_Question_. What is your opinion of Count Leo Tolstoy?
_Answer_. I have read Tolstoy. He is a curious mixture of simplicity
and philosophy. He seems to have been carried away by his conception
of religion. He is a non-resistant to such a degree that he asserts
that he would not, if attacked, use violence to preserve his own
life or the life of a child. Upon this question he is undoubtedly
insane.
So he is trying to live the life of a peasant and doing without
the comforts of life! This is not progress. Civilization should
not endeavor to bring about equality by making the rich poor or
the comfortable miserable. This will not add to the pleasures of
the rich, neither will it feed the hungry, not clothe the naked.
The civilized wealthy should endeavor to help the needy, and help
them in a sensible way, not through charity, but through industry;
through giving them opportunities to take care of themselves. I
do not believe in the equality that is to be reached by pulling
the successful down, but I do believe in civilization that tends
to raise the fallen and assists those in need.
Should we all follow Tolstoy's example and live according to his
philosophy the world would go back to barbarism; art would be lost;
that which elevates and refines would be destroyed; the voice of
music would become silent, and man would be satisfied with a rag,
a hut, a crust. We do not want the equality of savages.
No, in civilization there must be differences, because there is a
constant movement forward. The human race cannot advance in line.
There will be pioneers, there will be the great army, and there
will be countless stragglers. It is not necessary for the whole
army to go back to the stragglers, it is better that the army should
march forward toward the pioneers.
It may be that the sale of Tolstoy's works is on the increase in
America, but certainly the principles of Tolstoy are gaining no
foothold here. We are not a nation of non-resistants. We believe
in defending our homes. Nothing can exceed the insanity of non-
resistance. This doctrine leaves virtue naked and clothes vice in
armor; it gives every weapon to the wrong and takes every shield
from the right. I believe that goodness has the right of self-
defence. As a matter of fact, vice should be left naked and virtue
should have all the weapons. The good should not be a flock of
sheep at the mercy of every wolf. So, I do not accept Tolstoy's
theory of equality as a sensible solution of the labor problem.
The hope of this world is that men will become civilized to that
degree that they cannot be happy while they know that thousands of
their fellow-men are miserable.
The time will come when the man who dwells in a palace will not be
happy if Want sits upon the steps at his door. No matter how well
he is clothed himself he will not enjoy his robes if he sees others
in rags, and the time will come when the intellect of this world
will be directed by the heart of this world, and when men of genius
and power will do what they can for the benefit of their fellow-
men. All this is to come through civilization, through experience.
Men, after a time, will find the worthlessness of great wealth;
they will find it is not splendid to excite envy in others. So,
too, they will find that the happiness of the human race is so
interdependent and so interwoven, that finally the interest of
humanity will be the interest of the individual.
I know that at present the lives of many millions are practically
without value, but in my judgment, the world is growing a little
better every day. On the average, men have more comforts, better
clothes, better food, more books and more of the luxuries of life
than ever before.
_Question_. It is said that properly to appreciate Rousseau,
Voltaire, Hugo and other French classics, a thorough knowledge of
the French language is necessary. What is your opinion?
_Answer_. No; to say that a knowledge of French is necessary in
order to appreciate Voltaire or Hugo is nonsensical. For a student
anxious to study the works of these masters, to set to work to
learn the language of the writers would be like my building a flight
of stairs to go down to supper. The stairs are already there.
Some other person built them for me and others who choose to use
them.
Men have spent their lives in the study of the French and English,
and have given us Voltaire, Hugo and all other works of French
classics, perfect in sentiment and construction as the originals
are. Macaulay was a great linguist, but he wrote no better than
Shakespeare, and Burns wrote perfect English, though virtually
uneducated. Good writing is a matter of genius and heart; reading
is application and judgment.
I am of the opinion that Wilbur's English translation of "Les
Miserables" is better than Hugo's original, as a literary
masterpiece.
What a grand novel it is! What characters, Jean Valjean and Javert!
_Question_. Which in your opinion is the greatest English novel?
_Answer_. I think the greatest novel ever written in English is
"A Tale of Two Cities," by Dickens. It is full of philosophy; its
incidents are dramatically grouped. Sidney Carton, the hero, is
a marvelous creation and a marvelous character. Lucie Manette is
as delicate as the perfume of wild violets, and cell 105, North
Tower, and scenes enacted there, almost touch the region occupied
by "Lear." There, too, Mme. Defarge is the impersonation of the
French Revolution, and the nobleman of the chateau with his fine
features changed to stone, and the messenger at Tellson's Bank
gnawing the rust from his nails; all there are the creations of
genius, and these children of fiction will live as long as Imagination
spreads her many-colored wings in the mind of man.
_Question_. What do you think of Pope?
_Answer_. Pope! Alexander Pope, the word-carpenter, a mechanical
poet, or stay--rather a "digital poet;" that fits him best--one of
those fellows who counts his fingers to see that his verse is in
perfect rhythm. His "Essay on Man" strikes me as being particularly
defective. For instance:
"All discord, harmony not understood,
All partial evil, universal good,"
from the first epistle of his "Essay on Man." Anything that is
evil cannot by any means be good, and anything partial cannot be
universal.
We see in libraries ponderous tomes labeled "Burke's Speeches."
No person ever seems to read them, but he is now regarded as being
in his day a great speaker, because now no one has pluck enough to
read his speeches. Why, for thirty years Burke was known in
Parliament as the "Dinner Bell"--whenever he rose to speak, everybody
went to dinner.
--_The Evening Express_, Buffalo, New York, October 6, 1892.