
The last, the most
extreme test is put before men in its coarsest form. And they do not seem even to notic=
e that
it is a test, that there is any choice about it. They seem to think there is no cou=
rse
open but slavish submission. =
One
would have thought these insane words, which outrage everything a man of the
present day holds sacred, must rouse indignation. But there has been nothing of the =
kind.
All the young men
through the whole of Europe are exposed year after year to this test, and w=
ith
very few exceptions they renounce all that a man can hold sacred, all expre=
ss
their readiness to kill their brothers, even their fathers, at the bidding =
of
the first crazy creature dressed up in a livery with red and gold trimming,=
and
only wait to be told where and when they are to kill. And they actually are ready.
Every savage has
something he holds sacred, something for which he is ready to suffer, somet=
hing
he will not consent to do. Bu=
t what
is it that is sacred to the civilized man of to-day? They say to him: "You must become my slave, an=
d this
slavery may force you to kill even your own father;" and he, often very
well educated, trained in all the sciences at the university, quietly puts =
his head
under the yoke. They dress hi=
m up
in a clown's costume, and order him to cut capers, turn and twist and bow, =
and
kill--he does it all submissively.
And when they let him go, he seems to shake himself and go back to h=
is
former life, and he continues to discourse upon the dignity of man, liberty,
equality, and fraternity as before.
"Yes, but wh=
at
is one to do?" people often ask in genuine perplexity. "If everyone would stand out =
it
would be something, but by myself, I shall only suffer without doing any go=
od
to anyone."
And that is true.=
A
man with the social conception of life cannot resist. The aim of his life is
his personal welfare. It is better for his personal welfare for him to subm=
it,
and he submits.
Whatever they do =
to
him, however they torture or humiliate him, he will submit, for, alone, he =
can
do nothing; he has no principle for the sake of which he could resist viole=
nce
alone. And those who control =
them
never allow them to unite together.
It is often said that the invention of terrible weapons of destructi=
on
will put an end to war. That =
is an
error. As the means of exterm=
ination
are improved, the means of reducing men who hold the state conception of li=
fe
to submission can be improved to correspond. They may slaughter them by thousan=
ds, by
millions, they may tear them to pieces, still they will march to war like s=
enseless
cattle. Some will want beatin=
g to
make them move, others will be proud to go if they are allowed to wear a sc=
rap
of ribbon or gold lace.
And of this mass =
of
men so brutalized as to be ready to promise to kill their own parents, the
social reformers--conservatives, liberals, socialists, and anarchists--prop=
ose
to form a rational and moral society.
What sort of moral and rational society can be formed out of such
elements? With warped and rot=
ten
planks you cannot build a house, however you put them together. And to form a rational moral socie=
ty of
such men is just as impossible a task. They can be formed into nothing but a
herd of cattle, driven by the shouts and whips of the herdsmen. As indeed t=
hey
are.
So, then, we have=
on
one side men calling themselves Christians, and professing the principles of
liberty, equality, and fraternity, and along with that ready, in the name of
liberty, to submit to the most slavish degradation; in the name of equality=
, to
accept the crudest, most senseless division of men by externals merely into
higher and lower classes, allies and enemies; and, in the name of fraternit=
y,
ready to murder their brothers [see footnote].
[Footnote: The fact th=
at
among certain nations, as the English and t=
he
American, military service is not compulsory (though
already one hears there are some who advocate that it should b=
e made
so) does not affect the servil=
ity of
the citizens to the government in principle. Here we have each to go and kill o=
r be killed, there the=
y have
each to give the fruit of their toil to pay for t=
he
recruiting and training of soldiers.]
The contradiction
between life and conscience and the misery resulting from it have reached t=
he
extreme limit and can go no further.
The state organization of life based on violence, the aim of which w=
as
the security of personal, family, and social welfare, has come to the point=
of
renouncing the very objects for which it was founded--it has reduced men to
absolute renunciation and loss of the welfare it was to secure.
The first half of=
the
prophecy has been fulfilled in the generation of men who have not accepted
Christ's teaching, Their descendants have been brought now to the absolute
necessity of patting the truth of the second half to the test of experience=
.
The External Life=
of
Christian Peoples Remains Pagan Though they are Penetrated by Christian
Consciousness--The Way Out of this Contradiction is by the Acceptance of the
Christian Theory of Life--Only Through Christianity is Every Man Free, and
Emancipated of All Human Authority--This Emancipation can be Effected by no
Change in External Conditions of Life, but Only by a Change in the Concepti=
on
of Life--The Christian Ideal of Life Requires Renunciation of all Violence,=
and
in Emancipating the Man who Accepts it, Emancipates the Whole World from All
External Authorities--The Way Out of the Present Apparently Hopeless Positi=
on
is for Every Man who is Capable of Assimilating the Christian Conception of
Life, to Accept it and Live in Accordance with it--But Men Consider this Way
too Slow, and Look for Deliverance Through Changes in Material Conditions of
Life Aided by Government--That Will Lead to No Improvement, as it is simply
Increasing the Evil under which Men are Suffering--A Striking Instance of t=
his
is the Submission to Compulsory Military Service, which it would be More
Advantageous for Every Man to Refuse than to Submit to--The Emancipation of=
Men
Can Only be Brought About by each Individual Emancipating Himself, and the
Examples of this Self-emancipation which are already Appearing Threaten the
Destruction of Governmental Authority--Refusal to Comply with the Unchristi=
an Demands
of Government Undermines the Authority of the State and Emancipates Men--And
therefore Cases of such Non-compliance are Regarded with more Dread by State
Authorities than any Conspiracies or Acts of Violence--Examples of
Non-compliance in Russia, in Regard to Oath of Allegiance, Payment of Taxes,
Passports, Police Duties, and Military Service--Examples of such Non-compli=
ance
in other States--Governments do not Know how to Treat Men who Refuse to Com=
ply
with their Demands on Christian Grounds--Such People, without Striking a Bl=
ow,
Undermine the very Basis of Government from Within--To Punish them is
Equivalent to Openly Renouncing Christianity, and Assisting in Diffusing the
Very Principle by which these Men justify their Non-compliance--So Governme=
nts
are in a Helpless Position--Men who Maintain the Uselessness of Personal
Independence, only Retard the Dissolution of the Present State Organization
Based on Force.
The position of the Christian peopl=
es in
our days has remained just as cruel as it was in the times of paganism. In many respects, especially in the
oppression of the masses, it has become even more cruel than it was in the =
days
of paganism.
But between the
condition of men in ancient times and their condition in our days there is =
just
the difference that we see in the world of vegetation between the last days=
of
autumn and the first days of spring.
In the autumn the external lifelessness in nature corresponds with i=
ts
inward condition of death, while in the spring the external lifelessness is=
in
sharp contrast with the internal state of reviving and passing into new for=
ms
of life.
In the same way t=
he
similarity between the ancient heathen life and the life of to-day is merely
external: the inward condition of men in the times of heathenism was absolu=
tely
different from their inward condition at the present time.
Then the outward
condition of cruelty and of slavery was in complete harmony with the inner
conscience of men, and every step in advance intensified this harmony; now =
the
outward condition of cruelty and of slavery is completely contradictory to =
the Christian
consciousness of men, and every step in advance only intensifies this
contradiction.
Humanity is passi=
ng
through seemingly unnecessary, fruitless agonies. It is passing through something li=
ke the
throes of birth. Everything is ready for the new life, but still the new li=
fe
does not come.
There seems no way
out of the position. And there
would be none, except that a man (and thereby all men) is gifted with the p=
ower
of forming a different, higher theory of life, which at once frees him from=
all
the bonds by which he seems indissolubly fettered.
And such a theory=
is
the Christian view of life made known to mankind eighteen hundred years ago=
.
A man need only m=
ake
this theory of life his own, for the fetters which seemed so indissolubly
forged upon him to drop off of themselves, and for him to feel himself
absolutely free, just as a bird would feel itself free in a fenced-in place
directly it tools to its wings.
People talk about=
the
liberty of the Christian Church, about giving or not giving freedom to
Christians. Underlying all th=
ese ideas
and expressions there is some strange misconception. Freedom cannot be best=
owed
on or taken from a Christian or Christians. Freedom is an inalienable possessi=
on of
the Christian.
If we talk of
bestowing freedom on Christians or withholding it from them, we are obvious=
ly
talking not of real Christians but of people who only call themselves
Christians. A Christian canno=
t fail
to be free, because the attainment of the aim he sets before himself cannot=
be
prevented or even hindered by anyone or anything.
Let a man only
understand his life as Christianity teaches him to understand it, let him
understand, that is, that his life belongs not to him--not to his own
individuality, nor to his family, nor to the state--but to him who has sent=
him
into the world, and let him once understand that he must therefore fulfill =
not
the law of his own individuality, nor his family, nor of the state, but the=
infinite
law of him from whom he has come; and he will not only feel himself absolut=
ely
free from every human power, but will even cease to regard such power as at=
all
able to hamper anyone.
Let a man but rea=
lize
that the aim of his life is the fulfillment of God's law, and that law will
replace all other laws for him, and he will give it his sole allegiance, so
that by that very allegiance every human law will lose all binding and
controlling power in his eyes.
The Christian is
independent of every human authority by the fact that he regards the divine=
law
of love, implanted in the soul of every man, and brought before his
consciousness by Christ, as the sole guide of his life and other men's also=
.
The Christian may=
be
subjected to external violence, he may be deprived of bodily freedom, he ma=
y be
in bondage to his passions (he who commits sin is the slave of sin), but he
cannot be in bondage in the sense of being forced by any danger or by any t=
hreat
of external harm to perform an act which is against his conscience.
He cannot be
compelled to do this, because the deprivations and sufferings which form su=
ch a
powerful weapon against men of the state conception of life, have not the l=
east
power to compel him.
Deprivations and
sufferings take from them the happiness for which they live; but far from
disturbing the happiness of the Christian, which consists in the consciousn=
ess
of fulfilling the will of God, they may even intensify it, when they are
inflicted on him for fulfilling his will.
And therefore the
Christian, who is subject only to the inner divine law, not only cannot car=
ry
out the enactments of the external law, when they are not in agreement with=
the
divine law of love which he acknowledges (as is usually the case with state=
obligations),
he cannot even recognize the duty of obedience to anyone or anything whatev=
er,
he cannot recognize the duty of what is called allegiance.
For a Christian t=
he
oath of allegiance to any government whatever --the very act which is regar=
ded
as the foundation of the existence of a state--is a direct renunciation of
Christianity. For the man who promises unconditional obedience in the futur=
e to
laws, made or to be made, by that very promise is in the most, positive man=
ner
renouncing Christianity, which means obeying in every circumstance of life =
only
the divine law of love he recognizes within him.
Under the pagan
conception of life it was possible to carry out the will of the temporal
authorities, without infringing the law of God expressed in circumcisions,
Sabbaths, fixed times of prayer, abstention from certain kinds of food, and=
so
on. The one law was not oppos=
ed to
the other. But that is just t=
he distinction
between the Christian religion and heathen religion. Christianity does not
require of a man certain definite negative acts, but puts him in a new,
different relation to men, from which may result the most diverse acts, whi=
ch
cannot be defined beforehand. And
therefore the Christian not only cannot promise to obey the will of any oth=
er
man, without knowing what will be required by that will; he not only cannot
obey the changing laws of man, but he cannot even promise to do anything
definite at a certain time, or to abstain from doing anything for a certain=
time. For he cannot know what at any tim=
e will
be required of him by that Christian law of love, obedience to which consti=
tutes
the meaning of life for him. =
The
Christian, in promising unconditional fulfillment of the laws of men in the
future, would show plainly by that promise that the inner law of God does n=
ot constitute
for him the sole law of his life.
For a Christian to
promise obedience to men, or the laws of men, is just as though a workman b=
ound
to one employer should also promise to carry out every order that might be
given him by outsiders. One c=
annot
serve two masters.
The Christian is
independent of human authority, because he acknowledges God's authority
alone. His law, revealed by C=
hrist,
he recognizes in himself, and voluntarily obeys it.
And this independ=
ence
is gained, not by means of strife, not by the destruction of existing forms=
of
life, but only by a change in the interpretation of life. This independence results first fr=
om the
Christian recognizing the law of love, revealed to him by his teacher, as
perfectly sufficient for all human relations, and therefore he regards every
use of force as unnecessary and unlawful; and secondly, from the fact that
those deprivations and sufferings, or threats of deprivations and sufferings
(which reduce the man of the social conception of life to the necessity of
obeying) to the Christian from his different conception of life, present
themselves merely as the inevitable conditions of existence. And these conditions, without stri=
ving
against them by force, he patiently endures, like sickness, hunger, and eve=
ry other
hardship, but they cannot serve him as a guide for his actions. The only guide for the Christian's
actions is to be found in the divine principle living within him, which can=
not
be checked or governed by anything.
The Christian acts
according to the words of the prophecy applied to his teacher: "He sha=
ll
not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break,=
and
smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto
victory." (Matt. xii. 19, 20.)
The Christian will
not dispute with anyone, nor attack anyone, nor use violence against anyone=
. On
the contrary, he will bear violence without opposing it. But by this very attitude to viole=
nce,
he will not only himself be free, but will free the whole world from all
external power.
"Ye shall kn=
ow
the truth, and the truth shall make you free." If there were any doubt of Christi=
anity
being the truth, the perfect liberty, that nothing can curtail, which a man
experiences directly he makes the Christian theory of life his own, would b=
e an
unmistakable proof of its truth.
Men in their pres=
ent
condition are like a swarm of bees hanging in a cluster to a branch. The position of the bees on the br=
anch
is temporary, and must inevitably be changed. They must start off and find thems=
elves
a habitation. Each of the bees
knows this, and desires to change her own and the others' position, but no =
one of
them can do it till the rest of them do it. They cannot all start off at once,
because one hangs on to another and hinders her from separating from the sw=
arm,
and therefore they all continue to hang there. It would seem that the bees could =
never
escape from their position, just as it seems that worldly men, caught in th=
e toils
of the state conception of life, can never escape. And there would be no escape for t=
he
bees, if each of them were not a living, separate creature, endowed with wi=
ngs
of its own. Similarly there would be no escape for men, if each were not a =
living
being endowed with the faculty of entering into the Christian conception of
life.
If every bee who
could fly, did not try to fly, the others, too, would never be stirred, and=
the
swarm would never change its position.&nbs=
p;
And if the man who has mastered the Christian conception of life wou=
ld
not, without waiting for other people, begin to live in accordance with this
conception, mankind would never change its position. But only let one bee spread her wi=
ngs, start
off, and fly away, and after her another, and another, and the clinging, in=
ert
cluster would become a freely flying swarm of bees. Just in the same way, only let one =
man
look at life as Christianity teaches him to look at it, and after him let
another and another do the same, and the enchanted circle of existence in t=
he
state conception of life, from which there seemed no escape, will be broken
through.
But men think tha=
t to
set all men free by this means is too slow a process, that they must find s=
ome
other means by which they could set all men free at once. It is just as though the bees who =
want
to start and fly away should consider it too long a process to wait for all=
the
swarm to start one by one; and should think they ought to find some means by
which it would not be necessary for every separate bee to spread her wings =
and
fly off, but by which the whole swarm could fly at once where it wanted to.=
But
that is not possible; till a first, a second, a third, a hundredth bee spre=
ads
her wings and flies off of her own accord, the swarm will not fly off and w=
ill
not begin its new life. Till =
every
individual man makes the Christian conception of life his own, and begins to
live in accord with it, there can be no solution of the problem of human li=
fe,
and no establishment of a new form of life.
One of the most
striking phenomena of our times is precisely this advocacy of slavery, whic=
h is
promulgated among the masses, not by governments, in whom it is inevitable,=
but
by men who, in advocating socialistic theories, regard themselves as the ch=
ampions
of freedom.
These people adva=
nce
the opinion that the amelioration of life, the bringing of the facts of life
into harmony with the conscience, will come, not as the result of the perso=
nal
efforts of individual men, but of itself as the result of a certain possible
reconstruction of society effected in some way or other. The idea is promul=
gated
that men ought not to walk on their own legs where they want and ought to g=
o,
but that a kind of floor under their feet will be moved somehow, so that on=
it
they can reach where they ought to go without moving their own legs. And, therefore, all their efforts =
ought
to be directed, not to going so far as their strength allows in the directi=
on
they ought to go, but to standing still and constructing such a floor.
In the sphere of
political economy a theory is propounded which amounts to saying that the w=
orse
things are the better they are; that the greater the accumulation of capita=
l,
and therefore the oppression of the workman, the nearer the day of
emancipation, and, therefore, every personal effort on the part of a man to
free himself from the oppression of capital is useless. In the sphere of government it is
maintained that the greater the power of the government, which, according to
this theory, ought to intervene in every department of private life in whic=
h it
has not yet intervened, the better it will be, and that therefore we ought =
to invoke
the interference of government in private life. In politics and international ques=
tions
it is maintained that the improvement of the means of destruction, the
multiplication of armaments, will lead to the necessity of making war by me=
ans
of congresses, arbitration, and so on.&nbs=
p;
And, marvelous to say, so great is the dullness of men, that they
believe in these theories, in spite of the fact that the whole course of li=
fe,
every step they take, shows how unworthy they are of belief.
The people are
suffering from oppression, and to deliver them from this oppression they are
advised to frame general measures for the improvement of their position, wh=
ich
measures are to be intrusted to the authorities, and themselves to continue=
to
yield obedience to the authorities.
And obviously all that results from this is only greater power in the
hands of the authorities, and greater oppression resulting from it.
Not one of the er=
rors
of men carries them so far away from the aim toward which they are struggli=
ng
as this very one. They do all=
kinds
of different things for the attainment of their aim, but not the one simple
obvious thing which is within reach of everyone. They devise the subtlest m=
eans
for changing the position which is irksome to them, but not that simplest
means, that everyone should refrain from doing what leads to that position.=
I have been told a
story of a gallant police officer, who came to a village where the peasants
were in insurrection and the military had been called out, and he undertook=
to
pacify the insurrection in the spirit of Nicholas I., by his personal influ=
ence
alone. He ordered some loads =
of
rods to be brought, and collecting all the peasants together into a barn, he
went in with them, locking the door after him. To begin with, he so terrified the
peasants by his loud threats that, reduced to submission by him, they set t=
o work
to flog one another at his command.
And so they flogged one another until a simpleton was found who would
not allow himself to be flogged, and shouted to his companions not to flog =
one
another. Only then the fogging ceased, and the police officer made his esca=
pe. Well, this simpleton's advice would
never be followed by men of the state conception of life, who continue to f=
log
one another, and teach people that this very act of self-castigation is the
last word of human wisdom.
Indeed, can one
imagine a more striking instance of men flogging themselves than the
submissiveness with which men of our times will perform the very duties
required of them to keep them in slavery, especially the duty of military
service? We see people enslav=
ing
themselves, suffering from this slavery, and believing that it must be so, =
that
it does not matter, and will not hinder the emancipation of men, which is b=
eing
prepared somewhere, somehow, in spite of the ever-increasing growth of slav=
ery.
In fact, take any=
man
of the present time whatever (I don't mean a true Christian, but an average=
man
of the present day), educated or uneducated, believing or unbelieving, rich=
or
poor, married or unmarried. S=
uch a
man lives working at his work, or enjoying his amusements, spending the fru=
its
of his labors on himself or on those near to him, and, like everyone, hating
every kind of restriction and deprivation, dissension and suffering. Such a man is going his way peacea=
bly,
when suddenly people come and say to him: First, promise and swear to us th=
at
you will slavishly obey us in everything we dictate to you, and will consid=
er
absolutely good and authoritative everything we plan, decide, and call law.=
Secondly,
hand over a part of the fruits of your labors for us to dispose of--we will=
use
the money to keep you in slavery, and to hinder you from forcibly opposing =
our
orders. Thirdly, elect others=
, or
be yourself elected, to take a pretended share in the government, knowing a=
ll
the while that the government will proceed quite without regard to the fool=
ish
speeches you, and those like you, may utter, and knowing that its proceedin=
gs
will be according to our will, the will of those who have the army in their
hands. Fourthly, come at a certain time to the law courts and take your sha=
re
in those senseless cruelties which we perpetrate on sinners, and those whom=
we
have corrupted, in the shape of penal servitude, exile, solitary confinemen=
t,
and death. And fifthly and la=
stly, more
than all this, in spite of the fact that you maybe on the friendliest terms
with people of other nations, be ready, directly we order you to do so, to
regard those whom we indicate to you as your enemies; and be ready to assis=
t,
either in person or by proxy, in devastation, plunder, and murder of their =
men,
women, children, and aged alike--possibly your own kinsmen or relations--if=
that
is necessary to us.
One would expect =
that
every man of the present day who has a grain of sense left, might reply to =
such
requirements, "But why should I do all this?" One would think every right-minded=
man
must say in amazement: "Why should I promise to yield obedience to
everything that has been decreed first by Salisbury, then by Gladstone; one=
day
by Boulanger, and another by Parliament; one day by Peter III., the next by
Catherine, and the day after by Pougachef; one day by a mad king of Bavaria,
another by William? Why shoul=
d I promise
to obey them, knowing them to be wicked or foolish people, or else not know=
ing
them at all? Why am I to hand=
over
the fruits of my labors to them in the shape of taxes, knowing that the mon=
ey will
be spent on the support of officials, prisons, churches, armies, on things =
that
are harmful, and on my own enslavement? Why should I punish myself? Why should I go wasting my time an=
d hoodwinking
myself, giving to miscreant evildoers a semblance of legality, by taking pa=
rt
in elections, and pretending that I am taking part in the government, when I
know very well that the real control of the government is in the hands of t=
hose
who have got hold of the army? Why
should I go to the law courts to take part in the trial and punishment of m=
en
because they have sinned, knowing, if I am a Christian, that the law of
vengeance is replaced by the law of love, and, if I am an educated man, that
punishments do not reform, but only deprave those on whom they are inflicte=
d? And
why, most of all, am I to consider as enemies the people of a neighboring
nation, with whom I have hitherto lived and with whom I wish to live in love
and harmony, and to kill and rob them, or to bring them to misery, simply in
order that the keys of the temple at Jerusalem may be in the hands of one
archbishop and not another, that one German and not another may be prince i=
n Bulgaria,
or that the English rather than the American merchants may capture seals?
And why, most of =
all,
should I take part in person or hire others to murder my own brothers and
kinsmen? Why should I flog my=
self? It
is altogether unnecessary for me; it is hurtful to me, and from every point=
of
view it is immoral, base, and vile.
So why should I do this? If
you tell me that if I do it not I shall receive some injury from someone, t=
hen,
in the first place, I cannot anticipate from anyone an injury so great as t=
he
injury you bring on me if I obey you; and secondly, it is perfectly clear t=
o me
that if we our own selves do not flog ourselves, no one will flog us.
As for the
government--that means the tzars, ministers, and officials with pens in the=
ir
hands, who cannot force us into doing anything, as that officer of police
compelled the peasants; the men who will drag us to the law court, to priso=
n,
and to execution, are not tzars or officials with pens in their hands, but =
the
very people who are in the same position as we are. And it is just as unprofitable and
harmful and unpleasant to them to be flogged as to me, and therefore there =
is
every likelihood that if I open their eyes they not only would not treat me
with violence, but would do just as I am doing.
Thirdly, even if =
it
should come to pass that I had to suffer for it, even then it would be bett=
er
for me to be exiled or sent to prison for standing up for common sense and
right--which, if not to-day, at least within a very short time, must be
triumphant--than to suffer for folly and wrong which must come to an end
directly. And therefore, even in that case, it is better to run the risk of
their banishing me, shutting me up in prison, or executing me, than of my
living all my life in bondage, through my own fault, to wicked men. Better =
is
this than the possibility of being destroyed by victorious enemies, and bei=
ng
stupidly tortured and killed by them, in fighting for a cannon, or a piece =
of land
of no use to anyone, or for a senseless rag called a banner.
I don't want to f=
log
myself and I won't do it. I have no reason to do it. Do it yourselves, if y=
ou
want it done; but I won't do it.
One would have
thought that not religious or moral feeling alone, but the simplest common
sense and foresight should impel every man of the present day to answer and=
to
act in that way. But not so. =
Men of
the state conception of life are of the opinion that to act in that way is =
not
necessary, and is even prejudicial to the attainment of their object, the
emancipation of men from slavery. They hold that we must continue, like the
police officer's peasants, to flog one another, consoling ourselves with th=
e reflection
that we are talking away in the assemblies and meetings, founding trades
unions, marching through the streets on the 1st of May, getting up
conspiracies, and stealthily teasing the government that is flogging us, and
that through all this it will be brought to pass that, by enslaving ourselv=
es in
closer and closer bondage, we shall very soon be free.
Nothing hinders t=
he
emancipation of men from slavery so much as this amazing error. Instead of every man directing his
energies to freeing himself, to transforming his conception of life, people=
seek
for an external united method of gaining freedom, and continue to rivet the=
ir
chains faster and faster.
It is much as if =
men
were to maintain that to make up a fire there was no need to kindle any of =
the
coals, but that all that was necessary was to arrange the coals in a certain
order. Yet the fact that the
freedom of all men will be brought about only through the freedom of indivi=
dual
persons, becomes more and more clear as time goes on. The freedom of individual men, in =
the
name of the Christian conception of life, from state domination, which was
formerly an exceptional and unnoticed phenomenon, has of late acquired
threatening significance for state authorities.
If in a former ag=
e,
in the Roman times, it happened that a Christian confessed his religion and
refused to take part in sacrifices, and to worship the emperors or the gods=
; or
in the Middle Ages a Christian refused to worship images, or to acknowledge=
the
authority of the Pope--these cases were in the first place a matter of
chance. A man might be placed=
under
the necessity of confessing his faith, or he might live all his life without
being placed under this necessity.
But now all men, without exception, are subjected to this trial of t=
heir
faith. Every man of the present day is under the necessity of taking part in
the cruelties of pagan life, or of refusing all participation in them. And secondly, in those days cases =
of
refusal to worship the gods or the images or the Pope were not incidents th=
at
had any material bearing on the state.&nbs=
p;
Whether men worshiped or did not worship the gods or the images or t=
he
Pope, the state remained just as powerful.=
But now cases of refusing to comply with the unchristian demands of =
the
government are striking at the very root of state authority, because the wh=
ole
authority of the state is based on the compliance with these unchristian
demands.
The sovereign pow=
ers
of the world have in the course of time been brought into a position in whi=
ch,
for their own preservation, they must require from all men actions which ca=
nnot
be performed by men who profess true Christianity.
And therefore in =
our
days every profession of true Christianity, by any individual man, strikes =
at
the most essential power of the state, and inevitably leads the way for the
emancipation of all.
What importance, =
one
might think, can one attach to such an incident as some dozens of crazy
fellows, as people will call them, refusing to take the oath of allegiance =
to
the government, refusing to pay taxes, to take part in law proceedings or i=
n military
service?
These people are
punished and exiled to a distance, and life goes on in its old way. One might think there was no impor=
tance
in such incidents; but yet, it is just those incidents, more than anything
else, that will undermine the power of the state and prepare the way for the
freedom of men. These are the
individual bees, who are beginning to separate from the swarm, and are flyi=
ng near
it, waiting till the whole swarm can no longer be prevented from starting o=
ff
after them. And the governmen=
ts
know this, and fear such incidents more than all the socialists, communists,
and anarchists, and their plots and dynamite bombs.
A new reign is
beginning. According to the
universal rule and established order it is required that all the subjects
should take the oath of allegiance to the new government. There is a general decree to that
effect, and all are summoned to the council-houses to take the oath. All at once one man in Perm, anoth=
er in
Tula, a third in Moscow, and a fourth in Kalouga declare that they will not
take the oath, and though there is no communication between them, they all
explain their refusal on the same grounds--namely, that swearing is forbidd=
en
by the law of Christ, and that even if swearing had not been forbidden, they
could not, in the spirit of the law of Christ, promise to perform the evil
actions required of them in the oath, such as informing against all such as=
may
act against the interests of the government, or defending their government =
with
firearms or attacking its enemies. They are brought before rural police
officers, district police captains, priests, and governors. They are
admonished, questioned, threatened, and punished; but they adhere to their
resolution, and do not take the oath.
And among the millions of those who did take the oath, those dozens =
go
on living who did not take the oath.
And they are questioned:
"What, didn't
you take the oath?"
"No, I didn't
take the oath."
"And what
happened--nothing?"
"Nothing.&qu=
ot;
The subjects of a
state are all bound to pay taxes.
And everyone pays taxes, till suddenly one man in Kharkov, another in
Tver, and a third in Samara refuse to pay taxes--all, as though in collusio=
n,
saying the same thing. One sa=
ys he
will only pay when they tell him what object the money taken from him will =
be
spent on. "If it is for =
good
deeds," he says, "he will give it of his own accord, and more even
than is required of him. If for evil deeds, then he will give nothing
voluntarily, because by the law of Christ, whose follower he is, he cannot =
take
part in evil deeds." The
others, too, say the same in other words, and will not voluntarily pay the
taxes.
Those who have
anything to be taken have their property taken from them by force; as for t=
hose
who have nothing, they are left alone.
"What, didn't
you pay the tax?"
"No, I didn't
pay it."
"And what
happened-nothing?"
"Nothing.&qu=
ot;
There is the
institution of passports. Eve=
ryone
moving from his place of residence is bound to carry one, and to pay a duty=
on
it. Suddenly people are to be found in various places declaring that to car=
ry a
passport is not necessary, that one ought not to recognize one's dependence=
on
a state which exists by means of force; and these people do not carry
passports, or pay the duty on them.
And again, it's impossible to force those people by any means to do =
what
is required. They send them to
jail, and let them out again, and these people live without passports.
All peasants are
bound to fill certain police offices--that of village constable, and of wat=
chman,
and so on. Suddenly in Kharko=
v a
peasant refuses to perform this duty, justifying his refusal on the ground =
that
by the law of Christ, of which he is a follower, he cannot put any man in
fetters, lock him up, or drag him from place to place. The same declaration is made by a =
peasant
in Tver, another in Tambov. T=
hese
peasants are abused, beaten, shut up in prison, but they stick to their
resolution and don't fill these offices against their convictions. And at last they cease to appoint =
them
as constables. And again noth=
ing happens.
All citizens are
obliged to take a share in law proceedings in the character of jurymen.
Suddenly the most different people--mechanics, professors, tradesmen, peasa=
nts,
servants, as though by agreement refuse to fill this office, and not on the
grounds allowed as sufficient by law, but because any process at law is,
according to their views, unchristian. They fine these people, trying not to
let them have an opportunity of explaining their motives in public, and rep=
lace
them by others. And again nothing can be done.
All young men of
twenty-one years of age are obliged to draw lots for service in the army. A=
ll
at once one young man in Moscow, another in Tver, a third in Kharkov, and a
fourth in Kiev present themselves before the authorities, and, as though by
previous agreement, declare that they will not take the oath, they will not=
serve
because they are Christians. =
I will
give the details of one of the first cases, since they have become more
frequent, which I happen to know about [footnote: All the details of this c=
ase,
as well as those preceding it, are authentic]. The same treatment has been repeat=
ed in
every other case. A young man=
of
fair education refuses in the Moscow Townhall to take the oath. No attention is paid to what he sa=
ys,
and it is requested that he should pronounce the words of the oath like the
rest. He declines, quoting a
particular passage of the Gospel in which swearing is forbidden. No attention is paid to his argume=
nts,
and he is again requested to comply with the order, but he does not comply =
with
it. Then it is supposed that =
he is
a sectary and therefore does not understand Christianity in the right sense=
, that
is to say, not in the sense in which the priests in the pay of the governme=
nt
understand it. And the young =
man is
conducted under escort to the priests, that they may bring him to reason. T=
he
priests begin to reason with him, but their efforts in Christ's name to
persuade him to renounce Christ obviously have no influence on him; he is
pronounced incorrigible and sent back again to the army. He persists in not taking the oath=
and
openly refuses to perform any military duties. It is a case that has not been pro=
vided
for by the laws. To overlook =
such a
refusal to comply with the demands of the authorities is out of the questio=
n, but
to put such a case on a par with simple breach of discipline is also out of=
the
question.
After deliberation
among themselves, the military authorities decide to get rid of the trouble=
some
young man, to consider him as a revolutionist, and they dispatch him under
escort to the committee of the secret police. The police authorities and gendarm=
es
cross-question him, but nothing that he says can be brought under the head =
of
any of the misdemeanors which come under their jurisdiction. And there is no possibility of acc=
using
him either of revolutionary acts or revolutionary plotting, since he declar=
es
that he does not wish to attack anything, but, on the contrary, is opposed =
to
any use of force, and, far from plotting in secret, he seeks every opportun=
ity
of saying and doing all that he says and does in the most open manner. And the gendarmes, though they are=
bound
by no hard-and-fast rules, still find no ground for a criminal charge in the
young man, and, like the clergy, they send him back to the army. Again the authorities deliberate
together, and decide to accept him though he has not taken the oath, and to
enrol him among the soldiers. They
put him into the uniform, enrol him, and send him under guard to the place =
where
the army is quartered. There =
the
chief officer of the division which he enters again expects the young man to
perform his military duties, and again he refuses to obey, and in the prese=
nce
of other soldiers explains the reason of his refusal, saying that he as a
Christian cannot voluntarily prepare himself to commit murder, which is
forbidden by the law of Moses.
This incident occ=
urs
in a provincial town. The case
awakens the interest, and even the sympathy, not only of outsiders, but eve=
n of
the officers. And the chief
officers consequently do not decide to punish this refusal of obedience with
disciplinary measures. To save
appearances, though, they shut the young man up in prison, and write to the
highest military authorities to inquire what they are to do. To refuse to serve in the army, in=
which
the Tzar himself serves, and which enjoys the blessing of the Church, seems
insanity from the official point of view. Consequently they write from
Petersburg that, since the young man must be out of his mind, they must not=
use
any severe treatment with him, but must send him to a lunatic asylum, that =
his
mental condition may be inquired into and be scientifically treated. They s=
end
him to the asylum in the hope that he will remain there, like another young
man, who refused ten years ago at Tver to serve in the army, and who was
tortured in the asylum till he submitted. But even this step does not rid t=
he
military authorities of the inconvenient man. The doctors examine him, interest =
themselves
warmly in his case, and naturally finding in him no symptoms of mental dise=
ase,
send him back to the army. Th=
ere
they receive him, and making believe to have forgotten his refusal, and his=
motives
for it, they again request him to go to drill, and again in the presence of=
the
other soldiers he refuses and explains the reason of his refusal. The affair continues to attract mo=
re and
more attention, both among the soldiers and the inhabitants of the town.
All this time,
through all these changes from place to place, the young man is roughly
treated, kept in cold, hunger, and filth, and life is made burdensome to him
generally. But all these suff=
erings
do not compel him to change his resolution. On the Zacaspian border, where he =
is
again requested to go on guard fully armed, he again declines to obey. He does not refuse to go and stand=
near
the haystacks where they place him, but refuses to take his arms, declaring
that he will not use violence in any case against anyone. All this takes place in the presen=
ce of
the other soldiers. To let su=
ch a
refusal pass unpunished is impossible, and the young man is put on his trial
for breach of discipline. The trial takes place, and he is sentenced to
confinement in the military prison for two years. He is again transferred, in compan=
y with
convicts, by étape, to Caucasus, and there he is shut up in prison a=
nd
falls under the irresponsible power of the jailer. There he is persecuted for a year =
and a
half, but he does not for all that alter his decision not to bear arms, and=
he explains
why he will not do this to everyone with whom he is brought in contact. At the end of the second year they=
set
him free, before the end of his term of imprisonment, reckoning it contrary=
to
law to keep him in prison after his time of military service was over, and =
only
too glad to get rid of him as soon as possible.
Other men in vari=
ous
parts of Russia behave, as though by agreement, precisely in the same way as
this young man, and in all these cases the government has adopted the same
timorous, undecided, and secretive course of action. Some of these men are sent to the
lunatic asylum, some are enrolled as clerks and transferred to Siberia, some
are sent to work in the forests, some are sent to prison, some are fined. And at this very time some men of =
this
kind are in prison, not charged with their real offense--that is, denying t=
he
lawfulness of the action of the government, but for non-fulfillment of spec=
ial
obligations imposed by government.
Thus an officer of reserve, who did not report his change of residen=
ce,
and justified this on the ground that he would not serve in the army any
longer, was fined thirty rubles for non-compliance with the orders of the
superior authority. This fine he also declined voluntarily to pay. In the same way some peasants and
soldiers who have refused to be drilled and to bear arms have been placed u=
nder
arrest on a charge of breach of discipline and insolence.
And cases of refu=
sing
to comply with the demands of government when they are opposed to Christian=
ity,
and especially cases of refusing to serve in the army, are occurring of late
not in Russia only, but everywhere. Thus I happen to know that in Servia me=
n of
the so-called sect of Nazarenes steadily refuse to serve in the army, and t=
he
Austrian Government has been carrying on a fruitless contest with them for
years, punishing them with imprisonment. In the year 1885 there were 130 su=
ch cases.
I know that in Switzerland in the year 1890 there were men in prison in the
castle of Chillon for declining to serve in the army, whose resolution was =
not
shaken by their punishment. There have been such cases in Sweden, and the m=
en
who refused obedience were sent to prison in exactly the same way, and the
government studiously concealed these cases from the people. There have been
similar cases also in Prussia. I know of the case of a sub-lieutenant of the
Guards, who in 1891 declared to the authorities in Berlin that he would not=
, as
a Christian, continue to serve, and in spite of all admonitions, threats, a=
nd
punishments he stuck to his resolution. In the south of France a society has
arisen of late bearing the name of the Hinschists (these facts are taken fr=
om
the PEACE HERALD, July, 1891), the members of which refuse to enter military
service on the grounds of their Christian principles. At first they were
enrolled in the ambulance corps, but now, as their numbers increase, they a=
re
subjected to punishment for non-compliance, but they still refuse to bear a=
rms
just the same.
The socialists, t=
he
communists, the anarchists, with their bombs and riots and revolutions, are=
not
nearly so much dreaded by governments as these disconnected individuals com=
ing
from different parts, and all justifying their non-compliance on the ground=
s of
the same religion, which is known to all the world. Every government knows =
by
what means and in what manner to defend itself from revolutionists, and has
resources for doing so, and therefore does not dread these external foes. But what are governments to do aga=
inst
men who show the uselessness, superfluousness, and perniciousness of all governments, and who do not contend against them, but simp=
ly do
not need them and do without them, and therefore are unwilling to take any =
part
in them? The revolutionists s=
ay:
The form of government is bad in this respect and that respect; we must
overturn it and substitute this or that form of government. The Christian says: I know nothing=
about
the form of government, I don't know whether it is good or bad, and I don't
want to overturn it precisely because I don't know whether it is good or ba=
d,
but for the very same reason I don't want to support it either. And I not only don't want to, but I can'=
t,
because what it demands of me is against my conscience.
All state obligat=
ions
are against the conscience of a Christian--the oath of allegiance, taxes, l=
aw
proceedings, and military service. And the whole power of the government re=
sts
on these very obligations.
Revolutionary ene=
mies
attack the government from without. Christianity does not attack it at all,
but, from within, it destroys all the foundations on which government rests=
.
Among the Russian
people, especially since the age of Peter I., the protest of Christianity
against the government has never ceased, and the social organization has be=
en
such that men emigrate in communes to Turkey, to China, and to uninhabited
lands, and not only feel no need of state aid, but always regard the state =
as a
useless burden, only to be endured as a misfortune, whether it happens to be
Turkish, Russian, or Chinese. And so, too, among the Russian people more and
more frequent examples have of late appeared of conscious Christian freedom=
from
subjection to the state. And these examples are the more alarming for the
government from the fact that these non-compliant persons often belong not =
to
the so-called lower uneducated classes, but are men of fair or good educati=
on;
and also from the fact that they do not in these days justify their positio=
n by
any mystic and exceptional views, as in former times, do not associate
themselves with any superstitious or fanatic rites, like the sects who prac=
tice
self-immolation by fire, or the wandering pilgrims, but put their refusal on
the very simplest and clearest grounds, comprehensible to all, and recogniz=
ed
as true by all.
Thus they refuse =
the
voluntary payment of taxes, because taxes are spent on deeds of violence--on
the pay of men of violence--soldiers, on the construction of prisons,
fortresses, and cannons. They as Christians regard it as sinful and immoral=
to
have any hand in such deeds.
Those who refuse =
to
take the oath of allegiance refuse because to promise obedience to authorit=
ies,
that is, to men who are given to deeds of violence, is contrary to the sens=
e of
Christ's teaching. They refuse to take the oath in the law courts, because
oaths are directly forbidden by the Gospel. They refuse to perform police duti=
es,
because in the performance of these duties they must use force against their
brothers and ill treat them, and a Christian cannot do that. They refuse to take part in trials=
at
law, because they consider every appeal to law is fulfilling the law of ven=
geance,
which is inconsistent with the Christian law of forgiveness and love. They refuse to take any part in mi=
litary
preparations and in the army, because they cannot be executioners, and they=
are
unwilling to prepare themselves to be so.
The motives in all
these cases are so excellent that, however despotic governments may be, they
could hardly punish them openly. To punish men for refusing to act against
their conscience the government must renounce all claim to good sense and
benevolence. And they assure people that they only rule in the name of good=
sense
and benevolence.
What are governme=
nts
to do against such people?
Governments can of
course flog to death or execute or keep in perpetual imprisonment all enemi=
es
who want to overturn them by violence, they can lavish gold on that section=
of
the people who are ready to destroy their enemies. But what can they do against men w=
ho,
without wishing to overturn or destroy anything, desire simply for their pa=
rt
to do nothing against the law of Christ, and who, therefore, refuse to perf=
orm
the commonest state requirements, which are, therefore, the most indispensa=
ble
to the maintenance of the state?
If they had been
revolutionists, advocating and practicing violence and murder, their
suppression would have been an easy matter; some of them could have been bo=
ught
over, some could have been duped, some could have been overawed, and these =
who
could not be bought over, duped, or overawed would have been treated as cri=
minals,
enemies of society, would have been executed or imprisoned, and the crowd w=
ould
have approved of the action of the government. If they had been fanatics, profess=
ing
some peculiar belief, it might have been possible, in disproving the supers=
titious
errors mixed in with their religion, to attack also the truth they advocate=
. But what is to be done with men wh=
o profess
no revolutionary ideas nor any peculiar religious dogmas, but merely because
they are unwilling to do evil to any man, refuse to take the oath, to pay
taxes, to take part in law proceedings, to serve in the army, to fulfill, in
fact, any of the obligations upon which the whole fabric of a state rests?<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> What is to done with such people?<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> To buy them over with bribes is im=
possible;
the very risks to which they voluntarily expose themselves show that they a=
re
incorruptible. To dupe them i=
nto believing
that this is their duty to God is also impossible, since their refusal is b=
ased
on the clear, unmistakable law of God, recognized even by those who are try=
ing
to compel men to act against it. To
terrify them by threats is still less possible, because the deprivations and
sufferings to which they are subjected only strengthen their desire to foll=
ow
the faith by which they are commanded: to obey God rather than men, and not=
to fear
those who can destroy the body, but to fear him who can destroy body and
soul. To kill them or keep th=
em in
perpetual imprisonment is also impossible.=
These men have friends, and a past; their way of thinking and acting=
is
well known; they are known by everyone for good, gentle, peaceable people, =
and
they cannot be regarded as criminals who must be removed for the safety of
society. And to put men to de=
ath
who are regarded as good men is to provoke others to champion them and just=
ify
their refusal. And it is only necessary to explain the reasons of their ref=
usal
to make clear to everyone that these reasons have the same force for all ot=
her
men, and that they all ought to have done the same long ago. These cases put the ruling powers =
into a
desperate position. They see =
that
the prophecy of Christianity is coming to pass, that it is loosening the
fetters of those in chains, and setting free them that are in bondage, and =
that
this must inevitably be the end of all oppressors. The ruling authorities see this, t=
hey
know that their hours are numbered, and they can do nothing. All that they can do to save thems=
elves
is only deferring the hour of their downfall. And this they do, but their positi=
on is
none the less desperate.
It is like the
position of a conqueror who is trying to save a town which has been been se=
t on
fire by its own inhabitants. Directly he puts out the conflagration in one
place, it is alight in two other places; directly he gives in to the fire a=
nd
cuts off what is on fire from a large building, the building itself is alig=
ht at
both ends. These separate fir=
es may
be few, but they are burning with a flame which, however small a spark it
starts from, never ceases till it has set the whole ablaze.
Thus it is that t=
he
ruling authorities are in such a defenseless position before men who advoca=
te
Christianity, that but little is necessary to overthrow this sovereign power
which seems so powerful, and has held such an exalted position for so many =
centuries. And yet social reformers are busy
promulgating the idea that it is not necessary and is even pernicious and
immoral for every man separately to work out his own freedom. As though, while one set of men ha=
ve
been at work a long while turning a river into a new channel, and had dug o=
ut a
complete water-course and had only to open the floodgates for the water to =
rush
in and do the rest, another set of men should come along and begin to advise
them that it would be much better, instead of letting the water out, to
construct a machine which would ladle the water up from one side and pour it
over the other side.
But the thing has
gone too far. Already ruling
governments feel their weak and defenseless position, and men of Christian =
principles
are awakening from their apathy, and already begin to feel their power.
"I am come to
send a fire on the earth," said Christ, "and what will I, if it be
already kindled?"
And this fire is
beginning to burn.
Christianity Dest=
roys
the State--But Which is Most Necessary: Christianity or the State?--There a=
re
Some who Assert the Necessity of a State Organization, and Others who Deny =
it,
both Arguing from same First Principles--Neither Contention can be Proved by
Abstract Argument--The Question must be Decided by the Stage in the Develop=
ment
of Conscience of Each Man, which will either Prevent or Allow him to Suppor=
t a Government
Organization--Recognition of the Futility and Immorality of Supporting a St=
ate
Organization Contrary to Christian Principles will Decide the Question for
Every Man, in Spite of any Action on Part of the State--Argument of those w=
ho
Defend the Government, that it is a Form of Social Life, Needed to Protect =
the
Good from the Wicked, till all Nations and all Members of each Nation have
Become Christians--The Most Wicked are Always those in Power--The whole His=
tory
of Humanity is the History of the Forcible Appropriation of Power by the Wi=
cked
and their Oppression of the Good--The Recognition by Governments of the
Necessity of Opposing Evil by Force is Equivalent to Suicide on their Part-=
-The
Abolition of State-violence cannot Increase the Sum Total of Acts of Violen=
ce--The
Suppression of the Use of Force is not only Possible, but is even Taking Pl=
ace
before Our Eyes--But it will Never be Suppressed by the Violence of Governm=
ent,
but through Men who have Attained Power by Evidence Recognizing its Emptine=
ss and
Becoming Better and Less Capable of Using Force--Individual Men and also Wh=
ole
Nations Pass Through this Process--By this Means Christianity is Diffused
Through Consciousness of Men, not only in Spite of Use of Violence by
Government, but even Through its Action, and therefore the Suppression is n=
ot
to be Dreaded, but is Brought About by the National Progress of Life--Objec=
tion
of those who Defend State Organization that Universal Adoption of Christian=
ity
is hardly Likely to be Realized at any Time--The General Adoption of the Tr=
uths
of Christianity is being Brought About not only by the Gradual and Inward
Means, that is, by Knowledge of the Truth, Prophetic Insight, and Recogniti=
on
of the Emptiness of Power, and Renunciation of it by Individuals, but also =
by
Another External Means, the Acceptance of a New Truth by Whole Masses of Me=
n on
a Lower Level of Development Through Simple Confidence in their Leaders--Wh=
en a
Certain Stage in the Diffusion of a Truth has been Reached, a Public Opinio=
n is
Created which Impels a Whole Mass of Men, formerly Antagonistic to the New
Truth, to Accept it--And therefore all Men may Quickly be Brought to Renoun=
ce
the use of Violence when once a Christian Public Opinion is Established--The
Conviction of Force being Necessary Hinders the Establishment of a Christian
Public Opinion--The Use of Violence Leads Men to Distrust the Spiritual For=
ce
which is the Only Force by which they Advance--Neither Nations nor Individu=
als
have been really Subjugated by Force, but only by Public Opinion, which no
Force can Resist--Savage Nations and Savage Men can only be Subdued by the =
Diffusion
of a Christian Standard among them, while actually Christian Nations in ord=
er
to Subdue them do all they can to Destroy a Christian Standard--These Fruit=
less
Attempts to Civilize Savages Cannot be Adduced as Proofs that Men Cannot be
Subdued by Christianity--Violence by Corrupting Public Opinion, only Hinders
the Social Organization from being What it Ought to Be--And by the Use of
Violence being Suppressed, a Christian Public Opinion would be
Established--Whatever might be the Result of the Suppression of Use of Forc=
e,
this Unknown Future could not be Worse than the Present Condition, and so t=
here
is no Need to Dread it--To Attain Knowledge of the Unknown, and to Move Tow=
ard
it, is the Essence of Life.
Christianity in its true sense puts=
an
end to government. So it was
understood at its very commencement; it was for that cause that Christ was
crucified. So it has always b=
een
understood by people who were not under the necessity of justifying a Chris=
tian
government. Only from the tim=
e that
the heads of government assumed an external and nominal Christianity, men b=
egan
to invent all the impossible, cunningly devised theories by means of which =
Christianity
can be reconciled with government.
But no honest and serious-minded man of our day can help seeing the
incompatibility of true Christianity--the doctrine of meekness, forgiveness=
of injuries,
and love--with government, with its pomp, acts of violence, executions, and
wars. The profession of true =
Christianity
not only excludes the possibility of recognizing government, but even destr=
oys
its very foundations.
But if it is so, =
and
we are right in saying that Christianity is incompatible with government, t=
hen
the question naturally presents itself: which is more necessary to the good=
of
humanity, in which way is men's happiness best to be secured, by maintaining
the organization of government or by destroying it and replacing it by Chri=
stianity?
Some people maint=
ain
that government is more necessary for humanity, that the destruction of the
state organization would involve the destruction of all that humanity has
gained, that the state has been and still is the only form in which humanity
can develop. The evil which w=
e see
among peoples living under a government organization they attribute not to =
that
type of society, but to its abuses, which, they say, can be corrected witho=
ut
destroying it, and thus humanity, without discarding the state organization,
can develop and attain a high degree of happiness. And men of this way of
thinking bring forward in support of their views arguments which they think
irrefutable drawn from history, philosophy, and even religion. But there are men who hold on the
contrary that, as there was a time when humanity lived without government, =
such
an organization is temporary, and that a time must come when men need a new=
organization,
and that that time has come now.
And men of this way of thinking also bring forward in support of the=
ir
views arguments which they think irrefutable from philosophy, history, and
religion.
Volumes may be
written in defense of the former view (and volumes indeed have long ago been
written and more will still be written on that side), but much also can be
written against it (and much also, and most brilliantly, has been
written--though more recently --on this side).
And it cannot be
proved, as the champions of the state maintain, that the destruction of
government involves a social chaos, mutual spoliation and murder, the
destruction of all social institutions, and the return of mankind to
barbarism. Nor can it be prov=
ed as the
opponents of government maintain that men have already become so wise and g=
ood
that they will not spoil or murder one another, but will prefer peaceful
associations to hostilities; that of their own accord, unaided by the state,
they will make all the arrangements that they need, and that therefore
government, far from being any aid, under show of guarding men exerts a
pernicious and brutalizing influence over them. It is impossible to prove either of
these contentions by abstract reasoning.&n=
bsp;
Still less possible is it to prove them by experiment, since the who=
le
matter turns on the question, ought we to try the experiment? The question whether or not the ti=
me has
come to make an end of government would be unanswerable, except that there
exists another living means of settling it beyond dispute.
We may dispute up=
on
the question whether the nestlings are ready to do without the mother-hen a=
nd
to come out of the eggs, or whether they are not yet advanced enough. But the young birds will decide the
question without any regard for our arguments when they find themselves cra=
mped
for space in the eggs. Then t=
hey will
begin to try them with their beaks and come out of them of their own accord=
.
It is the same wi=
th
the question whether the time has come to do away with the governmental typ=
e of
society and to replace it by a new type.&n=
bsp;
If a man, through the growth of a higher conscience, can no longer
comply with the demands of government, he finds himself cramped by it and at
the same time no longer needs its protection. When this comes to pass, the quest=
ion
whether men are ready to discard the governmental type is solved. And the conclusion will be as fina=
l for
them as for the young birds hatched out of the eggs. Just as no power in the world can =
put them
back into the shells, so can no power in the world bring men again under the
governmental type of society when once they have outgrown it.
"It may well=
be
that government was necessary and is still necessary for all the advantages
which you attribute to it," says the man who has mastered the Christian
theory of life. "I only know that on the one hand, government is no lo=
nger
necessary for ME, and on the other hand, I can no longer carry out the meas=
ures
that are necessary to the existence of a government. Settle for yourselves what you nee=
d for
your life. I cannot prove the=
need or
the harm of governments in general.
I know only what I need and do not need, what I can do and what I
cannot. I know that I do not =
need
to divide myself off from other nations, and therefore I cannot admit that I
belong exclusively to any state or nation, or that I owe allegiance to any
government. I know that I do =
not need
all the government institutions organized within the state, and therefore I
cannot deprive people who need my labor to give it in the form of taxes to
institutions which I do not need, which for all I know may be pernicious. I know that I have no need of the
administration or of courts of justice founded upon force, and therefore I =
can
take no part in either. I kno=
w that
I do not need to attack and slaughter other nations or to defend myself fro=
m them
with arms, and therefore I can take no part in wars or preparations for
wars. It may well be that the=
re are
people who cannot help regarding all this as necessary and indispensable. I cannot dispute the question with=
them,
I can only speak for myself; but I can say with absolute certainty that I do
not need it, and that I cannot do it.
And I do not need this and I cannot do it, not because such is my ow=
n,
my personal will, but because such is the will of him who sent me into life,
and gave me an indubitable law for my conduct through life."
Whatever arguments
may be advanced in support of the contention that the suppression of govern=
ment
authority would be injurious and would lead to great calamities, men who ha=
ve
once outgrown the governmental form of society cannot go back to it again. =
And all the reasoning in the world =
cannot
make the man who has outgrown the governmental form of society take part in
actions disallowed by his conscience, any more than the full-grown bird can=
be
made to return into the egg-shell.
"But even it=
be
so," say the champions of the existing order of things, "still the
suppression of government violence can only be possible and desirable when =
all
men have become Christians. S=
o long
as among people nominally Christians there are unchristian wicked men, who =
for the
gratification of their own lusts are ready to do harm to others, the
suppression of government authority, far from being a blessing to others, w=
ould
only increase their miseries. The
suppression of the governmental type of society is not only undesirable so =
long
as there is only a minority of true Christians; it would not even be desira=
ble
if the whole of a nation were Christians, but among and around them were st=
ill unchristian
men of other nations. For the=
se
unchristian men would rob, outrage, and kill the Christians with impunity a=
nd
would make their lives miserable.
All that would result, would be that the bad would oppress and outra=
ge
the good with impunity. And t=
herefore
the authority of government must not be suppressed till all the wicked and
rapacious people in the world are extinct.=
And since this will either never be, or at least cannot be for a lon=
g time
to come, in spite of the efforts of individual Christians to be independent=
of
government authority, it ought to be maintained in the interests of the
majority. The champions of
government assert that without it the wicked will oppress and outrage the g=
ood,
and that the power of the government enables the good to resist the
wicked."
But in this asser=
tion
the champions of the existing order of things take for granted the proposit=
ion
they want to prove. When they=
say
that except for the government the bad would oppress the good, they take it=
for
granted that the good are those who at the present time are in possession of
power, and the bad are those who are in subjection to it. But this is just what wants
proving. It would only be tru=
e if
the custom of our society were what is, or rather is supposed to be, the cu=
stom
in China; that is, that the good always rule, and that directly those at the
head of government cease to be better than those they rule over, the citize=
ns
are bound to remove them. Thi=
s is
supposed to be the custom in China.
In reality it is not so and can never be so. For to remove the heads=
of
a government ruling by force, it is not the right alone, but the power to d=
o so
that is needed. So that even =
in
China this is only an imaginary custom.&nb=
sp;
And in our Christian world we do not even suppose such a custom, and=
we
have nothing on which to build up the supposition that it is the good or the
superior who are in power; in reality it is those who have seized power and=
who
keep it for their own and their retainers' benefit.
The good cannot s=
eize
power, nor retain it; to do this men must love power. And love of power is inconsistent =
with
goodness; but quite consistent with the very opposite qualities--pride,
cunning, cruelty.
Without the
aggrandizement of self and the abasement of others, without hypocrisies and
deceptions, without prisons, fortresses, executions, and murders, no power =
can
come into existence or be maintained.
"If the powe=
r of
government is suppressed the more wicked will oppress the less wicked,"
say the champions of state authority. But when the Egyptians conquered the
Jews, the Romans conquered the Greeks, and the Barbarians conquered the Rom=
ans,
is it possible that all the conquerors were always better than those they
conquered? And the same with =
the
transitions of power within a state from one personage to another: has the
power always passed from a worse person to a better one? When Louis XVI. was removed and
Robespierre came to power, and afterward Napoleon--who ruled then, a better=
man
or a worse? And when were bet=
ter
men in power, when the Versaillist party or when the Commune was in power?<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> When Charles I. was ruler, or when
Cromwell? And when Peter III.=
was Tzar,
or when he was killed and Catherine was Tzaritsa in one-half of Russia and
Pougachef ruled the other? Wh=
ich
was bad then, and which was good?
All men who happen to be in authority assert that their authority is
necessary to keep the bad from oppressing the good, assuming that they
themselves are the good PAR EXCELLENCE, who protect other good people from =
the
bad.
But ruling means
using force, and using force means doing to him to whom force is used, what=
he
does not like and what he who uses the force would certainly not like done =
to
himself. Consequently ruling means doing to others what we would not they
should do unto us, that is, doing wrong.
To submit means to prefer suffering=
to using
force. And to prefer sufferin=
g to
using force means to be good, or at least less wicked than those who do unto
others what they would not like themselves.
And therefore, in=
all
probability, not the better but the worse have always ruled and are ruling
now. There may be bad men amo=
ng those
who are ruled, but it cannot be that those who are better have generally ru=
led
those who are worse.
It might be possi=
ble
to suppose this with the inexact heathen definition of good; but with the c=
lear
Christian definition of good and evil, it is impossible to imagine it.
If the more or le=
ss
good, and the more or less bad cannot be distinguished in the heathen world,
the Christian conception of good and evil has so clearly defined the
characteristics of the good and the wicked, that it is impossible to confou=
nd
them. According to Christ's teaching the good are those who are meek and lo=
ng-suffering,
do not resist evil by force, forgive injuries, and love their enemies; those
are wicked who exalt themselves, oppress, strive, and use force. Therefore by Christ's teaching the=
re can
be no doubt whether the good are to be found among rulers or ruled, and whe=
ther
the wicked are among the ruled or the rulers. Indeed it is absurd even to speak =
of
Christians ruling.
Non-Christians, t=
hat
is those who find the aim of their lives in earthly happiness, must always =
rule
Christians, the aim of whose lives is the renunciation of such earthly
happiness.
This difference h=
as
always existed and has become more and more defined as the Christian religi=
on
has been more widely diffused and more correctly understood.
The more widely t=
rue
Christianity was diffused and the more it penetrated men's conscience, the =
more
impossible it was for Christians to be rulers, and the easier it became for
non-Christians to rule them.
"To get rid =
of
governmental violence in a society in which all are not true Christians, wi=
ll
only result in the wicked dominating the good and oppressing them with
impunity," say the champions of the existing order of things. But it h=
as
never been, and cannot be otherwise.
So it has always been from the beginning of the world, and so it is
still. THE WICKED WILL ALWAYS
DOMINATE THE GOOD, AND WILL ALWAYS OPPRESS THEM. Cain overpowered Abel, the cunning=
Jacob
oppressed the guileless Esau and was in his turn deceived by Laban, Caiaphas
and Pilate oppressed Christ, the Roman emperors oppressed Seneca, Epictetus,
and the good Romans who lived in their times. John IV. with his favorites, the
syphilitic drunken Peter with his buffoons, the vicious Catherine with her
paramours, ruled and oppressed the industrious religious Russians of their =
times.
William is ruling
over the Germans, Stambouloff over the Bulgarians, the Russian officials ov=
er
the Russian people. The Germa=
ns
have dominated the Italians, now they dominate the Hungarians and Slavonian=
s;
the Turks have dominated and still dominate the Slavonians and Greeks; the
English dominate the Hindoos, the Mongolians dominate the Chinese.
So that whether
governmental violence is suppressed or not, the position of good men, in be=
ing
oppressed by the wicked, will be unchanged.
To terrify men wi=
th
the prospect of the wicked dominating the good is impossible, for that is j=
ust
what has always been, and is now, and cannot but be.
The whole history=
of
pagan times is nothing but a recital of the incidents and means by which the
more wicked gained possession of power over the less wicked, and retained i=
t by
cruelties and deceptions, ruling over the good under the pretense of guardi=
ng the
right and protecting the good from the wicked. All the revolutions in history are=
only
examples of the more wicked seizing power and oppressing the good. In declaring that if their authori=
ty did
not exist the more wicked would oppress the good, the ruling authorities on=
ly
show their disinclination to let other oppressors come to power who would l=
ike
to snatch it from them.
But in asserting =
this
they only accuse themselves, say that their power, i. e., violence, is need=
ed
to defend men from other possible oppressors in the present or the future [=
see
footnote].
[Footnote: I may quote=
in
this connection the amazingly naive and comic
declaration of the Russian authorities, the oppressors of=
other
nationalities--the Poles, the Germans of the Ba=
ltic
provinces, and the Jews. The =
Russian Governmen=
t has
oppressed its subjects for centuries, and has
never troubled itself about the Little Russians of
Poland, or the Letts of the Baltic provinces, or the
Russian peasants, exploited by everyone. And now it has al=
l of a
sudden become the champion of the oppressed--th=
e very
oppressed whom it is itself oppressing.]
The weakness of t=
he
use of violence lies in the fact that all the arguments brought forward by
oppressors in their own defense can with even better reason be advanced aga=
inst
them. They plead the danger of
violence--most often imagined in the future--but they are all the while
continuing to practice actual violence themselves. "You say that men used to pil=
lage
and murder in the past, and that you are afraid that they will pillage and
murder one another if your power were no more. That may happen--or it may not
happen. But the fact that you=
ruin
thousands of men in prisons, fortresses, galleys, and exile, break up milli=
ons
of families and ruin millions of men, physically as well as morally, in the
army, that fact is not an imaginary but a real act of violence, which,
according to your own argument, one ought to oppose by violence. And so you are yourselves these wi=
cked
men against whom, according to your own argument, it is absolutely necessar=
y to
use violence," the oppressed are sure to say to their oppressors. And non-Christian men always do sa=
y, and
think and act on this reasoning. If
the oppressed are more wicked than their oppressors, they attack them and t=
ry
to overthrow them; and in favorable circumstances they succeed in overthrow=
ing
them, or what is more common, they rise into the ranks of the oppressors and
assist in their acts of violence.
So that the very
violence which the champions of government hold up as a terror--pretending =
that
except for its oppressive power the wicked would oppress the good--has real=
ly
always existed and will exist in human society. And therefore the suppression of s=
tate
violence cannot in any case be the cause of increased oppression of the goo=
d by
the wicked.
If state violence
ceased, there would be acts of violence perhaps on the part of different
people, other than those who had done deeds of violence before. But the total amount of violence c=
ould not
in any case be increased by the mere fact of power passing from one set of =
men
to another.
"State viole=
nce
can only cease when there are no more wicked men in society," say the
champions of the existing order of things, assuming in this of course that
since there will always be wicked men, it can never cease. And that would be right enough if =
it were
the case, as they assume, that the oppressors are always the best of men, a=
nd
that the sole means of saving men from evil is by violence. Then, indeed, violence could never
cease. But since this is not =
the
case, but quite the contrary, that it is not the better oppress the worse, =
but
the worse oppress the better, and since violence will never put an end to e=
vil,
and there is, moreover, another means of putting an end to it, the assertio=
n that
violence will never cease is incorrect.&nb=
sp;
The use of violence grows less and less and evidently must
disappear. But this will not =
come
to pass, as some champions of the existing order imagine, through the oppre=
ssed
becoming better and better under the influence of government (on the contra=
ry,
its influence causes their continual degradation), but through the fact that
all men are constantly growing better and better of themselves, so that eve=
n the
most wicked, who are in power, will become less and less wicked, till at la=
st
they are so good as to be incapable of using violence.
The progressive
movement of humanity does not proceed from the better elements in society
seizing power and making those who are subject to them better, by forcible
means, as both conservatives and revolutionists imagine. It proceeds first and principally =
from
the fact that all men in general are advancing steadily and undeviatingly
toward a more and more conscious assimilation of the Christian theory of li=
fe;
and secondly, from the fact that, even apart from conscious spiritual life,=
men
are unconsciously brought into a more Christian attitude to life by the very
process of one set of men grasping the power, and again being replaced by
others.
The worse element=
s of
society, gaining possession of power, under the sobering influence which al=
ways
accompanies power, grow less and less cruel, and become incapable of using
cruel forms of violence. Consequently others are able to seize their place,=
and
the same process of softening and, so to say, unconscious Christianizing go=
es
on with them. It is something like the process of ebullition. The majority =
of men,
having the non-Christian view of life, always strive for power and struggle=
to
obtain it. In this struggle the most cruel, the coarsest, the least Christi=
an
elements of society overpower the most gentle, well-disposed, and Christian,
and rise by means of their violence to the upper ranks of society. And in t=
hem
is Christ's prophecy fulfilled: "Woe to you that are rich! woe unto you
that are full! woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you!" For=
the
men who are in possession of power and all that results from it--glory and
wealth--and have attained the various aims they set before themselves,
recognize the vanity of it all and return to the position from which they c=
ame.
Charles V., John IV., Alexander I., recognizing the emptiness and the evil =
of
power, renounced it because they were incapable of using violence for their=
own
benefit as they had done.
But they are not =
the
solitary examples of this recognition of the emptiness and evil of power.
Everyone who gains a position of power he has striven for, every general, e=
very
minister, every millionaire, every petty official who has gained the place =
he
has coveted for ten years, every rich peasant who has laid by some hundred
rubles, passes through this unconscious process of softening.
And not only
individual men, but societies of men, whole nations, pass through this proc=
ess.
The seductions of
power, and all the wealth, honor, and luxury it gives, seem a sufficient aim
for men's efforts only so long as they are unattained. Directly a man reaches them he see=
s all their
vanity, and they gradually lose all their power of attraction. They are like clouds which have fo=
rm and
beauty only from the distance; directly one ascends into them, all their sp=
lendor
vanishes.
Men who are in
possession of power and wealth, sometimes even those who have gained for
themselves their power and wealth, but more often their heirs, cease to be =
so
eager for power, and so cruel in their efforts to obtain it.
Having learnt by
experience, under the operation of Christian influence, the vanity of all t=
hat
is gained by violence, men sometimes in one, sometimes in several generatio=
ns
lose the vices which are generated by the passion for power and wealth. They become less cruel and so cann=
ot
maintain their position, and are expelled from power by others less Christi=
an
and more wicked. Thus they return to a rank of society lower in position, b=
ut higher
in morality, raising thereby the average level of Christian consciousness in
men. But directly after them =
again
the worst, coarsest, least Christian elements of society rise to the top, a=
nd are
subjected to the same process as their predecessors, and again in a generat=
ion
or so, seeing the vanity of what is gained by violence, and having imbibed
Christianity, they come down again among the oppressed, and their place is
again filled by new oppressors, less brutal than former oppressors, though =
more
so than those they oppress. So
that, although power remains externally the same as it was, with every chan=
ge
of the men in power there is a constant increase of the number of men who h=
ave been
brought by experience to the necessity of assimilating the Christian concep=
tion
of life, and with every change--though it is the coarsest, crudest, and lea=
st
Christian who come into possession of power, they are less coarse and cruel=
and
more Christian than their predecessors when they gained possession of power=
.
Power selects and
attracts the worst elements of society, transforms them, improves and softe=
ns
them, and returns them to society.
"Such is the
process by means of which Christianity, in spite of the hindrances to human
progress resulting from the violence of power, gains more and more hold of
men. Christianity penetrates =
to the
consciousness of men, not only in spite of the violence of power, but also =
by
means of it.
And therefore the
assertion of the champions of the state, that if the power of government we=
re
suppressed the wicked would oppress the good, not only fails to show that t=
hat
is to be dreaded, since it is just what happens now, but proves, on the
contrary, that it is governmental power which enables the wicked to oppress=
the
good, and is the evil most desirable to suppress, and that it is being
gradually suppressed in the natural course of things.
"But if it be
true that governmental power will disappear when those in power become so
Christian that they renounce power of their own accord, and there are no men
found willing to take their place, and even if this process is already going
on," say the champions of the existing order, "when will that com=
e to
pass? If, after eighteen hundred years, there are still so many eager for
power, and so few anxious to obey, there seems no likelihood of its happeni=
ng
very soon--or indeed of its ever happening at all.
"Even if the=
re
are, as there have always been, some men who prefer renouncing power to
enjoying it, the mass of men in reserve, who prefer dominion to subjection,=
is
so great that it is difficult to imagine a time when the number will be
exhausted.
"Before this
Christianizing process could so affect all men one after another that they
would pass from the heathen to the Christian conception of life, and would
voluntarily abandon power and wealth, it would be necessary that all the
coarse, half-savage men, completely incapable of appreciating Christianity =
or
acting upon it, of whom there are always a great many in every Christian so=
ciety,
should be converted to Christianity.
More than this, all the savage and absolutely non-Christian peoples,=
who
are so numerous outside the Christian world, must also be converted. And therefore, even if we admit th=
at this
Christianizing process will some day affect everyone, still, judging by the
amount of progress it has made in eighteen hundred years, it will be many t=
imes
eighteen centuries before it will do so.&n=
bsp;
And it is therefore impossible and unprofitable to think at present =
of
anything so impracticable as the suppression of authority. We ought only to try to put author=
ity
into the best hands."
And this criticism
would be perfectly just, if the transition from one conception of life to
another were only accomplished by the single process of all men, separately=
and
successively, realizing, each for himself, the emptiness of power, and reac=
hing
Christian truth by the inner spiritual path. That process goes on unceasingly, =
and
men are passing over to Christianity one after another by this inner way.
But there is also
another external means by which men reach Christianity and by which the
transition is less gradual.
This transition f=
rom
one organization of life to another is not accomplished by degrees like the
sand running through the hourglass grain after grain. It is more like the water filling =
a vessel
floating on water. At first the water only runs in slowly on one side, but =
as
the vessel grows heavier it suddenly begins to sink, and almost instantaneo=
usly
fills with water.
It is just the sa=
me
with the transitions of mankind from one conception--and so from one
organization of life--to another.
At first only gradually and slowly, one after another, men attain to=
the
new truth by the inner spiritual way, and follow it out in life. But when a certain point in the
diffusion of the truth has been reached, it is suddenly assimilated by
everyone, not by the inner way, but, as it were, involuntarily.
That is why the
champions of the existing order are wrong in arguing that, since only a sma=
ll
section of mankind has passed over to Christianity in eighteen centuries, it
must be many times eighteen centuries before all the remainder do the
same. For in that argument th=
ey do
not take into account any other means, besides the inward spiritual one, by
which men assimilate a new truth and pass from one order of life to another=
.
Men do not only
assimilate a truth through recognizing it by prophetic insight, or by
experience of life. When the =
truth
has become sufficiently widely diffused, men at a lower stage of development
accept it all at once simply through confidence in those who have reached i=
t by
the inner spiritual way, and are applying it to life.
Every new truth, =
by
which the order of human life is changed and humanity is advanced, is at fi=
rst
accepted by only a very small number of men who understand it through inner
spiritual intuition. The remainder of mankind who accepted on trust the
preceding truth on which the existing order is based, are always opposed to=
the
diffusion of the new truth.
But seeing that, =
to
begin with, men do not stand still, but are steadily advancing to a greater
recognition of the truth and a closer adaptation of their life to it, and
secondly, all men in varying degrees according to their age, their educatio=
n,
and their race are capable of understanding the new truths, at first those =
who
are nearest to the men who have attained the new truth by spiritual intuiti=
on,
slowly and one by one, but afterward more and more quickly, pass over to the
new truth. Thus the number of=
men who
accept the new truth becomes greater and greater, and the truth becomes more
and more comprehensible.
And thus more
confidence is aroused in the remainder, who are at a less advanced stage of
capacity for understanding the truth.
And it becomes easier for them to grasp it, and an increasing number=
accept
it.
And so the moveme=
nt
goes on more and more quickly, and on an ever-increasing scale, like a
snowball, till at last a public opinion in harmony with the new truth is
created, and then the whole mass of men is carried over all at once by its
momentum to the new truth and establishes a new social order in accordance =
with
it.
Those men who acc=
ept
a new truth when it has gained a certain degree of acceptance, always pass =
over
all at once in masses. They are like the ballast with which every ship is
always loaded, at once to keep it upright and enable it to sail properly. If there were no ballast, the ship=
would
not be low enough in the water, and would shift its position at the slighte=
st
change in its conditions. This
ballast, which strikes one at first as superfluous and even as hindering the
progress of the vessel, is really indispensable to its good navigation.
It is the same wi=
th
the mass of mankind, who not individually, but always in a mass, under the
influence of a new social idea pass all at once from one organization of li=
fe
to another. This mass always
hinders, by its inertia, frequent and rapid revolutions in the social order
which have not been sufficiently proved by human experience. And it delays every truth a long w=
hile
till it has stood the test of prolonged struggles, and has thoroughly perme=
ated
the consciousness of humanity.
And that is why i=
t is
a mistake to say that because only a very small minority of men has assimil=
ated
Christianity in eighteen centuries, it must take many times as many centuri=
es
for all mankind to assimilate it, and that since that time is so far off we=
who
live in the present need not even think about it. It is a mistake, because the men a=
t a
lower stage of culture, the, men and the nations who are represented as the
obstacle to the realization of the Christian order of life, are the very pe=
ople
who always pass over in masses all at once to any truth that has once been =
recognized
by public opinion.
And therefore the
transformation of human life, through which men in power will renounce it, =
and
there will be none anxious to take their place, will not come only by all m=
en
consciously and separately assimilating the Christian conception of life. It
will come when a Christian public opinion has arisen, so definite and easily
comprehensible as to reach the whole of the inert mass, which is not able to
attain truth by its own intuition, and therefore is always under the sway o=
f public
opinion.
Public opinion ar=
ises
spontaneously and spreads for hundreds and thousands of years, but it has t=
he
power of working on men by infection, and with great rapidity gains a hold =
on
great numbers of men.
"But," =
say
the champions of the existing order, "even if it is true that public
opinion, when it has attained a certain degree of definiteness and precisio=
n,
can convert the inert mass of men outside the Christian world--the
non-Christian races--as well as the coarse and depraved who are living in i=
ts
midst, what proofs have we that this Christian public opinion has arisen an=
d is
able to replace force and render it unnecessary.
"We must not
give up force, by which the existing order is maintained, and by relying on=
the
vague and impalpable influence of public opinion expose Christians to the r=
isk
of being pillaged, murdered, and outraged in every way by the savages inside
and outside of civilized society.
"Since, even
supported by the use of force, we can hardly control the non-Christian elem=
ents
which are always ready to pour down on us and to destroy all that has been
gained by civilization, is it likely that public opinion could take the pla=
ce
of force and render us secure? And
besides, how are we to find the moment when public opinion has become strong
enough to be able to replace the use of force? To reject the use of force and tru=
st to
public opinion to defend us would be as insane as to remove all weapons of
defense in a menagerie, and then to let loose all the lions and tigers, rel=
ying
on the fact that the animals seemed peaceable when kept in their cages and =
held
in check by red-hot irons. An=
d therefore
people in power, who have been put in positions of authority by fate or by =
God,
have not the right to run the risk, ruining all that has been gained by
civilization, just because they want to try an experiment to see whether pu=
blic
opinion is or is not able to replace the protection given by authority.&quo=
t;
A French writer,
forgotten now, Alphonse Karr, said somewhere, trying to show the impossibil=
ity
of doing away with the death penalty: "Que messieurs les assassins
commencent par nous donner l'exemple." Often have I heard this BON MOT re=
peated
by men who thought that these words were a witty and convincing argument ag=
ainst
the abolition of capital punishment.
And yet all the erroneousness of the argument of those who consider =
that
governments cannot give up the use of force till all people are capable of
doing the same, could not be more clearly expressed than it is in that epig=
ram.
"Let the
murderers," say the champions of state violence, "set us the exam=
ple
by giving up murder and then we will give it up." But the murderers say just the sam=
e,
only with much more right. They say: "Let those who have undertaken to
teach us and guide us set us the example of giving up legal murder, and the=
n we
will imitate them." And =
they
say this, not as a jest, but seriously, because it is the actual state of t=
he
case.
"We cannot g=
ive
up the use of violence, because we are surrounded by violent ruffians."=
; Nothing in our days hinders the pr=
ogress
of humanity and the establishment of the organization corresponding to its
present development more than this false reasoning. Those in authority are convinced t=
hat
men are only guided and only progress through the use of force, and therefo=
re
they confidently make use of it to support the existing organization. The existing order is maintained, =
not by
force, but by public opinion, the action of which is disturbed by the use of
force. So that the effect of =
using
force is to disturb and to weaken the very thing it tries to maintain.
Violence, even in=
the
most favorable case, when it is not used simply for some personal aims of t=
hose
in power, always punishes under the one inelastic formula of the law what h=
as long
before been condemned by public opinion.&n=
bsp;
But there is this difference, that while public opinion censures and
condemns all the acts opposed to the moral law, including the most varied c=
ases
in its reprobation, the law which rests on violence only condemns and punis=
hes
a certain very limited range of acts, and by so doing seems to justify all
other acts of the same kind which do not come under its scope.
Public opinion ev=
er
since the time of Moses has regarded covetousness, profligacy, and cruelty =
as wrong,
and censured them accordingly. And
it condemns every kind of manifestation of covetousness, not only the
appropriation of the property of others by force or fraud or trickery, but =
even
the cruel abuse of wealth; it condemns every form of profligacy, whether wi=
th
concubine, slave, divorced woman, or even one's own wife; it condemns every=
kind
of cruelty, whether shown in blows, in ill-treatment, or in murder, not onl=
y of
men, but even of animals. The=
law
resting on force only punishes certain forms of covetousness, such as robbe=
ry and
swindling, certain forms of profligacy and cruelty, such as conjugal
infidelity, murder, and wounding.
And in this way it seems to countenance all the manifestations of
covetousness, profligacy, and cruelty which do not come under its narrow de=
finition.
But besides
corrupting public opinion, the use of force leads men to the fatal convicti=
on
that they progress, not through the spiritual impulse which impels them to =
the
attainment of truth and its realization in life, and which constitutes the =
only
source of every progressive movement of humanity, but by means of violence,=
the
very force which, far from leading men to truth, always carries them further
away from it. This is a fatal error, because it leads men to neglect the ch=
ief
force underlying their life--their spiritual activity--and to turn all thei=
r attention
and energy to the use of violence, which is superficial, sluggish, and most
generally pernicious in its action.
They make the same
mistake as men who, trying to set a steam engine in motion, should turn its
wheels round with their hands, not suspecting that the underlying cause of =
its
movement was the expansion of the steam, and not the motion of the wheels.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> By turning the wheels by hand and =
by
levers they could only produce a semblance of movement, and meantime they w=
ould
be wrenching the wheels and so preventing their being fit for real movement=
.
That is just what people are doing who think to make men advance by means of external force.<= o:p>
They say that the=
Christian
life cannot be established without the use of violence, because there are
savage races outside the pale of Christian societies in Africa and in Asia
(there are some who even represent the Chinese as a danger to civilization),
and that in the midst of Christian societies there are savage, corrupt, and,
according to the new theory of heredity, congenital criminals. And violence, they say, is necessa=
ry to
keep savages and criminals from annihilating our civilization.
But these savages
within and without Christian society, who are such a terror to us, have nev=
er
been subjugated by violence, and are not subjugated by it now. Nations have never subjugated othe=
r nations
by violence alone. If a nation
which subjugated another was on a lower level of civilization, it has never
happened that it succeeded in introducing its organization of life by viole=
nce.
On the contrary, it was always forced to adopt the organization of life
existing in the conquered nation.
If ever any of the nations conquered by force have been really
subjugated, or even nearly so, it has always been by the action of public
opinion, and never by violence, which only tends to drive a people to furth=
er
rebellion.
When whole nations
have been subjugated by a new religion, and have become Christian or
Mohammedan, such a conversion has never been brought about because the
authorities made it obligatory (on the contrary, violence has much oftener
acted in the opposite direction), but because public opinion made such a ch=
ange
inevitable. Nations, on the
contrary, who have been driven by force to accept the faith of their conque=
rors
have always remained antagonistic to it.
It is just the sa=
me
with the savage elements existing in the midst of our civilized societies.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Neither the increased nor the dimi=
nished
severity of punishment, nor the modifications of prisons, nor the increase =
of
police will increase or diminish the number of criminals. Their number will only be diminish=
ed by
the change of the moral standard of society. No severities could put an end to =
duels
and vendettas in certain districts.
In spite of the number of Tcherkesses executed for robbery, they
continue to be robbers from their youth up, for no maiden will marry a Tche=
rkess
youth till he has given proof of his bravery by carrying off a horse, or at
least a sheep. If men cease to
fight duels, and the Tcherkesses cease to be robbers, it will not be from f=
ear of
punishment (indeed, that invests the crime with additional charm for youth),
but through a change in the moral standard of public opinion. It is the same with all other
crimes. Force can never suppr=
ess
what is sanctioned by public opinion.
On the contrary, public opinion need only be in direct opposition to=
force
to neutralize the whole effect of the use of force. It has always been so and always w=
ill be
in every case of martyrdom.
What would happen=
if
force were not used against hostile nations and the criminal elements of
society we do not know. But w=
e do know
by prolonged experience that neither enemies nor criminals have been
successfully suppressed by force.
And indeed how co=
uld
nations be subjugated by violence who are led by their whole education, the=
ir
traditions, and even their religion to see the loftiest virtue in warring w=
ith
their oppressors and fighting for freedom?=
And how are we to suppress by force acts committed in the midst of o=
ur
society which are regarded as crimes by the government and as daring exploi=
ts
by the people?
To exterminate su=
ch
nations and such criminals by violence is possible, and indeed is done, but=
to
subdue them is impossible.
The sole guide wh=
ich
directs men and nations has always been and is the unseen, intangible,
underlying force, the resultant of all the spiritual forces of a certain
people, or of all humanity, which finds its outward expression in public
opinion.
The use of violen=
ce
only weakens this force, hinders it and corrupts it, and tries to replace i=
t by
another which far from being conducive to the progress of humanity, is
detrimental to it.
To bring under th=
e sway
of Christianity all the savage nations outside the pale of the Christian
world--all the Zulus, Mandchoos, and Chinese, whom many regard as savages--=
and
the savages who live in our midst, there is only ONE MEANS. That means is the propagation amon=
g these
nations of the Christian ideal of society, which can only be realized by a
Christian life, Christian actions, and Christian examples. And meanwhile, though this is the =
ONE ONLY
MEANS of gaining a hold over the people who have remained non-Christian, the
men of our day set to work in the directly opposite fashion to attain this
result.
To bring under the
sway of Christianity savage nations who do not attack us and whom we have
therefore no excuse for oppressing, we ought before all things to leave the=
m in
peace, and in case we need or wish to enter into closer relations with them=
, we
ought only to influence them by Christian manners and Christian teaching,
setting them the example of the Christian virtues of patience, meekness,
endurance, purity, brotherhood, and love. Instead of that we begin by
establishing among them new markets for our commerce, with the sole aim of =
our
own profit; then we appropriate their lands, i. e., rob them; then we sell =
them
spirits, tobacco, and opium, i. e., corrupt them; then we establish our mor=
als
among them, teach them the use of violence and new methods of destruction, =
i,
e., we teach them nothing but the animal law of strife, below which man can=
not
sink, and we do all we can to conceal from them all that is Christian in us=
. After
this we send some dozens of missionaries prating to them of the hypocritical
absurdities of the Church, and then quote the failure of our efforts to turn
the heathen to Christianity as an incontrovertible proof of the impossibili=
ty
of applying the truths of Christianity in practical life.
It is just the sa=
me
with the so-called criminals living in our midst. To bring these people under the sw=
ay of
Christianity there is one only means, that is, the Christian social ideal,
which can only be realized among them by true Christian teaching and suppor=
ted
by a true example of the Christian life.&n=
bsp;
And to preach this Christian truth and to support it by Christian
example we set up among them prisons, guillotines, gallows, preparations fo=
r murder;
we diffuse among the common herd idolatrous superstitions to stupefy them; =
we
sell them spirits, tobacco, and opium to brutalize them; we even organize
legalized prostitution; we give land to those who do not need it; we make a
display of senseless luxury in the midst of suffering poverty; we destroy t=
he possibility
of anything like a Christian public opinion, and studiously try to suppress
what Christian public opinion is existing.=
And then, after having ourselves assiduously corrupted men, we shut =
them
up like wild beasts in places from which they cannot escape, and where they
become still more brutalized, or else we kill them. And these very men whom we have
corrupted and brutalized by every means, we bring forward as a proof that o=
ne cannot
deal with criminals except by brute force.
We are just like
ignorant doctors who put a man, recovering from illness by the force of nat=
ure,
into the most unfavorable conditions of hygiene, and dose him with the most
deleterious drugs, and then assert triumphantly that their hygiene and thei=
r drugs
saved his life, when the patient would have been well long before if they h=
ad
left him alone.
Violence, which is
held up as the means of supporting the Christian organization of life, not =
only
fails to produce that effect, it even hinders the social organization of li=
fe
from being what it might and ought to be.&=
nbsp;
The social organization is as good as it is not as a result of force,
but in spite of it.
And therefore the
champions of the existing order are mistaken in arguing that since, even wi=
th
the aid of force, the bad and non-Christian elements of humanity can hardly=
be
kept from attacking us, the abolition of the use of force and the substitut=
ion
of public opinion for it would leave humanity quite unprotected.
They are mistaken=
, because
force does not protect humanity, but, on the contrary, deprives it of the o=
nly
possible means of really protecting itself, that is, the establishment and
diffusion of a Christian public opinion.&n=
bsp;
Only by the suppression of violence will a Christian public opinion
cease to be corrupted, and be enabled to be diffused without hindrance, and=
men
will then turn their efforts in the spiritual direction by which alone they=
can
advance.
"But how are=
we
to cast off the visible tangible protection of an armed policeman, and trus=
t to
something so intangible as public opinion?=
Does it yet exist? Mor=
eover,
the condition of things in which we are living now, we know, good or bad; we
know its shortcomings and are used to it, we know what to do, and how to be=
have
under present conditions. But=
what
will happen when we give it up and trust ourselves to something invisible a=
nd intangible,
and altogether unknown?"
The unknown world=
on
which they are entering in renouncing their habitual ways of life appears
itself as dreadful to them. I=
t is all
very well to dread the unknown when our habitual position is sound and
secure. But our position is s=
o far
from being secure that we know, beyond all doubt, that we are standing on t=
he
brink of a precipice. If we m=
ust be
afraid let us be afraid of what is really alarming, and not what we imagine=
as
alarming.
Fearing to make t=
he
effort to detach ourselves from our perilous position because the future is=
not
fully clear to us, we are like passengers in a foundering ship who, through
being afraid to trust themselves to the boat which would carry them to the
shore, shut themselves up in the cabin and refuse to come out of it; or lik=
e sheep,
who, terrified by their barn being on fire, huddle in a corner and do not go
out of the wide-open door.
We are standing on
the threshold of the murderous war of social revolution, terrific in its
miseries, beside which, as those who are preparing it tell us, the horrors =
of
1793 will be child's play. An=
d can
we talk of the danger threatening us from the warriors of Dahomey, the Zulu=
s,
and such, who live so far away and are not dreaming of attacking us, and fr=
om
some thousands of swindlers, thieves, and murderers, brutalized and corrupt=
ed
by ourselves, whose number is in no way lessened by all our sentences, pris=
ons,
and executions?
Moreover this dre=
ad
of the suppression of the visible protection of the policeman is essentiall=
y a
sentiment of townspeople, that is, of people who are living in abnormal and
artificial conditions. People
living in natural conditions of life, not in towns, but in the midst of nat=
ure,
and carrying on the struggle with nature, live without this protection and =
know
how little force can protect us from the real dangers with which we are sur=
rounded. There is something sickly in this =
dread,
which is essentially dependent on the artificial conditions in which many o=
f us
live and have been brought up.
A doctor, a
specialist in insanity, told a story that one summer day when he was leaving
the asylum, the lunatics accompanied him to the street door. "Come for a walk in the town =
with
me?" the doctor suggested to them.&nb=
sp;
The lunatics agreed, and a small band followed the doctor. But the further they proceeded alo=
ng the
street where healthy people were freely moving about, the more timid they
became, and they pressed closer and closer to the doctor, hindering him from
walking. At last they all beg=
an to
beg him to take them back to the asylum, to their meaningless but customary=
way
of life, to their keepers, to blows, strait waistcoats, and solitary cells.=
This is just how =
men
of to-day huddle in terror and draw back to their irrational manner of life,
their factories, law courts, prisons, executions, and wars, when Christiani=
ty
calls them to liberty, to the free, rational life of the future coming age.=
People ask, "=
;How
will our security be guaranteed when the existing organization is
suppressed? What precisely wi=
ll the
new organization be that is to replace it?=
So long as we do not know precisely how our life will be organized, =
we
will not stir a step forward."
An explorer going=
to
an unknown country might as well ask for a detailed map of the country befo=
re
he would start.
If a man, before =
he
passed from one stage to another, could know his future life in full detail=
, he
would have nothing to live for. It is the same with the life of humanity. I=
f it
had a programme of the life which awaited it before entering a new stage, it
would be the surest sign that it was not living, nor advancing, but simply =
rotating
in the same place.
The conditions of=
the
new order of life cannot be known by us because we have to create them by o=
ur
own labors. That is all that =
life
is, to learn the unknown, and to adapt our actions to this new knowledge.
That is the life =
of
each individual man, and that is the life of human societies and of humanit=
y.
The Condition and
Organization of our Society are Terrible, but they Rest only on Public Opin=
ion,
and can be Destroyed by it--Already Violence is Regarded from a Different P=
oint
of View; the Number of those who are Ready to Serve the Government is
Diminishing; and even the Servants of Government are Ashamed of their Posit=
ion,
and so often Do Not Perform their Duties--These Facts are all Signs of the =
Rise
of a Public Opinion, which Continually Growing will Lead to No One being Wi=
lling
to Enter Government Service--Moreover, it Becomes More and More Evident that
those Offices are of No Practical Use--Men already Begin to Understand the
Futility of all Institutions Based on Violence, and if a Few already Unders=
tand
it, All will One Day Understand it--The Day of Deliverance is Unknown, but =
it
Depends on Men Themselves, on how far Each Man Lives According to the Light
that is in Him.
The position of Christian humanity =
with
its prisons, galleys, gibbets, its factories and accumulation of capital, i=
ts
taxes, churches, gin-palaces, licensed brothels, its ever-increasing armame=
nt
and its millions of brutalized men, ready, like chained dogs, to attack any=
one
against whom their master incites them, would be terrible indeed if it were=
the
product of violence, but it is pre-eminently the product of public
opinion. And what has been
established by public opinion can be destroyed by public opinion--and, inde=
ed,
is being destroyed by public opinion.
Money lavished by
hundreds of millions, tens of millions of disciplined troops, weapons of
astounding destructive power, all organizations carried to the highest poin=
t of
perfection, a whole army of men charged with the task of deluding and
hypnotizing the people, and all this, by means of electricity which annihil=
ates
distance, under the direct control of men who regard such an organization of
society not only as necessary for profit, but even for self-preservation, a=
nd
therefore exert every effort of their ingenuity to preserve it--what an
invincible power it would seem! And yet we need only imagine for a moment w=
hat
will really inevitably come to pass, that is, the Christian social standard=
replacing
the heathen social standard and established with the same power and
universality, and the majority of men as much ashamed of taking any part in
violence or in profiting by it, as they are to-day of thieving, swindling,
begging, and cowardice; and at once we see the whole of this complex, and
seemingly powerful organization of society falls into ruins of itself witho=
ut a
struggle.
And to bring this=
to
pass, nothing new need be brought before men's minds. Only let the mist, which veils from
men's eyes the true meaning of certain acts of violence, pass away, and the=
Christian
public opinion which is springing up would overpower the extinct public opi=
nion
which permitted and justified acts of violence. People need only come to be as much
ashamed to do deeds of violence, to assist in them or to profit by them, as
they now are of being, or being reputed a swindler, a thief, a coward, or a=
beggar. And already this change is beginni=
ng to
take place. We do not notice =
it
just as we do not notice the movement of the earth, because we are moved
together with everything around us.
It is true that t=
he
organization of society remains in its principal features just as much an
organization based on violence as it was one thousand years ago, and even in
some respects, especially in the preparation for war and in war itself, it =
appears
still more brutal. But the ri=
sing
Christian ideal, which must at a certain stage of development replace the
heathen ideal of life, already makes its influence felt. A dead tree stands apparently as f=
irmly
as ever--it may even seem firmer because it is harder--but it is rotten at =
the
core, and soon must fall. It =
is
just so with the present order of society, based on force. The external aspect is unchanged.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> There is the same division of oppr=
essors
and oppressed, but their view of the significance and dignity of their
respective positions is no longer what it once was.
The oppressors, t=
hat
is, those who take part in government, and those who profit by oppression, =
that
is, the rich, no longer imagine, as they once did, that they are the elect =
of
the world, and that they constitute the ideal of human happiness and greatn=
ess,
to attain which was once the highest aim of the oppressed.
Very often now it=
is
not the oppressed who strive to attain the position of the oppressors, and =
try
to imitate them, but on the contrary the oppressors who voluntarily abandon=
the
advantages of their position, prefer the condition of the oppressed, and tr=
y to
resemble them in the simplicity of their life.
Not to speak of t=
he
duties and occupations now openly despised, such as that of spy, agent of
secret police, moneylender, and publican, there are a great number of
professions formerly regarded as honorable, such as those of police officia=
ls, courtiers,
judges, and administrative functionaries, clergymen, military officers,
speculators, and bankers, which are no longer considered desirable position=
s by
everyone, and are even despised by a special circle of the most respected
people. There are already men=
who
voluntarily abandon these professions which were once reckoned irreproachab=
le,
and prefer less lucrative callings which are in no way connected with the u=
se
of force. And there are even rich men who, not through religious sentiment,=
but
simply through special sensitiveness to the social standard that is springi=
ng
up, relinquish their inherited property, believing that a man can only just=
ly
consume what he has gained by his own labor.
The position of a
government official or of a rich man is no longer, as it once was, and stil=
l is
among non-Christian peoples, regarded as necessarily honorable and deservin=
g of
respect, and under the special blessing of God. The most delicate and moral people=
(they
are generally also the most cultivated) avoid such positions and prefer more
humble callings that are not dependent on the use of force.
The best of our y=
oung
people, at the age when they are still uncorrupted by life and are choosing=
a
career, prefer the calling of doctor, engineer, teacher, artist, writer, or
even that of simple farmer living on his own labor, to legal, administrativ=
e, clerical,
and military positions in the pay of government, or to an idle existence li=
ving
on their incomes.
Monuments and
memorials in these days are mostly not erected in honor of government
dignitaries, or generals, or still less of rich men, but rather of artists,=
men
of science, and inventors, persons who have nothing in common with the
government, and often have even been in conflict with it. They are the men whose praises are
celebrated in poetry, who are honored by sculpture and received with triump=
hant
jubilations.
The best men of o=
ur
day are all striving for such places of honor. Consequently the class from
which the wealthy and the government officials are drawn grows less in numb=
er
and lower in intelligence and education, and still more in moral
qualities. So that nowadays t=
he
wealthy class and men at the head of government do not constitute, as they =
did
in former days, the ÉLITE of society; on the contrary, they are infe=
rior
to the middle class.
In Russia and Tur=
key
as in America and France, however often the government change its officials,
the majority of them are self-seeking and corrupt, of so low a moral standa=
rd
that they do not even come up the elementary requirements of common honesty
expected by the government. One may often nowadays hear from persons in
authority the naïve complaint that the best people are always, by some
strange--as it seems to them--fatality, to be found in the camp of the
opposition. As though men were to complain that those who accepted the offi=
ce
of hangman were--by some strange fatality--all persons of very little refin=
ement
or beauty of character.
The most cultivat=
ed
and refined people of our society are not nowadays to be found among the ve=
ry
rich, as used formerly to be the rule.&nbs=
p;
The rich are mostly coarse money grubbers, absorbed only, in increas=
ing
their hoard, generally by dishonest means, or else the degenerate heirs of =
such
money grubbers, who, far from playing any prominent part in society, are mo=
stly
treated with general contempt.
And besides the f=
act
that the class from which the servants of government and the wealthy are dr=
awn
grows less in number and lower in caliber, they no longer themselves attach=
the
same importance to their positions as they once did; often they are ashamed=
of
the ignominy of their calling and do not perform the duties they are bound =
to
perform in their position. Ki=
ngs
and emperors scarcely govern at all; they scarcely ever decide upon an inte=
rnal
reform or a new departure in foreign politics. They mostly leave the decision of =
such
questions to government institutions or to public opinion. All their duties are reduced to
representing the unity and majesty of government. And even this duty they perform le=
ss and
less successfully. The majori=
ty of
them do not keep up their old unapproachable majesty, but become more and m=
ore
democratized and even vulgarized, casting aside the external prestige that
remained to them, and thereby destroying the very thing it was their functi=
on
to maintain.
It is just the sa=
me
with the army. Military offic=
ers of
the highest rank, instead of encouraging in their soldiers the brutality and
ferocity necessary for their work, diffuse education among the soldiers,
inculcate humanity, and often even themselves share the socialistic ideas of
the masses and denounce war. =
In the
last plots against the Russian Government many of the conspirators were in =
the
army. And the number of the
disaffected in the army is always increasing. And it often happens (there was a =
case,
indeed, within the last few days) that when called upon to quell disturbanc=
es
they refuse to fire upon the people.
Military exploits are openly reprobated by the military themselves, =
and
are often the subject of jests among them.
It is the same wi=
th
judges and public prosecutors. The judges, whose duty it is to judge and
condemn criminals, conduct the proceedings so as to whitewash them as far as
possible. So that the Russian
Government, to procure the condemnation of those whom they want to punish,
never intrust them to the ordinary tribunals, but have them tried before a
court martial, which is only a parody of justice. The prosecutors themselves often r=
efuse
to proceed, and even when they do proceed, often in spite of the law, really
defend those they ought to be accusing.&nb=
sp;
The learned jurists whose business it is to justify the violence of
authority, are more and more disposed to deny the right of punishment and t=
o replace
it by theories of irresponsibility and even of moral insanity, proposing to
deal with those they call criminals by medical treatment only.
Jailers and overs=
eers
of galleys generally become the champions of those whom they ought to
torture. Police officers and
detectives are continually assisting the escape of those they ought to arre=
st. The clergy preach tolerance, and e=
ven
sometimes condemn the use of force, and the more educated among them try in
their sermons to avoid the very deception which is the basis of their posit=
ion
and which it is their duty to support.&nbs=
p;
Executioners refuse to perform their functions, so that in Russia the
death penalty cannot be carried out for want of executioners. And in spite of all the advantages
bestowed on these men, who are selected from convicts, there is a constantly
diminishing number of volunteers for the post. Governors, police officials, tax collectors often ha=
ve
compassion on the people and try to find pretexts for not collecting the tax
from them. The rich are not a=
t ease
in spending their wealth only on themselves, and lavish it on works of publ=
ic
utility. Landowners build sch=
ools
and hospitals on their property, and some even give up the ownership of the=
ir
land and transfer it to the cultivators, or establish communities upon it.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Millowners and manufacturers build=
hospitals,
schools, savings banks, asylums, and
dwellings for their workpeople.&nbs=
p;
Some of them form co-operative associations in which they have share=
s on
the same terms as the others. Capitalists expend a part of their capital on
educational, artistic, philanthropic, and other public institutions. And many, who are not equal to par=
ting
with their wealth in their lifetime, leave it in their wills to public
institutions.
All these phenome=
na
might seem to be mere exceptions, except that they can all be referred to o=
ne
common cause. Just as one mig=
ht fancy
the first leaves on the budding trees in April were exceptional if we did n=
ot
know that they all have a common cause, the spring, and that if we see the
branches on some trees shooting and turning green, it is certain that it wi=
ll
soon be so with all.
So it is with the
manifestation of the Christian standard of opinion on force and all that is
based on force. If this stand=
ard already
influences some, the most impressionable, and impels each in his own sphere=
to
abandon advantages based on the use of force, then its influence will extend
further and further till it transforms the whole order of men's actions and
puts it into accord with the Christian ideal which is already a living forc=
e in
the vanguard of humanity.
And if there are =
now
rulers, who do not decide on any step on their own authority, who try to be=
as
unlike monarchs, and as like plain mortals as possible, who state their
readiness to give up their prerogatives and become simply the first citizen=
s of
a republic; if there are already soldiers who realize all the sin and harm =
of
war, and are not willing to fire on men either of their own or a foreign
country; judges and prosecutors who do not like to try and to condemn
criminals; priests, who abjure deception; tax-gatherers who try to perform =
as
little as they can of their duties, and rich men renouncing their wealth--t=
hen
the same thing will inevitably happen to other rulers, other soldiers, other
judges, priests, tax-gatherers, and rich men. And when there are no longer men w=
illing
to fill these offices, these offices themselves will disappear too.
But this is not t=
he
only way in which public opinion is leading men to the abolition of the
prevailing order and the substitution of a new order. As the positions based on the rule=
of
force become less attractive and fewer men are found willing to fill them, =
the
more will their uselessness be apparent.
Everywhere throug= hout the Christian world the same rulers, and the same governments, the same arm= ies, the same law courts, the same tax-gatherers, the same priests, the same rich men, landowners, manufacturers, and capitalists, as ever, but the attitude = of the world to them, and their attitude to themselves is altogether changed.<= o:p>
The same sovereig=
ns
have still the same audiences and interviews, hunts and banquets, and balls=
and
uniforms; there are the same diplomats and the same deliberations on allian=
ces
and wars; there are still the same parliaments, with the same debates on th=
e Eastern
question and Africa, on treaties and violations of treaties, and Home Rule =
and
the eight-hour day; and one set of ministers replacing another in the same =
way,
and the same speeches and the same incidents. But for men who observe how one
newspaper article has more effect on the position of affairs than dozens of=
royal
audiences or parliamentary
sessions, it becomes more and more evident that these audiences and
interviews and debates in parliaments do not direct the course of affairs, =
but
something independent of all that, which cannot be concentrated in one plac=
e.
The same generals=
and
officers and soldiers, and cannons and fortresses, and reviews and maneuver=
s,
but no war breaks out. One ye=
ar,
ten, twenty years pass by. An=
d it
becomes less and less possible to rely on the army for the pacification of
riots, and more and more evident, consequently, that generals, and officers=
, and
soldiers are only figures in solemn processions--objects of amusement for
governments--a sort of immense--and far too expensive--CORPS DE BALLET.
The same lawyers =
and
judges, and the same assizes, but it becomes more and more evident that the
civil courts decide cases on the most diverse grounds, but regardless of
justice, and that criminal trials are quite senseless, because the punishme=
nts
do not attain the objects aimed at by the judges themselves. These institutions therefore serve=
no
other purpose than to provide a means of livelihood for men who are not cap=
able
of doing anything more useful.
The same priests =
and
archbishops and churches and synods, but it becomes more and more evident t=
hat
they have long ago ceased to believe in what they preach, and therefore they
can convince no one of the necessity of believing what they don't believe t=
hemselves.
The same tax
collectors, but they are less and less capable of taking men's property from
them by force, and it becomes more and more evident that people can collect=
all
that is necessary by voluntary subscription without their aid.
The same rich men,
but it becomes more and more evident that they can only be of use by ceasin=
g to
administer their property in person and giving up to society the whole or at
least a part of their wealth.
And when all this=
has
become absolutely evident to everyone, it will be natural for men to ask
themselves: "But why should we keep and maintain all these kings,
emperors, presidents, and members of all sorts of senates and ministries, s=
ince
nothing comes of all their debates and audiences? Wouldn't it be better, as some hum=
orist
suggested, to make a queen of india-rubber?"
And what good to =
us
are these armies with their generals and bands and horses and drums? And what need is there of them when
there is no war, and no one wants to make war? and if there were a war, oth=
er
nations would not let us gain any advantage from it; while the soldiers ref=
use
to fire on their fellow-countrymen.
And what is the u=
se
of these lawyers and judges who don't decide civil cases with justice and
recognize themselves the uselessness of punishments in criminal cases?
And what is the u=
se
of tax collectors who collect the taxes unwillingly, when it is easy to rai=
se
all that is wanted without them?
What is the use of
the clergy, who don't believe in what they preach?
And what is the u=
se
of capital in the hands of private persons, when it can only be of use as t=
he
property of all?
And when once peo=
ple
have asked themselves these questions they cannot help coming to some decis=
ion
and ceasing to support all these institutions which are no longer of use.
But even before t=
hose
who support these institutions decide to abolish them, the men who occupy t=
hese
positions will be reduced to the necessity of throwing them up.
Public opinion mo=
re
and more condemns the use of force, and therefore men are less and less wil=
ling
to fill positions which rest on the use of force, and if they do occupy the=
m,
are less and less able to make use of force in them. And hence they must be=
come
more and more superfluous.
I once took part =
in
Moscow in a religious meeting which used to take place generally in the week
after Easter near the church in the Ohotny Row. A little knot of some twenty men w=
ere
collected together on the pavement, engaged in serious religious discussion=
. At
the same time there was a kind of concert going on in the buildings of the
Court Club in the same street, and a police officer noticing the little gro=
up
collected near the church sent a mounted policeman to disperse it. It was absolutely unnecessary for =
the
officer to disperse it. A gro=
up of
twenty men was no obstruction to anyone, but he had been standing there the
whole morning, and he wanted to do something. The policeman, a young fellow, wit=
h a
resolute flourish of his right arm and a clink of his saber, came up to us =
and
commanded us severely: "Move on! what's this meeting about?" Everyone looked at the policeman, =
and one
of the speakers, a quiet man in a peasant's dress, answered with a calm and=
gracious
air, "We are speaking of serious matters, and there is no need for us =
to
move on; you would do better, young man, to get off your horse and listen.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> It might do you good"; and tu=
rning
round he continued his discourse.
The policeman turned his horse and went off without a word.
That is just what
should be done in all cases of violence.
The officer was
bored, he had nothing to do. =
He had
been put, poor fellow, in a position in which he had no choice but to give =
orders. He was shut off from all human
existence; he could do nothing but superintend and give orders, and give or=
ders
and superintend, though his superintendence and his orders served no useful
purpose whatever. And this is=
the
position in which all these unlucky rulers, ministers, members of parliamen=
t,
governors, generals, officers, archbishops, priests, and even rich men find=
themselves
to some extent already, and will find themselves altogether as time goes
on. They can do nothing but g=
ive
orders, and they give orders and send their messengers, as the officer sent=
the
policeman, to interfere with people.
And because the people they hinder turn to them and request them not=
to
interfere, they fancy they are very useful indeed.
But the time will
come and is coming when it will be perfectly evident to everyone that they =
are
not of any use at all, and only a hindrance, and those whom they interfere =
with
will say gently and quietly to them, like my friend in the street meeting,
"Pray don't interfere with us."&=
nbsp;
And all the messengers and those who send them too will be obliged to
follow this good advice, that is to say, will leave off galloping about, wi=
th
their arms akimbo, interfering with people, and getting off their horses and
removing their spurs, will listen to what is being said, and mixing with ot=
hers,
will take their place with them in some real human work.
The time will come
and is inevitably coming when all institutions based on force will disappear
through their uselessness, stupidity, and even inconvenience becoming obvio=
us
to all.
The time must come
when the men of our modern world who fill offices based upon violence will =
find
themselves in the position of the emperor in Andersen's tale of "The
Emperor's New Clothes," when the child seeing the emperor undressed, c=
ried
in all simplicity, "Look, he is naked!" And then all the rest, who had see=
n him
and said nothing, could not help recognizing it too.
The story is that
there was once an emperor, very fond of new clothes. And to him came two tailors, who
promised to make him some extraordinary clothes. The emperor engages them and they =
begin
to sew at them, but they explain that the clothes have the extraordinary
property of remaining invisible to anyone who is unfit for his position.
This will be exac=
tly
the situation of all who continue through inertia to fill offices which have
long become useless directly someone who has no interest in concealing thei=
r uselessness
exclaims in all simplicity: "But these people have been of no use to
anyone for a long time past!"
The condition of
Christian humanity with its fortresses, cannons, dynamite, guns, torpedoes,
prisons, gallows, churches, factories, customs offices, and palaces is real=
ly
terrible. But still cannons a=
nd
guns will not fire themselves, prisons will not shut men up of themselves,
gallows will not hang them, churches will not delude them, nor customs offi=
ces
hinder them, and palaces and factories are not built nor kept up of
themselves. All those things =
are
the work of men. If men come =
to
understand that they ought not to do these things, then they will cease to
be. And already they are begi=
nning
to understand it. Though all =
do not
understand it yet, the advanced guard understand and the rest will follow
them. And the advanced guard =
cannot
cease to understand what they have once understood; and what they understand
the rest not only can but must inevitably understand hereafter.
So that the proph=
ecy
that the time will come when men will be taught of God, will learn war no m=
ore,
will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into reaping-hooks,
which means, translating it into our language, the fortresses, prisons, bar=
racks,
palaces, and churches will remain empty, and all the gibbets and guns and
cannons will be left unused, is no longer a dream, but the definite new for=
m of
life to which mankind is approaching with ever-increasing rapidity.
But when will it =
be?
Eighteen hundred years ago to this question Christ answered that the end of the
world (that is, of the pagan organization of life) shall come when the
tribulation of men is greater than it has ever been, and when the Gospel of=
the
kingdom of God, that is, the possibility of a new organization of life, shall be preached in the world unt=
o all
nations. (Matt. xxiv. 3-28.) =
But of
that day and hour knoweth no man but the Father only (Matt. xxiv. 3-6), said
Christ. For it may come any t=
ime,
in such an hour as ye think not.
To the question w=
hen
this hour cometh Christ answers that we cannot know, but just because we ca=
nnot
know when that hour is coming we ought to be always ready to meet it, just =
as
the master ought to watch who guards his house from thieves, as the virgins=
ought
to watch with lamps alight for the bridegroom; and further, we ought to work
with all the powers given us to bring that hour to pass, as the servants ou=
ght
to work with the talents intrusted to them. (Matt. xxiv. 43, and xxvi. 13,
14-30.) And there could be no
answer but this one. Men cann=
ot
know when the day and the hour of the kingdom of God will come, because its
coming depends on themselves alone.
The answer is like
that of the wise man who, when asked whether it was far to the town, answer=
ed,
"Walk!"
How can we tell
whether it is far to the goal which humanity is approaching, when we do not
know how men are going toward it, while it depends on them whether they go =
or
do not go, stand still, slacken their pace or hasten it? All we can know is what we who mak=
e up
mankind ought to do, and not to do, to bring about the coming of the kingdo=
m of
God. And that we all know.
CHAPTER XII - CONCLUSION--REPENT YE, FOR T=
HE
KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS AT HAND.
1. Chance Meeting
with a Train Carrying Soldiers to Restore Order Among the Famishing
Peasants--Reason of the Expedition--How the Decisions of the Higher Authori=
ties
are Enforced in Cases of Insubordination on Part of the Peasants--What Happ=
ened
at Orel, as an Example of How the Rights of the Propertied Classes are Main=
tained
by Murder and Torture--All the Privileges of the Wealthy are Based on Simil=
ar
Acts of Violence.
2. The Elements t=
hat
Made up the Force Sent to Toula, and the Conduct of the Men Composing it--H=
ow
these Men Could Carry Out such Acts--The Explanation is Not to be Found in
Ignorance, Conviction, Cruelty, Heartlessness, or Want of Moral Sense--They=
do
these Things Because they are Necessary to Support the Existing Order, which
they Consider it Every Man's Duty to Support--The Basis of this Conviction =
that
the Existing Order is Necessary and Inevitable--In the Upper Classes this C=
onviction
is Based on the Advantages of the Existing Order for Themselves--But what
Forces Men of the Lower Classes to Believe in the Immutability of the Exist=
ing
Order, from which they Derive no Advantage, and which they Aid in Maintaini=
ng,
Facts Contrary to their Conscience?--This is the Result of the Lower Classes
being Deluded by the Upper, Both as to the Inevitability of the Existing Or=
der
and the Lawfulness of the Acts of Violence Needed to Maintain it--Deception=
in General--Special
Form of Deception in Regard to Military Service--Conscription.
3. How can Men Al=
low
that Murder is Permissible while they Preach Principles of Morality, and How
can they Allow of the Existence in their Midst of a Military Organization o=
f Physical
Force which is a Constant Menace to Public Security?--It is only Allowed by=
the
Upper Classes, who Profit by this Organization, Because their Privileges are
Maintained by it--The Upper Classes Allow it, and the Lower Classes Carry it
into Effect in Spite of their Consciousness of the Immorality of the Deeds =
of Violence,
the More Readily Because Through the Arrangements of the Government the Mor=
al
Responsibility for such Deeds is Divided among a Great Number of Participan=
ts
in it, and Everyone Throws the Responsibility on Someone Else--Moreover, the
Sense of Moral Responsibility is Lost through the Delusion of Inequality, a=
nd
the Consequent Intoxication of Power on the Part of Superiors, and Servilit=
y on
the Part of Inferiors--The Condition of these Men, Acting against the Dicta=
tes
of their Conscience, is Like that of Hypnotized Subjects Acting by
Suggestion--The Difference between this Obedience to Government Suggestion,=
and
Obedience to Public Opinion, and to the Guidance of Men of a Higher Moral S=
ense--The
Existing Order of Society, which is the Result of an Extinct Public Opinion=
and
is Inconsistent with the Already Existing Public Opinion of the Future, is =
only
Maintained by the Stupefaction of the Conscience, Produced Spontaneously by
Self-interest in the Upper Classes and Through Hypnotizing in the Lower
Classes--The Conscience or the Common Sense of such Men may Awaken, and the=
re
are Examples of its Sudden Awakening, so that one can Never be Sure of the =
Deeds
of Violence they are Prepared for--It Depends Entirely on the Point which t=
he
Sense of the Unlawfulness of Acts of Violence has Reached, and this Sense m=
ay
Spontaneously Awaken in Men, or may be Reawakened by the Influence of Men of
more Conscience.
4. Everything Dep=
ends
on the Strength of the Consciousness of Christian Truths in Each Individual
Man--The Leading Men of Modern Times, however, do not Think it Necessary to
Preach or Practice the Truths of Christianity, but Regard the Modification =
of
the External Conditions of Existence within the Limit Imposed by Government=
s as
Sufficient to Reform the Life of Humanity--On this Scientific Theory of
Hypocrisy, which has Replaced the Hypocrisy of Religion, Men of the Wealthy
Classes Base their Justification of their Position--Through this Hypocrisy =
they
can Enjoy the Exclusive Privileges of their Position by Force and Fraud, an=
d Still
Pretend to be Christians to One Another and be Easy in their Minds--This
Hypocrisy Allows Men who Preach Christianity to Take Part in Institutions B=
ased
on Violence--No External Reformation of Life will Render it Less Miserable-=
-Its
Misery the Result of Disunion Caused by Following Lies, not the Truth--Union
only Possible in Truth--Hypocrisy Hinders this Union, since Hypocrites Conc=
eal
from themselves and Others the Truth they Know--Hypocrisy Turns all Reforms=
of
Life to Evil--Hypocrisy Distorts the Idea of Good and Evil, and so Stands in
the Way of the Progress of Men toward Perfection--Undisguised Criminals and
Malefactors do Less Harm than those who Live by Legalized Violence, Disguis=
ed
by Hypocrisy--All Men Feel the Iniquity of our Life, and would Long Ago have
Transformed it if it had not been Dissimulated by Hypocrisy--But Seem to ha=
ve
Reached the Extreme Limits of Hypocrisy, and we Need only Make an Effort of
Conscience to Awaken as from a Nightmare to a Different Reality.
5. Can Man Make t=
his
Effort?--According to the Hypocritical Theory of the Day, Man is not Free to
Transform his Life--Man is not Free in his Actions, but he is Free to Admit=
or
to Deny the Truth he Knows--When Truth is Once Admitted, it Becomes the Bas=
is
of Action--Man's Threefold Relation to Truth--The Reason of the Apparent
Insolubility of the Problem of Free Will--Man's Freedom Consists in the
Recognition of the Truth Revealed to him.&=
nbsp;
There is no Other Freedom--Recognition of Truth Gives Freedom, and S=
hows
the Path Along which, Willingly or Unwillingly by Mankind, Man Must
Advance--The Recognition of Truth and Real Freedom Enables Man to Share in =
the
Work of God, not as the Slave, but as the Creator of Life--Men Need only Ma=
ke
the Effort to Renounce all Thought of Bettering the External Conditions of =
Life
and Bend all their Efforts to Recognizing and Preaching the Truth they Know=
, to
put an End to the Existing Miserable State of Things, and to Enter upon the
Kingdom of God so far as it is yet Accessible to Man--All that is Needed is=
to
Make an End of Lying and Hypocrisy--But then what Awaits us in the
Future?--What will Happen to Humanity if Men Follow the Dictates of their
Conscience, and how can Life go on with the Conditions of Civilized Life to
which we are Accustomed? --All Uneasiness on these Points may be Removed by=
the
Reflection that Nothing True and Good can be Destroyed by the Realization o=
f Truth,
but will only be Freed from the Alloy of Falsehood.
6. Our Life has
Reached the Extreme Limit of Misery and Cannot be Improved by any Systems of
Organization--All our Life and all our Institutions are Quite Meaningless--=
Are
we Doing what God Wills of us by Preserving our Privileges and Duties to
Government?--We are put in this Position not Because the World is so Made a=
nd
it is Inevitable, but Because we Wish it to be so, Because it is to the
Advantage of Some of us--Our Conscience is in Opposition to our Position and
all our Conduct, and the Way Out of the Contradiction is to be Found in the
Recognition of the Christian Truth: Do Not unto Others what you Would Not t=
hey should
Do unto You--As our Duties to Self Must be Subordinated to our Duties to
Others, so Must our Duties to Others be Subordinated to our Duties to God--=
The
Only Way Out of our Position Lies, if not in Renouncing our Position and our
Privileges, at Least in Recognizing our Sin and not Justifying it nor
Disguising it--The Only Object of Life is to Learn the Truth and to Act on =
it--Acceptance
of the Position and of State Action Deprives Life of all Object--It is God's
Will that we should Serve Him in our Life, that is, that we should Bring Ab=
out
the Greatest Unity of all that has Life, a Unity only Possible in Truth.
I was finishing this book, which I =
had
been working at for two years, when I happened on the 9th of September to be
traveling by rail through the governments of Toula and Riazan, where the pe=
asants
were starving last year and where the famine is even more severe now. At one of the railway stations my =
train
passed an extra train which was taking a troop of soldiers under the conduc=
t of
the governor of the province, together with muskets, cartridges, and rods, =
to
flog and murder these same famishing peasants.
The punishment of
flogging by way of carrying the decrees of the authorities into effect has =
been
more and more frequently adopted of late in Russia, in spite of the fact th=
at
corporal punishment was abolished by law thirty years ago.
I had heard of th=
is,
I had even read in the newspapers of the fearful floggings which had been
inflicted in Tchernigov, Tambov, Saratov, Astrakhan, and Orel, and of those=
of
which the governor of Nijni-Novgorod, General Baranov, had boasted. But I had never before happened to=
see
men in the process of carrying out these punishments.
And here I saw the
spectacle of good Russians full of the Christian spirit traveling with guns=
and
rods to torture and kill their starving brethren. The reason for their expedition wa=
s as follows:
On one of the est=
ates
of a rich landowner the peasants had common rights on the forest, and having
always enjoyed these rights, regarded the forest as their own, or at least =
as
theirs in common with the owner.
The landowner wished to keep the forest entirely to himself and bega=
n to
fell the trees. The peasants =
lodged
a complaint. The judges in the
first instance gave an unjust decision (I say unjust on the authority of the
lawyer and governor, who ought to understand the matter), and decided the c=
ase
in favor of the landowner. Al=
l the
later decisions, even that of the senate, though they could see that the ma=
tter
had been unjustly decided, confirmed the judgment and adjudged the forest to
the landowner. He began to cu=
t down
the trees, but the peasants, unable to believe that such obvious injustice
could be done them by the higher authorities, did not submit to the decision
and drove away the men sent to cut down the trees, declaring that the forest
belonged to them and they would go to the Tzar before they would let them c=
ut
it down.
The matter was
referred to Petersburg, and the order was transmitted to the governor to ca=
rry
the decision of the court into effect.&nbs=
p;
The governor asked for a troop of soldiers. And here were the soldiers with ba=
yonets
and cartridges, and moreover, a supply of rods, expressly prepared for the
purpose and heaped up in one of the trucks, going to carry the decision of =
the
higher authorities into effect.
The decisions of =
the
higher authorities are carried into effect by means of murder or torture, or
threats of one or the other, according to whether they offer resistance or =
not.
In the first case=
if
the peasants offer resistance the practice is in Russia, and it is the same
everywhere where a state organization and private property exist, as
follows. The governor deliver=
s an
address in which he demands submission.&nb=
sp;
The excited crowd, generally deluded by their leaders, don't underst=
and
a word of what the representative of authority is saying in the pompous off=
icial
language, and their excitement continues.&=
nbsp;
Then the governor announces that if they do not submit and disperse,=
he will
be obliged to have recourse to force.
If the crowd does not disperse even on this, the governor gives the
order to fire over the heads of the crowd.=
If the crowd does not even then disperse, the governor gives the ord=
er
to fire straight into the crowd; the soldiers fire and the killed and wound=
ed
fall about the street. Then the crowd usually runs away in all directions, =
and
the troops at the governor's command take those who are supposed to be the =
ringleaders
and lead them off under escort.
Then they pick up the dying, the wounded, and the dead, covered with
blood, sometimes women and children among them. The dead they bury and the wounded=
they
carry to the hospital. Those =
whom
they regard as the ringleaders they take to the town hall and have them tri=
ed
by a special court-martial. A=
nd if
they have had recourse to violence on their side, they are condemned to be
hanged. And then the gallows =
is
erected. And they solemnly st=
rangle
a few defenseless creatures.
This is what has
often been done in Russia, and is and must always be done where the social
order is based on force.
But in the second
case, when the peasants do submit, something quite special, peculiar to Rus=
sia,
takes place. The governor arr=
ives
on the scene of action and delivers an harangue to the people, reproaching =
them
for their insubordination, and either stations troops in the houses of the
villages, where sometimes for a whole month the soldiers drain the resource=
s of
the peasants, or contenting himself with threats, he mercifully takes leave=
of
the people, or what is the most frequent course, he announces that the ring=
leaders
must be punished, and quite arbitrarily without any trial selects a certain
number of men, regarded as ringleaders, and commands them to be flogged in =
his
presence.
In order to give =
an
idea of how such things are done I will describe a proceeding of the kind w=
hich
took place in Orel, and received the full approval of the highest authoriti=
es.
This is what took
place in Orel. Just as here i=
n the
Toula province, a landlord wanted to appropriate the property of the peasan=
ts
and just in the same way the peasants opposed it. The matter in dispute was a fall of
water, which irrigated the peasants' fields, and which the landowner wanted=
to
cut off and divert to turn his mill.
The peasants rebelled against this being done. The land owner laid a complaint be=
fore
the district commander, who illegally (as was recognized later even by a le=
gal decision)
decided the matter in favor of the landowner, and allowed him to divert the
water course. The landowner s=
ent workmen
to dig the conduit by which the water was to be let off to turn the mill. The peasants were indignant at this
unjust decision, and sent their women to prevent the landowner's men from d=
igging
this conduit. The women went =
to the
dykes, overturned the carts, and drove away the men. The landowner made a complaint aga=
inst
the women for thus taking the law into their own hands. The district commander made out an order that from every house throughout the village=
one
woman was to be taken and put in prison. The order was not easily
executed. For in every househ=
old
there were several women, and it was impossible to know which one was to be
arrested. Consequently the po=
lice
did not carry out the order. The landowner complained to the governor of the
neglect on the part of the police, and the latter, without examining into t=
he affair,
gave the chief official of the police strict orders to carry out the
instructions of the district commander without delay. The police official, in obedience =
to his
superior, went to the village and with the insolence peculiar to Russian
officials ordered his policemen to take one woman out of each house. But since there were more than one=
woman
in each house, and there was no knowing which one was sentenced to
imprisonment, disputes and opposition arose. In spite of these disputes and
opposition, however, the officer of police gave orders that some woman, whi=
chever
came first, should be taken from each household and led away to prison. The peasants began to defend their=
wives
and mothers, would not let them go, and beat the police and their officer.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> This was a fresh and terrible crim=
e:
resistance was offered to the authorities.=
A report of this new offense was sent to the town. And so this governor--precisely as=
the
governor of Toula was doing on that day--with a battalion of soldiers with =
guns
and rods, hastily brought together by means of telegraphs and telephones and
railways, proceeded by a special train to the scene of action, with a learn=
ed
doctor whose duty it was to insure the flogging being of an hygienic
character. Herzen's prophecy =
of the
modern Ghenghis Khan with his telegrams is completely realized by this
governor.
Before the town h=
all
of the district were the soldiery, a battalion of police with their revolve=
rs
slung round them with red cords, the persons of most importance among the
peasants, and the culprits. A=
crowd
of one thousand or more people were standing round. The governor, on arriving, stepped=
out
of his carriage, delivered a prepared harangue, and asked for the culprits =
and
a bench. The latter demand wa=
s at
first not understood. But a p=
olice
constable whom the governor always took about with him, and who undertook to
organize such executions--by no means exceptional in that province--explain=
ed
that what was meant was a bench for flogging. A bench was brought as well as the=
rods,
and then the executioners were summoned (the latter had been selected befor=
ehand
from some horsestealers of the same village, as the soldiers refused the
office). When everything was =
ready,
the governor ordered the first of the twelve culprits pointed out by the
landowner as the most guilty to come forward. The first to come forward was the =
head
of a family, a man of forty who had always stood up manfully for the rights=
of
his class, and therefore was held in the greatest esteem by all the village=
rs. He
was led to the bench and stripped, and then ordered to lie down.
The peasant attem=
pted
to supplicate for mercy, but seeing it was useless, he crossed himself and =
lay
down. Two police constables h=
astened
to hold him down. The learned
doctor stood by, in readiness to give his aid and his medical science when =
they
should be needed. The convict=
s spit
into their hands, brandished the rods, and began to flog. It seemed, however, that the bench=
was too
narrow, and it was difficult to keep the victim writhing in torture upon
it. Then the governor ordered=
them
to bring another bench and to put a plank across them. Soldiers, with their hands raised =
to
their caps, and respectful murmurs of "Yes, your Excellency," has=
ten
obediently to carry out this order.
Meanwhile the tortured man, half naked, pale and scowling, stood
waiting, his eyes fixed on the ground and his teeth chattering. When another bench had been brough=
t they
again made him lie down, and the convicted thieves again began to flog him.=
The victim's back=
and
thighs and legs, and even his sides, became more and more covered with scars
and wheals, and at every blow there came the sound of the deep groans which=
he
could no longer restrain. In =
the
crowd standing round were heard the sobs of wives, mothers, children, the f=
amilies
of the tortured man and of all the others picked out for punishment.
The miserable
governor, intoxicated with power, was counting the strokes on his fingers, =
and
never left off smoking cigarettes, while several officious persons hastened=
on
every opportunity to offer him a burning match to light them. When more than fifty strokes had b=
een
given, the peasant ceased to shriek and writhe, and the doctor, who had been
educated in a government institution to serve his sovereign and his country
with his scientific attainments, went up to the victim, felt his pulse,
listened to his heart, and announced to the representative of authority tha=
t the
man undergoing punishment had lost consciousness, and that, in accordance w=
ith
the conclusions of science, to continue the punishment would endanger the
victim's life. But the misera=
ble governor,
now completely intoxicated by the sight of blood, gave orders that the
punishment should go on, and the flogging was continued up to seventy strok=
es,
the number which the governor had for some reason fixed upon as necessary.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> When the seventieth stroke had been
reached, the governor said "Enough!&n=
bsp;
Next one!" And the mutilated victim, his back covered with bloo=
d,
was lifted up and carried away unconscious, and another was led up. The sobs and groans of the crowd g=
rew
louder. But the representativ=
e of the
state continued the torture.
Thus they flogged
each of them up to the twelfth, and each of them received seventy strokes.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> They all implored mercy, shrieked =
and groaned. The sobs and cries of the crowd of=
women
grew louder and more heart-rending, and the men's faces grew darker and dar=
ker.
But they were surrounded by troops, and the torture did not cease till it h=
ad
reached the limit which had been fixed by the caprice of the miserable
half-drunken and insane creature they called the governor.
The officials, and
officers, and soldiers not only assisted in it, but were even partly
responsible for the affair, since by their presence they prevented any
interference on the part of the crowd.
When I inquired of
one of the governors why they made use of this kind of torture when people =
had
already submitted and soldiers were stationed in the village, he replied wi=
th
the important air of a man who thoroughly understands all the subtleties of=
statecraft,
that if the peasants were not thoroughly subdued by flogging, they would be=
gin
offering opposition to the decisions of authorities again. When some of them had been thoroug=
hly tortured,
the authority of the state would be secured forever among them.
And so that was w=
hy
the Governor of Toula was going in his turn with his subordinate officials,
officers, and soldiers to carry out a similar measure. By precisely the same means, i. e.=
, by murder
and torture, obedience to the decision of the higher authorities was to be
secured. And this decision wa=
s to
enable a young landowner, who had an income of one hundred thousand, to gain
three thousand rubles more by stealing a forest from a whole community of c=
old
and famished peasants, to spend it, in two or three weeks in the saloons of
Moscow, Petersburg, or Paris. That was
what those people whom I met were going to do.
After my thoughts=
had
for two years been turned in the same direction, fate seemed expressly to h=
ave
brought me face to face for the first time in my life with a fact which sho=
wed
me absolutely unmistakably in practice what had long been clear to me in
theory, that the organization of our society rests, not as people intereste=
d in
maintaining the present order of things like to imagine, on certain princip=
les
of jurisprudence, but on simple brute force, on the murder and torture of m=
en.
People who own gr=
eat
estates or fortunes, or who receive great revenues drawn from the class who=
are
in want even of necessities, the working class, as well as all those who li=
ke
merchants, doctors, artists, clerks, learned professors, coachmen, cooks, w=
riters,
valets, and barristers, make their living about these rich people, like to
believe that the privileges they enjoy are not the result of force, but of
absolutely free and just interchange of services, and that their advantages,
far from being gained by such punishments and murders as took place in Orel=
and
several parts of Russia this year, and are always taking place all over Eur=
ope
and America, have no kind of connection with these acts of violence. They like to believe that their
privileges exist apart and are the result of free contract among people; an=
d that
the violent cruelties perpetrated on the people also exist apart and are th=
e result
of some general judicial, political, or economical laws. They try not to see that they all =
enjoy
their privileges as a result of the same fact which forces the peasants who
have tended the forest, and who are in the direct need of it for fuel, to g=
ive
it up to a rich landowner who has taken no part in caring for its growth and
has no need of it whatever--the fact, that is, that if they don't give it up
they will be flogged or killed.
And yet if it is
clear that it was only by means of menaces, blows, or murder, that the mill=
in
Orel was enabled to yield a larger income, or that the forest which the
peasants had planted became the property of a landowner, it should be equal=
ly
clear that all the other exclusive rights enjoyed by the rich, by robbing t=
he
poor of their necessities, rest on the same basis of violence. If the peasa=
nts,
who need land to maintain their families, may not cultivate the land about
their houses, but one man, a Russian, English, Austrian, or any other great
landowner, possesses land enough to maintain a thousand families, though he
does not cultivate it himself, and if a merchant profiting by the misery of=
the
cultivators, taking corn from them at a third of its value, can keep this c=
orn
in his granaries with perfect security while men are starving all around hi=
m,
and sell it again for three times its value to the very cultivators he boug=
ht
it from, it is evident that all this too comes from the same cause. And if =
one
man may not buy of another a commodity from the other side of a certain fix=
ed
line, called the frontier, without paying certain duties on it to men who h=
ave
taken no part whatever in its production--and if men are driven to sell the=
ir
last cow to pay taxes which the government distributes among its functionar=
ies,
and spends on maintaining soldiers to murder these very taxpayers--it would
appear self-evident that all this does not come about as the result of any
abstract laws, but is based on just what was done in Orel, and which may be
done in Toula, and is done periodically in one form or another throughout t=
he
whole world wherever there is a government, and where there are rich and po=
or.
Simply because
torture and murder are not employed in every instance of oppression by forc=
e,
those who enjoy the exclusive privileges of the ruling classes persuade
themselves and others that their privileges are not based on torture and
murder, but on some mysterious general causes, abstract laws, and so on.
And if there is no
need to imprison, beat, and kill men every time the landlord collects his
rents, every time those who are in want of bread have to pay a swindling
merchant three times its value, every time the factory hand has to be conte=
nt
with a wage less than half of the profit made by the employer, and every ti=
me a
poor man pays his last ruble in taxes, it is because so many men have been
beaten and killed for trying to resist these demands, that the lesson has n=
ow
been learnt very thoroughly.
Just as a trained
tiger, who does not eat meat put under his nose, and jumps over a stick at =
the
word of command, does not act thus because he likes it, but because he
remembers the red-hot irons or the fast with which he was punished every ti=
me
he did not obey; so men submitting to what is disadvantageous or even ruino=
us
to them, and considered by them as unjust, act thus because they remember w=
hat
they suffered for resisting it.
As for those who
profit by the privileges gained by previous acts of violence, they often fo=
rget
and like to forget how these privileges were obtained. But one need only recall the facts=
of history,
not the history of the exploits of different dynasties of rulers, but real
history, the history of the oppression of the majority by a small number of
men, to see that all the advantages the rich have over the poor are based on
nothing but flogging, imprisonment, and murder.
One need but refl=
ect
on the unceasing, persistent struggle of all to better their material posit=
ion,
which is the guiding motive of men of the present day, to be convinced that=
the
advantages of the rich over the poor could never and can never be maintaine=
d by
anything but force.
There may be case=
s of
oppression, of violence, and of punishments, though they are rare, the aim =
of
which is not to secure the privileges of the propertied classes. But one may confidently assert tha=
t in
any society where, for every man living in ease, there are ten exhausted by
labor, envious, covetous, and often suffering with their families from dire=
ct
privation, all the privileges of the rich, all their luxuries and
superfluities, are obtained and maintained only by tortures, imprisonment, =
and murder.
The train I met on
the 9th of September going with soldiers, guns, cartridges, and rods, to
confirm the rich landowner in the possession of a small forest which he had
taken from the starving peasants, which they were in the direst need of, an=
d he
was in no need of at all, was a striking proof of how men are capable of do=
ing
deeds directly opposed to their principles and their conscience without
perceiving it.
The special train
consisted of one first-class carriage for the governor, the officials, and
officers, and several luggage vans crammed full of soldiers. The latter, smart young fellows in=
their
clean new uniforms, were standing about in groups or sitting swinging their
legs in the wide open doorways of the luggage vans. Some were smoking, nudg=
ing
each other, joking, grinning, and laughing, others were munching sunflower
seeds and spitting out the husks with an air of dignity. Some of them ran along the platfor=
m to
drink some water from a tub there, and when they met the officers they
slackened their pace, made their stupid gesture of salutation, raising their
hands to their heads with serious faces as though they were doing something=
of
the greatest importance. They=
kept
their eyes on them till they had passed by them, and then set off running s=
till
more merrily, stamping their heels on the platform, laughing and chattering
after the manner of healthy, good-natured young fellows, traveling in lively
company.
They were going to
assist at the murder of their fathers or grandfathers just as if they were
going on a party of pleasure, or at any rate on some quite ordinary busines=
s.
The same impressi=
on
was produced by the well-dressed functionaries and officers who were scatte=
red
about the platform and in the first-class carriage. At a table covered with bottles was
sitting the governor, who was responsible for the whole expedition, dressed=
in
his half-military uniform and eating something while he chatted tranquilly
about the weather with some acquaintances he had met, as though the busines=
s he
was upon was of so simple and ordinary a character that it could not disturb
his serenity and his interest in the change of weather.
At a little dista=
nce
from the table sat the general of the police. He was not taking any
refreshment, and had an impenetrable bored expression, as though he were we=
ary
of the formalities to be gone through.&nbs=
p;
On all sides officers were bustling noisily about in their red unifo=
rms
trimmed with gold; one sat at a table finishing his bottle of beer, another
stood at the buffet eating a cake, and brushing the crumbs off his uniform,
threw down his money with a self-confident air; another was sauntering befo=
re
the carriages of our train, staring at the faces of the women.
All these men who=
were
going to murder or to torture the famishing and defenseless creatures who
provide them their sustenance had the air of men who knew very well that th=
ey
were doing their duty, and some were even proud, were "glorying" =
in
what they were doing.
What is the meani=
ng
of it?
All these people =
are
within half an hour of reaching the place where, in order to provide a weal=
thy
young man with three thousand rubles stolen from a whole community of famis=
hing
peasants, they may be forced to commit the most horrible acts one can conce=
ive,
to murder or torture, as was done in Orel, innocent beings, their brothers.=
And
they see the place and time approaching with untroubled serenity.
To say that all t=
hese
government officials, officers, and soldiers do not know what is before the=
m is
impossible, for they are prepared for it.&=
nbsp;
The governor must have given directions about the rods, the officials
must have sent an order for them, purchased them, and entered the item in t=
heir
accounts. The military office=
rs
have given and received orders about cartridges. They all know that they are
going to torture, perhaps to kill, their famishing fellow-creatures, and th=
at
they must set to work within an hour.
To say, as is usu=
ally
said, and as they would themselves repeat, that they are acting from convic=
tion
of the necessity for supporting the state organization, would be a
mistake. For in the first pla=
ce,
these men have probably never even thought about state organization and the
necessity of it; in the second place, they cannot possibly be convinced that
the act in which they are taking part will tend to support rather than to r=
uin
the state; and thirdly, in reality the majority, if not all, of these men, =
far
from ever sacrificing their own pleasure or tranquillity to support the sta=
te,
never let slip an opportunity of profiting at the expense of the state in e=
very
way they can increase their own pleasure and ease. So that they are not acting thus f=
or the
sake of the abstract principle of the state.
What is the meani=
ng
of it?
Yet I know all th=
ese
men. If I don't know all of t=
hem
personally, I know their characters pretty nearly, their past, and their wa=
y of
thinking. They certainly all =
have
mothers, some of them wives and children.&=
nbsp;
They are certainly for the most part good, kind, even tender-hearted
fellows, who hate every sort of cruelty, not to speak of murder; many of th=
em
would not kill or hurt an animal. Moreover, they are all professed Christia=
ns
and regard all violence directed against the defenseless as base and
disgraceful.
Certainly not one=
of
them would be capable in everyday life, for his own personal profit, of doi=
ng a
hundredth part of what the Governor of Orel did. Every one of them would be insulte=
d at
the supposition that he was capable of doing anything of the kind in private
life.
And yet they are
within half an hour of reaching the place where they may be reduced to the
inevitable necessity of committing this crime.
What is the meani=
ng
of it?
But it is not only
these men who are going by train prepared for murder and torture. How could the men who began the wh=
ole business,
the landowner, the commissioner, the judges, and those who gave the order a=
nd
are responsible for it, the ministers, the Tzar, who are also good men,
professed Christians, how could they elaborate such a plan and assent to it,
knowing its consequences? The spectators even, who took no part in the affa=
ir,
how could they, who are indignant at the sight of any cruelty in private li=
fe,
even the overtaxing of a horse, allow such a horrible deed to be
perpetrated? How was it they =
did
not rise in indignation and bar the roads, shouting, "No; flog and kill
starving men because they won't let their last possession be stolen from th=
em without
resistance, that we won't allow!"&nbs=
p;
But far from anyone doing this, the majority, even of those who were=
the
cause of the affair, such as the commissioner, the landowner, the judge, an=
d those
who took part in it and arranged it, as the governor, the ministers, and the
Tzar, are perfectly tranquil and do not even feel a prick of conscience.
The spectators, w=
ho
one would suppose could have no personal interest in the affair, looked rat=
her
with sympathy than with disapproval at all these people preparing to carry =
out
this infamous action. In the =
same
compartment with me was a wood merchant, who had risen from a peasant. He openly expressed aloud his symp=
athy
with such punishments. "=
They
can't disobey the authorities," he said; "that's what the authori=
ties
are for. Let them have a less=
on;
send their fleas flying! They=
'll
give over making commotions, I warrant you. That's what they want."
What is the meani=
ng
of it?
It is not possibl=
e to
say that all these people who have provoked or aided or allowed this deed a=
re
such worthless creatures that, knowing all the infamy of what they are doin=
g,
they do it against their principles, some for pay and for profit, others
through fear of punishment. A=
ll of
them in certain circumstances know how to stand up for their principles.
It is even less
possible to assert that all these men are such brutes that it is natural and
not distasteful to them to do such deeds.&=
nbsp;
One need only talk to these people a little to see that all of them,=
the
landowner even, and the judge, and the minister and the Tzar and the
government, the officers and the soldiers, not only disapprove of such thin=
gs
in the depth of their soul, but suffer from the consciousness of their
participation in them when they recollect what they imply. But they try not to think about it=
.
One need only tal=
k to
any of these who are taking part in the affair from the landowner to the lo=
west
policeman or soldier to see that in the depth of their soul they all know i=
t is
a wicked thing, that it would be better to have nothing to do with it, and =
are
suffering from the knowledge.
A lady of liberal
views, who was traveling in the same train with us, seeing the governor and=
the
officers in the first-class saloon and learning the object of the expeditio=
n,
began, intentionally raising her voice so that they should hear, to abuse t=
he
existing order of things and to cry shame on men who would take part in such
proceedings. Everyone felt aw=
kward,
none knew where to look, but no one contradicted her. They tried to look as though such =
remarks
were not worth answering. But=
one
could see by their faces and their averted eyes that they were ashamed. I noticed the same thing in the
soldiers. They too knew that =
what
they were sent to do was a shameful thing, but they did not want to think a=
bout
what was before them.
When the wood
merchant, as I suspect insincerely only to show that he was a man of educat=
ion,
began to speak of the necessity of such measures, the soldiers who heard him
all turned away from him, scowling and pretending not to hear.
All the men who, =
like
the landowner, the commissioner, the minister, and the Tzar, were responsib=
le
for the perpetration of this act, as well as those who were now going to
execute it, and even those who were mere spectators of it, knew that it was=
a wickedness,
and were ashamed of taking any share in it, and even of being present at it=
.
Then why did they=
do
it, or allow it to be done?
Ask them the
question. And the landowner w=
ho
started the affair, and the judge who pronounced a clearly unjust even thou=
gh
formally legal decision, and those who commanded the execution of the decis=
ion,
and those who, like the policemen, soldiers, and peasants, will execute the
deed with their own hands, flogging and killing their brothers, all who have
devised, abetted, decreed, executed, or allowed such crimes, will make
substantially the same reply.
The authorities,
those who have started, devised, and decreed the matter, will say that such
acts are necessary for the maintenance of the existing order; the maintenan=
ce
of the existing order is necessary for the welfare of the country and of
humanity, for the possibility of social existence and human progress.
Men of the poorer
class, peasants and soldiers, who will have to execute the deed of violence
with their own hands, say that they do so because it is the command of their
superior authority, and the superior authority knows what he is about. That those are in authority who ou=
ght to
be in authority, and that they know what they are doing appears to them a t=
ruth
of which there can be no doubt. If
they could admit the possibility of mistake or error, it would only be in
functionaries of a lower grade; the highest authority on which all the rest
depends seems to them immaculate beyond suspicion.
Though expressing=
the
motives of their conduct differently, both those in command and their
subordinates are agreed in saying that they act thus because the existing o=
rder
is the order which must and ought to exist at the present time, and that
therefore to support it is the sacred duty of every man.
On this acceptanc=
e of
the necessity and therefore immutability of the existing order, all who take
part in acts of violence on the part of government base the argument always
advanced in their justification.
"Since the existing order is immutable," they say, "t=
he
refusal of a single individual to perform the duties laid upon him will eff=
ect no
change in things, and will only mean that some other man will be put in his
place who may do the work worse, that is to say, more cruelly, to the still
greater injury of the victims of the act of violence."
This conviction t=
hat
the existing order is the necessary and therefore immutable order, which it=
is
a sacred duty for every man to support, enables good men, of high principle=
s in
private life, to take part with conscience more or less untroubled in crime=
s such
as that perpetrated in Orel, and that which the men in the Toula train were
going to perpetrate.
But what is this
conviction based on? It is ea=
sy to
understand that the landowner prefers to believe that the existing order is=
inevitable
and immutable, because this existing order secures him an income from his
hundreds and thousands of acres, by means of which he can lead his habitual
indolent and luxurious life.
It is easy to
understand that the judge readily believes in the necessity of an order of
things through which he receives a wage fifty times as great as the most
industrious laborer can earn, and the same applies to all the higher
officials. It is only under t=
he
existing RÉGIME that as governor, prosecutor, senator, members of the
various councils, they can receive their several thousands of rubles a year,
without which they and their families would at once sink into ruin, since i=
f it
were not for the position they occupy they would never by their own abiliti=
es,
industry, or acquirements get a thousandth part of their salaries. The minister, the Tzar, and all the
higher authorities are in the same position. The only distinction is that the h=
igher
and the more exceptional their position, the more necessary it is for them =
to believe
that the existing order is the only possible order of things. For without it they would not only=
be
unable to gain an equal position, but would be found to fall lower than all
other people. A man who has o=
f his
own free will entered the police force at a wage of ten rubles, which he co=
uld
easily earn in any other position, is hardly dependent on the preservation =
of
the existing RÉGIME, and so he may not believe in its immutability. =
But
a king or an emperor, who receives millions for his post, and knows that th=
ere
are thousands of people round him who would like to dethrone him and take h=
is
place, who knows that he will never receive such a revenue or so much honor=
in
any other position, who knows, in most cases through his more or less despo=
tic
rule, that if he were dethroned he would have to answer for all his abuse o=
f power--he
cannot but believe in the necessity and even sacredness of the existing
order. The higher and the more
profitable a man's position, the more unstable it becomes, and the more
terrible and dangerous a fall from it for him, the more firmly the man beli=
eves
in the existing order, and therefore with the more ease of conscience can s=
uch
a man perpetrate cruel and wicked acts, as though they were not in his own
interest, but for the maintenance of that order.
This is the case =
with
all men in authority, who occupy positions more profitable than they could
occupy except for the present RÉGIME, from the lowest police officer=
to
the Tzar. All of them are mor=
e or
less convinced that the existing order is immutable, because--the chief
consideration--it is to their advantage.&n=
bsp;
But the peasants, the soldiers, who are at the bottom of the social =
scale,
who have no kind of advantage from the existing order, who are in the very
lowest position of subjection and humiliation, what forces them to believe =
that
the existing order in which they are in their humble and disadvantageous
position is the order which ought to exist, and which they ought to support
even at the cost of evil actions contrary to their conscience?
What forces these=
men
to the false reasoning that the existing order is unchanging, and that
therefore they ought to support it, when it is so obvious, on the contrary,
that it is only unchanging because they themselves support it?
What forces these
peasants, taken only yesterday from the plow and dressed in ugly and unseem=
ly
costumes with blue collars and gilt buttons, to go with guns and sabers and
murder their famishing fathers and brothers? They gain no kind of advantage and=
can
be in no fear of losing the position they occupy, because it is worse than =
that
from which they have been taken.
The persons in
authority of the higher orders--landowners, merchants, judges, senators,
governors, ministers, tzars, and officers--take part in such doings because=
the
existing order is to their advantage.
In other respects they are often good and kind-hearted men, and they=
are
more able to take part in such doings because their share in them is limite=
d to
suggestions, decisions, and orders.
These persons in authority never do themselves what they suggest,
decide, or command to be done. For the
most part they do not even see how all the atrocious deeds they have sugges=
ted
and authorized are carried out. But
the unfortunate men of the lower orders, who gain no kind of advantage from=
the
existing RÉGIME, but, on the contrary, are treated with the utmost
contempt, support it even by dragging people with their own hands from their
families, handcuffing them, throwing them in prison, guarding them, shooting
them.
Why do they do
it? What forces them to belie=
ve
that the existing order is unchanging and they must support it?
All violence rest=
s,
we know, on those who do the beating, the handcuffing, the imprisoning, and=
the
killing with their own hands. If there were no soldiers or armed policemen,
ready to kill or outrage anyone as they are ordered, not one of those people
who sign sentences of death, imprisonment, or galley-slavery for life would
make up his mind to hang, imprison, or torture a thousandth part of those w=
hom,
quietly sitting in his study, he now orders to be tortured in all kinds of
ways, simply because he does not see it nor do it himself, but only gets it
done at a distance by these servile tools.
All the acts of
injustice and cruelty which are committed in the ordinary course of daily l=
ife
have only become habitual because there are these men always ready to carry=
out
such acts of injustice and cruelty.
If it were not for them, far from anyone using violence against the
immense masses who are now ill-treated, those who now command their punishm=
ent
would not venture to sentence them, would not even dare to dream of the
sentences they decree with such easy confidence at present. And if it were not for these men, =
ready
to kill or torture anyone at their commander's will, no one would dare to c=
laim,
as all the idle landowners claim with such assurance, that a piece of land,=
surrounded
by peasants, who are in wretchedness from want of land, is the property of a
man who does not cultivate it, or that stores of corn taken by swindling fr=
om
the peasants ought to remain untouched in the midst of a population dying of
hunger because the merchants must make their profit. If it were not for these servile
instruments at the disposal of the authorities, it could never have entered=
the
head of the landowner to rob the peasants of the forest they had tended, no=
r of
the officials to think they are entitled to their salaries, taken from the
famishing people, the price of their oppression; least of all could anyone
dream of killing or exiling men for exposing falsehood and telling the trut=
h. All this can only be done because =
the
authorities are confidently assured that they have always these servile too=
ls
at hand, ready to carry all their demands into effect by means of torture a=
nd
murder.
All the deeds of =
violence
of tyrants from Napoleon to the lowest commander of a company who fires upo=
n a
crowd, can only be explained by the intoxicating effect of their absolute p=
ower
over these slaves. All force,
therefore, rests on these men, who carry out the deeds of violence with the=
ir
own hands, the men who serve in the police or the army, especially the army,
for the police only venture to do their work because the army is at their b=
ack.
What, then, has
brought these masses of honest men, on whom the whole thing depends, who ga=
in
nothing by it, and who have to do these atrocious deeds with their own hand=
s,
what has brought them to accept the amazing delusion that the existing orde=
r, unprofitable,
ruinous, and fatal as it is for them, is the order which ought to exist?
Who has led them =
into
this amazing delusion?
They can never ha=
ve
persuaded themselves that they ought to do what is against their conscience,
and also the source of misery and ruin for themselves, and all their class,=
who
make up nine-tenths of the population.
"How can you
kill people, when it is written in God's commandment: 'Thou shalt not
kill'?" I have often inq=
uired
of different soldiers. And I =
always
drove them to embarrassment and confusion by reminding them of what they did
not want to think about. They=
knew
they were bound by the law of God, "Thou shalt not kill," and knew
too that they were bound by their duty as soldiers, but had never reflected=
on
the contradiction between these duties.&nb=
sp;
The drift of the timid answers I received to this question was alway=
s approximately
this: that killing in war and executing criminals by command of the governm=
ent
are not included in the general prohibition of murder. But when I said this distinction w=
as not
made in the law of God, and reminded them of the Christian duty of fraterni=
ty,
forgiveness of injuries, and love, which could not be reconciled with murde=
r,
the peasants usually agreed, but in their turn began to ask me questions. "How does it happen," th=
ey inquired,
"that the government [which according to their ideas cannot do wrong]
sends the army to war and orders criminals to be executed." When I answered that the governmen=
t does
wrong in giving such orders, the peasants fell into still greater confusion,
and either broke off the conversation or else got angry with me.
"They must h=
ave
found a law for it. The archb=
ishops
know as much about it as we do, I should hope," a Russian soldier once
observed to me. And in saying=
this
the soldier obviously set his mind at rest, in the full conviction that his
spiritual guides had found a law which authorized his ancestors, and the tz=
ars
and their descendants, and millions of men, to serve as he was doing himsel=
f,
and that the question I had put him was a kind of hoax or conundrum on my p=
art.
Everyone in our
Christian society knows, either by tradition or by revelation or by the voi=
ce
of conscience, that murder is one of the most fearful crimes a man can comm=
it,
as the Gospel tells us, and that the sin of murder cannot be limited to cer=
tain
persons, that is, murder cannot be a sin for some and not a sin for others.=
Everyone
knows that if murder is a sin, it is always a sin, whoever are the victims
murdered, just like the sin of adultery, theft, or any other. At the same time from their childh=
ood up
men see that murder is not only permitted, but even sanctioned by the bless=
ing
of those whom they are accustomed to regard as their divinely appointed
spiritual guides, and see their secular leaders with calm assurance organiz=
ing
murder, proud to wear murderous arms, and demanding of others in the name of
the laws of the country, and even of God, that they should take part in mur=
der.
Men see that there is some inconsistency here, but not being able to analyze
it, involuntarily assume that this apparent inconsistency is only the resul=
t of
their ignorance. The very gro=
ssness
and obviousness of the inconsistency confirms them in this conviction.
They cannot imagi=
ne
that the leaders of civilization, the educated classes, could so confidently
preach two such opposed principles as the law of Christ and murder. A simple uncorrupted youth cannot
imagine that those who stand so high in his opinion, whom he regards as hol=
y or
learned men, could for any object whatever mislead him so shamefully. But this is just what has always b=
een
and always is done to him. It=
is
done (1) by instilling, by example and direct instruction, from childhood u=
p, into
the working people, who have not time to study moral and religious questions
for themselves, the idea that torture and murder are compatible with
Christianity, and that for certain objects of state, torture and murder are=
not
only admissible, but ought to be employed; and (2) by instilling into certa=
in
of the people, who have either voluntarily enlisted or been taken by compul=
sion
into the army, the idea that the perpetration of murder and torture with th=
eir
own hands is a sacred duty, and even a glorious exploit, worthy of praise a=
nd
reward.
The general delus=
ion
is diffused among all people by means of the catechisms or books, which
nowadays replace them, in use for the compulsory education of children. In them it is stated that violence=
, that
is, imprisonment and execution, as well as murder in civil or foreign war in
the defense and maintenance of the existing state organization (whatever th=
at
may be, absolute or limited monarchy, convention, consulate, empire of this=
or
that Napoleon or Boulanger, constitutional monarchy, commune or republic) is
absolutely lawful and not opposed to morality and Christianity.
This is stated in=
all
catechisms or books used in schools.
And men are so thoroughly persuaded of it that they grow up, live an=
d die
in that conviction without once entertaining a doubt about it.
This is one form =
of
deception, the general deception instilled into everyone, but there is anot=
her
special deception practiced upon the soldiers or police who are picked out =
by
one means or another to do the torturing and murdering necessary to defend =
and maintain
the existing RÉGIME.
In all military
instructions there appears in one form or another what is expressed in the
Russian military code in the following words:
ARTICLE 87. To carry out exactly and without c=
omment
the orders of a superior officer means: to carry out an order received from=
a superior
officer exactly without considering whether it is good or not, and whether =
it
is possible to carry it out. =
The
superior officer is responsible for the consequences of the order he gives.=
ARTICLE 88. The subordinate ought never to ref=
use to
carry out the orders of a superior officer except when he sees clearly that=
in
carrying out his superior officer's command, he breaks [the law of God, one
involuntarily expects; not at all] HIS OATH OF FIDELITY AND ALLEGIANCE TO T=
HE
TZAR.
It is here said t=
hat
the man who is a soldier can and ought to carry out all the orders of his
superior without exception. A=
nd as
these orders for the most part involve murder, it follows that he ought to
break all the laws of God and man.
The one law he may not break is that of fidelity and allegiance to t=
he
man who happens at a given moment to be in power.
Precisely the same
thing is said in other words in all codes of military instruction. And it could not be otherwise, sin=
ce the
whole power of the army and the state is based in reality on this delusive
emancipation of men from their duty to God and their conscience, and the
substitution of duty to their superior officer for all other duties.
This, then, is the
foundation of the belief of the lower classes that the existing RÉGI=
ME
so fatal for them is the RÉGIME which ought to exist, and which they
ought therefore to support even by torture and murder.
This belief is
founded on a conscious deception practiced on them by the higher classes.
And it cannot be
otherwise. To compel the lower
classes, which are more numerous, to oppress and ill treat themselves, even=
at the
cost of actions opposed to their conscience, it was necessary to deceive
them. And it has been done
accordingly.
Not many days ago=
I
saw once more this shameless deception being openly practiced, and once mor=
e I
marveled that it could be practiced so easily and impudently.
At the beginning =
of
November, as I was passing through Toula, I saw once again at the gates of =
the
Zemsky Courthouse the crowd of peasants I had so often seen before, and hea=
rd
the drunken shouts of the men mingled with the pitiful lamentations of their
wives and mothers. It was the
recruiting session.
I can never pass =
by
the spectacle. It attracts me=
by a
kind of fascination of repulsion. =
span>I
again went into the crowd, took my stand among the peasants, looked about a=
nd
asked questions. And once aga=
in I
was amazed that this hideous crime can be perpetrated so easily in broad
daylight and in the midst of a large town.
As the custom is
every year, in all the villages and hamlets of the one hundred millions of
Russians, on the 1st of November, the village elders had assembled the young
men inscribed on the lists, often their own sons among them, and had brought
them to the town.
On the road the
recruits have been drinking without intermission, unchecked by the elders, =
who
feel that going on such an insane errand, abandoning their wives and mothers
and renouncing all they hold sacred in order to become a senseless instrume=
nt
of destruction, would be too agonizing if they were not stupefied with spir=
its.
And so they have
come, drinking, swearing, singing, fighting and scuffling with one
another. They have spent the =
night
in taverns. In the morning they have slept off their drunkenness and have g=
athered
together at the Zemsky Court-house.
Some of them, in =
new
sheepskin pelisses, with knitted scarves round their necks, their eyes swol=
len
from drinking, are shouting wildly to one another to show their courage;
others, crowded near the door, are quietly and mournfully waiting their tur=
n,
between their weeping wives and mothers (I had chanced upon the day of the =
actual
enrolling, that is, the examination of those whose names are on the list);
others meantime were crowding into the hall of the recruiting office.
Inside the office=
the
work was going on rapidly. Th=
e door
is opened and the guard calls Piotr Sidorov. Piotr Sidorov starts, crosses hims=
elf,
and goes into a little room with a glass door, where the conscripts
undress. A comrade of Piotr
Sidorov's, who has just been passed for service, and come naked out of the =
revision
office, is dressing hurriedly, his teeth chattering. Sidorov has already he=
ard
the news, and can see from his face too that he has been taken. He wants to ask him questions, but=
they hurry
him and tell him to make haste and undress. He throws off his pelisse, slips h=
is
boots off his feet, takes off his waistcoat and draws his shirt over his he=
ad,
and naked, trembling all over, and exhaling an odor of tobacco, spirits, and
sweat, goes into the revision office, not knowing what to do with his brawny
bare arms.
Directly facing h=
im
in the revision office hangs in a great gold frame a portrait of the Tzar in
full uniform with decorations, and in the corner a little portrait of Chris=
t in
a shirt and a crown of thorns. In
the middle of the room is a table covered with green cloth, on which there =
are
papers lying and a three-cornered ornament surmounted by an eagle--the zert=
zal.
Round the table are sitting the revising officers, looking collected and
indifferent. One is smoking a cigarette; another is looking through some pa=
pers. Directly Sidorov comes in, a guard=
goes
up to him, places him under the measuring frame, raising him under his chin,
and straightening his legs.
The man with the
cigarette--he is the doctor--comes up, and without looking at the recruit's
face, but somewhere beyond it, feels his body over with an air of disgust,
measures him, tests him, tells the guard to open his mouth, tells him to
breathe, to speak. Someone notes something down. At last without having once
looked him in the face the doctor says, "Right. Next one!" and wi=
th a
weary air sits down again at the table. The soldiers again hustle and hurry=
the
lad. He somehow gets into his trousers, wraps his feet in rags, puts on his=
boots,
looks for his scarf and cap, and bundles his pelisse under his arm. Then th=
ey
lead him into the main hall, shutting him off apart from the rest by a benc=
h, behind
which all the conscripts who have been passed for service are waiting. Anot=
her
village lad like himself, but from a distant province, now a soldier armed =
with
a gun with a sharp-pointed bayonet at the end, keeps watch over him, ready =
to
run him through the body if he should think of trying to escape.
Meantime the crow=
d of
fathers, mothers, and wives, hustled by the police, are pressing round the
doors to hear whose lad has been taken, whose is let off. One of the rejected comes out and =
announces
that Piotr is taken, and at once a shrill cry is heard from Piotr's young w=
ife,
for whom this word "taken" means separation for four or five year=
s,
the life of a soldier's wife as a servant, often a prostitute.
But here comes a =
man
along the street with flowing hair and in a peculiar dress, who gets out of=
his
droskhy and goes into the Zemsky Court-house. The police clear a way for him thr=
ough
the crowd. It is the "re=
verend
father" come to administer the oath. And this "father," who =
has
been persuaded that he is specially and exclusively devoted to the service =
of
Christ, and who, for the most part, does not himself see the deception in w=
hich
he lives, goes into the hall where the conscripts are waiting. He throws round him a kind of curt=
ain of
brocade, pulls his long hair out over it, opens the very Gospel in which
swearing is forbidden, takes the cross, the very cross on which Christ was
crucified because he would not do what this false servant of his is telling=
men
to do, and puts them on the lectern.
And all these unhappy, defenseless, and deluded lads repeat after him
the lie, which he utters with the assurance of familiarity.
He reads and they
repeat after him:
"I promise a=
nd
swear by Almighty God upon his holy Gospel," etc., "to defend,&qu=
ot;
etc., and that is, to murder anyone I am told to, and to do everything I am
told by men I know nothing of, and who care nothing for me except as an
instrument for perpetrating the crimes by which they are kept in their posi=
tion
of power, and my brothers in their condition of misery. All the conscripts repeat these fe=
rocious words without thinking. And
then the so-called &qu=
ot;father"
goes away with a sense of having correctly and conscientiously done his
duty. And all these poor delu=
ded
lads believe that these nonsensical and incomprehensible words which they h=
ave
just uttered set them free for the whole time of their service from their
duties as men, and lay upon them fresh and more binding duties as soldiers.=
And this crime is
perpetrated publicly and no one cries out to the deceiving and the deceived:
"Think what you are doing; this is the basest, falsest lie, by which n=
ot
bodies only, but souls too, are destroyed."
No one does
this. On the contrary, when a=
ll
have been enrolled, and they are to be let out again, the military officer =
goes
with a confident and majestic air into the hall where the drunken, cheated =
lads
are shut up, and cries in a bold, military voice: "Your health, my
lads! I congratulate you on
'serving the Tzar!'" And they, poor fellows (someone has given them a =
hint
beforehand), mutter awkwardly, their voices thick with drink, something to =
the effect
that they are glad.
Meantime the crow=
d of
fathers, mothers, and wives is standing at the doors waiting. The women keep their tearful eyes =
fixed
on the doors. They open at la=
st,
and out come the conscripts, unsteady, but trying to put a good face on
it. Here are Piotr and Vania =
and Makar
trying not to look their dear ones in the face. Nothing is heard but the wailing o=
f the
wives and mothers. Some of th=
e lads
embrace them and weep with them, others make a show of courage, and others =
try
to comfort them.
The wives and
mothers, knowing that they will be left for three, four, or five years with=
out
their breadwinners, weep and rehearse their woes aloud. The fathers say little. They only utter a clucking sound w=
ith
their tongues and sigh mournfully, knowing that they will see no more of the
steady lads they have reared and trained to help them, that they will come =
back
not the same quiet hard-working laborers, but for the most part conceited a=
nd demoralized,
unfitted for their simple life.
And then all the
crowd get into their sledges again and move away down the street to the tav=
erns
and pot-houses, and louder than ever sounds the medley of singing and sobbi=
ng,
drunken shouts, and the wailing of the wives and mothers, the sounds of the
accordeon and oaths. They all=
turn
into the taverns, whose revenues go to the government, and the drinking bout
begins, which stifles their sense of the wrong which is being done them.
For two or three
weeks they go on living at home, and most of that time they are
"jaunting," that is, drinking.
On a fixed day th=
ey
collect them, drive them together like a flock of sheep, and begin to train
them in the military exercises and drill.&=
nbsp;
Their teachers are fellows like themselves, only deceived and brutal=
ized
two or three years sooner. The
means of instruction are: deception, stupefaction, blows, and vodka. And before a year has passed these=
good,
intelligent, healthy-minded lads will be as brutal beings as their instruct=
ors.
"Come, now,
suppose your father were arrested and tried to make his escape?" I ask=
ed a
young soldier.
"I should run
him through with my bayonet," he answered with the foolish intonation
peculiar to soldiers; "and if he made off, I ought to shoot him,"=
he
added, obviously proud of knowing what he must do if his father were escapi=
ng.
And when a
good-hearted lad has been brought to a state lower than that of a brute, he=
is
just what is wanted by those who use him as an instrument of violence. He is ready; the man has been dest=
royed
and a new instrument of violence has been created. And all this is done every year, e=
very
autumn, everywhere, through all Russia in broad daylight in the midst of la=
rge
towns, where all may see it, and the deception is so clever, so skillful, t=
hat though
all men know the infamy of it in their hearts, and see all its horrible
results, they cannot throw it off and be free.
When one's eyes a=
re
opened to this awful deception practiced upon us, one marvels that the teac=
hers
of the Christian religion and of morals, the instructors of youth, or even =
the
good-hearted and intelligent parents who are to be found in every society, =
can teach
any kind of morality in a society in which it is openly admitted (it is so
admitted, under all governments and all churches) that murder and torture f=
orm
an indispensable element in the life of all, and that there must always be
special men trained to kill their fellows, and that any one of us may have =
to
become such a trained assassin.
How can children,
youths, and people generally be taught any kind of morality--not to speak of
teaching in the spirit of Christianity--side by side with the doctrine that
murder is necessary for the public weal, and therefore legitimate, and that=
there
are men, of whom each of us may have to be one, whose duty is to murder and
torture and commit all sorts of crimes at the will of those who are in
possession of authority. If t=
his is
so, and one can and ought to murder and torture, there is not, and cannot b=
e,
any kind of moral law, but only the law that might is right. And this is just how it is. In reality that is the doctrine--j=
ustified
to some by the theory of the struggle for existence--which reigns in our
society.
And, indeed, what
sort of ethical doctrine could admit the legitimacy of murder for any object
whatever? It is as impossible=
as a
theory of mathematics admitting that two is equal to three.
There may be a semblance of mathematics admitting that two is equal to three, but there ca= n be no real science of mathematics. And there can only be a semblance of ethics= in which murder in the shape of war and the execution of criminals is allowed,= but no true ethics. The recogniti= on of the life of every man as sacred is the first and only basis of all ethics.<= o:p>
The doctrine of an
eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth has been abrogated by Christianity,
because it is the justification of immorality, and a mere semblance of equi=
ty,
and has no real meaning. Life=
is a
value which has no weight nor size, and cannot be compared to any other, an=
d so
there is no sense in destroying a life for a life. Besides, every social law aims at =
the amelioration
of man's life. What way, then=
, can
the annihilation of the life of some men ameliorate men's life? Annihilation of life cannot be a m=
eans
of the amelioration of life; it is a suicidal act.
To destroy another
life for the sake of justice is as though a man, to repair the misfortune of
losing one arm, should cut off the other arm for the sake of equity.
But putting aside=
the
sin of deluding men into regarding the most awful crime as a duty, putting
aside the revolting sin of using the name and authority of Christ to sancti=
on
what he most condemned, not to speak of the curse on those who cause these =
"little
ones" to offend--how can people who cherish their own way of life, the=
ir
progress, even from the point of view of their personal security, allow the
formation in their midst of an overwhelming force as senseless, cruel, and
destructive as every government is organized on the basis of an army? Even the most cruel band of brigan=
ds is
not so much to be dreaded as such a government.
The power of every
brigand chief is at least so far limited that the men of his band preserve =
at
least some human liberty, and can refuse to commit acts opposed to their
conscience. But, owing to the
perfection to which the discipline of the army has been brought, there is no
limit to check men who form part of a regularly organized government. There are no crimes so revolting t=
hat
they would not readily be committed by men who form part of a government or
army, at the will of anyone (such as Boulanger, Napoleon, or Pougachef) who=
may
chance to be at their head.
Often when one se=
es
conscription levies, military drills and maneuvers, police officers with lo=
aded
revolvers, and sentinels at their posts with bayonets on their rifles; when=
one
hears for whole days at a time (as I hear it in Hamovniky where I live) the=
whistle
of balls and the dull thud as they fall in the sand; when one sees in the m=
idst
of a town where any effort at violence in self-defense is forbidden, where =
the
sale of powder and of chemicals, where furious driving and practicing as a
doctor without a diploma, and so on, are not allowed; thousands of discipli=
ned
troops, trained to murder, and subject to one man's will; one asks oneself =
how
can people who prize their security quietly allow it, and put up with it? Apart from the immorality and evil
effects of it, nothing can possibly be more unsafe. What are people thinking about?
And the man in
authority, endurable to-day, may become a brute to-morrow, or may be succee=
ded
by a mad or imbecile heir, like the King of Bavaria or our Paul I.
And not only the
highest authorities, but all little satraps scattered over everywhere, like=
so
many General Baranovs, governors, police officers even, and commanders of
companies, can perpetrate the most awful crimes before there is time for th=
em
to be removed from office. An=
d this
is what is constantly happening.
One involuntarily
asks how can men let it go on, not from higher considerations only, but from
regard to their own safety?
The answer to this
question is that it is not all people who do tolerate it (some--the greater
proportion--deluded and submissive, have no choice and have to tolerate
anything). It is tolerated by=
those
who only under such an organization can occupy a position of profit. They tolerate it, because for them=
the
risks of suffering from a foolish or cruel man being at the head of the
government or the army are always less than the disadvantages to which they=
would
be exposed by the destruction of the organization itself.
A judge, a comman=
der
of police, a governor, or an officer will keep his position just the same u=
nder
Boulanger or the republic, under Pougachef or Catherine. He will lose his profitable positi=
on for
certain, if the existing order of things which secured it to him is destroy=
ed. And so all these people feel no un=
easiness
as to who is at the head of the organization, they will adapt themselves to
anyone; they only dread the downfall of the organization itself, and that is
the reason--though often an unconscious one--that they support it.
One often wonders=
why
independent people, who are not forced to do so in any way, the so-called
ÉLITE of society, should go into the army in Russia, England, German=
y,
Austria, and even France, and seek opportunities of becoming murderers. Why=
do
even high-principled parents send their boys to military schools? Why do
mothers buy their children toy helmets, guns, and swords as playthings? (The
peasant's children never play at soldiers, by the way). Why do good men and
even women, who have certainly no interest in war, go into raptures over the
various exploits of Skobeloff and others, and vie with one another in
glorifying them? Why do men, who are not obliged to do so, and get no fee f=
or
it, devote, like the marshals of nobility in Russia, whole months of toil t=
o a
business physically disagreeable and morally painful--the enrolling of cons=
cripts?
Why do all kings and emperors wear the military uniform? Why do they all ho=
ld
military reviews, why do they organize maneuvers, distribute rewards to the
military, and raise monuments to generals and successful commanders? Why do
rich men of independent position consider it an honor to perform a valet's
duties in attendance on crowned personages, flattering them and cringing to
them and pretending to believe in their peculiar superiority? Why do men who
have ceased to believe in the superstitions of the mediaeval Church, and who
could not possibly believe in them seriously and consistently, pretend to
believe in and give their support to the demoralizing and blasphemous insti=
tution
of the church? Why is it that not only governments but private persons of t=
he
higher classes, try so jealously to maintain the ignorance of the people? W=
hy
do they fall with such fury on any effort at breaking down religious
superstitions or really enlightening the people? Why do historians, novelis=
ts,
and poets, who have no hope of gaining anything by their flatteries, make
heroes of kings, emperors, and conquerors of past times? Why do men, who ca=
ll
themselves learned, dedicate whole lifetimes to making theories to prove th=
at
violence employed by authority against the people is not violence at all, b=
ut a
special right? One often wonders why a fashionable lady or an artist, who, =
one
would think, would take no interest in political or military questions, sho=
uld
always condemn strikes of working people, and defend war; and should always=
be
found without hesitation opposed to the one, favorable to the other.
But one no longer
wonders when one realizes that in the higher classes there is an unerring
instinct of what tends to maintain and of what tends to destroy the
organization by virtue of which they enjoy their privileges. The fashionable lady had certainly=
not
reasoned out that if there were no capitalists and no army to defend them, =
her
husband would have no fortune, and she could not have her entertainments and
her ball-dresses. And the art=
ist certainly
does not argue that he needs the capitalists and the troops to defend them,=
so
that they may buy his pictures. But
instinct, replacing reason in this instance, guides them unerringly. And it is precisely this instinct =
which
leads all men, with few exceptions, to support all the religious, political=
, and
economic institutions which are to their advantage.
But is it possible
that the higher classes support the existing order of things simply because=
it
is to their advantage? Cannot=
they
see that this order of things is essentially irrational, that it is no long=
er
consistent with the stage of moral development attained by people, and with
public opinion, and that it is fraught with perils? The governing classes, or at least=
the
good, honest, and intelligent people of them, cannot but suffer from these
fundamental inconsistencies, and see the dangers with which they are threat=
ened. And is it possible that all the mi=
llions
of the lower classes can feel easy in conscience when they commit such
obviously evil deeds as torture and murder from fear of punishment? Indeed, it could not be so, neithe=
r the
former nor the latter could fail to see the irrationality of their conduct,=
if
the complexity of government organization did not obscure the unnatural
senselessness of their actions.
So many instigate,
assist, or sanction the commission of every one of these actions that no one
who has a hand in them feels himself morally responsible for it.
It is the custom among assassins to oblige all the witnesses of a murder to strike the murde= red victim, that the responsibility may be divided among as large a number of people as possible. The same principle in different forms is applied under the government organization in the perpetration of the crimes, without which no government organization co= uld exist. Rulers always try to i= mplicate as many citizens as possible in all the crimes committed in their support.<= o:p>
Of late this tend=
ency
has been expressed in a very obvious manner by the obligation of all citize=
ns
to take part in legal processes as jurors, in the army as soldiers, in the
local government, or legislative assembly, as electors or members.
Just as in a wick=
er
basket all the ends are so hidden away that it is hard to find them, in the
state organization the responsibility for the crimes committed is so hidden
away that men will commit the most atrocious acts without seeing their resp=
onsibility
for them.
In ancient times
tyrants got credit for the crimes they committed, but in our day the most
atrocious infamies, inconceivable under the Neros, are perpetrated and no o=
ne
gets blamed for them.
One set of people
have suggested, another set have proposed, a third have reported, a fourth =
have
decided, a fifth have confirmed, a sixth have given the order, and a seventh
set of men have carried it out.
They hang, they flog to death women, old men, and innocent people, as
was done recently among us in Russia at the Yuzovsky factory, and is always
being done everywhere in Europe and America in the struggle with the anarch=
ists
and all other rebels against the existing order; they shoot and hang men by
hundreds and thousands, or massacre millions in war, or break men's hearts =
in
solitary confinement, and ruin their souls in the corruption of a soldier's
life, and no one is responsible.
At the bottom of =
the
social scale soldiers, armed with guns, pistols, and sabers, injure and mur=
der
people, and compel men through these means to enter the army, and are
absolutely convinced that the responsibility for the actions rests solely o=
n the
officers who command them.
At the top of the
scale--the Tzars, presidents, ministers, and parliaments decree these tortu=
res
and murders and military conscription, and are fully convinced that since t=
hey
are either placed in authority by the grace of God or by the society they g=
overn,
which demands such decrees from them, they cannot be held responsible. Between these two extremes are the
intermediary personages who superintend the murders and other acts of viole=
nce,
and are fully convinced that the responsibility is taken off their shoulders
partly by their superiors who have given the order, partly by the fact that
such orders are expected from them by all who are at the bottom of the scal=
e.
The authority who
gives the orders and the authority who executes them at the two extreme end=
s of
the state organization, meet together like the two ends of a ring; they sup=
port
and rest on one another and inclose all that lies within the ring.
Without the
conviction that there is a person or persons who will take the whole
responsibility of his acts, not one soldier would ever lift a hand to commi=
t a
murder or other deed of violence.
Without the
conviction that it is expected by the whole people not a single king, emper=
or,
president, or parliament would order murders or acts of violence.
Without the
conviction that there are persons of a higher grade who will take the
responsibility, and people of a lower grade who require such acts for their
welfare, not one of the intermediate class would superintend such deeds.
The state is so
organized that wherever a man is placed in the social scale, his
irresponsibility is the same. The
higher his grade the more he is under the influence of demands from below, =
and
the less he is controlled by orders from above, and VICE VERSA.
All men, then, bo=
und
together by state organization, throw the responsibility of their acts on o=
ne
another, the peasant soldier on the nobleman or merchant who is his officer,
and the officer on the nobleman who has been appointed governor, the govern=
or
on the nobleman or son of an official who is minister, the minister on the
member of the royal family who occupies the post of Tzar, and the Tzar agai=
n on
all these officials, noblemen, merchants, and peasants. But that is not all. Besides the fact that men get rid =
of the
sense of responsibility for their actions in this way, they lose their moral
sense of responsibility also, by the fact that in forming themselves into a
state organization they persuade themselves and each other so continually, =
and
so indefatigably, that they are not all equal, but "as the stars
apart," that they come to believe it genuinely themselves. Thus some are persuaded that they =
are
not simple people like everyone else, but special people who are to be
specially honored. It is inst=
illed
into another set of men by every possible means that they are inferior to
others, and therefore must submit without a murmur to every order given the=
m by
their superiors.
On this inequalit=
y,
above all, on the elevation of some and the degradation of others, rests the
capacity men have of being blind to the insanity of the existing order of l=
ife,
and all the cruelty and criminality of the deception practiced by one set of
men on another.
Those in whom the
idea has been instilled that they are invested with a special supernatural
grandeur and consequence, are so intoxicated with a sense of their own
imaginary dignity that they cease to feel their responsibility for what they
do.
While those, on t=
he
other hand, in whom the idea is fostered that they are inferior animals, bo=
und
to obey their superiors in everything, fall, through this perpetual
humiliation, into a strange condition of stupefied servility, and in this
stupefied state do not see the significance of their actions and lose all c=
onsciousness
of responsibility for what they do.
The intermediate
class, who obey the orders of their superiors on the one hand and regard
themselves as superior beings on the other, are intoxicated by power and
stupefied by servility at the same time and so lose the sense of their
responsibility.
One need only gla=
nce
during a review at the commander-in-chief, intoxicated with self-importance,
followed by his retinue, all on magnificent and gayly appareled horses, in
splendid uniforms and wearing decorations, and see how they ride to the
harmonious and solemn strains of music before the ranks of soldiers, all
presenting arms and petrified with servility. One need only glance at this
spectacle to understand that at such moments, when they are in a state of t=
he
most complete intoxication, commander-in-chief, soldiers, and intermediate
officers alike, would be capable of committing crimes of which they would n=
ever
dream under other conditions.
The intoxication
produced by such stimulants as parades, reviews, religious solemnities, and
coronations, is, however, an acute and temporary condition; but there are o=
ther
forms of chronic, permanent intoxication, to which those are liable who have
any kind of authority, from that of the Tzar to that of the lowest police
officer at the street corner, and also those who are in subjection to autho=
rity
and in a state of stupefied servility. The latter, like all slaves, always =
find
a justification for their own servility, in ascribing the greatest possible
dignity and importance to those they serve.
It is principally
through this false idea of inequality, and the intoxication of power and of
servility resulting from it, that men associated in a state organization are
enabled to commit acts opposed to their conscience without the least scrupl=
e or
remorse. Under the influence of this intoxication, men imagine themselves no
longer simply men as they are, but some special beings--noblemen, merchants=
, governors,
judges, officers, tzars, ministers, or soldiers--no longer bound by ordinary
human duties, but by other duties far more weighty--the peculiar duties of a
nobleman, merchant, governor, judge, officer, tzar, minister, or soldier.
Thus the landowne=
r,
who claimed the forest, acted as he did only because he fancied himself not=
a
simple man, having the same rights to life as the peasants living beside him
and everyone else, but a great landowner, a member of the nobility, and und=
er the
influence of the intoxication of power he felt his dignity offended by the
peasants' claims. It was only
through this feeling that, without considering the consequences that might =
follow,
he sent in a claim to be reinstated in his pretended rights.
In the same way t=
he
judges, who wrongfully adjudged the forest to the proprietor, did so simply
because they fancied themselves not simply men like everyone else, and so b=
ound
to be guided in everything only by what they consider right, but, under the=
intoxicating
influence of power, imagined themselves the representatives of the justice
which cannot err; while under the intoxicating influence of servility they
imagined themselves bound to carry out to the letter the instructions inscr=
ibed
in a certain book, the so-called law.
In the same way all who take part in such an affair, from the highest
representative of authority who signs his assent to the report, from the
superintendent presiding at the recruiting sessions, and the priest who del=
udes
the recruits, to the lowest soldier who is ready now to fire on his own
brothers, imagine, in the intoxication of power or of servility, that they =
are
some conventional characters. They
do not face the question that is presented to them, whether or not they oug=
ht
to take part in what their conscience judges an evil act, but fancy themsel=
ves
various conventional personages--one as the Tzar, God's anointed, an
exceptional being, called to watch over the happiness of one hundred millio=
ns
of men; another as the representative of nobility; another as a priest, who=
has
received special grace by his ordination; another as a soldier, bound by his
military oath to carry out all he is commanded without reflection.
Only under the
intoxication of the power or the servility of their imagined positions could
all these people act as they do.
Were not they all
firmly convinced that their respective vocations of tzar, minister, governo=
r,
judge, nobleman, landowner, superintendent, officer, and soldier are someth=
ing
real and important, not one of them would even think without horror and ave=
rsion
of taking part in what they do now.
The conventional
positions, established hundreds of years, recognized for centuries and by
everyone, distinguished by special names and dresses, and, moreover, confir=
med
by every kind of solemnity, have so penetrated into men's minds through the=
ir senses,
that, forgetting the ordinary conditions of life common to all, they look at
themselves and everyone only from this conventional point of view, and are
guided in their estimation of their own actions and those of others by this
conventional standard.
Thus we see a man=
of
perfect sanity and ripe age, simply because he is decked out with some frin=
ge,
or embroidered keys on his coat tails, or a colored ribbon only fit for some
gayly dressed girl, and is told that he is a general, a chamberlain, a knig=
ht
of the order of St. Andrew, or some similar nonsense, suddenly become self-=
important,
proud, and even happy, or, on the contrary, grow melancholy and unhappy to =
the
point of falling ill, because he has failed to obtain the expected decorati=
on
or title. Or what is still mo=
re
striking, a young man, perfectly sane in every other matter, independent and
beyond the fear of want, simply because he has been appointed judicial
prosecutor or district commander, separates a poor widow from her little
children, and shuts her up in prison, leaving her children uncared for, all
because the unhappy woman carried on a secret trade in spirits, and so depr=
ived
the revenue of twenty-five rubles, and he does not feel the least pang of
remorse. Or what is still more
amazing; a man, otherwise sensible and good-hearted, simply because he is g=
iven
a badge or a uniform to wear, and told that he is a guard or customs office=
r,
is ready to fire on people, and neither he nor those around him regard him =
as
to blame for it, but, on the contrary, would regard him as to blame if he d=
id
not fire. To say nothing of j=
udges
and juries who condemn men to death, and soldiers who kill men by thousands
without the slightest scruple merely because it has been instilled into them
that they are not simply men, but jurors, judges, generals, and soldiers.
This strange and
abnormal condition of men under state organization is usually expressed in =
the
following words: "As a man, I pity him; but as guard, judge, general,
governor, tzar, or soldier, it is my duty to kill or torture him." Just as though there were some pos=
itions
conferred and recognized, which would exonerate us from the obligations lai=
d on
each of us by the fact of our common humanity.
So, for example, =
in
the case before us, men are going to murder and torture the famishing, and =
they
admit that in the dispute between the peasants and the landowner the peasan=
ts
are right (all those in command said as much to me). They know that the peasants are
wretched, poor, and hungry, and the landowner is rich and inspires no
sympathy. Yet they are all go=
ing to
kill the peasants to secure three thousand rubles for the landowner, only
because at that moment they fancy themselves not men but governor, official=
, general
of police, officer, and soldier, respectively, and consider themselves boun=
d to
obey, not the eternal demands of the conscience of man, but the casual,
temporary demands of their positions as officers or soldiers.
Strange as it may
seem, the sole explanation of this astonishing phenomenon is that they are =
in
the condition of the hypnotized, who, they say, feel and act like the creat=
ures
they are commanded by the hypnotizer to represent. When, for instance, it is suggeste=
d to
the hypnotized subject that he is lame, he begins to walk lame, that he is
blind, and he cannot see, that he is a wild beast, and he begins to bite. This is the state, not only of tho=
se who
were going on this expedition, but of all men who fulfill their state and
social duties in preference to and in detriment of their human duties.
The essence of th=
is
state is that under the influence of one suggestion they lose the power of
criticising their actions, and therefore do, without thinking, everything
consistent with the suggestion to which they are led by example, precept, o=
r insinuation.
The difference
between those hypnotized by scientific men and those under the influence of=
the
state hypnotism, is that an imaginary position is suggested to the former
suddenly by one person in a very brief space of time, and so the hypnotized
state appears to us in a striking and surprising form, while the imaginary
position suggested by state influence is induced slowly, little by little,
imperceptibly from childhood, sometimes during years, or even generations, =
and
not in one person alone but in a whole society.
"But," =
it
will be said, "at all times, in all societies, the majority of
persons--all the children, all the women absorbed in the bearing and rearin=
g of
the young, all the great mass of the laboring population, who are under the
necessity of incessant and fatiguing physical labor, all those of weak
character by nature, all those who are abnormally enfeebled intellectually =
by
the effects of nicotine, alcohol, opium, or other intoxicants--are always i=
n a
condition of incapacity for independent thought, and are either in subjecti=
on
to those who are on a higher intellectual level, or else under the influenc=
e of
family or social traditions, of what is called public opinion, and there is
nothing unnatural or incongruous in their subjection."
And truly there is
nothing unnatural in it, and the tendency of men of small intellectual powe=
r to
follow the lead of those on a higher level of intelligence is a constant la=
w,
and it is owing to it that men can live in societies and on the same princi=
ples
at all. The minority consciou=
sly
adopt certain rational principles through their correspondence with reason,
while the majority act on the same principles unconsciously because it is
required by public opinion.
Such subjection to
public opinion on the part of the unintellectual does not assume an unnatur=
al
character till the public opinion is split into two.
But there are tim=
es
when a higher truth, revealed at first to a few persons, gradually gains gr=
ound
till it has taken hold of such a number of persons that the old public opin=
ion,
founded on a lower order of truths, begins to totter and the new is ready t=
o take
its place, but has not yet been firmly established. It is like the spring, this time of
transition, when the old order of ideas has not quite broken up and the new=
has
not quite gained a footing. M=
en
begin to criticise their actions in the light of the new truth, but in the
meantime in practice, through inertia and tradition, they continue to follow
the principles which once represented the highest point of rational
consciousness, but are now in flagrant contradiction with it.
Then men are in an
abnormal, wavering condition, feeling the necessity of following the new id=
eal,
and yet not bold enough to break with the old-established traditions.
Such is the attit=
ude
in regard to the truth of Christianity not only of the men in the Toula tra=
in,
but of the majority of men of our times, alike of the higher and the lower
orders.
Those of the ruli=
ng
classes, having no longer any reasonable justification for the profitable
positions they occupy, are forced, in order to keep them, to stifle their
higher rational faculty of loving, and to persuade themselves that their
positions are indispensable. =
And
those of the lower classes, exhausted by toil and brutalized of set purpose,
are kept in a permanent deception, practiced deliberately and continuously =
by
the higher classes upon them.
Only in this way =
can
one explain the amazing contradictions with which our life is full, and of
which a striking example was presented to me by the expedition I met on the=
9th
of September; good, peaceful men, known to me personally, going with untrou=
bled
tranquillity to perpetrate the most beastly, senseless, and vile of
crimes. Had not they some mea=
ns of
stifling their conscience, not one of them would be capable of committing a
hundredth part of such a villainy.
It is not that th=
ey
have not a conscience which forbids them from acting thus, just as, even th=
ree
or four hundred years ago, when people burnt men at the stake and put them =
to
the rack they had a conscience which prohibited it; the conscience is there,
but it has been put to sleep--in those in command by what the psychologists
call auto-suggestion; in the soldiers, by the direct conscious hypnotizing
exerted by the higher classes.
Though asleep, the
conscience is there, and in spite of the hypnotism it is already speaking in
them, and it may awake.
All these men are=
in
a position like that of a man under hypnotism, commanded to do something
opposed to everything he regards as good and rational, such as to kill his
mother or his child. The hypn=
otized
subject feels himself bound to carry out the suggestion--he thinks he cannot
stop--but the nearer he gets to the time and the place of the action, the m=
ore
the benumbed conscience begins to stir, to resist, and to try to awake. And no one can say beforehand whet=
her he
will carry out the suggestion or not; which will gain the upper hand, the
rational conscience or the irrational suggestion. It all depends on their relative s=
trength.
That is just the =
case
with the men in the Toula train and in general with everyone carrying out a=
cts
of state violence in our day.
There was a time =
when
men who set out with the object of murder and violence, to make an example,=
did
not return till they had carried out their object, and then, untroubled by
doubts or scruples, having calmly flogged men to death, they returned home =
and
caressed their children, laughed, amused themselves, and enjoyed the peacef=
ul
pleasures of family life. In those days it never struck the landowners and
wealthy men who profited by these crimes, that the privileges they enjoyed =
had
any direct connection with these atrocities. But now it is no longer so. Me=
n know
now, or are not far from knowing, what they are doing and for what object t=
hey
do it. They can shut their eyes and force their conscience to be still, but=
so
long as their eyes are opened and their conscience undulled, they must
all--those who carry out and those who profit by these crimes alike--see the
import of them. Sometimes they realize it only after the crime has been
perpetrated, sometimes they realize it just before its perpetration. Thus t=
hose
who commanded the recent acts of violence in Nijni-Novgorod, Saratov, Orel,=
and
the Yuzovsky factory realized their significance only after their perpetrat=
ion,
and now those who commanded and those who carried out these crimes are asha=
med
before public opinion and their conscience. I have talked to soldiers who h=
ad taken
part in these crimes, and they always studiously turned the conversation off
the subject, and when they spoke of it it was with horror and bewilderment.=
There
are cases, too, when men come to themselves just before the perpetration of=
the
crime. Thus I know the case of a sergeant-major who had been beaten by two
peasants during the repression of disorder and had made a complaint. The ne=
xt
day, after seeing the atrocities perpetrated on the other peasants, he
entreated the commander of his company to tear up his complaint and let off=
the
two peasants. I know cases when soldiers, commanded to fire, have refused to
obey, and I know many cases of officers who have refused to command expedit=
ions
for torture and murder. So that men sometimes come to their senses long bef=
ore
perpetrating the suggested crime, sometimes at the very moment before
perpetrating it, sometimes only afterward.
The men traveling=
in
the Toula train were going with the object of killing and injuring their
fellow-creatures, but none could tell whether they would carry out their ob=
ject
or not. However obscure his
responsibility for the affair is to each, and however strong the idea insti=
lled
into all of them that they are not men, but governors, officials, officers,=
and
soldiers, and as such beings can violate every human duty, the nearer they
approach the place of the execution, the stronger their doubts as to its be=
ing
right, and this doubt will reach its highest point when the very moment for
carrying it out has come.
The governor, in
spite of all the stupefying effect of his surroundings, cannot help hesitat=
ing
when the moment comes to give final decisive command. He knows that the action of the Go=
vernor
of Orel has called down upon him the disapproval of the best people, and he
himself, influenced by the public opinion of the circles in which he moves,=
has
more than once expressed his disapprobation of him. He knows that the prosecutor, who =
ought
to have come, flatly refused to have anything to do with it, because he
regarded it as disgraceful. He
knows, too, that there may be changes any day in the government, and that w=
hat
was a ground for advancement yesterday may be the cause of disgrace
to-morrow. And he knows that =
there
is a press, if not in Russia, at least abroad, which may report the affair =
and
cover him with ignominy forever. He is already conscious of a change in pub=
lic
opinion which condemns what was formerly a duty. Moreover, he cannot feel fully ass=
ured
that his soldiers will at the last moment obey him. He is wavering, and none can say
beforehand what he will do.
All the officers =
and
functionaries who accompany him experience in greater or less degree the sa=
me
emotions. In the depths of th=
eir hearts
they all know that what they are doing is shameful, that to take part in it=
is
a discredit and blemish in the eyes of some people whose opinion they
value. They know that after
murdering and torturing the defenseless, each of them will be ashamed to fa=
ce
his betrothed or the woman he is courting.=
And besides, they too, like the governor, are doubtful whether the
soldiers' obedience to orders can be reckoned on. What a contrast with the confident=
air
they all put on as they sauntered about the station and platform! Inwardly they were not only in a s=
tate
of suffering but even of suspense.
Indeed they only assumed this bold and composed manner to conceal the
wavering within. And this fee=
ling increased
as they drew near the scene of action.
And imperceptible=
as
it was, and strange as it seems to say so, all that mass of lads, the soldi=
ers,
who seemed so submissive, were in precisely the same condition.
These are not the
soldiers of former days, who gave up the natural life of industry and devot=
ed
their whole existence to debauchery, plunder, and murder, like the Roman
legionaries or the warriors of the Thirty Years' War, or even the soldiers =
of
more recent times who served for twenty-five years in the army. They have mostly been only lately =
taken
from their families, and are full of the recollections of the good, rationa=
l,
natural life they have left behind them.
All these lads,
peasants for the most part, know what is the business they have come about;
they know that the landowners always oppress their brothers the peasants, a=
nd
that therefore it is most likely the same thing here. Moreover, a majority of them can n=
ow
read, and the books they read are not all such as exalt a military life; th=
ere
are some which point out its immorality. Among them are often free-thinking
comrades--who have enlisted voluntarily--or young officers of liberal ideas,
and already the first germ of doubt has been sown in regard to the
unconditional legitimacy and glory of their occupation.
It is true that t=
hey
have all passed through that terrible, skillful education, elaborated throu=
gh
centuries, which kills all initiative in a man, and that they are so traine=
d to
mechanical obedience that at the word of command: "Fire!--All the
line!--Fire!" and so on, their guns will rise of themselves and the
habitual movements will be performed. But "Fire!" now does not me=
an
shooting into the sand for amusement, it means firing on their broken-down,
exploited fathers and brothers whom they see there in the crowd, with women=
and
children shouting and waving their arms. Here they are--one with his scanty
beard and patched coat and plaited shoes of reed, just like the father left=
at
home in Kazan or Riazan province; one with gray beard and bent back, leanin=
g on
a staff like the old grandfather; one, a young fellow in boots and a red sh=
irt,
just as he was himself a year ago--he, the soldier who must fire upon him.
There, too, a woman in reed shoes and PANYOVA, just like the mother left at
home.
Is it possible th=
ey
must fire on them? And no one=
knows
what each soldier will do at the last minute. The least word, the slightest allu=
sion
would be enough to stop them.
At the last moment
they will all find themselves in the position of a hypnotized man to whom it
has been suggested to chop a log, who coming up to what has been indicated =
to
him as a log, with the ax already lifted to strike, sees that it is not a l=
og
but his sleeping brother. He =
may
perform the act that has been suggested to him, and he may come to his sens=
es
at the moment of performing it. In
the same way all these men may come to themselves in time or they may go on=
to
the end.
If they do not co=
me
to themselves, the most fearful crime will be committed, as in Orel, and th=
en
the hypnotic suggestion under which they act will be strengthened in all ot=
her
men. If they do come to thems=
elves,
not only this terrible crime will not be perpetrated, but many also who hea=
r of
the turn the affair has taken will be emancipated from the hypnotic influen=
ce
in which they were held, or at least will be nearer being emancipated from =
it.
Even if a few only
come to themselves, and boldly explain to the others all the wickedness of =
such
a crime, the influence of these few may rouse the others to shake off the
controlling suggestion, and the atrocity will not be perpetrated.
More than that, i=
f a
few men, even of those who are not taking part in the affair but are only
present at the preparations for it, or have heard of such things being done=
in
the past, do not remain indifferent but boldly and plainly express their de=
testation
of such crimes to those who have to execute them, and point out to them all=
the
senselessness, cruelty, and wickedness of such acts, that alone will be
productive of good.
That was what took
place in the instance before us. It
was enough for a few men, some personally concerned in the affair and other=
s simply
outsiders, to express their disapproval of floggings that had taken place
elsewhere, and their contempt and loathing for those who had taken part in
inflicting them, for a few persons in the Toula case to express their
repugnance to having any share in it; for a lady traveling by the train, an=
d a
few other bystanders at the station, to express to those who formed the
expedition their disgust at what they were doing; for one of the commanders=
of
a company, who was asked for troops for the restoration of order, to reply =
that
soldiers ought not to be butchers--and thanks to these and a few other
seemingly insignificant influences brought to bear on these hypnotized men,=
the
affair took a completely different turn, and the troops, when they reached =
the place,
did not inflict any punishment, but contented themselves with cutting down =
the
forest and giving it to the landowner.
Had not a few per=
sons
had a clear consciousness that what they were doing was wrong, and conseque=
ntly
influenced one another in that direction, what was done at Orel would have
taken place at Toula. Had this
consciousness been still stronger, and had the influence exerted been there=
fore
greater than it was, it might well have been that the governor with his tro=
ops
would not even have ventured to cut down the forest and give it to the
landowner.
Had that
consciousness been stronger still, it might well have been that the governor
would not have ventured to go to the scene of action at all; even that the
minister would not have ventured to form this decision or the Tzar to ratify
it.
All depends,
therefore, on the strength of the consciousness of Christian truth on the p=
art
of each individual man.
And, therefore, o=
ne
would have thought that the efforts of all men of the present day who profe=
ss
to wish to work for the welfare of humanity would have been directed to
strengthening this consciousness of Christian truth in themselves and other=
s.
But, strange to s=
ay,
it is precisely those people who profess most anxiety for the amelioration =
of
human life, and are regarded as the leaders of public opinion, who assert t=
hat
there is no need to do that, and that there are other more effective means =
for
the amelioration of men's condition.
They affirm that the amelioration of human life is effected not by t=
he
efforts of individual men, to recognize and propagate the truth, but by the=
gradual
modification of the general conditions of life, and that therefore the effo=
rts
of individuals should be directed to the gradual modification of external
conditions for the better. Fo=
r every
advocacy of a truth inconsistent with the existing order by an individual i=
s,
they maintain, not only useless but injurious, since in provokes coercive
measures on the part of the authorities, restricting these individuals from
continuing any action useful to society.&n=
bsp;
According to this doctrine all modifications in human life are broug=
ht
about by precisely the same laws as in the life of the animals.
So that, accordin=
g to
this doctrine, all the founders of religions, such as Moses and the prophet=
s,
Confucius, Lao-Tse, Buddha, Christ, and others, preached their doctrines and
their followers accepted them, not because they loved the truth, but because
the political, social, and above all economic conditions of the peoples amo=
ng
whom these religions arose were favorable for their origination and
development.
And therefore the
chief efforts of the man who wishes to serve society and improve the condit=
ion
of humanity ought, according to this doctrine, to be directed not to the
elucidation and propagation of truth, but to the improvement of the externa=
l political,
social, and above all economic conditions.=
And the modification of these conditions is partly effected by servi=
ng
the government and introducing liberal and progressive principles into it,
partly in promoting the development of industry and the propagation of
socialistic ideas, and most of all by the diffusion of science. According to this theory it is of =
no
consequence whether you profess the truth revealed to you, and therefore re=
alize
it in your life, or at least refrain from committing actions opposed to the
truth, such as serving the government and strengthening its authority when =
you
regard it as injurious, profiting by the capitalistic system when you regar=
d it
as wrong, showing veneration for various ceremonies which you believe to be=
degrading
superstitions, giving support to the law when you believe it to be founded =
on
error, serving as a soldier, taking oaths, and lying, and lowering yourself
generally. It is useless to r=
efrain
from all that; what is of use is not altering the existing forms of life, b=
ut
submitting to them against your own convictions, introducing liberalism into
the existing institutions, promoting commerce, the propaganda of socialism,=
and
the triumphs of what is called science, and the diffusion of education. According to this theory one can r=
emain
a landowner, merchant, manufacturer, judge, official in government pay, off=
icer
or soldier, and still be not only a humane man, but even a socialist and
revolutionist.
Hypocrisy, which =
had
formerly only a religious basis in the doctrine of original sin, the
redemption, and the Church, has in our day gained a new scientific basis and
has consequently caught in its nets all those who had reached too high a st=
age
of development to be able to find support in religious hypocrisy. So that while in former days a man=
who
professed the religion of the Church could take part in all the crimes of t=
he
state, and profit by them, and still regard himself as free from any taint =
of
sin, so long as he fulfilled the external observances of his creed, nowadays
all who do not believe in the Christianity of the Church, find similar
well-founded irrefutable reasons in science for regarding themselves as
blameless and even highly moral in spite of their participation in the misd=
eeds
of government and the advantages they gain from them.
A rich landowner-=
-not
only in Russia, but in France, England, Germany, or America--lives on the r=
ents
exacted; from the people living on his land, and robs these generally
poverty-stricken people of all he can get from them. This man's right of
property in the land rests on the fact that at every effort on the part of =
the
oppressed people, without his consent, to make use of the land he considers
his, troops are called out to subject them to punishment and murder. One wo=
uld
have thought that it was obvious that a man living in this way was an evil,
egoistic creature and could not possibly consider himself a Christian or a
liberal. One would have supposed it evident that the first thing such a man
must do, if he wishes to approximate to Christianity or liberalism, would b=
e to
cease to plunder and ruin men by means of acts of state violence in support=
of
his claim to the land. And so it would be if it were not for the logic of
hypocrisy, which reasons that from a religious point of view possession or
non-possession of land is of no consequence for salvation, and from the
scientific point of view, giving up the ownership of land is a useless
individual renunciation, and that the welfare of mankind is not promoted in
that way, but by a gradual modification of external forms. And so we see th=
is
man, without the least trouble of mind or doubt that people will believe in=
his
sincerity, organizing an agricultural exhibition, or a temperance society, =
or
sending some soup and stockings by his wife or children to three old women,=
and
boldly in his family, in drawing rooms, in committees, and in the press,
advocating the Gospel or humanitarian doctrine of love for one's neighbor in
general and the agricultural laboring population in particular whom he is
continually exploiting and oppressing. And other people who are in the same
position as he believe him, commend him, and solemnly discuss with him meas=
ures
for ameliorating the condition of the working-class, on whose exploitation =
their
whole life rests, devising all kinds of possible methods for this, except t=
he
one without which all improvement of their condition is impossible, i. e.,
refraining from taking from them the land necessary for their subsistence. =
(A
striking example of this hypocrisy was the solicitude displayed by the Russ=
ian
landowners last year, their efforts to combat the famine which they had cau=
sed,
and by which they profited, selling not only bread at the highest price, but
even potato haulm at five rubles the dessiatine (about 2 and four-fifths ac=
res)
for fuel to the freezing peasants.)
Or take a merchant
whose whole trade--like all trade indeed--is founded on a series of tricker=
y,
by means of which, profiting by the ignorance or need of others, he buys go=
ods
below their value and sells them again above their value. One would have fancied it obvious =
that a
man whose whole occupation was based on what in his own language is called
swindling, if it is done under other conditions, ought to be ashamed of his
position, and could not any way, while he continues a merchant, profess him=
self
a Christian or a liberal.
But the sophistry=
of
hypocrisy reasons that the merchant can pass for a virtuous man without giv=
ing
up his pernicious course of action; a religious man need only have faith an=
d a
liberal man need only promote the modification of external conditions--the
progress of industry. And so we see the merchant (who often goes further and
commits acts of direct dishonesty, selling adulterated goods, using false
weights and measures, and trading in products injurious to health, such as
alcohol and opium) boldly regarding himself and being regarded by others, s=
o long
as he does not directly deceive his colleagues in business, as a pattern of
probity and virtue. And if he spends a thousandth part of his stolen wealth=
on
some public institution, a hospital or museum or school, then he is even
regarded as the benefactor of the people on the exploitation and corruption=
of
whom his whole prosperity has been founded: if he sacrifices, too, a portio=
n of
his ill-gotten gains on a Church and the poor, then he is an exemplary
Christian.
A manufacturer is=
a
man whose whole income consists of value squeezed out of the workmen, and w=
hose
whole occupation is based on forced, unnatural labor, exhausting whole
generations of men. It would seem obvious that if this man professes any
Christian or liberal principles, he must first of all give up ruining human=
lives
for his own profit. But by the
existing theory he is promoting industry, and he ought not to abandon his
pursuit. It would even be inj=
uring
society for him to do so. And=
so we
see this man, the harsh slave-driver of thousands of men, building almshous=
es
with little gardens two yards square for the workmen broken down in toiling=
for
him, and a bank, and a poorhouse, and a hospital--fully persuaded that he h=
as
amply expiated in this way for all the human lives morally and physically
ruined by him--and calmly going on with his business, taking pride in it.
Any civil, religi=
ous,
or military official in government employ, who serves the state from vanity,
or, as is most often the case, simply for the sake of the pay wrung from the
harassed and toilworn working classes (all taxes, however raised, always fa=
ll on
labor), if he, as is very seldom the case, does not directly rob the govern=
ment
in the usual way, considers himself, and is considered by his fellows, as a
most useful and virtuous member of society.
A judge or a publ=
ic
prosecutor knows that through his sentence or his prosecution hundreds or
thousands of poor wretches are at once torn from their families and thrown =
into
prison, where they may go out of their minds, kill themselves with pieces of
broken glass, or starve themselves; he knows that they have wives and mothe=
rs and
children, disgraced and made miserable by separation from them, vainly begg=
ing
for pardon for them or some alleviation of their sentence, and this judge or
this prosecutor is so hardened in his hypocrisy that he and his fellows and=
his
wife and his household are all fully convinced that he may be a most exempl=
ary man. According to the metaphysics of
hypocrisy it is held that he is doing a work of public utility. And this man who has ruined hundre=
ds,
thousands of men, who curse him and are driven to desperation by his action,
goes to mass, a smile of shining benevolence on his smooth face, in perfect
faith in good and in God, listens to the Gospel, caresses his children,
preaches moral principles to them, and is moved by imaginary sufferings.
All these men and
those who depend on them, their wives, tutors, children, cooks, actors, joc=
keys,
and so on, are living on the blood which by one means or another, through o=
ne
set of blood-suckers or another, is drawn out of the working class, and eve=
ry
day their pleasures cost hundreds or thousands of days of labor. They see t=
he sufferings
and privations of these laborers and their children, their aged, their wive=
s,
and their sick, they know the punishments inflicted on those who resist this
organized plunder, and far from decreasing, far from concealing their luxur=
y,
they insolently display it before these oppressed laborers who hate them, as
though intentionally provoking them with the pomp of their parks and palace=
s,
their theaters, hunts, and races. At the same time they continue to persuade
themselves and others that they are all much concerned about the welfare of
these working classes, whom they have always trampled under their feet, and=
on Sundays,
richly dressed, they drive in sumptuous carriages to the houses of God buil=
t in
very mockery of Christianity, and there listen to men, trained to this work=
of
deception, who in white neckties or in brocaded vestments, according to the=
ir
denomination, preach the love for their neighbor which they all gainsay in
their lives. And these people have so entered into their part that they
seriously believe that they really are what they pretend to be.
The universal
hypocrisy has so entered into the flesh and blood of all classes of our mod=
ern
society, it has reached such a pitch that nothing in that way can rouse
indignation. Hypocrisy in the=
Greek
means "acting," and acting--playing a part--is always possible. The representatives of Christ give=
their
blessing to the ranks of murderers holding their guns loaded against their =
brothers;
"for prayer" priests, ministers of various Christian sects are al=
ways
present, as indispensably as the hangman, at executions, and sanction by th=
eir
presence the compatibility of murder with Christianity (a clergyman assiste=
d at
the attempt at murder by electricity in America)--but such facts cause no o=
ne
any surprise.
There was recently
held at Petersburg an international exhibition of instruments of torture,
handcuffs, models of solitary cells, that is to say instruments of torture
worse than knouts or rods, and sensitive ladies and gentlemen went and amus=
ed
themselves by looking at them.
No one is surpris=
ed
that together with its recognition of liberty, equality, and fraternity,
liberal science should prove the necessity of war, punishment, customs, the
censure, the regulation of prostitution, the exclusion of cheap foreign
laborers, the hindrance of emigration, the justifiableness of colonization,=
based
on poisoning and destroying whole races of men called savages, and so on.
People talk of the
time when all men shall profess what is called Christianity (that is, vario=
us
professions of faith hostile to one another), when all shall be well-fed and
clothed, when all shall be united from one end of the world to the other by
telegraphs and telephones, and be able to communicate by balloons, when all=
the
working classes are permeated by socialistic doctrines, when the Trades Uni=
ons
possess so many millions of members and so many millions of rubles, when
everyone is educated and all can read newspapers and learn all the sciences=
.
But what good or
useful thing can come of all these improvements, if men do not speak and ac=
t in
accordance with what they believe to be the truth?
The condition of =
men
is the result of their disunion.
Their disunion results from their not following the truth which is o=
ne, but
falsehoods which are many. Th=
e sole
means of uniting men is their union in the truth. And therefore the more sincerely m=
en strive
toward the truth, the nearer they get to unity.
But how can men be
united in the truth or even approximate to it, if they do not even express =
the
truth they know, but hold that there is no need to do so, and pretend to re=
gard
as truth what they believe to be false?
And therefore no
improvement is possible so long as men are hypocritical and hide the truth =
from
themselves, so long as they do not recognize that their union and therefore
their welfare is only possible in the truth, and do not put the recognition=
and
profession of the truth revealed to them higher than everything else.
All the material
improvements that religious and scientific men can dream of may be
accomplished; all men may accept Christianity, and all the reforms desired =
by
the Bellamys may be brought about with every possible addition and improvem=
ent,
but if the hypocrisy which rules nowadays still exists, if men do not profe=
ss
the truth they know, but continue to feign belief in what they do not belie=
ve
and veneration for what they do not respect, their condition will remain the
same, or even grow worse and worse.
The more men are freed from privation; the more telegraphs, telephon=
es,
books, papers, and journals there are; the more means there will be of
diffusing inconsistent lies and hypocrisies, and the more disunited and
consequently miserable will men become, which indeed is what we see actually
taking place.
All these material
reforms may be realized, but the position of humanity will not be
improved. But only let each m=
an,
according to his powers, at once realize in his life the truth he knows, or=
at
least cease to support the falsehoods he is supporting in the place of the =
truth,
and at once, in this year 1893, we should see such reforms as we do not dar=
e to
hope for within a century--the emancipation of men and the reign of truth u=
pon
earth.
Not without good
reason was Christ's only harsh and threatening reproof directed against
hypocrites and hypocrisy. It =
is not
theft nor robbery nor murder nor fornication, but falsehood, the special
falsehood of hypocrisy, which corrupts men, brutalizes them and makes them
vindictive, destroys all distinction between right and wrong in their
conscience, deprives them of what is the true meaning of all real human lif=
e,
and debars them from all progress toward perfection.
Those who do evil
through ignorance of the truth provoke sympathy with their victims and
repugnance for their actions, they do harm only to those they attack; but t=
hose
who know the truth and do evil masked by hypocrisy, injure themselves and t=
heir
victims, and thousands of other men as well who are led astray by the false=
hood
with which the wrongdoing is disguised.
Thieves, robbers,
murderers, and cheats, who commit crimes recognized by themselves and every=
one
else as evil, serve as an example of what ought not to be done, and deter
others from similar crimes. B=
ut
those who commit the same thefts, robberies, murders, and other crimes,
disguising them under all kinds of religious or scientific or humanitarian
justifications, as all landowners, merchants, manufacturers, and government
officials do, provoke others to imitation, and so do harm not only to those=
who
are directly the victims of their crimes, but to thousands and millions of =
men
whom they corrupt by obliterating their sense of the distinction between ri=
ght
and wrong.
A single fortune
gained by trading in goods necessary to the people or in goods pernicious i=
n their
effects, or by financial speculations, or by acquiring land at a low price =
the
value of which is increased by the needs of the population, or by an indust=
ry
ruinous to the health and life of those employed in it, or by military or c=
ivil
service of the state, or by any employment which trades on men's evil
instincts--a single fortune acquired in any of these ways, not only with the
sanction, but even with the approbation of the leading men in society, and
masked with an ostentation of philanthropy, corrupts men incomparably more =
than
millions of thefts and robberies committed against the recognized forms of =
law
and punishable as crimes.
A single execution
carried out by prosperous educated men uninfluenced by passion, with the
approbation and assistance of Christian ministers, and represented as somet=
hing
necessary and even just, is infinitely more corrupting and brutalizing to m=
en than
thousands of murders committed by uneducated working people under the influ=
ence
of passion. An execution such=
as
was proposed by Joukovsky, which would produce even a sentiment of religiou=
s emotion
in the spectators, would be one of the most perverting actions imaginable.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> (SEE vol. iv. of the works of
Joukovsky.)
Every war, even t=
he
most humanely conducted, with all its ordinary consequences, the destructio=
n of
harvests, robberies, the license and debauchery, and the murder with the
justifications of its necessity and justice, the exaltation and glorificati=
on
of military exploits, the worship of the flag, the patriotic sentiments, the
feigned solicitude for the wounded, and so on, does more in one year to per=
vert
men's minds than thousands of robberies, murders, and arsons perpetrated du=
ring
hundreds of years by individual men under the influence of passion.
The luxurious
expenditure of a single respectable and so-called honorable family, even wi=
thin
the conventional limits, consuming as it does the produce of as many days of
labor as would suffice to provide for thousands living in privation near, d=
oes
more to pervert men's minds than thousands of the violent orgies of coarse =
tradespeople,
officers, and workmen of drunken and debauched habits, who smash up glasses=
and
crockery for amusement.
One solemn religi=
ous
procession, one service, one sermon from the altar-steps or the pulpit, in
which the preacher does not believe, produces incomparably more evil than
thousands of swindling tricks, adulteration of food, and so on.
We talk of the
hypocrisy of the Pharisees. B=
ut the
hypocrisy of our society far surpasses the comparatively innocent hypocrisy=
of the
Pharisees. They had at least =
an
external religious law, the fulfillment of which hindered them from seeing
their obligations to their neighbors.
Moreover, these obligations were not nearly so clearly defined in th=
eir
day. Nowadays we have no such=
religious
law to exonerate us from our duties to our neighbors (I am not speaking now=
of
the coarse and ignorant persons who still fancy their sins can be absolved =
by
confession to a priest or by the absolution of the Pope). On the contrary, the law of the Go=
spel
which we all profess in one form or another directly defines these duties.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Besides, the duties which had then=
been only
vaguely and mystically expressed by a few prophets have now been so clearly
formulated, have become such truisms, that they are repeated even by school=
boys
and journalists. And so it wo=
uld seem
that men of to-day cannot pretend that they do not know these duties.
A man of the mode=
rn
world who profits by the order of things based on violence, and at the same
time protests that he loves his neighbor and does not observe what he is do=
ing
in his daily life to his neighbor, is like a brigand who has spent his life=
in robbing
men, and who, caught at last, knife in hand, in the very act of striking his
shrieking victim, should declare that he had no idea that what he was doing=
was
disagreeable to the man he had robbed and was prepared to murder. Just as this robber and murderer c=
ould
not deny what was evident to everyone, so it would seem that a man living u=
pon
the privations of the oppressed classes cannot persuade himself and others =
that
he desires the welfare of those he plunders, and that he does not know how =
the advantages
he enjoys are obtained.
It is impossible =
to
convince ourselves that we do not know that there are a hundred thousand me=
n in
prison in Russia alone to guarantee the security of our property and
tranquillity, and that we do not know of the law tribunals in which we take
part, and which, at our initiative, condemn those who have attacked our pro=
perty
or our security to prison, exile, or forced labor, whereby men no worse than
those who condemn them are ruined and corrupted; or that we do not know tha=
t we
only possess all that we do possess because it has been acquired and is
defended for us by murder and violence.
We cannot pretend
that we do not see the armed policeman who marches up and down beneath our
windows to guarantee our security while we eat our luxurious dinner, or loo=
k at
the new piece at the theater, or that we are unaware of the existence of the
soldiers who will make their appearance with guns and cartridges directly o=
ur
property is attacked.
We know very well
that we are only allowed to go on eating our dinner, to finish seeing the n=
ew
play, or to enjoy to the end the ball, the Christmas fete, the promenade, t=
he
races or, the hunt, thanks to the policeman's revolver or the soldier's rif=
le,
which will shoot down the famished outcast who has been robbed of his share,
and who looks round the corner with covetous eyes at our pleasures, ready to
interrupt them instantly, were not the policeman and the soldier there prep=
ared
to run up at our first call for help.
And therefore jus=
t as
a brigand caught in broad daylight in the act cannot persuade us that he did
not lift his knife in order to rob his victim of his purse, and had no thou=
ght
of killing him, we too, it would seem, cannot persuade ourselves or others =
that
the soldiers and policemen around us are not to guard us, but only for defe=
nse
against foreign foes, and to regulate traffic and fêtes and reviews; =
we
cannot persuade ourselves and others that we do not know that men do not li=
ke
dying of hunger, bereft of the right to gain their subsistence from the ear=
th
on which they live; that they do not like working underground, in the water=
, or
in stifling heat, for ten to fourteen hours a day, at night in factories to=
manufacture
objects for our pleasure. One=
would
imagine it impossible to deny what is so obvious. Yet it is denied.
Still, there are,
among the rich, especially among the young, and among women, persons whom I=
am
glad to meet more and more frequently, who, when they are shown in what way=
and
at what cost their pleasures are purchased, do not try to conceal the truth=
, but
hiding their heads in their hands, cry: "Ah! don't speak of that. If it is so, life is
impossible." But though =
there
are such sincere people who even though they cannot renounce their fault, at
least see it, the vast majority of the men of the modern world have so ente=
red
into the parts they play in their hypocrisy that they boldly deny what is
staring everyone in the face.
"All that is
unjust," they say; "no one forces the people to work for the
landowners and manufacturers. That
is an affair of free contract.
Great properties and fortunes are necessary, because they provide and
organize work for the working classes.&nbs=
p;
And labor in the factories and workshops is not at all the terrible
thing you make it out to be. =
Even
if there are some abuses in factories, the government and the public are ta=
king
steps to obviate them and to make the labor of the factory workers much eas=
ier,
and even agreeable. The worki=
ng
classes are accustomed to physical labor, and are, so far, fit for nothing
else. The poverty of the peop=
le is
not the result of private property in land, nor of capitalistic oppression,=
but
of other causes: it is the result of the ignorance, brutality, and intemper=
ance
of the people. And we men in
authority who are striving against this impoverishment of the people by wise
legislation, we capitalists who are combating it by the extension of useful
inventions, we clergymen by religious instruction, and we liberals by the f=
ormation
of trades unions, and the diffusion of education, are in this way increasing
the prosperity of the people without changing our own positions. We do not want all to be as poor a=
s the
poor; we want all to be as rich as the rich. As for the assertion that men are =
ill
treated and murdered to force them to work for the profit of the rich, that=
is
a sophism. The army is only c=
alled out
against the mob, when the people, in ignorance of their own interests, make
disturbances and destroy the tranquillity necessary for the public
welfare. In the same way, too=
, it
is necessary to keep in restraint the malefactors for whom the prisons and
gallows are established. We
ourselves wish to suppress these forms of punishment and are working in tha=
t direction."
Hypocrisy in our =
day
is supported on two sides: by false religion and by false science. And it has reached such proportion=
s that
if we were not living in its midst, we could not believe that men could att=
ain
such a pitch of self-deception. Men
of the present day have come into such an extraordinary condition, their he=
arts
are so hardened, that seeing they see not, hearing they do not hear, and
understand not.
Men have long been
living in antagonism to their conscience.&=
nbsp;
If it were not for hypocrisy they could not go on living such a life=
. This
social organization in opposition to their conscience only continues to exi=
st
because it is disguised by hypocrisy.
And the greater t=
he
divergence between actual life and men's conscience, the greater the extens=
ion
of hypocrisy. But even hypocr=
isy
has its limits. And it seems =
to me
that we have reached those limits in the present day.
Every man of the
present day with the Christian principles assimilated involuntarily in his
conscience, finds himself in precisely the position of a man asleep who dre=
ams
that he is obliged to do something which even in his dream he knows he ough=
t not
to do. He knows this in the d=
epths
of his conscience, and all the same he seems unable to change his position;=
he
cannot stop and cease doing what he ought not to do. And just as in a dream, his positi=
on
becoming more and more painful, at last reaches such a pitch of intensity t=
hat
he begins sometimes to doubt the reality of what is passing and makes a mor=
al
effort to shake off the nightmare which is oppressing him.
This is just the
condition of the average man of our Christian society. He feels that all that he does him=
self
and that is done around him is something absurd, hideous, impossible, and
opposed to his conscience; he feels that his position is becoming more and =
more
unendurable and reaching a crisis of intensity.
It is not possible
that we modern men, with the Christian sense of human dignity and equality
permeating us soul and body, with our need for peaceful association and uni=
ty
between nations, should really go on living in such a way that every joy, e=
very
gratification we have is bought by the sufferings, by the lives of our brot=
her
men, and moreover, that we should be every instant within a hair's-breadth =
of
falling on one another, nation against nation, like wild beasts, mercilessly
destroying men's lives and labor, only because some benighted diplomatist or
ruler says or writes some stupidity to another equally benighted diplomatis=
t or
ruler.
It is
impossible. Yet every man of =
our
day sees that this is so and awaits the calamity. And the situation becomes more and=
more insupportable.
And as the man wh=
o is
dreaming does not believe that what appears to him can be truly the reality=
and
tries to wake up to the actual real world again, so the average man of mode=
rn
days cannot in the bottom of his heart believe that the awful position in w=
hich
he is placed and which is growing worse and worse can be the reality, and t=
ries
to wake up to a true, real life, as it exists in his conscience.
And just as the
dreamer need only make a moral effort and ask himself, "Isn't it a
dream?" and the situation which seemed to him so hopeless will instant=
ly
disappear, and he will wake up to peaceful and happy reality, so the man of=
the
modern world need only make a moral effort to doubt the reality presented to
him by his own hypocrisy and the general hypocrisy around him, and to ask h=
imself,
"Isn't it all a delusion?" and he will at once, like the dreamer
awakened, feel himself transported from an imaginary and dreadful world to =
the
true, calm, and happy reality.
And to do this a =
man
need accomplish no great feats or exploits. He need only make a moral effor=
t.
But can a man make
this effort?
According to the
existing theory so essential to support hypocrisy, man is not free and cann=
ot
change his life.
"Man cannot
change his life, because he is not free.&n=
bsp;
He is not free, because all his actions are conditioned by previousl=
y existing
causes. And whatever the man =
may do
there are always some causes or other through which he does these or those
acts, and therefore man cannot be free and change his life," say the c=
hampions
of the metaphysics of hypocrisy.
And they would be perfectly right if man were a creature without
conscience and incapable of moving toward the truth; that is to say, if aft=
er recognizing
a new truth, man always remained at the same stage of moral development.
So that though man
may not be free as regards the performance of his actions, he is free as
regards the foundation on which they are performed. Just as the mechanician who is not=
free
to modify the movement of his locomotive when it is in motion, is free to r=
egulate
the machine beforehand so as to determine what the movement is to be.
Whatever the
conscious man does, he acts just as he does, and not otherwise, only becaus=
e he
recognizes that to act as he is acting is in accord with the truth, or beca=
use
he has recognized it at some previous time, and is now only through inertia,
through habit, acting in accordance with his previous recognition of truth.=
In any case, the
cause of his action is not to be found in any given previous fact, but in t=
he
consciousness of a given relation to truth, and the consequent recognition =
of
this or that fact as a sufficient basis for action.
Whether a man eat=
s or
does not eat, works or rests, runs risks or avoids them, if he has a consci=
ence
he acts thus only because he considers it right and rational, because he
considers that to act thus is in harmony with truth, or else because he has
made this reflection in the past.
The recognition or
non-recognition of a certain truth depends not on external causes, but on
certain other causes within the man himself. So that at times under external
conditions apparently very favorable for the recognition of truth, one man =
will
not recognize it, and another, on the contrary, under the most unfavorable
conditions will, without apparent cause, recognize it. As it is said in the
Gospel, "No man can come unto me, except the Father which hath sent me
draw him." That is to sa=
y, the
recognition of truth, which is the cause of all the manifestations of human
life, does not depend on external phenomena, but on certain inner spiritual
characteristics of the man which escape our observation.
And therefore man,
though not free in his acts, always feels himself free in what is the motiv=
e of
his acts--the recognition or non-recognition of truth. And he feels himself independent n=
ot only
of facts external to his own personality, but even of his own actions.
Thus a man who un=
der
the influence of passion has committed an act contrary to the truth he
recognizes, remains none the less free to recognize it or not to recognize =
it;
that is, he can by refusing to recognize the truth regard his action as
necessary and justifiable, or he may recognize the truth and regard his act=
as wrong
and censure himself for it.
Thus a gambler or=
a
drunkard who does not resist temptation and
yields to his pas=
sion
is still free to recognize gambling and drunkenness as wrong or to regard t=
hem
as a harmless pastime. In the=
first
case even if he does not at once get over his passion, he gets the more free
from it the more sincerely he recognizes the truth about it; in the second =
case
he will be strengthened in his vice and will deprive himself of every
possibility of shaking it off.
In the same way a=
man
who has made his escape alone from a house on fire, not having had the cour=
age
to save his friend, remains free, recognizing the truth that a man ought to
save the life of another even at the risk of his own, to regard his action =
as
bad and to censure himself for it, or, not recognizing this truth, to regard
his action as natural and necessary and to justify it to himself. In the first case, if he recognize=
s the
truth in spite of his departure from it, he prepares for himself in the fut=
ure
a whole series of acts of self-sacrifice necessarily flowing from this
recognition of the truth; in the second case, a whole series of egoistic ac=
ts.
Not that a man is
always free to recognize or to refuse to recognize every truth. There are truths which he has reco=
gnized
long before or which have been handed down to him by education and tradition
and accepted by him on faith, and to follow these truths has become a habit=
, a
second nature with him; and there are truths, only vaguely, as it were
distantly, apprehended by him. The man is not free to refuse to recognize t=
he
first, nor to recognize the second class of truths. But there are truths of a third ki=
nd,
which have not yet become an unconscious motive of action, but yet have been
revealed so clearly to him that he cannot pass them by, and is inevitably
obliged to do one thing or the other, to recognize or not to recognize
them. And it is in regard to =
these
truths that the man's freedom manifests itself.
Every man during =
his
life finds himself in regard to truth in the position of a man walking in t=
he
darkness with light thrown before him by the lantern he carries. He does not see what is not yet li=
ghted
up by the lantern; he does not see what he has passed which is hidden in the
darkness; but at every stage of his journey he sees what is lighted up by t=
he
lantern, and he can always choose one side or the other of the road.
There are always
unseen truths not yet revealed to the man's intellectual vision, and there =
are
other truths outlived, forgotten, and assimilated by him, and there are also
certain truths that rise up before the light of his reason and require his =
recognition. And it is in the recognition or
non-recognition of these truths that what we call his freedom is manifested=
.
All the difficulty
and seeming insolubility of the question of the freedom of man results from
those who tried to solve the question imagining man as stationary in his
relation to the truth.
Man is certainly =
not
free if we imagine him stationary, and if we forget that the life of a man =
and
of humanity is nothing but a continual movement from darkness into light, f=
rom
a lower stage of truth to a higher, from a truth more alloyed with errors t=
o a truth
more purified from them.
Man would not be =
free
if he knew no truth at all, and in the same way he would not be free and wo=
uld
not even have any idea of freedom if the whole truth which was to guide him=
in
life had been revealed once for all to him in all its purity without any ad=
mixture
of error.
But man is not
stationary in regard to truth, but every individual man as he passes through
life, and humanity as a whole in the same way, is continually learning to k=
now
a greater and greater degree of truth, and growing more and more free from
error.
And therefore men=
are
in a threefold relation to truth.
Some truths have been so assimilated by them that they have become t=
he unconscious
basis of action, others are only just on the point of being revealed to him,
and a third class, though not yet assimilated by him, have been revealed to=
him
with sufficient clearness to force him to decide either to recognize them o=
r to
refuse to recognize them.
These, then, are =
the
truths which man is free to recognize or to refuse to recognize.
The liberty of man
does not consist in the power of acting independently of the progress of li=
fe
and the influences arising from it, but in the capacity for recognizing and
acknowledging the truth revealed to him, and becoming the free and joyful p=
articipator
in the eternal and infinite work of God, the life of the world; or on the o=
ther
hand for refusing to recognize the truth, and so being a miserable and
reluctant slave dragged whither he has no desire to go.
Truth not only po=
ints
out the way along which human life ought to move, but reveals also the only=
way
along which it can move. And =
therefore
all men must willingly or unwillingly move along the way of truth, some
spontaneously accomplishing the task set them in life, others submitting in=
voluntarily
to the law of life. Man's fre=
edom
lies in the power of this choice.
This freedom with=
in
these narrow limits seems so insignificant to men that they do not notice
it. Some--the
determinists--consider this amount of freedom so trifling that they do not
recognize it at all. Others--=
the
champions of complete free will--keep their eyes fixed on their hypothetical
free will and neglect this which seemed to them such a trivial degree of
freedom.
This freedom,
confined between the limits of complete ignorance of the truth and a
recognition of a part of the truth, seems hardly freedom at all, especially
since, whether a man is willing or unwilling to recognize the truth reveale=
d to
him, he will be inevitably forced to carry it out in life.
A horse harnessed
with others to a cart is not free to refrain from moving the cart. If he does not move forward the ca=
rt
will knock him down and go on dragging him with it, whether he will or not.=
But the horse is free to drag the =
cart
himself or to be dragged with it.
And so it is with man.
Whether this is a
great or small degree of freedom in comparison with the fantastic liberty we
should like to have, it is the only freedom that really exists, and in it
consists the only happiness attainable by man.
And more than tha=
t,
this freedom is the sole means of accomplishing the divine work of the life=
of
the world.
According to Chri=
st's
doctrine, the man who sees the significance of life in the domain in which =
it
is not free, in the domain of effects, that is, of acts, has not the true
life. According to the Christ=
ian
doctrine, that man is living in the truth who has transported his life to t=
he
domain in which it is free--the domain of causes, that is, the knowledge and
recognition, the profession and realization in life of revealed truth.
Devoting his life=
to
works of the flesh, a man busies himself with actions depending on temporary
causes outside himself. He hi=
mself does
nothing really, he merely seems to be doing something. In reality all the acts which seem=
to be
his are the work of a higher power, and he is not the creator of his own li=
fe,
but the slave of it. Devoting=
his
life to the recognition and fulfillment of the truth revealed to him, he
identifies himself with the source of universal life and accomplishes acts =
not
personal, and dependent on conditions of space and time, but acts unconditi=
oned
by previous causes, acts which constitute the causes of everything else, and
have an infinite, unlimited significance.
"The kingdom=
of
heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force." (Matt. x=
i.
12.)
It is this violent
effort to rise above external conditions to the recognition and realization=
of
truth by which the kingdom of heaven is taken, and it is this effort of
violence which must and can be made in our times.
Men need only
understand this, they need only cease to trouble themselves about the gener=
al
external conditions in which they are not free, and devote one-hundredth pa=
rt
of the energy they waste on those material things to that in which they are
free, to the recognition and realization of the truth which is before them,=
and
to the liberation of themselves and others from deception and hypocrisy, an=
d,
without effort or conflict, there would be an end at once of the false
organization of life which makes men miserable, and threatens them with wor=
se
calamities in the future. And then the kingdom of God would be realized, or=
at
least that first stage of it for which men are ready now by the degree of d=
evelopment
of their conscience.
Just as a single
shock may be sufficient, when a liquid is saturated with some salt, to
precipitate it at once in crystals, a slight effort may be perhaps all that=
is
needed now that the truth already revealed to men may gain a mastery over
hundreds, thousands, millions of men, that a public opinion consistent with=
conscience
may be established, and through this change of public opinion the whole ord=
er
of life may be transformed. A=
nd it depends
upon us to make this effort.
Let each of us on=
ly
try to understand and accept the Christian truth which in the most varied f=
orms
surrounds us on all sides and forces itself upon us; let us only cease from
lying and pretending that we do not see this truth or wish to realize it, at
least in what it demands from us above all else; only let us accept and bol=
dly
profess the truth to which we are called, and we should find at once that
hundreds, thousands, millions of men are in the same position as we, that t=
hey
see the truth as we do, and dread as we do to stand alone in recognizing it,
and like us are only waiting for others to recognize it also.
Only let men ceas=
e to
be hypocrites, and they would at once see that this cruel social organizati=
on,
which holds them in bondage, and is represented to them as something stable,
necessary, and ordained of God, is already tottering and is only propped up=
by the
falsehood of hypocrisy, with which we, and others like us, support it.
But if this is so=
, if
it is true that it depends on us to break down the existing organization of
life, have we the right to destroy it, without knowing clearly what we shall
set up in its place? What will
become of human society when the existing order of things is at an end?
"What shall we find the=
other
side of the walls of the world we are abandoning?
"Fear will come upon us=
--a
void, a vast emptiness, freedom--how are we to go forward not
knowing whither, how face loss, not seeing hope of gain? . =
. . If
Columbus had reasoned thus he would never have weighed
anchor. It was madness to set=
off upon the ocean, not kno=
wing
the route, on the ocean on which no one had sailed, to sail
toward a land whose existence was doubtful. By this madness he discovered a new
world. Doubtless =
if the
peoples of the world could simply transfer themselves from one furnished
mansion to another and better one--it would make it m=
uch
easier; but unluckily there is no one to get humanity's n=
ew
dwelling ready for it. The fu=
ture
is even worse tha=
n the
ocean--there is nothing there--it will be what men and circumstan=
ces
make it.
"If you are content wit=
h the
old world, try to preserve it, it is very sick and cannot=
hold
out much longer. But if you <=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> cannot bear to live in
everlasting dissonance between your beliefs and your life,
thinking one thing and doing another, get out of the mediaeval
whited sepulchers, and face your fears. I know very well it is not easy.
"It is not a little thi=
ng to
cut one's self off from all to which a man has been
accustomed from his birth, with which he has grown up to
maturity. Men are ready for
tremendous sacrif=
ices,
but not for those which life demands of them. Are they ready to sacrifice
modern civilization, their manner of life, their religion, t=
he
received conventional morality?
"Are we ready to give u=
p all
the results we have attained with such effort, results of=
which
we have been boasting for three centuries; to give up e=
very
convenience and charm of our existence, to prefer sa=
vage
youth to the senile decay of civilization, to pull d=
own
the palace raised for us by our ancestors only for the
pleasure of having a hand in the founding of a new house,
which will doubtless be built long after we are gone?"
(Herzen, vol. v. p. 55.)
Thus wrote almost
half a century ago the Russian writer, who with prophetic insight saw clear=
ly
then, what even the most unreflecting man sees to-day, the impossibility, t=
hat
is, of life continuing on its old basis, and the necessity of establishing =
new forms
of life.
It is clear now f=
rom
the very simplest, most commonplace point of view, that it is madness to re=
main
under the roof of a building which cannot support its weight, and that we m=
ust
leave it. And indeed it is
difficult to imagine a position more wretched than that of the Christian wo=
rld
to-day, with its nations armed against one another, with its constantly
increasing taxation to maintain its armies, with the hatred of the working
class for the rich ever growing more intense, with the Damocles sword of war
forever hanging over the heads of all, ready every instant to fall, certain=
to
fall sooner or later.
Hardly could any
revolution be more disastrous for the great mass of the population than the
present order or rather disorder of our life, with its daily sacrifices to
exhausting and unnatural toil, to poverty, drunkenness, and profligacy, with
all the horrors of the war that is at hand, which will swallow up in one ye=
ar
more victims than all the revolutions of the century.
What will become =
of
humanity if each of us performs the duty God demands of us through the
conscience implanted within us?
Will not harm come if, being wholly in the power of a master, I carr=
y out,
in the workshop erected and directed by him, the orders he gives me, strange
though they may seem to me who do not know the Master's final aims?
But it is not even
this question "What will happen?" that agitates men when they
hesitate to fulfill the Master's will.&nbs=
p;
They are troubled by the question how to live without those habitual=
conditions
of life which we call civilization, culture, art, and science. We feel ourselves all the burdenso=
meness
of life as it is; we see also that this organization of life must inevitabl=
y be
our ruin, if it continues. At=
the
same time we want the conditions of our life which arise out of this
organization--our civilization, culture, art, and science--to remain
intact. It is as though a man,
living in an old house and suffering from cold and all sorts of inconvenien=
ce
in it, knowing, too, that it is on the point of falling to pieces, should
consent to its being rebuilt, but only on the condition that he should not =
be
required to leave it: a condition which is equivalent to refusing to have it
rebuilt at all.
"But what if=
I
leave the house and give up every convenience for a time, and the new house=
is
not built, or is built on a different plan so that I do not find in it the
comforts to which I am accustomed?"&n=
bsp;
But seeing that the materials and the builders are here, there is ev=
ery
likelihood that the new house will on the contrary be better built than the=
old
one. And at the same time, th=
ere is
not only the likelihood but the certainty that the old house will fall down=
and
crush those who remain within it. Whether the old habitual conditions of li=
fe
are supported, or whether they are abolished and altogether new and better =
conditions
arise; in any case, there is no doubt we shall be forced to leave the old f=
orms
of life which have become impossible and fatal, and must go forward to meet=
the
future.
"Civilizatio=
n, art,
science, culture, will disappear!"
Yes, but all thes=
e we
know are only various manifestations of truth, and the change that is befor=
e us
is only to be made for the sake of a closer attainment and realization of
truth. How then can the
manifestations of truth disappear through our realizing it? These manifestations will be diffe=
rent,
higher, better, but they will not cease to be. Only what is false in them will be=
destroyed;
all the truth there was in them will only be stronger and more flourishing.=
Take thought, oh,
men, and have faith in the Gospel, in whose teaching is your happiness. If you do not take thought, you wi=
ll perish
just as the men perished, slain by Pilate, or crushed by the tower of Siloa=
m;
as millions of men have perished, slayers and slain, executing and executed,
torturers and tortured alike, and as the man foolishly perished, who filled=
his
granaries full and made ready for a long life and died the very night that =
he
planned to begin his life. Ta=
ke
thought and have faith in the Gospel, Christ said eighteen hundred years ag=
o,
and he says it with even greater force now that the calamities foretold by =
him
have come to pass, and the senselessness of our life has reached the furthe=
st point
of suffering and madness.
Nowadays, after so
many centuries of fruitless efforts to make our life secure by the pagan
organization of life, it must be evident to everyone that all efforts in th=
at
direction only introduce fresh dangers into personal and social life, and do
not render it more secure in any way.
Whatever names we
dignify ourselves with, whatever uniforms we wear, whatever priests we anoi=
nt
ourselves before, however many millions we possess, however many guards are
stationed along our road, however many policemen guard our wealth, however =
many
so-called criminals, revolutionists, and anarchists we punish, whatever
exploits we have performed, whatever states we may have founded, fortresses=
and
towers we may have erected--from Babel to the Eiffel Tower--there are two i=
nevitable
conditions of life, confronting all of us, which destroy its whole meaning;=
(1)
death, which may at any moment pounce upon each of us; and (2) the
transitoriness of all our works, which so soon pass away and leave no trace.
Whatever we may do--found companies, build palaces and monuments, write son=
gs
and poems--it is all not for long time. Soon it passes away, leaving no tra=
ce.
And therefore, however we may conceal it from ourselves, we cannot help see=
ing
that the significance of our life cannot lie in our personal fleshly existe=
nce,
the prey of incurable suffering and inevitable death, nor in any social
institution or organization. Whoever you may be who are reading these lines,
think of your position and of your duties--not of your position as landowne=
r, merchant,
judge, emperor, president, minister, priest, soldier, which has been
temporarily allotted you by men, and not of the imaginary duties laid on yo=
u by
those positions, but of your real positions in eternity as a creature who at
the will of Someone has been called out of unconsciousness after an eternit=
y of
non-existence to which you may return at any moment at his will. Think of y=
our
duties--not your supposed duties as a landowner to your estate, as a mercha=
nt
to your business, as emperor, minister, or official to the state, but of yo=
ur real
duties, the duties that follow from your real position as a being called in=
to
life and endowed with reason and love.
Are you doing wha=
t he
demands of you who has sent you into the world, and to whom you will soon
return? Are you doing what he=
wills? Are you doing his will, when as
landowner or manufacturer you rob the poor of the fruits of their toil, bas=
ing
your life on this plunder of the workers, or when, as judge or governor, yo=
u ill
treat men, sentence them to execution, or when as soldiers you prepare for =
war,
kill and plunder?
You will say that=
the
world is so made that this is inevitable, and that you do not do this of yo=
ur
own free will, but because you are forced to do so. But can it be that you have such a=
strong
aversion to men's sufferings, ill treatment, and murder, that you have such=
an
intense need of love and co-operation with your fellows that you see clearly
that only by the recognition of the equality of all, and by mutual services,
can the greatest possible happiness be realized; that your head and your he=
art,
the faith you profess, and even science itself tell you the same thing, and=
yet
that in spite of it all you can be forced by some confused and complicated
reasoning to act in direct opposition to all this; that as landowner or
capitalist you are bound to base your whole life on the oppression of the
people; that as emperor or president you are to command armies, that is, to=
be
the head and commander of murderers; or that as government official you are
forced to take from the poor their last pence for rich men to profit and sh=
are
them among themselves; or that as judge or juryman you could be forced to
sentence erring men to ill treatment and death because the truth was not
revealed to them, or above all, for that is the basis of all the evil, that=
you
could be forced to become a soldier, and renouncing your free will and your
human sentiments, could undertake to kill anyone at the command of other me=
n?
It cannot be.
Even if you are t=
old
that all this is necessary for the maintenance of the existing order of thi=
ngs,
and that this social order with its pauperism, famines, prisons, gallows,
armies, and wars is necessary to society; that still greater disasters woul=
d ensue
if this organization were destroyed; all that is said only by those who pro=
fit
by this organization, while those who suffer from it--and they are ten time=
s as
numerous--think and say quite the contrary. And at the bottom of your heart yo=
u know
yourself that it is not true, that the existing organization has outlived i=
ts
time, and must inevitably be reconstructed on new principles, and that
consequently there is no obligation upon you to sacrifice your sentiments of
humanity to support it.
Above all, even if
you allow that this organization is necessary, why do you believe it to be =
your
duty to maintain it at the cost of your best feelings? Who has made you the nurse in char=
ge of this
sick and moribund organization? Not
society nor the state nor anyone; no one has asked you to undertake this; y=
ou
who fill your position of landowner, merchant, tzar, priest, or soldier know
very well that you occupy that position by no means with the unselfish aim =
of
maintaining the organization of life necessary to men's happiness, but simp=
ly
in your own interests, to satisfy your own covetousness or vanity or ambiti=
on
or indolence or cowardice. If you did not desire that position, you would n=
ot
be doing your utmost to retain it.
Try the experiment of ceasing to commit the cruel, treacherous, and =
base
actions that you are constantly committing in order to retain your position,
and you will lose it at once. Try
the simple experiment, as a government official, of giving up lying, and
refusing to take a part in executions and acts of violence; as a priest, of
giving up deception; as a soldier, of giving up murder; as landowner or
manufacturer, of giving up defending your property by fraud and force; and =
you
will at once lose the position which you pretend is forced upon you, and wh=
ich
seems burdensome to you.
A man cannot be
placed against his will in a situation opposed to his conscience.
If you find yours=
elf
in such a position it is not because it is necessary to anyone whatever, but
simply because you wish it. A=
nd therefore
knowing that your position is repugnant to your heart and your head, and to
your faith, and even to the science in which you believe, you cannot help
reflecting upon the question whether in retaining it, and above all trying =
to
justify it, you are doing what you ought to do.
You might risk ma=
king
a mistake if you had time to see and retrieve your fault, and if you ran the
risk for something of some value.
But when you know beyond all doubt that you may disappear any minute,
without the least possibility either for yourself or those you draw after y=
ou
into your error, of retrieving the mistake, when you know that whatever you=
may
do in the external organization of life it will all disappear as quickly and
surely as you will yourself, and will leave no trace behind, it is clear th=
at you
have no reasonable ground for running the risk of such a fearful mistake.
It would be perfe=
ctly
simple and clear if you did not by your hypocrisy disguise the truth which =
has
so unmistakably been revealed to us.
Share all that you
have with others, do not heap up riches, do not steal, do not cause sufferi=
ng,
do not kill, do not unto others what you would not they should do unto you,=
all
that has been said not eighteen hundred, but five thousand years ago, and t=
here
could be no doubt of the truth of this law if it were not for hypocrisy. Ex=
cept
for hypocrisy men could not have failed, if not to put the law in practice,=
at
least to recognize it, and admit that it is wrong not to put it in practice=
.
But you will say =
that
there is the public good to be considered, and that on that account one must
not and ought not to conform to these principles; for the public good one m=
ay
commit acts of violence and murder.
It is better for one man to die than that the whole people perish, y=
ou
will say like Caiaphas, and you sign the sentence of death of one man, of a
second, and a third; you load your gun against this man who is to perish for
the public good, you imprison him, you take his possessions. You say that you commit these acts=
of
cruelty because you are a part of the society and of the state; that it is =
your
duty to serve them, and as landowner, judge, emperor, or soldier to conform=
to
their laws. But besides belonging to the state and having duties created by=
that
position, you belong also to eternity and to God, who also lays duties upon
you. And just as your duties =
to
your family and to society are subordinate to your superior duties to the
state, in the same way the latter must necessarily be subordinated to the d=
uties
dictated to you by the eternal life and by God. And just as it would be senseless =
to
pull up the telegraph posts for fuel for a family or society and thus to
increase its welfare at the expense of public interests, in the same way it=
is
senseless to do violence, to execute, and to murder to increase the welfare=
of
the nation, because that is at the expense of the interests of humanity.
Your duties as a
citizen cannot but be subordinated to the superior obligations of the etern=
al
life of God, and cannot be in opposition to them. As Christ's disciples said eighteen
centuries ago: "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto
you more than unto God, judge ye" (Acts iv. 19); and, "We ought t=
o obey
God rather than men" (Acts v. 29).
It is asserted th=
at,
in order that the unstable order of things, established in one corner of the
world for a few men, may not be destroyed, you ought to commit acts of viol=
ence
which destroy the eternal and immutable order established by God and by
reason. Can that possibly be?=
And therefore you
cannot but reflect on your position as landowner, manufacturer, judge, empe=
ror,
president, minister, priest, and soldier, which is bound up with violence,
deception, and murder, and recognize its unlawfulness.
I do not say that=
if
you are a landowner you are bound to give up your lands immediately to the
poor; if a capitalist or manufacturer, your money to your workpeople; or th=
at
if you are Tzar, minister, official, judge, or general, you are bound to re=
nounce
immediately the advantages of your position; or if a soldier, on whom all t=
he
system of violence is based, to refuse immediately to obey in spite of all =
the
dangers of insubordination.
If you do so, you
will be doing the best thing possible.&nbs=
p;
But it may happen, and it is most likely, that you will not have the=
strength
to do so. You have relations,=
a
family, subordinates and superiors; you are under an influence so powerful =
that
you cannot shake it off; but you can always recognize the truth and refuse =
to tell
a lie about it. You need not
declare that you are remaining a landowner, manufacturer, merchant, artist,=
or
writer because it is useful to mankind; that you are governor, prosecutor, =
or
tzar, not because it is agreeable to you, because you are used to it, but f=
or
the public good; that you continue to be a soldier, not from fear of
punishment, but because you consider the army necessary to society. You can always avoid lying in this=
way
to yourself and to others, and you ought to do so; because the one aim of y=
our
life ought to be to purify yourself from falsehood and to confess the
truth. And you need only do t=
hat
and your situation will change directly of itself.
There is one thin=
g,
and only one thing, in which it is granted to you to be free in life, all e=
lse
being beyond your power: that is to recognize and profess the truth.
And yet simply fr=
om
the fact that other men as misguided and as pitiful creatures as yourself h=
ave
made you soldier, tzar, landowner, capitalist, priest, or general, you
undertake to commit acts of violence obviously opposed to your reason and y=
our
heart, to base your existence on the misfortunes of others, and above all,
instead of filling the one duty of your life, recognizing and professing the
truth, you feign not to recognize it and disguise it from yourself and othe=
rs.
And what are the
conditions in which you are doing this?&nb=
sp;
You who may die any instant, you sign sentences of death, you declare
war, you take part in it, you judge, you punish, you plunder the working
people, you live luxuriously in the midst of the poor, and teach weak men w=
ho
have confidence in you that this must be so, that the duty of men is to do
this, and yet it may happen at the moment when you are acting thus that a
bacterium or a bull may attack you and you will fall and die, losing forever
the chance of repairing the harm you have done to others, and above all to =
yourself,
in uselessly wasting a life which has been given you only once in eternity,
without having accomplished the only thing you ought to have done.
However commonpla=
ce
and out of date it may seem to us, however confused we may be by hypocrisy =
and
by the hypnotic suggestion which results from it, nothing can destroy the
certainty of this simple and clearly defined truth. No external conditions can guarant=
ee our
life, which is attended with inevitable sufferings and infallibly terminate=
d by
death, and which consequently can have no significance except in the consta=
nt
accomplishment of what is demanded by the Power which has placed us in life
with a sole certain guide--the rational conscience.
That is why that
Power cannot require of us what is irrational and impossible: the organizat=
ion
of our temporary external life, the life of society or of the state. That Power demands of us only what=
is
reasonable, certain, and possible: to serve the kingdom of God, that is, to
contribute to the establishment of the greatest possible union between all
living beings--a union possible only in the truth; and to recognize and to
profess the revealed truth, which is always in our power.
"But seek ye=
first
the kingdom of God, and his righteousness, and all these things shall be ad=
ded
unto you." (Matt. vi. 33.)
The sole meaning =
of
life is to serve humanity by contributing to the establishment of the kingd=
om
of God, which can only be done by the recognition and profession of the tru=
th
by every man.
"The kingdom=
of
God cometh not with outward show; neither shall they say, Lo here! or, Lo
there! for behold, the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke xvii. 20, =
21.)
THE END.