Secondary scholarship — «Рабство нашего времени» / The Slavery of Our Times (1900)

Phase-3 scholarship layer. Triangulates against the primary-corpus dive findings. Cross-link: christian-communism-socialism dive covers §VI and places the work in the anti-socialist arc.

Summary (received view)

The dominant scholarly treatment of The Slavery of Our Times is thin by comparison with the attention paid to Tolstoy’s literary works and even to What Then Must We Do? (1886). Major anglophone biographers — Maude, Simmons, Wilson, Bartlett — acknowledge the work as the sequel to Tolstoy’s earlier political economy but rarely dwell on its specific argument. The scholarly consensus, where one exists, treats it as a specimen of Tolstoy’s late-period pamphlet production: diagnosis accurate, remedy (individual non-participation) dismissed as morally earnest but politically inoperative. Henry George scholarship is the main exception: the work sits at a documented inflection-point in Tolstoy’s Georgist engagement, briefly stepping away from the single-tax endorsement before returning to it. The Marx reading is confirmed by a 1935 Soviet-era note but has not been substantively followed up in anglophone scholarship. The work’s reception at publication was politically blocked in Russia; Western reception has not been systematically studied.

Triangulation

Finding 1 — Wage labour as new slavery continuous with serfdom/chattel slavery; the serfdom→land→taxes→means-of-production sequence.

Conventional view: Maude, introducing his 1900 translation for the Free Age Press, frames the argument in terms of Tolstoy’s non-resistance principle: organized violence underlies labour coercion; the remedy is conscientious withdrawal from state violence. He positions Tolstoy in a lineage with John Woolman and Thoreau. Simmons (1946, ch. 13) notes that Tolstoy “dealt with the economic problem” in What Then Must We Do? and treats Slavery as “a trenchant sequel,” but does not analyse the chain-of-causation argument on its own terms. Bartlett (Tolstoy: A Russian Life, 2010) characterises Tolstoy’s late political economy as “anarchic” and “ultimately utopian” — see §Labels below. Wilson (Tolstoy, 1988) is described as offering “lengthy didactic commentary on the errors he perceives in Tolstoy’s utopian Christianity or critique of private property.”

Relation: extends. The PSS history extract (v34_563_567_history.txt) documents the genesis precisely: the work began 26–27 December 1899 after Tolstoy visited the Kazan railway freight station and saw labourers working thirty-six-hour shifts. The diary entry of 13 March 1900 (v54_010_015) states the thesis in Tolstoy’s own words: “the forthcoming liberation will be the same as liberation from serfdom, i.e., one chain is released only when another holds firm.” Scholarship registers the parallel with serfdom as a rhetorical device; the structural argument — that each transition (serfdom→emancipation, emancipation→tax-and-land, tax→means-of-production) is a managed substitution — has not been analysed at the resolution the corpus provides.

Source: Maude intro (Free Age Press, 1900; repr. marxists.org); Simmons, Leo Tolstoy (1946), ch. 13 via ourcivilisation.com; Bartlett quote via Literary Review; Wilson description via Amazon/Goodreads editorial copy. [PARTIALLY UNVERIFIED: Simmons ch. 13 confirmed to not mention Slavery by name in the online extract accessed; the Maude attribution of “trenchant sequel” language may be paraphrase rather than direct quotation from Simmons — flag for verification against the print text.]

Finding 2 — Three causes of slavery; Henry George’s single tax rejected as a new form of compulsion.

Conventional view: Wenzer (Tolstoy’s Georgist Spiritual Political Economy, Pennsylvania History 1997) is the closest specialist study. He documents that The Slavery of Our Times is the one work in which Tolstoy “comes out against George’s economics,” departing from Resurrection (1899) and from subsequent Georgist writings. Wenzer records a Tolstoy remark via Pavel Axelrod: “Henry George is a concession, a weakness.” He explains the anomaly as Tolstoy’s absolutist anarchism temporarily blocking accommodation with any state-administered economic mechanism. Wenzer’s conclusion: “all his works subsequent to The Slavery of Our Times return to his endorsement of George.” The Tandfonline article (Volkov, Russian Studies in Philosophy, 2021) covers the same arc, confirming George first influenced Tolstoy through Progress and Poverty (engagement from c.1885, letter to George 1889), and that the single-tax became central to Resurrection.

Relation: complicates. The dive’s primary corpus finds that Tolstoy’s rejection of George’s single tax in §IX–X of the work is grounded in a specific argument: obligatory rent to the state still constitutes a legal compulsion backed by organized violence; the form of compulsion changes, the structure does not. Scholarship (Wenzer) records the fact of rejection and the return to Georgism but does not follow the internal argument. The PSS commentary (v34_563_567_history) notes the Breitburg article and the Capital annotation but does not connect it to the George critique. The dive-level resolution — that the rejection of George is structurally continuous with the rejection of socialism, both grounded in the anti-compulsion argument — is not present in scholarship.

Source: Wenzer, Kenneth C. “Tolstoy’s Georgist Spiritual Political Economy (1897–1910): Anarchism and Land Reform.” Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies 64 (1997), available at ditext.com/wenzer/tolstoy.html. Volkov article: Russian Studies in Philosophy 59:5 (2021), doi:10.1080/10611967.2021.2010424 [UNVERIFIED beyond abstract — paywalled].

Finding 3 — Chain of causation: misery → slavery → laws → organized violence → government; remedy = individual non-participation.

Conventional view: Christoyannopoulos (Tolstoy’s Political Thought: Christian Anarcho-Pacifist Iconoclasm Then and Now, Routledge, 2012) has a subsection titled “Economic enslavement” within his anarchism chapter, which is the most systematic anglophone treatment of Tolstoy’s argument that government-backed laws create the condition for wage servitude. He does not, per the table of contents, dedicate a chapter to this work alone. Maude’s introduction is the primary anglophone framing: the work demonstrates how non-resistance connects to economic life; the argument about the chain of organized violence is presented as the work’s central contribution.

Relation: confirms (partially). Maude captures the violence-chain argument. Christoyannopoulos’s “Economic enslavement” subsection likely covers it — not verifiable from available access. No scholarship contradicts it. [UNVERIFIED: Christoyannopoulos subsection content not accessible for direct verification.]

Source: Christoyannopoulos, Alexandre. Tolstoy’s Political Thought: Christian Anarcho-Pacifist Iconoclasm Then and Now. Routledge/BASEES, 2012 (ISBN 978-0-415-60402-4). Maude intro, Free Age Press 1900.

Finding 4 — Tolstoy read and annotated Marx’s Capital; quotes Capital I ch. XXIV; rejects the Marxist solution.

Conventional view: The authoritative record is Soviet-era: С. М. Брейтбург (S. M. Breitburg), “Лев Толстой за чтением «Капитала» Маркса,” Звенья V (1935), pp. 732–741. This is documented in the PSS editorial note to v34, p. 157–158 (confirmed in the extract v34_563_567_history.txt): the Yasnaya Polyana library holds Vol. I and the second book of Vol. II of Capital in the Askarhanov/Lyubimov Russian translation (1898), with Tolstoy’s marks and dog-eared pages, and Vol. I in German (O. Meisner, Hamburg, 1883). The PSS note cites Breitburg directly. The dokumen.pub scan of Russia’s Capitalist Realism: Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and Chekhov references Eikhenbaum’s portrayal of Tolstoy as aligned with early utopian socialists (Owen, Saint-Simon) rather than Marx, with Eikhenbaum noting Tolstoy’s emphasis on individual welfare over class struggle — a characterisation that would absorb rather than contest Tolstoy’s own anti-Marxist argument.

No anglophone monograph has given sustained analysis of the Tolstoy–Marx encounter grounded in the Breitburg marginalia evidence. The Capital quotation in Slavery (on the “bloody vagrancy laws” forcing peasants to labour-discipline) is widely reproduced in online editions of the text but not analysed in scholarship recovered here.

Relation: extends. The dive grounding confirms the quotation (v34_144_199) and its function: Tolstoy uses Marx’s own historical evidence from Capital I ch. XXIV to demonstrate that capitalist wage-labour was built on state terror — then turns that argument against Marx’s solution. This is a precise rhetorical move (using Marx against Marxism) that no accessible scholarship has analysed at this resolution.

Source: Брейтбург С. М. «Лев Толстой за чтением «Капитала» Маркса» // Звенья. 1935. Т. V. С. 732–741. [PRIMARY RECORD — not independently verifiable via web; documented in PSS T. 34 editorial note, p. 157–158, which is confirmed in the local extract.] Eikhenbaum framing: via dokumen.pub reference, not directly verified from print.

Finding 5 — Epigraphs from Robert Owen (via Morrison Davidson, Annals of Toil, 1899) and Ruskin (Stones of Venice, division-of-labour passage).

Conventional view: The PSS editorial apparatus (v34_563_567_history.txt) is fully explicit: “The epigraph from R. Owen was taken by Tolstoy, as he wrote to Maude on 25 August 1900 (T. 72, p. 445), from the book: Morrison Davidson, The Annals of Toil, London 1899, p. 451. The translation belongs to Tolstoy.” The Ruskin epigraph is from Stones of Venice, vol. II, ch. IV; whether the translation was made by Tolstoy or by another person at his instruction is unknown, the autograph not having survived. No anglophone secondary scholarship has commented on these epigraph sources specifically.

Relation: confirms (from PSS primary record, not from scholarship). Davidson is confirmed as the conduit for Owen; the epigraphs were added after the main text was sent to Chertkov — “around 9 August 1900” per the history extract.

Source: А. И. Опульский, history note, PSS T. 34, pp. 563–567 (confirmed in local extract v34_563_567_history.txt). Davidson, John Morrison. The Annals of Toil: Being Labour-History Outlines, Roman and British. London, 1899. [Copy at Amazon/Trove; content of p. 451 not verified here.]

Finding 6 — First publication by Chertkov’s Free Word press; banned in Russia; Severny Kurier blocked; full Russian publication 1917.

Conventional view: The PSS history extract (v34_563_567_history.txt) is the authoritative record: first published by «Свободное слово» (Free Word / Svobodnoe Slovo), England, 1900. The publisher V. V. Baryatinsky (of Severny Kurier) received a warning from the Minister of the Interior on 13 April 1900 that the newspaper would be closed if it printed the article (at the time still titled “New Slavery”). Extracts appeared in Russkie vedomosti (no. 245, 1900); first part in the supplement to the journal Nedelya (1906); included in Sofia Tolstaya’s 1911 twelfth-edition collected works, then seized by the Moscow Judicial Chamber order of 19 April 1911. Full Russian publication 1917 (two editions: Edinenya and Posrednika). Berlin Russian-language reprints 1901 (Caspari and Hugo Steinitz). This sequence is confirmed by the PSS record.

The English translation by Aylmer Maude was published by The Free Age Press, Maldon, Essex, 1900 (confirmed by multiple bibliographic sources including Semantic Scholar, LibriVox, PBFA). Title as printed: The Slavery of Our Times (plural; the singular variant “The Slavery of Our Time” appears on at least one pdf scan — nonresistance.org — suggesting a variant edition or transcription error, but the dominant published title is Times). Maude also published an essay on the work in Tolstoy and His Problems (Grant Richards, 1902), treating it as the “trenchant sequel” to What Then Must We Do?

The 1901 excommunication decree did NOT cite this work. The grounds were theological: rejection of Orthodox sacraments and doctrine, specifically intensified by Resurrection’s portrayal of church ritual. The decree used general language about disseminating “teachings repugnant to Christ and the Church” without enumerating specific texts; the available Wikisource text of the decree contains a marked lacuna (“[missing list of offences]”). Contemporary Russian society — per Pavel Basinsky, cited in multiple sources — laughed at the Synod’s decree and publicly sympathized with Tolstoy; the intelligentsia published satiric essays against the Synod.

Relation: confirms (publication sequence and excommunication scope both confirmed; excommunication as NOT related to this work specifically is confirmed).

Source: PSS T. 34 history extract (v34_563_567_history.txt); Semantic Scholar / Free Age Press bibliographic record; Wikisource Decree of Excommunication (incomplete text, accessed June 2026).

Gap-fill facts

Henry George / Georgism

Tolstoy’s engagement with George began c. 1885 (reading Progress and Poverty) and intensified after George’s death in 1897, when Tolstoy became — per Wenzer — “the world’s most noteworthy exponent of George’s ideology.” He endorsed the single tax in Resurrection (1899), explicitly embedding it in Nekhlyudov’s land-reform project (diary 1895: “Nekhlyudov must be a follower of Henry George”). The Slavery of Our Times is the documented exception: Tolstoy rejects George’s system, privately calling it “a concession, a weakness” (via Axelrod, per Wenzer). All subsequent Georgist writings — Where Is the Way Out (1900), The Only Means (1901), The Great Sin / «Великий грех» (1905), preface to Russian edition of Social Problems (1905–06) — return to endorsement. The Great Sin (1905) is the pamphlet usually cited as Tolstoy’s fullest Georgist statement; The Slavery of Our Times sits as an anomalous trough between Resurrection’s Georgist peak and the 1905 advocacy. Scholarship (Wenzer; the Tandfonline 2021 article) notes the anomaly without resolving the internal argument.

Wenzer article: Pennsylvania History 64 (1997); also at ditext.com/wenzer/tolstoy.html and cooperative-individualism.org/wenzer-kenneth_tolstoy’s-georgist-spiritual-political-economy-1997-oct.pdf.

Tolstoy reading Marx’s Capital

Confirmed by two independent records: (a) the PSS editorial note to T. 34, pp. 157–158, documenting the Yasnaya Polyana library copies and citing the Breitburg article; (b) the corpus text itself, which contains a verbatim quotation from Capital I ch. XXIV (p. 741 of the 1949 Gospolitizdat edition). The annotated Russian copy is Vol. I and the second book of Vol. II, Askarhanov/Lyubimov translation, 1898 edition; a German copy (O. Meisner, Hamburg, 1883) is also held. Breitburg’s 1935 article in Звенья V is the primary scholarly record of the marginalia; it has not been followed up in accessible anglophone scholarship. Lenin’s 1908 essay “Leo Tolstoy as the Mirror of the Russian Revolution” (marxists.org) treats Tolstoy’s relationship to socialist thought but engages the political position, not the Capital reading specifically. The Kenyon undergraduate paper (Karl Marx and Leo Tolstoy: Prophets of Anarchism, documents.kenyon.edu, 2009) was recovered but PDF was unreadable in the fetch.

Key fact: Tolstoy read Capital before writing Slavery (the Russian translation he held was 1898; the work was written 1900). He uses Marx’s evidence to ground his own argument, then turns it against Marx’s conclusion — a structural use of an opponent’s source that is not noted in any recovered secondary source.

Translation lineage

• Russian first publication: «Свободное слово» (Svobodnoe Slovo / Free Word), Christchurch, Hampshire / England, 1900. This is Chertkov’s press; both “Maldon, Essex” and “Christchurch, Hants” appear as addresses in different bibliographic records — consistent with the press’s moves in this period.
• English translation: Aylmer Maude, The Slavery of Our Times. Free Age Press, Maldon, Essex, 1900. Translated from the Russian manuscript (i.e., before or concurrent with the Russian print publication). 127 pp., frontispiece portrait, green cloth.
• Title variant: The canonical English title is The Slavery of Our Times (plural). A singular variant, The Slavery of Our Time, appears on at least one digitized pdf (tolstoyarchive.org; nonresistance.org). This is likely a transcription variant in later digital reproductions rather than an alternative 1900 edition, but the question is not fully resolved here.
• Maude’s essay: “Tolstoy’s Teaching” in Tolstoy and His Problems (Grant Richards, 1902) includes an introduction to The Slavery of Our Times. This is the primary anglophone critical framing of the work from Tolstoy’s lifetime.
• Berlin reprints 1901: Two Russian-language editions — Caspari and Hugo Steinitz — per PSS history.
• First full Russian publication: 1917 (two editions: Edinenya and Posrednika). The 1911 Sofia Tolstaya edition was legally seized.

Reception

Russian: The intended serialisation in Severny Kurier was blocked in April 1900 by a warning from the Minister of the Interior to publisher Baryatinsky. Extracts in Russkie vedomosti (no. 245, 1900) were the only substantial Russian appearance until 1906. The 1911 seizure of the collected-works volume is the most concrete legal reception datum. No dedicated Russian critical reception study of this work has been recovered here.

Western: Maude’s 1900 translation and 1902 essay are the primary reception documents. No contemporary Western newspaper reviews from 1900–1901 were recovered in the search. The work was circulated among anarchist and labour-movement readers (attested by its presence on The Anarchist Library and Marxists.org). Its broader Western reception as a pamphlet rather than a literary work means it received little literary-press attention.

The 1901 excommunication: Did not cite this work. The Synod’s grounds were theological-doctrinal (rejection of sacraments, portrayal of church ritual in Resurrection, denial of Orthodox dogma). Contemporary Russian public reaction was overwhelmingly hostile to the Synod’s decree and sympathetic to Tolstoy; the intelligentsia satirized the Synod.

Allen Clarke and George Haw

• Allen Clarke (1863–1935): Lancashire journalist and socialist. The Effects of the Factory System first published in serial form 1895–98, in book form 1899; with introduction by Greville Macdonald. Documents industrial conditions in Lancashire, including death rates and the moral and physical effects of factory labour. This is the book Tolstoy requested from Maude on 27 January 1900 (confirmed in v72_235 extract: “The effects of the factory system, Allen Clarke, London”).
• George Haw (dates uncertain): educated middle-class reformer, resident at the Maurice Hostel settlement house. No Room to Live: The Plaint of Overcrowded London (1899/1900 — sources differ slightly on date). Documents housing conditions and overcrowding among London’s poor. Maude sent this to Tolstoy in addition to the Clarke book he had requested (PSS history: “Maude sent also George Haw, No Room to Live, London 1900”).
• Neither Clarke nor Haw is cited in the text of The Slavery of Our Times itself; they appear only in the correspondence record as research material Tolstoy drew on while writing.

Étienne de La Boétie — Discourse on Voluntary Servitude

Tolstoy first encountered La Boétie through Montaigne’s Essays in January–February 1884 (letters to his wife, 31 Jan / 2, 3, 5 Feb 1884, T. 83; confirmed in PSS T. 42 commentary, v42_613_613). He praised it to Makovicky on 26 January 1905 as “a remarkable article.”

When composing the Circle of Reading (Krug chteniya, 1904–05), Tolstoy decided to include two excerpts from La Boétie’s Discourse. Since no Russian translation then existed, he translated the excerpts himself. The translation autograph has not survived; the copy by Kh. N. Abrikosov was incorporated into the Krug chteniya manuscript (PSS T. 41, confirmed in v41_426_434 and v42_613_613).

The thematic link to The Slavery of Our Times is clear: La Boétie’s argument that servitude is self-perpetuating through habituation — “the first cause of voluntary servitude is habit” — resonates with Tolstoy’s argument about manufactured needs (potrebnosti) as the firmest of the three slavery mechanisms. However, the PSS evidence dates Tolstoy’s active engagement with La Boétie for inclusion purposes to 1905, five years after Slavery was written. There is no evidence in the 1900 manuscript record or correspondence that La Boétie was a source or influence on the 1900 work. The connection is thematic and retrospective, not causal.

The 1952 Russian full translation (Kogan-Bernstein, Acad. of Sciences USSR) includes an essay “Л. Н. Толстой и Ла Боэси” (pp. 94–110) — the primary scholarly treatment of this connection in Russian. Not held locally; not accessed here.

Labels to attribute

The following characterisations of Tolstoy’s economic thought appear in scholarship. They are recorded here as the mainstream’s framing, attributed to named sources, not as editorial judgments.

• “utopian”: Bartlett, Rosamund. Tolstoy: A Russian Life. Profile Books, 2010. Per Literary Review (Rayfield review): “his anarchic form of Christianity was of its day and ultimately utopian.”
• “utopian Christianity or critique of private property” (lengthy commentary on errors therein): Wilson, A. N. Tolstoy. Hamish Hamilton / W. W. Norton, 1988. Per Amazon/Goodreads description: Wilson includes “lengthy didactic commentary on the errors he perceives in Tolstoy’s utopian Christianity or critique of private property.”
• “a crank”: Simmons, E. J. Leo Tolstoy. Atlantic / Little Brown, 1946. Per ourcivilisation.com summary of ch. 13: describes the Western tendency after Tolstoy’s death to divide his life into the literary half and the period “when he was ‘a crank’.” Simmons himself does not consistently endorse this characterisation but reports it as the dominant Western reception framing.
• “his way of love and moral perfection is impractical … a kind of incantation”: Simmons ch. 13 (paraphrase confirmed via ourcivilisation.com; direct quote: “his way of love and moral perfection, we say, is impractical” / “a kind of incantation for a cure”).
• Note: None of these sources uses these labels specifically about The Slavery of Our Times; they apply to Tolstoy’s economic and social thought generally. The work is not distinguished from his broader pamphlet production in the mainstream biographical tradition.

Sources

Verified and used

1. Maude, Aylmer (trans., intro.). The Slavery of Our Times. Free Age Press, Maldon, Essex, 1900. Online text: https://www.marxists.org/archive/tolstoy/1900/slavery-of-our-times.html

2. Maude, Aylmer. “Tolstoy’s Teaching” (introduction to The Slavery of Our Times) in Tolstoy and His Problems. Grant Richards, 1902. Archive.org: https://archive.org/details/tolstoyandhispr01maudgoog and https://archive.org/details/cu31924027487317

3. Wenzer, Kenneth C. “Tolstoy’s Georgist Spiritual Political Economy (1897–1910): Anarchism and Land Reform.” Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies 64 (1997). https://ditext.com/wenzer/tolstoy.html and https://www.cooperative-individualism.org/wenzer-kenneth_tolstoy’s-georgist-spiritual-political-economy-1997-oct.pdf

4. Опульский А. И. «Рабство нашего времени». История писания и печатания и описание рукописей. // ПСС Т. 34. М.: Худ. лит., 1952. С. 563–567. (Local extract: v34_563_567_history.txt.)

5. Брейтбург С. М. «Лев Толстой за чтением «Капитала» Маркса» // Звенья. 1935. Т. V. С. 732–741. [Cited in PSS T. 34 editorial note; not independently web-verifiable.]

6. Эйхенбаум Б. М. Commentary on “Добровольное рабство. Ла Боэти.” PSS T. 42. М., 1957. С. 613. (Local extract: v42_613_613_Dobrovolnoe_rabstvo_La_Boeti.txt.)

7. Christoyannopoulos, Alexandre. Tolstoy’s Political Thought: Christian Anarcho-Pacifist Iconoclasm Then and Now. Routledge/BASEES, 2012. ISBN 978-0-415-60402-4. Description at: https://sites.google.com/site/christoyannopoulos/publications/tolstoys-political-thought-christian-anarcho-pacifist-iconoclasm — [PARTIALLY UNVERIFIED: subsection “Economic enslavement” noted in TOC; content not accessible.]

8. Simmons, Ernest J. Leo Tolstoy. Atlantic/Little Brown, 1946. Ch. 13 online at: https://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/smmnsej/tolstoy/chap13.htm

9. Bartlett, Rosamund. Tolstoy: A Russian Life. Profile Books, 2010. Review by Rayfield at: https://literaryreview.co.uk/farmer-novelist-guru-ascetic — [UNVERIFIED: book not held locally; “utopian” characterisation sourced from review, not page-checked against text.]

10. Wilson, A. N. Tolstoy. W. W. Norton, 1988. Description at: https://www.amazon.com/Tolstoy-Biography-N-Wilson/dp/0393321223 — [UNVERIFIED: characterisation sourced from publisher/editorial description, not page-checked.]

11. Volkov, Aleksei (or similar). “Henry George’s Reforms as Economic Impetus for Lev Tolstoy’s Moral Doctrine.” Russian Studies in Philosophy 59:5 (2021). doi: 10.1080/10611967.2021.2010424 — [UNVERIFIED: abstract only; paywalled.]

12. Wenzer, Kenneth C. “The Influence of Henry George’s Philosophy on Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy: The Period of Developing Economic Thought (1881–1897).” Pennsylvania History (earlier companion article). https://journals.psu.edu/phj/article/view/25299

13. Lenin, V. I. “Leo Tolstoy as the Mirror of the Russian Revolution.” 1908. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/sep/11.htm [For the Soviet-era framing of Tolstoy’s social thought as “reactionary ideology of the patriarchal peasantry.”]

14. Decree of Excommunication of Leo Tolstoy. Holy Synod, 24 February 1901. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Decree_of_Excommunication_of_Leo_Tolstoy [Incomplete text on Wikisource; lacuna in the “list of offences.”]

15. Clarke, Allen. The Effects of the Factory System. London, 1899. Google Books description: https://books.google.com/books/about/The_effects_of_the_factory_system.html?id=t31XAAAAYAAJ

16. Haw, George. No Room to Live: The Plaint of Overcrowded London. London, 1899/1900. Chapter excerpt in: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003112839-25/room-live-plaint-overcrowded-london-1899-excerpts-haw

17. Коган-Бернштейн Ф. А. «Л. Н. Толстой и Ла Боэси» // Ла Боэси, Этьен де. Рассуждение о добровольном рабстве. Пер. и коммент. Ф. А. Коган-Бернштейн. М.: Изд-во АН СССР, 1952. С. 94–110. [Not held; not accessed. PSS T. 42 cites it as the primary scholarly treatment of the Tolstoy–La Boétie connection.]

18. Davidson, John Morrison. The Annals of Toil: Being Labour-History Outlines, Roman and British. London, 1899. Amazon/Trove records: https://www.amazon.com/annals-toil-labour-history-outlines-British/dp/B00APR2OPC

19. HathiTrust catalog record for The slavery of our times (multiple editions). https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/006094020 [Access blocked 403.]

20. PBFA listing. “THE SLAVERY OF OUR TIMES by Translated from the Russian MS by Aylmer Maude.” https://www.pbfa.org/books/the-slavery-of-our-times-by-translated-from-the-russian-ms-by-aylmer-maude [Confirms Free Age Press, 1900 edition details.]