A Letter to Russian Liberals
Leo Tolstoy
[31 August 1896]
I should be very glad to join you and your associates -whose work
I know and appreciate- in standing up for the rights of the
Literature Committee and opposing the enemies of popular education.
But in the sphere in which you are working I see no way to resist
them.
My only consolation is that I, too, am constantly engaged in
struggling against the same enemies of enlightenment, though in
another manner.
Concerning the special question with which you are preoccupied, I
think that in place of the Literature Committee which has been
prohibited, a number of other Literature Associations to pursue the
same objects should be formed without consulting the Government and
without asking permission from any censor. Let Government, if it
likes, prosecute these Literature Associations, punish the members,
banish them, etc. If the Government does that, it will merely cause
people to attach special importance to good books and to libraries,
and it will strengthen the trend towards enlightenment.
It seems to me that it is now specially important to do what is
right quietly and persistently not only without asking permission
from Government, but consciously avoiding its participation. The
strength of the Government lies in the people's ignorance, and the
Government knows this, and will therefore always oppose true
enlightenment. It is time we realized at fact. And it is most
undesirable to let the Government, while it is spreading darkness,
pretend to be busy with the enlightenment of the people. It is doing
this now by means of all sorts of pseudo-educational establishments
which it controls: schools, high-schools, universities, academies,
and all kinds of committees and congresses. But good is good, and
enlightenment is enlightenment, only when it is quite good and quite
enlightened, and not when it is toned down to meet the requirements
of Delyfinofs or Dourano's circulars. And I am extremely sorry when
I see valuable, disinterested, and self-sacrificing efforts spent
unprofitably. It is strange to see good, wise people spending their
strength in a struggle against struggle on the basis of Government,
but carrying on that whatever laws the Government itself likes to
make. This is how the matter appears to me: There are people (we
ourselves are such) who realize that our Government is very bad, and
who struggle against it. From before the days of Radistchef and the
Decembrists there have been two ways of carrying on the. struggle.
One way is that of Stenka Razin, Pougatchef the Decembrists, the
Revolutionary arty of the 'sixties, the Terrorists of March 1, and
others The other way is that which is preached and practised by you,
the method of the 'Gradualists,' which consists in carrying on the
struggle without violence and within the limits of the law,
conquering constitutional rights bit by bit.
Within my memory both these methods have been employed
unremittingly for more than half a century, and yet the state of
things grows worse and worse. Even such signs of improvement as do
show themselves have come not from either of these kinds of
activity, but from causes of which I will speak later on and in
spite of the harm done by these two kinds of activity. Meanwhile,
the power against which we struggle grows ever greater, stronger,
and more insolent. The last gleams of self-government-Local
Government, public trial, your Literature Committee, etc etc. -- are
all being done away with.
Now that both methods have been tried without effect for so long a
time, we may, it seems to me, see clearly that neither the one nor
the other will do, and see also why this is so. To me, at least.,
who have always disliked our Government, but have never adopted
either of the above methods of resisting it, the defects of both
methods are apparent.
The first method is unsatisfactory, because even could an attempt
to alter the existing regime by violent means succeed, there would
be no guarantee that the new organization would be durable, and that
the enemies of that new order would not, at some convenient
opportunity, triumph, by using violence such as had been used
against them, as has happened over and over again in France and
wherever else there have been revolutions. And so the new order of
things, established by violence would have continually to be
supported by violence -- i.e., by wrong-doing -- And,
consequently, it would inevitably, and very quickly, be vitiated,
like the order it replaced. And in case of failure the violence Of
the Revolutionists only strengthens the order of things they strive
against (as has always been the case., in our Russian experience,
from Pougatchef's rebellion to the attempt of March 1), for it
drives the whole crowd of undecided people- who stand wavering
between the two parties-into the camp of the conservative and
retrograde party. So I think that, guided both by reason and
experience, we may boldly say that this means, besides being
immoral, is irrational and ineffectual
The other method is, in my opinion, even less effectual or
rational. It is ineffectual and irrational because Government-
holding in its grasp the whole power (the army, the administration,
the Church, the schools, and the police), and framing what are
called the laws on the basis of which the Liberals wish to resist
it- this Government knows very well what is really dangerous to it.
and will never let people who submit to it and act under its
guidance do anything that will undermine its authority. For instance
take the cue before us: a Government such as ours, or any other
which rests on the ignorance of the people. will never consent to
their being really enlightened. it will sanction all kinds of
pseudo-educational organizations controlled by itself- schools, high
schools, universities, academies, and all kinds of committees and
congresses, and publications sanctioned by the censor- so long as
these organizations and publications serve its purpose- that is,
stupefy the people, or at least do not hinder their stupefaction.
But as soon as those organizations or publications attempt to cure
that on which the power of Government rests (namely, the blindness
of the people), the Government will simply, and without rendering
any account to anyone, or saying why it acts so and not otherwise,
pronounce its veto, and will rearrange or close the establishments
and organizations, and forbid the publications. And therefore, as
both reason and experience clearly show, such an illusory, gradual
conquest of rights is a self-deception which suits the Government
admirably, and which it, therefore. is even ready to encourage.
But not only is this activity irrational and ineffectual, it is
also harmful. It is harmful because enlightened, good, and honest
people by entering the ranks of the Government give it a moral
authority which but for them it would not possess. If the Government
were made up entirely of that coarse element-the men of violence,
self-seekers, and flatterers- who form its core, it could not
continue to exist. The fact that honest and enlightened people are
found participating in the affairs of the Government gives
Government whatever moral prestige it possesses.
That is one evil resulting from the activity of Liberals who
participate in the affairs of Government, or who come to terms with
it. Another evil of such activity is that to secure opportunities to
carry on their work, these highly-enlightened and honest people have
to begin to compromise, and so, little by little, Come to consider
that for a good end one may swerve somewhat from truth in word and
deed. For instance, that one may., though not believing in the
established Church, take part in its ceremonies; may take oaths;
may, when necessary for the success of some affair, present
petitions couched in language which is untruthful and derogatory to
man's natural dignity; may enter the army; may take part in a Local
Government which h as been stripped of all its powers; may serve as
a master or a professor, teaching not what one considers necessary
one's self, but what one is told to teach by the Government; that
one may even become a Zemsky Natchalnik submitting to
Governmental demands and instructions which violate one's conscience
; may edit newspapers and periodicals, remaining silent about what
ought to be mentioned, and printing what one is ordered to print :
and entering into these compromises-the limits of which cannot be
foreseen-enlightened and honest people, who alone could form some
barrier to the infringements of human liberty by the Government,
retreating, little by little, further and further from the demands
of conscience, fall at last into a position Of complete dependency
on the Government. They receive rewards and salaries from it, and,
continuing to imagine that they are forwarding Liberal ideas, become
the humble servants and supporters of the very order against which
they set out to fight.
It is true that there are also better, sincere people in the
Liberal camp, whom the Government cannot bribe, and who remain
unbought and free from salaries and position. But even these people,
having been ensnared in the nets spread by Government, beat their
wings in their cages (as you are now doing in your Committee) unable
to advance from the spot they are on. Or else, becoming enraged,
they go over to the revolutionary camp; or they shoot themselves; or
take to drink; or they abandon the whole struggle in despair, and,
oftenest of all, retire into literary activity, in which- yielding
to the demands of the censor, they say only what they are allowed to
say, and by that very silence about what is most important convey.
to the public distorted views, which just suit the Government. But
they continue to imagine that they are serving society by the
writings which give them means of subsistence.
Thus, reflection and experience alike show me that both the means
of combating Government used heretofore, are not only ineffectual,
but actually tend to strengthen the power and irresponsibility of
the Government.
What is to be done? Evidently not what for seventy years past has
proved fruitless, and has only produced reverse results. What is to
be done? Just W at those have done, to whose activity we owe the
progress towards light and good that has been achieved since the
world began, and that is still being achieved to-day. That is what
must be done! And what is it?
Merely the simple, quiet, truthful carrying on of what you
consider good and, needful, quite independently of the Government,
or of whether it likes it or not. In other words: standing up for
one's rights, not as a member of the 'Literature Committee,' nor as
a deputy, nor as a land-owner, nor as a merchant, nor even as a
Member of Parliament; but standing up for one's rights as a rational
and free man, and defending them- not as the rights of Local Boards
or Committees are defended, with concessions and compromises. but
without any concessions or compromises-in the only way in which
moral and human dignity can be defended.
Successfully to defend a fortress, one has to burn all the houses
in the suburbs and leave only what is strong, and what you intend
not to surrender on any account. Only from the basis of this firm
stronghold can we conquer all we require. True, the rights of a
Member of Parliament, or even of a member of a Local Board, are
greater than the rights of an ordinary man; and it seems as though
we could do much by using those rights. But the hitch is that to
obtain the rights of a Member of Parliament, or of a committee-man,
one has to abandon part of one's rights as a man. And having
abandoned part, of one's rights as a man, there is no longer any
fixed point of leverage, and one can no longer either conquer or
maintain any real right. In order to lift others out of a quagmire
one must one's self stand on firm ground; and if, hoping the better
to assist others, you go into the quagmire, you will not pull others
out, but will yourself sink in.
It may be very desirable and useful to get an eight-hours' day
legalized by Parliament, or to get a Liberal programme for school
libraries sanctioned through your Committee ; but if as a means to
this end a Member of Parliament must publicly lift up his hand and
lie, lie when taking an oath, by expressing in words respect for
what he does not respect; or (in our own case) if, in order to pass
programmes however Liberal, it is necessary to take part in public
worship, to be sworn, to wear a uniform, to write mendacious and
flattering petitions, and to make speeches of a similar character,
etc., etc. -then, by doing these things and foregoing our dignity as
men. we lose much more than we gain, and by trying to reach one
definite aim, (which very often is not reached) we deprive ourselves
of the possibility of reaching other aims which are of supreme
importance. Only people who have something which they will on no
account and under no circumstances yield can resist a Government and
curb it. To have power to resist, you must stand on firm ground.
And the Government knows this very well, and is, above all else,
concerned to worm out of men that which will not yield- namely,
their dignity as men. When that is wormed out of them, the
Government calmly proceeds to do what it likes, knowing that it will
no longer meet any real resistance. A man who consents publicly to
swear, pronouncing the degrading and mendacious words of the oath;
or submissively to wait several hours, dressed up in a uniform, at a
Minister's reception ; or to inscribe himself as a Special Constable
for the Coronation ; or to fast and receive Communion for
respectability's sake ; or to ask the Head-Censor whether he may, or
may not, express such and such thoughts, etc.- such a man is no
longer feared by Government.
Alexander II. said he did not fear the Liberals, because he knew
they could all be bought- if not with money, then with honours.
People who take part in Government, or work under its direction,
may deceive themselves or their sympathizers by making a show of
struggling; but those against whom they struggle (the Government)
know quite well, by the strength of the resistance experienced, that
these people are not really pulling, but are only pretending to. Our
Government knows this with respect to the Liberals, and constantly
tests the quality of the opposition, and finding that genuine
resistance is practically non-existent, it continues its course in
full assurance that it can do what it likes with such opponents.
The Government of Alexander III. knew this very well, and, knowing
it, deliberately destroyed all that the Liberals ought they had
achieved, and were so proud of. It altered and limited Trial by
Jury; it abolished the office of Judge of the Peace; it canceled the
rights of the Universities; it perverted the whole system of
instruction in the High Schools; it re-established the Cadet Corps,
and even the State-sale of intoxicants; it established the Zemsky
Natchalniks; it legalized flogging ; it almost abolished the
Local Government ; it gave uncontrolled power to the Governors of
Provinces; it encouraged the quartering of troops on the peasants in
punishment; it increased the practice of 'administrative' banishment
and imprisonment, and the capital punishment of political offenders;
it renewed religious persecutions; it brought to a climax the use of
barbarous superstitions ; it legalized murder in duels; under the
name of a 'State of Siege' it established lawlessness with capital
punishment as a normal condition of things-and in all this it met
with no protest except from one honourable woman, who boldly told
the Government the truth as she saw it.
The Liberals whispered among themselves that these things
displeased them, but they continued to take part in legal
proceedings, and in the Local Governments, and in the Universities,
and in Government service, and on the Press. In the Press they
hinted at what they were allowed to hint at , and kept silence on
matters they had to be silent about, but they printed whatever they
were told to print. So that every reader (not privy to the
whisperings of the editorial rooms), on receiving a Liberal paper or
magazine, read the announcement of the most cruel and irrational
measures unaccompanied by comment or sign of disapproval, together
with sycophantic and flattering addresses to those guilty of
enacting these measures, and frequently even praise of the measures
themselves. Thus all the dismal activity of the Government of
Alexander III- destroying whatever good had begun to take root in
the days of Alexander II., and striving to turn Russia back to the
barbarity of the commencement of this century-all this dismal
activity of gallows, rods, persecutions, and stupefaction of the
people, has become (even in the Liberal papers and magazines) the
basis of an insane laudation of Alexander III. and of his
acclamation as a great man and a model of human dignity.
This same thing is being continued in the new reign. The young man
who succeeded the late Tsar, having no understanding of life, was
assured by the men in power, to whom it was profitable to say so.,
that the best way to rule a hundred million people is to do as his
father (lid- that is, not to ask advice from anyone, but to do just
what comes into his head, or what the first flatterer about him
advises. And, fancying that unlimited autocracy is a sacred
life-principle of the Russian people, the young man begins to reign;
and instead of asking the representatives of the Russian people to
help him with their advice in the task of ruling (about which he,
educated in a cavalry regiment, knows nothing and can know nothing),
he rudely and insolently shouts at those representatives of the
Russian people who visit him it congratulations, and he calls the
desire, timidly expressed by some of them, to be allowed to inform
the authorities of their needs, 'insensate dreams.'
And what followed? Was Russian society shocked? Did enlightened
and honest people-the Liberals- express their indignation and
repulsion? Did they at least refrain from laudation of this
Government, and from participating in it and encouraging it? Not at
all. From that time a specially intense competition in adulation
commenced, both of the father and of the son who imitated him. And
not a protesting voice was heard, except in one anonymous letter,
cautiously expressing disapproval of the young Tsar's conduct. From
all sides fulsome and flattering addresses were brought to the Tsar,
as well as (for some reason or other) icons which nobody wanted and
which serve merely as objects of idolatry to benighted people. An
insane expenditure of money: a Coronation amazing in its absurdity,
was arranged ; the arrogance of the rulers and their contempt of the
people caused thousands to perish in a fearful calamity-which was
regarded as a slight eclipse of the festivities, which did not
terminate on that account. An exhibition was organized, which no one
wanted except those who organized it, and which cost millions of
roubles. In the Chancellery of the Holy Synod, with unparalleled
effrontery. a new and supremely stupid means of mystifying people
was devised-namely, the enshrinement of the incorruptible body Of a
Saint whom nobody knew anything about. lie stringency of the Censor
was increased. Religious persecution was made more severe. The State
of Siege (i.e., the legalization of lawlessness) was continued, and
the state of things is still becoming worse and worse.
And I think that all this would not have happened if those
enlightened., honest people who are now occupied in Liberal activity
on the basis of legality, in Local Governments, in the Committees,
in Censor-ruled literature., etc., had not devoted their energies to
the task of circumventing the Government and-without abandoning the
forms it has itself arranged-of finding ways to make it act so as to
harm and injure itself: but, abstaining from taking any part in
Government or in any business bound up with Government, had merely
claimed their rights as men.
'You wish, instead of Judges of the Peace, to institute Zemsky
Natchalniks with birch-rods: that is your business, but we will
not go to law before your Zemsky Natchalniks, and will not
ourselves accept appointment to such an office. You wish to make
trial by jury a mere formality : that is your business, but we will
not serve as judges, or as advocates, or as jurymen. You wish, under
the name of a "State of Siege," to establish despotism :
that is your business, but we will not participate in it, and will
plainly call the "State of Siege "
Despotism, and capital Punishment inflicted without trial- murder.
You wish to organize Cadet Corps, or Classical High Schools in which
military exercises and the Orthodox Faith are taught : that is your
affair, but we will not teach in such schools, nor send our children
to them, but will educate our children as seems to us right. You
decide to reduce the Local Governments to impotence : we will not
take part in them. You prohibit the publication of literature that
displeases you: you may seize books and punish the. printers, but
you cannot prevent our speaking and writing, and we shall continue
to do so. You demand an oath of allegiance to the Tsar : we will not
accede to what is so stupid, false, and degrading. You order us to
serve in the army : we will not do so, because wholesale murder is
as opposed to our conscience as individual murder, and, above all,
because to promise to murder whomsoever a commander may tell us to
murder is the meanest act a man can commit. You profess a religion
which is a thousand years behind the times with an "Iberian
Mother of God" relics, and coronations: that is your affair,
but we do not acknowledge idolatry and superstition to be religion,
but call them idolatry and superstition, and we try to free people
from them.'
And what can the Government do against such activity? It can
banish or imprison a man for preparing a bomb, or even for printing
a proclamation to working men; it can transfer your Literature
Committee from one Ministry to another. or close a Parliament ; but
what can a Government do with a man who is not willing publicly to
lie with uplifted hand, or who is not willing to send his children
to an establishment which he considers bad, or who is not willing to
learn to kill people, or is not willing to take part in idolatry, or
is not willing to take part in coronations, deputations and
addresses, or who says and writes what he thinks and feels? By
prosecuting such a man the Government secures for him general
sympathy, making him a martyr, and it undermines the foundations on
which it is itself built, for, in so acting, instead of protecting
human rights it itself infringes them.
And it is only necessary for all those good, enlightened, and
honest people whose strength is now wasted in Revolutionary,
Socialistic, or Liberal activity (harmful to themselves and to their
cause) to begin to act thus, and a nucleus of honest, enlightened,
and moral people would form around them, united in the same thoughts
and the same feelings. And to this nucleus the ever- wavering crowd
of average people would at once gravitate, and public opinion-the
only power which subdues Governments-would become evident, demanding
freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, justice and humanity. And
as soon as public opinion was formulated, not only would it be
impossible to suppress the Literature Committee, but if those
inhuman organizations-the 'State of Siege,' the Secret Police, the
Censor, Schlusselsburg, the Holy Synod, and the rest- against which
the Revolutionists and the Liberals are now struggling, would
disappear of themselves.
So that two methods of opposing the Government have been tried,
both unsuccessfully, and it now remains, to try a third and last
method, one not yet tried, but one which, I think, cannot but be
successful. Briefly, it is this: That all enlightened and honest
people should try to be as good as they can; and not even good in
all respects but only in one, namely, in observing one of the most
elementary virtues-to be honest and not to lie, but so to act and
speak that your motives should be intelligible to an affectionate
seven-year-old boy; to act so that your boy should not say: 'But
why, papa, did you say so-and-so, and now you do and say something
quite different?" This method seems very weak, and yet I am
convinced that it is this method, and this method alone, that has
moved humanity since the race began. Only because there were
straight men-truthful and courageous, who made no concessions that
infringed their dignity as men have all those beneficent revolutions
been accomplished of which mankind now has the advantage- from the
abolition of torture and slavery up to liberty of speech and of
conscience. Nor can this be otherwise, for what is demanded by
conscience (the highest forefeeling man possesses of the truth to
which he can attain) is always and in all respects the thing most
fruitful and most necessary. for humanity at the given time. Only a
man who lives according to his conscience can exert influence on
people, and only activity that accords with one's conscience can be
useful.
But I must make my meaning quite plain. To say that the most
effectual means of achieving the ends towards which Revolutionists
and Liberals are striving is by activity in accord with their
consciences, does not mean that people can begin to live
conscientiously in order to achieve those ends. To begin to live
conscientiously on purpose to achieve external ends is impossible.
To live according to one's conscience is possible only as a result
of firm and clear religious convictions; the beneficent result of
these on our external life will inevitably follow. Therefore the
gist of what I wished to sly to you is this : That it is
unprofitable for good, sincere people to spend their powers of mind
and soul on gaining small practical ends-for instance, in the
various struggles of nationalities, or parties ' or in Liberal
wire-pulling- while they have not reached a clear and firm religious
perception,, that is., a consciousness of the meaning and purpose of
life. I think that all the era of soul and mind of good men, who
wish to be of service to humanity, should be directed to that end.
When that is accomplished all else will also be accomplished.
Forgive me for sending you so long a letter, which perhaps you did
not at all need, but I have long wished to express my views on this
question. I even began a long article about it, but I shall hardly
have time to finish it before death comes, and therefore I wished to
get at least part of it said. Forgive me if I am in error about
anything.