The Complete Works of Leo Tolstoy (25+ Works with active table of contents)

by Leo Tolstoy

  THEODORE IVÁNITCH. Then are we not to accept their money?

  ANNA PÁVLOVNA. Their money? Oh yes, take their money; but they must be turned out at once, especially this one! He is quite rotten!

  THIRD PEASANT. That's not just, lady. God's my witness, it's not just! You'd better ask my old woman, let's say, whether I am rotten! I'm clear as crystal, let's say.

  ANNA PÁVLOVNA. He talks!... Off, off with him! It's all to spite me!... Oh, I can't bear it, I can't!... Send for the doctor! [Runs away, sobbing. Exit also Jacob and Gregory].

  TÁNYA [to Betsy] Miss Elizabeth, darling, what am I to do now?

  BETSY. Never mind, you go with them and I'll arrange it all. [Exit].

  FIRST PEASANT. Well, your reverence, how about the reception of the sum now?

  SECOND PEASANT. Let us settle up, and go.

  THIRD PEASANT [fumbling with the packet of bank-notes] Had I known, I'd not have come for the world. It's worse than a fever!

  THEODORE IVÁNITCH [to Doorkeeper] Show them into my room. There's a counting-board there. I'll receive their money. Now go.

  DOORKEEPER. Come along.

  THEODORE IVÁNITCH. And it's Tánya you have to thank for it. But for her you'd not have had the land.

  FIRST PEASANT. That's just it. As she made the proposal, so she put it into effect.

  THIRD PEASANT. She's made men of us. Else what were we? We had so little land, no room to let a hen out, let's say, not to mention the cattle. Good-bye, dear! When you get to the village, come to us and eat honey.

  SECOND PEASANT. Let me get home and I'll start brewing the beer for the wedding! You will come?

  TÁNYA. Yes, I'll come, I'll come! [Shrieks] Simon, this is fine, isn't it? [Exeunt Peasants].

  THEODORE IVÁNITCH. Well, Tánya, when you have your house I'll come to visit you. Will you welcome me?

  TÁNYA. Dear Theodore Ivánitch, just the same as we would our own father! [Embraces and kisses him].

  Curtain.

  END OF "FRUITS OF CULTURE."

  [ Transcriber's Note:

  The following is a list of corrections made to the original. The first line is the original line, the second the corrected one.

  ALEXÉY VLADÍMIROVITCH KROUGOSVÉTLOF. A professor and scientist of about ALEXÉY VLADÍMIRITCH KROUGOSVÉTLOF. A professor and scientist of about

  THE FAT LADY: MÁRYA VASÍLYEVNA TOLBOÚHINA. A very distinguished, rich, THE FAT LADY: MÁRYA VASÍLEVNA TOLBOÚHINA. A very distinguished, rich,

  PETRÍSTCHEF. Nothing. I only say, get some at any cost I will wait. PETRÍSTCHEF. Nothing. I only say, get some at any cost. I will wait.

  VASÍLY LEONÍDITCH. Then pay up and don't be stingy [To Theodore VASÍLY LEONÍDITCH. Then pay up and don't be stingy. [To Theodore

  VASÍLY LEONÍDITCH. What d'you think, Theodore Ivanítch, is he flush of VASÍLY LEONÍDITCH. What d'you think, Theodore Ivánitch, is he flush of

  THEODORE IVÁNITCH. I don't know. I hardly think so, But what does it THEODORE IVÁNITCH. I don't know. I hardly think so. But what does it

  COACHMAN. They'd better be brought here to Loukérya COACHMAN. They'd better be brought here to Loukérya.

  VASÍLY LEONÍDITCH. Excuse me a moment. [To Servants Cook] Where are the VASÍLY LEONÍDITCH. Excuse me a moment. [To Servants' Cook] Where are the

  do it out of spite. .. I turn them out from there, and they bring them do it out of spite.... I turn them out from there, and they bring them

  too!. . [Exit, sobbing, followed by Leoníd Fyódoritch]. too!... [Exit, sobbing, followed by Leoníd Fyódoritch].

  THEODORE IVÁNITCH. Then, I'll tell you what . . THEODORE IVÁNITCH. Then, I'll tell you what ...

  PETRÍSTCHEF [trembles] Oh, I'm afraid, I'm afraid! Márya Konstantínova, PETRÍSTCHEF [trembles] Oh, I'm afraid, I'm afraid! Márya Konstantínovna,

  LEONÍD FYÓDORITCH. Well, it did get there! [Exit Theodore Ivánitch LEONÍD FYÓDORITCH. Well, it did get there! [Exit, Theodore Ivánitch

  "A raft sails by,' "A raft sails by," ]

  Kingdom of God is Within You

  TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.

  The book I have had the privilege of translating is, undoubtedly, one of the most remarkable studies of the social and psychological condition of the modern world which has appeared in Europe for many years, and its influence is sure to be lasting and far reaching. Tolstoi's genius is beyond dispute. The verdict of the civilized world has pronounced him as perhaps the greatest novelist of our generation. But the philosophical and religious works of his later years have met with a somewhat indifferent reception. They have been much talked about, simply because they were his work, but, as Tolstoi himself complains, they have never been seriously discussed. I hardly think that he will have to repeat the complaint in regard to the present volume. One may disagree with his views, but no one can seriously deny the originality, boldness, and depth of the social conception which he develops with such powerful logic. The novelist has shown in this book the religious fervor and spiritual insight of the prophet; yet one is pleased to recognize that the artist is not wholly lost in the thinker. The subtle intuitive perception of the psychological basis of the social position, the analysis of the frame of mind of oppressors and oppressed, and of the intoxication of Authority and Servility, as well as the purely descriptive passages in the last chapter--these could only have come from the author of "War and Peace."

  The book will surely give all classes of readers much to think of, and must call forth much criticism. It must be refuted by those who disapprove of its teaching, if they do not want it to have great influence.

  One cannot of course anticipate that English people, slow as they are to be influenced by ideas, and instinctively distrustful of all that is logical, will take a leap in the dark and attempt to put Tolstoi's theory of life into practice. But one may at least be sure that his destructive criticism of the present social and political RÉGIME will become a powerful force in the work of disintegration and social reconstruction which is going on around us. Many earnest thinkers who, like Tolstoi, are struggling to find their way out of the contradictions of our social order will hail him as their spiritual guide. The individuality of the author is felt in every line of his work, and even the most prejudiced cannot resist the fascination of his genuineness, sincerity, and profound earnestness. Whatever comes from a heart such as his, swelling with anger and pity at the sufferings of humanity, cannot fail to reach the hearts of others. No reader can put down the book without feeling himself better and more truth-loving for having read it.

  Many readers may be disappointed with the opening chapters of the book. Tolstoi disdains all attempt to captivate the reader. He begins by laying what he considers to be the logical foundation of his doctrines, stringing together quotations from little-known theological writers, and he keeps his own incisive logic for the later part of the book.

  One word as to the translation. Tolstoi's style in his religious and philosophical works differs considerably from that of his novels. He no longer cares about the form of his work, and his style is often slipshod, involved, and diffuse. It has been my aim to give a faithful reproduction of the original.

  CONSTANCE GARNETT. January,1894

  PREFACE.

  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 believe, and consider as mistaken, the Church's doctrine, which is usually called Christianity.

  Among the many points 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 Christ's teaching by the teaching of the Church is more clearly apparent in this than in any other point of difference.

  I know--as we all do--very little of the practice and the spoken and written doctrine of former times on the subject of non- resistance to evil. I knew wha
t 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, Herrnhuters, and Quakers, who do not allow a Christian the use of weapons, and do not eater 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 translations 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 other 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 speak 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, that 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 the light of the historical events of late years.

  L. TOLSTOI. YASNAÏA POLIANA, May 14/26, 1893.

  CHAPTER I.

  THE DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO EVIL BY FORCE HAS BEEN PROFESSED BY A MINORITY OF MEN FROM THE VERY FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIANITY.

  Of the Book "What I Believe"--The Correspondence Evoked by it-- Letters from Quakers--Garrison's Declaration--Adin Ballou, his Works, his Catechism--Helchitsky's "Net of Faith"--The Attitude of the World to Works Elucidating Christ's Teaching--Dymond's Book "On War"--Musser's "Non-resistance Asserted"--Attitude of the Government in 1818 to Men who Refused to Serve in the Army --Hostile Attitude of Governments Generally and of Liberals to Those 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 some letters called forth by my book were some letters from American Quakers. In these letters, expressing their sympathy with my views on the unlawfulness for a Christian of war and the use of force of any kind, the Quakers gave me details of their own so-called sect, which for more than two hundred years has actually professed the teaching of 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 command 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 world 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 law of God who, for the sake of earthly gains, try to reconcile the irreconcilable; but for a Christian who sincerely believes that following Christ's teaching will give him salvation, such considerations of state can have no force."

  Further acquaintance with the labors of the Quakers and their works--with Fox, Penn, and especially 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 ago 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 what 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 previously unknown to me.

  The son of William Lloyd Garrison, the famous champion of the emancipation of the negroes, wrote 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 in a discussion on the means of suppressing war in the Society for the Establishment 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 full 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 SENTIMENTS ADOPTED BY PEACE CONVENTION. "Boston, 1838.

  "We the undersigned, regard 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 universal reformation.

  "We do not acknowledge allegiance to any human government. We recognize but one King and Lawgiver, one Judge and Ruler of mankind. Our country is the world, our countrymen are all mankind. We love the land of our nativity only as we love all other lands. The interests and rights of American citizens are not dearer to us than those of the whole human race. Hence we can allow no appeal to patriotism to revenge any national insult or injury...

  "We conceive that a nation has no right to defend itself against foreign enemies or to punish its invaders, and no individual possesses that 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 Russia, in Turkey, are in accordance with his will, is no less absurd than impious. It makes the impartial Author of our existence unequal and tyrannical. It cannot be affirmed that the powers that be in any nation are actuated by the spirit or guided by the example of Christ in the treatment of enemies; therefore they cannot be agreeable to the will of God, and therefore their overthrow by a spiritual regeneration of their subjects is inevitable.

  "We regard as unchristian 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 unlawful; the existence of any kind of standing army, all military chieftains, all monuments commemorative of victory over a fallen foe, all trophies won in battle, all celebrations in honor of military exploits, all appropriations for defense by arms; we regard as unchris
tian and unlawful every edict of government requiring of its subjects military service.

  "Hence we deem it unlawful 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 therefore voluntarily exclude ourselves from every legislative and judicial body, and repudiate all human politics, worldly honors, and stations of authority. If we cannot occupy a seat in the legislature or on the bench, neither can we elect others to act as our substitutes in any such capacity. It follows that we cannot sue any man at law to force him to return anything he may have wrongly taken from us; if he has seized our coat, we shall surrender him our cloak also rather than subject him to punishment.

  "We believe that the penal 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 enemies has been enjoined on all his disciples in all cases whatsoever. To extort money from enemies, cast them into prison, exile or execute them, is obviously not to forgive but to take retribution.