or who is He that gave Thee this
authority?
Sovoliev - End of History
.
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
? THE END OF HISTORY 159
"
or your teachers wanted to compose L'esprit de
1'Evangile. " It is only a great pity that nobody of your persuasion has done it in a small book, which could be called " The Spirit of Christianity according to the teaching of so-and-so. " You should have some sort of a catechism, so that we simple folk should not lose the thread in all your variations. Onemomentwearetoldthatthewhole thing is in the Sermon on the Mount; another moment that we must first of all labour in the sweat
ofourbrowinagriculturalwork thoughtheGospel doesnotsaythisanywhere. Genesisdoes,however, in the part where it also speaks of giving birth in
pains this, however, not being a commandment,
but only a grievous necessity. Then we are told that we must give everything we have to the poor,
and the next moment that we must not give any-
thing to anybody, since money is evil, and it is bad to do evil to others, save to ourselves and our family; whilst for the rest we must work. Then
again we are told to do nothing but contemplate. Yet again, that the mission of women is to give birth
to as many healthy children as possible, and then
suddenly that nothing of the kind is necessary. Then that we must not eat meat this is the first
stage, and why the first nobody can tell.
We must
give up now spirits and smoking, now pancakes. Last comes the objection to military service that
all evil is due to it, and that the first duty of a Christian is to refuse doing it; and whoever has not
? 160 SOLOVIEV
been officially recruited is, of course, holy as he is.
Perhaps I am talking nonsense, but this is not my
fault it is absolutely impossible for me to make head or tail of all this.
PRINCE. I also think that we require a sensible summary of the true teaching I believe it is being
prepared now.
LADY. Before it is prepared, tell me briefly what
is, in your opinion, the essence of the Gospel. PRINCE. Surely it is clear enough : it is the great
principle of the non-resistance of evil by force. POLITICIAN. And how do you deduce from this the
smoking ?
PRINCE. What smoking?
wine, meat, and amorous indulgence?
PRINCE. It seems the connection is obvious : all
these vicious habits stupefy the man stifle in him the demands of his intelligence and conscience. This is why soldiers generally go to war in a state of drunkenness.
MR. Z. Particularly to an unsuccessful war. But
wemayleavethisalone. Theruleofnotresisting
evil has its own importance apart from the question whetheritjustifiesasceticlifeordoesnot. Accord-
ing to you, if we do not resist evil by force, evil will
POLITICIAN. Oh, dear me !
I ask what connection is there between the principle of the non-resistance of evil and the rules of abstinence from tobacco,
It follows that evil exists only by our resistance or by those measures which
immediately disappear.
? THE END OF HISTORY 161
we take against it, but has no real power of its own.
Properly speaking, there is no evil existing at all, and it appears only owing to our erroneous belief
that it does exist and that we begin to act in accord- ancewiththepresumption. Isn'titso?
PRINCE. No doubt it is.
MR. Z. But if there is no evil existing in reality
how will you explain the startling failure of Christ's
cause in history ? From your point of view, it has,
of course, proved an utter failure, so that no good results can be credited to it, whilst the harm done
has undoubtedly far exceeded its good effects.
PRINCE. Howis that?
MR. Z. A strange question to ask, to be sure ! Well, if you do not understand it we will examine it in a methodical manner. You agree that Christ
preached true good in a more clear, powerful, and consistent way than anybody else, didn't He ?
PRINCE. Yes, He did.
MR. Z. And the true good is not to resist evil by force, that is to resist imaginary evil, as there is no real evil existing.
PRINCE. Yes.
MR. Z. Christ not only preached, but carried out to the last end the demands of this good by suffering without any resistance the torments of crucifixion. Christ, according to you, died and did not rise. Very well. Thousands of His followers suffered the same. Very well again. But now, what has been the result of it all ?
M
? 162 SOLOVIEV
PRINCE. Would you like to see all these martyrs, as a reward of their deeds, crowned by angels with brilliant wreaths and reclining somewhere under the
trees in Elysian gardens ?
MR. Z. Oh no, there is no need to take it that way.
Of course we all, including yourself, I hope, wish all that is best and most pleasant to our neighbours,
both living and dead. But the question is not of our wishes, but of what has actually resulted from the preaching and sacrifice of Christ and His followers.
PRINCE. Resulted for whom ? For themselves ?
MR. Z. What resulted for themselves everybody knows : a painful death. But moral heroes as they
were, they willingly accepted it, not in order to get brilliant wreaths for themselves, but to secure true
benefit for others, the whole of mankind. Now I
ask you, what are the benefits earned by mankind
through their martyrdom? In the words of an old
"
The blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church. " In point of fact, it is quite true. But your contention is that the Church has been nothing but the distortion and ruin of true Christianity, which was, as a result, entirely forgotten by man- kind, so that it became necessary to restore every-
thing from the very beginning without any guarantee foranygreatersuccess; inotherwords,quitehope-
lessly.
PRINCE. Whyhopelessly?
MR. Z. Because you have admitted yourself that
saying,
? THE END OF HISTORY 163
Christ and the first generations of Christians gave all their thoughts and sacrificed their lives for their
cause, and if, this notwithstanding, nothing resulted from their efforts, what grounds have you then for hopingforanyotherresult?
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
? THE END OF HISTORY 159
"
or your teachers wanted to compose L'esprit de
1'Evangile. " It is only a great pity that nobody of your persuasion has done it in a small book, which could be called " The Spirit of Christianity according to the teaching of so-and-so. " You should have some sort of a catechism, so that we simple folk should not lose the thread in all your variations. Onemomentwearetoldthatthewhole thing is in the Sermon on the Mount; another moment that we must first of all labour in the sweat
ofourbrowinagriculturalwork thoughtheGospel doesnotsaythisanywhere. Genesisdoes,however, in the part where it also speaks of giving birth in
pains this, however, not being a commandment,
but only a grievous necessity. Then we are told that we must give everything we have to the poor,
and the next moment that we must not give any-
thing to anybody, since money is evil, and it is bad to do evil to others, save to ourselves and our family; whilst for the rest we must work. Then
again we are told to do nothing but contemplate. Yet again, that the mission of women is to give birth
to as many healthy children as possible, and then
suddenly that nothing of the kind is necessary. Then that we must not eat meat this is the first
stage, and why the first nobody can tell.
We must
give up now spirits and smoking, now pancakes. Last comes the objection to military service that
all evil is due to it, and that the first duty of a Christian is to refuse doing it; and whoever has not
? 160 SOLOVIEV
been officially recruited is, of course, holy as he is.
Perhaps I am talking nonsense, but this is not my
fault it is absolutely impossible for me to make head or tail of all this.
PRINCE. I also think that we require a sensible summary of the true teaching I believe it is being
prepared now.
LADY. Before it is prepared, tell me briefly what
is, in your opinion, the essence of the Gospel. PRINCE. Surely it is clear enough : it is the great
principle of the non-resistance of evil by force. POLITICIAN. And how do you deduce from this the
smoking ?
PRINCE. What smoking?
wine, meat, and amorous indulgence?
PRINCE. It seems the connection is obvious : all
these vicious habits stupefy the man stifle in him the demands of his intelligence and conscience. This is why soldiers generally go to war in a state of drunkenness.
MR. Z. Particularly to an unsuccessful war. But
wemayleavethisalone. Theruleofnotresisting
evil has its own importance apart from the question whetheritjustifiesasceticlifeordoesnot. Accord-
ing to you, if we do not resist evil by force, evil will
POLITICIAN. Oh, dear me !
I ask what connection is there between the principle of the non-resistance of evil and the rules of abstinence from tobacco,
It follows that evil exists only by our resistance or by those measures which
immediately disappear.
? THE END OF HISTORY 161
we take against it, but has no real power of its own.
Properly speaking, there is no evil existing at all, and it appears only owing to our erroneous belief
that it does exist and that we begin to act in accord- ancewiththepresumption. Isn'titso?
PRINCE. No doubt it is.
MR. Z. But if there is no evil existing in reality
how will you explain the startling failure of Christ's
cause in history ? From your point of view, it has,
of course, proved an utter failure, so that no good results can be credited to it, whilst the harm done
has undoubtedly far exceeded its good effects.
PRINCE. Howis that?
MR. Z. A strange question to ask, to be sure ! Well, if you do not understand it we will examine it in a methodical manner. You agree that Christ
preached true good in a more clear, powerful, and consistent way than anybody else, didn't He ?
PRINCE. Yes, He did.
MR. Z. And the true good is not to resist evil by force, that is to resist imaginary evil, as there is no real evil existing.
PRINCE. Yes.
MR. Z. Christ not only preached, but carried out to the last end the demands of this good by suffering without any resistance the torments of crucifixion. Christ, according to you, died and did not rise. Very well. Thousands of His followers suffered the same. Very well again. But now, what has been the result of it all ?
M
? 162 SOLOVIEV
PRINCE. Would you like to see all these martyrs, as a reward of their deeds, crowned by angels with brilliant wreaths and reclining somewhere under the
trees in Elysian gardens ?
MR. Z. Oh no, there is no need to take it that way.
Of course we all, including yourself, I hope, wish all that is best and most pleasant to our neighbours,
both living and dead. But the question is not of our wishes, but of what has actually resulted from the preaching and sacrifice of Christ and His followers.
PRINCE. Resulted for whom ? For themselves ?
MR. Z. What resulted for themselves everybody knows : a painful death. But moral heroes as they
were, they willingly accepted it, not in order to get brilliant wreaths for themselves, but to secure true
benefit for others, the whole of mankind. Now I
ask you, what are the benefits earned by mankind
through their martyrdom? In the words of an old
"
The blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church. " In point of fact, it is quite true. But your contention is that the Church has been nothing but the distortion and ruin of true Christianity, which was, as a result, entirely forgotten by man- kind, so that it became necessary to restore every-
thing from the very beginning without any guarantee foranygreatersuccess; inotherwords,quitehope-
lessly.
PRINCE. Whyhopelessly?
MR. Z. Because you have admitted yourself that
saying,
? THE END OF HISTORY 163
Christ and the first generations of Christians gave all their thoughts and sacrificed their lives for their
cause, and if, this notwithstanding, nothing resulted from their efforts, what grounds have you then for hopingforanyotherresult?
