Christ teaches men in a new way, and this teaching is written down in
the Gospels.
It is first persecuted, and not accepted. Then the fables of the fall of
man, and of the first angel, are invented, and these fables are believed
to be the teaching of Christ. The fables are absurd, they have no
foundation whatever, but by virtue of them men are led to believe that
they may continue to live in an evil way, and none the less consider
themselves as saved by Christ. This conclusion is so agreeable to the
mass of weak men who have no affection for moral effort, that the system
is eagerly accepted, not only as true, but even as the Divine truth as
revealed by God himself. And the invention becomes the groundwork on
which for centuries theologians build their theories.
Then by degrees these learned men diverge by various channels into
special systems of their own, and finally endeavour to overthrow each
other's theories. They begin to feel there is something amiss, and cease
to understand what they themselves are talking about. But the crowd
still requires them to expound its favourite instruction; and thus the
theologians, pretending both to understand and believe what they are
saying, continue to dispense it.
In process of time, however, the conclusions drawn from theological
conceptions cease to be necessary to the masses, who, then, peeping into
the very sanctuaries of their augurs, discover them to be utterly void
of those glorious and indubitable truths which the mysteries of theology
had seemed to be, and see instead that there is nothing there but crude
deception, and they marvel at their own blindness.
The same happened to philosophy, not in the sense of the wisdom of men
like Confucius or Epictetus, but with professional philosophy which
humoured the instincts of the crowd of rich and idle people. Not long
ago a moral philosophy was in fashion in the learned world, according to
which it appeared that everything that is, is reasonable; that there is
neither good nor evil; that man has not to struggle with evil, but has
merely to manifest the spirit of the age, some in military service, some
in courts of justice, and some on the violin.
Many and various were the expressions of human wisdom known to the men
of the nineteenth century,--of Rousseau, Pascal, Lessing, and Spinoza;
and all the wisdom of antiquity was expounded, but none of its systems
laid hold of the crowd. We cannot say that Hegel's success was due to
the harmony of his theory. We had no less harmonious theories from
Descartes, Leibnitz, Fichte, and Schopenhauer.
There was only one reason for the fact that this doctrine became for a
short time the belief of the civilized world, the same reason that
caused the success of the theory of the fall and redemption of man; to
wit, that the deductions of this philosophical theory humoured the weak
side of men's nature. It said, "All is reasonable, all is good; nobody
is to blame for any thing."
As at first with the church upon theological foundations, so also, with
the philosophy of Hegel for a base, a Babel's tower was built (some who
are behind the age are still sitting upon it); and here again was a
confusion of tongues, men feeling that they themselves did not know of
what they were talking, but were trying to conceal their ignorance and
keep up their prestige before the crowd; and here again the masses found
confirmation of their accepted teachings, and believed that whatever
might seem to them bewildering and contradictory is as clear as
day-light on philosophic altitudes. In the same way, the time came when
this doctrine wore out and a new one replaced it. It had become useless,
and the crowd peeped into the mysterious temples of the teachers, and
saw there was nothing there--nor ever had been, but obscure and
unmeaning words. I have seen this in my own day.
When I began life, Hegelianism was the order of the day; it was in the
very air you breathed; it found its expression in newspapers and
magazines, in lectures on history and on law, in novels, in tracts, in
art, in sermons, in conversation. A man who did not know Hegel had no
right to open his mouth; those who desired to learn the truth were
studying Hegel,--every thing pointed to him; and lo! forty years have
elapsed and nothing is left of him; there is no remembrance of him; all
is as though he had never existed. And the most remarkable of all is,
that just as false Christianity, so also Hegelianism has fallen, not
because someone refuted or overthrew it; no, it is now as it was before,
but both have only become no longer necessary for the learned, educated
world.
If at the present time we speak to any man of modern culture about the
fall of the angel, of Adam, about atonement, he does not argue or
deny;--he simply asks, amazed, "What angel? Adam? What for? What
atonement? What is all this to me?"
So also with Hegelianism. No one of our day will argue its theses. He
will only inquire, "What Spirit?" "Where did it come from?" "With what
purpose?" "What good will it do me?" Not very long ago the sages of
Hegelianism were solemnly teaching the crowd; and the crowd,
understanding nothing, blindly believed all, finding the confirmation of
what suited them, and thinking that what seemed to them to be not quite
clear or even contradictory, was clearer than day on the heights of
philosophy: but time went on, the theory was worn out, a new one
appeared in its place, the former one was no longer demanded, and again
the crowd looked into the mysterious temples of the augurs and saw there
was nothing there, and that nothing had ever been there but words, very
dark and meaningless.
This happened within my memory. These things happened, we are told,
because they were ravings of the theological and metaphysical period,
but now we have a critical, positive science which will not deceive us,
because it is based upon induction and experience; now our knowledge is
no longer uncertain as it formerly was, and it is only by following it
that one can find the answer to all the questions of life.
But this is exactly what was said by the old teachers, and they
certainly were no fools, and we know that among them were men of immense
intellect; and within my memory the disciples of Hegel said exactly the
same thing, with no less assurance and no less acknowledgment on the
side of the crowd of so-called educated people. And such men as our
Herzen, Stankievich, Bylinsky, were no fools either. But why, then, has
this wonderful thing happened, that clever men preached with the
greatest assurance and the crowd accepted with veneration, only
groundless and meaningless doctrines? The reason is only that these
doctrines justified men in their bad mode of living.
A very commonplace English writer, whose books are now almost forgotten
and recognized as the emptiest of all empty ones, wrote a tract upon
population, in which he invented an imaginary law that the means of
living do not increase with the increase of population. This sham law
the author dressed out with the formulæ of mathematics which have no
foundation whatever, and published it. Judged by the lightness of mind
and the want of talent displayed in this treatise we might have supposed
that it would have passed unnoticed and been forgotten as all other
writings of the same author have been; but it turned out quite
differently. The author who wrote it became at once a scientific
authority, and has maintained this position for nearly half a century.
Malthus! The Malthusian theory,--the law of the increase of population
in geometrical progression, and the increase of means of living in
arithmetical progression, and the natural and prudent means of
restraining the increase of population,--all these became scientific,
undoubted truths which have never been verified, but, accepted as
axioms, have served for further deductions.
Thus learned and educated men were deceived; whereas in the crowd of
idle men there was a blind and religious trust in the great laws
discovered by Malthus. How did this happen? These statements seem to be
scientific deductions which have nothing in common with the instincts of
the crowd.
But they are only sacred to those who believe science to be something
self-existent and infallible, like the Church, and not merely the
thoughts of weak men liable to mistakes, who only for importance' sake
call their own thoughts and words by a pompous word, _science_. It was
only necessary to draw practical conclusions from the Malthusian theory
in order to see that it was quite a human one with very determinate
aims.
The deductions which were directly drawn from this theory were the
following: The miserable condition of working-people does not come from
the cruelty, egotism, and unreasonableness of rich and powerful men, but
it exists according to an unchangeable law which does not depend upon
man, and, if anybody is to blame, it is the starving working-people
themselves: why do these fools come into the world when they know that
they will not have enough to eat? and therefore the wealthy and powerful
classes are not at all to blame for any thing, and they may quietly
continue to live as they have done.
This conclusion, being pleasant to the crowd of idle men, induced the
learned dons to overlook the incorrectness and total arbitrariness of
the deductions; and the crowd of educated, i.e., idle people,
instinctively guessing to what these deductions led, greeted the theory
with delight, set upon it the seal of truth, and cherished it during
half a century. The reason for all this was, that these doctrines
justified men in their bad mode of life.
Is not the same cause at the bottom of the self-assurance of men of the
new positive, critical, experimental science, and of the reverent regard
of the crowd to what they preach? At first it seems strange that the
theory of evolution (like the theory of atonement in theology, it serves
for the majority of men as a popular expression of the new teaching)
should justify men in their false lives, and it would seem that the
scientific theory has only to do with facts, and does nothing but
observe facts. But it only seems so.
It had been so with theological teaching; theology seemed to be occupied
only with doctrines and to have nothing to do with the lives of men. It
had been so with philosophy, which also seemed to be occupied only with
facts.
It had been so with the teaching of Hegel on a large scale, and with the
theory of Malthus on a small one. Hegelianism seemed to be occupied
merely with its logical constructions and to have nothing to do with the
lives of men; and the theory of Malthus seemed to be occupied
exclusively with statistics.
But it only seemed so.
Modern science also claims to be occupied exclusively with facts: it
studies facts.
But what facts? Why some facts and not others?
The disciples of the modern science are very fond of saying with a
solemn assurance, "We study facts alone," imagining that these words
have some meaning.
To study facts alone is quite impossible, because the number of facts
which may be objects of our study, are, in the strict sense of the word,
countless.
Before beginning to study facts, one must have some theory according to
which the facts are studied; that is, determining which shall be
selected from the countless number of facts. And this theory indeed
exists and is even very definitely expressed, though many of the agents
of modern science ignore it; that is, do not want to know it, or really
do not know it;--sometimes pretend not to know it.
Thus matters stood before with all most important beliefs.
The basis of each is always given in theory; and so-called learned men
seek only further deductions from the various bases given to them,
though sometimes they ignore even these.
But a fundamental theory must always be present, and so it is also now.
Modern science selects its facts on the ground of a determinate theory,
which sometimes it knows, sometimes does not wish to know, sometimes
really does not know; but which exists. The theory is this: Mankind is
an undying organism, having each his special calling for the service of
the whole. As the cells, growing into an organism, divide among
themselves the labour of the struggle for existence of the whole
organism, increase one capacity, and diminish another, and all together
form an organ in order better to satisfy the wants of the whole
organism; and as among social animals,--ants and bees,--the individuals
divide the labour among themselves (queen-bees lay eggs, drone-bees
fecundate, working-bees labour for the life of the whole),--so also in
mankind and in human societies there take place the same differentiation
and integration of the parts. And therefore, in order to find the law of
man's life, we must study the laws of the lives and development of
organisms. And in these we find the following laws: That each phenomenon
is followed by more than one consequence. The failure of uniformity. The
law of uniformity and diversity; and so on.
All this seems to be very innocent, but we need only draw deductions
from these observations of facts in order to see at once to what they
are tending. These facts lead to one thing,--the acknowledgement of
humanity or human society as an organism, and hence to the
acknowledgment of the division of activities in human society as
organic, that is necessary; and as there exist in human societies many
cruelties and vices, therefore these phenomena must not be considered as
cruelties and vices, but must be accepted as inevitable facts confirming
a general law--i.e., that of "division of labour." Moral philosophy used
also to justify every cruelty and wickedness; but there it became
philosophical, and therefore incorrect. According to science, however,
the same thing turns out to be scientific, and therefore unquestionable.
How can we help accepting such a fine theory! We need only look at human
society merely as something to be observed, and we may quietly devour
the labour of perishing men, calming ourselves with the idea that our
activity as a dancing-master, a lawyer, a doctor, a philosopher, an
actor, an investigator of the theory of mediumism and of forms of atoms,
and so on, is a functional activity of the organism of mankind and
therefore there can be no question whether it is just that I should
continue to live doing only what is pleasant, just as there can be no
question whether the division of labour between a mental and a muscular
cell is fair or not. How can we help accepting such a nice theory which
enables us afterwards to put our consciences into our pockets forever,
and live a completely unbridled, animal life, feeling under our feet a
firm, scientific support? And it is upon this new belief that the
justification of idleness and the cruelty of men is built.