Chapter 3 of The Kingdom of God is Within You: Leo Tolstoy's Critique of Religion

Chapter 3: CHRISTIANITY MISUNDERSTOOD BY BELIEVERS.

This entire chapter has a really powerful critique of the way Christianity is run and its effect on society. Tolstoy seeks to remake, or in some ways, unmake, the Christian religion. The first step is to separate the supernatural elements and strip them from Christianity completely.

The Christian teaching presents itself to the men of our world precisely as such a teaching, which has for a long time and in a most indubitable manner been known in its minutest details, and which cannot be comprehended in any other manner than it now is. Christianity is now understood by those who profess the church doctrines as a supernatural, miraculous revelation concerning everything which is given in the symbol of faith, and by those who do not believe, as an obsolete manifestation of humanity's need of believing in some thing supernatural, as a historical phenomenon, which is completely expressed in Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism, and which has no longer any vital meaning for us. For the believers the meaning of the teaching is concealed by the church, for unbelievers by science. 

Belief in miracles and the supernatural elements of the religion help to keep the official churches propped up. They rely on the supernatural to have their followers support them as the "true" church. For Tolstoy, having lived in the upper classes in a post-Enlightenment world, the supernatural elements of the religion can't have any meaning and should be rejected out of hand. Just as Tolstoy's old enemy "science" directs people away from Christianity, the unbelievable elements of the religion drive people away or obscure what the doctrine is supposed to be about. The focus becomes on the crying saint icon (as in War and Peace for the "people of God") or Jesus ascending into heaven rather than what Jesus actually taught. Those who have been taught in a traditional church manner may wonder what the point of the religion is if it doesn't accept the key miracles that are usually considered the basis of orthodoxy. Tolstoy gives a somewhat abstract answer:

The fulfilment of the teaching is only in unceasing motion, — in the attainment of a higher and ever higher truth, and in an ever greater realization of the same in oneself by means of an ever increasing love, and outside of oneself by an ever greater realization of the kingdom of God.

As the title of the book suggests, the Kingdom of God is not something that Jesus will "come back" and literally bring about. Rather, Jesus's first (and only) coming began the process of bringing the kingdom through love, with the followers of Jesus bettering themselves and then the world around them and bringing the kingdom of God to earth. This process continues and isn't something that will come at once or suddenly (it is actually unlikely that for Tolstoy there will be a moment where you can say it is "here" but is probably an eternal movement that continues as long as humanity exists. A contradiction might exist in Tolstoy seeing no reason for the human race to continue and continuing the human species as an invalid reason for sex.)

Only by a series of misconceptions, blunders, one-sided explanations, corrected and supplemented by generations of men, was the meaning of the Christian teaching made more and more clear to men. The Christian world-conception affected the Jewish and the pagan conceptions, and the Jewish and pagan conceptions affected the Christian world-conception. And the Christian, as being vital, penetrated the reviving Jewish and pagan conceptions more and more, and stood forth more and more clearly, freeing itself from the false admixture, which was imposed upon it. Men came to comprehend the meaning better and better, and more and more realized it in life.

In this weird passage, we see that the somewhat baffling conception Tolstoy has of Jesus's role in religion. For him, clearly his teachings are of world-shattering importance and are/were unique. However, other conceptions of life borrowed from Christianity and, as Christianity (the correct version) progresses, it borrows from other forms of life. Jesus and his teachings are the answer, but Tolstoy is clearly committed to religious pluralism (which again raises the question as to why Tolstoy doesn't just jettison Christianity as a concept and instead rely on spreading non-violent teachings, despite their source. One wonders if this is because Christianity and holding Jesus's teaching as authoritative gives him a tradition and an authority to rest on, allowing him to circumvent many practical arguments). But to embrace this, one has to ditch the miraculous elements of the religion because they serve as authoritative elements to protect the churches. 

The more obscure the comprehension of Christ's teaching was, the more miraculous elements were mixed in with it ; and the more miraculous elements were mixed in, the more did the teaching deviate from its meaning and become obscure; and the more it deviated from its meaning and became obscure, the more strongly it was necessary to assert one's infallibility, and the less did the teaching become comprehensible. We can see from the gospels, the Acts, the epistles, how from the earliest times the failure to comprehend the teaching called forth the necessity of proving its truth by means of the miraculous and the incomprehensible.

Even in the Bible itself, Tolstoy sees the need for unquestioned authority from the churches. Rejecting the historicity of the book of Acts and seeing it as a retcon attempt to give authority to the followers of Jesus was a view that was very common in the late 19th century and Tolstoy's view of the churches and the historical Jesus don't misalign with these views too much (without going too deeply into Jesus studies, the 19th century of Historical Jesus studies were driven by people who forced Jesus to obey their conception of life, in the 20th century, it became more common to contextualize and disassociate Jesus from the author's own conception of life). These miracle stories are power grabs, stories made up to justify religious doctrine and power. These miracle stories distract and counter the teachings of Jesus and in fact actually contradict them because of their use as a tool to wield power. 

if Christ had really founded such an institution as the church, on which the whole doctrine and the whole faith are based, He would most likely have expressed this establishment in such definite and clear words, and would have given the one, true church, outside of the stories about the miracles, which are used in connection with every superstition, such signs as to leave no doubts concerning its authenticity; there is nothing of the kind, but there are now, as there have been, all kinds of institutions which, each of them, call themselves the one, true church.

This argument actually sounds very much like arguments made against a religion being "true" made by skeptics. If Christianity, the Christianity based on the miracles essential to orthodoxy, is "true", then surely God or Jesus would have made it much more obvious for those living today. In fact, for Tolstoy, because miracles are in themselves impossible for a modern person to believe, and just as importantly, every religious tradition comes with their own unbelievable miracles, Jesus would not have constructed his church or his religion around the miracles that the churches consider so important. The fact that the world is filled with different churches that claim to be the inheritance of the miracles proves that the miracles, which can't be true, cannot be the foundation of Christianity (and as the religious counterargument would depend on faith, the fact that there are many similar but different churches makes the claim to have faith nonsense, as it is impossible to tell where people should put their faith). 

So long as the believers agreed among themselves, and the assembly was one, it had no need of asserting that it was the church. Only when the believers divided into opposite parties, which denied one another, did there appear the necessity for each side to assert its authenticity, ascribing infallibility to itself. The concept of the one church arose only from this, that, when two sides disagreed and quarrelled, each of them, calling the other a heresy, recognized only its own as the infallible church.

The rise of churches and the different powerful different institutions happened because disagreement arose and thus, rather than dealing with argumentation and the usual forms of division that happen in groups of people, the rising and differing churches each claimed that they were the authoritative churches from God and the other groups were heretics, which were met with violence because they, in the dominant church's view, opposed God. 

As an actual, historical phenomenon there have existed only many assemblies of men, each of which has asserted that it is the one church, established by Christ, and that all the others, which call themselves churches, are heresies and schisms.

While Tolstoy (it seems rightly) critiques the protestants for doing the same things as the Orthodox and Catholics, this is a fairly protestant view of the church, with the church being something rather figurative and not a literal institution with real power given to it by Jesus. Thus, hundreds of sects fight for the same exclusionary claim, arguing that they are on the side of God, justifying violence and religious wars. 

The Catholics assert that the Holy Ghost has uninterruptedly operated in their hierarchy; the Orthodox assert that the same Holy Ghost has operated in their hierarchy; the Arians asserted that the Holy Ghost operated in their hierarchy (this they asserted with as much right as the now ruling churches assert it); the Protestants of every description, Lutherans, Reformers, Presbyterians, Methodists, Swedenborgians, Mormons, assert that the Holy Ghost operates only in their assemblies. 

And Tolstoy says "Nor could it be otherwise", with some version of "could not be otherwise" appears 10 times in Garnett's translation, further highlighting Tolstoy's belief of historical necessity and fatalism. These social and religious factors necessarily lead to violence and exclusion, just like governments necessarily lead to violence and social control. It is an essential part of the institutions and arguments over religious doctrine.

The whole discussion of the author (that Tolstoy critiques) reduces itself to this, that every opinion which is not in agreement with a code of dogmas professed by us at a given time is a heresy; but at a given time and in a given place people profess something, and this profession of something in some place cannot be a criterion of the truth.

The concept of heresy, of course, leads to conservatism and traditionalism, fighting any progress or differentiation of ideas, limiting thinking and conceptions of life. This rigid conception of truth that has been revealed through miracles and is safeguarded by a singular institution set out against other institutions that make some similar claims and all those who oppose the institution does not mesh with the idea of truth that Tolstoy believes Jesus shared. 

The church is an assembly of men asserting that they are in possession of the indisputable truth.

Notice that truth, or at least people's conception of what is true, continues to move and progress. While the teaching itself occurred now two thousand year ago, it has been obscured and humanity wasn't entirely ready for it, so the teaching is only uncovered piece by piece throughout human history. This is a particularly surprising doctrine for Tolstoy to hold and seems to contradict some of his other beliefs in primitivism and simplicity, but at the same time, it is clear that he believes in the progress of knowledge, whether it be scientific, philosophic, or religious knowledge.

A disciple of Christ, whose teaching consists in an eternally greater and greater comprehension of the teaching and in a greater and greater fulfilment of it, in a motion toward perfection

The goal, no matter how seemingly impossible, is the strive towards perfection. For Tolstoy, a Christian cannot be satisfied but always must be moving forward on a personal level. And this is part of the fight against conservatism and traditionalism, which claims that things are fine the way they are and that preserving the institutions, and thus the religion, is most important. Instead, people should try to be more and more perfect, more and more non-resistant, and more and more loving (of course, this can lead to guilt in failure, which is a huge obstacle to happiness and something Tolstoy battled his entire life).

with good reason all, or nearly all. the Christian so-called sects have recognized the church to be that whore of whom Revelation prophesies; with good reason the history of the church is the history of the greatest cruelties and horrors.

While religious institutions no longer seem directly responsible for the majority of modern-day atrocities and viewing the Catholic Church as the Whore of Babylon is usually reserved for rightist conspiracy theorists (though taking the book of Revelation seriously is almost exclusively reserved to conservatives or conspiracy theorists in today's world), the history of the Christian churches is not one filled with love and kindness.

The churches have not only never united, but have always been one of the chief causes of the disunion of men, of the hatred of one another, of wars, slaughters, inquisitions, nights of St. Bartholomew, and so forth,

The division of doctrine, the conception of heresy, and the belief in a Jesus or God-descended church has lead to violence and thus as Tolstoy tries to re-set the Christian religion in a non-violent path, these aspects of the religion must be removed. And this starts with the ceremonies that affect the doctrines of the church and the belief systems of those who are born into these churches. 

at the birth of a child, the clergy teaches that a prayer has to be read over the mother and the child, in order to purify them, since without this prayer the mother who has given birth to a child is accursed. For this purpose the priest takes the child in his hands in front of the representations of the saints, which the masses simply call gods, and pronounces exorcising words, and thus purifies the mother. Then it is impressed on the parents, and even demanded of them under threat of punishment in case of non-fulfilment, that the child shall be baptized, that is, dipped three times in water by the priest, in connection with which incomprehensible words are pronounced and even less comprehensible acts per formed, — the smearing of various parts of the body with oil, the shearing of the hair, and the blowing and spitting of the sponsors on the imaginary devil. All this is supposed to cleanse the child and make him a Christian.

This passage and similar ones throughout the book, such as the one below, are written rather satirically and from a distance, like the famous opera passages in War and Peace, the "making strange" aspect of Tolstoy's writing. The important critique is that the actions, like the actions of the opera actor/actress, have no meaning to those it is being performed to or with. Instead, they are observed simply out of tradition, with no reflection on what that tradition actually means. It is also heavily steeped in superstition and with ethics based on original sin and the infallibility of the church (you must go to the church to have it performed and they have convinced you that it must be performed and therefore the church has bred an understood reliance on the church, furthering their power).   

(holidays are days on which Christ was born, though no one knows when that was, and circumcised, on which the Mother of God died, the cross was brought, the image was carried in, a saintly fool saw a vision, etc.,)

Garnett's language in this classic Tolstoyian parenthetical is a little stronger here, calling the fool a "lunatic", just as later, when discussing soldiers dressing up in a "fool's uniform", Garnett has them as "clowns".  These traditional observations can have no meaning because they obviously are not based on facts but are rather based on lies called miracles, which are again distractions from Jesus's teachings. How can the observation of these rituals, festivals, or icons make one a better person moving closer to perfection? Of course they can't. They are formal rituals with no real meaning. This is the hypnotism of the masses performed by the churches.

the masses are carefully taught this theoretically, and, being hypnotized practically, with every means of solemnity, splendour, authority, and violence, are made to believe in this, and are jealously guarded against every endeavour to be freed from these savage superstitions.

The churches need these rituals, which heavily religious societies direct their calendars and lives around, just as they need violence to protect their place in the social order. If they can hypnotize the people into directing their lives around these rituals and holidays, then they control them without having to use outward violence. And you will notice that none of this has anything to do with Jesus or the non-resistant teachings of Jesus. In fact, Tolstoy believes, they are antithetical. 

The Sermon on the Mount, or the symbol of faith: it is impossible to believe in both. And the churchmen have chosen the latter:

You cannot believe both in the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of the church. The Nicene Creed, with Tolstoy has nothing but contempt for, is a separator of people, and the church as an institution is a violent instrument of social control, completely opposed to the radical counter-culture of the teachings of Jesus. 

a man who believes in the doctrine and the preaching of the church about the compatibility of executions and wars with Christianity, cannot believe in the brotherhood of men.

You either believe all people should be accepted together and should not be judged, or you believe that they should be separated and judged based on their religious beliefs and allegiances. Those in the churches have chosen the latter.  

The masses move on in the consciousness of the moral, vital side of Christianity. And it is here that the church appears with its failure to support, and with its intensified inculcation of an obsolete paganism in its ossified form, with its tendency to push the masses back into that darkness, from which they are struggling with so much effort to get out.

Tolstoy is, perhaps unsurprisingly, optimistic about the will of the masses, who have somewhat of a "class consciousness" towards the brotherhood of man style of Christianity. The institutions on the other hand, press the masses down through their doctrines and stand in the way of moral progress. The masses struggle against this, and through this, work towards perfecting themselves and their world. The primary opponents of Jesus's teachings, as, you could argue, in the Gospels themselves, are not the atheists or nonbelievers, but rather the religious gatekeepers that refuse to loosen the grip of their political and social power, a power that is irrational and untenable. 

we need but stop and think of the condition of any adult, not only cultured, but even simple, man of our time, who has filled himself with conceptions, which are in the air, from the fields of geology, physics, chemistry, cosmography, history, when he for the first time looks consciously at the beliefs, instilled in him in childhood and supported by the churches, that God created the world in six days ; that there was light before the sun ; that Noah stuck all the animals into his ark, and so forth ; that Jesus is the same God, the son, who created everything before this ; that this God descended upon earth for Adam's sin ; that He rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, and sits on the right of the Father, and will come in the clouds to judge the world, and so forth. All these propositions, which were worked out by the men of the fourth century and had a certain meaning for the men of that time, have no meaning for the men of the present. The men of our time may repeat these words with their lips, but they cannot believe

The basic teachings of the Biblical story and the religious gatekeepers can have no meaning to us in a modern day because they are the product of mindnumbing superstition. The answer cannot be to go back (though as we have seen, this has been somewhat tempting for Tolstoy, and politically, it is somewhat his answer) and disbelieve what we know about science and history, but instead we must go forward and deny the religious gatekeeping and superstition to focus on the teachings of Jesus. This of course is a radical re-conception of the way the Christian religion works for most people, as the stories of Noah and Adam are often seen as essential to understanding the Bible, and more importantly, even if those Old Testament stories are seen just as metaphors, the idea of Jesus's Incarnation, Resurrection, and Ascension are key doctrines in Orthodoxy Christianity, with even today, most groups that consider themselves Christian believing in them at least somewhat literally. But for Tolstoy, these are just distractions from the real teaching of Jesus, and more importantly, how churches maintain their control over people. 

Persons who depart from the external expression of faith and who give expression to it are either directly punished or deprived of their rights; while persons who strictly adhere to the external forms of faith are rewarded and given rights.

Above all, churches, religions, and institutions breed conformity. Those who believe something different or reject the outward symbolic actions expected of them (think of the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance in our country) are shunned from society and divided, while those who unthinkingly do what is expected of them are rewarded. Forward-thinking and individuality are suppressed for collectivism and blind obedience. And this is the way the churches operate, and the belief in miracles and ahistorical ideas are used as demarcations to remove undesirables from society. And this brainwashing begins at birth.  

The child is methodically deceived in the most important matter of life, and when the deception has so grown up with his life that it is difficult to tear it away, there is revealed to him the whole world of science and of reality, which can in no way harmonize with the beliefs instilled in him, and he is left to make the best he can out of these contradictions.

The contradiction between church and Jesus and institutions and non-violence are explored throughout the book, but just as those born into The Party in 1984 have their thinking and language so limited that they cannot think in conceptions that contradict the party's message, those born in heavily religious contexts can find their thinking so warped that they are unable to properly engage with ideas outside of their religious conception and find themselves left behind the progresses in science, history, and morality, clinging to an obsolete and violent way of life. 

Book 2 Part 5 Chapter 6 (Chapter 148 overall)

Chapter Summaries: Dole: The Rostofs reach Moscow. Visit at Marya Dmitrievna's Akhrosimova's. Marya Dmitrievna's character. Her warm reception. Gossip. Congratulations. Plans.
Briggs: Count Ilya, Sonya and Natasha stay with Marya Dmitrieyevna in Moscow.
Maude: Count Ilya Rostov, Natasha and Sonya stay with Marya Dmitrievna in Moscow
Pevear and Volkhonsky: Count Rostov, Natasha, and Sonya come to Moscow and stay with Marya Dmitrievna.

Translation:

VI. Count Ilya Andreich at the end of January with Natasha and Sonya had arrived in Moscow. The countess was all unhealthy, and could not go, — but it could not be to wait for her convalescence: Prince Andrey was waiting in Moscow every day; besides this need was the purchase of the dowry, the need was to sell the near Moscow estate and the need was to benefit from the presence of the old prince in Moscow so that to represent to him his future daughter-in-law. The house of the Rostovs in Moscow was not heated; besides this they had arrived for a short time, the countess was not with them, and because of this Ilya Andreich decided to stay in Moscow at Marya Dmitrievna Ahrosimova’s, who for a long time proposed to the count her hospitality. Late at night the four carriages of the Rostovs entered into the yard of Marya Dmitrievna at old Konyushennaya. Marya Dmitrievna lived alone. Her daughter she had already given out to get married. Her sons all were in the service. She held all so the same as all, said so the same to all, loudly and resolutely to all made her opinion, and with all her essence as if reproached other people for all sorts of weakness, passion and hobbies, the opportunity of which she did not recognize. From early morning in women's folk clothes, she occupied home economy, then rode by holidays to mass and from mass to the jails and prisons, where she had affairs, about which she didn’t say to anyone, but by weekdays, dressed, at home accepted petitioners from different estates, which every day came to her, and then dined; behind the hearty and tasty dinner always happened three to four guests, after dinner made a party of Boston; at night forced herself to read newspapers and new books, but knitted herself. She seldom made exceptions for departures, and should she leave, that was only to ride to a very important face in the city. She still had not lied down, when arrived the Rostovs, and at the front screeching door on the block, admitted the entering from the cold Rostovs and their maidservant. Marya Dmitrievna, with glasses, deflated on the nose, throwing backwards her head, stood in the doorway of the hall with a strict, angry look watching the incoming. One could think that she was embittered against the newcomers and now would kick them out, should she not have given back at this time caring orders to people about how to place the guests and their things. — Count? Carry here, — she said, pointing at the suitcases and with whom she had not greeted. — Young ladies, here to the left. Well, how you fawn! — she shouted at the girls. — Samovar so that to warm! — Plumper and became prettier, — she spoke, pulling to herself behind a hood the reddened with frost Natasha. — Ew, cold! Yes undress already and soon, — she shouted at the count, wanting him to come to her hand. — Frozen, I suppose. Give him rum with tea! Sleepyhead, bonjour (hello), — she said to Sonya, by this French greeting shading them with a little contemptuous and affectionate attitude to Sonya. When all undressed and recovered from the road and came to tea, Marya Dmitrievna by order kissed all. — My soul is happy that you have arrived and that you have stopped at me, — she said. — A long time, — she said, much looking at Natasha... — The old man is here and his son is awaited day to day. You need to, need to with him become acquainted. Well, yes about this we’ll talk after, — she added, looking around Sonya, a look showing that she did not wish to speak about this to her. — Now listen, — she turned to the count, — tomorrow what again do you need to do? For whom do I send? Shinshin? — she bent one finger; — The crybaby Anna Mihaylovna, — two. She is here with her son. Married is that son! Then Bezuhov for something? And he is here with his wife. He from her was running, but she galloped behind him. He dined with me on Wednesday. Well, but them — she pointed out to the young lady — tomorrow I will take to Iverskoy, but then to the Chief-Rogue we will stop by. Because, I suppose, all new will be done? From me I do not take the sleeves now, here is what! Find the young princess Irina Vasilievna that has arrived to me: it is a fear to look, exactly two barrels on hands were put on. Because now, what a day — the new fashion. Yes in yourself are what affairs? — she turned strictly to the count. — All suddenly approached, — was the response of the count. — Rags to buy, but here still is a buyer for the near Moscow estate and house. Really I should be at the mercy of your will, choose my time, I will go to Maryinskoe in the day, my girls to your estimate. — Okay, okay, I will keep it intact. In me as in Guardian advice. I will take them out where they need, and I will tear, and caress, — said Marya Dmitrievna, touching her large hand to the cheeks of her darling and godchild Natasha. On the next morning Marya Dmitrievna took the young lady to Iverskoy and to m-me Ober-Shalme, who was so afraid of Marya Dmitrievna that she always at a loss conceded her outfits, only to soon survive from her. Marya Dmitrievna ordered almost all the dowry. Returning she kicked out all besides Natasha from the room and beckoned her darling to her armchair. — Well, now talk. Congratulations to you with your groom. Picked up a fine fellow! I am happy for you; and he from these years I have known (she pointed out an arshin from the earth). — Natasha happily blushed. — I love him and all his family. Now listen. You know that the old man Prince Nikolay extremely did not desire that his son married. Moral old man! He, of course, Prince Andrey is not a child, and without him it will cost, yes against commitment of the family to enter is no good. You need to be peaceful and loving. You are a smart girl, able to get along as you need to. You are kind and will get around smart. Here all will be okay. Natasha kept silent, as thought Marya Dmitrievna from shyness, but in the entities of Natasha it was unpleasant that she had intervened in her business in the love of Prince Andrey, which presented to her as so special from all human cases that no one, by her concepts, could understand it. She loved and knew only Prince Andrey, he loved her and should come in another day and take her. More to her nothing was needed. — Whether you see, I for a long time have known him, and Masha, your sister-in-law, I love. The sister-in-law — a hammer, well but really this fly will not offend. She requested me to lead you to her. You tomorrow with your father will ride to her, and cuddle yourself very well: you will land her. As you come there, but already you with the sister and with the father will be familiar, and you have fallen in love. So or no? Because will it be better? — Better, — reluctantly answered Natasha.   

Time: end of January, late in the evening, next morning
Mentioned: holidays, week-days, mornings, last Wednesday, to-morrow,

Locations: Moscow, house of Mary a Dmitrievna Akhrosimov, street of the Old Mews (Old Konyushennaya Street in Dole, Dunnigan, and Pevear and Volkhonsky. des Vielles Ecuries in Bell with a footnote of Old Stable street. old Konyusheny street in Maude and Briggs.)
Mentioned: suburban estate, Holy Virgin of Iver (also Iver church), Marinskoe (Maryinskoe in Garnett and Pevear and Volkhonsky. Marinskoye in Dole. estate in Mandelker, Maude and Briggs. suburbs in Bell), Guardianship Council (Mortgage Bank in Garnett. Empire in Bell. Orphan's Aide Society in Dole. wards of court in Briggs. state custody in Pevear and Volkhonsky. Chancery in Maude)

Pevear and Volokhonsky Notes: Switch to the Rostovs, a reminder of the countess' inability to come due to her health. The opening paragraph is very repetitive and clunky, really suffering from the serial nature of the novel.

Long description of Marya Dmitrievna Akhrosimov's life and routine. She calls Anna Mikhailovna a "crybaby" and the rest of the chapter is Marya's inappropriate comments on Natasha's inpending marriage to Andrei.

Characters (characters who do not appear, but are mentioned are placed in italics. First appearances are in Bold. First mentions are underlined. Final appearance denoted by *):

Count Ilya Andreyevitch (Garnett adds Rostov as a reminder, though the name Rostov is thrown around a few times in the chapter anyway. Per usual, Briggs just puts Count Ilya Rostov, which Edmonds does as well.
Mandelker just puts “Count Rostov”.)

Natasha (also “future daughter-in-law”)

Sonya (also “Sonyushka”)

Prince Andrei (also “son”)

Prince Nikolai (also “old prince” and “old man”)

Marya Dmitrievna Akhrosimova (her daughter and sons are referenced, though not differentiated.)

Shinshin

Anna Mikhailovna

Boris (“son”)

Pierre (“Bezukhoi”)

Ellen (“wife”)

Princess Irena Vasilyevna (“...Irina...” in Dunnigan, Edmonds, and Briggs. “...Irina Vasilevna...” in Maude, Weiner, and Mandelker. “...Irina Vassilyevna” in Garnett. Bell drops the name and replaces “a young lady”.)

Mademoiselle Aubert-Chalme (an interesting translation variance here. Dole and Mandelker essentially drop the joke. As in Dunnigan, Marya Dmitrievna calls her “Super-Sham’s”, which Dunnigan follows with
“Madame Chalme” in parenthesis, which is repeated a couple paragraphs later. Maude prints “Super Rougue’s” the first time and “Madame Suppert-Roguet” the second time (Edmonds prints this both times).
Garnett prints “Aubert-Chalmey” both times, adding Madame the second time. Briggs puts “Madame Saucy Rascal” with the parenthetical “Her dressmaker’s real name was Suzie Pascal”, printing “Madame Pascal”
the second time. Wiener prints “Aubert Chalme” both times, adding “Madame” the second time. Bell prints “Chalme’s” the first time and “Mme. Aubert Chalme” the second time.)

Princess Mariya (“Mashenka” and “sister-in-law”. Dunnigan uses “Masha”. Maude just uses the usual “Mary”.)

Abridged Versions: Start of Chapter 18 of Bell, no break at the end.
Gibian: Chapter 6.

Fuller: The opening two paragraphs, establishing the Rostov’s residence with Marya Dmitryevna are kept and then without a line break, we jump to the next day, where Marya Dmitryevna advises them to go see
the old prince.

Komroff: Gives a reminder that Marya Ahrosimov is “the terrible dragon”, which other translations have not. Chapter is preserved and followed by a line break.

Kropotkin: Chapter 4: Marya Dmitrievna’s talking while they bring things in is removed. Most of the rest of the chapter is preserved, but a line break instead of a chapter break.

Bromfield: Chapter 11: The Rostovs do not stay at Marya Dmitrievna’s. Shinshin arrives to their house in Moscow and gives them news about Anatole and Dolokhov, giving a lot of the same information we saw
at the opera, but also that despite their previous duel, Pierre and Dolokhov are now close friends. Anna Mikhailovna tells Natasha about Boris’s engagement and Natasha has to reflect on how inappropriate it is
that she is annoyed by his engagement. Pierre hands Natasha the letter from Andrei and that Marya wants to see her, operating in that go-between role that Marya Dmitrievna did in the latter version. No break.
Simmons: Chapter 6: a lot of Marya Dmitrievna's description is gone, as well as the interaction between the characters early on.

Additional Notes: I find the comparison between Marya Dmitrievna and the Old Prince Bolkonsky very interesting. Even though Marya clearly does not like or respect Bolkonsky and Marya's routine is

heavily served by religion, they both are routine based, strict to the point of occasional cruelty and an important part of Moscow society.

Mandelker: “The historical Aubert-Chalme was a Bonapartist and left Moscow with the French.”

Nabokov: Page 236: "the main faith in the book is the Greek Catholic creed. The Shcherbatskis, Dolly, Kitty, their parents, are shown combining the traditional ritual with a kind of natural, old-fashioned, easy-going

faith which Tolstoy approved of, for in the seventies when Tolstoy was writing this novel he had not evolved yet his fierce contempt for church ritual.

Mikaberidze Page 113: “Napoleon also met with a number of French residents of Moscow, hoping to gain a deeper insight into Russian society. Among them was Marie-Rose Aubert-Chalme….About 30 years old, a beautiful

and charming woman, Aubert-Chalme was very popular in the French community of Moscow but also maintained useful contacts among the Russian aristocracy. This, however, did not prevent Governor

Rostopchin from exiling the husband, along with dozens of other Frenchmen, in August….It is unclear what made this young woman so important that Napoleon spent over an hour conversing with her...We

know that he sounder her out on a couple of important political topics, including what she thought of freeing the Russian serfs. She later claimed that her response was that one-third of the serfs would welcome

his decision, while the rest would even understand what he was attempting to do for them. As it was, Napoleon did not dare to attempt such a radical reform. The rest of conversation is wrapped in secrecy.

Yet this meeting proved fateful for Aubert-Chalme: once the news of the meeting spread, the Russians branded her Napoleon’s spy andd accused her of having been in the service of the French government

for a long time before the war. Why else, they argue, would she have met the French Emperor if not to pass on some valuable information? Even her fellow French residents of Moscow stayed well away from

her, fearing retaliations for any association with her. When Napoleon left Moscow in October, Aubert-Chalme had little choice but to join the ranks of thousands of others who followed the Grande armee. Along

the way Chalme became separated from her children and died in a typhus epidemic in Vilna in December.”

Chapter 2 of The Kingdom of God is Within You: Why Religion has Rejected Non-Resistance

Chapter 2: CRITICISMS OF THE DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO EVIL BY FORCE ON THE PART OF BELIEVERS AND OF UNBELIEVERS.

As discussed in the post on Chapter 1, much of the early part of the book is an answer to the critiques of What I Believe in which Tolstoy lays out how Jesus directs Christians to reject violence and become non-resisters.

The critics upon my books, both the Russian and the foreign critics, can be divided into two classes: into the religious critics, — people who consider themselves to be believers, — and lay critics, who are freethinkers.

This chapter is mostly about the answer given by those of a religious background with the focus turning to the secular arguments late in the chapter going into the next chapter, as well as the difference between Russian and non-Russian critics.

The first, the rudest way of answering, consists in the bold assertion that violence does not contradict Christ's teaching, and that it is permitted and even prescribed by the Old and the New Testament.

Using the Old Testament and what Tolstoy often calls "obscure verses" to contradict the teachings of Jesus or to justify violence is a rather standard move that is still used today.  It takes no effort to find justifications for violence in the Bible, so though those who use the Bible to justify violence and state power are most likely being disingenuous and are more conservative than they are "Christian", it really doesn't take much effort to find violence in the text, which is why Tolstoy focuses on Jesus's teachings, particularly the Sermon on the Mount.

These men have, in consequence of their intoxication with their power, for the most part to such an extent lost the concept of what that Christianity is, in the name of which they occupy their places, that everything of a

          Christian nature in Christianity presents itself to them as sectarian

Those that defend the churches are considered by Tolstoy to be intoxicated with power. They defend the present order because they benefit from it and wish to continue to do so. The churches, especially in Tolstoy's sociological context and post-Constantine, have power and continue to fight for their political power and thus they are much less likely to support any measure that dramatically transform society in a forward direction, which is why, in our time, white evangelicals are almost always on the wrong side of civil rights and racial issues.

The second method is a little less rude. It consists in asserting that, although Christ really taught to offer one's cheek and give up a shirt, and this is a very high moral demand, there are malefactors in the world, and

           if these are not curbed by the exercise of force, the whole world and all good men will perish.

And this is the most common argument and the one that Tolstoy constantly combats in his work: Jesus's teachings about non-violence are very nice, but they are not to be taken literally, and even if they are, they can't be expected to be followed because they are too demanding and they would allow those who would take people's shirts and abuse others to do so with no consequences, causing the innocent to suffer. And this latter argument is clearly the argument that pacifism has to deal with the most and for many people, the argument that pacifism does not quite have an answer for. How can pacifism prevent the most violent members of society from overrunning not only those who choose pacifism or non-resistant Christianity, but the neighbors that the Christians are supposed to love, and the people that the pacifists care about?

in the third place, because even if it were possible unerringly to tell malefactors from those who are not malefactors, it would still not be possible in a Christian society to execute, or maim, or lock up these malefactors, because in Christian society there would be no one to do this, because every Christian, as a Christian, is enjoined not to use violence against a malefactor. The third method of answering is still

shrewder than the previous one. It consists in asserting that, although the commandment of non-resistance to evil is obligatory for a Christian when the evil is directed against him personally, it ceases to be
obligatory when the evil is directed against his neighbours, and that then a Christian is not only not obliged to fulfil the commandments, but is also obliged in the defence of his neighbours, contrary to the
commandment, to use violence against the violators. This assertion is quite arbitrary, and in the whole of Christ's teaching no confirmation of such an interpretation can be found.

For Tolstoy, just as with his view of fatalist view of history, pacifism arises from an epistemological problem. How can we determine who is acting in bad faith and not only who is acting violently, but who will continue to act violently? The doctrine of non-participation also arises here, as Christians are not to take part in the prosecution of those who are subject to criminal charges, so they cannot be the executors, so on a personal level, they cannot, beyond the epistemological problems, have anything to do with judgement, despite evidence or personal opinions. One can see how this plays out in the short story "The Forged Coupon" as well as the significance of Ivan Illyich's position as a professional judge, who decides the fate of people without moral qualms and then goes home to his family and the life he tries to create for himself.

We lock up a man whom we suppose to be a dangerous member of society, but beginning with to-morrow this man may cease to be dangerous, and his incarceration is futile. I see that a man whom I know

to be a robber is pursuing a girl, and I have a gun in my hand, — I kill the robber and save the girl ; the robber has certainly been killed or wounded, but it is unknown to me what would happen if that were
not the case.

This has some radical implications for the justice system (which Tolstoy of course argues should not be participated in at all) and what we do with those who are considered dangerous or do something wrong (it also raises the practical problem of what society tries to accomplish through sentencing and the varying lengths of sentences. Most likely, pre-set sentences, with parole and good behavior opportunities, attempt to set standards to help prevent crime, making people not want to do the crime so they do not have to do the time that they are vaguely aware they would probably have to serve, and to encourage rehabilitation once they are entered into the prison system. The actual mechanics and efficacy of the system probably does not match these aspirations and the purpose of sentencing is probably not reflected on by society very often). Not surprisingly, considering his antipathy towards doctors and the science of medicine, Tolstoy was extremely skeptical and against diagnoses of mental illness and the labeling of people which might lead to their incarceration (this gets really complicated today with the proliferation of pharmacology, in which on a seemingly indisputable positive note, pill regiments for certain individuals allow people who would have been, in previous generations, incarcerated in some form or another, to live what many might call a "normal life"). But most importantly, acts of violence to prevent acts of violence cannot really be justified because the positive effects of the preemptive acts of violence cannot be known, just as the assumed act of violence cannot be known (a clear rejection of Utilitarianism by exposing the problems Utilitarians face most often: epistemology and measurability. The Utilitarian, on the other hand, might argue that non-action has its own consequences and it is impossible to live with any certainty and each person must act in the way they believe to be best. A Utilitarian could come to embrace pacifism in almost every situation, though the problem of false justification for actions can eat away at Utilitarianism, with people consistently claiming to act in a way to reduce violence while actually contributing to it). To know what will come of my actions when I choose to act violently to prevent violence is impossible, and thus it is better not to act or act non-violently than act violently since it is impossible to know if I will be causing more harm or preventing harm.

The fourth, still more refined answer to the question as to how a Christian should act toward Christ's commandment of non-resistance to evil consists in asserting that the commandment of non-resistance

to evil is not denied by them, but is accepted like any other; but that they do not ascribe to this commandment any special exclusive significance, as the sectarians do.

So while Tolstoy and the counter-culture societies mentioned by Tolstoy in Chapter 1 put an emphasis on Jesus's command for non-violence, the churches can claim that it is one of many commands and thus cannot be emphasized in the way that the pacifists emphasize them. This whole discussion is hopeless, just as most intra-Religious arguments are. Obviously putting more emphasis on the words of Jesus Christ (though Tolstoy rejects the divinity and miracles as we'll see) would make sense, but the counter-argument is that for some Christians, the entire Bible, as well as, for some, extra-biblical texts, have divine authority, and thus anyone of them can be used to determine direction in life.
Tolstoy puts emphasis on the Sermon on the Mount, others put emphasis on other sections or religious texts, showing the problem of making religious authority arguments, especially when approached from outside, seeming incomprehensible and, probably, based on politics and power dynamics.

This subterfuge is very clever, and men who wish to be deceived are easily deceived by it. The subterfuge consists in reducing the direct conscious negation of the commandment to an accidental violation

          of the same.

Again, Tolstoy assumes a lot of uncharitable things about his opponents, but that is not to say that they are wrong assumptions. While Tolstoy would agree with many religious thinkers is claiming that "all sin is sin" and all wrong doings are equal, the way he does so is different than those who justify violence or state participation. In What I Believe Tolstoy puts a lot of emphasis on the literal interpretation of the commandments of Jesus and how they are expected to be followed. The churches couch the language of commandments, especially the political ones (and even more so when these political conceptions challenge current political systems) in figurative terms, but they are inconsistent in doing so. And when doing this, the churches are able to say that when Christians consciously reject Jesus's teachings on non-violence to support violence, they are doing the same thing others do when they have a momentary moral lapse or failing,

They actually recognize the commandment against fornication, and so never, under any condition, admit that fornication is not an evil.

While Tolstoy essentially agrees the churches conception of sexual non-freedom (notice that his avocation of freedom has certain limits and excludes things like sexual liberation), and even going further, especially in abominations like The Kreutzer Sonata, Tolstoy sees the churches as not extending this literalism and strictness to commandments that have a more political nature (sure, sexual freedom and liberation is political, but not in the context of this book).

The fifth method, the most refined, most popular, and most powerful one, consists in begging the question, in making it appear as though the question had long ago been decided by some one in an

          absolutely clear and satisfactory manner, and as though it were not worth while to speak of it.

Ironically, this is something Tolstoy tends to be guilty of, but more importantly, this hearkens back to the previous chapter's emphasis on how the state and the churches keep Christian pacifism as a secret or refuse to deal with it in an honest manner. But of course Tolstoy believes that the answer is found in the texts themselves, which the churches prefer their followers not to read.

The only way out for them is the hope that, by using the authority of the church, of antiquity, of holiness, they may be able to confuse the reader and draw him away from the thought of reading the

          Gospel for himself and of considering the question with his own mind.

The applicability of this last bit to today is debatable, as churches and church-people today are more likely to just cherry-pick, as with the fornication example above, than to discourage people from actually reading the texts. The true problem of today in this respect is probably threefold: 1. Many people just choose not to read the texts but still have firm opinions on them 2. Those that do read the texts fixate on the truly horrible found in the texts with the support of church leaders (which I think Tolstoy admits there is inside the texts many things that are bad in themselves and unhelpful to today's society) 3. Those who do read the texts come at them with a bias that church leaders have given them and see what they want inside the texts, just as all kinds of people do when viewing any kind of text at all. Most importantly, as seen as the example below, the dominant interpretations of the religion reign, and society has no time or use for interpretations that run counter to the societal machine.

A young man steps out. He is poorly and dirtily dressed and looks frightened, and the muscles of his face tremble, and his fugitive eyes sparkle, and in a faltering voice, almost in a whisper, he

says : " I — according to the law I, a Christian — I can not— " "What is he muttering there?" impatiently asks the presiding officer, half-closing his eyes and listening, as he raises his head from
the book. " Speak louder ! " shouts to him the colonel with the shining shoulder-straps. "I — I — I — as a Christian — " It finally turns out that the young man refuses to do military service,
because he is a Christian. " Talk no nonsense ! Get your measure ! Doctor, be so kind as to take his measure. Is he fit for the army?" "He is." " Reverend father, have him sworn in." No one is
confused ; no one even pays any attention to what this frightened, pitiable young man is muttering. " They all mutter something, but we have no time : we have to receive so many recruits."

Individual people and their beliefs are discarded for the good of the main machine, making a good argument for the necessity of multiculturalism and the rejection of a national ethic or mandatory governmental service, which is not necessarily Tolstoy's argument since he bases so much of his argument on Christianity, but at the same time it isn't hard to get that argument from Tolstoy's arguments. On the other hand, the opposition to the arguments for non-violence can be and are combated from both sides of the political aisle.

The whole significance of Christ's preaching presented itself to the Russian critics as though maliciously interfering with a certain activity, which was directed against what they at a given

moment considered to be an evil, so that it turned out that the principle of not resisting evil with violence was attacked by two opposite camps, —by the conservatives, because this principle
interfered with their activity of resisting the evil which was produced by the revolutionists, and with their persecutions and executions; and by the revolutionists, because this principle interfered
with the resistance to the evil which was produced by the conservatives, and with the overthrow of the conservatives.

The applicability today can clearly be seen here, as the left in the United States is somewhat mired in a discussion about the ethical nature and efficacy of violence as a political tool, with some arguing that violence is necessary to protect the most vulnerable and cause social change. Can the conservatives be brought down by non-resistance or must violence be a necessary part of life to foster the change necessary to expand freedoms and quality of life?

Besides, the Russian critics pointed out that the application to life of the commandment about non-resistance to evil would turn humanity away from the path of civilization, on which it was

marching now; but the path of civilization, on which the European civilization is marching, is, in their opinion, the one on which all humanity must always march. Such was the chief character
of the Russian criticisms. The foreign critics proceeded from the same bases, but their reviews of my book differed from those of the Russian critics not only in a lesser degree of irritability
and a greater degree of culture, but also in the essence of the matter.

While grand narratives and providential forms of history are less prominent now than in Tolstoy's day (and yes, Tolstoy's fatalism in both War and Peace and this book recognizes a progression in history that is beyond not only our immediate control but humanity's control as a whole), technocrats, neo-conservatives, progressions, dispensationalists, and even some forms of environmentalists, leftists, and Marxist holdovers see history as progressing to something and civilization marching on some kind of path, whether positive or negative. Non-resistance and non-participation disrupts the flow of society. It rejects the idea that we are living in the end of history or that society can keep progressing the way it is progressing. It most importantly, disrupts the flow to states having more control and power and the progression of technological advances. Non-resistance brings simplicity when society appears to be inevitably becoming more complex. For pretty apparent psychological reasons, running towards this simplicity can be very comforting and help us understand the world. It is not hard to see why Tolstoy would want society to race back into the country (though population explosions would not allow it) and away from the state and technological controls into a more simple societal construction. And considering what happened in history the next fifty to sixty years, maybe Tolstoy wasn't wrong. But, the advancing culture has no time for this message.

the foreign critics asserted...the doctrine of the Sermon on the Mount is only a series of very charming, impracticable reveries " du charmant docteur," as Renan used to say, which were

good enough for the naive and half-wild inhabitants of Galilee, who lived eighteen hundred years ago, and for the Russian peasants, Syutaev and Bondarev, and the Russian mystic,
Tolstoy, but can in no way be applied to the high degree of European culture.

Culture has the tendency to mistake is for ought, understanding that the way things are, or what they traditionally have been (and Tolstoy's rejection of traditional power structures are what separates him, despite his primitivism, from conservatism), are what they should be.

The teaching is no good for our industrial age, as though the existence of the industrial age is something sacred which must not and cannot be changed. It is something like what

drunkards would do, if, in response to advice about how to get themselves into a sober state, they should reply that the advice is out of place in connection with their present alcoholic
state.

The Industrial Revolution brought with it intense suffering, just as technological advances in our time have come with intense social dynamic disruption and intense suffering in developing countries. To accept this and participate in it is of course a moral choice and cannot be simply dismissed as "that's the way things are". We have to decide if the way things are are indeed worth it and decide if we should accept them and participate in them, or reject them and try to change them.

Christ's teaching is useless, because, if it were put into practice, our life could not continue; in other words, — if we began to live well, as Christ has taught us, we could not continue

to live badly, as we live and are accustomed to live. The question of non-resistance to evil is not discussed, and the very mention of the fact that the demand for non-resistance to evil
enters into Christ's teaching is considered a sufficient proof of the inapplicability of the whole teaching.

And I think this is the heart of Tolstoy's teaching on Jesus. It is not a "spiritual" thing. It is not something that has to do with inner peace or happiness (happiness, a key thread throughout Tolstoy's work, especially his fiction, pops up in Chapter 4 and will be discussed there). Non-resistant Christianity requires an entire uprooting of the follower's life. Of course, this does not prove or disprove it, just as, by itself, the current order of things are not necessarily good or bad.

It may be found that Christ's answer is not correct: it may be possible to put in its place another, better answer, by finding a criterion which would indubitably and simultaneously for

all define the evil; we may simply not recognize the essence of the question, as it is not recognized by the savage nations, — but it is impossible, as the learned critics of the Christian
teaching do, to make it appear that such a question does not at all exist, or that the relegation of the right to determine the evil and resist it with violence to certain persons or assemblies
of men (much less, if we are these men), solves the question; whereas we all know that such a relegation does not at all solve the question, since there are some people who do not
recognize this right as belonging to certain people or to assemblies of men.

The problem of violence is epistemological, just as it is political, since we do not know who should be allowed to be violent and in what situations they should be allowed to be violent. This cannot be decided, according to Tolstoy, through traditional political means because of the problem of political recognition and the fact that there are always going to be groups that do not recognize the authority of the majority or those who claim to represent the majority. Unless this can be solved, there can be no justified state violence (or indeed any state action).