Vladimir Solovyof. War and Christianity

8/13/2019 Vladimir Solovyof. War and Christianity.

1/206


2/206


3/206


4/206


5/206

WAR AND CHRISTIANITY


6/206


7/206

WAR AND CHRISTIANITYFROM THE RUSSIAN POINT OF VIEWTHREE CONVERSATIONS BYVLADIMIR SOLOVYOF

WITH AN INTRODUCTION BYSTEPHENGRAHAM

LONDONCONSTABLE & COMPANY LTD

1915


8/206

Printed in Great Britain.


9/206

PREFACEVLADIMIR SOLOVYOF, the author of this book, is

Russia's greatest philosopher and one of the greatestof her poets, a serene and happy writer. He wasborn in 1853 and died in 1901, that is, he flourishedin Russia during the same years that Nietzsche livedin Germany. He was a seeker and also a seer, athinker and also a singer. His life is not marked byirritability, and it did not culminate in mental andpsychic collapse as did the life of Nietzsche. Prob-ably life was easier for a man of genius in Russiathan in Germany there are wider spaces there,more freedom, more tenderness between man andman, less materialism, less selfishness, less to sendone mad.

Solovyof came from a happy home and of aliterary family. His father, Serge MikhalovitchSolovyof, was a historian ; his mother, a LittleRussian of old family and culture, was proud toremind her children of a kinsman who had been agreat philosopher in his day. At home there wasan atmosphere of real things never any of thecheap wit and vulgarism and mental meanness thatso often sterilise the creative intelligence of other-wise wonderful children. There was much readingaloud and many lively discussions about life and


10/206

vi PREFACEreligion. Every one of Solovyof's brothers andsisters achieved distinction in life and letters lateron. Vladimir was, however, the greatest andshowed his gifts from the first.The young man's distinctive tone in thought wasopposition to positivism, humanitarianism and theideas of Western civilisation, and throughout hisstudent days he propounded in many arguments alively belief in Russia and the Russian idea, inorthodoxy and mysticism. But with all hisbrilliance he was also an industrious scholar. Hegraduated in 1873, and gave many of the succeedingyears of youth to research and study. He held aprofessorship for a short while, but gave up hischair in 1882, and the remaining eighteen yearsof his life were devoted almost entirely to literarywork.As a poet he was, nearest to Fete, one of the most

delicate of Russian poets. Solovyof was the firstpoet philosopher of his country, the first to speaksimply and beautifully in verse of the most difficultproblems of man's life and religion. In his worksyou may seek and find the Russian idea, the EasternChristian point of view. His philosophy derives inpart from gnostic Christianity, and is associated withthe idea of St. Sophia rather than the idea of St.Peter, with eternal wisdom rather than eternal law.

It would be impossible to sum up in a sentencethe author's majestical vision of life, but we maycite an exclamation from one of his poems : All evil is powerless, man is for ever, and God is withus


11/206

PREFACE viiIn national culture Solovyof owned Dostoieffsky

as his prophet. With Dostoieffsky he was one ofthe great spiritual leaders of the Russian people.He was in all his work and faith opposed to Tolstoy,considering Tolstoyism to be a sort of moral atrophy.Yet he never attacked Tolstoy by name, and wasnever mixed up in any acrid controversy. Theaccompanying volume is one of the chief of thosein which Tolstoyism and positivism are combated.At the present moment, when recurring war hascaused much heart-searching in the minds ofChristian people, it has been thought most fitting toissue a translation of this Russian book.War has not prompted so many misgivings inChristian Russia as it has done in the humanitarianand materialistic West. It is felt that Religion is never shaken down by war, butlogicians are shaken in their logic, agnosticism isshaken, materialism is shaken, atheism is shaken,positivism is shaken. The intellectual dominanceis shaken and falls, the spiritual powers are allowedto take possession of men's being.

Solovyof issued War and Christianity

onEaster Day, 1900, the year before his death. Accord-ing to Valery Brusof, one of the most interestingof contemporary Russian essayists Towards the end of Solovyofs life a sort of specialpower and intensity of perception seemed to show itself inhis work. The poet and thinker approached the mostsacred problems of contemporary man. . . . Everyonewas listening to the powerful voice of Solovyof as to thewords of a master ; his right to judge was acknowledged.. . . Death unexpectedly cut short this teaching so neces-sary to us. ... But, bewaring of superfluous lamentation,


12/206

viii PREFACElet us call to mind that he himself tried to find a sense anda moral indispensability even in the shot of Dantes and thedestruction of the ' godly phial ' as if it were a potter'svessel.

Especial thanks are due to Mr. Edward Cazalet,of the Anglo-Russian Literary Society, who trans-lated Conversation II., and to Mr. W. J. Barnes andMr. H. H. Haynes, who translated Conversation III.,and to Mr. Barnes who saw through the proofs.

STEPHEN GRAHAM.LONDON,

April, 1915.


13/206

THE SCENEIN the garden of one of those villas which, at the

foot of the Alps, look down on the blue depths of theMediterranean, there met one summer five Russians :an old general, of many campaigns, we shall callhim the General ; a politician, a father of theSenate, resting from the theoretical and practicaloccupations of State affairs, we shall call him thePolitician ; a young prince, a moralist and popularteacher, responsible for the editing of various moreor less helpful pamphlets on moral and socialquestions, we shall call him the Prince ; a lady ofmiddle age, interested in all that concerns humanbeings, she is the Lady ; and the fifth was a gentle-man of doubtful age and social position, let us callhim Mr. Z.

I was a silent listener to all their conversations,some of which appeared to me to have much interest,and whilst they were fresh in my memory I wrotethem down. The first conversation was begun inmy absence. I believe it started apropos of somenewspaper article or peace pamphlet on the subjectof the campaign against war and military service,which was being carried on by the Baroness Luttnerand Mr. Stead, following in the footsteps of Tolstoy.The Politician, on being asked by the Lady

w.c. b


14/206

x WAR AND CHRISTIANITYwhether he thought the peace movement was a goodone, gave it as his opinion that it was well-intentionedand useful. At that, the General got angry andbegan to make satirical jests at the expense of thesethree writers, calling them the true pillars of Statewisdom, guiding constellations on the politicalhorizon, even calling them the three whales ofRussia. The Politician remarked that there wereother fish. This remark caused Mr. Z. to collapsewith laughter, and he forced both the speakers toconfess that they considered a whale was a fish, andeven persuaded them to give a conjoint definition ofwhat they thought a fish to be, that is, an animalbelonging partly to the marine department andpartly to the department of marine communications.I think, however, this was an invention of Mr. Z.Be that as it may, I was not fortunate enough toobtain the real beginning of the conversation.Being afraid to compose out of my own head afterthe model of Plato and his imitators, I began mytranscript with the words of the General which Iheard as I approached the speakers.


15/206

WAR AND CHRISTIANITYFIRST CONVERSATION

Audiatur et prima pars.GENERAL (agitated, stands up and then sits downagain, speaking in rapid gestures). No, permit me Tell me only one thing : does a Christ-serving andworthy Russian militancy 1 exist or not ? Yesor no ?

POLITICIAN (stretching himself on his deck-chairand speaking in a tone which reminds one of somethingbetween that of the careless gods of Epicurus, of aPrussian officer and of Voltaire). Does a Russianarmy exist ? Obviously it exists. Surely youhaven't heard that it is dismissed ?GENERAL. Now, don't sham. You understand

quite well about what I am speaking. I ask, haveI still the right as before to consider the existentarmy as a worthy Christ-loving militancy or is thisdesignation out of date and should we change it foranother ?

POLITICIAN. Eh ... so that's what you're worry-ing yourself about ? You shouldn't address thatquestion to me, but rather to the department ofheraldry where the various titles are supervised.

1 A traditional title of the Russian army.W.C. B


16/206

V ' ' ' : ' WAR AND CHRISTIANITYMR. Z. The department of heraldry would prob-

ably answer that the use of old titles is not objectedto legally. Did not the last Prince Luzinian callhimself King of Cyprus, and nobody said him nay,though not only did he not rule Cyprus, but was noteven rich enough to drink Cyprus wine ? So whyshouldn't our contemporary army have the title ofa Christ-serving militancy ?GENERAL. What has title got to do with it ? Iswhite or black a title ? Is sweet or bitter a title ?Hero or scoundrel are they titles ?MR. Z. Yes, of course. I wasn't giving myown point of view, but rather the legality of thematter.LADY (to Politician). Why are you hedging overwords ? You may be sure the General wished to

put a real question with his Christ-serving mili-tancy.GENERAL. Thank you. I did wish, and do stillwish, to say just this : For centuries, and up toyesterday itself, every military man had a clear con-science, whether it were common soldier or field-marshal it was all the same ; he knew and felt thathe was serving a good and important end. He knewit was not something merely useful, as for instance,sanitation, or laundry-work, but in the highestsense, something fine, noble, honourable, somethingin which in the past the very best people had served,the first people, the leaders of nations, heroes. Ourwork has always been consecrated and magnified inthe churches and has become famous by generalconsent. But suddenly one fine morning we are


17/206

WAR AND CHRISTIANITY 3told that we have got to forget all that, and that weought to interpret our position in this God's worldentirely in the opposite sense. We have to recognisethat the profession of which we were so proud issomething evil and damaging, contrary to God'scommandments and human intelligence, the mostdreadful trouble and calamity. We are told that allnations must combine to stop it, and that its completeabolition is really only a matter of time.PRINCE. But surely, you must have heard sometime or other, earlier in your career, voices whichcondemned war and military service as a survival ofancient cannibalism ?GENERAL. How not hear it? I heard it and

read it in various languages, but I cannot say it mademuch impression on me. I heard it and forgot it.But now we've come to a different position. There'sno getting past it. So I ask : How do we stand ?How ought I, that is, how ought any army man toconsider himself, how ought he to look upon him-self as a real man or as an unnatural monster ?Ought I to take myself seriously as a worker in anhonest and important cause, or should I be horror-stricken by it, repent of it, and humbly beg eachcivilian to forgive me my professional accursedness ?

POLITICIAN. Why put the question so fantas-tically ? It is as if we'd been asking you to do some-thing special. The new demands of society are notmade upon you, but upon diplomatists and othercivil people in authority who are very little interestedeither in your accursedness or in your service ofChrist. We only ask one thing of you, now asB 2


18/206

4 WAR AND CHRISTIANITYbefore, to fulfil without asking questions the ordersof your superiors.GENERAL. As you are not interested in militarymatters you naturally think I put the matter fantas-tically. You evidently don't seem to know that oncertain occasions the commands of the authoritiesare to the effect that we act without asking forcommands.

POLITICIAN. For instance ?GENERAL. For instance : imagine that I am

appointed by authority as head of a completemilitary circuit. I should have all manner of dutiesin that position, managing the troops entrusted tome. I should have to train and confirm in them acertain way of thinking. I should have to traintheir wills in a certain direction and tune their feel-ings to a certain harmony. In a word, I should haveto bring them up to their destiny. Very well. Ishould have to give general commands to the troopsfor the attainment of that end, under my name andpersonal responsibility. Well, if I addressed myselfto superior authority to find out exactly what Ishould do, should I not be put down at once by themas an old fool, the first time I did it, and have togo into retirement at the second ? That means, Iam simply obliged to act on my own responsibilityand interpret the spirit of war and the will of theauthorities as best I can since to ask about itwould be either stupidity or audacity. But I amasking this question now about our position becausethe spirit which has been one and the same fromSargon and Assurbanipal to William the Second


19/206

WAR AND CHRISTIANITY 5appears suddenly to be in doubt. Until yesterdayI knew that I had to train and confirm in our troopsnothing other than just this military spirit thereadiness of each soldier to kill his enemies and to be,if necessary, killed and for that it is absolutelynecessary to be perfectly sure that war is somethingholy. Suddenly the habitual confidence of theofficer loses its foundation and military deeds aredeprived of their moral-religious sanction, to usea learned phrase.

POLITICIAN. That's all fearfully exaggerated.There has been no radical change in the acceptedpoint of view. Even formerly, everyone alwaysknew that war was evil and the less of it the better,and, on the other hand, wise people know now thatit is a kind of evil which cannot yet be removed onceand for all in our time. The problem is not thecomplete abolition of war, but its gradual limitationand isolation within certain narrow boundaries.The fundamental notion about war remains what ithas always been, i.e., that it is an inevitable evil, acalamity which must be endured upon extremeoccasions.GENERAL. And only that ?POLITICIAN. Yes, that only.GENERAL dumping from his seat). Did you ever

by any chance look in the Saints ?POLITICIAN. You mean in the Calendar ? I'vehad to look up names of patron saints, the name-days

of my friends and relatives.GENERAL. And have you remarked the sorts ofsaints in the Calendar ?


20/206

6 WAR AND CHRISTIANITYPOLITICIAN. There were various sorts.GENERAL. But of what calling ?POLITICIAN. And of various callings, I fancy.GENERAL. Well, that's just it. They are not so

very various.POLITICIAN. What do you mean ? You don'tmean to say that they're all military men ?GENERAL. Not all ; but half are.POLITICIAN. Oh, again, what exaggeration GENERAL. Well, we can't go over them one by

one. But I affirm that the saints of our ownRussian Church belong to two classes only : theyare either monks of various grades, or princes. Andto be a prince meant in old time to be a warrior.We have no other saints of course, I am speakingof men-saints, they are all either monks or soldiers.LADY. But you've forgotten our fanatics,General GENERAL. I haven't forgotten them at all, but

they were a sort of irregular monks. What theCossacks are to the army, they were for monas-ticism. What's more, if you can find for me amongthe Russian saints one white priest, or a merchant,or a deacon, or a chancellor's clerk, or a citizen, or apeasant, or, in one word, any representative of anyprofession other than that of monk or soldier youcan have all I shall bring back from Monte Carlonext Sunday.

POLITICIAN. Thank you. You can keep yourtreasure and your half of the saints. But tell me,please, what did you want to deduce from this dis-covery or observation of yours ? Surely you don't


21/206

WAR AND CHRISTIANITY 7mean to argue that only monks and soldiers can bemoral patterns ?GENERAL. You haven't altogether guessed mymeaning. I have known many virtuous peopleamongst the white clergy, amongst bankers, amongstofficials, and amongst peasants. The most virtuousbeing I can call to mind is the peasant nurse-girl ofone of my friends. But we are not speaking of that.My point really is how could so many soldiers havefound place side by side with monks and have beengiven a preference to ordinary civilians if their pro-fession was a tolerated evil, such as, for instance,the liquor business or something even worse ? It isclear that the Christian nations who showed theirthoughts by the recognition of sainthood not onlyrespected, but even specially respected the militarycalling, and that of all worldly professions theyreckoned the military alone to be the best trainingplace for sanctity. And that point of view is notcompatible with the present movement to abolishwar.

POLITICIAN. Oh, have I said that there has beenno change ? Undoubtedly there has been somedesirable change in point of view. The religiousaureole which once surrounded war and warriors inthe eyes of the crowd has now been taken away.That's so. But we had got to that point long since.And whom does that practically affect ? The clergyperhaps, since the preparation of aureoles belongs toits department. But the clergy have got a good dealstill to get rid of. What they cannot preserveliterally they interpret in an allegorical sense, and,


22/206

8 WAR AND CHRISTIANITYfor the rest, take refuge in blessed silence and blessedforgetfulness.

PRINCE. Yes, the blessed adaptation to new ideashas commenced. I follow our religious literaturepretty closely for my own publications. And I havealready had the pleasure of reading in two journalsthat Christianity unconditionally

condemns war.GENERAL. Surely not.PRINCE. Yes, I couldn't believe my eyes. But

I can show it you.POLITICIAN (to General). You see But why

should that worry you. You are people of deeds,not of fine words. Professional amour-propre andvanity, eh ? That's not a good state of things.But all the same, I repeat, that in practice all remainsas before. Though the system of militarism whichhas prevented us breathing these last thirty yearsmust now disappear, yet troops in certain dimensionswill remain as many as are considered indispen-sable. And from them will be demanded the samemilitary qualities as before.GENERAL. Oh, now you're asking milk from adead cow. Who will provide you with the militaryqualities when the primal inspiration of thesemilitary qualities has been removed the faith inthe holiness of the work ? And this faith cannotremain, once it is held that war is an evil and acalamity only tolerated on extreme occasions.

POLITICIAN. Oh, we shan't ask military men tohold that opinion. Let them consider themselvesthe first people in the world whose business is it ?Didn't I say that Prince Luzinian was permitted to


23/206

WAR AND CHRISTIANITY 9call himself King of Cyprus as long as he didn't askus to provide him with money to buy Cyprus wine ?Don't tempt yourselves to our pockets more thanyou need, that's all. And then, if you will, you mayremain in your own eyes the salt of the earth andthe flower of mankind ; who is to prevent you ?GENERAL. He says in our own eyes Are wetalking on the moon ? Are we going to keep ourmilitary forces in a Torricellian vacuum to save themfrom outside influences ? This in the time ofuniversal military service, with conscripts who haveonly to serve short terms, in the time of cheap news-papers ? No,, the matter is clear enough. Oncemilitary service became obligatory for all and each,and at the same time this negative attitude towardsmilitary work became recognised throughout society,beginning with the representatives of the State, asyou for instance, then undoubtedly that negativeattitude must be assimilated by the officers and thesoldiers themselves. If people came to look onmilitary service as merely an inevitable evil, thenno one would voluntarily choose the military pro-fession as a life career, unless indeed it were somesport of Nature who could find no other refuge ; andall those who against their will are obliged to beararms for a while will bear them in the same spirit aspenal convicts bear their chains. In the face ofthat, what have you to say about the relation ofmilitary qualities to the military spirit ?MR. Z. I have always been convinced that, afterthe bringing in of universal military service, thefinal dismissal of the troops and the break-up of


24/206

io WAR AND CHRISTIANITYseparate States is only a question of time, and a timenot very far distant, considering the present tempoof history.GENERAL. Perhaps you're right.

PRINCE. I will even affirm that you are certainlyright, though it never came into my head till thismoment. But that's splendid. Only think of it :militarism brings forth as its extreme expression thesystem of universal military service, and, thanksjust to that, there perish not only the most modernform of militarism, but all the ancient foundationsof the military idea. Wonderful LADY. The Prince's face has become quite gay.That is good. He had been going about with such agloomy expression not at all that which becomesa true Christian.

PRINCE. Yes, we are surrounded already by toomany sad things ; one joy remains mine, howeverthe knowledge of the inevitable triumph of reasonover all things.MR. Z. There isn't the slightest doubt thatmilitarism in Europe and in Russia will eat itself upand die of surfeit, but what sort of joys and triumphs

will result from that fact remains to be seen.PRINCE. How ? Do you mean to say you have

any doubt but that war and the military business isanything but an unconditional and extreme evilfrom which humanity has got to free itself absolutely,and as soon as it can ? Do you mean to say youdoubt that a complete and rapid disappearance ofthis cannibalism would not be, under any circum-stances, a triumph of reason and goodness ?


25/206

WAR AND CHRISTIANITY nMR. Z. I am absolutely convinced to the con-

trary.PRINCE. That is to say ?MR. Z. . . . that war is not an unconditionalevil, and that peace is not an unconditional good, or,speaking more simply, it is possible to have a goodwar ; it is also possible to have a bad peace.PRINCE. Oh, now I see the difference betweenyour point of view and that of the General. Hethinks that war is always good and peace is alwaysbad.GENERAL. No, no. I understand perfectly thatwar can be upon occasion a very bad affair, for

instance, when we are beaten, as at Narva orAusterlitz ; and peace can be splendid, as forinstance, the peace of Nishstadt or Kutchuk-Kainardzh.LADY. That seems to be another variation of the

famous remark of some Kaffir or Hottentot, whotold the missionary that he understood the differencebetween good and evil quite well : good was whenhe carried off other people's wives and cattle, evilwas when others carried off his.GENERAL. The African let that fall accidentally,

I made that humorous remark on purpose. Butnow I'd like to hear how clever people determine themoral point of view about war.POLITICIAN. Ah, if our

clever people would

only put aside scholasticism and metaphysics whenthey come to such a clear, historically conditionedproblem.

PRINCE. Clear from what point of view ?


26/206

12 WAR AND CHRISTIANITYPOLITICIAN. My point of view is the ordinaryEuropean one, which, by the way, nowadays, even

in other parts of the world, educated people arebeginning to assimilate.

PRINCE. And its essence is, of course, that every-thing is comparative, and that an unconditionaldifference between ought and ought not, between goodand bad, must never be allowed. Isn't that it ?MR. Z. Beg pardon ; this point of dispute issurely futile. I, for instance, whole-heartedlyacknowledge an irreconcilable opposition betweenmoral good and evil, but, even holding that opinion,it is still quite clear to me that war and peace cannotbe checked off in that way, and that it would beimpossible to say that war was all black and peacewas all white.

PRINCE. But you are making a contradiction interms. If something which is in itself evil, as forinstance, murder, can under certain circumstancesbe good, when, for instance, you choose to call it war,then where will you put your unconditional dis-tinction between good and evil ?MR. Z. How simple it is for you. Every murderis an unconditional evil, war is murder ; thereforewar is an unconditional evil. A syllogism of thefirst order. But you have forgotten that both thelarger and the smaller premisses have yet to bedemonstrated, so consequently your conclusion stillhangs in the air.

POLITICIAN. Didn't I say that we should dropinto scholasticism ?LADY. Yes. What are they talking about ?


27/206

WAR AND CHRISTIANITY 13POLITICIAN. About the larger and the smaller

premiss.MR. Z. Forgive me. We shall get to business ina moment. So you affirm that on any occasion totake away another person's life is unconditional evil ?PRINCE. Without doubt.MR. Z. And to be killed is that an uncondi-

tional evil, or not ?PRINCE. According to the Hottentots, theanswer is yes, but we were speaking about moral

evil, and that can consist only in the personalactions of a reasoning being, it cannot consist inwhat happens to a being against his will. Thatmeans, to be killed just as to die from cholera orinfluenza not only is not an unconditional evil, buteven is not evil. Socrates and the Stoics taught usthat in their day.MR. Z. Well, for people of such antiquity I willnot take it upon myself to answer. But your ideaof unconditional evil goes a bit lame when we takeinto consideration the moral significance of a murder.According to you it works out that an unconditionalevil consists in causing to another something whichin itself is not even evil. As you will, but the theorylimps a little there. However, we will dismiss thisquestion of limping, lest through it we should reallyclimb into an academic discussion. The point is thatthe evil of murder consists not in the physical factof the deprivation of life, but in the moral reason ofthat fact, that is, in the evil will of the murderer.You agree ?

PRINCE. Of course. Without that evil will there


28/206

I4 WAR AND CHRISTIANITYis no murder. There is only misfortune or careless-ness.MR. Z. It is quite clear when the will to kill is

completely absent, as for instance in the case of anunsuccessful surgical operation. But it is possible toimagine a different situation, when the will, althoughit has not the direct aim of taking away the life of aman, has yet agreed to that idea as possible upon anextreme occasion. Would a murder resulting fromsuch a state of will be, from your point of view,unconditionally evil ?

PRINCE. Yes, of course, once the will agrees tomurder.MR. Z. But surely it happens that a will, though

agreeing to the idea of murder, is still not an evilwill, and that consequently, murder cannot be anunconditional evil, even from the subjective side.PRINCE. That's quite incomprehensible. . . .However, I guess what you're after. You mean thefamous instance when in a wild district a father isface to face with an engaged scoundrel who is aboutto fling himself on his innocent (for greater effect addthe word little) daughter, and the father being unableto protect her otherwise, slays the would-be ravisher.I've heard the argument a thousand times.MR. Z. The remarkable thing, however, is notthat you have heard it a thousand times, but thatno one has ever heard from those who think likeyou even a fair-seeming objection to the argument.PRINCE. But what is there to answer ?MR. Z. There, there. Well, if you do not wish

to answer in the form of an objection, then state a


29/206

WAR AND CHRISTIANITY 15direct and positive case to the effect that on alloccasions without exception, and consequently inthis of which we are speaking, to abstain frommaterial opposition of evil is better than to employforce with the risk of killing an evil and dangerousman.

PRINCE. What sort of generalisation can therebe for a unique case ? Once you have agreed thatmurder in general is in the moral sense evil, then itis clear that in every single instance it will be evilalso.LADY. Oh, but that's weak.MR. Z. It is even very weak, Prince. That it is

generally better not to kill than to kill, we are allagreed, and there is no argument about it. Thequestion is about separate occasions. It is asked :Is the general or generally accepted rule not to killreally an absolute rule permitting no exceptionswhatever, neither upon a unique occasion nor underany circumstances whatsoever, or does it permit,be it even one exception, and become therefore arule which is not absolute, not unconditional ?

PRINCE.- No, I don't agree to such a formal state-ment of the question. To what end ? If I admitthat in your exceptional example specially thoughtout for argument . . .LADY (reproachfully) . Dear, dear GENERAL

(ironically).Oh-ho-ho

PRINCE (paying no attention). Granting that inyour specially-thought-out instance to kill is betterthan not to kill as a matter of fact I, of course, donot admit such a thing, but supposing you are right,


30/206

16 WAR AND CHRISTIANITYsupposing also that your instance is not one speciallythought out for argument but is something which isreal, though, as you would agree, most rare andexceptional. We are talking of war, are we not ?A general and universal phenomenon. And you willnot dare to affirm that Napoleon or Moltke orSkobelef were to be found in any position in theremotest degree resembling that of a father obligedto protect his daughter from a savage.LADY. Ah, that's better. Bravo, mon Prince MR. Z. Certainly. A clever extrication from anunpleasant question. But allow me, however, tostate the logical and historical link between the twophenomena, murder and war. For that purpose letus take up our example without, however, those par-ticulars which seem to strengthen it, but which, as amatter of fact, really weaken its significance. Thefact that he who murdered was a father and shewhom he protected was his daughter is not necessaryto us, in that the question loses its ethical significancein the domain of natural moral feelings : parentallove would, of course, force the father to strike theevil-doer without waiting to decide the question hadhe or had he not the right to do it from the highestmoral standpoint. So let us abandon the father andtake a childless moralist before whose eyes someweak fellow-creature, altogether unknown to him,is suddenly subjected to the furious assault of a wildmiscreant. According to you, this moralist shouldfold his arms and preach virtue whilst the monster istearing his victim ; is that not it ? According toyou, this moralist would not feel in himself any moral


31/206

WAR AND CHRISTIANITY 17impulse to stop the monster by material force withthe possibility and even probability of killing. Andif the crime is committed to the accompaniment ofhis fine words, do you mean to say that his con-science will not reproach him, and that he will not beashamed of himself and disgusted with himself ?

PRINCE. It is possible that a moralist who didnot believe in the reality of moral order, or whoforgot that God was not in violence but in truth,might feel so.LADY. Ah, that's very well said. Now youanswer something.MR. Z. I answer that I should have liked it to besaid still better, more directly and more simply. Isuppose you wished to say that a moralist whoactually believed in God's truth should have turnedto God with prayer that the evil deed be not com-mitted, or asking for a moral miracle, the suddenturning of the evil-doer to the way of truth, or askingfor a material miracle, the sudden paralysis of theman . . .LADY. It could be done without paralysis. Themurderer might take fright at something or be insome other way diverted from his evil intention.MR. Z. That's all the same, because the miracleis not in the actual happening, but in the expediencyof the happening, be it in physical paralysis or insome sort of mental agitation. In any case, thePrince's means of preventing evil-doing lies either inprayer or in miracle.

PRINCE. What do you mean ? Why prayer,why miracle ?w.c. c


32/206

i8 WAR AND CHRISTIANITYMR. Z. If not, what then ?PRINCE. Once I believe that the world is

governed on good and reasonable principles I believenothing that is contrary to the will of God canhappen.MR. Z. Beg pardon How old are you ?PRINCE. What do you mean by that ques-tion ?MR. Z. Nothing offensive, I assure you. Thirty ?PRINCE. Over thirty.MR. Z. Then you certainly must have seen, or, if

you have not seen, must have heard, or, if you havenot heard, must have read in the newspapers, thatevil and immoral deeds do, however, take place uponthis world.

PRINCE. Well ?MR. Z. Well, that means that moral order or

truth or the will of God is not absolutely realisedupon the world . . .POLITICIAN. At last to business. If evil exists,

then the gods either cannot or do not wish to preventit. Gods in the sense of all-powerful or blessedforces do not exist. Old, but true.LADY. Oh, you GENERAL. We have talked ourselves to thatpoint. Philosophise and your head goes round.

PRINCE. But that's bad philosophy As if God'swill were connected with our vague conceptions ofgood and evil.MR. Z. With certain vague conceptions it is notconnected, but with the true understanding of goodit is connected in the closest way. Otherwise, if


33/206

WAR AND CHRISTIANITY 19good and evil are indifferent to the Godhead, youhave refuted your own argument, Prince.

PRINCE. How is that ?MR. Z. Because if it's all the same for the God-

head whether a savage under the influence of brutalpassion destroys a weak and delicate being, thenlong since the Godhead must have found nothingobjectionable in the man who, under the influenceof compassion, destroys the savage. You will cer-tainly not set yourself to defend anything so absurdas that the murder of a weak and innocent being isnot evil before God, but that the murder of a strongand evil one is.

PRINCE. That seems to you absurd because youlay the emphasis in the wrong place. What ismorally important is not who is killed, but who kills.You yourself called the evil-doer a savage, that is, abeing without conscience or reason ; and how couldthere be moral evil, therefore, in his actions ?LADY. Oh, oh I What question is there of a

savage in the literal sense ? It's all the same as ifI said to my daughter, What stupidities you aresaying, my angel and you began to take me totask and say Can angels say stupidities ? Whata poor argument this is

PRINCE. Excuse me. I know, of course, that thesavage is also a man, but all the same, it is notpossible that a man with reason and conscienceshould commit such a crime.MR. Z. Of course a man acting like a beast loses

reason and conscience in the sense that he ceases tolisten to their voice, but that the man is without

c 2


34/206

20 WAR AND CHRISTIANITYreason or conscience altogether remains to be shown,and meanwhile I shall continue of opinion that thebrutal man is distinguished from us, not by theabsence of reason and conscience, but only by hisown determination to act contrary to them at theenticement of the beast in himself, but the beast isin us also, only we commonly keep him in durance.The man of whom we are speaking had loosed thebeast from his fetters ; but fetters were therethough not being used. In general, that's it, and ifthe Prince doesn't agree with you quickly, hoist himwith his own petard. If the evil-doer were only abeast, one absolutely without reason or conscience,then to kill him would be all the same as to kill awolf or a tiger who had been attacking a man eventhe society for the protection of animals does notforbid that.

PRINCE. But you again forget that whatever thestate of that man's mind, whether reason andconscience were in complete atrophy or whether heacted with conscious immorality, the question is notabout him, but about you yourselves : your reasonand conscience are not atrophied, and therefore youwould not consciously disregard what they demandof you you would not have killed that man, what-ever sort of man he were.MR. Z. Of course I shouldn't have killed him if

reason and conscience had unconditionally for-bidden it. But put it to yourself that my reasonand conscience advise me to act another way, andthat way seems to me more reasonable and con-scientious.


35/206

WAR AND CHRISTIANITY 21PRINCE. Let us hear an example. It would be

curious.MR. Z. And first of all let us admit that reason

and conscience can count at least to three . . ,GENERAL. Oh-ho ; oh-ho MR. Z. And therefore reason and conscience,

since they do not wish to give false verdicts,will not say to me two, when the answer isthree.GENERAL (impatiently). Ts-s IPRINCE. This is all beyond me MR. Z. Well, according to you, reason and con-

science tell me only about myself and about theevil-doer, but the whole matter, according to you,is in that I do not lay a finger upon him. But wemust not forget the third person, and he appears tome to be the most important, the victim of theoutrage, the man demanding my support. Youalways forget about him, but conscience speaks ofhim, and speaks, I think, first of all. The will ofGod is that I save this victim, according to possi-bility, sparing the evil-doer, but in any case, I mustgive the help which is in my power ; admonition ifthat will do, if not, then material force, and only inthe event of my arms being tied need I turn to thelast means, seeking aid from above by prayer, thatis, by the highest exercise of good-will, whence asa matter of fact I am convinced a miracle wouldderive when necessary. But which of these meansof giving help to the victim it is necessary to employdepends on the spiritual and phenomenal conditionsof the event. There is only one unconditional thing


36/206

22 WAR AND CHRISTIANITYhere, and that is, that I help him who is suffering ;that is what my conscience says.GENERAL. Hurrah The centre is broken.

PRINCE. I do not look so widely. My consciencein such a case is more definite, and expresses itselfmore shortly : Thou shalt not kill that is thewhole answer. Moreover, I do not see that we haveyet advanced an iota in this argument. If I againagreed with you, that in the position which youimagine, any man, even one morally developed anddeeply conscientious, could under the influence ofsympathy, not having time to obtain mentally aclear notion of the moral quality of his act, commita murder, what follows with regard to the funda-mental issue ? Are we to suppose that Tamerlaneor Alexander of Macedon or Lord Kitchener killedor forced others to kill for the protection of weakand delicate beings who were in danger of assault atthe hand of evil-doers ?MR. Z. This juxtaposition of Tamerlane and

Alexander of Macedon promises poorly for our his-torical sense, but since you, for the second time, turnimpatiently to this general domain of activity, thenpermit me to quote an historical event which mayhelp us to connect the question of personal protectionwith the question of governmental protection. Itwas in the twelfth century at Kiev. The appanagedprinces were even then apparently of your opinionwith regard to war, and holding that quarrellingand fighting should be confined to home, they wouldnot agree to go out to fight the Poloftsi, saying thatthey would be sorry to cause people the calamity


37/206

WAR AND CHRISTIANITY 23of war. To that the Grand Duke Vladimir Mono-makh made the following reply : You are sorry forthese rascals, but you forget that Spring is coming.. . . The peasant will go out with his horse to plough .The Poloftsi will come, kill the peasant, and leadoff his horse ; they will come in great numbers,massacre all the peasants, carry off all the womenand children, drive off the cattle and burn the village.Aren't you sorry for these people ? I am sorry forthem, and for that reason call you against thePoloftsi/' On that occasion the princes were putto shame, and the land had protection under therule of Vladimir. But they afterwards returned totheir peace-loving state, avoided exterior wars, andquarrelled at home and made scandals, and it endedfor Russia with the advance of the Mongol hordes,and for the actual descendants of these princes, itended with the kind of entertainment which historybrought them in the shape of Ivan IV.PRINCE. This is all beyond me. You cite anevent which never occurred to any of us, and cer-tainly never will occur, and call up some VladimirMonomakh, who perhaps never existed at all, andwith whom, in any case, we have nothing whateverto do ...LADY. Parlez pour vous, monsieur.MR. Z. Why, you, Prince, are one of those who

came to us with Rurik.PRINCE. They say so, but what interest to me,do you think, are Rurik, Sinius, and Truvor ?LADY. I think that not to know about one'sown forefathers is to be like children who think


38/206

24 WAR AND CHRISTIANITYthey were found in a kitchen garden and beneath acabbage.PRINCE. And what about those unfortunateswho don't happen to have any forefathers ?MR. Z. Every one has at his disposal very cir-cumstantial and instructive memoirs left him by hisforefathers I mean, national and universal history.

PRINCE. But these memoirs cannot determinefor us the question what are we to be now, what oughtwe to do now. Admit that Vladimir Monomakh didexist, and was not simply the imagination of somemonk ; admit even that he was an excellent manand was sincerely sorry for the peasants, in any casehe was right to fight with the Poloftsi, because inthose wild times moral conscience had not triumphedover the coarse Byzantine understanding of Chris-tianity, and it did permit people to kill those whomthey deemed evil-doers ; but how can we act so, oncethat we have understood that murder is an evil,something contrary to the will of God, forbidden fromof old by God's commandment, when we know thatit cannot be permitted us under any guise, under anyname, and cannot cease to be evil when instead ofbeing the killing of one it becomes the killing ofthousands under the name of war ? It is first of alla question of personal conscience.GENERAL. Well, if it is a matter of personal con-science, permit me to make the following personalreport. I am a man who in the moral sense, as ofcourse in most other senses, am altogether mediocre

neither black nor white, but grey. I have notevinced either special virtue or special sin. But in


39/206

WAR AND CHRISTIANITY 25all good acts there is always a difficulty in weighingtheir merit ; you can never be sure whether yourconscience had been obeyed, whether your con-science stands for real good or only for a kind ofmental softness, a habit of life, or an impulse ofvanity. Good acts always seem to be in a small way.In the whole of my life I only remember one goodoccasion which it would be impossible to namesmall, but I know absolutely that then there wasno doubt whatever about my impulse ; I actedsolely at the dictates of a good power. It was theone occasion in life when I experienced a completemoral satisfaction, where I fell even into a sort ofecstasy because I had acted without reflection orhesitation. My act remains till now, and will ofcourse remain for ever, my purest memory. Well,and that one good act of mine was a murder, andnot by any means a small murder, for in a quarter ofan hour I killed considerably more than a thousandmen.LADY. Quelles blagues And I thought thatyou were serious.GENERAL. Altogether serious ; I could bring

witnesses. Certainly I did not kill with my hands,with these sinful hands, but with the aid of six pure,sinless, steel cannon, with the most virtuous andbeneficial shrapnel.LADY. What good was there in that ?GENERAL. Well, of course, although I am a

military man, and, even according to our presentstyle, a militarist, I should not call the simpledestruction of a few thousands of ordinary people


40/206

26 WAR AND CHRISTIANITYsomething good, be they Germans or Hungarians orEnglishmen or Turks. This was something quitespecial. I cannot even now speak about it withequanimity. It stirred up my soul so much.LADY. Well, tell us it quickly.GENERAL. Since I mentioned the cannon, you nodoubt guess that it was in the last Turkish war. Iwas in the Third Caucasian Army. After the thirdof October . . .LADY. What third of October ?GENERAL. That was when the fight on the

heights of Aladzhin took place, when we for the firsttime broke up the flanks of the invincible Gazi-Mukhtar Pasha. . . . Well, after the third ofOctober we began our advance. I was commanderof the advance reconnoitring division ; I had theNizhni Novgorod dragoons, three hundred Kubantsiand a battery of horse artillery. It was a drearycountry, not bad up in the mountains, beautiful, butin the hollows nothing but empty, burnt-downvillages and trampled earth. On the twenty-eighthof October we descended to a valley where, by themap, there should have been a large Armenianvillage. Of course, there was no village left what-ever, but there had been a fairly large one, and notlong ago. The smoke of it was seen for many versts.I concentrated my detachment because, accordingto rumour, there was a powerful band of cavalrywith whom we might quite possibly come intocollision. I rode with the dragoons, the Cossacksgoing ahead. Quite close to the village the road hada sharp turn. The Cossacks galloped round and


41/206

WAR AND CHRISTIANITY 27then came to a full stop, as if rooted to the earth.I galloped up to them, but before I saw with my owneyes I guessed from the smell what was the matter.The Bashi-Bazouks had left their kitchen behind.An immense waggon of fugitive Armenians had beenovertaken by the ravaging enemy. The Bashi-Bazouks had made a fire under the waggon andburnt the people slowly to death. Before doing sothey had bound many of the victims so that theyshould not escape, and had committed barbarousassaults upon them, there being many women withmutilated breasts and bodies. I could not mentionall the details. One picture is clear in my eyes atthis moment a woman lying on her back on theground, her neck and shoulders tied to the cart-wheel in such a way that she could not turn her head,and she lay there neither burnt nor broken, but witha ghastly twisted expression on her face she hadevidently died from terror. In front of her was ahigh pole stuck into the ground, and a naked babywas tied to it probably her own son all black withfire and its eyes protruding. Such a mortal sorrowovercame me that I looked upon God's earth withloathing and I acted as if I had been a machine. Igave the order for advance, and we came up to theravaged village. It was literally razed from the earth ;there was not one stone left upon another. Suddenlywe saw what seemed like a scarecrow emerging froma dry well ... all muddy and torn, he came up tous, fell flat on the ground, and began reciting some-thing in Armenian. We made him get up, cross-questioned him, and found out that he was an


42/206

28 WAR AND CHRISTIANITYArmenian from another village. He was a little,intelligent fellow ; he had just arrived at this villagewhen the inhabitants were beginning to flee. Thefugitives had only just started on their way when theBashi-Bazouks overtook them, a multitude of them

forty thousand, he said, but of course he didn'tcount them on an abacus. He concealed himself ina well. He heard the cries and so knew what washappening. Then he heard the Bashi-Bazouks turnabout and gallop off. ' They have probably goneto our village to do the same with our folk, said he.When I heard that it was as if a light had suddenlyshone in my soul. My heart melted, and God'sworld again smiled before me. Have they longgone ? I said to the Armenian. He reckonedthree hours. And is it far to your village for mounted men ? About five hours.Well, we couldn't make up three hours' difference

in so short a space, that was certain. Oh, Lord said I, isn't there another road, a shorter one ?

' There is, there is There's a road through thegorge ; quite a short one. Very few people know it.

Possible for cavalry ? Yes.And for artillery ? It would be possible, but difficult.We gave the Armenian a horse, and with thewhole detachment followed him through the gorge.How we climbed among the mountains I hardlyremember. Once more I felt like a machine, though

there was in my soul a lightness as if I lay on feathers.


43/206

WAR AND CHRISTIANITY 29I had complete assurance. I knew what was neces-sary to do, and I felt what would be done.We were just issuing from the last neck of thegorge when suddenly our Armenian gallops back,waving his arms and crying, There they are ;there they are I went ahead to a point wherethey were visible, and distinguished them with myglasses, a great stretch of cavalry, perhaps not fortythousand, but certainly three or four if not fivethousand. The devils saw our Cossacks and turnedtowards us as our left flank issued from the gorge.And they began to fire on us. A gun in the hand ofan Asiatic monster is pretty well as deadly as in thehands of ordinary people. We began to fall ; hereand there a Cossack rolled over. The eldest of ourcenturions came up to me and said : Order us to attack, your Excellency 1 Other-wise anathema will fall upon us before we get theartillery into position. Let us sweep them away Be patient, darlings, just for a little, said I. I know you can scatter them, but what sweetnessis there in that ? God orders me to make an end ofthem, not to scatter them/'

Well, I ordered an advance of part of our men inopen formation, and they engaged the enemy,exchanging some volleys with them. We kept ahundred of the men back to mask the artillery, andplaced the Nizhni Novgorods in the recesses to theleft of the battery. I myself trembled all the whilewith impatience. The face of that burnt child withthe protruding eyes was constantly before me, andour Cossacks kept falling. Oh, Lord


44/206

30 WAR AND CHRISTIANITYLADY. How did it end ?GENERAL.' It ended in the best way possible.The Cossacks began to retreat, crying their Cossack

cries the while. The devil's brood came after them,theyhad got excited and had already ceased shooting.The whole crowd came galloping at us. The Cos-sacks rode up to within two hundred sazhens of usand then scattered, all in different directions. Isaw that the hour of God's will had arrived. Iordered the dispersal of the hundred masking thebattery. All is in order ; God give us His blessing said I to myself, and I gave the word to the artillery.And God blessed all my six cannon. The firstround put them in confusion, the whole horde turnedto flight, and after the third round such a disorderarose as would take place on an ant-heap if you threwseveral lighted matches upon it. They went off witha rush in all directions, in many cases trampling oneanother down. Then our Cossacks and dragoons ofthe left flank went after them and cut them up likecabbage. Those who escaped the artillery perishedon their swords. Many threw down their arms,leapt from their saddles, and offered themselves ashostages. But I did not interfere ; they themselvesknew that this was not a matter of taking hostages,and our Cossacks and Nizhni Novgorods cut themall up.And if only these brainless devils had not takenfright at our fire, and instead of running away whenthey were between twenty and thirty sazhens fromus had flung themselves upon us and taken thecannon, we had never given them a third round.


45/206

WAR AND CHRISTIANITY 31Well, God was with us The business was done,and it was Easter-day in my soul, the bright day

of the resurrection of Christ. We gathered ourdead, thirty-seven men who had given their soulsto God. We placed them on a level stretch of landin several rows, and closed their eyes. There wasamong us in the third hundred an old policeman,Odarchenko, a well-read man of remarkable capacity.In England he would have become Prime Minister.Now he's in Siberia for personal opposition to theauthorities when they were closing some monasteryof the Old Believers and destroying the grave of amuch venerated elder of the sect. I called him : Now, Odarchenko, said I, this is a matter ofthe road, and no place for deciding the right alle-luias ; be our priest and sing the requiem for ourdead/' For him that was a pleasure of the first order. I shall be glad to try, your Excellency, sayshe, his face all shining. We also found our singersfor the service. We sang the departing souls awaywith full rites. It was impossible to get priestlypermission to do such a thing, but it was not neces-sary : what permitted us was the word of Christ forthose who lay down their life for their friends.That's how that funeral service strikes me now.The day had been a cloudy autumn one, but beforesunset the heavy clouds disappeared. The gorge wasblack beneath us, but in the sky the light cloudletswere of many colours, as if the regiments of Godwere gathering. The bright festival in my soulremained. A sort of calm and incomprehensiblehappiness possessed me, as if all earthly impurity


46/206

32 WAR AND CHRISTIANITYhad been washed away, as if earthly burdens hadslipped from me. I was as if in heaven. I felt thepresence of God, and that only. And as Odar-chenko called out the names of the newly departedwarriors who had sacrificed their lives on the fieldof battle for faith and Tsar and fatherland, I feltthat the official title given them was not merely anofficial verbosity, but they were indeed a Christ-serving army, and that War, as it was, so it is andwill be to the end of the world, a great honourableand holy doing . . .PRINCE (after some silence). Well, and when youburied your people in this serene way, is it possible,however, you did not remember the enemy whomyou had killed in such great numbers ?GENERAL. No, glory be to God We managedto move a little further back so that that carriondid not remind us of its presence.LADY. Ah, now you've spoilt the whole impres-sion. How could you ?GENERAL (turning to the Prince). And whatwould you personally have wished of me ? That I

should give Christian burial to these jackals who wereneither Christian nor Mussulmen, but devil knowswhat ? If I had gone out of my mind, and hadindeed ordered that they be buried together withour Cossacks in one funeral service, you wouldvery probably have convicted me of religiousassault. How, man ? You actually subject thesedear unfortunates, who in their lifetime worshippedthe devil, to a superstitious and coarse pseudo-Christian ritual No, I had something else to do,


47/206

WAR AND CHRISTIANITY 33I gave orders and made a manifesto to the effectthat none of the people approach within threesazhens of this devil's carrion, for I saw that myCossacks' fingers had long since been itching to feeltheir pockets according to custom. And who knewwhat plague might have been let loose on us Itmight have been the death of us all.

PRINCE. Have I then understood you aright ?You were afraid, lest the Cossacks going to robthe bodies of the Bashi-Bazouks should carryinfection into your camp ?GENERAL. Yes, that's just what I was afraid of.It seems clear.PRINCE. There's your Christ-serving army GENERAL. The Cossacks, eh ? ... Robbers in

spirit Always were and always will be.PRINCE. Are we talking in our sleep ?GENERAL. Yes, it seems to me as if somethingdidn't fit. I never seem to catch your drift. Whatwere you wishing to ask ?

POLITICIAN. The Prince is probably astonishedthat your ideal, almost holy Cossacks, suddenlyappear to be, in your own words, robbers.PRINCE. Yes, and I ask in what way can war bea great, honourable and holy doing when all it comesto, even by your own showing, is a struggle of oneset of robbers with another.GENERAL. Eh So that's what you were afterA struggle of one set of robbers with another.

Yes, there is something in what you say. I agreethat it is with another set of robbers, with analtogether other set. Or do you in sober reality

w.c. D


48/206

34 WAR AND CHRISTIANITYthink that to steal when you have the chance is thesame sort of thing as to roast a baby in the eyes ofits mother ? Now this is what I say to you. Myconscience is so clear about this affair that I some-times am sorry from the depths of my heart that Idid not die at the moment when I gave the orderfor the last volley. I have not the slightest doubtthat dying then I should have gone straight with mythirty-seven Cossacks to the Almighty, and we shouldhave taken our places in Paradise side by side withthe repentant thief of the Gospel. The story of thepenitent thief is not given by chance in the Gospel.PRINCE. I agree ; only you will certainly notfind it said in the Gospel that repentant thieves areonly found among people of our own nation and ourown faith.GENERAL. When did I make any distinction of

nationality or religion in this business ? Are theArmenians my fellow-countrymen or fellow-Church-men, or did I ask of what faith were this devil's broodwhich I destroyed with our artillery ?PRINCE. However, you do not seem to have beenable to recollect that this same devil's brood wereall the same, human beings, and that in every manthere is a sense of good and evil, and that everyrobber, be he Cossack or Bashi-Bazouk, has thechance of holding the position of the repentant thiefof the Gospel.GENERAL. Have done with all that First yousay that an evil man is in nature like an irresponsiblebeast, then you say that the Bashi-Bazouk roastinga baby might turn out to be the penitent thief of the


49/206

WAR AND CHRISTIANITY 35Gospel And you put all this forward with the oneend that we should not oppose evil, even with afinger. But according to my lights, what is impor-tant is not that in every man are the roots of goodand evil, but which of the two prevails. It is not sointeresting that out of every kind of grape-juice itis possible to make both wine and vinegar as toknow what actually is in that bottle there, wine orvinegar. Because if it is vinegar and I begin todrink it by tumblerfuls and to offer it to others underthe pretext that it is made from one and the samematerial as wine, I shall certainly help no one bythat wisdom, unless spoiling their stomachs is anyhelp. All people are brothers. Splendid Veryglad Yes, but what further ? Brothers are ofdifferent sorts. And why not be interested to knowwhich of my brothers is Cain and which Abel ?And if before my eyes my brother Cain fall upon mybrother Abel, and I then through lack of equanimitygive brother Cain such a box on the ear that he's notlikely to do it again, you suddenly reproach me thatI have forgotten to be brotherly. I perfectlyremember why I interfered, and if I had not re-membered I could quite calmly have passed by onthe other side.

PRINCE. Whence this dilemma : to pass by onthe other side, or to give a box on the ear ?GENERAL. A third way you seldom find on suchoccasions. You have proposed prayer to God forHis direct interference, that He should instantly, andwith His strong right arm, bring each devil's son toreason though you yourself, it seems, renounce this

D 2


50/206

36 WAR AND CHRISTIANITYmeans. But I hold that this means is good in anybusiness and that there is no substitute. Honestfolk say grace before dinner, but they chew withtheir own jaws. It was not without prayer that Igave the orders to the horse artillery.PRINCE. Such a prayer is, of course, blasphemy.It is necessary not so much to pray to God as to actaccording to the will of God.GENERAL. For instance ?

PRINCE. He who is filled with the true spirit ofthe Gospel will find in himself, when necessary, thepower, with words and gestures and with his wholeappearance to act upon the mind of his unfortunatedark brother who wishes to commit a murder or someother evil, he will be able to make on him such astaggering impression that he will at once under-stand his mistake and turn away from the false road.GENERAL. Holy martyrs Do you mean to saythat I should have gone forward to the Bashi-Bazouks who murdered the babies, and made touch-ing gestures and said touching words ?MR. Z. Words, owing to the distance and to yourmutual ignorance of one another's language, would,I imagine, have been completely out of place. Andas far as gestures go in making a staggering impres-sion, as you will of course, but I should have thoughtthat under the given circumstances one couldn'tthink of anything better than a volley or so.LADY. But really, do tell us, Prince, in whatlanguage and by the help of what instruments couldthe General have explained himself to the Bashi-Bazouks ?


51/206


52/206

38 WAR AND CHRISTIANITYmalice of His enemies. That He Himself remainedmorally higher than all that malice, that He did notwish to offer any opposition, and that He forgaveHis enemies, is as comprehensible from my point ofview as from yours. But why did He not, forgivingHis enemies, deliver their souls from that dreadfuldarkness in which they then were ? Why did Henot overcome their malice by the force of His ownsweetness ? Why did He not awaken the sleepinggood in them ? Why did He not give them lightand new spiritual birth ? In a word, why did Henot act upon Judas, Herod, and the Jewish Sanhedrinin the same way as He acted upon the one repentantthief ? Either He could not or He would not.In both instances it turns out, according to you, thatHe was not sufficiently penetrated with the truespirit of the Gospel, and as we are speaking, if I donot mistake, of the Gospel of Christ and not of anyother gospel, it appears that Christ was not suffi-ciently penetrated with the true spirit of Christupon which result I offer you my congratulations.PRINCE. Oh, I am not going to enter into verbalfencing with you any more than I am going to enterinto real fencing with the General, with Christ-serving swords . . .

(At this point the Prince got up from his seat andwished apparently to say something very powerful,expecting with one blow, without any fencing, to over-whelm his antagonist, but at that moment it began tostrike seven from a neighbouring belfry.)LADY. Dinner-time What's more, we mustn'tfinish such a discussion in a hurry. After dinner


53/206

WAR AND CHRISTIANITY 39we'll have our game of vint, but to-morrow we must,we absolutely must, go on with this conversation.(To the Politician) You agree ?

POLITICIAN. What, to continue this conver-sation ? I was overjoyed that it had come to anend The dispute had taken the rather unpleasantcomplexion of a holy war It was too hot workfor this time of the year. My health I can tell you,is dearer to me than any of these things.LADY. Don't pretend You must, you abso-lutely must, take part. It's no use your loungingthere stretched out on your deck chair like amysterious Mephistopheles.

POLITICIAN. Well, I might agree to take partto-morrow, but only on condition that there be lessreligion in it. I don't ask you to exclude it altogether,as it seems that would be impossible. Only let therebe less, for God's sake, a little less 1LADY. Your for God's sake is on this occa-sion very sweet.MR. Z. (to the Politician). The best means ofmaking sure that there shall be less religion wouldbe for you to speak much more, wouldn't it ?POLITICIAN. I promise Only to listen is, all

the same, more pleasant than to talk, especiallyin this fine air ; but for the salvation of our littlecircle from mutual conflict, which might possiblyreflect itself in an unpleasant way in our vint, I amready to sacrifice myself for two hours.LADY. Splendid And the day after to-morrowthen, we will finish this discussion about the Bible.The Prince will get ready some absolutely irrefut-


54/206

40 WAR AND CHRISTIANITYable argument. Only you also must be present atthe end. You need a little instruction in theScriptures.

POLITICIAN. What The day after to-morrow,as well ? No, no My self-sacrifice won't go asfar as that. What's more, I must go to Nice the dayafter to-morrow.LADY. To Nice ? What naive diplomacy you

are practising upon us It's no good. We've longsince learnt to read your cypher, and now every-body knows that when you say you're going to Niceit means you're off to Monte Carlo for a spree. Nevermind, we'll manage somehow without you. Go andwallow in material things, since you're not afraidof the fact that you will have to join the world ofspirits later on. Go to Monte Carlo, and may Provi-dence reward you according to your deserts

POLITICIAN. My deserts don't concern Provi-dence, as it happens, but only a little businesswhich I have got to see through. I might try myluck with a little small change at roulette, I admit,but I shouldn't spend much.LADY. Only to-morrow then, we must all bepresent.


55/206

SECOND CONVERSATION Audiatur et altera pars

ON the following day, at the appointed hour, Imet the others at afternoon tea under the palmtrees. Only the Prince was absent. We had to waitfor him. As I did not play cards I wrote down thewhole of this conversation from the very beginning.This time the Politician spoke so much and in sucha drawling way that to note down literally every-thing he said would be impossible. I have men-tioned a sufficient number of his remarks and haveendeavoured to preserve the general meaning. Inmany instances I can merely convey in my ownwords the substance of his discourses.

POLITICIAN. I have long observed a certainpeculiarity : people who have made a special hobbyof some kind of higher morality cannot master thesimplest and most indispensable, and accordingto me, the most necessary virtue common polite-ness. We must therefore be grateful to the Almightythat in our midst there are comparatively few pos-sessed of this idea of higher morality. I say ideaadvisedly, because in reality I have never met withit, nor do I believe in its existence.LADY. Well, that is not new, but what you sayabout politeness is true. Try, before you havecome to the sujet en question, to prove that polite-ness is the only indispensable virtue ; try to prove


56/206

42 WAR AND CHRISTIANITYit even superficially, as musical instruments aretuned before the overture begins.

POLITICIAN. Yes, in such cases only separatesounds are heard. Such monotony would also pre-vail now, for scarcely anyone would care to defendanother opinion before the arrival of the Prince.Besides, to speak of politeness to-day in his presencewould not be quite polite.LADY. Certainly. And how about yourargument ?

POLITICIAN. This, I think you will agree thatone can exist quite well in a society where thereare no chaste, disinterested or unselfish persons. I,at any rate, have got on very well in such company.LADY. At Monte Carlo

POLITICIAN. At Monte Carlo and everywhere else.In fact, nowhere is there felt to be a demand for evena single representative of the higher virtues. Buttry to live in a society where there is not a singlepolite person.GENERAL. I do not know to what society youare good enough to refer, but during the campaignsin Khiva and Turkey something more than polite-ness was needed.

POLITICIAN. You might as well have added thatfor travellers in Central Africa more than politenesswas required. I speak of well-organised daily lifein the cultured society of human beings, and thatrequires none of the higher virtues or of Christianityso-called. (Turning to Mr. Z.) You shake your head.MR. Z. I recall to mind a painful incident whichwas told me.


57/206

WAR AND CHRISTIANITY 43LADY. And what was that ?MR. Z. My friend N. died quite suddenly.GENERAL. The well-known novelist ?MR. Z. The same.POLITICIAN. The newspapers wrote rather mys-

teriously about his death.MR. Z. Precisely very mysteriously.LADY. Butwhat made you think of him just now ?Did he die from somebody's lack of politeness ?MR. Z. On the contrary, merely from his own

exaggerated politeness.GENERAL. And even on this point we do notappear to agree.LADY. If possible, tell us all about it.MR. Z. There is nothing to hide. My friend,who also thought that politeness, although not theonly virtue, was, at all events, the most necessarystep in social morality, considered it his boundenduty to fulfil all its dictates. Among the dutieswhich he imposed on himself was that of readingall letters addressed to him, even from unknownpeople, as well as books and pamphlets for re-view. He read all the letters and noticed all thebooks. He conscientiously carried out every requestaddressed to him, and consequently was busy all daywith other people's affairs, while his own occupiedhim at night. What is more, he accepted all invi-tations and received all comers. While my friendwas young and could stand strong drinks the hardlabour imposed by politeness, although under-mining his health, did not degenerate into tragedy.Wine cheered his heart and saved him from despair.


58/206

44 WAR AND CHRISTIANITYSometimes, when ready to seize a rope with which tohang himself, he stretched out his hand for the bottle,and that gave him courage. Constitutionally he wasweak, and at the age of forty-five he had to give upstrong drink. When sober, this slavery seemed hellto him, and now, I am informed, he has committedsuicide.LADY. What And simply from politeness ?But he was mad MR. Z. No doubt he lost his reason, but I venture

to think that word simply is not applicable tothis case.GENERAL. I have also seen similar cases of in-

sanity, and if one tried to fathom them one mightalso go mad. It is far from simple.POLITICIAN. In every case it is clear that polite-

ness has nothing to do with the matter. TheSpanish throne was no more to blame for the madnessof the chinovnik Poprischin 1 than the necessity tobe polite was answerable for your friend's insanity.MR. Z. Of course, I am not against politeness,but only against making a law of politeness.POLITICIAN. Absolute rules, as everything abso-

lute, are merely the inventions of people bereft ofcommon sense and of the feeling of living reality. Ido not admit any absolute rules, I only acceptindispensable rules. For instance, I am well awarethat if I do not adopt the rule of cleanliness the resultwill be unpleasant to myself and to others. In ordernot to experience unpleasant sensations, I adhere un-alterably to the rule of washing myself every day, to

1 In Gogol's Diary of a Madman.


59/206

WAR AND CHRISTIANITY 45putting on clean linen, etc., not because it is a gene-rally received custom of other people or myself, orbecause it is a sacred duty, or a sin to neglect it, butmerely because uncleanliness, ipso facto, is a materialinconvenience. Just the same applies to politeness,of which cleanliness is a component part. For meand for others it is much more convenient to performthan to neglect the rules of politeness, and thereforeI adhere to them. Your friend imagined thatpoliteness meant answering all letters and executingall requests without reference to convenience andpersonal advantage ; that was not politeness, buta kind of foolish self-sacrifice.MR. Z. Morbid development of conscientiousness

became, in his case, a mania, which killed him.LADY. But it is awful that a man should perish

through such nonsense. Could not you bring him toreason ?MR. Z. I did my best, and was even assisted by

a pilgrim from Mount Athos, who was half crazy,but a very remarkable person. My friend greatlyrespected him and often consulted him in spiritualmatters. That man struck at once at the root ofthe trouble. I knew the pilgrim well and was oftenpresent at the discussions.When my friend began telling him about his moraldoubts, saying was he right in this or had hesinned in that, Varsonophia sharply interruptedhim : Eh, why are you grieving about your sinsdon't Listen to me : sin five hundred and thirty-nine times in a day, but don't grieve about it ; that'sthe chief thing. If to sin is evil, then to remember


60/206

46 WAR AND CHRISTIANITYsin is evil. There is nothing worse than to call tomind one's own sins. Better think of the evil whichothers do to you, there is some use in that ; for thefuture you will beware of such persons. As for yourevil actions forget them, so that they may disap-pear altogether. There is only one deadly sin andthat is despondency. From despondency comesdespair ; and that is more than sin, it is spiritualdeath. Well, and what other sins are there ? Howabout drunkenness ? A sensible man drinks whenhe is thirsty ; he does not drink at random, but afool gorges himself even with plain water, thereforethe evil is not in the wine, but in the foolishness.Some people in their foolishness burn their insideswith vodka, and even their outsides turn black andsparks fly about. I have seen it with my own eyes.It is something worse than sin when the fiery Gehennapierces through the skin. As regards all the variousviolations of the seventh commandment, I will speakaccording to my conscience : it is difficult to judgeand impossible to praise I do not recommend it There is no denying it is a thrilling pleasure, but itleads to sorrow and shortens life. If you don't believeme, see here what a learned German doctor writes.And Varsonophia took an antiquated-looking bookfrom the shelf and began turning over its leaves.Here is Hunand. See page 176. And he readsententiously how the German author warns against

the foolish waste of vital power. Well, you see,why should a reasonable man exhaust his strength ?In early, reckless years evil is done and health is lost.But to recall all the past and be distressed, saying


61/206

WAR AND CHRISTIANITY 47why did I lose my innocence, my purity of soul andbody, that is sheer nonsense ; it is simply playingthe buffoon to the devil. Of course it flatters thedevil that your soul should not rise higher, butremain in the same dirty slum. Here is my advice :When the devil begins to trouble about all thisrepentance, just spit upon him and say ' Here areall my heavy sins, they are not very important/I promise he will leave you in peace I speak fromexperience. . . . And for what other infractionsof the law are you responsible ? You wouldn'tsteal ? And if you did there is no great harm ;nowadays everyone steals. It follows you mustn'tworry about these trifles, but only beware ofbeing despondent. When thoughts come aboutsins have not I wronged or offended some one ?go to the theatre, or to some merry friends, or readsome funny stories. And if a rule is wanted, hereit is : be firm in belief, not from fear of sin, butbecause it is very pleasant for a wise man to livewith God, for without God life is bad. Study theword of God, for if you read with attention everyline is worth a rouble ; pray earnestly once or twicea day. Don't forget to wash yourself, and sin-cere prayer is even better for the soul than soapfor the body. Fast for thy stomach's sake and thyother internal organs ; doctors advise fasting afterforty. Don't think about other people's affairs ortrouble about philanthropy, if you have work to do ;give money to beggars not counting it ; give dona-tions to churches and monasteries without stint ;it will be recorded in heaven, and you will be healthy


62/206


63/206

WAR AND CHRISTIANITY 49to me and to N. about this hermit. Not a bad story,but too long to relate at present.LADY. But tell it to us in a few words.MR. Z. I will try. In the desert of Nitria two

hermits were working out their salvation. Theircaves were not far from each other, but they neverconversed, only chanted psalms occasionally. Thusthey passed many years, and their fame began tospread through Egypt and the neighbouringcountries. But in course of time the devil suc-ceeded in poisoning their souls ; they packed theirbelongings, their baskets and beds of palm leavesand branches, and marched off to Alexandria. Therethey sold their work, and on the money they got forit they spent three days and three nights withdrunkards and sinners and then returned to theirdesert. One of them lamented and cried mostbitterly : I am lost and accursed Such madnessand evil doings can never be forgiven. All myfastings, vigils and prayers are wasted.The other pilgrim walked beside him and sangpsalms joyfully to himself. The first cried : Are you mad ? Why ? asked the joyful one. Aren't you sorry ? About what should I be sorry ? And about Alexandria ? Glory be to the Almighty, who preserves thefamous and God-fearing city.And what did we do at Alexandria ? Of course we sold our baskets, bowed low t


64/206

50 WAR AND CHRISTIANITYon the pious protector of the city, we conversed withthe virtuous matron Leonilla ...

Did not we spend the night in a house of ill-fame ? God preserve us The evening and night we

passed in the patriarch's hostelry.Holy martyrs Why he is off his head. . . .And was it not there that we were filled with wine ? ' '

' We tasted wine and food from the patriarch'shospitable board on the occasion of the Presen-tation of the Blessed Virgin in the Temple.Wretched man And who kissed us, to saynothing worse ? . . .

And at parting we received a holy kiss fromthat holy father of fathers, the blessed Archbishopof Alexandria and of all Egypt ; yes, and ofLibya and of Pentapolis and of Kur-Timothee withits spiritual court, and with all the fathers andbrothers of his divinely appointed clergy.But are you mocking me ? Or has the devilpossessed you after yesterday's evil deeds ? You,cursed man, have embraced sinners

Well, I do not know into whom the devil hasentered : into me who rejoice in the gifts of God andin the kindness extended to us by the heads of theChurch, and praise the Creator with all creation, orinto you, who rave and call the house of our blessedfather and pastor a house of ill-fame, and defamethe God-loving clergy, calling them sinners, as itwere

Oh, thou heretic Aryan offspring, cursedlips of Apollonion


65/206


66/206

52 WAR AND CHRISTIANITYfrom the Church in Alexandria to Byzantium, andthence to the shrines of Kiev and Moscow. Thelesson of this story, said Varsono, is that all sinsare harmless except despondency. The two mencommitted every iniquity conjointly, but only oneof them perished, namely, he who desponded.GENERAL. You see, monks must have a coura-geous spirit, but nowadays even soldiers are

discouraged.MR. Z. It seems we have drifted from the ques-tion of politeness, but have returned to our prin-cipal subject.LADY. And here comes the Prince. How areyou ? In your absence we have been speakingabout politeness.PRINCE. Please excuse me, I could not get awayearlier. I received a lot of papers and printed matterfrom our friends. I will show them to you later on.LADY. And I will afterwards tell you a holyanecdote, which entertained us in your absence.It was about two monks. But now it is the turnof our Monte Carloist to speak. Well, let us knowwhat he has to say about war after yesterday'sconversation.

POLITICIAN. From yesterday's conversation Iremember the reference to Vladimir Monomakh,and the General's military story. Let this be thestarting point for the further discussion of thequestion. It is impossible to deny that VladimirMonomakh did well when he defeated the Poloftsi,and that the General did his duty when he destroyedthe Bashi-Bazouks.


67/206

WAR AND CHRISTIANITY 53LADY. That means that you agree.POLITICIAN. I agree with what I have had thehonour of telling you, namely, that Monomakh and

the General acted in the way they were bound todo in the given situation ; but how are we to appre-ciate that situation, or to justify the perpetuationof war and militarism ?

PRINCE. That is precisely what I say.LADY. And the United States ?POLITICIAN. I thank you for the happy example.

I speak of the creation of a State. Of course, theUnited States, as a European colony, was founded asall other colonies, not by war, but by navigation.However, as soon as that colony desired to be aState, it had to obtain its political independence bya lengthy war.

PRINCE. Because a State is created by war,which certainly cannot be denied, you evidentlyconclude that war is important, while I concludethat it proves the unimportance of the State. Imean, of course, for people who have refused to bowdown to brute force.

POLITICIAN. And why do you speak of wor-shipping brute force ? Try to organise a soundcommunity of human beings without Governmentcontrol, then only can you discuss the non-impor-tance of Governments. Until then, the State and allthat you and I owe it, remains an established fact,while your attacks are mere insignificant words.Therefore, I repeat : the great historical meaning ofwar, as the principal condition in the foundation of aState, is beside the question. But I ask : Must we


68/206

54 WAR AND CHRISTIANITYnot consider the great business of forming an Empireas already accomplished in substance ? Detailscan, of course, be arranged even without suchheroic measures as war. In ancient times and in theMiddle Ages, when the European world of culturewas but an island in the middle of an ocean ofbarbarism, military organisation was necessary forself-preservation. People had to be always inreadiness to drive away wild hordes, which camefrom unknown regions to crush dawning civilisation.And now only the non-European elements should betermed islands, while European culture has becomethe ocean which surrounds them. Our men ofscience, our adventurers and missionaries havescoured the whole terrestrial globe and have dis-covered no serious danger to the culture of theworld. Wild tribes are very successfully destroyingthemselves and are dying out ; warlike barbarians,as, for instance, Turks and Japanese, are becom-ing civilised and are losing their militarism. Mean-while, the unification of European nations in generalcultural life . . .LADY (under her breath). Monte Carlo.POLITICIAN (continuing his oration). has been

so strengthened that fighting between those nationsassumes the character of civil war. It wouldbe unpardonable in every respect, since there isa possibility of arranging international quarrelspeaceably. To settle disputes by fighting wouldat the present time be as fantastic as to go fromPetersburg to Marseilles in a sailing vessel or in aRussian tarantass drawn by three horses. I fully


69/206

WAR AND CHRISTIANITY 55admit, however, that the ancient modes of traveldescribed by Pushkin and Lermontof are muchmore poetical than the whistle of a steamer or thecry en voiture, messieurs. I am equally preparedto admit the aesthetic superiority of bristlingsteel and of brilliant regiments over the negotiationsof diplomats and their peaceful congresses. But theserious consideration of a question, treating of lifeand death, must ignore aesthetic beauty, which hasnothing in common with war. I do assure you thatit is in no way beautiful, as represented by the fancyof the poet or the artist. When it is understood thatwar, with all its attractive interest for poets andpainters, is useless, because unprofitable, then themilitary period of history must end. I, of course,speak in general en grand. There cannot be a ques-tion of immediate disarmament, but I am firmlyconvinced that neither we nor our children willever witness great wars, real European wars. As forour grandchildren, they will only read in historicalworks of little wars somewhere in Asia and Africa.My reply concerning Vladimir Monomakh is as

follows : When it became necessary to protect thefuture of the newly-born Russian State from theinroads of Poloftsi, Tartars, etc., war was the mostindispensable and important business. The samemay, to a certain extent, be said about the epoch ofPeter the Great, when it was necessary to guaranteethe future of Russia as a European power. Butafter that the meaning of war becomes more andmore an exploded question, and at present, asalready stated, the military period in Russia, and


70/206

56 WAR AND CHRISTIANITYelsewhere, is a thing of the past. What I have justsaid about our own country is applicable certainly,mutatis mutandis to other

Documents

Vladimir Solovyof. War and Christianity