“A soldier, there is no doubt of it, is a good support; he represents a solid defense; the only trouble about him is that the soldier himself begins to get weary of his ungrateful part. It is likely that for many years to come yet the soldier will shoot with a light heart at such as are called his ‘enemies;’ but the time is not far distant when he will refuse to shoot at his own people.
“Who is a good soldier? Only one to whom you can point out his father, his mother or his brother in the crowd, saying, ‘Those are enemies of society, kill them’—and who will obey.
“I may remark here, in passing, that it occurred to me to refer to this idea in a conversation I had with the well-known French writer and thinker, Alexandre Dumas, fils, and with what success? Conceding the justice of the apprehension, he had no other comforting suggestion to offer than to say: ‘Oh, yes, the soldier will shoot yet!’
“The other defender of society, the priest, has been less ill-used than the soldier, and consequently he is not so tired of his task; but, on the other hand, people begin to tire of him, less heed is paid to his words, and there arises a doubt as to the truth of all that he preaches.
“There was a time when it was possible to tell the people that there is but one sun in the heavens as there is but one God-appointed king in the country. As stars of the first, second, third and fourth magnitude are grouping themselves around the sun, so the powerful, the rich, the poor and the miserable surround the king on earth. And, as all that appeared plausible, people used to believe that such arrangements are as they ought to be. All was accepted, all went on smoothly; none of such things can be advanced nowadays, however; no one will be ready to believe in them....
“Clearly, things assume a serious aspect. Suppose the day comes when the priests will entirely lose their hold on the people, when the soldiers will turn their guns muzzles down—where will society look for bulwarks then? Is it possible that it has no more reliable defense?
“Certainly, it has such a defense, and it is nothing else but talents, and their representatives in science, literature and art in all its ramifications.
“Art must and will defend society. Its influence is less apparent and palpable, but it is very great; it might even be said that its influence over the minds, the hearts and the actions of people is enormous, unsurpassed, unrivaled. Art must and will defend society with all the more care and earnestness, because its devotees know that the ‘regulators’ are not disposed to give them the honorable, respectable position they occupy now—since, according to them, a good pair of boots is more useful than a good picture, a novel or a statue. Those people declare that talent is luxury; that talent is aristocratic, and that, consequently, talent has to be brought down from its pedestal to the common level—a principle to which we shall never submit.
“Let us not deceive ourselves. There will arise new talents, which will gradually adapt themselves to new conditions, if such will prevail, and their works may perhaps gain from it, but we shall not agree to the principle of general demolition and reconstruction, when such have no other foundation but the well-known thesis: ‘Let us destroy everything and clear the ground; as to the reconstruction—about that we shall see later on.’ We shall defend and advocate the improvement of the existing things by means of peaceful and gradual measures.”