The Russians at Home and Abroad [pp. 209-215]

7'he Russians at Home and Abroad.
ists feel, and by word and deed have expressed toward their oppressors, let them read
"Stepniak's" chapters on the "Troubetzkoi
Ravelin" and' After Judgment," and their
wonder will cease. The recital bears internal marks of truth, and is calculated to rouse
all one's pity and indignation- pity for the
victims of an awful tyranny, indignation at
its methods and its crimes.
It may be objected to "Stepniak's" work,
that it gives little explanation of or reason
for the more striking facts of Nihilism, its
devoted followers, its self-sacrifice, its almost
superhuman repression of individuality in
work for the common cause; but these concern more especially the psychological side
of the subject, with which, we imagine,
"Stepniak" would say he has little to do.
The student of race traits may concern himself with these, may speculate as to this wonderful display, in an age unused to the sight
of the heroic virtues, of traits which find
their parallel among the early Christian martyrs alone. Not the ablest or clearest-minded students of Nihilism have as yet made
the reason of these clear; "Stepniak" seems
to accept all this magnificent self-sacrifice as
not to be wondered at-as to be expected,
indeed, of a race which asserts that it has
nothing to learn from the West, and to have
deliberately confined himself to the political
and social, rather than to the psychological,
aspects of the question.
He is not hopefui; that spirit of pessimism,
one of the most marked traits of the Russian
character, appears in his forecast of the
nearer future. It is to the intelligent public
opinion of the world, indeed, that "Stepniak" looks for the first modification of Russian tyranny. After stating the case as follows:
"Strange spectacle! Here are a State and a Government calling themselves national and patriotic,
which systematically, from year to year, do things that
the most barbarous conqueror could do only in some
sudden access of wild rage and stupid fanaticism. For,
without a shadow of exaggeration, the exploits of our
rulers can be compared with those of the celebrated
Caliph of Egypt alone. Surely, in no other country
was such a government ever seen. If all we have
exposed were not proved, and doubly proved, by
heaps of official documents, we might be tempted to
disbelieve it. But it is all, unhappily, only too true;
and what is still worse, will always be true as long as
the autocrat lives in Russia."
He proceeds:
"This anomalous condition of so great a country
as Russia cannot last. In one way or another the
catastrophe must comne-that is what everybody says
at present. Some accurate observers find many points
of likeness between modern Russia and France before
the Revolution. There is a great deal of analogy
indeed.... The material condition and moral
dispositions of the masses are not unlike, either.
There is, however, a point of great difference, on
which we must dwell a moment, because it contributes greatly to quicken and intensify the decomposition of the Russian State, and to the approaching of
the ultimate crisis. It is the political position of
Russia.
"The despotic France of the eighteenth century
had around her States as despotic as herself. Russia
has for neighbors constitutional states. Their constitutions are very far from being the ideal of freedom.
But in any case they prevent their Governments from
being in open war with the whole country.... All
the Governments do their best to promote general
progress, which turns to their advantage. In Russia
this progress is either stopped or is extremely slow,
from the check it encounters on every hand from the
Government.
"Now, being indissolubly united with the other
European States by political ties-being obliged to
sustain an economical, military, and political competition,... Russia is evidently obliged to ruin herself more and more.... The longer this competition lasts, the more it becomes disastrous and difficult
to sustain for the Russian state. The political crisis is,
therefore, much nearer, more forcible and immediate
than the social one. And the actual position of Russia in this point presents us a great analogy with the
position of Russia herself, in the period which preceded the reform of Peter the Great. Theautocracy
plays now the same part as regards culture, as the
Moscovite clericalism played in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. After being the instrument of
the creation of Russian political power, it is now the
cause of its gradual destruction. If the autocracy do
not fall under the combined effects of interior causes,
the first serious war will overthrow it.... The destruction of the autocracy has become a political as
well as social and intellectual necessity. It is required
for the safety of the State, as well as for the welfare
of the Nation." [pp. 362-3.]
The reader of "The Russian Revolt,"
and "Russia under the Tzars," will see
that the American publicist, studying from
the outside, and the Russian agitator, working from the inside, arrive at much the same
212
[Aug.