are living in an epoch of transition from the old to the new, and
contemporaneous humanity has an uneasy moral conscience in this critical
time. The ruling classes are losing their clearness of vision, so that
they promise monuments to those political murderers who promoted their
own historical victories, but would condemn like any common criminal him
who now devotes his soul to a revolutionary ideal, would throw into
prison the pioneer of new human ideals, just as Russia is
excommunicating the rebel Tolstoi. I mention Leo Tolstoi advisedly for
the purpose of giving a precise illustration of my heterodox thought in
reference to this question. We are opposed to any form of personal
violence (with the sole exception of self-defense), we cannot approve of
any form of personal assault, no matter what may be its motive.
Therefore we cannot have words of praise or excuse for political murder,
though it may be inspired by altruistic motives. We can demand that the
legislator should distinguish between the psychological sources of these
two forms of murder, the egoistic and the altruistic form. But we
condemn them both, because they are inhuman forms of violence. Ideas do
not make victorious headway by force of arms. Ideas must be combatted by
ideas, and it is only by the propaganda of the idea that we can prepare
humanity for its future. Violence is always a means of preventing the
sincere and fruitful diffusion of an idea. We do not say this merely for
the abnormals of the lower classes. We refer with scientific serenity
also to the upper classes, who would suppress by violence every
manifestation of revolt against the social iniquities, every affirmation
of faith in a better future.

This is the conception of our science, which thus succeeds in
distinguishing traits of character even among the unlucky and forlorn
people of the criminal world, while the classic school of criminology
regards a criminal as a sort of abstract and normal man, with the