that, there is room for reply. What is really needed, and what Tolstoy is aiming at, is that mankind should steadily advance toward perfection, and no one action can be the next step 'for all men in all places. So when we come to the injunction to pay no tax, we may remember the passage (Matt. xvii. 24-27) in which Jesus is reported to have told Peter to catch fish and pay the tax for them both. The passage seems to mean: "We are in no way bound to pay, but if they demand the tax of you, give it, not because you are under any obligation, but because we must not resist him that is evil. If any man would take your cloak, give him your coat also." And that is what Tolstoy thought it meant when he wrote The Four Gospels.

In the present work, however, he is not interpreting the Gospels, but is dealing with present problems on the plane of thought of the jurists and the economists. And whatever may be the best method of undermining the authority of the Prince of this World, his con

demnation by Jesus makes in the same direction as Thoreau's Civil Disobedience and Tolstoy's Theory of Non-Resistance. Each in his own. way says: "The kings of the Gentiles have lordship over them; and they that have authority over them are called Benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is the greatest among you, let him become as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve" (Luke xxii. 25-26).

The Prince of this World is judged, the change foreshadowed is a vast one, and must commence with a change of each man's inner self. But its outward manifestations may be as various as the flowers of the field, which are all fed by the same rain and sunshine from above.

GREAT BADDOW, CHELMSFORD,

October, 1900.

AYLMER MAUDE'S TRANSLATION OF

TOLSTOY'S PREFACE

“They that take the sword shall perish by the sword."

NEARLY fifteen years ago the census in Moscow evoked in me a series of thoughts and feelings which I expressed as best I could in a book called What Must We Do Then? Towards the end of last year (1899) I once more reconsidered the same questions, and the conclusions to which I came were the same as in that book. But as I think that during these ten years I have reflected on the questions discussed in What Must We Do Then? more quietly and minutely in relation to the teachings at present existing and diffused among us, I now offer the reader new considerations, leading to the same replies as before. I think these considerations may be of use to people

who are honestly trying to elucidate their position in society and to clearly define the moral obligations flowing from that position. I, therefore, publish them.

The fundamental thought both of that book and of this article is the repudiation of violence. That repudiation I learnt and understood from the Gospels, where it is most clearly expressed in the words: It was said to you, An Eye for an Eye, —that is, you have

been taught to oppose violence by violence, but I teach you: turn the other cheek when you are struck-that is, suffer violence, but do not employ it. I know that the use of those great words-in consequence of the unreflectingly perverted interpretations alike of Liberals and of Churchmen, who on this matter agree-will be a reason for most so-called cultured people not to read this article, or to be biassed against it; but, nevertheless, I place those words as the epigraph of this work.

I cannot prevent people who consider them