No More Learning

The villain plunged again more deeply the dagger, Far as he could :
Andsmilingstillthestabbedmanmurmured "Yourweapon's
:
Remarkably good. "
The villain next the right of the other attacking,
Him wounds in the chest ;
Delarue at him a finger shaking in fun says,
"How a " naughty jest !
And now in frenzy wild the villain all over With wounds ill to see
: Disfigurestheother'sbody. Delarue "Howtime'sflying
!
Delarue cries.
The villain lies at his feet repentant and grieving,
Confessing his wrong :
Delarue the prostrate man upraises with arms that
Are loving and strong.
I see you weep. For what ? No use in bewailing
A trifle, my dear sir !
I'll speak the Tsar on your behalf. He'll on you
A pension confer.
The ribbon of Stanislaus shall deck your bosom soon
Does that make you vain?
I can secure these things, as having the Tsar's ear,
His chief Chamberlain.
Or would you care to wed my daughter, my Mary ? If that is your desire
Ten thousand pounds in notes I will on you settle, A gift from her sire.
"
The villain knelt and sobbed and cried, asking pardon,
Will you stay to tea?
Disliking the scene. ""
"
For God's sake, man, get up from the floor ! "It isn't too clean. "
? 140 SOLOVIEV
And now, I pray, accept from me this portrait here, If you'll be so kind :
A token, showing love for you. It isn't framed I know you won't mind. "
The villain's face grew evil now and sarcastic:
"
Is this then my fate,
Toowemylife andall I havetoamanwho With love repays hate ? "
The lofty spirit thus the base aye discovers, Reveals its disgrace.
Assassins may forgive the gift of a portrait ; Not pension and place.
The fires of envy smoulder in his vile heart's depths,
Dark altars of shame ;
And while as yet the ribbon's new on his shoulder, They burst into flame.
New filled with malice devilish he sets his dagger In venom to steep ;
And from behind the back of Delarue he deals him A blow sure and deep.
His pains forbidding him to sit, on the floor low Poor Delarue lies.
The villain flies upstairs, and here poor Mary falls Despoiled as his prize.
The villain Tambov fled to as Governor there Is justly esteemed ;
And later, in Moscow, as Senator, worthy honour high, Is by all men deemed ;
And soon he attains to an honourable membership In Council of State;
Oh ! what a good lesson this story teaches us ! Oh! what a fate!
LADY. Oh, how sweet it is, how sweet !
I never
anticipated anything so delightful ! POLITICIAN. Veryfineindeed. Someexpressions
are real metrical feats.
? THE END OF HISTORY 141
MR. Z. But note how true to life all this is.
"" Delarue is not a specimen of that purified virtue
whichonenevermeetsinnature. Heisarealman with all the human weaknesses. He is vain (" I am
a chamberlain," he says) and fond of money (he has
managed to save ten thousand pounds); whilst his
fantastic immunity from the stabs of the villain's
dagger is, of course, merely an obvious symbol of
his infinitely good humour, invincible, even insensi-
tive to all wrongs a trait also to be met with in
life, though comparatively seldom. Delarue is not
a personification of virtue, but a naturally kind- hearted man, in whom kindness overpowered all his
bad qualities, driving them to the surface of his soul and revealing them there in the form of inoffensive weaknesses. The "villain" also is not the conven- tional essence of vice, but the normal mixture of good and bad qualities. The evil of envy, however, rooted itself in the very depth of his soul and forced out all the good in him to the epidermis of the soul, so to speak, where the kindness became a sort of
very active but superficial sentimentality. When Delarue replies to a number of offensive actions with
polite words and with an invitation to tea, the
villain's sentimentality is greatly moved by these acts of gentleness, and he descends to a climax of
repentance.
But when later the chamberlain's
civility is changed into the sincere sympathy of a
deeply good-natured man, who retaliates upon his enemy for the evil done, not with the seeming kind-
? 142 SOLOVIEV
ness of nice words and gestures, but by the actual
goodofpracticalhelp when,Isay,Delarueshows interest in the life of his enemy, is willing to share with him his fortune, to secure for him an official
post, and even to provide him with family happi- ness, then this real kindness, penetrating into the deeper moral strata of the villain, reveals his inner moral emptiness, and when it reaches the very bottom of his soul it arouses the slumbering croco- dileofenvy. ItisnotthekindnessofDelaruethat excites the envy of the villain as you have seen,
he can also be kind, and when he cried, pitifully wringing his hands, he doubtless was conscious of this. What did excite his envy was the for him unattainable infinite vastness and simple seriousness of that kindness :
"Assassins may forgive the gift of a portrait; Not pension and place. "
Is it not realistic? Do we not see this in everyday life? One and the same moisture of vivifying rain
causes the development of healing powers in some herbs and of poison in others. In the same way, a
real act of kindness, after all, only helps to develop good in the good man and evil in the evil one. If so,howcanwe haveweeventherighttoletloose our kind sentiments without choice and distinction?
Can we praise the parents for zealously watering from the good can the poisonous flowers growing in
their garden, where their children play ? I ask you, why was Mary ruined?
? THE END OF HISTORY 143
GENERAL. With this I fully agree !
given a good drubbing to the villain and chucked him out afterwards, the fellow would not have had
time for fooling upstairs.
MR. Z. I am prepared to admit that he had the
righttosacrificehimselftohiskindness. Justasin the past there were martyrs of faith, so in our time Icanadmittheremustbemartyrsofkindness. But what, I ask you, should be done with Mary? You know, she is silly and young, and cannot, nor does she wish, to prove anything by her own example. Is it possible, then, not to pity her?
POLITICIAN. I suppose it is not. But I am even more sorry for the fact that Anti-Christ seems to have fled to Tambov with the villain.
MR. Z. Never mind, your Excellency, we'll catch
him right enough ! Yesterday you were pleased to
point out the meaning of history by reference to the fact that natural mankind, at first consisting of
a great number of more or less savage races, alien
to each other, partly ignorant of each other, partly actually engaged in mutual hostilities that this mankind gradually evolves from within itself its bestandmosteducatedpart thecivilisedorEuro- pean world, which ever grows and spreads until it embraces all other groups lagging behind in this historical development, and blends them into one peacefulandharmoniousinternationalwhole. Estab-
lishing a permanent international peace such is your formula is it not?
Had Delarue
? 144 SOLOV1EV
POLITICIAN. Yes, it is. And this formula, in its coming and not far distant realisation, will stand for a much greater achievement in the real progress ofculturethanitmayseemtodoatpresent. Merely reflect on what an amount of evil will die an inevit- able death, and what an amount of good will appear
andgrow,owingtotheverynatureofthings. What great powers will be released for productive work, what progress will be seen in science and art, industry and trade !
MR. Z. Anddoyouincludeinthecomingachieve- ments of culture a total extinction of diseases and death ?
POLITICIAN. Ofcourse . . . tosomeextent. Quite a good deal has already been done in the way of
sanitation, hygienics, antiseptics . . . organo-thera-
. . .
peutics
MR. Z. Don't you think that these undeniable
successes in the positive direction are fully counter- balanced by as little doubtful an increase of neuro-
pathic and psychopathic symptoms of the degenera- tion that accompanies the advance of culture ?
POLITICIAN. What criteria have we for estimating these ?
MR. Z. At any rate, it is absolutely certain that
though the plus may grow, the minus grows as well, and the result obtained is something very near to
nil. This is so far as diseases are concerned. And as to death, it seems nothing but nil has ever been obtained in the progress of culture.
? THE END OF HISTORY 145
POLITICIAN. But the progress of culture never sets before itself such an objective as the extinction of death.
MR. Z. Iknowitdoesnot. Andforthisreason
itcannotitselfberatedveryhigh. JustsupposeI know for certain that I myself and all that is dear to me are to disappear for ever. Would it not in such a case be quite immaterial to me whether some- where in the world certain races are righting with each other, or whether they live in peace; whether
they are civilised or savage, polite or impolite? POLITICIAN. Well, it would be, no doubt, from
the standpoint of pure egotism.
MR. Z. Why only of egotism? Pardon me, it
wouldbeimmaterialfromanypointofview. Death
equalises everything, and in face of it egotism and altruism are equally senseless.
POLITICIAN. Let it be so. But the senselessness
of egotism does not prevent us from being egotists. Similarly, altruism, so far as it is possible at all, can do quite well without any good reasons, and all your argument about death does not touch it in any way. I am aware that my children and grandchildren are destined to die, but this does not interfere with my efforts to ensure their well-being just as much as if it were to be permanent. I exert myself for their benefit because, in the first place, I love them, and
it gives me a moral satisfaction to devote my life
" daylight.
to them.
I find taste in it. " It is as clear as
? 146 SOLOVIEV
LADY. It is all right so long as everything goes right, though even then the thought of death some-
timescomestoyourhead. Butwhatsatisfactionand what taste can you get when all sorts of mishaps begin to happen to your children? It is just like waterflowers on a quagmire : you get hold of one and go to the bottom yourself.
MR. Z. Apart from this, you can and must think
of your children and grandchildren, quand meme,
for yourself, without solving or even attempting to solve the question whether your efforts can do them
a real and final good. You take trouble about them, not for the sake of any definite object, but becauseyoulovethemsodearly. Amankindwhich is not yet in existence cannot excite such love, and here the question put by our intellect as to the final meaning or the object of our cares acquires its full importance. If the answer to this question is death, if the final result of your progress and your culture is but the death of one and all, it is then clear that every kind of activity for the cause of progress and civilisation is for no purpose and has no sense.
(Here Mr. Z. interrupted his speech, and all those present turned their heads to the gate which clicked,
and for a few seconds they remained in attitudes of inquiry. TheretheysawthePrince,whohadentered the garden and was walking with uneven steps towards them. }
LADY. Oh ! And we have not even started the discussion about the Anti-Christ.
? see !
What will you say now ?
THE END OF HISTORY 147
PRINCE. It makes no difference. I have changed my mind, as I think I should not have shown an
ill-feeling to the errors of my neighbours before I had heard their plea.
LADY (in a triumphant voice to the General). You
GENERAL(sharply}. Nothing!
MR. Z. You have arrived just in time. We are
discussing the question whether it is worth while to trouble about progress if we know that the end of it
is always death for every man, be he a savage or thehighlyeducatedEuropeanofthefuture. What have your theories to say to this ?
PRINCE. The true Christian doctrine does not
even admit of stating the question in this fashion.
The solution of this problem as given in the Gospels
"
found its most striking and forceful expression in the parable of the Husbandmen. The husbandmen came to imagine that the garden, to which they had been sent to work for their lord, was their own
property; that everything that was in the garden was made for them; and that the only thing they
had to do was to enjoy their life in that garden, while
giving no thought to its lord, and killing everybody who dared to remind them of his existence and of
theirdutiestowardshim. Likethosehusbandmen, so nearly all people in our time live in the absurd belief that they themselves are the lords of their life and that it has been given them for their enjoyment. The absurdity of this is obvious. For if we have
L2
? 148 SOLOVIEV
been sent here, this was done at someone's behest
andforsomepurpose. Wehave,however,decided that we are like mushrooms : that we were born and now live only for our own pleasure; and it is clear thatit is asbadforusasit wouldbebadforthe workman who does not carry out his master's will. But the master's will found its expression in the
teaching of Christ. Let people only carry out this teaching, and the Kingdom of God will be estab- lished on earth and men will obtain the greatest
good that they are capable of securing. All is in that. Seek for the Kingdom of God, and His truth
and the rest will come to you of itself.
We seek for
therestanddonotfindit; andnotonlydowenot
establish the Kingdom of God, but we actually
1
destroy it" by o'ur various States, armies, courts,
universities, and factories.
GENERAL (aside). Now the machine has been
wound up.
POLITICIAN (to the Prince). Have you finished ? PRINCE. Yes, I have.
POLITICIAN. I must tell you that your solution of
the question seems to me absolutely incompre- hensible. You seemingly argue about something,
try to prove and to explain something, desire to convince us of something, and yet what you say is
all a series of arbitrary and mutually disconnected
" If we have 1 Quotation from Tolstoy. (Translator. )
statements. You
been sent here, this was done at someone's behest
say,
for instance
:
? THE END OF HISTORY 149
andforsomepurpose. " Thisseemstobeyourmain idea. But what is it? Where did you learn that we have been sent here for a definite purpose ? Who told you this? That we exist here on the earth this is an indisputable fact; but that our existence is some sort of ambassadorship this you have no groundwhateverforasserting. When,forexample, I was in my younger days an ambassador, I knew this for certain, as I also knew by whom and for whatIwassent firstly,becauseIhadincontestable documents stating it; secondly, because I had a personal audience of the late Emperor, Alexander II. , and received in person instructions from his
Imperial Majesty; and, thirdly, because every quarter I was paid ten thousand roubles in sterling
Now, if instead of all that some stranger had come up to me in the street and said that I was made an ambassador to be sent to some place, for somepurposeorother well,Ishouldatoncehave looked round to see if I could find a policeman who
would protect me from a maniac, capable, perhaps, even of committing an assault on my person.
As
regards the present case, you will admit that you have no incontestable documents from your sup-
posed Lord, that you have had no personal audience with Him and that no salary is being paid to you. And you call yourself an ambassador ! Why, not
only yourself, but even everybody in existence you have declared to be either an ambassador or a hus-
bandman. Have you any right to make such state-
gold.
? 150 SOLOVIEV
ments? Oranyground? No,Irefusetounderstand it. It seems to me a kind of rhetorical improvisation ires mal inspiree d'ailleurs.
How bad of you ! You understand only too well that the Prince did not think of refuting your atheism, but
simply stated the commonly accepted Christian
opinion that we all depend on God and are obliged to serve Him.
POLITICIAN. No, I cannot understand a service without a salary. And if it proves that the salary hereisoneandthesameforeverybody death,well
then, I present my compliments. . . .
LADY. But you will die in any case, and nobody
LADY. Again pretending ignorance !
will ask for your consent.
POLITICIAN. It is precisely this very in any case
that proves that life is not service, and that if no consent of mine is required for my death, just as for my birth, then I prefer to see in death and life what there is actually in them, that is a natural necessity, and not some imaginary service to some unknown master. So my conclusion is this : live, while you live, and endeavour to live in the best and most intelligent manner; and the condition of good and intelligent life is peaceful culture. However, I am of the opinion that even on the basis of the Christian doctrine the sham solution of the problem, sug- gested by the Prince, will not stand the slightest criticism. But let the others, more competent than
myself, speak of this.
""
? THE END OF HISTORY 151
GENERAL. Of course, it is not a solution at all.
It is merely a verbal way of getting round the ques- tion. Just as if I took a map and, having sur- rounded with my pencilled battalions an enemy's
pencilled fortress, imagined then that I actually took the actual fortress. Things of this kind did
really happen, you know, as the popular soldiers' song tells :
Of this month scarce three days were spent When devil-driven forth we went
To occupy the hill-tops.
Came Princes, Counts, to see us chaps,
What time surveyors made great maps On sheets of fair white paper.
On paper, hills are smooth, no doubt, For all the ravines they'd left out! 'Twas these we had to walk on !
And the result of that is also known :
At last we to the summit got
And counted up our little lot;
Of all our regiments there were not A couple of battalions !
PRINCE. No, it is beyond me. And is this all you can answer to what I have been saying here ?
GENERAL. In what you have been saying here one
thing seemed to me particularly obscure your re- marks about mushrooms, that these live for their
own enjoyment. My impression has always been that they live for the enjoyment of those who like
to eat mushrooms with cream or in mushroom-pies. Now, if your Kingdom of God on earth leaves death
? 152 SOLOVIEV
as it is, it follows then that men, quite independently of their will, live, and will live, in your Kingdom of God just like mushrooms and not those jolly imaginary mushrooms, but the actual ones which are cookedinapan. Theendofmaninthisourearthly Kingdom of God will be also to be eaten up by death.
LADY. The Prince didn't say so.
GENERAL. Neitherso,norotherwise. Butwhatis the reason of such a reticence concerning the most
important point?
MR. Z. Before we raise this question, I would like
to learn the source of this parable in which you,
Prince, expressed your view. Or is it entirely your
own production?
PRINCE. My own production? Why, it is taken
from the Gospels !
MR. Z. Oh, no, no, you are surely wrong! You won't find this parable in any of the Gospels.
LADY. Good gracious ! What are you trying to confusethePrincefor? Youknowthatthereisa
parable about husbandmen in the Gospels; surely you do.
MR. Z. There is something resembling it in the external story, but entirely different in the actual
events and their meaning, which is immediately thereafter pointed out.
LADY. Oh, no, surely not ! I think it is exactly the same parable. Oh, you are trying to be too clever, I notice I don't trust a single word of yours.
MR. Z. Thereis noneedforit: thebookis in
? THE END OF HISTORY 153
mypocket. (HereMr. Zgotoutasmall-pocket edition of the Gospels and began turning over the pages. ) The parable of the husbandman can be
found given by three evangelists : Saints Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but all of them state it in very muchthesameform. Itwill,therefore,besufficient to quote it from the more elaborate Gospel of St. Luke. It is in Chapter XX. , in which the last sermon of Christ to the people is given. The drama was nearing its end, and it is now narrated (end of
Chapter XIX. and beginning of Chapter XX. ) how theenemiesofChrist thepartyofchiefpriestsand
scribes made an open and decisive attack on Him, demanding publicly that He should state His
authority and explain by what right and in virtue of what power He was acting. But I think I had
better read it to you. (Reads) "And He taught daily in the Temple. But the chief priests and the scribes and the chief of the people sought to destroy Him. And could not find what they might do ; for allthepeoplewereveryattentivetohearHim. And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as He
taught the people in the Temple, and preached the Gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon
Himwiththeelders. AndspakeuntoHim,saying: Tell us, by what authority doest Thou these things ? or who is He that gave Thee this authority? And He answered and said unto them, I will also ask you one thing, and answer Me : The baptism of John, was it from Heaven or of men? And they
? 154 SOLOVIEV
reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From Heaven, He will say, Why then believed ye Himnot? Butandifwesay,Ofmen,allthepeople will stone us ; for they be persuaded that John was aprophet. Andtheyanswered,thattheycouldnot tell whence it was : And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these
things. . . . "
LADY. And why do you read all this? It was
quite right of Christ not to answer when he was worried by these men. But what has it to do with the husbandmen?
MR. Z. A little patience : it all leads to the same
thing. Besides,youaremistakenwhenyousaythat Christdidnotanswer. Heansweredmostdefinitely and even doubly : quoted such a witness of His
authority as the questioners dared not reject, and next proved that they themselves had no proper
authority or right over Him, as they acted only out of fear of the people, afraid for their lives, adapting
themselves to the opinions of the mob. But real authority is that which does not follow others, but itselfleadsthemforward. Fearingandobeyingthe people, these men revealed that the real authority haddesertedthemandbelongedtothepeople. It is to these latter that Christ now addresses Himself in order to accuse them of resisting Him. In this accusation of the unworthy leaders of the Jewish nationfortheirresistancetotheMessiah therelies
all the story of the gospel parable of the husband-
? men,
THE END OF HISTORY 155 as you will presently see for yourself.
" Then He to
to the
(Reads) : began
speak
people
this parable : A certain man planted a vineyard, and
let it forth to husbandmen, and went into a far countryforalongtime. Andattheseasonhesent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard : but the husband- men beat him, and sent him away empty. And again he sent another servant, and they beat him also, and entreated him shamefully, and sent him
away empty. And again he sent a third : and they wounded him also, and cast him out. Then said
the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son : it may be they will reverence himwhentheyseehim. Butwhenthehusbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir : come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. So they cast him out of thevineyard,andkilledhim. What,therefore,shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? He shall come and destroy these husbandmen and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it,
they said, God forbid. And He beheld them and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the headofthecorner? Whosoevershallfalluponthat stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. And the chief priests and the scribes that same hour sought to lay hands on Him ; for they feared the people : for they
? 156 SOLOVIEV
perceived that He had spoken this parable against them. " About whom, then, and about what, I ask
you, was the parable of the vineyard told ?
PRINCE. I can't understand what it is you are
driving at. The Judean chief priests and scribes felt offended because they were, and knew them- selves to be, the representatives of those wicked lay
people of which the parable spoke.
MR. Z. But of what was it they were accused in
the parable?
PRINCE. Of not carrying out the true teaching.
POLITICIAN. I think the whole thing is clear
LADY. Do you really think that it suits your age
and position to indulge in such sneering outbursts? Don'tlistentohim,Prince. Webothwanttospeak
seriously. Now tell me this : after all, according to the parable, the husbandmen were destroyed be- cause they had killed the lord's son and heir and this is the main point in the Gospel. Why, then, do you omit it?
PRINCE. I leave it out for the simple reason that
it refers to the personal fate of Christ, which, natur-
ally, has its own importance and interest, but is, after all, inessential to that which is one and the
same for everybody.
The scoundrels lived like mushrooms for
enough.
their own enjoyment, smoked tobacco, drank spirits, ate slaughtered meat, and even treated their god to it : besides which, they got married, took the chair in the courts, and engaged in warfare.
? THE END OF HISTORY 157
LADY. Whichis . . . ?
PRINCE. The carrying out of the Gospel teaching, by means of which the Kingdom of God and His
justice are attained.
LADY. Just one second : I feel everything is
nowmixedupinmyhead. . . . Whatisitweare talking about ? Ah ! (To Mr. Z. ) You have the
Gospel in your hand, so you will perhaps tell us what follows the parable in that particular
chapter.
MR. Z. (turning over the pages]. It is also stated
there that it is necessary that those things which be
Caesar's should be rendered to Caesar that the dead ;
will be raised, because God is not a God of the dead, but of the living, and there is further given a proof that Christ is not David's son, but the Son of God. Then the last two verses are against the hypocrisy and vanity of the Scribes.
LADY. You see, Prince, this is also a Gospel teaching; that the State should be recognised in lay matters, that we should believe in the resurrec- tion of the dead, and that Christ is not an ordinary man, but God's Son.
PRINCE. It is impossible to conclude anything
from a single chapter, composed no one knows when or by whom.
LADY. Oh, no !
This I know even without look-
ing up the matter in books, that not only in a single chapter, but in all the four Gospels, a great deal is said both about resurrection and about Christ's
? 158 SOLOVIEV
divinity particularly in St. John's Gospel, which is even read at funeral services.
MR. Z. As to the uncertainty of the origin of the
Gospels, it is now recognised, even by the liberal German critics, that all the four Gospels were com-
posed in the time of the Apostles, that is, in the
first century.
POLITICIAN. Why, even the thirteenth edition
of "La Vie de Jesus''1 I have noticed contains a retractation of what had originally been said about the fourth gospel.
MR. Z. One must not lag behind one's teachers.
But the principal difficulty, Prince, is that whatever our four Gospels may be, whenever and by whomso- ever they were composed, there is no other gospel extant more trustworthy and more in agreement with
your teaching than this.
GENERAL. Who told you it does not exist ? Why,
there is the fifth one, which contains nothing of Christ but the teaching about slaughtered meat and military service.
LADY. And you also? You should be ashamed ofyourself. Rememberthatthemoreyouandyour civil ally tease the Prince, the more support I shall givehimmyself. Iamsure,Prince,thatyouwant to look upon Christianity from its best side, and that your gospel, though not the same as ours, is similar to the books composed in times gone by :
something like "
L'Esprit de M. de Montesquieu,"
L'Esprit
"
de Fenelon," etc. In the same way, you
?