Only think : militarism creates, as its most extreme expression,
the system of universal service, and then, owing to this very fact, not only modern militarism, but the very foundations of the military system as such, becomeutterlydestroyed.
the system of universal service, and then, owing to this very fact, not only modern militarism, but the very foundations of the military system as such, becomeutterlydestroyed.
Sovoliev - End of History
Yes or no?
POLITICIAN (lounging comfortably in an easy- chair, and speaking in a tone suggestive of a compound of Epicurus, a Prussian colonel, and Voltaire]. Does a Russian Army exist? Obviously itdoes. Why,yousurelyhaven'theardthatithad been abolished?
GENERAL. How mightily ingenuous you are to be
You understand perfectly well that that is
sure !
notwhatI mean. I askyouthis: AmI rightin
regarding our present Army as a glorious band of Christ-loving warriors, or am I to suppose that one
ought to call it something else?
POLITICIAN. I see !
That is what bothers you, is
it? Well, you have brought your question to the
wrongshop. YoushouldinquireattheDepartment
of Heraldry they are the recognised experts in titles, I believe.
MR. Z. (speaking as if he had an idea at the back
of his mind). And the Department of Heraldry will probably tell the General that the law places no
Answer me
? 6 SOLOVIEV
restriction on the use of old titles. Did not the last Prince Lusignan hold the title of King of Cyprus,
although he not only had no jurisdiction in Cyprus, but could not even drink Cyprian wine owing to his
weak stomach and empty purse? Why, then, shouldn't the modern army be entitled a Christ- loving band of warriors ?
MR. Z. But I am not stating my own opinion. I merely put forward that which appears to be held
by people who should know !
LADY (to the Politician). Why do you argue about mere forms of expression? I am sure the General
"
has more to say about his warriors. "
Christ-loving band of
Then we may call black
GENERAL. Entitled !
and white titles? So are sweet and bitter, and so are hero and scoundrel.
GENERAL. I thank you, madam. What I wished,
and what I still wish to say is this : From the earliest
times until but yesterday every warrior, be he private or field-marshal, knew and felt that he served in a goodandholycause. Hebelievednotonlythathe fulfilled duties every bit as necessary as sanitation or washing, for instance, but that he was part of a service which was good, honourable, and noble in the highest sense of the word, and to which the greatest and best men that have ever lived heroes andleadersofnations havegiventheirlives. This cause of ours has always been sanctified and exalted by the Church, and glorified by the praise of the
? WAR 7
nation. Yet behold ! one fine morning we are told that we must forget all this and that we must hold ourselves and our place in the world to be the very opposite. The cause which we have served, and
always have been proud of serving, is suddenly declared to be a thing of evil and a menace to the
country. Warfare, it appears, is against God's express commandments, is entirely opposed to
human sentiments, and inevitably brings about most dreadful evil and dire misfortune. All nations, we are told, must combine against it and make its final destruction only a question of time.
PRINCE. Doyoumeantotellusthatyouhavenever before heard opinions which utterly condemn war and military service as relics of ancient barbarism?
GENERAL. Who has not? Of course I have heard them, and have read them, too, in more languages
But all such puny voices you must
than one!
pardonmyfrankness seemtomebynomeansthe
thunderclaps that you consider them. But to-day matters are different; one cannot but hear these
opinions, expressed as they are on all sides. What
Am I and for that matter,
on earth are we to do ?
every other soldier to regard myself an honourable man, or an inhuman monster? Am I to respect myself as a willing servant in a noble cause, or am I to view my occupation with abhorrence, to repent of my misdeeds in sackcloth and ashes, and to ask pardon on my knees of every civilian for the sins
of my profession?
? 8 SOLOVIEV
POLITICIAN. What a fantastic way of stating the
question ! As if anybody were asking you anything
extraordinary. The new demands are addressed,
"" nottoyou,buttodiplomatistsandother civilians
who care precious little whether soldiers are vicious
or whether they are Christ-loving. As far as you yourself are concerned, there is only one thing to be done ; and that is that you should carry out un- questioningly the orders of the authorities.
GENERAL. Well, well !
As you take no interest
in military matters it is only natural that your idea
"
of them should be fantastic," to use your own
expression. You are obviously unaware that in certain cases the order of the authorities has no other meaning than that you must not wait or ask for their orders.
POLITICIAN. For instance?
GENERAL. For instance, just imagine that by the will of the powers that be I am placed in command of a whole military district. From this very fact it follows that I am commanded to govern and
control in every way the troops placed in my charge. I am to develop and strengthen in them a definite
pointofview toactinsomedefinitewayontheir will to influence their feelings; in a word, to educate them, so to speak, up to the purpose of their being. Very well then. For this purpose I am
empowered, amongst other things, to issue to the troops of my district general orders in my name and
on my entire personal responsibility. Well, should
? WAR 9
I apply to my superior officers, asking them to dictate to me my orders, or merely to instruct in what form they should be drawn up, don't you think I should,
"" in return, be dubbed an old fool ?
And that if
it happened again, I should be summarily dismissed ? This means that I must adopt towards my troops a
consistent policy, some definite spirit which, it is supposed, has been previously and once and for all approved and confirmed by the higher command. So that even to inquire about it would be to show
either stupidity or impertinence. At present, how-
"
definite spirit," which, as a matter of fact, has been one and the same from the times of Sargon and Assurbanipal to those of William II.
this very spirit suddenly proves to be under sus- picion. UntilyesterdayIknewthatIhadtodevelop and strengthen in my troops not a new, but this
same old fighting spirit the willingness of each individual soldier to conquer the enemy or to go
to his death. And for this it is absolutely necessary to possess an unshaken faith in war as a holy cause.
But now this faith is being deprived of its spiritual basis, the military work is losing what the learned
"
POLITICIAN. How frightfully exaggerated all this
ever, this
call
is !
its moral and religious sanction. "
There is no such radical change of views in
reality. On the one hand, everybody has always recognised that war is evil and that the less there
is of it the better. On the other hand, all serious people to-day realise that it is the kind of evil which
? 10 SOLOVIEV
it is impossible to eradicate completely at present. Consequently the question is not whether war can be abolished, but whether it can be gradually, even if very slowly, reduced to the narrowest limits. As to the attitude to war as a principle, this remains as it has ever been : it is an unavoidable evil, a misfortune, tolerable only in extreme cases.
GENERAL. And nothing else? POLITICIAN. Nothing else.
GENERAL (springing up from his seat}. Have you ever had occasion to refer to the Book of Saints ?
POLITICIAN. You mean in the calendar ?
I have sometimes to run through a long list of names of saints in order to find the dates of certain birth-
days.
GENERAL. Did you notice what saints are men-
tioned there ?
POLITICIAN. There are different kinds of saints. GENERAL. But what are their callings? POLITICIAN. Their callings are as different as their
names, I believe.
GENERAL. That is just where you are wrong.
Their callings are not different.
POLITICIAN. What? Surely all the saints are not
military men?
GENERAL. Not all, but half of them.
POLITICIAN. Exaggeration again !
GENERAL. We are not taking a census for statis-
tical purposes here. What I maintain is that all the saints of our Russian church belong only to two
Oh, yes,
? WAR 11
classes : they are either monks of various orders, orprinces menwho,fromwhatweknowofpast history,musthavebeenmilitarymen. Andwehave no other saints I mean those of the male sex. Monkorwarrior thatisall.
LADY. You forget the "innocents," don't you?
" GENERAL. Notatall! But innocents"areakind
ofirregularmonks,aren'tthey? WhatCossacksare
"""
to the Army, innocents are to the monkhood. "
This being so, if you now find me amongst the Russian saints a single clergyman, or tradesman, or deacon,orclerk,orcommoner,orpeasant inaword,
a man of any profession except monks and soldiers then you may take the whole of my winnings which I may bring home from Monte Carlo next Sunday.
POLITICIAN. Thanks very much. Keep your treasures and your half of the book of saints the whole of it, if you like. But do please explain what
it is that you are trying to prove by this discovery of yours. Is it only that nobody but a monk or a
soldier can set us a true example of moral life ?
GENERAL. That is hardly the point. I myself
have known many highly virtuous persons amongst the clergy, the bankers, the official classes, and the peasants, but the most virtuous person I can recollect was the old nurse of one of my friends. But it is notaboutthisthatwearetalking. Imentionedthe saints only to point out that it could hardly have been possible for so many soldiers to become saints, side by side with monks and in preference to mem-
? 12 SOLOVIEV
bers of every other peaceful and civic profession, were military occupations always regarded as a
necessary evil something like the liquor traffic or things even worse. It is evident that the Christian
nations, at whose instance the books of saints were
actually compiled (and not only with the Russians was it so, but very much the same with other nations),
not only respected the military calling, but they
particularly respected it, and of all the lay profes- sions only the military one was held fit to contribute
members to the saintship. It is this view which
seems to be incompatible with the modern campaign
against war.
POLITICIAN. But I did not say that there is no
change whatever. Some desirable change is un-
It is true that the halo which crowned warriors and their wars in the eyes of the masses is fast disappearing. But matters have been tending this way for some long time. Besides, whose interests does this actually affect? Only that of the clergy, I should say, as the manu- facture of halos belongs exclusively to its depart- ment. It will, of course, be necessary to clear up some difficulties there. And what it will be im-
possible to suppress will be interpreted symbolically, whilst the rest will wisely be kept quiet or relegated to oblivion.
PRINCE. These modifications are already being made. In connection with my publications I have to watch our ecclesiastical literature, and in two
doubtedly taking place.
? WAR 13
papers I had the pleasure of reading that Christi-
anity absolutely condemns war. GENERAL. Is that really so ?
PRINCE. I could scarcely believe my own eyes
But I can show it.
POLITICIAN (to the General). You see! Why,
though, should you be worried about it ? Aren't you warriors men of deeds and not of windy words ? Is all this merely professional selfishness and ambition onyourpart? Ifitis,itisindeedbadofyou. But
I repeat again : in practice everything remains for you as before. Let it be true that the system of
militarism, which now for thirty years has been an insupportable burden to everybody, is now bound
todisappear. However,anarmyofsomesizemust still remain. And in so far as it will be admitted
that it is necessary, just so far the same fighting qualities as before will be demanded of it.
myself.
You are all great masters to ask for milk from a dead bull ! But who is to
give you the required fighting qualities, when the first fighting quality, without which all others are of
little use, is a cheerful and confident spirit, itself the outcome of faith in the sacredness of the cause to which one has devoted oneself? How then is this to happen, when it is recognised that war is crime and villainy, and that it is tolerated only in certain extreme cases as an unfortunate necessity ?
POLITICIAN. Nobody expects this to be believed bymilitarymen. Iftheychosetoregardthemselves
GENERAL. That's it.
? 14 SOLOVIEV
first men in the world, nobody would care a button about it. It was explained to you before, was it not, that Prince Lusignan is allowed to style himself the King of Cyprus, provided he does not ask us to
give him money for Cyprian wine. So if you do not raid our pockets more than is necessary you
may regard yourselves the salt of the earth and theflowerofmankind nobodywillstopyou.
GENERAL. You say, regard yourselves ! But, surely, we are not talking on the moon. Are you
going to keep soldiers in a sort of vacuum, so that no foreign influences could reach them? And this
in the days of universal military service, short period of training, and cheap Press ! No, the matter is only tooclear. Whenoncemilitaryserviceiscompulsory for all and everybody, and when once in the whole
of society, from such representatives of the State as yourself, for example, to the lowest, the new adverse criticism of the military profession becomes uni- versally accepted, this view must needs be assimi- lated by the military men themselves. If all, from
the higher command downwards, begin to regard military service as an evil, inevitable for the present^ then, in the first place, nobody will ever of his own accord choose the military calling for his life's work, with the exception perhaps of the dregs of society, which can find no other career open to it; and, secondly, all those who will be compelled to bear
temporarily the military levy will do so with feelings similar to those with which criminals, chained to
? WAR 15
wheelbarrows, cany their fetters. Talk of fighting
qualities and fighting spirit under such conditions ! What drivel !
MR. Z. I have always believed that after the
introduction of universal military service, the aboli-
tion of armies, and eventually of individual States,
is only a question of time, and that not far removed
from the present moment, considering the rapid pro- gress of events.
GENERAL. Perhaps you are right.
PRINCE. I think that you are most certainly right,
though the idea has never occurred to my mind in
this guise. But it is splendid !
Only think : militarism creates, as its most extreme expression,
the system of universal service, and then, owing to this very fact, not only modern militarism, but the very foundations of the military system as such, becomeutterlydestroyed. Isn'titwonderful!
LADY. Look ! Even the Prince's face has
brightened up. This is a pleasant change. The Prince hitherto has been wearing a gloomy counten-
ance, which ill suited his profession of "true Christian. "
PRINCE. One sees so many sad things around. There is but one joy left : the thought that reason
will inevitably triumph in spite of all obstacles. MR. Z. There can be no doubt that militarism in
Western Europe and Russia is feeding upon itself. But as to the joys and triumphs which are to proceed from this fact those yet remain to be seen.
PRINCE. What? You seem to doubt that war and
? 16 SOLOVIEV
militarism are absolute and utter evils, of which humanity must rid itself at any cost and immedi- ately? You doubt that complete and immediate suppression of this barbarism would in any case result in a triumph for reason and good ?
MR. Z. I am positively certain of quite the
opposite.
PRINCE. That is, of what?
MR. Z. Of the fact that war is not an absolute evil, and that peace is not an absolute good; or,
putting it in a simpler way, that it is possible to have andwedohavesometimes suchathingas
a good war, and that it is also possible to have andwedohavesometimes anevilpeace.
PRINCE. Now I see the difference between your view and that held by the General : he believes, doesn't he, that war is always a good thing, and that
peace is always a bad thing ?
GENERAL. By no means ! I understand perfectly
well that sometimes war can be a very bad thing, as, for instance, was the case when we were beaten at Narva, or Austerlitz. And peace also can be a
splendid thing, as, for example, the peace concluded
at Nistaadt, or Kuchuk-Kainardji.
LADY. Is this a variant of the famous saying of
a Kaffir or Hottentot, who told the missionary that he understood very well the difference between what
" Good is when I
away somebody else's wives and cows, and evil is
is good and what is evil :
when mine are carried away from me"?
carry
? WAR 17
GENERAL. Don't you see that we, that is, I and
your African, were only trying to say something
witty : he was so unintentionally, I purposely. But now let us hear how clever people are going to discuss
the question of war from the standpoint of morals. POLITICIAN. I would only wish that our "clever people" would not land us in casuistry and
metaphysics in discussing that perfectly clear and
historically-limited problem.
PRINCE. Clear from what point of view?
POLITICIAN. My point of view is an ordinary one,
a European one, which is being gradually assimilated by cultured people, even in other parts of the world. PRINCE. And its essence is, of course, that every- thing is considered relatively and that no absolute difference is admitted between "must" and "must
not," between good and evil. Isn't it so?
MR. Z. Pardon me. But this argument seems to me rather useless in relation to the problem we are
discussing. To take myself as an instance, I fully recognise the absolute opposition between moral
good and evil. At the same time, it is as perfectly clear to me that war and peace do not come within
the scope of the argument ; that it is quite impossible to paint war all solid black, and peace all pure white.
PRINCE. Butthisinvolvesacontradiction. Ifthe
thing which is evil in itself, as, for instance, murder, can be good in certain cases, when you are pleased to call it war, what becomes then of the absolute difference between evil and good?
c
? 18
SOLOV1EV
MR. Z. How
of murder is absolute evil ; war is murder ; it follows then that war is absolute evil. " The syllogism is first rate !
it is for
both your premises, the major and the minor, have
first to be proved, and that consequently your con- clusion so far rests on air.
POLITICIAN. Didn't I tell you we should be landed
in casuistry?
LADY. What is it they are talking about ?
POLITICIAN. Oh, about some sort of major and
minor premises.
MR. Z. Pardon me. We are coming to business
presently. Soyoumaintainthatatanyratekilling, that is taking somebody's life, is absolute evil, don't
you?
PRINCE. Undoubtedly.
MR. Z. But to be killed is this absolute evil or
not?
PRINCE. From the Hottentot standpoint, of course
it is. But we have been discussing moral evil, and this can exist only in the actions of an intelligent
being, controlled by itself, and not in what happens to that being independently of its will. It follows that to be killed is the same as to die from cholera or influenza. Not only is it not absolute evil it is not evil at all. Socrates and the stoics have already taught us this.
MR. Z. Well, I cannot answer for people so ancientasthose. Astoyourmoralappreciationof
simple
you !
The only thing you lose sight of is that
" kind Every
? WAR 19
murder, this seems to limp somewhat. According to you it follows that absolute evil consists in causing a person something which is not evil at all. Think what you like, but there is something lame here. However, we will leave this lameness alone lest we
really land in casuistry. To sum up, in killing, the evil is not in the physical fact of a life being taken,
but in the moral cause of this fact, namely, in the evil will of the one who kills. Do you agree ?
PRINCE. Itisso,ofcourse. Forwithoutthisevil will there is no murder, but only misfortune or in- advertence.
MR. Z. That is clear, when there is no will what-
ever to murder, as, for instance, in the case of an
unsuccessful operation. It is possible, however, to
imagine a position altogether different : when the
will, though not setting itself as an object the taking away of a human life, yet before the fact gives its
consent to a murder, regarding it as an extreme and unavoidablemeasure. Wouldsuchamurderalsobe an absolute evil in your opinion?
PRINCE. Decidedly so, when once the will has agreed to a murder.
MR. Z. You will admit, however, that there are cases in which the will, though agreeing to a murder, is at the same time not an evil will. The murder is consequently not an absolute evil in that case, even when looked at from this subjective side ?
PRINCE. Oh, dear me ! This is something quite
unintelligible.
However, I think I guess what you c2
? 20 SOLOVIEV
mean : you refer to that famous case in which a
father sees in a lonely place a blackguardly ruffian trying to assault his innocent (and, to enhance the
effect, it is added his "little") daughter. The father, unable to protect her in any other way, kills theoffender. Ihaveheardthisargumentatleasta thousand times.
MR. Z. What is really remarkable is not that you have heard it a thousand times, but the fact that nobody has ever had from any one of those holding your view a sensible, or even only plausible, answer to this simple argument.
PRINCE. And what is there in it to answer?
MR. Z. Well, if you don't like to argue against it, will you then prove by some direct and positive method that in all cases without exception, and con-
sequently in the case we are discussing, it is indisput- ably better to abstain from resisting evil by means
of force, than it is to use violence, though one risk
the possibility of killing a wicked and dangerous man.
PRINCE. It is funny to ask for a special proof for
a single case. Once you recognise that murdering generally is evil in the moral sense, it is clear that it will be evil in every single case as well.
LADY. This sounds weak, Prince, to be sure.
MR. Z. Very weak indeed, I should say. That it is generally better not to kill anybody than to kill is a truth which is not subject to argument and is accepted by everybody. It is just the single cases
? WAR 21 that actually raise the problem. The question is :
"
don't kill," unreservedly absolute and, therefore, admitting of no exception whatever, in no single case and in no circumstances; or is it such as to admit of even one exception, and, therefore, is not
absolute ?
PRINCE. I cannot agree to such a formal way of
approaching the problem. I don't see the use of
it. Suppose I admit that in your exceptional case, purposely invented for argument's sake . . .
Is the general and undisputable rule,
LADY (reprovingly). Prince ! this I hear? . . .
Prince !
What is
GENERAL(ironically}. Ho-ho-ho,Prince!
PRINCE (taking no notice}. Let us admit that in
your imaginary case to kill is better than not to kill
(in point of fact, of course, I refuse to admit it), but let us take it for the moment that you are right. We may even take it that your case is not imaginary,
but quite real, though, as you will agree, it is ex-
tremely rare, exceptional. . . .
dealing with war with something that is general, universal. YouwillnotsayyourselvesthatNapoleon, or Moltke, on Skobelev were in the position in any
way resembling that of a father compelled to defend his innocent little daughter from the assaults of a
question.
monster.
LADY. That's better !
MR. Z. A clever way, indeed, to avoid a difficult
Bravo, mon prince \
You will allow, me, however, to establish
But then we are
? 22 SOLOVIEV
the connection, logical as well as historical, that exists between these two facts the single murder and the war. For this let us take again your example, only we will strip it of the details which seem to increase, though actually they only diminish, itsimportance. Weneednottroubleourselvesabout a father, or a little daughter, for with them the
problem at once loses its pure ethical meaning, being transferred from the sphere of intellectual and moral
consciousness into that of natural moral feelings : parental love will obviously make the father kill the villain on the spot, without any further consideration as to whether he must, or has the right to do so in the light of the higher moral ideal. So let us take not a father, but a childless moralist, before whose eyes some feeble being, strange and unfamiliar to
him, is being fiercely assaulted by a cowardly villain. Would you suggest that the moralist should fold his
arms and preach the glory of virtue while the fiendish
beast is torturing his victim? Do you think the
moralist will not feel a moral impulse to stop that
beast by force, however great the possibility, or even
the probability, of killing him may appear? And should he instead permit the dastardly deed to take
place to the accompaniment of his high-sounding phrases, don't you think that he would find no rest
from his conscience, and would feel ashamed of himself to the verge of repulsion ?
PRINCE. Perhaps all that you are saying will be felt by a moralist who does not believe in the reality
? WAR 23
of the moral order, or who may have forgotten that God is not in might, but in right.
LADY. Verywellsaid,Prince. Now,Mr. Z. ,what will you answer to this ?
MR. Z. I will answer, that I wish it was even better said I mean more frankly, more simply, and more closely to the actual facts. You wanted to say, did you not, that a moralist who really believes in
the justice of God must, without forcibly interfering with the villain, raise his prayers to God that He
should prevent the evil deed being carried out : either by a moral miracle, by suddenly turning the villain to the path of truth; or by a physical miracle, by an instantaneous paralysis, say, or
LADY. No special need for a paralysis; the mis-
creant can be frightened by something, or in some other way prevented from carrying on his nefarious
work.
MR. Z. Oh, well, that makes no difference. The
miracle lies, you understand, not so much in the fact itself as in the connection of that fact be it a bodily
paralysis
or some mental excitement with the
prayeranditsmoralobject. Atanyrate,themethod
suggested by the Prince is nothing else but a prayer
for a miracle.
PRINCE. But. . . really. . . whyaprayer. . .
POLITICIAN (lounging comfortably in an easy- chair, and speaking in a tone suggestive of a compound of Epicurus, a Prussian colonel, and Voltaire]. Does a Russian Army exist? Obviously itdoes. Why,yousurelyhaven'theardthatithad been abolished?
GENERAL. How mightily ingenuous you are to be
You understand perfectly well that that is
sure !
notwhatI mean. I askyouthis: AmI rightin
regarding our present Army as a glorious band of Christ-loving warriors, or am I to suppose that one
ought to call it something else?
POLITICIAN. I see !
That is what bothers you, is
it? Well, you have brought your question to the
wrongshop. YoushouldinquireattheDepartment
of Heraldry they are the recognised experts in titles, I believe.
MR. Z. (speaking as if he had an idea at the back
of his mind). And the Department of Heraldry will probably tell the General that the law places no
Answer me
? 6 SOLOVIEV
restriction on the use of old titles. Did not the last Prince Lusignan hold the title of King of Cyprus,
although he not only had no jurisdiction in Cyprus, but could not even drink Cyprian wine owing to his
weak stomach and empty purse? Why, then, shouldn't the modern army be entitled a Christ- loving band of warriors ?
MR. Z. But I am not stating my own opinion. I merely put forward that which appears to be held
by people who should know !
LADY (to the Politician). Why do you argue about mere forms of expression? I am sure the General
"
has more to say about his warriors. "
Christ-loving band of
Then we may call black
GENERAL. Entitled !
and white titles? So are sweet and bitter, and so are hero and scoundrel.
GENERAL. I thank you, madam. What I wished,
and what I still wish to say is this : From the earliest
times until but yesterday every warrior, be he private or field-marshal, knew and felt that he served in a goodandholycause. Hebelievednotonlythathe fulfilled duties every bit as necessary as sanitation or washing, for instance, but that he was part of a service which was good, honourable, and noble in the highest sense of the word, and to which the greatest and best men that have ever lived heroes andleadersofnations havegiventheirlives. This cause of ours has always been sanctified and exalted by the Church, and glorified by the praise of the
? WAR 7
nation. Yet behold ! one fine morning we are told that we must forget all this and that we must hold ourselves and our place in the world to be the very opposite. The cause which we have served, and
always have been proud of serving, is suddenly declared to be a thing of evil and a menace to the
country. Warfare, it appears, is against God's express commandments, is entirely opposed to
human sentiments, and inevitably brings about most dreadful evil and dire misfortune. All nations, we are told, must combine against it and make its final destruction only a question of time.
PRINCE. Doyoumeantotellusthatyouhavenever before heard opinions which utterly condemn war and military service as relics of ancient barbarism?
GENERAL. Who has not? Of course I have heard them, and have read them, too, in more languages
But all such puny voices you must
than one!
pardonmyfrankness seemtomebynomeansthe
thunderclaps that you consider them. But to-day matters are different; one cannot but hear these
opinions, expressed as they are on all sides. What
Am I and for that matter,
on earth are we to do ?
every other soldier to regard myself an honourable man, or an inhuman monster? Am I to respect myself as a willing servant in a noble cause, or am I to view my occupation with abhorrence, to repent of my misdeeds in sackcloth and ashes, and to ask pardon on my knees of every civilian for the sins
of my profession?
? 8 SOLOVIEV
POLITICIAN. What a fantastic way of stating the
question ! As if anybody were asking you anything
extraordinary. The new demands are addressed,
"" nottoyou,buttodiplomatistsandother civilians
who care precious little whether soldiers are vicious
or whether they are Christ-loving. As far as you yourself are concerned, there is only one thing to be done ; and that is that you should carry out un- questioningly the orders of the authorities.
GENERAL. Well, well !
As you take no interest
in military matters it is only natural that your idea
"
of them should be fantastic," to use your own
expression. You are obviously unaware that in certain cases the order of the authorities has no other meaning than that you must not wait or ask for their orders.
POLITICIAN. For instance?
GENERAL. For instance, just imagine that by the will of the powers that be I am placed in command of a whole military district. From this very fact it follows that I am commanded to govern and
control in every way the troops placed in my charge. I am to develop and strengthen in them a definite
pointofview toactinsomedefinitewayontheir will to influence their feelings; in a word, to educate them, so to speak, up to the purpose of their being. Very well then. For this purpose I am
empowered, amongst other things, to issue to the troops of my district general orders in my name and
on my entire personal responsibility. Well, should
? WAR 9
I apply to my superior officers, asking them to dictate to me my orders, or merely to instruct in what form they should be drawn up, don't you think I should,
"" in return, be dubbed an old fool ?
And that if
it happened again, I should be summarily dismissed ? This means that I must adopt towards my troops a
consistent policy, some definite spirit which, it is supposed, has been previously and once and for all approved and confirmed by the higher command. So that even to inquire about it would be to show
either stupidity or impertinence. At present, how-
"
definite spirit," which, as a matter of fact, has been one and the same from the times of Sargon and Assurbanipal to those of William II.
this very spirit suddenly proves to be under sus- picion. UntilyesterdayIknewthatIhadtodevelop and strengthen in my troops not a new, but this
same old fighting spirit the willingness of each individual soldier to conquer the enemy or to go
to his death. And for this it is absolutely necessary to possess an unshaken faith in war as a holy cause.
But now this faith is being deprived of its spiritual basis, the military work is losing what the learned
"
POLITICIAN. How frightfully exaggerated all this
ever, this
call
is !
its moral and religious sanction. "
There is no such radical change of views in
reality. On the one hand, everybody has always recognised that war is evil and that the less there
is of it the better. On the other hand, all serious people to-day realise that it is the kind of evil which
? 10 SOLOVIEV
it is impossible to eradicate completely at present. Consequently the question is not whether war can be abolished, but whether it can be gradually, even if very slowly, reduced to the narrowest limits. As to the attitude to war as a principle, this remains as it has ever been : it is an unavoidable evil, a misfortune, tolerable only in extreme cases.
GENERAL. And nothing else? POLITICIAN. Nothing else.
GENERAL (springing up from his seat}. Have you ever had occasion to refer to the Book of Saints ?
POLITICIAN. You mean in the calendar ?
I have sometimes to run through a long list of names of saints in order to find the dates of certain birth-
days.
GENERAL. Did you notice what saints are men-
tioned there ?
POLITICIAN. There are different kinds of saints. GENERAL. But what are their callings? POLITICIAN. Their callings are as different as their
names, I believe.
GENERAL. That is just where you are wrong.
Their callings are not different.
POLITICIAN. What? Surely all the saints are not
military men?
GENERAL. Not all, but half of them.
POLITICIAN. Exaggeration again !
GENERAL. We are not taking a census for statis-
tical purposes here. What I maintain is that all the saints of our Russian church belong only to two
Oh, yes,
? WAR 11
classes : they are either monks of various orders, orprinces menwho,fromwhatweknowofpast history,musthavebeenmilitarymen. Andwehave no other saints I mean those of the male sex. Monkorwarrior thatisall.
LADY. You forget the "innocents," don't you?
" GENERAL. Notatall! But innocents"areakind
ofirregularmonks,aren'tthey? WhatCossacksare
"""
to the Army, innocents are to the monkhood. "
This being so, if you now find me amongst the Russian saints a single clergyman, or tradesman, or deacon,orclerk,orcommoner,orpeasant inaword,
a man of any profession except monks and soldiers then you may take the whole of my winnings which I may bring home from Monte Carlo next Sunday.
POLITICIAN. Thanks very much. Keep your treasures and your half of the book of saints the whole of it, if you like. But do please explain what
it is that you are trying to prove by this discovery of yours. Is it only that nobody but a monk or a
soldier can set us a true example of moral life ?
GENERAL. That is hardly the point. I myself
have known many highly virtuous persons amongst the clergy, the bankers, the official classes, and the peasants, but the most virtuous person I can recollect was the old nurse of one of my friends. But it is notaboutthisthatwearetalking. Imentionedthe saints only to point out that it could hardly have been possible for so many soldiers to become saints, side by side with monks and in preference to mem-
? 12 SOLOVIEV
bers of every other peaceful and civic profession, were military occupations always regarded as a
necessary evil something like the liquor traffic or things even worse. It is evident that the Christian
nations, at whose instance the books of saints were
actually compiled (and not only with the Russians was it so, but very much the same with other nations),
not only respected the military calling, but they
particularly respected it, and of all the lay profes- sions only the military one was held fit to contribute
members to the saintship. It is this view which
seems to be incompatible with the modern campaign
against war.
POLITICIAN. But I did not say that there is no
change whatever. Some desirable change is un-
It is true that the halo which crowned warriors and their wars in the eyes of the masses is fast disappearing. But matters have been tending this way for some long time. Besides, whose interests does this actually affect? Only that of the clergy, I should say, as the manu- facture of halos belongs exclusively to its depart- ment. It will, of course, be necessary to clear up some difficulties there. And what it will be im-
possible to suppress will be interpreted symbolically, whilst the rest will wisely be kept quiet or relegated to oblivion.
PRINCE. These modifications are already being made. In connection with my publications I have to watch our ecclesiastical literature, and in two
doubtedly taking place.
? WAR 13
papers I had the pleasure of reading that Christi-
anity absolutely condemns war. GENERAL. Is that really so ?
PRINCE. I could scarcely believe my own eyes
But I can show it.
POLITICIAN (to the General). You see! Why,
though, should you be worried about it ? Aren't you warriors men of deeds and not of windy words ? Is all this merely professional selfishness and ambition onyourpart? Ifitis,itisindeedbadofyou. But
I repeat again : in practice everything remains for you as before. Let it be true that the system of
militarism, which now for thirty years has been an insupportable burden to everybody, is now bound
todisappear. However,anarmyofsomesizemust still remain. And in so far as it will be admitted
that it is necessary, just so far the same fighting qualities as before will be demanded of it.
myself.
You are all great masters to ask for milk from a dead bull ! But who is to
give you the required fighting qualities, when the first fighting quality, without which all others are of
little use, is a cheerful and confident spirit, itself the outcome of faith in the sacredness of the cause to which one has devoted oneself? How then is this to happen, when it is recognised that war is crime and villainy, and that it is tolerated only in certain extreme cases as an unfortunate necessity ?
POLITICIAN. Nobody expects this to be believed bymilitarymen. Iftheychosetoregardthemselves
GENERAL. That's it.
? 14 SOLOVIEV
first men in the world, nobody would care a button about it. It was explained to you before, was it not, that Prince Lusignan is allowed to style himself the King of Cyprus, provided he does not ask us to
give him money for Cyprian wine. So if you do not raid our pockets more than is necessary you
may regard yourselves the salt of the earth and theflowerofmankind nobodywillstopyou.
GENERAL. You say, regard yourselves ! But, surely, we are not talking on the moon. Are you
going to keep soldiers in a sort of vacuum, so that no foreign influences could reach them? And this
in the days of universal military service, short period of training, and cheap Press ! No, the matter is only tooclear. Whenoncemilitaryserviceiscompulsory for all and everybody, and when once in the whole
of society, from such representatives of the State as yourself, for example, to the lowest, the new adverse criticism of the military profession becomes uni- versally accepted, this view must needs be assimi- lated by the military men themselves. If all, from
the higher command downwards, begin to regard military service as an evil, inevitable for the present^ then, in the first place, nobody will ever of his own accord choose the military calling for his life's work, with the exception perhaps of the dregs of society, which can find no other career open to it; and, secondly, all those who will be compelled to bear
temporarily the military levy will do so with feelings similar to those with which criminals, chained to
? WAR 15
wheelbarrows, cany their fetters. Talk of fighting
qualities and fighting spirit under such conditions ! What drivel !
MR. Z. I have always believed that after the
introduction of universal military service, the aboli-
tion of armies, and eventually of individual States,
is only a question of time, and that not far removed
from the present moment, considering the rapid pro- gress of events.
GENERAL. Perhaps you are right.
PRINCE. I think that you are most certainly right,
though the idea has never occurred to my mind in
this guise. But it is splendid !
Only think : militarism creates, as its most extreme expression,
the system of universal service, and then, owing to this very fact, not only modern militarism, but the very foundations of the military system as such, becomeutterlydestroyed. Isn'titwonderful!
LADY. Look ! Even the Prince's face has
brightened up. This is a pleasant change. The Prince hitherto has been wearing a gloomy counten-
ance, which ill suited his profession of "true Christian. "
PRINCE. One sees so many sad things around. There is but one joy left : the thought that reason
will inevitably triumph in spite of all obstacles. MR. Z. There can be no doubt that militarism in
Western Europe and Russia is feeding upon itself. But as to the joys and triumphs which are to proceed from this fact those yet remain to be seen.
PRINCE. What? You seem to doubt that war and
? 16 SOLOVIEV
militarism are absolute and utter evils, of which humanity must rid itself at any cost and immedi- ately? You doubt that complete and immediate suppression of this barbarism would in any case result in a triumph for reason and good ?
MR. Z. I am positively certain of quite the
opposite.
PRINCE. That is, of what?
MR. Z. Of the fact that war is not an absolute evil, and that peace is not an absolute good; or,
putting it in a simpler way, that it is possible to have andwedohavesometimes suchathingas
a good war, and that it is also possible to have andwedohavesometimes anevilpeace.
PRINCE. Now I see the difference between your view and that held by the General : he believes, doesn't he, that war is always a good thing, and that
peace is always a bad thing ?
GENERAL. By no means ! I understand perfectly
well that sometimes war can be a very bad thing, as, for instance, was the case when we were beaten at Narva, or Austerlitz. And peace also can be a
splendid thing, as, for example, the peace concluded
at Nistaadt, or Kuchuk-Kainardji.
LADY. Is this a variant of the famous saying of
a Kaffir or Hottentot, who told the missionary that he understood very well the difference between what
" Good is when I
away somebody else's wives and cows, and evil is
is good and what is evil :
when mine are carried away from me"?
carry
? WAR 17
GENERAL. Don't you see that we, that is, I and
your African, were only trying to say something
witty : he was so unintentionally, I purposely. But now let us hear how clever people are going to discuss
the question of war from the standpoint of morals. POLITICIAN. I would only wish that our "clever people" would not land us in casuistry and
metaphysics in discussing that perfectly clear and
historically-limited problem.
PRINCE. Clear from what point of view?
POLITICIAN. My point of view is an ordinary one,
a European one, which is being gradually assimilated by cultured people, even in other parts of the world. PRINCE. And its essence is, of course, that every- thing is considered relatively and that no absolute difference is admitted between "must" and "must
not," between good and evil. Isn't it so?
MR. Z. Pardon me. But this argument seems to me rather useless in relation to the problem we are
discussing. To take myself as an instance, I fully recognise the absolute opposition between moral
good and evil. At the same time, it is as perfectly clear to me that war and peace do not come within
the scope of the argument ; that it is quite impossible to paint war all solid black, and peace all pure white.
PRINCE. Butthisinvolvesacontradiction. Ifthe
thing which is evil in itself, as, for instance, murder, can be good in certain cases, when you are pleased to call it war, what becomes then of the absolute difference between evil and good?
c
? 18
SOLOV1EV
MR. Z. How
of murder is absolute evil ; war is murder ; it follows then that war is absolute evil. " The syllogism is first rate !
it is for
both your premises, the major and the minor, have
first to be proved, and that consequently your con- clusion so far rests on air.
POLITICIAN. Didn't I tell you we should be landed
in casuistry?
LADY. What is it they are talking about ?
POLITICIAN. Oh, about some sort of major and
minor premises.
MR. Z. Pardon me. We are coming to business
presently. Soyoumaintainthatatanyratekilling, that is taking somebody's life, is absolute evil, don't
you?
PRINCE. Undoubtedly.
MR. Z. But to be killed is this absolute evil or
not?
PRINCE. From the Hottentot standpoint, of course
it is. But we have been discussing moral evil, and this can exist only in the actions of an intelligent
being, controlled by itself, and not in what happens to that being independently of its will. It follows that to be killed is the same as to die from cholera or influenza. Not only is it not absolute evil it is not evil at all. Socrates and the stoics have already taught us this.
MR. Z. Well, I cannot answer for people so ancientasthose. Astoyourmoralappreciationof
simple
you !
The only thing you lose sight of is that
" kind Every
? WAR 19
murder, this seems to limp somewhat. According to you it follows that absolute evil consists in causing a person something which is not evil at all. Think what you like, but there is something lame here. However, we will leave this lameness alone lest we
really land in casuistry. To sum up, in killing, the evil is not in the physical fact of a life being taken,
but in the moral cause of this fact, namely, in the evil will of the one who kills. Do you agree ?
PRINCE. Itisso,ofcourse. Forwithoutthisevil will there is no murder, but only misfortune or in- advertence.
MR. Z. That is clear, when there is no will what-
ever to murder, as, for instance, in the case of an
unsuccessful operation. It is possible, however, to
imagine a position altogether different : when the
will, though not setting itself as an object the taking away of a human life, yet before the fact gives its
consent to a murder, regarding it as an extreme and unavoidablemeasure. Wouldsuchamurderalsobe an absolute evil in your opinion?
PRINCE. Decidedly so, when once the will has agreed to a murder.
MR. Z. You will admit, however, that there are cases in which the will, though agreeing to a murder, is at the same time not an evil will. The murder is consequently not an absolute evil in that case, even when looked at from this subjective side ?
PRINCE. Oh, dear me ! This is something quite
unintelligible.
However, I think I guess what you c2
? 20 SOLOVIEV
mean : you refer to that famous case in which a
father sees in a lonely place a blackguardly ruffian trying to assault his innocent (and, to enhance the
effect, it is added his "little") daughter. The father, unable to protect her in any other way, kills theoffender. Ihaveheardthisargumentatleasta thousand times.
MR. Z. What is really remarkable is not that you have heard it a thousand times, but the fact that nobody has ever had from any one of those holding your view a sensible, or even only plausible, answer to this simple argument.
PRINCE. And what is there in it to answer?
MR. Z. Well, if you don't like to argue against it, will you then prove by some direct and positive method that in all cases without exception, and con-
sequently in the case we are discussing, it is indisput- ably better to abstain from resisting evil by means
of force, than it is to use violence, though one risk
the possibility of killing a wicked and dangerous man.
PRINCE. It is funny to ask for a special proof for
a single case. Once you recognise that murdering generally is evil in the moral sense, it is clear that it will be evil in every single case as well.
LADY. This sounds weak, Prince, to be sure.
MR. Z. Very weak indeed, I should say. That it is generally better not to kill anybody than to kill is a truth which is not subject to argument and is accepted by everybody. It is just the single cases
? WAR 21 that actually raise the problem. The question is :
"
don't kill," unreservedly absolute and, therefore, admitting of no exception whatever, in no single case and in no circumstances; or is it such as to admit of even one exception, and, therefore, is not
absolute ?
PRINCE. I cannot agree to such a formal way of
approaching the problem. I don't see the use of
it. Suppose I admit that in your exceptional case, purposely invented for argument's sake . . .
Is the general and undisputable rule,
LADY (reprovingly). Prince ! this I hear? . . .
Prince !
What is
GENERAL(ironically}. Ho-ho-ho,Prince!
PRINCE (taking no notice}. Let us admit that in
your imaginary case to kill is better than not to kill
(in point of fact, of course, I refuse to admit it), but let us take it for the moment that you are right. We may even take it that your case is not imaginary,
but quite real, though, as you will agree, it is ex-
tremely rare, exceptional. . . .
dealing with war with something that is general, universal. YouwillnotsayyourselvesthatNapoleon, or Moltke, on Skobelev were in the position in any
way resembling that of a father compelled to defend his innocent little daughter from the assaults of a
question.
monster.
LADY. That's better !
MR. Z. A clever way, indeed, to avoid a difficult
Bravo, mon prince \
You will allow, me, however, to establish
But then we are
? 22 SOLOVIEV
the connection, logical as well as historical, that exists between these two facts the single murder and the war. For this let us take again your example, only we will strip it of the details which seem to increase, though actually they only diminish, itsimportance. Weneednottroubleourselvesabout a father, or a little daughter, for with them the
problem at once loses its pure ethical meaning, being transferred from the sphere of intellectual and moral
consciousness into that of natural moral feelings : parental love will obviously make the father kill the villain on the spot, without any further consideration as to whether he must, or has the right to do so in the light of the higher moral ideal. So let us take not a father, but a childless moralist, before whose eyes some feeble being, strange and unfamiliar to
him, is being fiercely assaulted by a cowardly villain. Would you suggest that the moralist should fold his
arms and preach the glory of virtue while the fiendish
beast is torturing his victim? Do you think the
moralist will not feel a moral impulse to stop that
beast by force, however great the possibility, or even
the probability, of killing him may appear? And should he instead permit the dastardly deed to take
place to the accompaniment of his high-sounding phrases, don't you think that he would find no rest
from his conscience, and would feel ashamed of himself to the verge of repulsion ?
PRINCE. Perhaps all that you are saying will be felt by a moralist who does not believe in the reality
? WAR 23
of the moral order, or who may have forgotten that God is not in might, but in right.
LADY. Verywellsaid,Prince. Now,Mr. Z. ,what will you answer to this ?
MR. Z. I will answer, that I wish it was even better said I mean more frankly, more simply, and more closely to the actual facts. You wanted to say, did you not, that a moralist who really believes in
the justice of God must, without forcibly interfering with the villain, raise his prayers to God that He
should prevent the evil deed being carried out : either by a moral miracle, by suddenly turning the villain to the path of truth; or by a physical miracle, by an instantaneous paralysis, say, or
LADY. No special need for a paralysis; the mis-
creant can be frightened by something, or in some other way prevented from carrying on his nefarious
work.
MR. Z. Oh, well, that makes no difference. The
miracle lies, you understand, not so much in the fact itself as in the connection of that fact be it a bodily
paralysis
or some mental excitement with the
prayeranditsmoralobject. Atanyrate,themethod
suggested by the Prince is nothing else but a prayer
for a miracle.
PRINCE. But. . . really. . . whyaprayer. . .
