* ••••••• • 
 
 »•• •• ••• 
 
 • • • 
 
 « t t 
 
 • • * *. t 
 
 • • • • • r 
 
 • '. ' .' 
 
 Siberian Exiles. 
 
 Frontispiece 
 
PIONEERS OF THE 
 RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 BY 
 
 DR. ANGELO S. RAPPOPORT 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
 BRENTANO'S 
 
 1919 
 
COPY Af>nED 
 OhiGiriAL TO BE 
 RtTAiNED 
 
 PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN 
 T 
 
 
 • * 
 
PREFACE 
 
 Par Celestin Demblon, 
 
 DeputS de Liege, Professeur aux Universitis de 
 
 Bruxelles et Rennes 
 
 It is the hour for souls ! 
 Elizabeth Browniistg (" Aurora Leigh"). 
 
 QuAND mon ami le Dr. Angelo S. Rappoport 
 voulait bien me demander une preface pour The 
 Pioneers of the Russian Revolution, j'en fus non 
 moins surpris qu'heureux. Surpris de devoir 
 apporter de I'eau a la riviere : qu'ajouterait ma 
 prose a la nouvelle oeuvre et a la renommee d'un 
 ecrivain depuis longtemps deja eonnu par des 
 livres nombreux. 
 
 Mais je fus heureux, en lisant son manuscrit, de 
 pouvoir communier une fois de plus dans ce monde 
 enchante de I'histoire socialiste qui fut, avec les 
 lettres et les arts, le ravissement de ma vie. Toute 
 ma jeunesse et ses ardentes illusions sont revenues 
 m'envclopper, plus delicieuses que jamais, comme 
 un transport magique ! Comment remercier le 
 Dr. Angelo S. Rappoport de m'avoir a ce point 
 rendu ce que Baudelaire appelle " les heures de 
 visitation " ? Mais si son livre m'a replonge dans 
 une fontaine de Jouvence, ce n'est pas un Lethe 
 qui ne laisse que la memoire du plaisir : serait- 
 
vi PREFACE 
 
 il juste et souhaitable d'ailleurs qu'on oubliat 
 d'indicibles souff ranees pour n'en garder que le 
 fruit ? La foi de toute ma vie m'est r^apparue, 
 ravivee k travers la double vision horrible des 
 maux qu'a soufferts la grande Russie de Nicolas 
 Tourgeniev, de Dostoievski, d'Alexandre Herzen, 
 de Lavrov, de Michel Bakounine, de Tscherny- 
 shevski, de Mikhailov, de Tolstoi et de tant d'autres 
 — et h travers la desesperante tragedie que le nionde 
 traverse a cette heure. 
 
 Desesperant si Ton ne voyait qu'elle. Les 
 epreuves subies par les r^volutionnaires russes ont 
 parfois et6 horribles, je repute le mot ; mais elles 
 n*incitaient pas au decouragement — loin de 1^ ! 
 Un penseur a dit que I'histoire interdit de dese- 
 sperer ; et ce fut toujours le sentiment de I'auteur 
 de ces lignes. Qu'on lui permette de rappeler 
 qu'il n'a pas recule non plus devant la persecution : 
 proscrit de longues annees dans sa propre patrie, 
 pour le crime de 1' avoir revee plus heureuse et plus 
 belle, et mieux cherie dans le mirage de I'universelle 
 solidarite, il fut en outre peu aime de ce chef 
 meme par maints tard venus a fausses convictions 
 ravageant sans vergogne la moisson qui avait si 
 durement fait lever pour tous ! II n'en parlerait 
 meme pas, s'il ne s'agissait que^ de lui. Gloire a 
 eertaines dupes ! . . . L'apostolat et la philosophic 
 veritables requirerent d'imperturbables indulgences 
 — I'on sait dans quels cas le silence est grand, 
 puisque chacun agit en somme par de lointaines 
 procurations. . . . Sans doute, si nous avions assez 
 de grandeur d'ame, perspicacity, d'^nergie et de 
 d^licatesse, nous devrions encore demander pardon 
 des maux que Ton nous fait ; mais ceux-memes 
 qui doivent se rejouir avcc m61ancolie de leur 
 
PREFACE vii 
 
 destin^e et qu'une amertume trop ^goi'ste n'a jamais 
 trouble, dehor dent aujourd'hui d'amertumes parcc 
 qu'il ne s'agit plus d'eux exclusivement. A qui 
 la respecte, il est meme interdit de rappeler a 
 d'autres que "runion saeree " n'a rien de commun 
 avec la trahison sournoise et de bon rapport. . . . 
 Interdit avant la fin des hostilites I 
 
 En I'attendant, quelle apre consolation de revivre 
 une fois de plus le reve de sa jeunesse I Le livre 
 du Dr. Angelo S. Rappoport m'a cause une double 
 joie melancolique. J'ai revu les images aimees 
 de ma vie d'intimites et de luttes au vieux pays de 
 Li^ge, Wallonie, dans la Belgique entiere ; j'ai 
 revu dans leur prestige habituel les cheres ombres 
 de Morelly, de Mably, de Rousseaux, de Babeuf, 
 de St. Simon, d'Owen, de Fourier, de Cabet, de 
 Proudhon, de Bakounine et de Lassalle, de Benoit 
 Malon et de maints autres ; et, j'ai souffert — soit 
 dit sans nulle intention de reproche ! — de n'y avoir 
 pu voir se lever aussi, dans leurs aureoles familieres 
 et dans un monde de souvenirs, les ombres de 
 I'admirable et cher Cesar De Pape, dont le fils 
 vient de tomber sur le sol beige qu'il n'avait pas 
 fui quoi qu'il ne fut pas mandataire public, de 
 Cesar De Pape, le pere illustre du socialisme beige 
 et I'un des peres de la premiere Internationale, de 
 Cesar De Pape, a qui Malon lui-meme dedie en 
 termes si flatteusement significatifs son Socialism 
 Integral ; d'Edmond Von Beveren, I'aimant apotre 
 de Gand, createur avec Anseele et les autres de 
 I'incomparable Co-operative Le Vooruit, de I'athlete 
 bruxellois Jean Volders, d' Oscar Beck et de Joseph 
 Demoulin, ces dignes figures liegoises dont j'ai 
 ecrit la vie, du noble et savant Hector Denis, qui 
 jeta sur le Parlement beige un ^clat sublime de 
 
viii PREFACE 
 
 1894 a 1913, de Jaur^s et d'Edouard Vaillant. . . . 
 D'autres encore ! 
 
 Mais puisque j'evoque surtout ici les pures 
 memoires recentes de notre infortunee et glorieuse 
 Belgique, si etrangement meconnue encore, bien 
 que I'horrible invasion I'ait surprise en plein age 
 d'or litteraire, je dois saluer aussi une figure geante, 
 d'une originalite profonde, ne tenant que par 
 certains cotes aux idees des precedents, bien 
 qu'il ait dit que " la society moderne porte le 
 socialisme dans ses flancs et que de gr^ ou de 
 force il faudra qu'elle accouche," mais le premier 
 orateur qu'avec Alphonse de Lamartine ait eu 
 I'Europe au dix-neuvi^me si^cle tout entier, et, 
 faut-il le dire ? le seul grand parmi tant de 
 remarquables qu'ait jamais eu la Belgique : Paul 
 Janson, le colosse pathetique et foudroyant aux 
 inimitables accents qu'il faut mettre a c6t6 de 
 Bossuet et de Mirabeau, de meme que Rubens a 
 cote de Michel-Ange et de Titien. . . . 
 
 Comme celui d'Auguste, notre age d'or possMe 
 un Ciceron ! 
 
 Telle est dans le domaine social, I'^mouvante 
 lignee qu'indirectement ou directement me rappelle 
 le livre du Dr. Angelo S. Rappoport ! J' en viens 
 maintenant a la seconde joie melancolique qu'il 
 m'a donnee : reconforter par le tableau de 
 I'heroisme des revolutionnaires russes. En fut-il 
 jamais de pareil ? L'Europe occidentale n'ignorait 
 certes pas I'histoire de ce martyrologe depuis les 
 jours de la " grande " Catherine jusqu'a nous, 
 mais il est bien peu de personnes k qui le livre du 
 Dr. Rappoport n'apprendra beaucoup de choses 
 encore. Quel cortege de souffrances 1 quelle 
 abnegation ! quelle tenacite ! 
 
PREFACE ix 
 
 Et — par contraste — quelle lache et criminelle 
 indifference des nations dites civilisees k I'egard de 
 tels martyrs ! Souvent j'ai du suspendre ma 
 lecture, n'ayant plus la force de continuer. La 
 seule consolation que j'aie eprouvee c'est de 
 n'avoir du moins jamais ete complice par mon 
 silence de ces horreurs — et de les avoir tant de 
 fois fletries dans des meetings de protestation 
 organises dans ce but unique a cette deja vieille 
 Populaire de Liege qu'avec une trentaine d'amis 
 je fondais en 1887, ou bien k Verviers, dans le 
 Hainaut, a Bruxelles, ailleurs encore ! La con- 
 science est tout. Que devient la vie sans elle ? 
 Dut-on rester presque seul, comme trop souvent 
 en ces jours infames, il en faut pas craindre de 
 souffrir toujours davantage, pourvu qu'on n'ait 
 pas la honte d'une prudence ou d'une faiblesse 
 indignes : aucun effort d'ideal n'est perdu pour 
 I'avenir ! Tlus les ames nobles souffrent a cette 
 heure, plus leurs souff ranees sont du moins 
 exemptes du remords d'avoir une responsabilit^ 
 dans r horrible cataclysme — ou d'avoir pouss^, de 
 loin, des infortun^s a peine sortis de I'enfance 
 dans les champs de carnage ! . . . Ah ! qu'a cette 
 heure oh. les ames nobles et sinc^res se melent plus 
 que jamais dans les angoisses de la tormente 
 tragique, qu'il soit permis, devant le public de cette 
 Angleterre qu'il a toujours aimee k la passion, qu'il 
 soit permis a quelqu'un qui represent e depuis 
 vingt-quatre ans au Parlement beige Liege la ville- 
 martyre, qu'il a de son mieux soutenue pendant 
 les jours du siege effroyable, d'apporter un temoign- 
 age de plus en faveur des sentiments eleves de 
 la conscience russe ! Depuis une trentaine d'annees, 
 il a vu les nombreuses et successives colonies 
 
X PREFACE 
 
 d'^tudiants slaves inscrits k 1' University de Li^ge, 
 se presser avec ardeur dans nos meetings de soli- 
 darit6 eomme au sein de nos immenses manifesta- 
 tions k travels la vieille cit^ de Charlemagne, 
 d'Henri de Dinant, de Regnier, de Bassenge, de 
 Lombard, de Gerard de Lairesse, de Carlier, de 
 Gr6try et de C^sar Frank ; il en a chaque ann6e 
 retrouve beaucoup d'autres k I'Universite Nouvelle 
 de Bruxelles dont certains comptent aujourd'hui 
 dans les rangs r6volutionnaire& de leur patrie : 
 les nombreux souvenirs que ces etudiants et 
 etudiantes ont laisses dans cette capitale de la 
 Wallonie, qui est en meme temps la capitale indus- 
 trielle de la Belgique, et que I'auteur de ces lignes 
 ne peut 6voquer aujourd'hui de sang froid, sont 
 comme autant d'apparitions d'attendrissement et 
 de reconfort ! Nul plus que lui n'a foi dans la 
 Russie. Qu'il lui soit permis de rappeler a ce 
 propos la veritable crise d'enthusiasme qui saisit 
 Li^ge, ville essentiellement musicale, pour les com- 
 positeurs russes des 1886 : les nombreux concerts 
 organises et 1' execution retentissante k la salle de 
 fetes de I'Emulation (I'auteur present) de la 
 symphonic Dans les Steppes d'Alexandre Borofine 
 — qui mourut, comme on sait, dans notre ville. 
 Delicieuses et poignantes visions qui me reviennent 
 melees de toutes parts dans ce qu'un po^te anglais 
 appelle le charme fatal du pass^ ! Helas ! je dois 
 me contenir et, pour une autre raison qu' Hamlet, 
 m' eerier avec lui : " But break, my heart ; for I 
 must hold my tongue ! " 
 
 Je ne veux pas resumer ici le tableau que trace 
 Dr. Angelo S. Rappoport. Meme courte, se serait 
 une superf6tation — qui affaiblirait ce que chacun 
 va lire. 
 
PREFACE xi 
 
 Mais quelques points m6ritent d'etre signal6s. 
 
 D'abord — pour laisser quant de judicieuses 
 reflexions et des jugemcnts de veritable historien 
 auxquels tous les lecteurs souscriront, par exemple 
 aux pages 5 ^ 8, 10 et 11, 17 et 18, dans le seul 
 premier chapitre ! — je me permets d'attirer tout 
 specialement I'attention sur 1' exactitude avec 
 laquelle Dr. Rappoport parle k la page 27 de 
 rinternationale "sans etre un collectiviste ni un 
 socialiste ; bien qu'il admette maints principes de 
 la doctrine socialiste." 
 
 Autre point digne de la plus minutieuse atten- 
 tion du lecteur k I'heure oti se d^roulent en Russie 
 des evenements que saisit d'autant moins le public 
 occidental que I'existence de la censure n'a pas 
 peu contribu^ h les obscurcir encore : en lisant 
 la fin du chapitre II k partir de la page 33, on 
 saisira avec toute la nettete desirable la profonde 
 difference existant entre la Revolution russe de 
 1917 et la Revolution fran9aise de 1789. Nul 
 n'etait mieux qualifi^ pour la resumer que le Dr. 
 Angelo S. Rappoport qui connait a fond la France 
 et la Russie — ce resume n'est-il pas d'ailleurs 
 la suite logique et le couronnement elargi de 
 r excellent precis. History of Russia, qu'il nous 
 avait dej^ donn^ en 1907. Les assimilations — ou 
 les paranoics a la Plutarque — qu'on a lus parfois 
 dans nos journaux, ne meritent trop souvent qu'un 
 sourire. L'echee relatif de 1905 impliquait la 
 chute du Tzarisme de 1917, quels que soient les 
 exces momentanes qui en resultent. Je me 
 rappelle ce que me dis tranquillement en 1905 a 
 rUniversite Nouvelle de Bruxelles I'illustre et 
 regrette geographe qui avait nom Elisee Reclus : 
 " C'est la plus grande revolution du monde. — La 
 
xii PREFACE 
 
 plus profonde, r^pondis-je. — C'est la meme chose 
 dans ma pensee," riposta Reclus. Les pages du Dr. 
 Angelo S. Rappoport font toucher du doigt la 
 verite de cette double observation. 
 
 Je voudrais signaler encore les pages consacrees 
 k Lavrov et a Bakounine, en exprimant le voeu 
 que I'auteur des Piofieers of the Russian Revo- 
 lution elargisse le champ dont il s'est empare 
 avec tant de maitrise, en nous donnant une etude 
 complementaire sur le role social de Nicolas Gogol, 
 de Tourguenev, de Theodore Dostoievski, de 
 Leon Tolstoi, de Maxime Gorki, etc. Ce serait 
 une sorte de pendant a I'ouvrage exclusivement 
 litteraire ou peu s'en faut de Melchior de Vogue. 
 J'ai tou jours ete et je reste un fanatique intran- 
 sigeant de la doctrine de I'art ; mais enfin puisque 
 les grands romanciers russes ont voulu confondre 
 plus ou moins le domaine litteraire avec le social, 
 j'aime naturellement a bien voir en quoi ils ont 
 influence revolution politique — ou du moins en 
 quoi ils Font exprimee, Goethe disant avec raison, 
 pense je : '' L'homme croit qu'il pousse et il est 
 pousse." 
 
 Oui, je voudrais que le Dr. A. S. Rappoport 
 s'ancrat par droit de conquete dans le domaine 
 entier qu'il peut desormais explorer mieux que 
 personne — et qu'on put lui appliquer ici ce que 
 mon cher Savage Landor dit si bien du grand 
 Geoffrey Chaucer : 
 
 " No man hath walk'd along our roads with step 
 So active, so inquiring eye, or tongue 
 So varied in discourse." 
 
 Nul passage du livre du Dr. Rappoport ne m'a 
 frappe que les pages finales, si neuves je crois et si 
 
PREFACE xiii 
 
 remarquables, qu'il a consacrees aux Juifs de 
 Russie et d'ailleurs. J'y applaudis d'autant plus 
 qu'en 1903, dans une brochure publiee en Belgique, 
 je disais toute mon admiration pour la petite race 
 fameuse qui nous a donne Baruch Spinoza, le bien- 
 aime Jacques ou Jacob Ruysdael, Henri Heine, 
 Felix Mendelssohn, et tant d'autres — et dont a 
 Liege un des plus genereux representants, homme 
 d'une simplicite admirable, M. Montefiore-Levi, 
 qui fut jusqu'a sa mort assez recente le plus popu- 
 laire et le plus venere de nos senateurs, et qui nous 
 vint d'Angleterre vers 1880, a fonde, comme une 
 seconde Universite, son vaste Institut electro- 
 technique offert a I'Etat, sans compter nombre 
 d'institutions de bienfaisance dans la region 
 entiere. L'histoire anglaise a d'ailleurs enregistre 
 les actes de munificence d'autres membres de la 
 famille de M. Montefiore-Levi — et Ton verra dans 
 le present livre quelle fut la fiere attitude d'un 
 Rothschild en face du tzar Alexandre II en faveur 
 d' Alexandre Herzen. 
 
 Les pages finales, developpees et fort penetrantes, 
 couronnent dignement le beau livre du Dr. Angelo 
 S. Rappoport. J' en voudrais discuter un seul 
 point, si la place ne me faisait defaut. Bien que 
 I'auteur de Pioneers of the Russian Revolution 
 proteste avec autant de raison que de sincerite de 
 son respect pour Shakespeare — c'est a dire aux 
 yeux du signataire de ces lignes pour Lord Rutland- 
 Shakespeare — je crois que I'immortel poete du 
 Marchand de Venise qui commenya ce chef-d'ceuvre 
 en 1597 loin de sa patrie, pendant son sejour a 
 r Universite de Padoue, n'a pas ete aussi severe, 
 au fond que le pense Dr. Rappoport, I'epoque etant 
 donnee, pour ce terrible Shylock qui rappelle sans 
 
xiv PREFACE 
 
 doute rinfortune R. Lopez execute k Londres en 
 1594, et auquel se mele un ressouvenir du Barabas 
 dress6 en 1589 par Christophe Marlowe dans son 
 Juif de Malte. Oui, qu'on songe k I'epoque, et 
 qu'on relise de pr^s I'une des merveilles du theatre 
 de " Shakespeare " — et qu'on n'oubhe point la 
 charmante figure de Jessica, la fille de Shylock: 
 on saisira tout au moins bien des circonstances 
 att6nuantes I . . . Mais je m'arr^te. Une dis- 
 cussion historico-litteraire entrainerait trop loin, 
 et hors du sujet. Au fond, il ne s'agit d'ailleurs 
 ici que d'un detail. Ce serait abuser de la patience 
 du lecteur que d'allonger encore, pour prendre 
 une image a Lewis Theobald, que les violentes 
 attaques de Pope n'empechent point d'avoir 6te 
 le plus consciencieux peut-etre des commentateurs 
 Shakespeariens, que d'allonger encore cet etroit 
 couloir obscur qui m^ne a I'^difice lumineux — oh 
 chacun pouvait fort bien entrer de plein pied ; 
 mais I'auteur de ce livre, a qui je dois de ce chef 
 des remerciements, a voulu qu'en ces jours d'inter- 
 nationale communion tragique, un Beige put 
 proclamer, si faiblement que ce soit, son culte ardent 
 pour la race et le pays de naissance du Dr. A. S. 
 Rappoport. 
 
 Celestin Demblon. 
 
 Paeis, 
 20 Mai 1918. 
 
TRANSLATION OF PREFACE 
 
 By Celi^stin Demblon 
 
 DepuU de Liege, Professeur aux Universites de 
 Bruxelles et Rennes 
 
 It is the hour for souls ! 
 
 Elizabeth Browning (" Aurora Leigh "). 
 
 When my friend Dr. Angelo S. Rappoport asked me 
 to write a preface to The Pioneers of the Russian 
 Revolution, my delight was almost equalled by my 
 surprise. Surprise that I should be asked to carry 
 water to the river ; to add my prose to the latest work, 
 and to the renown, of this well-known writer, author 
 of so many successful books. 
 
 But I was happy when I read his manuscript, happy 
 to be able once more to enter that enchanted world of 
 socialistic history which, with literature and the arts, 
 has always been the great pleasure of my life. My 
 youth, with all its ardent illusions, more gracious even 
 than before, seemed to sweep over me again, like a 
 magic transformation. How can I thank Dr. Angelo 
 S. Rappoport for having thus given me what Baudelaire 
 called *' an hour of visitation " ? But if his book 
 plunged me once again into the fountain of youth, it 
 does not act on one as do the waters of Lethe and 
 leave behind it only the memory of pleasure : would 
 it in any case be desirable or just that one should 
 forget such indescribable sufferings and merely remem- 
 ber their result, their fruit ? The faith of my life 
 again loomed up before me, revivified by the terrible 
 
 XV 
 
xvi TRANSLATION OF PREFACE 
 
 picture of the sorrows suffered by the Russia of 
 Nicholas Tourgeniev, Dostoievski, Alexander Herzen, 
 Lavrov, Michel Bakounine, Tschernyshevski, Mikh- 
 ailov, Tolstoi and of many others — and of the dis- 
 heartening tragedy through which the world is at 
 present passing. 
 
 Disheartening, if one's view is solely bounded by 
 it. The sufferings endured by the Russian revolu- 
 tionaries were sometimes terrible, I repeat the word, 
 but they did not tend to discouragement — far from it. 
 A thinker has said that history forbids despair ; such 
 is also the belief of the writer of these lines. He may 
 be permitted to remember that he also did not flinch 
 under persecution : outlawed for many years in his 
 own country for the crime of visualising it happier, 
 more desirable and more honoured in the mirage of 
 international solidarity, on this account also he was 
 but little liked by the adherents of the later false 
 tenets that ravaged, without shame, the harvest that 
 had been so hardly sown for all. He would not even 
 speak of it, if it affected only himself. All hail to 
 certain dupes ! . . . 
 
 True apostleship and philosophy demand imper- 
 turbable patience — one knows that in some cases 
 silence is the great thing, since each acts, in effect, 
 upon such distant procurations. . . . Doubtless if we 
 were sufficiently great of soul and had enough per- 
 spicacity, energy and tact, we would demand pardon 
 of the evils done to us ; but even those who should 
 rejoice, though sadly, at their fate and whom a too 
 egotistical bitterness has never troubled, to-day over- 
 flow with bitterness, because it is no longer a question 
 of themselves alone. It is even forbidden to remind 
 others that the " union sacree " has nothing in common 
 with crafty, productive treachery. . . . Forbidden before 
 the close of hostilities ! 
 
 In the meantime, what a bitter consolation to re-live 
 again the dream of one's youth ! Dr. Angelo S. 
 
TRANSLATION OF PREFACE xvii 
 
 Rappoport's book has given me a double melancholic 
 joy. I have seen again the dearly loved pictures of 
 my life of friendship and struggles in the old country 
 of Liege, Walloon, in all Belgium ; I have seen again 
 the dear shades, with all their accustomed fascination, 
 of Mably, Rousseau, Babeuf, St. Simon, Owen, Feurier, 
 Cabet, Proudhon, Bakounine and Lassalle, of Benoit 
 Malon and of many others ; and I have suffered — it is 
 said without any inflection of reproach ! — at not being 
 able to see also in this world of memories the shades 
 of the dear and admirable Caesar de Pape, whose son 
 has just fallen on Belgian soil which he had not 
 abandoned though he was not a public proxy, of 
 Caesar de Pape, the illustrious father of Belgian social- 
 ism and one of the founders of the original Inter- 
 nationale, of Caesar de Pape to whom Malon himself 
 dedicated in such significant flattering terms his 
 Integral Socialism ; of Edmund von Beveren, the 
 devoted adherent of Gand, founder, with Anseele and 
 others, of the incomparable Co-operative Le Vooruit, 
 of the athletic Jean Volders of Brussels, of Oscar Beck 
 and Joseph Demoulin, those worthy sons of Liege 
 whose lives I have written, of the noble and learned 
 Hector Denis, who gave to the Belgian Parliament a 
 wonderful brilliancy from 1894 to 1913, of Jaur^s and 
 Edouard Vaillant. . . . Many others still ! 
 
 But since here I am only evoking recent memories 
 of our unfortunate and glorious Belgium, still so 
 strangely misunderstood, although the horrible in- 
 vasion surprised her in the days of her golden age of 
 literature, I must also hail a giant gifted with a 
 profound originality who only on certain points holds 
 to the ideas of his predecessors, although he has said 
 that " modern society carries socialism in her womb 
 and either by agreement or by force she will be com- 
 pelled to give it birth." The finest orator, with 
 Alphonse de Lamartine, that Europe has had during 
 the entire nineteenth century and, is it necessary to 
 
 b 
 
xviii TRANSLATION OF PREFACE 
 
 say it ? the only great man, among so many remark- 
 able men, that Belgium has ever had : Paul Janson, 
 the pathetic and fulminating Colossus of the inimitable 
 speech whom one must rank with Bossuet and Mirabeau 
 just as one ranks Rubens with Michel Angelo and 
 Titian. . . . 
 
 Like that of Augustus, our golden age possesses a 
 Cicero ! 
 
 Such are, in the sociological domain, the moving 
 memories that, directly or indirectly, Dr. Angelo S. 
 Rappoport's book brings back to my mind. I come 
 now to the second melancholy joy that he has given 
 me : consolation from the picture of the heroism of 
 the Russian revolutionaries. Was there ever anything 
 like it ? Occidental Europe was certainly not ignorant 
 of the history of this martyrology from the days of 
 the " great " Catherine until our time, but there are 
 very few people who will not learn a great deal from 
 Dr. Rappoport's book. What a procession of suffer- 
 ing ! What abnegation ! What tenacity ! 
 
 And by contrast, what cowardly and criminal in- 
 difference the so-called civilised nations showed such 
 martjn's ! Often I was compelled to stop reading, not 
 having the power to continue ! My only consolation 
 was that, at least, I have never by my silence been a 
 party to these horrors, but have many, many 
 times spoken against them at meetings of protest, 
 organised for this sole purpose, at the now old Populaire 
 of Liege which, with the aid of thirty friends, I founded 
 in 1887, or at Verviers, Hainaut, Brussels and else- 
 where. The conscience is everything ! What would 
 life become without it ? Even if one must stand prac- 
 tically alone, as too often happens in these infamous 
 days, one must not fear to suffer more and more, pro- 
 vided always that one has not the shame of unworthy 
 prudence and weakness : no struggle for the ideal is 
 lost for the future ! The more noble souls suffer to-day, 
 the more free are their sufferings from the remorse 
 
TRANSLATION OF PREFACE xix 
 
 of having been in any way responsible for the terrible 
 cataclysm — or of having, even indirectly, thrust the 
 poor lads, hardly out of their adolescence, into the 
 fields of carnage ! . . . Ah, at this hour, when all noble 
 and sincere souls suffer more deeply than ever the 
 anguish of the tragic storm, it may be permitted one 
 who has always loved England passionately, one who 
 for twenty-four years represented in the Belgian 
 Parliament the martyr-city of Liege, which he also did 
 his best to sustain and enhearten during the awful 
 days of the siege, to bear witness before the English 
 public to the high ideal of the Russian conscience. 
 For thirty years he has seen numerous and successive 
 colonies of Slav students at the University of Liege 
 ardently take part in our meetings on solidarity, as 
 also in our immense manifestations in the old city of 
 Charlemagne, Henri de Dinant, Regnier, Bassenge, 
 Lombard, Gerard de Lairesse, Carlier, Gretry and 
 of Cesar Frank : and each year he came across many 
 others at the New University of Brussels, several of 
 whom now hold high positions in the ranks of the 
 revolutionaries in their country : the many memories 
 of these boy and girl students in the Walloon capital 
 (it is also the industrial capital of Belgium), which the 
 writer of these lines cannot to-day recall without 
 emotion, are like so many apparitions of compassion 
 and consolation. No one has greater faith in Russia 
 than he ! It may be permitted in this connection, 
 to recall the veritable orgy of enthusiasm for the 
 Russian composers that swept Liege, essentially a 
 musical city, in 1886 ; the numerous concerts organ- 
 ised and the wonderful playing in the festival hall of 
 the Emulation, in the presence of its composer, of 
 the symphony In the Steppes, by Alexander Borofine 
 — who died, as is well known, in this city. Delightful 
 and poignant memories that come back to me, mingled 
 with what an English poet calls the fatal charm of 
 the past ! Helas, I must restrain myself and, though 
 
XX TRANSLATION OF PREFACE 
 
 for a different cause, say with Hamlet : " But break, 
 my heart j for I must hold my tongue." 
 
 I do not wish to recapitulate here the picture of 
 events with which Dr. Angelo S. Rappoport has dealt. 
 No matter how short, it would be an excrescence — that 
 would weaken a book everyone will desire to read. 
 
 But several points deserve to be noted. Firstly, 
 apart from the many judicious reflections and truly 
 historical judgments with which all readers will agree, 
 for example on pages 5-8, 10 and 11, 17 and 18, in the 
 first chapter alone — I take upon myself to call special 
 attention to the exactitude with which Dr. Rappoport 
 speaks, on page 27, of the tenets of Internationalism : 
 " I am neither a collectivist nor a socialist, even though 
 I approve of many of the principles of the socialistic 
 doctrines." 
 
 Another point worthy of the reader's close attention, 
 especially to-day when events are .taking place in 
 Russia that the occidental public will find the less easy 
 to understand now that the existence of the censorship 
 has tended to obscure them : after reading the con- 
 clusion of chapter II, from page 83, anyone will under- 
 stand, with all desirable clearness, the profound 
 difference that exists between the Russian Revolution 
 of 1917 and the French Revolution of 1789. 
 
 No one was better qualified to write this review than 
 Dr. Angelo S. Rappoport, who knows both France 
 and Russia so thoroughly. Again, is not this book 
 the logical sequel to, and the crown in an extended 
 form, of that excellent Short History of Russia which he 
 gave us in 1907 ? The comparisons, or the parallels 
 a la Plutarch, that one reads now and then in the 
 papers too often evoke nothing but a smile. The 
 relative failure of 1905 involved the fall of Tsarism in 
 1917, whatever were the momentary resulting extremes. 
 I remember well what the illustrious and sincerely 
 regretted geographer Elisee Reclus quite calmly said 
 to me at the New University of Brussels in 1905 : 
 
TRANSLATION OF PREFACE xxi 
 
 " This is the greatest revolution the world has ever 
 seen ! " " The most profound," I answered. "It is 
 the same thing as I see it," he replied. The book of 
 Dr. Angelo S. Rappoport proves the truth of these 
 remarks. 
 
 I would also draw attention to the pages devoted 
 to Lavrov and Bakounine, and at the same time express 
 my hope that the author of The Pioneers of the Russian 
 Revolution will enlarge the field of his operations, whieh 
 he handles with such mastery and skill, and give us 
 a complementary study of the social work of Nicolas 
 Gogol, Tourguenev, Theodore Dostoievski, Leon 
 Tolstoi, Maxim Gorki, etc. I have always been, and 
 shall be always, an uncompromising fanatic regarding 
 the doctrines of art, but since the great Russian novelists 
 have deliberately more or less intermingled the literary 
 with the social, naturally I like to see how they have 
 influenced the political evolution — or at least how they 
 have expressed it, for I agree with Goethe that " Man 
 believes he pushes, but is himself pushed." 
 
 Yes, I should like Dr. Angelo S. Rappoport to firmly 
 take possession, by right of conquest, of that entire 
 domain which he can explore better than anyone else, 
 for one can well apply to him the words my dear 
 Savage Landor spoke of the great Geoffrey Chaucer : 
 
 " No man hath walk'd along our roada with step 
 So active, so inquiring eye, or tongue 
 So varied in discourse." 
 
 No passage in Dr. Rappoport's book struck me mor^ 
 forcibly than his final pages ; they seemed to me so 
 original, so remarkable, I appreciated them the more 
 since in a pamphlet published in 1903 I expressed 
 my admiration of the famous little race that has given 
 us Baruch Spinoza, the well-loved Jacques or Jacob 
 Ruysdael, Heinrich Heine, Felix Mendelssohn and so 
 many others ; and at Li^ge one of its most generous 
 representatives, M. Montefiore-Levi, a man of great 
 
xxii TRANSLATION OF PREFACE 
 
 singleness of purpose, who until his comparatively 
 recent death was one of the most popular and most 
 respected of our senators ; who came to us from 
 England about 1880 and founded, among numerous 
 other benevolent institutions spread throughout the 
 entire region, his vast Electro-technical Institute as 
 a second university which he offered to the State. 
 England also has recorded many generous gifts 
 on the part of other members of the family of M. 
 Montefiore-Levi, and in this book one can read of the 
 proud attitude taken by a Rothschild towards Tsar 
 Alexander II on behalf of Alexander Herzen. 
 
 The final pages, well thought out and deeply moving, 
 crown worthily Dr. Angelo S. Rappoport's fine book. 
 I would dispute but one point if my space permits. 
 Though the author of The Pioneers of the Russian 
 Revolution proclaims with as much reason as sincerity 
 his respect for Shakespeare — that is to say, in the 
 opinion of the writer of these lines. Lord Rutland- 
 Shakespeare — I believe that the immortal poet of 
 The Merchant of Venice^ who began that masterpiece 
 far from his own country, during his sojourn at the 
 University of Padua, was not in reality as severe as 
 Dr. Rappoport thinks, when you consider the epoch 
 in which it was written, on the terrible Shylock, who, 
 doubtless, was modelled on the unfortunate R. Lopez, 
 executed in London in 1594, mingled with memories 
 of the Barabbas drawn in 1589 by Christopher Mar- 
 lowe in his Jew of Malta. Yes, when one thinks of 
 that epoch and re-reads one of the marvels of Shake- 
 speare — and one does not forget the charming figure of 
 Jessica, Shylock's daughter — one will realise more or 
 less various attenuating circumstances. 
 
 But I must close. An historical-literary discussion 
 would lead one too far and too wide of one's subject. 
 In reality also, here it is but a detail. It would be 
 abusing the patience of the reader to continue, to 
 borrow an idea from Lewis Theobald, who, despite 
 
TRANSLATION OF PREFACE xxiii 
 
 the violent attacks of Pope, was perhaps the most 
 conscientious of Shakespearian commentators, to 
 continue along this narrow, obscure path that leads to 
 the luminous edifice, where everyone can easily and 
 equally enter ; but the author of this book, to whom I 
 owe many thanks, desired in these days of tragic in- 
 ternational communion that a Belgian should proclaim, 
 poorly it may be, his ardent sympathy with the race 
 and country of birth of Dr. Angelo S. Rappoport. 
 
 C:6l]6stin Demblon. 
 
 PaBI9, 
 
 May 20, 1918. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Paris and Petrograd . . . . 1 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 
 Paris and Petrograd (continued) . . 14 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 The Spirit of Revolt .... 42 
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 The Decembrists ..... 62 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 The Fourteenth of December . . 86 
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 
 The Triumph or Autocracy . . .118 
 
 XXV 
 
xxvi CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 PAQB 
 
 LlTTl^RATEURS, PHILOSOPHERS, AND SOCIOLO- 
 GISTS 135 
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 
 Philosophers and Sociologists (continued) 152 
 
 CHAPTER IX 
 Peaceful Propaganda .... 179 
 
 CHAPTER X 
 
 Reaction and Terrorism . . . 203 
 
 CHAPTER XI 
 
 The Jews as Pioneers of the Russian 
 
 Revolution . . . . .228 
 
 CHAPTER XII 
 
 Israel's Cry for Justice • . . 253 
 
 Bibliography ...... 277 
 
 Index ....... 279 
 
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 Siberian Exiles . 
 
 Vassiliy, Prince of Moscow 
 
 Tsar Michael Romanov 
 
 Tsar Peter the Great 
 
 Tsar Paul I . . . 
 
 Michael Speranski 
 
 Death of Alexander I 
 
 Tsar Nicholas I . 
 
 Vera Figner 
 
 Tsar Alexander II Monument (by 
 kolsky) .... 
 
 H. Lopatin .... 
 
 Michael Bakunin 
 
 Social Democrats in the First Duma 
 
 Catherine Bereshkovskaya . 
 
 Peter Lavrov 
 
 Maxime Gorky 
 
 Frontispiece 
 
 FACINQ PAGE 
 
 16 
 82 
 
 48 
 64 
 64 
 80 
 96 
 96 
 
 Anto- 
 
 128 
 144 
 144 
 144 
 160 
 160 
 160 
 
 xxvn 
 
xxvii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 Plekhanov 160 
 
 Karl Marx ....... 176 
 
 The Arrival of Political Prisoners (after a 
 
 DRAWING BY MaDAME MaNYA GoUREVITSH) 192 
 
 The Fortress of Schluesselburg (after a 
 
 drawing by Madame Manya Gourevitsh) 208 
 
 Schluesselburg, the Church . . .224 
 
 Catherine II at the Time of the French 
 
 Revolution ...... 240 
 
 Madame Wolkenstein ..... 256 
 
 Gregory Gershouni ..... 256 
 
PIONEERS OF 
 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 PARIS AND PETROGRAD 
 
 Evolution and Revolution 
 
 Numerous comparisons and parallels have been 
 drawn between the French Revolutions of 1789 
 and 1793 and the Russian upheaval — ^not only of 
 1917 but also of 1905. In my opinion, however, all 
 these parallels, at the best, are merely superficial. 
 The French and the Russian Revolutions have only 
 this in common — ^that they effected a change. 
 And this result they share with all other revolu- 
 tions. But when one considers the ideas struggling 
 in the background of these changes, the deeper 
 causes underlying the upheavals, their psychology 
 and tendencies, one realises that the French Revolu- 
 tions of 1789 and 1793 differ widely from the 
 Russian of 1917, both in cause and effect. I 
 deliberately say 1917, for the movement of 1905 in 
 Russia cannot scientifically be called a revolution. 
 Of course there was an attempt to bring about one, 
 but a mere attempt to bring about changes is not 
 a revolution. 
 
2 \ THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 What is a Revolution, and what are the 
 manifestations — natural, religious, political, social, 
 literary, etc. — to which the name of " revolution " 
 may justly be applied ? " Revolutions," writes 
 a modern sociologist, "are changes, either at- 
 tempted or realised by force, in the constitution 
 of societies." ^ This conception of the idea of 
 revolution, opposed as it is to the definitions given 
 by more ancient economists and sociologists, such 
 as Proudhon, Chateaubriand, John Stuart Mill, 
 Bluntschli, Reclus and others, seems to me to be 
 erroneous. An attempt which has failed, which has 
 not been realised, cannot be considered a positive 
 quantity and is hardly to be compared with a trans- 
 formation, or a change, which is a j ait- accompli. 
 Thus many attempts, accompanied by violence, 
 many political troubles, which fail and effect no 
 change whatsoever, are mere insurrections, revolts, 
 but not revolutions. In a word, a revolution is a 
 *' change, a radical transformation." Thus the 
 movements of 1789 and 1917 were revolutions, but 
 those of June 1848 and March 1871 were not. 
 
 " A revolution is a change of government 
 brought about by force," wrote John Stuart Mill 
 in his letter of October 14th, 1872, addressed to 
 the Committee of the International Working 
 Men's Association.* If, however, by revolution we 
 understand an accomplished fact, a transforma- 
 tion, a radical change, such a change need not 
 always be accompanied by violence. Indeed, one 
 of the many erroneous ideas still prevalent, not only 
 among the masses, but also among economists and 
 sociologists, is the belief that a revolution must 
 
 * Cf. Bauer, Essai sur les Revolutions, Paris, 1908, p. 11. 
 ^ See Block, Dictionnalre de Politique, a. v. Revolution. 
 
PARIS AND PETROGRAD 8 
 
 necessarily be accompanied by bombs, dynamite, 
 bloodshed and violence of all sorts. Thus, John 
 Stuart Mill considered violence as a sine qua non 
 of revolution, and many modern authors do not 
 seem able to conceive a revolution, political or 
 social, without violence and the employment of 
 armed force. To this idea 1 cannot subscribe, 
 for radical, far-reaching changes can be effected 
 without any form of violence. 
 
 Again, it is not usually the revolutionary who is 
 anxious to use violence ; he is compelled to do so 
 by the counter revolution, by the opposition of 
 those who are adverse to any form of change, by 
 those who employ armed force to quell any attempts 
 at change. The violence accompanying revolu- 
 tions is not usually the fault of the revolutionaries, 
 of the liberals, men eager for innovation and 
 amelioration, but of the opposing conservative 
 classes who are anxious to hold the power they 
 have usurped, and therefore call to their aid 
 traditionalism, conservatism, order and law. But 
 the world has witnessed many revolutions, many 
 radical changes which have been accomplished in 
 a peaceful manner ; long-existing ideas and con- 
 ceptions have been uprooted, though they were 
 consecrated by tradition and time, though men had 
 grown accustomed to look upon them as impreg- 
 nable, as the citadels of all human belief, as im- 
 mutable institutions. For a day always comes 
 when man laughs at the idols he has created, has 
 taught himself to adore and to venerate, and then 
 — they crumble and fall to the earth. 
 
 These are true revolutions, for they radically 
 change human thought and convictions. Need 
 they necessarily be accompanied by violence ? 
 
4 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 Need bloodshed and bomb- throwing be their 
 corollaries ? Were not Archimedes and Newton, 
 Galilei and Copernic, Darwin and Edison, Watt 
 and Arkwright revolutionary in their teaching 
 and inventions ? They revolutionised society and 
 its conceptions. Christianity and Buddhism have 
 wrought the greatest change in the domain of 
 thought and religious conceptions — they have 
 revolutionised humanity, altering and shaping the 
 conduct and aims of the greater portion of the 
 human race. Yet neither the teachings of Chris- 
 tianity nor of Buddhism harbour any ideas of 
 violence. 
 
 I admit that certain revolutions have meant 
 violence and bloodshed, and have led to much 
 useless destruction, but that was not the fault 
 of the teaching of the revolutionaries, but the 
 result of the stubbornness of the opponents of the 
 new doctrine, of their misoneism, self-interest and 
 egoism. No ; political or social revolutions do not 
 need to be accompanied by violence and blood- 
 shed. If those who have usurped the political 
 power would freely abandon it, if the privileged 
 classes would recognise the justice of the claims of 
 the poor and disinherited, there would be no need 
 of violence to bring about political or social changes. 
 
 But unfortunately the authorities in power, the 
 privileged classes who have usurped political or 
 economic supremacy, stand to lose by change ; it 
 is to their interest to cling to the old institutions, 
 to a state of things so advantageous to themselves, 
 and therefore they so strenuously oppose all inno- 
 vations and revolutions, with all the forces at 
 their command. The natural result is that the 
 adherents of new ideas, of any radical change, 
 
PARIS AND PETROGRAD 5 
 
 much against their will, are compelled to use force 
 to break the stubborn resistance of the usurpers. 
 This explains the frequent bloodshed and terrorism 
 that precede or accompany political and social 
 revolutions. In this respect, of course, the French 
 Revolutions of 1789 and 1793 and the Russian 
 upheaval of 1917 have something in common : 
 there were, and are, many social groups and classes 
 who would lose by a transference of political 
 power, by a social levelling, and are, therefore, 
 bound to offer open or secret resistance. 
 
 If the Russian Revolution has so far been 
 accompanied by less bloodshed than that of 1789, 
 it is due to the fact that the revolutionaries in 
 Russia were better organised than were their 
 prototypes of 1789, that they counted among 
 their ranks more social groups ready to make a 
 clean sweep than was the case in France, and 
 that those who had the power in their hands in 
 Russia judged it useless to ofier resistance. But 
 the Russian Revolution is still in a state of being, 
 of becoming, and I am afraid that it will not 
 be carried to a successful issue without violence, 
 bloodshed and terrorism. In fact, I see it 
 coming ; and if a period of terror follows in Russia, 
 it will only be natural, however much to be deplored. 
 
 This brings me to another point which the French 
 and the Russian Revolutions share in common : 
 the fact that they both were the outcome of his- 
 torical development and slov/ evolution. Here 
 again I venture to contradict the idea that a 
 revolution, any revolution, political, social or 
 otherwise, is a sudden upheaval, a saltus mortale, 
 a catastrophe standing in direct opposition to 
 evolution, a negation of the eternal laws of nature. 
 
6 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 In my opinion both the French Revolution of 1789 
 and the Russian upheaval of 1917 are the cul- 
 minating points of an historical evolution, the con- 
 summation of causes accumulated in the course of 
 centuries, the visible manifestations of the spirit 
 of revolt dormant in the nation. A revolution is 
 not opposed to an evolution, but is the effect of 
 the latter. Modern geology has abandoned the 
 catastrophic idea and accepts the theory of evolu- 
 tion ; but, for all that, it does not deny the existence 
 of volcanic eruptions. Subterranean forces accu- 
 mulate slowly, gradually, invisibly, but once they 
 have reached a certain degree, they explode. 
 
 Take another instance among natural phenomena, 
 the birth of the child. It develops slowly, legally, 
 but it comes into the world in a revolutionary 
 manner. ^ And what is true of nature is also true 
 of historical developments. Just as tempests and 
 volcanic eruptions do not exclude, but, on the 
 contrary, are the result of slow evolutions, so 
 political and social revolutions are the normal 
 result, the fatal, irresistible moments, in the long 
 process of historical development ; they are a 
 crisis and a goal of a social evolution. 
 
 Political and social revolutions do not come like 
 thieves in the night, like something unexpected. 
 They are not the result of immediate, trivial, super- 
 ficial events, but of far-reaching accumulated 
 causes. They are the outcome of a state of things, 
 full of contradictions and antagonisms, of a clash 
 of interests. They are closely connected with the 
 old order of things which the revolution destroys. 
 P'or each historical period is the effect of a pre- 
 ceding epoch, just as it is the cause of future events, 
 
 1 C£. Kautsky, Die Sociale Revolution. 
 
PARIS AND PETROGRAD 7 
 
 and to-day carries with it the germs of the morrow. 
 Each generation is the father of the one succeeding 
 it, and each historical period carries in it the seeds 
 of a new one. Clear-sighted men have always 
 been able to see the signs of approaching revolu- 
 tions ; to them they were never sudden and 
 catastrophic, but fatal and inevitable. Neither 
 nature nor history know any miracles. For what 
 indeed is a miracle ? It is a fact or a manifes- 
 tation the hidden causes of which escape the human 
 eye and understanding. A revolution is the visible 
 effect of many causes accumulated, it is the crisis 
 which has necessarily been preceded by a fermen- 
 tation, visible or invisible. 
 
 Now, political and social revolutions are the 
 result of accumulated ideas and sentiments of 
 discontent, of antagonism, contradiction and a 
 growing feeling of justice. In this latter respect, 
 the feeling of justice, revolutions differ from insur- 
 rections and revolts which, in the majority of 
 cases, prove futile and effect no change whatever. 
 The slave who is not animated by a sense of 
 justice, but merely by a feeling of envy, is not 
 thirsting for liberty and equality ; he merely 
 wishes to become master and enslave, in his turn, 
 his master of yesterday. His revolt is destructive, 
 whilst a real revolution must carry in it construe-, 
 tive elements as well. The slave is not fighting 
 for liberty and justice per se, but for the power 
 which he is anxious to wrest from his master. He 
 is animated by a spirit of revenge. Real revolu- 
 tionaries are not. 
 
 Quite different are the revolutions which are the 
 result of historical development and in which men 
 are anxious to shake off the shackles of thraldom, 
 
8 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 not in revenge, not with a view to enslave and 
 tyrannise the powerful and mighty of yesterday, 
 but in order to make men equal : all men, the 
 masters as well as the slaves. The revolt of the 
 slaves, therefore, is only an artificial movement, 
 whilst a great and lasting revolution is the result 
 of historical development and of evolution. Thus, 
 both the French Revolution of 1789 and the 
 Russian upheaval are evolutionary, historical acts, 
 which were fated to come. 
 
 Elis6e Reclus writes with truth " that evolution 
 and revolution are scientifically not opposed to 
 each other ; they are the two successive acts of 
 the same phenomenon, evolution preceding revo- 
 lution, whilst the latter again carries in its wake 
 a new evolution, mother of new revolutions." ^ 
 If evolution be change, how can this change take 
 place without suddenly altering the equilibrium of 
 life ? " The seed falls into the soil and appears 
 lost and dead for a time, but suddenly it sprouts 
 forth, becomes a plant, a tree, and bears fruit. And 
 the birth of the child is another revolutionary act 
 — the result of a slow evolution." 
 
 The Russian autocracy and the French absolute 
 monarchy carried in them the seeds of a revolu- 
 tion, political and social. '' Even Taine, the 
 critic and detractor of the French Revolution, 
 admitted that " les institutions de la France 
 n'^itaient 'plus viables,^^ and that consequently the 
 Revolution had become inevitable.^ " D'avance 
 et a son insu," continues Taine, "" chaque genera- 
 tion porte en elle-meme son avenir et son histoire." 
 
 1 Cf. L' Evolution, La Revolution, Paris, 1898, p. 15. 
 
 2 Cf. Ch. Renouvier, Philoeophie Analytique de VHistoire, 
 1897, vol. iv, p. 633-4. 
 
PARIS AND PETROGRAD 9 
 
 And both Sorel and Guizot believe that the French 
 Revolution was the natural and necessary result of 
 European history. " Cette revolution," adds Sorel, 
 n'a point porte de consequence, meme la plus 
 singuli^re, qui ne decoule de cette histoire et ne 
 s'explique par les precedents de I'ancien regime." 
 
 If the monarchic system of I ranee, as it emerged 
 from the hands of Richelieu, was fated to lead to 
 1789 and 1792, the history of autocracy in Russia, 
 the history of the Romanovs, was bound to end in 
 the upheaval of 1917. Russian autocracy carried 
 in its womb the germs of revolution. In subsequent 
 chapters I shall show that the spirit of revolt 
 was present in Russia from the days of the estab- 
 lishment of autocracy, and how the latter actually 
 fostered this spirit of revolt by its endeavours to 
 suppress it. The greater the abuses of autocracy, 
 the more vigorous became the spirit of revolt, and 
 the more quickly the final crisis was brought about. 
 
 But if both 1789 and 1917 were the results of a 
 long chain of evolutionary processes, of historical 
 development, the comparison between the two 
 Revolutions ends there. The French and the 
 Russian Revolutions differ in their respective 
 causes and in their tendencies and their aims. 
 I have said that political and social revolutions 
 are " the result of accumulated ideas and senti- 
 ments of discontent " ; that is, the discontent of 
 one or several social groups with the existing 
 order of things. The causes of this discontent may 
 be social, economic, political or religious. It may 
 be an oppression of the body or an oppression of 
 the mind. The discontent may vent itself in 
 claims for material and economic improvements, 
 or it may be anxious to obtain liberty of conscience 
 
10 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 and freedom of movement, abolition of all dis- 
 tinctions of class, race, sex or religion. The dis- 
 content may be animated chiefly, as I have 
 already pointed out, by envy, or it may be fostered 
 and strengthened by the nobler ideals of justice 
 and equality. It therefore follows that the greater 
 the number of groups dissatisfied with the existing 
 order of things, the vaster the majority among 
 whom the discontent had spread, the more exten- 
 sive the claims and the more radical must be the 
 change. 
 
 On the other hand, the greater the number of 
 groups who claim an amelioration, a change, an 
 abolition of the existing order of things, who 
 struggle against the privileged and legislative 
 classes or groups, and who, consequently, have 
 separate and individual interests to defend, the 
 more difficult will be the constructive part of the 
 Revolution. 
 
 Now let us see which social groups, discontented 
 and revolutionary, were responsible for the up- 
 heavals of 1789 and 1792 in France, and of 1917 
 in Russia. 
 
 The French Revolution of 1789, and, as a matter 
 of fact, all the successive Revolutions of 1793, 1830 
 and 1848 were pre-eminently bourgeois move- 
 ments. I do not mean to say that the prole- 
 tariat played no part in that of 1789. Quite the 
 contrary ; but the proletariat, unconscious as yet 
 of its own vast strength, worked in the interests 
 of the bourgeoisie. The Revolution of 1789 was 
 the work of the upper bourgeoisie, which then made 
 an effort to shake off the shackles of thraldom 
 into which an absolute monarchy and a feudal 
 system had forced it. 
 
PARIS AND PETROGRAD 11 
 
 It has been rightly pointed out^ by historians 
 that the principal idea of the French Revolution 
 was that of equality. This is to a certain extent 
 true. But it was equality as the bourgeois under- 
 stood it : equality of the capitalist with the 
 privileged noble and aristocrat. The ideal of the 
 bourgeoisie of 1789 was the equality of Birth and 
 Capital (Europe and, above all, democratic America 
 have since adopted this principle), but not the 
 equality of Capital and Labour. All the laws of 
 1789 made a distinction between the " bons cito- 
 yens " and the "gens mal intentionees," between 
 the capitalist bourgeois and the poor devil of a 
 prole taire. The Constitution of 1791 clearly drew 
 a distinction between a wealthy, dominating, 
 governing class and a governed, labouring group. 
 There were full citizens and citizens of a lower 
 grade. 
 
 Even in 1793, the movement was far from pro- 
 letarian. Of course, the cahiers des doleances 
 raised a new tone and spoke in the voice of the 
 proletariat, but the voice remained unheard. 
 " The voice of freedom," they cried, " says 
 nothing to the heart of a poor devil who is hungry." 
 Marat even went so far as to maintain that 
 equality of rights must logically lead to equality 
 of enjoyment ! 
 
 The movement of 1789 in general was thus far 
 from being proletarian.* " If one opens the Royal 
 Almanach of the year 1788," writes Bardoux.^ 
 " one is astonished to find that the first ranks of 
 the Tiers Etat were already in possession of all 
 
 i Faguet, Uceiivrt aociale. 
 
 2 Cf. W. Sombart, Sozialiamus, Jena, 1908, p. 149. 
 
 ' Cf. Histoire de la Bourgeoisie Frant^ist depuis la Eevolution. 
 
12 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 the civil functions, excepting alone the Court 
 functions ; they were governors of provinces, and 
 filled the majority of posts in the financial and 
 administrative institutions, as well as the judicial, 
 of the country. They were daily acquiring a more 
 preponderating influence in affairs of State. This 
 bourgeoisie, that was already in possession of the 
 public wealth, was anxious to acquire the right 
 to administer its wealth, the chance to increase 
 it and the power to hold it. All the bourgeoisie 
 desired was to be placed upon an equal footing with 
 the nobility and to gain access to the few superior 
 functions and posts to which it still found the way 
 barred. What the bourgeoisie was anxious to 
 obtain was simply the official recognition of its 
 power, a power de jure which it already possessed 
 de facto. 
 
 To wrest that power from the hands of absolute 
 monarchy and autocracy, to proclaim its own 
 power to rule as absolute monarchy and autocracy 
 had ruled, was the aim of the bourgeoisie in 1789 
 and 1793. And it was this aim that the bourgeois 
 called " liberalism," " Revolution," " equality," 
 " liberty," " a democratic government." Tout 
 comme chez nous ! The bourgeois and capi- 
 talists were surprised to hear timid voices, here 
 and there, in favour of the Quatrieme Etat. Their 
 only answer was to constitute themselves politi- 
 cally and economically, and to deprive of their 
 rights as citizens, of their rights as electors, the 
 majority of the nation : all those who could not 
 afford to pay a contribution equal to three days' 
 labour, or a silver mark for the right of being 
 eligible. ^ 
 
 1 Cf. B. Lazare, Idiea rSvolutionnaires, p. 6. 
 
PARIS AND PETROGRAD 13 
 
 Thus Capital began its reign and treated Labour 
 as it had itself been treated by absolute monarchy 
 and autocracy 1 Plutocracy, the mercantile privi- 
 leged class which was to gain such influence and 
 power during the nineteenth century in Western 
 Europe, and especially in America, had ascended 
 its throne. Compared with 1789, 1917 bears a 
 distinctly proletarian character. Labour, as op- 
 posed to Capital, is playing an important and 
 principal role in it. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 PARIS AND PETROGRAD (continued) 
 
 Socialism and Federalism 
 
 Three factors which constitute a mighty current 
 in the upheaval of 1917 were absolutely absent in 
 the French Revolution. They are briefly these ; 
 Socialism, Internationalism and its counterpart, 
 Nationalism — or rather the Principle of Nationality 
 — with its variant, Federalism. When I say that 
 Socialism was absent in the French Revolution 
 of 1789, I do not, however, mean to affirm that 
 socialistic ideals, namely, " possession and pro- 
 duction in common " and " socialisation of all 
 means of production " — in a word, communism and 
 collectivism, abolition of private and individual 
 property — were unknown before 1789. 
 
 A brief glance at the history of philosophical 
 and economic thought previous to 1789 will con- 
 vince us that such ideas and ideals had already been 
 discussed and propagated by writers of antiquity 
 and of mediaeval Europe alike. Economic ques- 
 tions had occupied the minds of thinkers, of phil- 
 osophers and sociologists of all ages. Plato may 
 be considered as the first philosopher and exponent 
 of communism. But Plato's communism was 
 idealistic and antidemocratic, inasmuch as in his 
 system the aristocracy, the superior class, played 
 
 14 
 
PARIS AND PETROGRAD 15 
 
 an important role. Plato's communism, therefore, 
 was an aristocratic socialism. The ancient Hebrews 
 and the early Christians had communistic aspira- 
 tions. The prophet Isaiah foretold an age of per- 
 petual peace, when the lamb and the wolf would 
 dwell together in a peaceful state of communism. 
 The early Christians, mostly revolted proletarians 
 and emancipated Jews, protested against the 
 existing regime of inequality and iniquity, against 
 the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few, 
 whilst the masses were plunged in endless misery. 
 Christianity, as it was promulgated by the im- 
 mediate disciples of the Saviour, protested against 
 such a state of things. 
 
 But the disinherited suffering classes were too 
 weak, too powerless, too lacking in organisation in 
 those far-off days, so the early Christians despaired 
 of ever being able to establish a communistic 
 state upon the earth. They turned their eyes 
 to Heaven, and, instead of promising happiness 
 to all upon earth, preached the " Kingdom of 
 Heaven." The poor found some consolation in 
 this doctrine, whilst the rich were quite satisfied. 
 They were ready and willing to submit to demo- 
 cratic principles in a kingdom to come, to share 
 their bliss on a communistic basis with the poor 
 and disinherited some time in heaven, as long as 
 they were left in possession of their wealth on 
 earth. ^ 
 
 During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, 
 socialistic and communistic ideas were once more 
 promulgated and preached in a philosophical spirit, 
 a la Plato, by such writers as Thomas More and 
 Campanella. The former wrote his Utopia and 
 
 ^ Cf. EncyclopSdie Socialiste, Un pen d'histoire, pp. 44-5. 
 
16 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 the latter his City of the Sun. During the eighteenth 
 century, the philosophers and encyclopaedists 
 criticised traditional conceptions and ideas, passing 
 everything through the crucible of reason ; it was 
 but natural that they should also attack the sacred 
 right of individual property. 
 
 In conformity with the laws of "Reason and 
 Nature," as exposed by Rousseau, Morelly and 
 Mably, all socialistic and communistic ideals and 
 ideas, at first Messianic and theological, become 
 metaphysical, lacking the basis of reality, a well- 
 defined programme, solid ground. They were 
 dreamy, philanthrophic, humanitarian, mystic and 
 philosophical, but not practical.^ They lacked 
 economic reality and that strength of organisation 
 which alone can overthrow one regime and, upon 
 its ruins, build up another. Such was the true 
 condition of socialistic teaching when the French 
 Revolution of 1789 broke out. 1 he French Revo- 
 lution had a certain socialistic background or 
 undercurrent, but the proletariat, i.e. the working 
 classes or salaried portion of the nation, had as yet 
 too little consciousness of either its rights or its 
 power, and therefore it became the dupe of the 
 bourgeoisie, or the mercantile and plutocratic 
 aristocracy which replaced the aristocracy of birth. 
 
 In 1789, various socialist, communist and collec- 
 tivist ideas and tendencies were struggling into 
 the foreground of thought, but the Revolution 
 being, as I have said, a bourgeois movement, 
 brought about by a class which lived and had its 
 very being in the principle of private and indi- 
 vidual property, they were crushed and nipped in 
 their bud. The Quatrieme Etat, the proletariat — 
 
 1 Cf. Encyclopedie Socialiste, Un peu d^hiatoire, p. 296. 
 
, 9 • • • 
 
 5' 3 5 3 
 
 I ^ > 
 
 3 ' e c ) ^ » 
 
 
 ' J » a 
 
 5 3 9 
 
 ■) t ■> > 
 
 3 4 • » 
 
 Vassiliy, Prince of Moscow, 
 
 16] 
 
.♦ * 
 
PARIS AND PETROGRAD 17 
 
 not to be confounded with the vagabonds and 
 ragamuffins — was neither organised nor even con- 
 scious of its possible power. It has taken ages for 
 the proletariat to become aware of its power, for 
 Labour to dare definitely to declare war on Capital. 
 The rights of the proletariat only existed in the 
 minds of the philosophers. Yet, though the 
 philosophers of the eighteenth century had 
 attacked the existing institutions, had criticised 
 everything indiscriminately, when the moment 
 arrived for them to pass from metaphysical specu- 
 lation to reality, they did nothing ; when the 
 nation was called upon to express its wishes and 
 requests in the famous cahiers des doUances, there 
 was practically no cry — except in a few exceptional 
 instances — for a thorough social change. " L'objet 
 des lois est d'assurer la liberte et la propriete." 
 Feudal rights were attacked, the possessions of the 
 clergy were confiscated; but this was not done in 
 opposition to the principle of private property but 
 as a remedy to ensure it.^ There was no open, 
 recognised hostility against individual property, 
 no serious attempt to abolish it ; its abolition is the 
 key-note of modern socialism. Royalty, which 
 many philosophers identified with the principle of 
 private property, was abolished in 1792, yet none 
 of the governments of the Revolution passed any 
 laws against individual property. On the contrary, 
 both the Constitution of 1791 and the Convention 
 sanctioned it. It was later consecrated by the 
 Constitution of 1793. 
 
 Neither the Girondins nor the Jacobins had an}?- 
 clear, definite, collectivist programme. The Jaco- 
 bins drew their influence from the poor, whose 
 
 1 Cf. Lichtenberger in (Euvre Sociale, p. 68. 
 
 2 
 
18 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 patrons they were, and therefore were the enemies 
 of the rich. They were enthusiastic about the 
 ideals of social equality, but even they, philosophers 
 and politicians as they were, did not dream of up- 
 rooting the existing social order and changing the 
 system of property, or of establishing an agrarian 
 democracy. 
 
 Robespierre and St. Just recognised the power 
 of the State to change the social order with regard 
 to property, but, in practice, they, too, found it 
 impossible. Inequality of property, they ad- 
 mitted, was inevitable, but political and civil 
 equality would counterbalance it. By endeavour- 
 ing to find work for the sans-travail (out-of-works), 
 by taxing the rich, by levying heavy ransom upon 
 luxuries, inheritances, etc., they hoped to estab- 
 lish a certain equilibrium. 
 
 The Jacobins were animated by a spirit hostile 
 to the aristocracy, the nobles, the rich and wealthy 
 classes, but not to wealth and riches in themselves. 
 An equal distribution of property and of the means 
 of production did not enter into their programme. ^ 
 Property was sacred, communism was absurd, and 
 the suggested agrarian law impracticable. It must 
 be admitted that the Convention passed laws that, 
 apparently, were in accordance with socialistic 
 principles, but their inspiration came not from 
 these principles, but from the spirit of Public Safety. 
 A government, even a strongly conservative one, 
 will in moments of emergency, of storm and stress, 
 often pass laws that savour of socialism, but in 
 reality they are inspired neither by a spirit of 
 democracy nor of socialism : they are rather mani- 
 festations of the arbitrary, autocratic power of the 
 
 ^ Cf« Liohtenberger in CEuvre Social, p. 86. 
 
PARIS AND PETROGRAD 19 
 
 government in question, or dictated by a care for 
 Public Safety. We have seen many examples of 
 such laws during the last three years. 
 
 The only attempt at a collectivist revolution was 
 the conspiracy of Babeuf. This was the direct 
 result of the disillusionment of the Quartrieme Etat 
 whom the bourgeoisie had deprived of the benefits 
 and advantages of the Revolution. This is not the 
 place to give the history of Babouvism, as it has 
 been called ; for our purpose w^e need only quote 
 a few passages from the famous Manifeste des 
 Egaucc, which will give a clear idea of Babeuf's 
 collectivist ideals. 
 
 " People of France," he wrote, " for fifteen cen- 
 turies vou have lived as slaves and have, conse- 
 quently, been unhappy. For six years you have 
 breathlessly waited for independence, happiness 
 and equality. To-day, when you loudly clamour 
 for equality, you are told : Be quiet, misirables ! 
 Equality is only a chimera ; content yourselves 
 with conditional equality ; you are all equal before 
 the law, ' Canaille, que te faut-il de plus ? ' Legis- 
 lators, rulers, rich proprietors, listen now in your 
 turn. We are all equal, are we not ? This prin- 
 ciple you do not contest. Well, then ! Hence- 
 forth we intend to live and to die as equal as when 
 we were born ; we wish real equality or death — 
 that's what we want ! x\nd we are going to have 
 it. The French Revolution was only the prologue 
 to another revolution, much bigger, much more 
 solemn, which will be the last one. 
 
 " The agrarian law was the spontaneous wish of 
 several unprincipled soldiers, moved by instinct 
 rather than by reason. What we want is some- 
 thing infinitely more sublime, more equitable ; we 
 
20 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 want the community of possession (' le bien des 
 biens'). No more individual landownership ; the 
 soil belongs to no one. We demand, we want the 
 enjoyment in common of the fruits of the earth ; 
 the fruits belong to one and all. We declare that 
 we can no longer suffer that the vast majority of 
 men should work and sweat in the service of, and 
 for the benefit and pleasure of, the extremely small 
 minority. It has lasted too long already, that 
 less than a million men should be in possession of 
 what actually belongs to more than twenty millions 
 of their equals. This great scandal must now cease, 
 at last. These revolting distinctions between rich 
 and poor, great and small, master and servant, 
 government and governed, must disappear. There 
 should be no difference between men except that 
 of age and sex. Since we all have the same needs 
 and the same faculties, there should be but one 
 standard of education and food for all men : we 
 share the same sun and the same air, so why should 
 not the same quantity and the same quality of 
 food be ready for every man ? " And he finishes : 
 Peuple de France ! 
 
 Ouvre tes yeux et ton cceur a la plenitude de 
 la felicite. Reconnais, et proclame, avec nous la 
 Republique des Egaux.'! 
 
 According to Babeuf, slavery, tyranny and 
 oppression are the direct results of inequality, and 
 inequality is the outcome of the principle of private 
 property. Property, therefore, is the scourge of 
 society, it is a public crime. 
 
 " La nature a donne a chaque homme un droit 
 6gal a la jouissance de tous les biens." 
 
 *' La nature a impose k chacun I'obligation de 
 travailler." 
 
 n 
 (( 
 
PARIS AND PETROGRAD 21 
 
 '' Les travaux et les jouissances doivent etre 
 communs a tous." 
 
 " 11 y a oppression quand I'un s'epuise par le 
 travail et manque de tout, tandis que I'autre nage 
 dans I'abondance sans rien faire." 
 
 Such were, briefly, the collectivist ideals which 
 Babeuf and Buanorotti hoped to carry into 
 effect. 
 
 The conspiracy of Babeuf was crushed, and on 
 June 14th, 1791, a law was passed that deprived 
 the working classes of the right to assemble and 
 discuss ways and means of defending their common 
 interests. ''11 ne doit pas etre permis aux 
 citoyens de certains professions,'* says the report 
 of Chapelier, '' de s'assembler pour pretendus 
 interets communs." The groups having certain 
 interests in common were thus not allowed to 
 organise themselves, to discuss their grievances 
 and to devise means for their defence. The inter- 
 ests of the Quatrieme Etat were sacrificed for 
 the general interest.' They protested, but they 
 were too weak and powerless to exercise any real 
 pressure. " Oh freres aines qui vendez Joseph," 
 cried Dufournoy de Villiers, the author of the 
 cahier du Quatrieme ordre, " qui abandonnez 
 Benjamin, egoistes, renegats de Ihumanite, c'est 
 de cette pret endue canaille que je me ferai gloire 
 d'etre le defenseur." 
 
 But the defenders were few. The proletariat 
 was not organised, had no leaders, and even those 
 who were supposed to lead them had no clearly 
 elaborated programme; they rather followed the 
 proletarians instead of leading them and putting 
 their aspirations into concrete form. What were 
 
 1 Cf. Bouchez and Roux, Histoire ParUmentaire. 
 
22 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 the aspirations of the proletariat in those days ? 
 A desire to Kve better, to eat their fill. The prole- 
 tarians of 1789 and 1791 were hungry devils, 
 simply ; they cried for bread and liberty ; but, 
 above all, it was bread that they wanted. 
 
 Yet the French Revolution, though not really 
 socialistic or collectivist, paved the way for 
 socialism. It became the starting point of the 
 collectivist ideal ; it helped socialism to emerge 
 from the chaos of semi-consciousness, to proceed 
 from the domain of Utopia into that of real 
 politics, from philosophy and literature into history. ^ 
 To the democracies of Europe of the nineteenth 
 century, the French Revolution has been what the 
 Russian Revolution of 1917 will prove to be to the 
 democracies of the world of the twentieth century. 
 The very fact that the Revolution of 1789 was not 
 socialistic, either in its tendencies or its results, 
 that the principle of individual property remained 
 intact, and that the power was merely shifted from 
 the hands of the aristocracy of birth into those 
 of the plutocracy, gave rise to much deep thinking 
 on the part of the sociologists and economists of 
 the nineteenth century ; it made them fully realise 
 that the fundamental social evil lay in the unequal 
 distribution of wealth and of the means of produc- 
 tion. The Proletariat, and by proletariat I mean 
 the manual as well as the intellectual proletariat, 
 the Labourer as distinguished from the Capitalist, 
 gradually began to understand the necessity of 
 organisation if it ever meant to make its influence 
 felt. Thus, after 1789, socialism began to develop 
 on real, scientific and economic bases, and to make 
 such steady progress ahead that it was able to 
 
 1 Cf. Lichtenberger, I.e., p. 102. 
 
PARIS AND PETROGRAD 23 
 
 play a very prominent part in the Russian Revo- 
 lution of 1917. 
 
 It was during the nineteenth century that St. 
 Simon, one of the pioneers, one might say, of 
 modern socialism, elaborated his system, which is 
 at once practical, philanthropic, humanitarian and 
 mystico-religious. St. Simon, although not an 
 opponent of the capitalist, since he failed to per- 
 ceive the antagonism which must necessarily exist 
 between Capital and Labour, was clearly upon the 
 side of the labouring classes and advocated their 
 interests. It was also during the nineteenth cen- 
 tury that Robert Owen became the initiator of 
 the modern legislation in favour of the working 
 classes, and tried his communistic principles in 
 America ; that Charles Fourier criticised civilisa- 
 tion and capitalistic barbarity, and promulgated 
 the theory of agricultural associations ; that 
 Proudhon condemned property and stigmatised it 
 as ''theft." "La propriete c'est le vol." The 
 nineteenth century was the century of various new 
 attempts at mystic socialism which found their 
 exponents in Cabet, the author of the Utopia 
 Voyage a Vile d'Icarie ; in Bouchez and Pierre 
 Leroux. It also gave birth to the theories and 
 doctrines of Marx, Engels and Lassalle, of Malon, 
 Lavrov and Bakunin. 
 
 It was during the second half of the nineteenth 
 century that the " Internationale " came into 
 existence and created a link between the labouring 
 classes of all countries, thus organising the prole- 
 tariat of Europe, or international Labour against 
 international Capital. It was also during the 
 nineteenth century that various new political revo- 
 lutions took place, that democracy made repeated 
 
24 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 efforts to pull down the strongholds of aristocracy, 
 autocracy and absolute monarchy. It was also 
 the century of Blanqui, who was revolutionary 
 socialism personified : Blanqui, who when asked 
 by the judge what he was by profession, replied : 
 *' Je suis proletaire.'* It was the century that 
 witnessed the Revolution of 1848, of Chartism and 
 of the Paris Commune. What a vast stretch of 
 road socialism has travelled since 1789 ! It has 
 travelled far and learned much in the course of a 
 single century, and from the stores of its acquired 
 knowledge the Russian Revolution of 1917 was 
 able to draw help and guidance. 
 
 Socialism is one of the principal factors of the 
 Russian upheaval. The agrarian problem was 
 shirked and avoided by the men of 1789, but the 
 agrarian question is to-day the pivot, the sine qua 
 non, of the Russian social change. The proletariat 
 was almost ignored in 1789, but to-day, the Soviet, 
 the Council of soldiers and workmen, is practically 
 in control of the Russian Government. A very 
 brief glance at the events of the last decade of the 
 nineteenth century and the first decade of the 
 twentieth, and especially at the constitution of 
 parties in the last Dumas, will show us what deep 
 roots socialism has taken in Russia. 
 
 In 1884, the Social Democratic party was founded 
 in Switzerland by four militant revolutionaries — 
 Plekhanov, Vera Sassoulitsh, Deutsch and Axel- 
 rod. Their novel methods of propaganda were 
 directly inspired by the teaching of Marx and 
 Engels. They spread the ideas of Marx among 
 the labouring classes, thus preparing the proletariat 
 for the economic fight. From 1891 to 1894 a series 
 of strikes were declared over Central Russia, at 
 
PARIS AND PETROGRAD 25 
 
 Moscow and at Petrograd. In 1895, a vast strike 
 was organised at Petrograd by Lenin and Martov, 
 in which 35,000 working men participated. 
 
 In 1900-1901, the socialist revolutionary party 
 was reorganised under the intellectual leadership 
 of Lavrov. One of the most influential members 
 of the party was Victor Tshernov, editor of the 
 Znamya Trouda {The Banner of Work). The 
 majority of its members belonged to the liberal 
 professions, and have exercised a considerable 
 influence upon the '' Union of Officers " and the 
 " Union of Soldiers and Sailors." A great deal was 
 expected from the socialist tendencies inherent in 
 the peasants, who still clung to the form of collectiv- 
 ism manifested in the Mir. It therefore advocated 
 the immediate socialisation of the land. On the 
 other hand, the Social Democrats declared that this 
 ancient and primitive form of communism would 
 have to disappear and make room for the modern 
 capitalistic forms of production, as a necessary 
 preliminary to complete social construction, which 
 could only be the result of a slow evolution. Apart 
 from agrarian reform, the social revolutionary 
 party included terrorism in its programme. 
 
 In consequence of the narrow dogmatism and 
 sectarianism shown at the congress held in London 
 in 1907, a split occurred in the Social Democratic 
 party. It broke into two factions : the Bolsheviki, 
 or majoritaires, headed by Lenin, and the Men- 
 shoviki, or minor itaires, whose leaders were Plek- 
 hanov, Martov and Dahn. The former w^ould have 
 nothing to do with the liberal bourgeoisie, whom 
 they accused of monarchic tendencies. They 
 accused Plekhanov and his friends of being too 
 benevolent towards the Liberals and the Cadets. 
 
26 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 The Menshoviki, on the contrary, maintained that 
 a revolution would be impossible unless Russia 
 first realised the political and social conditions pre- 
 vailing in Western Europe, and that the liberal 
 bourgeoisie must be an important factor in the 
 revolutionary movement. It would be dangerous, 
 they said, to alienate the sympathies of this section 
 of the nation and thus throw it into the arms of 
 reaction. Each section had its dogma, which, with 
 the doctrinaire temperament so common in Russia, 
 it pursued, and is still pursuing, to the extreme. 
 
 By an Imperial Ukase, Tsar Nicholas II dissolved 
 the First Duma. Then the Liberal and Labour 
 members endeavoured to organise, by the famous 
 Vyborg Manifesto, an appeal to the nation, but 
 their effort proved futile. Yet " La Duma est 
 morte, vive la Duma ! " exclaimed the late 
 Campbell Bannerman. Energetic and active pre- 
 parations were carried on for the election of repre- 
 sentatives to the Second Duma. In this second 
 Russian Parliament, the Social-Democratic party 
 counted not less than sixty- six deputies, whilst the 
 socialist-revolutionaries, soon joined by three 
 Armenian deputies, had thirty-five seats. Sixty- 
 six deputies belonged to Labour groups. Thus, out 
 of the 500 deputies, 170 were of acknowledged 
 socialistic tendencies. 
 
 In consequence of the triumph of autocracy and 
 its new electoral laws, the Third Duma was dis- 
 tinctly reactionary, but the fight of the Social 
 Democrats nevertheless continued with fierceness 
 and intensity. The Social Democratic party 
 gradually gained in strength and power ; it counted 
 among its leaders Plekhanov, Axelrod, Alexinsky, 
 Sticklov, Razanov and many others. Of late 
 
PARIS AND PETROGRAD 27 
 
 years this party has developed a wonderful activity 
 and energy which space prevents me from describ- 
 ing in detail. The other parties, socialistic in their 
 tendencies and connected with the Social Demo- 
 cratic organisation, were not less active and ener- 
 getic. Such are: (1) The Bund, an organisation 
 of Jewish working men which was established in 
 1897, and comprises over 50,000 members (its 
 tendencies are socialistic and Jewish-national as 
 opposed to Zionism) ; (2) The Lettish Social 
 Democratic party, which is the socialist organisa- 
 tion of the Baltic provinces; and (3) Ihe Social 
 Democratic party of Poland and Lithuania, which 
 must not be confounded with the Socialist Polish 
 Party (P.P.S.), whose basis of action is the re- 
 establishment of Polish independence. 
 
 Now, though socialism made vast strides during 
 the second half of the nineteenth century, and has 
 taken root all over the world among the labouring 
 classes, at least, yet, logically, it has to yield to 
 internationalism. Socialism is collectivism ; it 
 is organised Labour against Capital, but Capital is 
 international, therefore, if the proletariat was 
 decided to wrest the power from the hands of the 
 capitalists, it had to fight them with their own 
 weapons, i.e. upon international ground. Inter- 
 nationalism is socialism carried to its logical con- 
 clusion. I hope I shall not be accused of exag- 
 geration or partisanship for saying this. I am 
 neither a collectivist nor a socialist, even though I 
 approve of many of the principles of the socialistic 
 doctrine. But logically speaking, I fail to under- 
 stand how any one — I mean any logically reasoning, 
 serious-minded individual — honest and true to his 
 convictions, can at once be a socialist and yet an 
 
28 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 ardent nationalist, i.e. an opponent of inter- 
 nationalism. The capitalists of the socialist's 
 own native country are his enemies, just as much 
 as the capitalists of another country. The con- 
 ception of the socialist- nationalist is, to my mind, 
 just as illogical as that of the Zionist-Marxist, or 
 Zionist and loyal subject of country of birth. 
 
 Internationalism has, therefore, become the very 
 foundation stone of modern socialism. It is vastly 
 different from the internationalism which, during 
 the nineteenth century, has gradually developed 
 itself in the domains of art and science. The in- 
 ternationalism of the proletariat, of labour, the 
 internationalism which is the direct and logical 
 outcome of socialism, must be anti- national— taking 
 nationalism in the sense of Jingoism. 
 
 " The attacks of proletarian internationalism,'* 
 writes Sombart, " are principally directed against 
 such conceptions as Chauvinism and imperialism ; 
 against national pride, against all policies of con- 
 quest and expansion, colonial and otherwise, as 
 well as against militarism and war." ^ Nations 
 yearn for peace. They know no antagonism, no 
 hostility which would compel them to draw the 
 sword. Every modern war is a senseless massacre 
 of the unwilling masses, who are led to slaughter 
 like cattle. Militarism is the origin of such 
 criminal enterprises. " Such have been the declara- 
 tions of all socialist internationalist congresses : 
 Paris, 1889, Brussels, 1891, London, 1906. These 
 international congresses all decided to oppose 
 militarism and war ! 
 
 I call the reader's attention to this last sen- 
 tence, and invite him to reflect and draw his own 
 
 1 Z.c, p. 216. a Ihid.,p. 216, 
 
PARIS AND PETROGRAD 29 
 
 conclusions. And while he is thus engaged, he 
 may at the same time consider the following fact : 
 After three years of a terrible war, the spiritual 
 head of Catholic Christianity, His Holiness the 
 Pope, has, at last, decided to preach the peace of 
 the Gospel. When one portion of humanity has 
 for three years learned to hate another portion. 
 Pope Benedict XV comes forward and reminds us 
 of the religion of Love, as taught by Him who 
 preached the Sermon on the Mount. As if love 
 and hatred are sentiments which man can harbour 
 in his breast at the call of authority. Once we 
 love, it is not easy for us to learn to hate ; but when 
 we have learned, and been taught, and rightly too, 
 to hate, we cannot in a moment turn round and 
 begin to love, as if nothing had happened. It is 
 sheer hypocrisy to pretend it be possible. 
 
 Though internationalism is opposed to Jingoism 
 and imperialism, modern social democrats do not 
 at all agree with Marx when he says that " the 
 working men have no fatherland," " that the pro- 
 letarians have no home, and that therefore you 
 could not take away from them what they did not 
 possess." Though opposed to imperialism, to 
 annexations, to " political patriotism," as Sombart 
 puts it,^ the majority of socialists to-day are parti- 
 sans of national collective existence — in other 
 words, of " cultural nationalism," or " cultured 
 patriotism." 
 
 It would lead me too far to point out the con- 
 tradiction existing between internationalism on the 
 one hand, with the " solidarity of the proletarians 
 of all countries " as a fundamental principle, and 
 the nationalism, or " solidarity of all classes of one 
 
 1 Cf. Ibid., p. 231. 
 
30 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 nation " in their common interests, as opposed to 
 a foreign nation, on the other. But what I wish 
 to emphasise here is that during the nineteenth 
 century the idea of internationaUsm, as well as 
 its counterpart, an intense nationalism, has widely 
 developed. It has been since the Revolution of 
 1789, and especially since the Napoleonic Wars, 
 that the " principle of nationality " has acquired 
 such a preponderating place in the history of 
 nations, in sociology and in politics. By the 
 *' principle of nationality " we understand the 
 '' right of a nation (or an ethnic group) to consti- 
 tute itself into a separate State." 
 
 Now, the French Revolution of 1789, whilst it 
 clearly favoured the principle of nationality, was 
 not seriously faced by it in France herself. The 
 French Revolution was directed against the abso- 
 lutism of princes, and, in principle, was not con- 
 cerned with the idea and sentiments of nation- 
 alities. As far as the question arose in France, 
 the Revolution was hostile to it. It suppressed 
 the provincial traditions and endeavoured to 
 make the unity of the State complete. Yet it 
 was the French Revolution, by proclaiming the 
 liberty of the oppressed, and later the Napo- 
 leonic Wars, that helped to awaken the sentiment 
 and the principle of nationality. The principle 
 of nationality was formulated for the first time by 
 Mme. de Stael in her book on Germany.- 
 
 Napoleon had firmly established two ideas : the 
 dynastic idea and that of conquest, both diamet- 
 rically opposed to the principle of nationality. 
 The Holy Alliance also upheld the dynastic and 
 
 1 Cf. Kojuharoff, Du Prjnctpe des Nationalitea, Geneve, 1884, 
 p. 38. 
 
PARIS AND PETROGRAD 31 
 
 conquest ideas. This naturally led to a reaction, 
 to a revolt of national sentiment, to the awakening, 
 development and strengthening of the spirit and 
 principle of nationality. After 1848 the national 
 movement became more intense in Europe. It 
 manifested itself in two ways : on the one hand, 
 it aimed at reuniting all the scattered portions of 
 one nation, or ethnic group, whilst, on the other, 
 it worked for a separation, a dissolution of artificial 
 unions : the direct results of conquests and 
 dynastic principles.^ Since 1859 the principle of 
 nationality has made itself felt all over Europe, 
 in Italy, Greece, Poland, Turkey and Austria. 
 
 The Italian national movement, since 1848, has 
 contributed greatly to the development of the 
 principle of nationality by introducing it into 
 the domain of practical politics, as distinguished 
 from that of theory. It was officially sanctioned 
 in the war against Austria in 1859. Napoleon II 
 became the defender of the principle, to the great 
 amazement of the public* The principle of 
 nationality was the pretext Europe used to inter- 
 vene, and the reason of her policy, in the Balkans 
 and in the Orient. And, strange to say, Russian 
 autocracy, that personification of the dynastic 
 principle, of the idea of divine right, both so dia- 
 metrically opposed to the conception that nations 
 should dispose of themselves as a collectivity, has 
 proved the champion of nationality in Turkey ! 
 This is perhaps the only point which the Revolu- 
 tion has in common with autocracy. For the 
 principle of nationality is one of the most impor- 
 
 ^ Cf. Raoul de la Grasserie, Du Principe Sociologique des 
 NationaliUs, Paris, 1905, p. 10. 
 
 a Cf. Rcvut dea Deux Mondes, 1866, p. 700. 
 
32 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 tant features of the programme of the Russian 
 upheaval and the national Reconstruction. 
 
 It has been said that both in France — and in 
 Russia of 1905, the trouble sprang from two 
 chief causes, namely, financial difficulties and the 
 wretched state of the peasantry : causes which 
 were utilised by the intellectuals of the respective 
 countries to set in motion the wheel of reform. That 
 several factors, however, were present in France 
 which were absent in the Russia of 1905, and these 
 coming into play in 1789, caused the French Revo- 
 lution to assume its fierce and terrible form.^ One 
 of these factors was the war of invasion. Now it 
 must be remembered that the recent Russian 
 Revolution has broken out in the midst of a war 
 of invasion. But whilst the wars of the eighteenth 
 and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries were 
 fought for dynastic principles, for expansion and 
 greed, and whilst even the French Revolution, 
 when it became victorious, ignored the rights of 
 nationalities, the present war is said to be a defence 
 of the principle of nationalities, a war in favour of 
 the independence of small states, of the principles 
 of autonomies and federalisms. 
 
 Hand in hand with the principle of nationality 
 goes the idea of " federalism." By federalism we 
 understand the right of various provinces of the 
 same state to enjoy a local autonomy. Revolution- 
 ary France of 1789 had emerged as a political 
 entity from the hands of Richelieu and Louis XIV, 
 although administratively she lacked unity. France 
 was divided into several provinces which enjoyed 
 a certain independence, separate tariffs, legislation 
 and budgets. The Constituent Assembly wiped 
 
 1 Cf, Fortmghtly Review, 1906, vol. ii, p. 400. 
 
J , J » 3 > 
 
 » ' , * ' ' ' 
 
 » ' J 
 > ' , 
 
 J > > 
 
 ' ' , , J ' > ' 3 ' ' " 
 
 Tsar Michael Romanov 
 
 32] 
 
c « 
 
PARIS AND PETROGRAD 33 
 
 out the existence of the provmces, and by dividing 
 the country into departments, districts and com- 
 munes, destroyed every vestige of federal or auto- 
 nomous government in France. The men of the 
 Revolution felt the possible danger of a federal 
 movement, of an attempt by some of the depart- 
 ments to tear themselves away from the centre 
 and to constitute themselves into so many Repub- 
 lics, and by celebrating the feast of federation — 
 July 14th, 1790— they hoped to avoid it. " La 
 Republique une et indivisible " was decreed. 
 
 And yet the danger had not been so very great 
 after all, for federalism in France had little chance, 
 both on historical and ethnical grounds. It is 
 true that the Girondins, who succeeded in raising 
 the revolt of sixty departments against Paris, were 
 accused of federahsm. Yet it is extremely doubt- 
 ful whether the Girondins really intended to create a 
 federal state in France ; in any case, they loudly 
 protested against the accusation of federalism. 
 They, too, were ardent supporters of "La Re- 
 publique une et indivisible." It was simply a 
 fight between two parties, each anxious to lead the 
 Revolution.^ The Girondins were vanquished by 
 the men of the Montague, and France, one and 
 undivided, even more than she had been in the 
 days of Richelieu, was handed over as such to the 
 Empire. During the Commune, an attempt was 
 made at federalism, but its failure showed how 
 little chance it has in France. 
 
 Now if one again compares 1789 with 1917, one 
 finds w^hat a profound difference there exists be- 
 tween the French and the Russian Revolutions. 
 
 1 Cf. Wallon, La Revolution et le Federalisme en 1793, Paris, 
 1886. 
 
34 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 A Russian Republic, " une et indivisible," is almost 
 out of the question. Not only has the principle 
 of nationality, and with it federalism — which is 
 more closely connected with it than one would at 
 first imagine ^ — made rapid strides, and is part of 
 the programme of the Allied statesmen, but there 
 is such vast scope, such an immense field, for auto- 
 nomous and federalistic agitations in Russia, 
 Poland has been promised autonomy, Finland and 
 the Ukraine have torn themselves away from 
 Russia. There is little doubt that in such a vast 
 country, whose inhabitants belong to 128 nation- 
 alities, every day will bring forward new claims 
 based upon the principle of nationalism or federal- 
 ism. Therein lies the greatest danger for New- 
 Russia, but just emerging from the iron grip of 
 autocracy. 
 
 It must also be remembered that there is' an 
 enormous dii'i'erence between federated states like 
 Switzerland and America, who went from separa- 
 tion to union, uniting into one federate state, and 
 Russia, who would have to reverse the process. 
 The requests for autonomy and federalism, which 
 have practically been acknowledged by the Pro- 
 visional Government of Russia and by the all- 
 powerful parties, is thus another factor fraught 
 with great danger, which the France of 1789 knew 
 little of, or which, if it really existed, the Conven- 
 tion overcame with but slight difficulty. In an 
 age of nationalism run mad, on the one hand, and 
 " internationalism " on the other, loudly pro- 
 claiming that '' le patriotisme est une mauvaise, 
 etroite et funeste habitude," that frontiers ought 
 
 1 Cf. also M. Block, Dictionnaire general de la Politique, 
 Paris, 1884, vol. ii, p. 376. 
 
PARIS AND PETROGRAD 35 
 
 to be abolished, etc., the clash and antagonism 
 between the various ideals and ideas, sentiments 
 and interests, becomes tremendous. 
 
 To sum up : 1789 was the revolt of one social 
 group against two others, viz. the bourgeoisie 
 against the aristocracy and the clergy. The prole- 
 tariat, but little developed and less organised, was 
 ignored. The Russian upheaval is the work of 
 the organised proletariat to a great extent. The 
 French Revolution had no principles of nationality 
 to deal with, and was hostile towards any attempt 
 of federalism, whilst New Russia is faced by 
 numerous questions emanating from the principle 
 of nationality, and is clearly favouring, or is com- 
 pelled to seem to favour, the federalistic programme. 
 In 1789, collectivist ideals were only beginning to 
 emerge from a state of semi-conscious idealism, 
 whilst in 1917, they have entered the domain of 
 reality. The Russian Revolution is the work of 
 numerous social groups who have all separated, 
 who often have antagonistic interests, to defend. 
 Capital in 1789 had not as yet captured the power 
 it wields to-day, and consequently Labour was not 
 so hostile to it. During the nineteenth century 
 Capital has acquired tremendous power, and 
 Labour is bound, therefore, to see in it its arch- 
 enemy. 
 
 I must mention one other factor which was 
 also absent in 1789. The French Revolution was 
 the revolt of a social group only, the questions of 
 ethnology and religious beliefs entered but little 
 into it, whilst the Russian upheaval is the revolt 
 of social as well as ethnic and religious groups. 
 The Jews, for instance, whom the French Revo- 
 lution emancipated, contributed to the overthrow 
 
86 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 of the old regime individually but not collectively, 
 whilst in Russia they have been collectively respon- 
 sible for the overthrow, and have largely contri- 
 buted to the triumph of Democracy over Auto- 
 cracy, as will be shown in one of the later chapters. 
 In France there were oppressed social groups ; in 
 Russia there were social, ethnic and religious 
 groups that sighed and groaned under the yoke of 
 oppression. In a word, in the France of 1789, 
 the demands were not so numerous, the interests 
 not so varied, and the antagonism between 
 them not so intense as is the case in the Russia 
 of 1917. 
 
 The above comparison and survey will perhaps 
 shed some light upon the difficulties which have 
 arisen, and which were bound to arise, in New 
 Russia. To understand these difficulties it is 
 necessary to examine the deeper causes under- 
 lying the apparent state of chaos. To say that 
 the majority of the Russian revolutionaries are 
 pacifists— now a term of opprobrium equal to that 
 of hooligan in those far-off days when Europe was 
 at peace — would be an unjustifiable statement, 
 especially with regard to men who have never 
 shrunk from a fight with their enemies, and who 
 have fearlessly faced prison, exile, the mines, and 
 even death, for the sake of the cause ; who, in 
 short, have been good fighters all their lives. 
 " Traitors," too, is an ugly word to use, besides 
 providing no adequate or psychological explana- 
 tion of present events. There may, or there may 
 not be, traitors among the Russian revolutionaries ; 
 it is for history to judge. 
 
 The causes of the trouble are much more compli- 
 cated. They are briefly these: The authors of 
 
PARIS AND PETROGRAD 87 
 
 the Revolution, from whatever class, group, social 
 or ethnic, they were drawn, and whatever creed they 
 held, were all of one mind as far as the destructive 
 work was concerned, even if they difiered as to 
 the means to be employed. But now that the de- 
 structive work is accomplished and Tsardom lies 
 prostrate, the diii'erent elements composing the 
 revolutionary forces part company. The architects 
 cannot agree as to the plan of the new structure 
 that is to be erected upon the ruins of the old. 
 We are witnessing a clash, conflict and confusion 
 of sentiments, ideals and ideas. Men, if not 
 actually speaking a Babel of tongues, are certainly 
 thinking a Babel of thoughts. They are also, not 
 infrequently, taking the '' ought to " of ethics for 
 the "it is" of daily life ; they are taking dreams 
 for realities. The Russians are by nature theorists, 
 given to abstract reasoning, and they cling to their 
 theories with the fanaticism of the doctrinaire. 
 The different currents of opinion, constitutional 
 liberalism, or a liberal bourgeoisie, Socialism, 
 Anarchism, Nationalism, Imperialism, Humani- 
 tarianism, and Internationalism, as well as many 
 other " isms " are crossing each other. 
 
 Some Russians are satisfied with " political 
 emancipation " ; others are dreaming of an 
 " emancipation from politics." Some Russians 
 would be satisfied with a substitution of new gods 
 for old, would be content with thorough repairs 
 in the old structure, whilst others desire a clean 
 sweep, the complete overthrow of all the idols 
 which humanity has hitherto worshipped, and a 
 tabula rasa for an entirely new building. S ome have 
 raised nationality into a creed ; others are wor- 
 shipping the individual. The former, like Lavrov, 
 
38 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 are for a " confraternity of men," without distinc- 
 tion of race, nationality or language. In the view 
 of Bakunin and his school the individual is every- 
 thing ; society is, or should be, an agglomeration 
 of pure spirits, a commerce of ideas, whose goal is 
 liberty. Man should not be subordinate to, but 
 co-ordinate with his neighbour, and the aim of 
 government should be to make itself superfluous. 
 
 Some of the revolutionaries would be satisfied 
 with a constitutional monarchy like that of Great 
 Britain ; others desire a federal republic, like that 
 of Switzerland or the United States. Others again 
 have more ideal dreams : they dream of establish- 
 ing a Republic of the Just, and take for their 
 models the Republic of Plato, the City of St. 
 Augustine, the Utopia of More, Harrington's 
 Oceana, Campanella's City of the Sun, Fenelon's 
 Salente, and the types of society imagined by Jean 
 Jacques Rousseau, or by the ancient prophets who 
 foretold the Kingdom of God. These dreamers 
 forget that even Rousseau himself said that such a 
 city presupposes a nation of gods, or, to use a 
 more modern expression, a race of supermen. It 
 is a city in which no man is born, and wherein no 
 man has ever physically lived : it exists only in 
 the realm of imagination. The men who dream 
 of such ideals would have to legislate for pure 
 spirits and to build a solid structure upon a foun- 
 dation of clouds. 
 
 The Russian Revolution has broken out in the 
 midst, perhaps as a result, of a great war. We 
 have grown familiar, during the last three years, 
 with the now famous phrase : " The present war 
 is a war of ideas." It is quite natural, however, 
 that men, according to their particular trend of 
 
PARIS AND PETROGRAD 39 
 
 thought and temperament, should put different 
 constructions upon this phrase. To some, a war 
 of ideas means a war with heavy guns and mit- 
 railleuses, a war in which men kill each other to 
 make their respective ideas triumphant. Others 
 construe the phrase to mean a war in which ideas 
 do all the fighting. But this is not the only reason 
 which prompts some of the Russian revolutionaries 
 to adopt the attitude of pacifism. Many of them 
 draw, as President Wilson has done, a clear dis- 
 tinction between the German governing classes and 
 the German people. They believe that the German 
 people will deal with the Hohenzollerns as the 
 Russians have dealt with the Romanovs. This is 
 the view of the Social Democrats in Russia, who are 
 mostly Marxists, and still cling to their faith in 
 the German working classes. 
 
 On the other hand, the Social Revolutionaries, 
 who now style themselves, " National Socialists," 
 together with the anarchists like Kropotkin, have 
 no illusions with regard to Marx and the German 
 socialists. They are convinced, as Bakunin was, 
 that " the assumption of a real difference between 
 the Prussian Government and the German people 
 is illusory and sentimental," that the Germans are 
 the most " reactionary and authoritative people " 
 in the world, " lacking the instinct of liberty." 
 The Social Democrats say, " Let us reason with 
 the mind of Germany, and thus conquer " ; the 
 National Socialists, more clear-sightedly reply, 
 " Let us conquer, and then we will reason." Beyond 
 this it may be said that the Marxists in Russia are 
 bent upon shifting the war from a war of nations 
 to a war of classes. They care little for the map 
 of Europe, so long as their ideas of a social recon- 
 
40 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 struction emerge triumphant from the welter of 
 sacrifices. 
 
 Another psychological current underlying the 
 present ferment in Russia, another idea " struggling 
 in the background of the Russian convulsion," 
 is the question of democracy and " democratic 
 control." Here again men are apt to put different 
 constructions upon the words " democratic control." 
 When is it to begin ? When will democracy really 
 assert itself ? If democratic control, they say, 
 is to be the watchword of Europe in a not dim and 
 distant future, if the triumph of democracy is to 
 be the great conquest, the vast annexation wrested 
 from Prussian militarism, then democracy should 
 have a voice in the war, even before it has been 
 brought to a successful issue. 
 
 Hitherto, say the democrats in Russia, war has 
 been declared and carried on without our having 
 been consulted ; we have heard vague formulas 
 and aspirations, but we have had no control of the 
 war ; we are ignorant of secret diplomatic arrange- 
 ments and treaties ; we know not to what extent 
 the government has pledged the nation, its wealth 
 and its future ; we are told that this war is to lay 
 the foundations for a new edifice, a new Europe ; 
 we labourers and wage-earners may have views as 
 to the nature of that edifice different from those of 
 the governing and capitalist classes ; we are told 
 this war is to be the end of the era of conquest ; 
 we do not want it to prepare the way for a new 
 era of exploitation ; we are all anxious to crush 
 Prussian militarism, but you governing and 
 capitalist classes may be anxious to do it for the 
 benefit of the bourgeoisie ; and, incidentally, the 
 German bourgeoisie would profit, whilst our own 
 
PARIS AND PETROGRAD 41 
 
 proletariat would suffer ; we Russian democrats 
 have decided to continue the war and to carry it 
 to a successful issue under really democratic 
 control, which must from to-day enter into power ; 
 thus alone can we make our arrangements both 
 for crushing Prussian militarism and for safe- 
 guarding the future of the working classes ; we 
 are quite content for our capitalists to suffer as 
 well as German capitalists, and for the German 
 working classes to gain as well as our own working 
 classes. 
 
 Such are the cross-currents of the Russian 
 Revolution, such are the thoughts and theories of 
 the men in the forefront of the movement. They 
 spring from the difjerent doctrines of the phil- 
 osophers and sociologists who sowed the seeds of 
 the Revolution, and also from the various, and often 
 antagonistic, interests of the social, ethnic and 
 religious groups, whose discontent was the prime 
 factor of the upheaval. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 THE SPIRIT OF REVOLT 
 
 The news of the Russian Revolution has come to 
 Europe like a thunderbolt from the blue. Out of 
 chaos a new world seems to have emerged— a world 
 of freedom and liberty, a world created by the 
 fiat of the workers grown grey in the struggle. 
 But ex nihilo nihil. The human creators who have 
 called into being this new world — the far-reaching 
 effects of which Europe has not yet realised — have 
 had good creative matter accumulated in the 
 course of decades, and even centuries, to work 
 upon. The spirit of revolt did not suddenly swoop 
 down upon the captives of Tsardom ; it has long 
 been brooding and hovering over the vast plains 
 of Russia ; but now, at last, it has manifested itself 
 in this new upheaval, in this overthrow of autocracy 
 and the downfall of the house of Romanov, in this 
 crumbling down of the old bureaucratic regime, 
 undermined to its very foundations. 
 
 It has often been stated that the historical period 
 of the Russian Revolution began in the year 1855, 
 the Crimean War, or, as some say, with the rising 
 of the Decembrists in 1825. In my opinion, how- 
 ever, the beginnings of the Russian Revolution 
 may be sought for in a much more remote period. 
 The seeds were first sown in Russian soil, and in 
 the Slavonic soul, when the Moscow autocracy 
 
 49 
 
THE SPIRIT OF REVOLT 43 
 
 arose upon the ruins of the power estabhshed by 
 the Mongol Khans. The spirit of revolt has 
 existed in Russia since time immemorial. It has 
 always struggled to express itself, and has done 
 so at various times and epochs in different ways. 
 It found a homestead here and there among 
 different strata of society ; it was either political, 
 or social, or even both at once, according to need. 
 
 Sometimes it fought against purely Russian 
 evils : despotism, absolutism and autocracy ; whilst, 
 at others, it waged war against social wrongs such 
 as the rest of Europe were also suffering; then it 
 became cosmopolitan instead of local or purely 
 national. Sometimes it took the form of a 
 struggle against political oppression and en- 
 deavoured to endow Russia with various insti- 
 tutions similar to those existing in the West, in 
 France, Great Britain, Italy, Switzerland and 
 America. At other epochs, it appeared like a 
 Utopia whose adherents greatly resembled the 
 carbonari, men thirsting for a mystic ideal. It was 
 but natural that in its search for true manifesta- 
 tion the spirit of revolt should work blindly and 
 even deviate from the right path, and its apostles, 
 instead of preaching a gospel of justice and 
 idealism, seem, like Erostrates of old, only anx- 
 ious to destroy out of sheer love of destruction 
 and revenge. Yet it is always so ; those upon 
 whom the spirit has descended will always appear 
 either apostles or savages to the world. 
 
 In old Russia, the Russia of Rurik, the Russia 
 of princes and appanages, the institutions were 
 distinctly democratic, even republican. This was 
 especially so in the North- Western provinces and 
 in such commercial centres as Pskov and Novgorod. 
 
44 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 The population was divided into small, rural com- 
 munities ; towns were few and only distinguished 
 from the villages by their wooden enclosures. Each 
 community consisted of the descendants of one 
 family, thus possessing the land in common and 
 all obeying the patriarchal authority of the head 
 of the family, called the elder. It was a patriarchal 
 system, or one might say, monarchic en miniature^ 
 which was limited by the authority of " the whole 
 world " {vessj mir), i.e. of all the inhabitants. The 
 social organisation of the cities and towns was 
 exactly similar to that of the rural communities, 
 and the power of the princes was counterbalanced 
 by that of the general assembly of all the urban 
 inhabitants, known as the vetshe. There was no 
 distinction between the urban and rural inhabi- 
 tants, or peasants ; neither was there any privi- 
 leged class in old Russia ; there was only the 
 people and a princely family descended from Rurik. 
 The members of this family parcelled out the 
 whole of Russia among themselves. The state 
 was divided into appanages, each governed by a 
 prince under the supremacy of the eldest member 
 of the family, who bore the title of Grand Prince. 
 His appanage was first Kiev, then later Vladimir 
 and Moscow. The power and authority which 
 the Grand Prince could exert over the other 
 princes was quite insignificant. Nominally, the 
 lesser princes recognised the supremacy of the 
 Grand Prince, but, in reality, they were but little 
 dependent upon him, and there was absolutely no 
 administrative centralisation. Again, the appan- 
 ages were not the individual property of the prince, 
 for he often passed from one appanage to another. 
 The prince was surrounded by his companions in 
 
THE SPIRIT OF REVOLT 45 
 
 arms, who constituted a kind of aristocracy, which 
 was, however, recruited from the people. The 
 idea of an aristocratic class had been brought to 
 Russia by the Varangians, or Normans, but the 
 Slavonic spirit modified that idea according to its 
 own partriarchal and democratic notions. The 
 title of hoyarin was not hereditary, and conferred 
 no special privilege. The power of the prince 
 was not by any means absolute, though it later 
 became so in Moscow. The prince was merely the 
 elder of a great number of towns and villages over 
 which he ruled conjointly with the general assem- 
 blies. His only advantage was that his post was 
 not elective ; the dignity w^as hereditary. The 
 prince was the chief magistrate of his appanage. 
 In a word, Russia in those early days was a federated 
 state with a homogeneous population, practically 
 without class distinction and with all property 
 held under the communal system. This organisa- 
 tion was certainly not inferior to that existing in 
 other European states before the fourteenth 
 century. On the contrary, the Russian people 
 really enjoyed more freedom, both individual 
 and collective, than did their fellows in feudal 
 Europe. 
 
 Thus, in the majority of Russian principalities, 
 the prince was a strictly constitutional ruler, if 
 one may apply this epithet to a time when the 
 idea of a constitution was far from having been 
 clearly defined in the minds of the people. In any 
 case the prince never took any important step 
 without previously consulting the popular assembly. 
 Gradually the princes of Kiev extended their sway 
 over the other principalities, but this was chiefly 
 because the Russian principalities felt themselves 
 
46 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 unable to cope single handed with their foreign 
 foes, especially the Greek of Tsargrad, Byzantium 
 or Constantinople. The latter had the advantages 
 of civilisation, science and, above all, centralisa- 
 tion. The old democratically inclined Slavs, who 
 had invited the Varangian princes to come and 
 bring order into their vast lands, felt that Rurik 
 and his descendants had given them but a small 
 degree of cohesion. Byzantium, they said, was 
 strong because it had but one Caesar and one faith, 
 and because the entire nation was grouped round 
 one holy dynasty. 
 
 Yet it was not the real Russian nation, the old 
 Slavs, the democratic communities, that cast such 
 longing eyes at the Byzantine institutions ; they 
 were quite happy, and would have remained so, 
 with their paganism, their vetshes and communal 
 regime. It was rather the ardent wish of the 
 princes of Kiev, who were anxious to strengthen 
 their power and to introduce into the land of the 
 Slavs the Csesarism of Byzantium. The idea of 
 the divine law of the ruler also existed among 
 their near neighbours the Poles, Lithuanians, Ger- 
 mans, Bulgarians and Khosars, all converted 
 either to Catholicism, Islam or Judaism, but no- 
 where was it so strongly developed as at Con- 
 stantinople ; nowhere else was the union between 
 the spiritual and the temporal so close and so 
 strong. ' 
 
 One day, thought the holy Vladimir, I, too, 
 shall be an autocrat like the Caesar of Byzantium, 
 and know no other law, no superior will, except 
 the abstract one of the Trinity. Henceforth, I 
 shall be above the Russian communities, and no 
 
 1 Cf. V. Berard, I.e., 1905, p. 88. 
 
THE SPIRIT OF REVOLT 47 
 
 vetshe or popular assembly shall dare to contradict 
 my will or invoke ancient privileges or customs. 
 I shall be, like the Caesars of Constantinople, the 
 absolute ruler, and should the people dare revolt, 
 I shall not only draw my sword but also hurl 
 against them the thunders of the Church ; threaten 
 them not only with punishment in this world, but 
 also with damnation in the next for having dared 
 to disobey the anointed of the Lord. In the 
 Catholic religion, the temporal rulers have to 
 submit to the Pope, whilst in the Byzantine Church 
 the inheritor of Constantinople is the supreme head 
 of both State and Church/ 
 
 This splendid religion could hardly fail to appeal 
 to the Varangian prince, however uncongenial it 
 might be to the democratic, joyous and pagan 
 masses of the Slavs. That this statement is true, 
 history has abundantly proved. On the one hand, 
 the Greek religion has never really penetrated the 
 Russian masses ; for centuries they remained 
 pagans at heart and merely practised the forms of 
 the religion superficially. On the other hand, 
 the princes of Kiev, and above all the Tsars of 
 Moscow, both before and after Peter the Great, 
 have regularly drawn their strength and their 
 power, the power of autocracy, from their By- 
 zantine religion. Thus the orthodox faith 
 appealed to the Princes of Kiev, since it was the 
 only religion that, like the ancient Greek paganism, 
 subordinated ecclesiastical authority to the tem- 
 poral power. 
 
 In Islam, Judaism and Catholicism it was just 
 the reverse. Vladimir, when he embraced By- 
 zantine Christianity, was not so much struck by the 
 
 1 B6rard, l.o,, p. 290. 
 
48 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 benefits of the religion as by the service it could 
 render the development and increase of autocracy. 
 Vaguely, this Rvissian Constantine, this holy 
 monarch, this artistic pagan, was already dreaming 
 of the autocratic power which his successors would 
 one day wield and carry to its utmost consumma- 
 tion. Passive obedience and monastic discipline 
 were thus introduced into Russia. Truly writes 
 Herzen : " Byzantium brought Russia to sad and 
 degrading times ; it blessed and sanctioned all 
 coercive measures against the liberty of the 
 people. It taught the Tsars Byzantine despotism, 
 it prescribed and ordained to the people a blind 
 obedience and a complete resignation." ^ In the 
 abyss of Byzantium the individualism of Russian 
 nationality was lost, for a time at least. Russian 
 energy and joie de vivre^ independence and per- 
 sonality were thus carried to the grave to the 
 sound of Byzantine Church music and with By- 
 zantine funeral rites.' 
 
 Whilst in Western Europe, the struggle between 
 Empire and Papacy was a long and desperate one, 
 in Russia the Byzantine clergy, in accordance with 
 Byzantine teaching, were the very prop and main- 
 stay of autocracy. Thus the introduction of the 
 Greek religion into Russia laid the first founda- 
 tions of autocracy in the principality of Kiev, and 
 upon which the Tsars of Moscow built up the 
 edifice of Tsardom, so hostile to the principles of 
 Slavonic democracy and liberalism. The influence 
 of Byzantium, great as it had been at Kiev, became 
 even more powerful at Moscow. To a certain 
 extent it increased as Moscow grew stronger and 
 
 1 Dii Developpement, I.e., p. 109. 
 
 * Cf. Bappoport, History of Russia, London, 1905, p. 40. 
 
3 4 
 
 3 > ■> 
 
 
 Tsar Peter the Great. 
 
 48] 
 
cc 
 
THE SPIRIT OF REVOLT 49 
 
 extended its sway. When Ivan III married Sophia 
 Palasologus he began to look upon himself as the 
 heir of the Greek Caesars from whom the Turks 
 had wrested Constantinople.^ 
 
 Another factor favourable to the establishment 
 and growth of autocracy in Russia was the Mongol 
 invasion. Internally, Russia remained as before, 
 for the Khans ruled from a distance ; they exacted 
 an unconditional submission, but very rarely did 
 they interfere in the internal administration of the 
 countries under their dominion. The Khans only 
 knew the local princes. However, though the 
 Khans left the internal organisation in Russia un- 
 touched, their invasion was nevertheless a terrible 
 blow to Russian democratic and liberal institu- 
 tions. The continual devastations exhausted the 
 people and drove them away from the ruined towns 
 and villages into the woods and forests. Perse- 
 cuted, oppressed and intimidated, the Slavs 
 acquired the psychology of the continvially op- 
 pressed, the spirit of servility which the Princes of 
 Moscow later used for their own personal benefit. 
 Those very Princes of Moscow who developed 
 Russian autocracy began by themselves adopting 
 a servile attitude towards the Tartar Khans of the 
 Golden Horde. As their reward they were ap- 
 pointed the general tribute- collectors for their 
 masters, the Khans. They were authorised, aided 
 by the Tartar Baskaks, to collect the tribute from 
 all the provinces subject to the Tartar sway. 
 Thus the authority of the Princes of Moscow 
 naturally increased. Moreover, since Kiev was 
 
 1 It is upon this marriage that the Russian Tsars have based 
 their historic claims to Constantinople. Historically they have 
 no other claim and no other right. 
 
50 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 sacked by the Tartars, the Metropohtan of the 
 orthodox Church had no fixed residence ; he now 
 estabHshed himself in Moscow, which town at once 
 became the ecclesiastical capital of Russia, an 
 event of far-reaching importance for the develop- 
 ment of autocracy. 
 
 A few years later, the Princes of Moscow built 
 the famous Troitza monastery in the vicinity of 
 the town ; the prior, Sergius, was the great ally 
 of the prince and ably supported him in all his 
 autocratic designs. Then when Dmitry Donskoi 
 defeated the Tartars and was blessed by the holy 
 Sergius, the alliance between the Greek Church and 
 autocracy was definitely sealed. Henceforth the 
 Greek Orthodox Church became the firm supporter 
 of autocracy, whilst the latter followed a policy of 
 persecution and intolerance towards all heretics, 
 i.e. those who did not accept the doctrines of the 
 orthodox Church. Having grown rich while 
 squeezing their subjects for the benefit of the 
 Tartar Khans, the Princes of Moscow extended 
 their territory by either acquiring or conquering 
 neighbouring principalities. Thus they not only 
 increased their possessions and power, but they 
 also crushed the ancient, popular and democratic 
 institutions that distinguished mediaeval Russia.^ 
 
 Yet even until the fifteenth century the struggle 
 between the autocratic tendencies of Moscow and 
 the ancient democratic spirit of Russia was still 
 going on. It was a question as to which of the 
 two principles would conquer in the end : the 
 Prince or the community ; the aristocratic state 
 of Moscow or the Republic of Novgorod. Nov- 
 
 ^ Cf. M. Kovalevski, U Evolution des liberies puhliques en 
 Bussie, Paris, 1905, p. 6. 
 
THE SPIRIT OF REVOLT 51 
 
 gorod, once freed from the yoke of the Tartars, 
 quickly developed its ancient democratic institu- 
 tions and became rich, powerful and flourishing. 
 It was a bitter struggle, that struggle between 
 Democracy and Absolutism, and Moscow, the 
 principle of autocracy, conquered. Her Princes 
 won the title of " Tsars of all the Russias," and 
 Tsardom, the enemy of liberty, of democracy, of 
 independence, made its appearance. Constanti- 
 nople fell under the sway of the Turks ; the two- 
 headed eagle, exiled from Tsargrad, found a 
 resting-place upon the flag of Moscow, and the 
 Greek clergy devoted itself to the task of by- 
 zantinising Russia. 
 
 The people suddenly found themselves faced by 
 a Tsar, by an absolute monarch who was a stranger 
 to them, a usurper, a conqueror who had gathered 
 his strength in the shadow of the Khanate. He 
 had become so powerful that he could ignore all 
 the old privileges and customs of the people. If 
 prince or city rebelled, he punished with the 
 ferocity and cruelty that he had learned from the 
 Mongols. But Novgorod still resisted him. "You 
 tell us," said the ambassadors of Novgorod to 
 Ivan III, " that we must obey the laws of Moscow, 
 but we do not know the laws of Moscow." But 
 in the end Novgorod was subdued.^ And when, 
 but little later, the Republic of Pskov fell under 
 the sway of Ivan the Terrible, the popular assem- 
 blies ceased in Russia. 
 
 During the reign of Ivan Grozny, the Cruel, a 
 lingering vestige of the limited power of the ruler 
 could still be observed. Ivan, whilst fighting 
 against the demands and privileges of the boyarins, 
 
 1 Cf. Hertzen, I.e., p. 21. 
 
52 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 some of whom were the descendants of the reigning 
 princes subdued and disinherited by the Princes of 
 Moscow, convened the Semski Sobor or States 
 General. They were, however, by no means a 
 limitation of the autocratic power which was fast 
 developing. On the contrary, autocracy found a 
 support for its aspirations and am.bitions in the 
 principles of the jus Romanum then imported into 
 Russia by the Greeks expelled from Constan- 
 tinople. The Tsar decided to emancipate himself 
 entirely from the control of the boyarins and the 
 Moscow aristocracy, and it was therefore that he 
 convened the Sobors, who counterbalanced the pre- 
 tentions of the aristocracy. 
 
 The peasants, who had enjoyed liberty and even 
 prosperity during the period of the appanages, 
 gradually lost their freedom under the rule of 
 Moscow. It was but natural that the develop- 
 ment and growth of autocracy, the entire power 
 vested in the ruler, should give rise to much dis- 
 content. This discontent has been smouldering 
 for centuries. Various boyarins, descendants of 
 Rurik and Guedimin, at different times, made en- 
 deavours to limit the power of autocracy, but all 
 their efforts proved futile. Among the peasants, 
 the masses, who were only thought of as the goods 
 and chattels of their masters, this discontent was 
 universal. Jacqueries and peasant risings became 
 frequent. Among the chief supporters of such 
 risings were the Cossacks, who, paradoxical as it 
 may sound, were the first and fiercest opponents 
 of autocracy. The Cossacks were the first Repub- 
 licans in Russia. A glance at their history will 
 convince the reader that this statement is no 
 exaggeration. Thus the peasants and the Cos- 
 
THE SPIRIT OF REVOLT 53 
 
 sacks were always to be found on the side of those 
 who were likely to introduce liberal and demo- 
 cratic principles into Russia. They supported the 
 first false Dimitri and rose against Tsar Shuiski, 
 when the latter endeavoured to strengthen the 
 power of the boyarins at the expense and to the 
 detriment of the people. 
 
 Yet at the beginning of the seventeenth century 
 it really seemed as if Moscow were going to in- 
 augurate an era of liberty congenial to the ancient 
 spirit of the Slavs. This was in 1613, after a period 
 of trouble and national distress, when Mikhail 
 Romanov ascended the throne. The new Tsar 
 made certain concessions and promised many 
 reforms on his ascension. These promises, how- 
 ever, did not affect either the peasants or the 
 landed nobility ; they were solely in favour of the 
 so-called serving nobility ; their prerogatives were 
 increased and the foundations of the later bureau- 
 cracy laid. The Duma of the boyarins was sup- 
 pressed and the lot of the peasants and serfs became 
 almost unbearable. This state of aflairs grew 
 worse during the reign of Alexis IMikhailovitsh, 
 when the autocracy regained all its former power, 
 which it was destined to hold for another three 
 centuries. 
 
 By this time, discontent was not only rampant 
 among the people, but was also at home in the 
 orthodox Church. As we have seen, in the begin- 
 ning the orthodox Church was the staunch sup- 
 porter of autocratic power, but in the course of 
 time it grew weary of the yoke, and jealous too. 
 It was ready to take advantage of any opportunity 
 to shake off the temporal supremacy of the Tsar. 
 When such an opportunity at last came, in March 
 
54 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 1917, the world was astonished to see how eagerly 
 and anxiously the Russian Church greeted freedom. 
 But it was not a surprise to those who knew the 
 great discontent that had lain dormant within the 
 orthodox Church. 
 
 The silent discontent of the Church, and its 
 struggle for emancipation and freedom, may be 
 traced back to the beginning of the seventeenth 
 century. The Russian orthodox Church tasted 
 the first sweets of power during the reign of Mikhail 
 Romanov, when the Tsar's father Philarete was 
 appointed Patriarch and assisted his son in the 
 government of the country. The Church was 
 naturally anxious to exercise the same preponder- 
 ating influence even after the death of Philarete, 
 but the Tsars, the successors of Mikhail Romanov, 
 resented it. From this struggle between Church 
 and State the latter emerged victorious, and then 
 once more the former became subservient and 
 dependent, and an apparent supporter of auto- 
 cracy. But within the walls of the monasteries 
 and sacred edifices the spirit of revolt had found 
 a home, and there it continued to brood and bide 
 its time. Patriarch Nikon, indeed, made an at- 
 tempt to seize power and make the Church inde- 
 pendent of autocracy ; this led to the Raskol. 
 Since then the spirit of Nikon has whispered to 
 many a church dignitary ; the spirit of revolution 
 thus permeated the very atmosphere where auto- 
 cracy lived and had its being. This explains the 
 alacrity with which the Church, that Church 
 which so many superficial writers on Russia — 
 "Russia of stained glass and holy ikons" — con- 
 sidered to be the very prop of Tsardom, hastened 
 to join the recent Revolution. It not only denied 
 
THE SPIRIT OF REVOLT 55 
 
 the ex-Tsar Nicholas, but also the very principle 
 of autocracy. 
 
 The spirit of revolt also manifested itself during 
 the reign of Alexis in the form of popular risings 
 and Jacqueries, but more especially in the revolt 
 of the Cossacks under the leadership of Stenka 
 Razin, the famous robber. Yet, was Stenka Razin 
 an opponent of autocracy ? Apparently he only 
 fought against the boyarins, the seigneurs and 
 officials who, as the peasants maintained, were 
 keeping the Tsar a prisoner. But vvhat were his 
 ultimate aims ? There are certain indications in 
 his attitude that seem to show that he, like the 
 other Cossacks, cared but little for the authority 
 of the Tsar. Stenka' s reply to the Tsar's messenger 
 that " if the Tsar wished a reply he should write 
 his letter himself" ; the rumour, which the rebel 
 himself spread, that he had Patriarch Nikon, who 
 was then in disgrace, in his camp ; it all tends to 
 show that this leader of revolt was not only fight- 
 ing against the boyarins but also the Tsar himself. 
 In any case, the religious revolt of the Raskolniks 
 and the risings of the peasants and the Cossacks 
 all met with the same fate. They were all merci- 
 lessly crushed. The persecutions of the Raskolniks 
 were marked with the cruelty and bloodthirstiness, 
 and the stoicism and heroism which characterise 
 all religious movements and persecutions. The 
 sufferings of the Raskolniks at the hands of the 
 autocracy add but one more chapter to the blood- 
 stained history of crimes committed in the name 
 of religion. 
 
 The Russian people were oppressed more and 
 more until their situation became almost unbear- 
 able ; this was especially so after Peter the Great 
 
56 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 had introduced his reforms, and strengthened the 
 power of the Russian bureaucracy on the model 
 of that of Germany. The Semski Sobors have 
 never ceased to exist in Russia, de jure, but de 
 factOf the Tsars, especially since 1698, have ceased 
 to convene them. Peter the Great Europeanised 
 Russia. That is perfectly true, but Peter, above 
 all, was anxious to strengthen autocracy. He 
 continued the work of Vladimir the Holy and the 
 Tsars of Moscow. " Peter did not disdain either 
 the sword of the Varangian Prince or the Cross of 
 Byzantium, or even the methods of the Mongols, 
 the means by which autocracy had established 
 its power in Russia. He but added another 
 weapon to those employed by his predecessors to 
 subdue the Russian democratic soul ; this weapcm 
 was the pen of the bureaucrat." ^ 
 
 Peter the Great drew his inspiration from the 
 autocratic institutions of France as they existed 
 in the days of Richelieu. " If I had had the good 
 luck," said Russia's great reformer when standing 
 before Richelieu's tomb, "to come across such a 
 Cabinet Minister, I would gladly have presented 
 him with half my kingdom on condition that he 
 would teach me how to govern the other half." 
 He found no Russian Richelieu, so he imported 
 Richelieu's bureaucratic principles, those principles 
 that garrotted France until 1789, into Russia. 
 It must also be borne in mind that it was the 
 German philosopher Leibnitz who was largely re- 
 sponsible for Peter's reforms and who urged the 
 Tsar to introduce the bureaucratic regime into 
 Russia. It has taken the Russian people two 
 centuries fully to appreciate this service that Ger- 
 
 1 B^rard, I.e., p, 316. 
 
THE SPIRIT OF REVOLT 57 
 
 many once rendered them. I admit that Peter 
 was a revokitionary, a Jacobin on the throne of 
 the Tsars, yet, if he worked for Russian civilisation, 
 he also worked, and chiefly, for the benefit of his 
 dynasty, for Imperialism as opposed to democracy. 
 Russia could not follow him, would not follow 
 him, because the soul of Russia is naturally demo- 
 cratic. Napoleon raised France to the summit of 
 glory, but France had become democratic and had 
 learned to hate Imperialism. It felt instinctively 
 that Imperialism is the glory of the dynasty, of 
 the ruling classes, but not of democracy. Demo- 
 cracy and Imperialism can never work hand in 
 hand, for the one means the negation of the other. 
 
 This Imperial idea, originated by Peter and con- 
 tinued by Catherine II, was utilised in the service 
 of Tsardom against the people. The reforms were 
 not a goal, but a means to the strengthening of 
 Tsardom and absolutism. The people became 
 inanimate material, and the aristocracy a willing 
 tool in the hands of Tsardom. But the spirit of 
 revolt was not dead ; it arose among the boy ar ins, 
 and expressed itself in their palace revolutions ; 
 the method was ancient and mediaeval, but methods 
 change with the times. They reminded Tsardom 
 of Russia's Magna Charta : "La tyrannic tem- 
 peree par I'assassinat." It may be said that the 
 Russian aristocracy, after Razin and Pougatshev, 
 found a more memorable method in 1762 and 
 1801, when Peter III and Paul I were throttled, 
 to teach future terrorists how to wage war against 
 Tsars when they refused to listen to peaceful de- 
 mands. That was the spirit of revolt as expressed 
 by the boyarins. 
 
 Thus Peter the Great's abandonment, to a cer- 
 
58 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 tain extent, of Byzantine culture — and leaving a 
 way of entrance for German kultur — not only 
 hopelessly alienated the Russian people from 
 autocracy and widened the existing gulf between 
 them, but also gave a new stimulus to the spirit 
 of revolt which was but waiting for an opportunity 
 to settle accounts with Tsardom. Peter surrounded 
 himself with foreigners who helped him, not to 
 govern, but to oppress, rob and deceive the nation. 
 Bureaucracy, recruited from among the German 
 adventurers, became the servant of autocracy, 
 and the oppressor and enemy of the people, who 
 hated both the servant and the master, but by its 
 very powerlessness was condemned to silence. 
 The more hostile and rotten the official state 
 machinery became, the stronger grew the revo- 
 lutionary spirit. For two centuries the Russians 
 could rightly lament and say : " And Germans rule 
 over us. Our Tsars and Tsaritzas know us not, for 
 they are strangers, usurpers, foreigners among us." 
 And the discontent among the peasants con- 
 tinued to grow ; at the slightest opportunity there 
 were peasant risings and Jacqueries. It was the 
 accumulated feeling of popular consciousness 
 struggling for manifestation. The antagonism be- 
 tween the people and its rulers, between the slaves 
 and the oppressors, was becoming too great ; 
 autocracy had to thank the fatalism, the resigna- 
 tion which the Byzantine religion had taught the 
 Russian people, that it was allowed to remain in 
 power for another century or two. When the 
 antagonism finally reached its summit, when the 
 revolutionary forces were at last fully organised, 
 there was nothing that could save the Tsars from 
 their destinv. 
 
THE SPIRIT OF REVOLT 59 
 
 During the reign of Catherine II the spirit of 
 revolt manifested itself frequently among the pea- 
 sants. In 1773 Catherine's throne seemed sud- 
 denly to totter. The threatened danger was the 
 revolt of Pougatshev, who was joined by the dis- 
 contented peasants, Cossacks and Raskolniks. 
 The revolt was quelled with much bloodshed, and 
 the friend of Voltaire and Diderot availed herself 
 of this pretext to put an end to the military re- 
 publics of the Cossacks on the Dnieper, and to 
 destroy their Sietsh. When the French Revolu- 
 tion broke out, the Tsaritza saw in it a danger to 
 autocracy, and immediately all her so-called 
 liberalism disappeared as if by magic. Perhaps 
 she foresaw that the example of France would 
 sooner or later be followed in Russia, where, the 
 revolutionary forces having taken longer to develop 
 and evolve, the great upheaval would be the more 
 radical. '' As soon as Catherine heard of the 
 French Revolution," whites Sorel,^ " she hated 
 it.'* " Cette revolution heurtait ses id^es, con- 
 trariait ses passions, genait sa politique." A 
 constitutional monarch, to Catherine, was only an 
 " allie en peinture." The French assembly was 
 but a hvdra with twelve hundred heads, and she 
 despised the King who permitted himself to be 
 dictated to by those bourgeois. Knout and mines 
 could not eradicate such tendencies.' This Ger- 
 man princess on the Russian throne was more 
 autocratic than any autocrat. The French Revo- 
 lution and the revolt of Pougatshev were two 
 
 1 Cf. Albert Sorel, UEurope et la Bevolutioyi Francaise, vol. ii, 
 p. 32. 
 
 3 Cf. also Ch. de Lariviere, Catherine II et la E6volution 
 FrauQaise, 
 
60 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 spectres which she could never forget. From a so- 
 called liberal, the Empress became a reactionary, 
 an upholder of autocracy and absolutism. She 
 who had dreamt of reforms, of the emancipation 
 of the serfs and of convening a National Assembly, 
 became the persecutor of the liberalism that was 
 raising its voice in Russia. For it was during the 
 reign of Catherine that the Russian spirit of revolt 
 that lay dormant in the people and struggled to 
 manifest itself, that occasionally with sheer brutal 
 force revealed itself by a Palace Revolution, an 
 assassination, a revolt, an insurrection, peasant 
 risings and Jacqueries, first became articulate. 
 Henceforth it grew and crystallised, expressed 
 itself first in words, and later in deeds. 
 
 Such is the history of the creation of all great 
 movements as well as of the revolutionary move- 
 ment in Russia. Since the reign of Catherine the 
 spirit of revolt in Russia has expressed itself in 
 songs and satires, and also in history, philosophy 
 and sociology. In a subsequent chapter, The 
 Poets, Philosophers and Sociologists, I shall treat 
 of the share taken by the thinkers, poets, philo- 
 osophers and prophets in the Russian Revolution, 
 and the place they hold among the pioneers. 
 Suffice it here to say that the stimulus which the 
 spirit of revolt in Russia received from abroad, and 
 especially from France, soon manifested itself in 
 an organised insurrection, which, unfortunately, 
 was premature and therefore failed. It was the 
 insurrection of the Decembrists, the work of 
 officers and aristocrats. It failed because it was 
 the conspiracy of but one discontented group. 
 Like the Palace Revolutionaries of 1762 and 1801, 
 the officers and nobles who throttled Peter III and 
 
THE SPIRIT OF REVOLT 61 
 
 Paul I, the Decembrists were men of noble birth. 
 The only difference was, that in the course of 
 time these seigneurs had adopted new ideas, had 
 become ideal-political dreamers, instead of real- 
 political. The Palace Revolutionaries of 1762 and 
 1801 only desired to satisfy a personal vengeance, 
 to effect a change, to put one Tsar in place of 
 another upon the throne, but the Decembrists 
 aimed at a political revolution. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE DECEMBRISTS 
 
 The Napoleonic vrars of 1813-1814 had a far- 
 reaching eliect upon the development of political 
 ideas in Russia. During their sojourn in Paris the 
 Russian ofiicers, recruited among the most edu- 
 cated and idealistically inclined nobility, had 
 familiarised themselves with Western civilisation 
 and culture. They were deeply impressed by the 
 difierence between the old political system prevalent 
 in Russia and the liberal and democratic institu- 
 tions of the West. The constitutional government 
 of Western Europe greatly attracted them, and 
 made them feel ashamed for their own country, for 
 Russia humiliated, as it were, by the yoke of 
 autocracy. The officers returned home with their 
 minds full of new conceptions and varied political 
 ideas that were then but little known in Russia. 
 What they saw in their own country then filled 
 them with discontent and disgust. On the one 
 hand, they saw an arbitrary, despotic government, 
 and, on the other, oppressed, enslaved and poverty- 
 stricken masses. This discontent sprea,d in the 
 army, from the generals down to the soldiers. 
 
 " We have shed our blood in the service of the 
 country," murmured these latter, " and now we 
 are made to work for the seigneurs. We have 
 
 C2 
 
THE DECEMBRISTS 68 
 
 saved the country from a foreign tyrant, and, as a 
 reward for our services, we are being tyrannised 
 over by the seigneurs and by our own Govern- 
 ment." x\nd the young officers who had returned 
 from abroad also could not remain silent spec- 
 tators of the general misery and the deplorable 
 state of aflairs. 
 
 They began to organise circles and clubs where 
 they read philosophical and sociological works and 
 discussed political ideas and questions. They 
 eagerly read those foreign papers that dealt with 
 the struggle of the Opposition against the Govern- 
 ment in the constitutional assemblies of the West. 
 How anxious these Russians were to see such a 
 fight for freedom, such political activity at w^ork 
 in their own country ! A positive fever of 
 liberalism seized young Russia ; the revolutionary 
 and liberal principles which, to the Russians, 
 accustomed as they were to oppression, autocracy 
 and bureaucracy, seemed to have been realised in 
 the West, were accepted with enthusiasm by the 
 Russian youth. " Since the return of the Russian 
 armies from the West," writes Nicholas Tour- 
 geniev,^ " liberal ideas are beginning to propagate 
 themselves very rapidly in Russia." 
 
 Full of a high sense of their own personal dignity, 
 the J^oung officers were anxious to play a pro- 
 minent role in the regeneration of their country. 
 They had helped to liberate France from the 
 tyranny of Napoleon, yet a more shameful tyranny 
 existed in their own Russia. They had helped to 
 set a strange house in order ; was it not high time 
 to set their ovra house in order ? Their eves had 
 
 ft/ 
 
 been opened. They found absolute despotism 
 
 1 La Russie et les Busses, Paris, 1847, vol. i, pp. 94-5. 
 
64 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 holding its sway through all classes of Russian 
 society. Araktsheev ruled supreme, the Govern- 
 ment oppressed the nation, the officials treated the 
 civilians like so many servants. The officials were 
 not appointed for the people ; the latter seemed 
 to exist solely for the benefit of the former. The 
 majority of the Russian people were still dis- 
 honoured by the yoke of serfdom ; legislation was 
 in a state of chaos, the law devoid of sanction, and 
 its exact application compromised by the arbitrari- 
 ness and the venality of the officials.^ 
 
 " The officers and other military men," writes 
 Tourgeniev, " who had visited foreign countries 
 related what they had seen abroad and attracted 
 public attention by their freedom of manner, 
 especially in speech and general behaviour." ' 
 But not only the officers, even the common soldiers 
 had come into contact with other troops — men 
 who were used to a different kind of discipline, 
 and they, too, began to feel that something was 
 wrong in Russia, and that a change was urgently 
 needed. The innate craving of the Slav for liberty 
 was aroused ; the spirits of Pougatshev and 
 Stenka Rasin seemed to beckon to the Russian 
 peasant and soldier to rise and throw off the 
 shackles of thraldom, of Byzantine autocracy and 
 German bureaucracy, and to re-introduce the old, 
 free institutions of the ancient Slavs. 
 
 A propaganda of, as yet, a vague and hazy 
 liberalism spread among the youth of Russia ; 
 their young brains seethed with new ideas. These 
 young enthusiasts foregathered to discuss plans of 
 reform and to devise means of carrying them into 
 
 1 Cf. Rouaskaya Staruia, 1884, vol. xiii, p. 31 ff. 
 « Ibid., pp. 81-4. 
 
o • • , • ', 
 
 J J . 1 .• 
 
 «. ' ' > 
 
 , ' ," o J »■> 
 
 
 
 ' V* > \ ff.vit»i- 7.-^ 
 
 O 
 
 r;-c'- 
 
 1-1 
 
 P3 
 
 ■;ii 
 
II 
 
 : 
 
THE DECEMBRISTS 65 
 
 effect. While abroad they had learnt about and 
 made the acquaintance of various secret societies. 
 It must be remembered that even in the West 
 real liberal thought, both religious and political, 
 was for a long time confined to a small circle of 
 adepts who met each other in secret, and were thus 
 able to prepare their plans without being exposed 
 to the vulgar contempt of a populace still too 
 ignorant to comprehend them. 
 
 This example was followed in Russia, and various 
 secret societies were established. The need for 
 them was even greater than in the West. These 
 societies became very numerous ; but, at any rate 
 at first, the majority of them were quite inoffen- 
 sive ; they were secret only in name, for they were 
 not at all hostile to the supreme authority.^ They 
 never went beyond discussions, for their faith in 
 Alexander's liberalism was still great, and they 
 firmly believed that the Tsar would soon grant 
 Russia a constitution. This hope, however, was 
 soon frustrated. 
 
 Alexander I, a pupil of Laharpe, had gathered 
 round him a bevy of young men seething with 
 ideas for a regeneration of Russia. The ideal of 
 the men who had for some time influenced the 
 Tsar was to establish a national and representa- 
 tive government. From 1806 to 1812, the man 
 who exercised the most preponderating influence 
 over Alexander I was Michael Speransky, the son 
 of a village priest and a professor of mathema- 
 tics and philosophy. For some time, Speransky, 
 who had become Secretary of State, enjoyed the 
 full confidence of the Tsar to whom he submitted 
 a plan of reforms extending to the legislative, 
 
 ^ Pmpin, I.e., pp. 511-14; Rappoport, I.e., p. 378. 
 
 5 
 
66 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 adminsitrative and judicial powers of Russia. He 
 had a great admiration for French institutions, 
 and this fact gave his enemies a pretext to de- 
 nounce him as a traitor when Russia was on the 
 verge of war with France. Speransky was sud- 
 denly arrested and sent to Nijny Novgorod. He 
 was liberated in 1816, and reinstated in favour, 
 but he never regained his former position. 
 
 The fall of Speransky, on the one hand, and the 
 war with Napoleon on the other, put an end to 
 all talk of reform. The enemies of Speransky 
 were in power ; Karamzin, the great historian, 
 made himself the champion of autocracy.^ Then 
 Araktsheev, the Pobiedonostzev at the beginning 
 of the ninteenth century, the sworn enemy of all 
 new ideas and reforms, the champion of absolutism 
 and autocracy, became all-powerful. After his 
 return from France the Tsar continued to favour 
 Araktsheev, and it was on the latter' s advice that 
 military colonies were first introduced into 
 Russia : a system borrowed from Austria. The 
 peasants opposed this measure, and revolts broke 
 out, which were quelled with extraordinary 
 severity. 
 
 Alexander had been greeted in Europe as the 
 " liberator of nations " and a " restorer of peace ! " 
 But, alas, " liberators of nations " are not always 
 the friends of real liberty, and " restorers of peace " 
 often shed oceans of blood. At best, Alexander's 
 liberal ideas had only been a pose, and his taste 
 for constitutional governments resembled that of 
 a dilettante who goes into ecstasies over a beautiful 
 picture. Napoleon and Metternich had exercised 
 
 * Cf. A. S. Rappoport, The Curae of the Romanovfi, pp. 
 370-3. 
 
THE DECEMBRISTS 67 
 
 a deep influence upon him : they had laboured to 
 prove to him the futility of his generous ideas. 
 
 After his second visit to Paris, the Tsar's re- 
 actionary policy became more and more manifest. 
 He had concluded the Holy Alliance. Ostensibly 
 it was a treaty signed by three sovereigns who 
 solemnly promised " to govern their subjects in 
 the spirit of Christianity and to be guided by the 
 principles of justice, love and peace." In reality, 
 however, it was a league of rulers against their 
 subjects, against the hydra-head of democracy and 
 revolution. A league of sovereigns, of rulers, of 
 governments, no matter whether they be termed 
 Autocrats, Tsars, Kaisers, monarchs, or even oli- 
 garchic republics, are edifices whose foundations 
 have been laid on quicksand. All such treaties 
 have, as a general rule, proved to be merely a 
 " scrap of paper," and have never been the founda- 
 tion of real, permanent peace : this can only be 
 secured as the result of a treaty concluded by a 
 '' league of nations" or a " confraternity of men." 
 But when I say " a league of nations " or a " con- 
 fraternity of men " I do not mean treaties con- 
 cluded by a dozen or more statesmen or diplomatists 
 who pretend to speak in the name of peoples or 
 nations, but treaties in the drawing up of which 
 the nations have had a hand, which represent their 
 wishes and desires after due opportunity has been 
 given them to express these, for one must clearly 
 distinguish between a real league of nations and a 
 league of statesmen, all belonging to the wealthy 
 and governing classes. The gulf between the 
 interests of the governing and the governed classes, 
 between Capital and Labour, has not yet been 
 bridged. 
 
68 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 The Holy Alliance, concluded by three sovereigns 
 in the name of Christianity, justice and peace, 
 proved the cause of injustice, reaction and war 
 for the coming century. It became a league of 
 rulers against the nations,^ The Tsar was entirely 
 under the influence of Araktsheev, Austria, and 
 Metternich. The revolutionary spirit in Europe 
 was raising its wings ; the sovereigns, anxious to 
 preserve their power, grew alarmed, and govern- 
 ments became animated by a movement of reaction. 
 It was chiefly Austria which initiated the re- 
 establishment of the ancient regime of absolute 
 monarchy.* The Tsar now opposed every effort 
 of his subjects towards liberalism, and endeavoured 
 to nip in the bud the feeble blossom, the seeds of 
 which he himself had helped to sow. He showed 
 himself the champion of absolute monarchy and 
 autocracy. Forgotten were all his early promises, 
 forgotten the dreams of his youth. He had granted 
 a constitution to Poland, but the Poles soon 
 learnt that the promises of an autocrat, be his 
 title Tsar or Kaiser, to grant reforms, freedom 
 or independence, are mere soap-bubbles. These 
 rulers of millions simply put the beverage of op- 
 pression into bottles and label it " freedom," The 
 label cannot deceive the consumer once he has 
 tasted the much-advertised drink. But in justice 
 to autocrats I must add that this statement may 
 frequently be applied to constitutional and demo- 
 cratic governments. 
 
 Alexander's reactionary tendencies became even 
 more noticeable in the Congresses of Aix-la-Chapelle, 
 
 1 Cf. Puipin, Die geistigen Bewegungen in Ruaaland, Berlin, 
 1894, p. 543. 
 
 2 Cf. Ibid., p. 618-19. 
 
THE DECEMBRISTS 69 
 
 Troppau, Laybach, Verona, and Vienna. He aban- 
 doned the cause of Greece in the interests of Euro- 
 pean diplomacy, and, instead of becoming the 
 protector of the freedom of Greece, he refused to 
 favour the insurrection of his brothers in rehgion.^ 
 The European governments, writes Madame 
 Choiseul-Goufher, saw in the efforts of the Greeks 
 to recover their independence a dangerous revo- 
 lutionary spirit ; a spirit which, for forty years, 
 had been working to undermine the thrones of 
 Europe and " to overthrow the powers established 
 by law and by divine sanction." For the sake of 
 this divine sanction the Tsar sacrificed the inde- 
 pendence of Greece.' 
 
 " Alexander," writes Puipin, " became, in fact, 
 the leader of European reaction, and not only did 
 he show himself the enemy of the liberal aspira- 
 tions of the Italians and Spaniards, but Russian 
 troops played the role of gendarmes in the service 
 of the absolute monarchies of Europe." ^ The 
 reactionary evolution in the mind of the Tsar 
 was hastened by two events. His agent Kotzebue 
 was assassinated by Maurice Sand and his favourite 
 regiment of the Semeonovsky Guards mutinied as 
 the result of the cruel treatment meted out to it 
 by its colonel, a German named Schwartz. The 
 Tsar was then at Troppau, and Metternich craftily 
 availed himself of this latter incident to prove 
 to the Tsar the crass absurdity of allowing his sub- 
 jects even the semblance of liberty. 
 
 The natural result of Alexander's attitude was 
 a steady increase of the brooding discontent, and 
 
 1 Cf. Rappoport, I.e., p. 380. 
 
 »Cf. Choiseul-Gouffier, Memoirea, Paris, 1829, pp. 300-8. 
 Puipin, Z.c, p. 625. 
 
70 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 also the reconstruction on a new basis of the secret 
 societies. The " Society of Virtue," which later 
 developed into the " Northern and Southern 
 Leagues," was one of the most famous of these 
 secret organisations during the first quarter of the 
 nineteenth century. This society was the idea of 
 a few officers ; at first, they merely intended to 
 form a sort of Tugendbund, a group of highly 
 honest people who would make it their life's work 
 to oppose injustice and oppression. In 1816, the 
 idea was still being discussed, but in 1817 it was 
 finally realised and the society formed. The first 
 members were : Prince Troubetzkvy, Prince Lo- 
 pukhin, A. Mouraviev, N. Mouraviev, Glinka, 
 Shipov, Novikov, Lunin and Colonel Pestel. This 
 group was called, according to some, the " Society 
 of the true and faithful Sons of the Fatherland," 
 and, according to others, "the League of Virtue." 
 At first the members of this society devoted them- 
 selves wholly to the burning question of the 
 emancipation of the serfs, and tried to induce the 
 nobility to approach the Tsar about it. Convinced 
 that the reactionary nobility would never consent 
 to such a measure, the League adopted the 
 policy of introducing a constitutional monarchy 
 into Russia. Pestel elaborated the rules and 
 statutes of the society, which showed many traces 
 of Masonic influence. This first League had but a 
 very short existence ; it was dissolved in 1818, 
 
 In its place a new League with the following 
 objects, according to A. Mouraviev, was founded : 
 (1) The abolition of serfdom ; (2) Equality of all 
 citizens before the law ; (3) Publicity of State 
 business ; (4) Abolition of the alcohol monopoly ; 
 (5) The amelioration of the fate of the defenders 
 
THE DECEMBRISTS 71 
 
 of the country ; (6) The amehoration of the status 
 of the clergy, etc. The chief aims of the League 
 were the " general welfare," and, above all, the 
 abolition of autocracy and the introduction of a 
 representative government. This new group, or 
 League, endeavoured to recruit its members chiefly 
 from the army, especially the superior officers who 
 were in a position to propagate their liberal ideas 
 in their regiments. But even this new League was 
 but a feeble affair ; it only numbered fifty-six 
 members. It was divided into the Northern and 
 the Southern Leagues. The former was in favour 
 of a constitutional monarchy, whilst the latter, 
 influenced by Pest el, desired a republic. Under 
 these circumstances quarrels soon arose between 
 the members, some of whom promptly demanded 
 the League should be dissolved. 
 
 In 1821 a meeting was held at Moscow, and the 
 members were then informed by Theodor Glinka, 
 adjutant of Miloradovitsh, Governor-General of St. 
 Petersburg, that the Government were aware of 
 the existence of the societv. This was a new reason 
 for its dissolution, and, in accordance with the 
 demands of several of the members, it was formally 
 stated that the League was no more. As a. matter 
 of fact, however, this was merely a ruse to get rid 
 of the irresolute members ; though officially dis- 
 solved, the League was reconstructed and continued 
 its activities at St. Petersburg as the Northern 
 League, and at Tultshin as the Southern League. 
 The Southern League was practically under the 
 leadership of Pestel, whilst the Northern League 
 was influenced by Troubetzkoy, ]Mouraviev, 
 Obolenski and Ryleev. The Northerners believed 
 that the first steps should be devoted to propa- 
 
72 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 ganda, whilst the Southerners preferred drastic 
 measures and definite activity. " Les demi- 
 mesures," wrote Pest el, " ne valent rien, i9i nous 
 voulons avoir maison nette." 
 
 In 1824, Pest el arrived at St. Petersburg and 
 declared himself very dissatisfied with the work 
 of his colleagues. He again urged more decisive 
 measures, briefly : the extermination of all the 
 members of the Imperial family ; the compelling 
 the Senate and the Holy Synod to recognise the 
 Secret Society as the Provisional Government ; the 
 demanding that the people, the army and the navy 
 should take the oath of allegiance to the Pro- 
 visional Government, and thus gradually, in the 
 course of a few years, introduce a new order of 
 things. But such measures greatly displeased the 
 members of the Northern League, especially N. 
 Mouraviev, who, therefore, strenuously opposed 
 the amalgamation of the two Leagues. The 
 result, naturally, was a lack of unity and com- 
 mon policy fatal to any thought of effective 
 revolution. 
 
 The two Leagues could never agree on certain 
 questions ; for instance, as to the fate that should 
 befall the members of the Imperial family. After 
 they had decided upon the convocation of a Con- 
 stitutional Assembly, Ryleev once asked his col- 
 leagues : " But suppose the Emperor refuses to 
 sanction the Constitution elaborated by the repre- 
 sentatives of the nation, what then ? Shall we 
 send him abroad ? " " That would be the best 
 way," replied Troubetzkoy. Others, however, 
 were of the opinion that such a step would prove 
 very dangerous for the future ; it would be much 
 wiser to keep the Imperial family in the Winter 
 
THE DECEMBRISTS 78 
 
 Palace, where it would be possible to keep an eye 
 upon them. " No," replied Ryleev ; " that would 
 not do at all ; it would be better for us to conduct 
 them to Schluesselburg, where they could be 
 guarded by the old Semeonovsky regiment, and 
 then, in case of a counter-revolution, we could 
 follow the example of Mirovitsh." 
 
 Yet the majority of the conspirators objected 
 both to the plan of sending the Imperial family 
 into exile, or of keeping them prisoners at Schlues- 
 selburg. They preferred to exterminate the entire 
 Romanov family, and at last even Ryleev, who at 
 first had strenuously opposed such a solution, 
 admitted that it would be in the best interests of 
 the country. They reasoned that the mere assas- 
 sination of the Emperor would only bring about 
 confusion, divergence of opinion and, finally, a 
 popular revolution in favour of one or other mem- 
 ber of the Imperial family. The absolute disap- 
 pearance of all the members of the Imperial family, 
 and thus of all pretenders to the Crown, would 
 naturally lead to the establishment of a republic. 
 Despite all this, certain ^\Titings of various mem- 
 bers of the Secret League, such as the memoirs of 
 Davydov, one of the most intimate friends of 
 Pestel, prove that the talk of exterminating the 
 Imperial family was mere revolutionary chatter, 
 that in reality the conspira.tors did not believe such 
 a step necessary ; they would have been quite 
 satisfied with the mere expulsion of the Romanovs 
 from Russia. 
 
 Towards the end of 1824, Jakubovitsh, a guard 
 officer, returned from the Caucasus, where, while 
 valiantly fighting against the Georgian moun- 
 taineers, he had been wounded. Jakubovitsh was 
 
74 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 not only dissatisfied with but had a personal 
 grudge against the Government and the Tsar ; 
 his services had not been sufficiently rewarded. 
 Alexander Bestyoushev introduced Jakubovitsh 
 to Ryleev, Prince Obolenski and a few other mem- 
 bers of the League. The guard officer told them 
 in confidence that he had decided to assassinate 
 the Tsar, since he believed that by so doing he 
 would render a greater service to his country than 
 a host of theorising conspirators would ever do. 
 Although the members of the League had often 
 discussed not only the assassination of the Tsar 
 but that of his entire family, this emphatic declara- 
 tion seemed to crush them. As I have said, 
 their discussions were merely revolutionary phrase- 
 ology, and therefore, when some one declared himself 
 ready to become a regicide in fact, the regicides 
 en th6orie were startled. 
 
 It is an odd fact, but even a little study of the 
 history of human thought and action will prove 
 its truth, that few of the adherents of great 
 social, political and religious movements are men of 
 action ; this is especially true of all revolutionary 
 movements ; the majority are but adherents in 
 theory, platonic admirers and supporters as it 
 were ; and when their preaching and confessions de 
 foi are put to the test, they are quite embarrassed. 
 There are plenty of anarchists en thdorie who talk 
 largely of bomb-throwing and the employment of 
 other violent means of gaining their object, but 
 put these to the test of action and they are the 
 first to wilt and hang back. There are equally as 
 many upholders of great and noble ideals who 
 proclaim, urbi et orbi, that they are filled with the 
 spirit of altruism and a great love for humanity, 
 
THE DECEMBRISTS 75 
 
 but who would be very uncomfortable if they 
 were asked to practise what they so ardently 
 preach. 
 
 Indeed, humanity is always either better or 
 worse than it pretends to be. So it was with the 
 Russian regicides ; they were quite frightened 
 when they were faced by brutal fact. True, they 
 had discussed that very thing, but then they had 
 discussed it as something that was to happen one 
 day in the future, and therefore it was as well to 
 familiarise oneself with the idea. Man often dis- 
 cusses death, but that does not prevent him, even 
 the philosopher or the preacher, from turning pale 
 when grim death at last looks him in the face. 
 Ryleev, Obolenski and others endeavoured to 
 dissuade Jakubovitsh from carrying out his plan. 
 Ryleev even decided to denounce the would-be 
 regicide to the Government. But Jakubovitsh 
 was finally made to promise that he would not 
 attempt it. 
 
 Meanwhile, the organisation, both the Northern 
 and the Southern Leagues, w^ent on discussing plans 
 and means and the propitious moment for the 
 revolution, but no one had the courage to take a 
 step forward. Pestel alone, perhaps, saw clearly 
 all the difficulties in front of them, and almost 
 despaired of ever accomplishing anything. He 
 once told his friend Lorer that he had decided to 
 go to Taganrog, where the Tsar w^as then en ville- 
 giatore, tell him of the existence of the secret 
 society and ask him to put an end to it and its 
 probable future development by granting liberal 
 institutions and a representative government to 
 Russia. Lorer, however, persuaded Pestel that 
 his plan was quite mad and very dangerous, and, 
 
76 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 moreover, that he had no right to take such a 
 step without consulting his colleagues and fellow- 
 conspirators. 
 
 Another member of the society, however, Apostol 
 Mouraviev, had decided to unfurl the banner of 
 revolution at once. It was known that the Tsar 
 was shortly to review the Third Army Corps : it 
 was Mouraviev' s idea that they should avail 
 themselves of this occasion to assassinate their 
 ruler; then they were to issue two proclamations, 
 one to the army and the other to the nation, and 
 begin the fight in good earnest. And while the 
 Southern League was thus arranging matters, the 
 Northern League at St. Petersburg were to arrest 
 the Imperial family, send them over the frontier 
 and proclaim a Provisional Government. Apostol 
 Mouraviev, without consulting Pestel, sent Kornilo- 
 vitsh to St. Petersburg with details of his plan 
 to the members of the Northern League, but, des- 
 pite his ardour, he could not make either of the 
 societies feel ready for such measures. Discussions 
 and contradictions arose that weakened the strength 
 and unity of the organisation and made many of 
 the members lose faith in any successful issue of 
 the revolution. But the political situation that 
 arose in consequence of Alexander's sudden death 
 compelled the conspirators to unfurl their banner 
 of revolution long before they had had time to 
 complete their plan of action. As a matter of 
 fact, Alexander had been aware of the existence 
 of the society since 1825, reports having been 
 regularly sent him by various spies. Yet he died, 
 leaving no instructions how to deal with the con- 
 spirators and revolutionaries ; it was left to 
 Nicholas I, the Don Quixote of autocracy, to sit 
 
THE DECEMBRISTS 77 
 
 in judgment upon the pioneers of the Russian 
 Revolution. 
 
 Alexander's death opened the important ques- 
 tion of the succession to the throne. Alexander 
 had no male issue, but left three brothers — Con- 
 stantine, aged fifty-nine, Viceroy of Poland, and 
 Nicholas and Michael, who were about twenty 
 years younger and had not known their grand- 
 mother Catherine. But Constant ine had declared 
 that he did not intend to accept the Crown, and 
 Alexander had one day said to Nicholas and his 
 wife: " You know full well that one day you will 
 have to ascend the throne of Russia.'* 
 
 In 1820 Constant ine had divorced his wife, a 
 Princess of Coburg, and married morganatically a 
 beautiful Polish lady, Jeanne Gredsinska, for 
 whom he obtained the title of Princess Lowicz. 
 On several occasions, also, he had informed his 
 brothers Nicholas and Michael of his decision to 
 refuse the Russian Crown. Then, in January 1822, 
 he had written to Alexander and formally announced 
 his decision : "I possess neither the genius, talent 
 nor strength necessary for a sovereign," he stated 
 in this letter. Nineteen days later the Emperor 
 informed Constant ine that both he and the Em- 
 press-iMother had accepted his abdication. These 
 two letters, however, were kept secret, and were 
 unknown even to Nicholas. Alexander then dic- 
 tated a new Act, by which he appointed his brother 
 Nicholas to be the successor to the throne. Four 
 copies were made of this Act, which were secretly 
 deposited at the Holy Synod, the Senate, the 
 Archives of the State Council and with Arch- 
 bishop Philaret at the Church of the Assumption, 
 Moscow. This secret was only known to the 
 
78 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 Empress-Mother, to Araktsheev, Galitsyn and the 
 Archbishop Philaret. 
 
 When the news of Alexander's death reached 
 St. Petersburg, the first to take the oath of alle- 
 giance to the new Tsar Constantine was Nicholas. 
 He did it at the instigation of Miloradovitsh, who 
 declared he would not be responsible for the 
 peace of the capital if Nicholas were to be pro- 
 claimed Tsar. " You know yourself," boldly 
 declared Miloradovitsh, ** that you are not liked." 
 At the Imperial Council the question was brought 
 up as to whether Alexander's secret instructions 
 regarding his successor should be made public or 
 no ; it was the then Minister of Justice, Lobanov- 
 Rostovski who decided that " Les morts n'ont pas 
 de volont^." Yet all were not satisfied, and some 
 of the members of the Imperial Council therefore 
 visited the Winter Palace to ask Nicholas his view 
 of the question. " Gentlemen," replied the Prince, 
 " I advise you to follow my example and take the 
 oath of allegiance to the new Emperor Constantine 
 Pavlovitsh. I shall accept no other proposition 
 and listen to no other suggestion." And thus it 
 was that the Imperial Council took the oath of 
 allegiance to the new Tsar. 
 
 In the meantime General Biebitsh had travelled 
 to Warsaw to acquaint Constantine with the death 
 of the Tsar. The new Tsar is supposed to have 
 passed a sleepless night debating the question : 
 To be or not to be — Tsar ! He sent but a rude 
 and gruff reply both to his brother and the Presi- 
 dent of the Imperial Council, but he did not formally 
 abdicate or appoint a successor. New messengers 
 were sent to him at Warsaw, to whom he gave 
 other replies, but still no definite or formal in- 
 
THE DECEMBRISTS 79 
 
 structions concerning the succession. The posi- 
 tion was a very difficult one. Nicholas had taken 
 the oath of allegiance to Constant ine, who was very 
 evidently disinclined to take up the burden of 
 Tsardom. No one was even sure of the where- 
 abouts of the new Emperor. Such was tiie state 
 of affairs on December 14th. Nicholas looked 
 after State affairs but did not appear in public. 
 
 Events, however, soon took a new turn. Diebitsh, 
 while examining the papers of the late Emperor, 
 came across data concerning the existence of a 
 secret society pledged to overthrow autocracy. 
 Alexander had known of this society since 1820, 
 and in 1821 had issued instructions that it was 
 to be suppressed, but from that time onwards 
 seemed to have paid no further attention to the 
 reports sent in to him regarding it. Diebitsh 
 promptly sent a detailed report of the matter to 
 Nicholas. That very day, sub-lieutenant Ros- 
 tovtsev, who knew intimately many of the mem- 
 bers of the Northern League, wrote a letter, which 
 he personally handed in at the Winter Palace, in 
 which he begged Nicholas not to accept the Crown, 
 for he had many enemies and it would only mean 
 trouble and confusion in the Empire, of which the 
 inhabitants of Poland, Lithuania, Finland, Georgia 
 and Bessarabia would naturally avail themselves 
 in order to throw off Russia's domination.^ 
 Rostovtsev further advised Nicholas to go to 
 Warsaw and personally endeavour to persuade his 
 brother either to accept the Crown, or come at 
 once to the capital, formally and publicly announce 
 his abdication and appoint Nicholas as his suc- 
 cessor. " If your Highness," continued Ros- 
 
 1 Russian Archives, 1873, p. 449. 
 
80 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 tovtsev, " considers I have been too daring, then 
 I am ready to submit to the death sentence, 
 but if your Highness finds that I am right, I 
 ask for no other reward than your Highness' s 
 confidence." ^ 
 
 I have said that Rostovtsev had handed in his 
 letter himself. As adjutant to General Bistrom 
 he had been sent to the Palace with a parcel for 
 Nicholas, who personally accepted it and retired 
 to an adjoining room to examine it. When he 
 opened the package he discovered Rostovtsev' s 
 letter. Ten minutes elapsed and the young lieu- 
 tenant still waited. Then the door of the adjoin- 
 ing room suddenly opened and Nicholas Pavlovitsh 
 called him in, locked the door carefully after him, 
 and taking the young man by the hand, kissed 
 him several'^ times. " That is your reward," he 
 said. Then Nicholas asked the lieutenant if a 
 conspiracy really did exist against him, and if he 
 personally knew any of the conspirators. Ros- 
 tovtsev refused to betray any names, and Nicholas 
 then said that he would not ask him to do such 
 a thing. With regard to the Crown he declared 
 that neither the pleadings of his mother nor friends 
 could persuade Constant ine to alter his decision, 
 and that therefore, in the interests of Russia, he 
 himself was compelled to accept the Imperial 
 Crown. " Russia cannot be without a Tsar," he 
 said.'' 
 
 His conversation with Rostovtsev and Die- 
 bitsh's report made a profound impression upon 
 Nicholas. New letters had in the meantime arrived 
 
 1 Russian Archives^ ibid. See also Shilder, Emperor Nicholas 
 /, St. Petersburg, 1903, i, p. 259. 
 
 2 Ibid., p. 260, 
 
: :•..: 
 
 » » » 
 
 
 • » " » 
 
 « '• » 
 
 ».".', ' 
 
 11 ' ) 3 
 
 » B > ' 
 
THE DECEMBRISTS 81 
 
 from his brother which still neither definitely 
 declared his abdication nor his willingness to 
 accept the Crown ; therefore Nicholas decided to 
 take a decisive step. This was December 12th ; he 
 wrote to Diebitsh : " The day after to-morrow I 
 shall either be Tsar — or dead." On December 12th, 
 also, Speransky prepared a manifesto announcing 
 the ascension of Nicholas to the Russian throne, 
 and on the 13th, the next day, Nicholas signed 
 the manifesto and settled on the 14th as the day 
 for taking the oath of allegiance. lie instructed 
 General Voinov to convene all the generals of the 
 corps de garde on the morrow at the Winter Palace, 
 where he intended personally to announce the 
 abdication of his brother, so as to avoid any pre- 
 text for trouble. He then summoned Count 
 Nesselrode and informed him that the interregnum 
 was at an end.^ 
 
 But the inhabitants of the capital were not with- 
 out misgivings ; there was something in the air. 
 People meeting in the streets greeted each other 
 with : " What about to-morrow ? " There was 
 something indefinite and ominous in the political 
 situation, and many guessed, apart from those 
 who knew, that the 14th would not pass with- 
 out some trouble at least. The members of the 
 Northern League were busy ; they had convened 
 several meetings and had decided to avail them- 
 selves of the day fixed for the taking of the oath 
 of allegiance to realise some of the aims of the 
 society. 
 
 The death of Alexander had found the League 
 quite unprepared. Therefore, being unable them- 
 selves to initiate anv revolution, the members of 
 
 1 Shilder, I.e., p. 263. 
 6 
 
82 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 the Northern League had decided to hold them- 
 selves ready to help the Southerners — these could 
 arrange an insurrection. Then suddenly the news 
 of Constantine's abdication entirely changed the 
 aspect of affairs. The authorities knew that it 
 would be very difficult to make the soldiers and 
 people understand that Const antine really had 
 abdicated, and both society and the guards were 
 definitely hostile to Nicholas. Jakubovitsh told 
 Miloradovitsh that he would not take the oath of 
 allegiance to any one until Constantine came to 
 the capital and publicly declared his intention. 
 As a matter of fact, it was commonly said that 
 Nicholas was secretly urging Constantine to abdi- 
 cate, and — they disliked him. 
 
 Jakubovitsh was not the only one to refuse to 
 take the oath of allegiance. The people felt so 
 sure of a reign of tyranny under Nicholas that 
 they even regretted the reactionary period under 
 Alexander. To a certain extent, as the rumours 
 of Constantine's abdication grew stronger, so the 
 attitude of the members of the Northern League 
 changed. "Now or never," said Ryleev ; and it 
 was decided to act at once. But how they were 
 to act and what steps they should take if Con- 
 stantine really did abdicate and Nicholas ascend 
 the throne, they did not quite know. The house 
 of Ryleev became the principal meeting place ; 
 there they discussed, debated, declaimed passion- 
 ately, but no one really knew the extent either of 
 the society's resources or power. 
 
 " The plans and measures to be taken for the 
 insurrection," writes Baron Rosen, one of the 
 conspirators, " were indefinite and indefinable ; in 
 reply to my observations Prince Obolenski and 
 
THE DECEMBRISTS 83 
 
 Boulatov replied mockingly : " But you cannot 
 have a dress rehearsal of the insurrection." - 
 
 All were enthusiastic, all were ready to act and 
 nearly all were sure of success. " Ryleev alone," 
 writes Baron Rosen, " was doubtful of success, 
 but," he added, " we must begin ; the beginning 
 and the example will be useful to others ! " "I 
 feel sure that we shall fail," said Ryleev, " but the 
 insurrection is necessary. The tactics of a revo- 
 lutionary consist of two words : Cause trouble ; 
 therefore, even if we fail, our very failure will be a 
 lesson to others." 
 
 For some time the members debated whether 
 their insurrection against Nicholas should be con- 
 ducted on the lines of the palace revolutions which 
 had taken place in Russia during the preceding 
 century — under cover of the night — or in open, 
 broad daylight. It was linally decided to adopt 
 the new method, one hitherto unknown in Russian 
 history : rebellion in public, in the presence of 
 the people; on their sympathy, at least, they 
 felt sure they could rely. Prince Troubetskoy, 
 Colonel of the Freobrazhenski regiment, was elected 
 leader of the revolution. They understood that 
 several regiments were ready to refuse to take 
 the oath of allegiance to Nicholas. It was also 
 * agreed that if Constantine came to St. Petersburg, 
 the rebellion would be put aside for the present, 
 but otherwise they were to insist upon a con- 
 stitution. 
 
 Yet all these ideas were vague, and no definite 
 plan of action could be arrived at. They were all 
 dreamers and theoreticians ; Ryleev was a poet, 
 and the League badly lacked a resolute and 
 
 1 Rosen, Zapiaki, Leipzig, 1870, p. 86. 
 
84 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 strategic leader, prepared to meet any emergency. 
 They did not even know certainly how many regi- 
 ments would act with them and refuse to take 
 the oath of allegiance, or how many men would be 
 on their side. In a word, the coming day was a 
 riddle to all those who had decided to play a pro- 
 minent and historic part in it. 
 
 Their last meeting took place on the eve of the 
 14th at Ryleev's house. 
 
 Among Troubetskoy's papers there was found, 
 later, a plan of a manifesto which, in case of their 
 success, was to have been promulgated by the 
 Senate. It contained the following : (1) Aboli- 
 tion of the former Government. (2) The estab- 
 lishment of a Provisional Government until a 
 Constituent Assembly, elected by the people, 
 should decide upon a new form of government. 
 (3) The freedom of the press and the abolition of 
 the censorship. (4) Freedom of conscience and 
 equality of all creeds. (5) The abolition of serf- 
 dom. (6) The equality of all classes of society 
 before the law and the abolition of courts -martial 
 as well as of all kinds of legal commissions. All 
 the pending actions to be transferred to the civil 
 tribunals. (7) The right of every subject to exercise 
 any profession he chose without hindrance and 
 consideration of class. (8) The abolition of taxes 
 according to souls. (9) The abolition of all 
 monopolies. (10) The abolition of military colonies 
 and the prevailing mode of recruiting soldiers to 
 be abolished. (11) Diminution of the term of 
 military service for the soldiers. A definite term 
 of military service was to be fixed and obligatory 
 service introduced for all classes of society. (12) 
 The liberation of all soldiers who had been in the 
 
THE DECEMBRISTS 85 
 
 army for fifteen years. (13) The introduction of 
 communal, district, government and provincial 
 administrations. (14) Publicity in judicial affairs. 
 (15) The introduction of juries in criminal and 
 civil cases. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 DECEMBER THE 14TH 
 
 December the 14th, that fatal day, at last arrived. 
 Nicholas rose early and said to his Adjutant- 
 General Benkendorli : " To-night we shall per- 
 haps be in another world, but at least we shall 
 have died in the accomplishment of our duty." 
 Arrayed in the uniform of the Ismailov regiment, 
 the new Tsar entered the room where all the 
 generals and colonels commanding the guard corps 
 were assembled, and verbally explained to them 
 that since his brother Constantino, the rightful heir, 
 had abdicated, he, Nicholas, as the next in line 
 and the heir-apparent, was compelled to accept 
 the crown and take upon his shoulders *' the bur- 
 den of Tsardom." He then read to the assembled 
 officers the manifesto of Alexander I and the 
 instructions of the late Emperor. All present 
 then declared themselves satisfied, and that everv- 
 thing was quite legal and iri perfect order. Nicholas 
 then solemnly declared : " After this, you are 
 responsible for the peace of the capital ; your heads 
 depend upon it. As for myself, even if I am Tsar 
 but for one hour, I shall show myself worthy of 
 the Crown." 
 
 It is evident that Nicholas knew more of the 
 workings of the Secret Society than Rostovtsev had 
 
 86 
 
DECEMBER THE 14TH 87 
 
 told him. He had decided to act firmly and to 
 frustrate all possible plans of the conspirators. 
 The generals and colonels were dismissed with 
 instructions to make the army take the oath of 
 allegiance to the new ruler, but the regiments 
 were to be sworn in separately, and in turn. 
 
 Whilst Nicholas and his Government were thus 
 taking active steps to force the army and the 
 greater institutions to take the oath of allegiance, 
 a number of the conspirators were preparing for 
 insurrection. Some of the revolutionaries had 
 passed a sleepless night. To-morrow the great 
 question, "To be or not to be," was to be an- 
 swered. They held a short meeting at seven o'clock 
 in the morning and then dispersed. Some hesi- 
 tated, and suggested postponing the insurrection 
 to another and better opportunity, but others 
 strenuously opposed this, especially the brothers 
 Bestyoushev and Shtshepkin-Rostovski. They were 
 the first to give the signal of insurrection. Best- 
 youshev, who commanded a battalion, addressed 
 his men and told them that Constantine had been 
 detained on his way to the capital, and that steps 
 were being taken to make the guards recognise 
 Nicholas, who had no right to the throne, as Tsar. 
 The men then shouted : " We don't want Nicholas. 
 Hurrah for Constantine ! " Bestyoushev continued 
 his work among the other companies, and soon the 
 entire regiment was ripe for rebellion. 
 
 The Generals Shenshin and Frederics, as well as 
 Colonel Khvoshtshinski, made an effort to calm 
 the soldiers, but the enraged Shtshepkin-Rostovski 
 felled the first two ; the colonel managed to escape. 
 The regiment was then led by the two agitators, 
 who were soon joined by Jakubovitsh, towards 
 
88 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 the Senatorial Square. The square was empty. 
 Bestyoushev and Shtshepkin drew their men up in 
 a Une and waited. Ryleev had come to the square 
 shortly after seven in the morning, and finding it 
 empty had started to go to the Ismailov regiment ; 
 but on the way he had met another conspirator, 
 who informed him that his ellorts in that direction 
 would be useless ; thereupon Ryleev had returned 
 to the square, but soon after disappeared and was 
 not seen again that day. A little later Prince 
 Obolenski and his chasseurs arrived. 
 
 Suddenly, Miloradovitsh, the Governor-General 
 of the capital, galloped up on horseback ; he ad- 
 dressed the soldiers, calling upon them to take 
 the oath of allegiance to Nicholas. He told them 
 that he, too, had been in favour of Constantine, 
 but that the latter had abdicated ; and he asked 
 them to believe that he himself had read the act 
 of abdication. Obolenski saw what a dangerous 
 effect such a speech might have, and demanded 
 that the Count should retire, but Miloradovitsh 
 paid no attention to him, whereupon Obolenski 
 drew his sword and attacked the Count, wounding 
 him slightly. At that moment Kakhovski fired his 
 pistol at the Count, who died very shortly after- 
 wards from the effects of the shot. It was Prince 
 Golitsyn w^ho took the news of Miloradovitsh' s 
 fate to Nicholas. 
 
 The square now resounded with shouts of " Long 
 live Constantine ! " But the Tsar had by now been 
 informed that some of the regiments had taken 
 the oath of allegiance to him ; the first to come 
 to his aid was the Horse Guards, commanded by 
 General Orlov. These at once proceeded to the 
 square and attacked the rebellious troops, but 
 
DECEMBER THE 14TH 89 
 
 the attack failed, since the men of the Horse 
 Guards fired unwillingly on their comrades ; there- 
 fore Orlov drew his regiment up to face the rebels, 
 but remained passive. The square gradually filled 
 up with new regiments, some of whom joined the 
 rebels. 
 
 Then, suddenly, the Emperor appeared, sur- 
 rounded by a battalion of the Preobrazhenski 
 guards, but he did not dare to come within reach 
 of the rebellious troops ; he knew that if he did 
 he would meet the same fate as Miloradovitsh. 
 Kakhovski said afterwards that he had been ready 
 to shoot the Tsar also. For a moment the posi- 
 tion was critical for Nicholas. Seven companies 
 of the Grenadier Regiment, under the leadership 
 of Panov, went to the Winter Palace with the 
 intention of taking forcible possession of it, and, 
 in case of serious opposition, of assassinating the 
 entire Imperial family. The dynasty which was 
 to rule over Russia for nearly another century was 
 saved by a sapper regiment faithful to the Tsar ; 
 they arrived but a few moments before the revo- 
 lutionaries and took up their position in front of 
 the palace. '' Had this sapper regiment," writes 
 Nicholas in his Reminiscences, " arrived but a 
 few minutes later, the Palace would have been 
 occupied by the revolutionaries and the Imperial 
 family would have been at the mercy of the 
 rebels." ' 
 
 In the meantime, faithful troops were being 
 despatched to the square, and the mutineers were 
 gradually surrounded by various detachments and 
 regiments who had hastened to take the oath of 
 allegiance. However, even then the insurrection 
 
 1 Schilder, I.e., p. 287. 
 
90 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 would have succeeded had the insurgents but 
 taken some initiative. The faithful regiments 
 arrived but very slowly, and not a few were more 
 than half willing to join the insurgents if the latter 
 had but made some decisive move. The crowd, 
 too, which by now filled the square, was very 
 evidently in sympathy with the insurgents. Three 
 regiments supposedly faithful to Nicholas, the 
 Semionovski, Pavlovski and Preobrazhenski, sent 
 word to the insurgents that if a signal for initiative 
 were given they would join them, but unfortunately 
 the insurgents remained inactive. They stood 
 there motionless, not knowing what they were 
 there for or what they were going to do. They 
 had no one to lead them or to give instructions. 
 
 Troubetskoy, who had been appointed chief and 
 leader of the Revolution, was invisible. He wan- 
 dered over the town, avoiding the square where 
 the whole city turbulently awaited the denouement 
 of the great drama. He, the supposed leader, was 
 absent at the crucial moment ; he did not believe 
 in the success of their effort, and, unfortunately, 
 his pessimism made him commit an act of treachery 
 towards his fellow conspirators. Schilder relates 
 that later, when Troubetskoy was a prisoner in 
 the fortress of Peter and Paul, Adjutant Levashev 
 found an opportunity of accusing him of having 
 done a great deal of harm to Russia with his badly 
 planned insurrection. " Ah, mon Prince, vous 
 avez fait bien du mal a la Russie ; vous I'avez 
 reculee de cinquante ans." What Schilder means 
 of course, is that the very idea of getting up an 
 insurrection that was bound to be a failure natur- 
 ally resulted in throwing Nicholas into the arms 
 of reaction. But, I venture to think, that if 
 
DECEMBER THE 14TH 91 
 
 Troubetskoy was guilty it was not because of his 
 participation in the secret conspiracy, but because 
 of his treacherous and cowardly behaviour at the 
 last moment — the decisive moment. 
 
 Another member of the Secret Societv who was 
 a true traitor was General Shipov, an intimate 
 friend of Colonel Festel. He not only betrayed 
 his comrades at the critical moment and went 
 over to the Tsar, but he also did his best to per- 
 suade the other officers of his brigade to take the 
 oath of allegiance to Nicholas. Jakubovitsh, too, 
 who had so frequently declared his intention of 
 shooting the Tsar, declared he had a headache, and 
 disappeared. He had several opportunities of 
 firing his loaded pistol at the Tsar as he had so 
 often threatened to do, but he lacked the courage. 
 Thus the rebels in the square had no leader with 
 the necessary courage and authority to dispose 
 of the armed force at his disposal. There the poor 
 mutineers stood, shouting continuously : "Hurrah, 
 Constantino ! " 
 
 At length the old Metropolitan, Seraphim, ap- 
 proached the mutineers and made an effort to 
 bring them to reason. " Warriors ! " he cried, 
 " calm yourselves. You are acting against God, 
 the Church and the country. Constantine Pavlo- 
 vitsh has formallv abdicated and renounced his 
 right to the Russian Crown and has himself taken 
 the oath of allegiance to his brother Nicholas, who 
 thus legally ascends the throne. The Senate, the 
 Synod and the people have followed his example. 
 You alone have dared to rebel. God is mv wit- 
 ness that I am telling vou the truth and, as head 
 of the Holy Church, I implore you to swear fealty 
 to our Tsar." 
 
92 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 But the insurgents replied : " It is not true. 
 Where is Constantine ? " 
 
 '' In Warsaw," replied the prelate. 
 
 *' No," insisted the insurgents, "he is not in 
 Warsaw ; he is a prisoner in chains ; bring him 
 hither. Hurrah, Constantine ! What sort of 
 Metropolitan are you to have taken your oath 
 of allegiance to two Emperors in the course of a 
 single fortnight ? You are a traitor, a deserter, 
 that's what you are. Go to your Church and 
 send us Michael Pavlovitsh ; we wish to speak to 
 him." 
 
 Michael Pavlovitsh, accompanied by General 
 Voiiiov, approached the mutineers, but Kuechel- 
 becker pointed his pistol at the prince and fired 
 at the general. After these repeated failures to 
 bring the insurgents to reason. General Vassilt- 
 shikov turned to Nicholas and said : " Sire, il n'y 
 a pas un moment a perdre, on n'y pent rien main- 
 tenant ; il faut de la mitraille." Nicholas pre- 
 tended to feel horrified at the very idea of such a 
 step, though he admitted its necessity. I frankly 
 confess that to me, judged in the light of his be- 
 haviour to his subjects during his reign, his asser- 
 tion was rank hypocrisy. '' Vous voulez que je 
 verse le sang de mes sujets le premier jour de 
 mon r^gne," he retorted, to which Vassiltshikov 
 replied : " Pour sauver votre empire." ^ 
 
 The Tsar then sent General Soukhozanet with 
 an ultimatum. The general called upon the revo- 
 lutionaries to lay down their arms or the mitrail- 
 leuse w^ould spit fire. " Go back," they cried in 
 reply, " and send some one more honest." Souk- 
 hozanet informed the Tsar that the rebels had 
 
 1 Schilder, p. 290. 
 
DECEMBER THE 14TH 93 
 
 refused to obey, and the signal for the first salvo 
 was given. Sure now that he had sufficient armed 
 forces on his side, the ruler of Russia, the " little 
 father," gave the brief command to fire upon his 
 children : " For God and the Tsar, forward." 
 
 The first cannon-shot hit the edifice of the 
 Senate and killed several people sitting on the 
 roof. The insurgents replied with the cry : 
 " Hurrah, Constantine ! " and attempted to at- 
 tack the artillery with their bayonets, but the 
 salvos now followed in quick succession. It was 
 murderous ; blood flowed in abundance ! Nicholas 
 had begun to rule over Russia ! Not only many 
 of the mutineers who had foregathered and vaguely 
 clamoured for a constitution, a representative 
 government, abolition of serfdom and other 
 luxuries, but also thousands of the populace, 
 innocent victims who had no knowledge of the 
 demands of the Decembrists, with their dead 
 bodies paved the way to the throne for Nicholas 
 Romanov. The snow on the Isaac Square was 
 crimson, and the blood of the victims cried to 
 Heaven for vengeance ; but it was nearly a century 
 before Heaven answered that crv, and thousands 
 upon thousands were still to suffer under the yoke 
 of autocracv before its doom would be sealed. 
 
 The insurgents could do nothing against the 
 murderous fire of the mitrailleuses, and they fled 
 in confusion out on the ice-bound Neva. Best- 
 youshev made an effort to organise the remaining 
 men for an attack upon the fortress of Peter and 
 Paul, but the mitrailleuses again spat fire upon 
 them. Still the rebels tried to reorganise them- 
 selves for a definite attack, when suddenly the cry 
 arose : '' We are drowning ! " The cannon had 
 
94 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 burst the ice and the unhappy fugitives were 
 drowned in the river. Thus Tsar Nicholas punished 
 the men who had dared to dream of Hberty ; those 
 who had escaped the fire of his cannon found an 
 early grave in the waters of the Neva. Autocracy 
 gained the day. It had made itself felt, and had 
 proclaimed its power both by fire and sword ; the 
 hope of opposition was entirely crushed. 
 
 But the work of destruction continued, although 
 peace had been established ! How many victims 
 had been sacrificed to save the throne for a scion of 
 the house of Romanov could never be ascertained. 
 They were not only military men, but included 
 also thousands of the civil population. When 
 the first salvo was fired, a panic naturally arose 
 among the lookers-on, and they rushed towards the 
 houses ; but as all the gates in the square were 
 closed, and remained closed despite the entreaties 
 of the frightened people, many were crushed to 
 death. Nicholas ordered that the victims should 
 be removed late at night, for autocracy always 
 hates to see the blood which is shed in its service 
 and for its benefit. 
 
 The dead were removed in a most inhuman 
 manner. Holes were cut in the ice-bound Neva, 
 and the victims, manv of whom were still alive 
 though grievously wounded and unable to escape, 
 were thrown in. And many of those who did 
 escape were afraid to go to a doctor to have their 
 wounds dressed, and so died of their effects. Dur- 
 ing that winter it was not at all unusual for the 
 workmen who were busy cutting blocks of ice 
 from the Neva to come across a frozen arm or 
 a leg, or even a whole body. With the approach 
 of spring the ice melted and the bodies of the 
 
DECEMBER THE 14TH 95 
 
 I 
 
 Decembrists, the pioneers of Russian freedom, 
 were carried by the Neva to the Baltic Sea 
 where, a century later, they were to be joined by 
 the victims of the submarines of another autocrat 
 — a German this time. And yet there are still 
 men, even in our age, who have the heart to cry : 
 '' Vive I'Empereur ! " 
 
 The official reports naturally minimise the num- 
 ber of victims and pretend that only about seventy 
 or eighty people lost their lives in the Isaac 
 Square. This ridiculous statement is flatly denied 
 by several of the Decembrists, notably Bestyou- 
 shev and Stengel, in their Memoirs. 
 
 About a fortnight after these events the mem- 
 bers of the Southern League made an attempt to 
 organise a revolution, but they were at once sup- 
 pressed. Some of the leaders then committed 
 suicide, while others were arrested and sent to the 
 capital. Then the Tsar began the work of re- 
 venge. During the night of December 14th-15th, 
 Nicholas busied himself questioning the first 
 captive members of the Secret Society. He had 
 firmly made up his mind to show no mercy to his 
 powerless foes. Prisoners were brought to him 
 from all parts of the country, a new batch every 
 day ; the Tsar seemed to derive great pleasure 
 from superintending the whole procedure ; he 
 was at once public prosecutor, examining magis- 
 trate, judge and jury. He was quite in his element. 
 Nicholas was a born detective and spy ; he was 
 suspicious by nature and always on the look out 
 for some criminal whom he could hand over to the 
 authorities or the police. These characteristics 
 manifested themselves at their height, being given 
 
 1 Schilder, I.e., p. 516. Xote 328. 
 
96 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 ample opportunity and scope, during the first few 
 months of his reign. In those days Russia had 
 no Tsar, no ruler. Her Tsar was not a ruler but 
 a detective, an examining magistrate and a gaoler. 
 He delighted in torturing the accused with his 
 questions and making them confess to crimes 
 they had never committed and intentions they 
 had never dreamed of. It may be said that in 
 this art of compelling the criminal to confess, 
 this Imperial Grand Inquisitor surpassed all his 
 salaried officials.^ Practically all the prisoners 
 were brought to the Imperial Palace, where they 
 were either questioned personally by the Tsar him- 
 self or, occasionally, by his adjutant, when the 
 Emperor would remain in an adjoining room where 
 he could hear every word spoken. 
 
 It must be admitted that Nicholas showed not 
 only energy and liking for this detective w^ork, 
 but also a considerable amount of psychological 
 insight. He endeavoured to form a clear idea 
 of the character, the personality and the weakness 
 of each prisoner, and then employed tactics to 
 suit them. Sometimes he posed as the benevolent 
 ruler anxious to know the requirements of the 
 Empire and ready to grant reforms ; sometimes 
 he made these dreamers believe that he was a 
 martyr and not to be envied. He often went so far 
 as to kiss the accused and call them his friends, 
 while he urged them to tell him everything, the 
 whole truth, and so help him to make Russia happy. 
 He knew how to assume such an air of absolute 
 sincerity that some of those unfortunate dreamers 
 believed him. Knaves always find dreamers and 
 enthusiasts easy prey, which explains why it is so 
 
 ^ Cf. Pokrovski, History of Russia, vol. i, p. 130. 
 

 CD 
 
 hi 
 O 
 
 K 
 o 
 
 P5 
 
 03 
 
 H 
 
 CD 
 
DECEMBER THE 14TH 97 
 
 often the h}^ocrite who becomes the leader of 
 great ideahstic movements, thus ruinmg them and 
 driving the honest people away. History gives 
 us many examples of this. 
 
 What the Tsar desired to know, of course, was 
 merely the strength of the movement and its 
 possible danger to himself and his d\Tiasty. He 
 desired to come out victorious in this struggle of 
 anix)cracy with incipient revolution ; to crush it 
 in the bud ; to tear it out root and branch from 
 Russian soil and the Russian soul. Anv means 
 that would enable him to do this were agreeable 
 to him. His Imperial dignity, which later he 
 held so proudly, did not for the moment deter him 
 from stooping to the pettiest, most contemptible, 
 and hypocritical methods to obtain what he 
 wished. He cajoled, flattered, tlireatened, in- 
 sulted, kissed, boxed the ears, whined and com- 
 plained in turn according to the psychology of 
 the prisoner he had before . liim. Many of the 
 conspirators fell into the snare. Some hoped that 
 a complete confession of their aims would con- 
 vince the Tsar of the necessitv for reforms, whilst 
 others trusted in his clemencv ; others asjain were 
 just frightened. Ryleev, Kakhovski, Troubetskoy, 
 Pestel and several others made a complete con- 
 fession. 
 
 Some of the conspirators had families dependent 
 upon them, so Nicholas took charge of these at 
 once. Noblesse oblige ! Many of the revolutionaries 
 actually believed that revenge had no place in the 
 noble Imperial heart of Nicholas Romanov. He 
 only wished to know what Russia required, and 
 therefore, what better ser^'ice could thev render 
 their beloved country than to acquaint the man 
 
 7 
 
98 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 presiding over her destinies with her needs, her 
 wants, her sufferings and her aspirations ? They 
 laid bare their hearts, they confessed their sins, 
 hoping for absohition and consolation. Nicholas 
 had sent 2,000 roubles to Ryleev's wife and chil- 
 dren, and the tender and loving husband and 
 father thrilled with gratitude towards the Imperial 
 benefactor. From his prison cell Ryleev wrote 
 to his wife and advised her to pray for the Emperor 
 and the entire Romanov family. " As for my- 
 self," added this whilom conspirator, " whatever 
 happens I shall live and die for my Tsar and my 
 country." 
 
 Some of the accused were more clear-sighted, 
 and obstinately refused to betray the secrets of 
 their society. Such were Lunin and Yakushkin. 
 Troubetskoy's behaviour on the fatal day was well 
 known to Nicholas ; he knew that the appointed 
 dictator had been in hiding the whole day, afraid 
 to meet his fellow conspirators. He therefore 
 adopted a manner calculated to frighten the prince 
 as well as to wound his pride. Pointing at his 
 prisoner's head, the Tsar exclaimed : " What 
 folly lodged itself in this head that you^ with your 
 name and family, could have got mixed up in such 
 an affair ! You, a Colonel of the Guards, a Prince ! 
 Are you not ashamed to be found among such 
 rabble ? Ah, but your fate shall be a terrible 
 one ! " Troubetskoy fell on his knees and begged 
 for mercy, and then said whatever the Tsar wanted 
 him to say. 
 
 This Imperial actor must really have possessed 
 talent that would be the envy of many a star of 
 the stage ! To the impressionable and naive 
 prisoner he appeared, not the despot and tyrant, 
 
DECEMBER THE 14TH 99 
 
 but the most benevolent of monarchs and the 
 most humane of men. They sang his praises in 
 their letters to their families. 
 
 Of the two obstinate prisoners, Lunin and 
 Yakushkin, the latter' s version of the investiga- 
 tion is exceedingly interesting. He was not 
 arrested until January 10th. He had been ex- 
 pecting arrest, so was not surprised when the 
 superintendent of police suddenly appeared and 
 took him to the Winter Palace. That first night 
 he passed in a room on the ground floor of the 
 Palace, with soldiers carrying drawn swords on 
 guard at the door and window. Towards the 
 evening of the next day he was taken to another 
 department and interviewed by General Levashev. 
 The prisoner was invited to sit down, and asked 
 whether he belonged to the Secret Society, to 
 which Yakushkin answered in the affirmative. 
 
 " And what do you know of the activity of the 
 Secret Society ? " queried Levashev. 
 
 Yakushkin shrugged his shoulders. " I don't 
 know anything at all about the Secret Society," 
 was his curt reply. 
 
 Levashev smiled ironically. " My dear sir,'* he 
 said, '* do you imagine we are so ignorant as all 
 that ? The events of December 14th were prema- 
 ture, no doubt, but in 1818 it had also been your 
 intention to organise a revolution against the 
 late Tsar. I can even give the details of that in- 
 tended insurrection. Lots were drawn by all 
 those who were present at that secret gathering 
 to determine who should kill the Tsar — and vou 
 drew the winning piece." 
 
 " That is not quite correct, your Excellency," 
 replied Yakushkin ; "I offered myself voluntarily, 
 
*» 
 
 100 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 and categorically refused to allow any of my 
 companions to participate in the honour." 
 
 Levashev wrote down Yakushkin's confession. 
 " Will you now very kindly," he continued, '' give 
 me the names of all the gentlemen who were pre- 
 sent at that secret gathering ? " 
 
 " That is quite impossible, your Excellency,** 
 replied the prisoner. " When I became a member 
 of the Secret Society I gave my word of honour 
 never to betray my friends." 
 
 *' Then we shall have to compel you to speak, 
 replied the General. "It is my painful duty, my 
 dear sir, to remind you that torture is still in exis- 
 tence in Russia." ^ 
 
 " I am, of course, greatly obliged to you. Ex- 
 cellency, for the warning, but I confess that I now 
 feel it more than ever my duty not to speak and 
 betray my friends." 
 
 Levashev tried a different policy. " Look here," 
 he said, " I am not speaking to you as your judge 
 but as your equal, and I fail to understand your 
 loyalty to people who have not hesitated to betray 
 you." 
 
 " I am not here to judge of the conduct of my 
 companions," coolly replied Yakushkin. " I only 
 know that in spite of everything, it is my duty to 
 keep the promise I gave, even if others may have 
 forgotten it." 
 
 " But all your friends have admitted that the 
 aim of the Secret Society was to establish a new 
 government in place of autocracy." 
 
 " That is quite possible," was the reply. 
 
 Torture was abolished by Nicholas in 1827, but criminals 
 were nevertheless tortured in Moscow in 1834 and at Kostroma 
 in 1847. 
 
DECEMBER TKF^. 14TH 101 
 
 "Then what do you know, ab.out. Iih6 constitU'^ 
 tion with which the country was to have been 
 endowed ? " 
 
 " I know absolutely nothing about it." 
 
 Yakushkin maintains in his Memoirs that he 
 did really know very little of the programme of 
 the constitution elaborated by Nikita Mouraviev. 
 
 " Then wherein did your activity as a member 
 of the Secret Society lie ? " 
 
 " I was endeavouring to find means and ways 
 to abolish serfdom in Russia," was Yakushkin' s 
 reply. " That is a knot that the Government should 
 either disentangle or cut, and that very quickly, 
 or the consequences will be disastrous." 
 
 " But what do you expect the Government to 
 do ? " cried Levashev in surprise. 
 
 " The Government," replied the prisoner, " could 
 buy the freedom of the serfs from the landowners 
 and proprietors." 
 
 " But that is quite impossible," replied the 
 General. " You know perfectly well that the 
 Government is short of money." 
 
 Once more Levashev endeavoured to persuade 
 the prisoner to betray his fellow conspirators but 
 Yakushkin remained firm. He was then requested 
 to sign the sheet of paper upon which the general 
 had written the confessions, admissions and re- 
 marks made by his victim. Yakushkin signed 
 without reading it. He was then ordered to retire 
 into an adjoining room, and here the phantom of 
 what torture might mean came to him, and his 
 heart fell, but, nevertheless, he decided to remain 
 firm and follow the path he considered honour 
 dictated to him. Ten minutes passed; then the 
 door opened and he was called in once more. This 
 
102 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 time Levashev whs ndt alone; the new Emperor 
 stood by the writing table. 
 
 " You have broken your oath," thundered 
 Nicholas. 
 
 " I am guilty, your Imperial Highness ! " 
 
 " What do you expect in the next world ? 
 Have you thought of that ? Damnation I You 
 may despise the opinion of your fellow men, but the 
 idea of what is in store for you in the next world 
 should fill your heart with terror. However," 
 continued the autocrat, " I shall not let you perish 
 entirely ; I shall send a clergyman to you. Well, 
 have you nothing to say ? " 
 
 '' What is it that your Imperial Highness wishes 
 me to say ? " 
 
 " I think that I have spoken quite clearly and 
 distinctly. If you are anxious not to ruin your 
 family, if you do not wish to be treated like a pig, 
 then I advise you to confess everything." 
 
 *' I am sorry," was Yakushkin's firm reply, *' but 
 I gave my word of honour not to betray any one. 
 As for myself, I have told everything concerning 
 my work to his Excellency here." 
 
 "Go to the devil with your abominable word 
 of honour and his Excellency," was Nicholas's 
 vehement reply. 
 
 " I cannot betray my friends, your Imperial 
 Highness." 
 
 The new Tsar was furious. Pointing to the 
 obstinate prisoner, he commanded : " Put him 
 in chains, so that he will not be able to move." 
 
 Yakushkin confesses that he at first had been 
 a little afraid that the Tsar would adopt a dilTerent 
 course with him : would work upon his weakness 
 and his sentimental nature, would play the 
 
DECEMBER THE 14TH 108 
 
 generous and magnanimous ruler, and thus get the 
 better of him. But Nicholas had decided to act 
 otherwise, which seems to show that he was not 
 the fine psychologist and detective that he prided 
 himself on being. His method failed in this case ; 
 throughout the conversation the prisoner remained 
 calm, for he felt himself the stronger of the two. 
 Then Yakushkin was led away. Once more the 
 fear of torture took hold of him ; he felt sure 
 that by " chains " the Tsar had intimated some 
 form of torture, only it was not decent for Majesty 
 to soil its lips with such an ugly word. 
 
 The prisoner was put in chains and then marched 
 to the Alexis Ravelin. Passing over the draw- 
 bridge he remembered Dante's lines : " Leave 
 every hope behind you, all ye who enter here ! " 
 He was placed in a tiny cell, but six feet long and 
 four wide. It was furnished with a bedstead, 
 on which were an old mattress and a woollen bed- 
 cloth such as are used in hospitals, two chairs, 
 a nightlamp and a small table upon which stood 
 a jug of water. " When the key was turned in 
 the door and I was left alone," writes Yakushkin, 
 *' I was quite happy ; torture had passed me by 
 and I had time to collect my thoughts again.'' 
 
 Another obstinate prisoner was Colonel Lunin, 
 famed for his great intelligence and energy. He 
 was accused of regicidal intentions. " Gentlemen," 
 he replied, " our Secret Society never contemplated 
 regicide ; its aims and purpose were much nobler. 
 Yet as you yourself know full well, the idea of 
 regicide is not new to Russia ; we have had quite 
 recent examples of this." Lunin was referring to 
 the assassination of Paul I. Since two members 
 of the court of inquiry before which Lunin had 
 
104 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 been brought had been mixed up in that assas- 
 sination, his reply greatly disconcerted his would-be 
 judges ; these two members were Tatitshev and 
 Koutousov. 
 
 *Many attempts were made to force Nikita 
 Mouraviev to confess that the Secret Society had 
 aimed at founding a Republic in Russia. " Gentle- 
 men," replied Mouraviev at last, tired of their 
 insistence, " the plan for a constitution which I 
 elaborated, and which is now before you, is 
 monarchical ; but since my arrest I have had time 
 to think, therefore I now frankly declare to you 
 that I have become a convinced Republican." ^ 
 
 After his own preliminary work, the Tsar handed 
 the matter over to a Commission. This consisted 
 of the Minister of War, who was the President ; 
 Grand Duke Michael, who was thus both judge 
 and prosecutor ; General Diebitsh, a Prussian who 
 " like many other foreign adventurers enjoyed 
 the Imperial favour " ; * General Koutousov, 
 the Governor-General of St. Petersburg ; Prince 
 Golitsyn ; the Generals Potapov, Levashev and 
 Tshernitshev. Colonel Adlerburg, aide-de-camp 
 to the Tsar, was also present to take notes which 
 were passed on to his Imperial master. This 
 tribunal met at the house of the commandant of 
 the fortress of the capital, and when orders were 
 given to hasten the conclusion of the inquiry, the 
 sittings were held during the night as well as the 
 day. It was Nicholas's aim not only to judge 
 and punish a few criminals, but also " to penetrate 
 into the innermost recesses of the conspiracy, to 
 
 1 Cf. Th. Schiemann, Die Ermordung Pauls, 1902, Berlin, 
 p. 175. 
 
 2 Mouraviev's notes, Schiemann, I.e., p. 173. 
 
DECEMBER THE 14TH 105 
 
 discover its origin, to follow it up in all its ramifica- 
 tions, to gauge its progress and extent, and to 
 establish the results of the inquiry, not upon cir- 
 cumstantial evidence and probabilities, but upon 
 certain undeniable facts and irrefutable evidence 
 and proofs." 
 
 Such were the instructions given by the Tsar to 
 the Commission. The Commission finally finished 
 its work, and Nicholas was satisfied ; he had con- 
 quered a powerful enemy, the more powerful that 
 he had worked in the heart of the Empire and not 
 abroad. 
 
 The manner in which the Tsar announced his 
 victory to his beloved subjects is worthy of special 
 notice. " When, thanks to the impenetrable 
 designs of the Almighty, a conspiracy was revealed 
 unto us in the first few days of our reign, a con- 
 spiracy that had already been in existence for 
 over ten years and was working in the dark against 
 us, we at once recognised the manifestation of the 
 Divine will invisibly pointing ou»t to us our duty 
 and our present conduct. We understood the 
 sanctity of our obligations, especially in view of 
 the fact that the conspiracy was not only a danger 
 to ourselves but to the whole of Russia." Thus 
 the Tsar was not punishing criminals, and it was, 
 of course, out of the question for the autocrat 
 to seek revenge ; he was simply safeguarding 
 Russia ; he was saving the revolutionaries from 
 themselves by removing them from temptation. 
 
 The devil is not the only one who can quote 
 Scripture in his defence. History can give us 
 many instances of the most heinous crimes being 
 explained by the most noble and unselfish of 
 motives. Has there ever been a crime committed 
 
106 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 by an individual, or by a collectivity in power, 
 that was not labelled by that individual, or that 
 collectivity, an act of justice or a deed of nobility ? 
 Thus the Tsar surrounded his so-called trials wdth 
 a halo of justice, although the Court received his 
 instructions, in advance, how to treat each par- 
 ticular prisoner. Elizabeth Petrovna, the daughter 
 of Peter the Great, had abolished capital punish- 
 ment for ordinary criminals, but not for political 
 prisoners. It would, however, be unwise to 
 imagine that the Tsaritza, in abolishing capital 
 punishment for assassins and brigands, had been 
 actuated by any feeling of pity or special clemency 
 towards her subjects. 
 
 A close study of this history of the Romanovs 
 has convinced us that Alexander II is the only 
 Romanov who ever exhibited the slightest degree 
 of generosity towards his people. Nicholas I cer- 
 tainly never manifested any, and the measure 
 abolishing the death penalty in the case of ordinary 
 criminals promulgated by Elizabeth Petrovna was 
 dictated by more selfish considerations than a 
 mere dislike to shedding human blood. There 
 were mines that had to be worked and exploited, 
 and for which voluntary labour was difficult to 
 obtain ; therefore, forced labour had to be found, 
 so the gallows and the ravens were deprived of 
 their victims. There were also vast tracts of land 
 which did not attract the colonist, and criminals were 
 exiled to those inhospitable regions. The mines 
 were Russia's dry guillotine; they had a double 
 advantage in the eyes of autocracy : they not only 
 swallowed the Tsar's political enemies and rendered 
 them harmless, but they also yielded a handsome 
 profit to the State. 
 
DECEMBER THE UTH 107 
 
 Of course the judgments of the Court were 
 very severe on the Decembrists. The Tsar had 
 wished that the punishment should be severe, so 
 as to give liim an opportunity to exercise his 
 Imperial clemency. He had two reasons for this : 
 he wished to impress the masses of his subjects 
 with the nobility of his sentiments on the one 
 hand, and, on the other, he was fully aware that 
 the eyes of Europe were upon him. 
 
 Yet Nicholas was anxious not onlv to have his 
 revenge, but also to impress upon all embryo revo- 
 lutionaries the utter foolishness and futility of 
 making another effort. He decided to make an 
 example with a few of the leaders and to arrange 
 the rest into separate groups. Five were, there- 
 fore, placed io to speak hors concours : they were 
 condemned to death — that is, to be quartered. 
 These five were Colonel Pestel, Sub-Colonel Sergius 
 Mouraviev-Apostol, and the three officers, Peter 
 Kakhovsky, Michael Bestyoushev-Ryoumin and 
 Kondraty Ryleev. Of the remaining 116, thirty- 
 one were to be hanged, seventeen were condemned 
 to perpetual servitude in the mines, and the other 
 eighty-five to various terms of penal servitude 
 and exile. The sentences were then graciously 
 commuted by the sovereign. The thirty-one 
 condenmed to be hanged had their sentence com- 
 muted into penal servitude, while the sentences of 
 the remaining eighty-five were all reduced. As 
 regards the five placed hors concours , the Tsar per- 
 mitted the death penalty, but informed the Court 
 that he wished the men punished in such a way 
 as to avoid the " shedding of blood " ! The Court 
 literally followed the gracious instructions of his 
 Majesty : the five w^ere hanged ! The sentence 
 
108 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 was executed upon them on the night of July 12th- 
 18th. 
 
 " Night is propitious for crime," writes Alex- 
 ander Mouraviev, the brother of Nikita Mouraviev, 
 in a letter addressed to his wife. " We were led 
 out into an open space in front of the fortress and 
 there we saw the gallows. Those of us who were 
 in uniform had it stripped off ; the uniforms 
 were then thrown into the fire, our swords were 
 broken over our heads ; we were degraded, we 
 were outlaws to be shunned by man and cursed by 
 God. Whilst we were l^eing led back to our cells, 
 our five companions were being seized and led to the 
 gallows. Two of our unfortunate and noble com- 
 panions, Ryleev and Sergius Mouraviev-Apostol, 
 were thrown down from the top of the gallows ; 
 the fall broke their limbs ; they were then hanged, 
 mutilated as they were." ^ 
 
 But no blood had been shed, and the instructions 
 of the Tsar had been carried out to the letter. 
 The victims paid the penalty for a crime which 
 humanity at large, Governments in power but, 
 above all, autocrats, can never pardon : the 
 crime of harbouring new and revolutionary ideas — 
 subversive and progressive ideas that attack and 
 criticise the order of things as they are, ideas that 
 are the true birthright of man and that emanate 
 from his innate craving for independence and 
 freedom. But, alas ! to think differently from 
 those in power, be it in the domain of religion, 
 politics or sociology, does not suit those who have 
 usurped and cling to power. Criticism of au- 
 thority, sincere thought on justice and injustice 
 may lead to action, may cause the masses to realise 
 
 1 Schiemann, Z.c,,p. 177. 
 
DECEMBER THE 14TH 109 
 
 for whose benefit the authorities, in all ages and 
 in all countries, think and labour. The masses 
 might even take it into their stupid heads to 
 shake off the shackles of thraldom and hurl the 
 usurpers of power and authority from their 
 pedestals. And therefore the pioneers of new 
 ideas have always been persecuted, exiled, im- 
 prisoned, thrown into lions' dens, led to scaffolds 
 and crucified. 
 
 Yet justice is always at hand, and history 
 generall}'- revenges itself. That which one genera- 
 tion condemns as blasphemous or hateful, the next 
 will uphold and adore. To the memory of those 
 whom one generation put to death, the next will 
 erect statues and altars, and pious pilgrims will flock 
 to their flower-strewn shrines. The despised and 
 persecuted revolutionaries of one age become the 
 prophets of the next. What would Nicholas I 
 think of the Russia of to-day ? 
 
 The pioneers of Russian freedom were buried 
 secretly on one of the islands of the Neva, and swift 
 messengers were sent to Tsarkoe Selo to tell the 
 Tsar that, at last, he was revenged upon his 
 enemies and could sleep in peace. 
 
 Whilst the judges and other servile servants of 
 autocracy were rewarded with titles and gifts for 
 their obedience, there were some who swore re- 
 venge. One poor lieutenant, a soldier's son, was 
 ordered to lead the five political criminals to the 
 gallows, but he refused. " I have served with 
 honour," he replied, pointing to the cross of St. 
 George pinned upon his breast, " and now in my 
 old age I refuse to become the hangman of five 
 men whom I sincerely respect." Again, Colonel 
 Zoubov of the Cavalier Guards bluntly refused to 
 
110 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 lead his regiment to the scene of the execution. 
 " They are my comrades," he said, " and I shall 
 not go." ^ Thus there were some who dared to be 
 themselves even at the moment when all trembled 
 before the new ruler. 
 
 The first batch of prisoners were sent to the 
 mines on July 18th ; they were put in chains and 
 marched off to their distant destination. Though 
 the Tsar was anxious to cut these individuals out 
 of the communal life, to eradicate their very 
 memory, yet he did not succeed. Several of the 
 wives of the condemned followed them into exile, 
 and thus a link was forged between the socially 
 and politically dead and Russian society. Some 
 of the condemned had the terms of their servitude 
 reduced several times — whenever, indeed, the Tsar 
 thought it necessary to show himself the benevolent 
 ruler. But even then they were relegated to the 
 most distant corners of Siberia, and not permitted 
 to communicate with each other. 
 
 In 1856, Alexander II, when he ascended the 
 throne, permitted the few remaining Decembrists 
 to return to civilisation and to live where they 
 chose, except in either of the two capitals, Moscow 
 or St. Petersburg. Twenty-nine availed them- 
 selves of his clemency ; the rest had either died 
 long before or been allowed to leave Siberia. 
 These twenty-nine were reinstated in their social 
 positions, but Alexander's generosity did not go 
 so far as to return to them their property which 
 his august father had confiscated. 
 
 Before leaving the history of the Decembrists, 
 the pioneers of the Russian Revolution and Russian 
 struggle for freedom, it may be as well to examine 
 
 1 Schiemann, I.e., p. 177. 
 
DECEMBER THE 14TH 111 
 
 their ideas and aspirations. The Decembrists 
 were revolutionary patriots. Their patriotism was 
 based upon their love for Russia and an ardent 
 desire to see their country independent of other 
 nations, externally and internally. Their love for 
 Russia's past, for those moments in her history 
 that marked the self-assertion of the national 
 character, made them yearn for a revival of the 
 popular assemblies in Red Russia and for the 
 power and independence of old Novgorod. Though 
 the Decembrists aimed at introducing reforms and 
 institutions similar to those then prevailing in 
 Western Europe, yet these were not to be mere 
 slavish imitations ; they were to be adapted to 
 suit Russian peculiarities. 
 
 Unlike the Slavophiles, the Decembrists did 
 not believe in Russia's special mission, but they 
 had great faith in the moral and physical qualities 
 of the nation. Some of them were in favour of a 
 constitutional monarchy, whilst others were Re- 
 publicans pure and simple. The majority were 
 opposed to socialism as it then existed ; in religion 
 they were convinced deists. They all recognised 
 the necessity of a revolution, it being the only 
 means of introducing any new political or social 
 institutions into Russia. It must be borne in 
 mind that this revolutionary group was not com- 
 posed of proletarians and working men, but of 
 officers belonging to the highest nobility, all of 
 them very rich and the owners of vast tracts of 
 land and thousands of serfs. 
 
 The majority of the Decembrists, therefore, 
 thought of a political, not of a social and economic 
 revolution. It was but natural that Colonel 
 Pest el's proposition to dispossess the seigneurs 
 
112 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 and hand over the land to the peasants, found but 
 little encouragement among this revolutionary 
 group of aristocrats. But Pestel, inspired by 
 Babeuf, St. Simon and Fourier, was neither a 
 dreamer nor a Utopian ; he was simply a socialist 
 before socialism had been crystallised into a doc- 
 trine. He had grasped the true reality of things 
 and was well acquainted with the spirit of the 
 Russian nation. If the land were left in the 
 hands of the nobles, he argued, there would be 
 an oligarchy, and the peasants would scarcely 
 realise, much less appreciate, their freedom, for 
 freedom without land would mean but little to 
 them. It was Pestel who first insisted upon drag- 
 ging in the people, the masses, and making them 
 participate in the revolution. Yet Pestel was 
 mistaken on both these points. It was not then 
 possible for his friends, the landed aristocracy, to 
 work for a social revolution, neither could the 
 people make common cause with the nobles ; at 
 that time their interests were so vastly different. 
 
 The revolution of the Decembrists has been ' 
 styled a " bourgeois movement." If one takes 
 " bourgeois " as being distinct from proletarian, 
 this definition is correct ; with the exception of 
 Pestel and a few others the Decembrists were 
 bourgeois in their tendencies. Their constitutional 
 plans, always excepting Pestel, did not speak of 
 universal suffrage. Yet this bourgeois spirit was 
 not the result only of group psychology, but also 
 arose out of the prevailing view-point of Europe 
 which manifested itself clearly in the political 
 literature of that time. " The social questions," 
 .-, writes Herzen, " interested no one in Europe in 
 those days. Gracchus Babeuf, ' the madman 
 
DECEMBER THE 14TH 113 
 
 and savage,' was already forgotten. It is true 
 that St. Simon was writing his treatises, but no one 
 read them. Fourier was in the same predicament, 
 whilst few were interested in Robert Owen's Essays. 
 Even the most prominent liberals of that period, 
 Benjamin Constant and P. L. Courrier, would have 
 indignantly repudiated Pestel's propositions which 
 were put before a society of very wealthy noble- 
 men, not a club of proletarians." ^ The revolu- 
 tion of the Decembrists, or rather, the ideas of the 
 revolutionaries were, to a certain extent, those 
 which brought about the French Revolution of 
 1789, which was a bourgeois, censiiaire regime. It 
 was only on August 19th, 1792, that democracy 
 was established by the introduction of universal 
 suffrage.* 
 
 We have defined the revolution of the Decem- 
 brists as a bourgeois movement, in contradistinc- 
 tion to proletarian, but this statement does not 
 imply that it was made by the bourgeoisie. It 
 was the revolt of a group of nobles, officers and 
 soldiers. The movement was wholly political ; 
 these first Russian revolutionaries were anxious to 
 maintain in the social structure of the country 
 all that was possible of the old institutions ; they 
 only sacrificed what they were absolutely obliged 
 to sacrifice, and what would have been a direct 
 and flagrant contradiction of political freedom. 
 Serfdom, of course, would have to be abolished. 
 Though not anxious, like Pestel, to gain the 
 people and the peasants as adherents of their 
 
 ^ Cf. A. Herzen, Du developpemcnt des idees revolutionnairet 
 en Russie, London, 1853, p. 67. Pokrovski, I.e., i, p. 102. 
 
 2 Cf. A. Aulard, Histoire politique de la Revolution Fran^aiee, 
 Paris, 1901, p. vi. 
 
 8 
 
114 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 movement, the majority of the Decembrists knew 
 that they would have to grant certain things to 
 them, otherwise Jacqueries, such as those led by 
 Pougatshev, would threaten society, and they 
 knew that no constitution could stand against the 
 peasant risings. Yet the basis of their revolu- 
 tionary movement was practically the old social 
 structure, artist ocratic and bourgeois. 
 
 Even the republican tendencies of the Southern 
 League in no way contradicted these ideas. To 
 the majority of the conspirators, republicanism 
 meant, not real democracy, but a limitation, or 
 abolition, of monarchy. The opposition to auto- 
 cracy of the Russian nobility as a group existed 
 long before 1825, and several attempts had already 
 been made by that group to limit the autocratic 
 and monarchic power. Thus, though republicans, 
 the Decembrists were not democrats ; a true demo- 
 crat must logically be also a republican, but a 
 republican need not be a democrat. Not all the 
 Decembrists, as I have shown, were republicans, 
 but all of them were " monarchomachs," or enemies 
 of absolute monarchy. 
 
 The Decembrists also made the common mistake 
 of imagining that revolutions are made by indi- 
 viduals, strong men, heroes ; that the French 
 Revolution was the work of Danton, Mirabeau and 
 Robespierre, for example. They did not realise 
 that the French Revolution, like all other revolu- 
 tions, was the logical result of the discontent and 
 ferment of various groups, not of the multitude, 
 but of organised groups, and that it was national 
 and nameless. The individuals render invalu- 
 able service, of course ; in each group there are 
 always one or two, sometimes more, individuals 
 
DECEMBER THE 14TH 115 
 
 who are more capable, more energetic than the 
 others, and who therefore distinguish themselves 
 and become the leaders, but even then they draw 
 their strength, their inspiration, from the masses. 
 The organised groups manifest their will, crystallise 
 their thoughts and give voice to their innermost 
 feelings and needs. The so-called leaders consti- 
 tute the concrete manifestation of the abstract 
 soul of the masses. Therefore a movement that 
 does not emanate from the masses is doomed to 
 failure. 
 
 Napoleon and Nicholas I both seem to have 
 understood this very well. They knew that the 
 groups were animated by a spirit of revolt, "but 
 that they were not sufficiently developed to be 
 able to analyse either their feelings or their dor- 
 mant aspirations, yet if the people were once able 
 to take cognisance of themselves, they would 
 rouse from their lethargy. Therefore, it was both 
 Napoleon's and Nicholas's policy, as well as that 
 of later Tsars, to prevent the people thinking and 
 reasoning. It was for the same reason, to prevent 
 the people thinking, reasoning, analysing or ques- 
 tioning established authority, that Papacy forbade 
 Roman Catholics to read the Bible. The study 
 of the Bible logically led to questioning of the Papal 
 authority, to Protestantism. 
 
 Again, the Decembrists imagined that a hand- 
 ful of noblemen could bring about a successful 
 revolution. They neglected the people. Pestel 
 alone understood the spirit of the Russian nation 
 and, perhaps, was the only Decembrist who was a 
 true pioneer to later generations. He understood 
 that a political revolution must be accompanied 
 by a social revolution, otherwise it would only 
 
116 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 mean a shifting of power from the hand of one 
 man to those of a chque ; this is the case in our 
 day in many of the great RepubHcs and Con- 
 stitutional Monarchies. Pestel also understood 
 that a revolution must be based upon democracy, 
 and, in an agrarian country like Russia, land and 
 freedom were inseparable for the millions of pea- 
 sants. " We may proclaim a republic," said 
 Pestel, " but there will be chaos among us ; there 
 will be no general, popular rising until we abolish 
 the ownership of the nobles. The peasant requires 
 jthe land." ^ " Pestel," writes Herzen, *' made a 
   mistake ; he miscalculated the time, but none the 
 ^less he was a true prophet." 
 
 Yet despite the mistakes of the Decembrists, 
 despite their fate, their conspiracy exercised a 
 profound influence upon later generations, not so 
 much, perhaps, because of their propaganda and 
 theories as because of their example, their heroic 
 attitude in the public square, during their trials, 
 in prison, in the presence of their judges and of 
 the Emperor himself, while in exile and at work 
 in the mines. They broke the silence, they opened 
 a window through which a fresh breath of freedom 
 could penetrate into the soul of the people and 
 awaken from them their passivity. The Russians 
 did not lack liberal or revolutionary ideas, or even 
 realisation of their wrongs, but that audacity and 
 initiative that stimulate thought into action.* 
 
 It was this that the Decembrists provided. 
 Other groups, seething with discontent, followed 
 the example of the nobles and officers. The 
 
 1 Cf. Pokrovsky, I.e., p. 118; Herzen, La Conspiration de 
 1825. 
 
 2 Cf. Herzen, I.e., p. 68. 
 
DECEMBER THE 14TH 117 
 
 bandage fell from the eyes of many, for from the 
 top of their gallows, from the depth of the mines, 
 from their exile, the Decembrists called to the 
 soul of Russia. The revolt was ruthlessly quelled, 
 it is true, but its idea could not be crushed : it 
 remained a living seed destined to blossom and 
 bear fruit in a later generation. Truly, " the 
 cannon shots on the Isaac Square awakened the 
 entire generation " and became the trumpet-call 
 that announced the day of Judgment for the house 
 of Romanov. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 THE TRIUMPH OF AUTOCRACY 
 
 From the Reign of Nicholas I, 1825, until 
 THE Emancipation of the Serfs, 1861 
 
 Nicholas I looked upon liberalism as something 
 plebeian and an insult to his Imperial dignity. He 
 did his best, or his worst, to crush the spirit of 
 revolt and became the Don Quixote of Absolutism, 
 not only in Russia but in Europe. He believed 
 wholly in militarism, and considered that obedience 
 was the first duty of a subject. The Tsar de- 
 clared brutally and frankly his belief that auto- 
 cracy was the only possible happy mode of life 
 for humanity. Anything that even savoured of 
 democracy was a crime. It must be admitted 
 that the Tsar made one or two attempts to reform 
 the bureaucracy in Russia ; it was of this band 
 of thieves that he said : "I and my son are the 
 only men in Russia who do not steal." But 
 Nicholas soon convinced himself that it was waste 
 labour. Tsardom relied upon bureaucracy, there- 
 fore it became the representative of autocracy, its 
 instrument of oppression, and was consequently 
 despised and hated by the nation. 
 
 It seemed as if the Tsar had succeeded in crush- 
 ing the spirit of revolt in Russia. The country 
 was seamed with a net of spies ; it was like a 
 
 118 
 
THE TRIUMPH OF AUTOCRACY 119 
 
 spider's web in the midst of which sat Beelzebub, 
 the head of the third section who was responsible 
 only to the Tsar himself. In many ways Russia 
 resembled old Venice, for any Russian who even 
 in the innermost recesses of his soul dreamed of 
 freedom carried his life in his hands, as in some 
 unguarded moment his looks would mirror his 
 mind. It was a bitter time for the spirit of re- 
 volt ; it met with practically no sympathy even 
 from the rest of Europe, for there the autocrat 
 was hailed as the guardian of conservative interests. 
 In order to live, the subjects of Tsar Nicholas had 
 to be hypocrites, for no one can expect an entire 
 nation to become martyrs, xiutocracy had tri- 
 umphed, or so it seemed. 
 
 But the Tsar was mistaken. Even during his 
 iron reign, despite the horror and the severity, 
 the spirit of revolt still lived, still hoped, still 
 struggled, still fought to make itself ready to 
 emerge one day to full consciousness of its strength. 
 After all, thought cannot be muzzled ; an electric 
 fluid cannot be caught and imprisoned ; man's 
 ideas are his own and are impregnable. Russia, 
 at this time, was like a living stream covered with 
 a thick crust of ice. The ice-bound river had 
 stopped the spirit of revolt, but underneath the 
 thick ice sheet the waters were still running, and 
 one day they would break the ice and overflow 
 the banks. Every now and then an effort at 
 revolt was made even during the reign of Nicholas, 
 thus showing the Tsar that Holy Russia was not 
 so immaculate, so unpolluted by the sinful spirit 
 of the age as he had imagined. Thus in 1848 the 
 Petrashevski conspiracy was hatched and dis- 
 covered. 
 
120 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 Early in March of the same year, and but a 
 few days before the news of the Berlin Revolution 
 reached St. Petersburg, Count Perovski, Minister 
 of the Interior, was informed of the existence of 
 a complot, and that secret leaflets composed and 
 printed by Michael Petrashevski, an official at the 
 Ministry, had been distributed. The news made 
 a deep impression upon the Tsar, who thought 
 that he had entirely freed Russia from all revo- 
 lutionary ideas. 
 
 Liprandi was entrusted with the inquiry, and 
 this clever spy soon discovered that Petrashevski 
 had been marked '* suspect " by the Secret Police 
 in 1845. He had compiled a dictionary of all the 
 foreign expressions that had been given citizen 
 rights in the Riissian language, and he had in- 
 cluded various " political allusions " ! It was 
 also discovered that Petrashevski had been in the 
 habit of receiving parties of young men in his 
 rooms, and, instead of playing cards or drinking 
 like respectable people, they spent their time dis- 
 cussing plans for new laws, etc. In short, he had 
 formed a literary club. 
 
 Liprandi made his report in 1849, a few weeks 
 after Austria had asked the Tsar to help her quell 
 the Hungarian Revolution. Petrashevski and his 
 comrades, thirty-three in number, were arrested 
 and taken to the fortress of SS. Peter and Paul. 
 Among the accused, were eight officials, two 
 chamberlains, four officers of the guard, two 
 authors, two students, one teacher of languages 
 and " one citizen." This proves that the spirit 
 of revolt in Russia which had first manifested itself 
 among the Cossacks and peasants, as shown by 
 their Jacqueries and risings during the seventeenth 
 
THE TRIUMPH OF AUTOCRACY 121 
 
 and eighteenth centuries, and later among the 
 officers and soldiers, had not, even as late as 1850, 
 penetrated the middle classes, the merchants or 
 working men. These groups only accepted the 
 revolutionary idea during the second half of the 
 nineteenth century. 
 
 The inquiry lasted eight months, but sentence 
 was not passed until 1850, after the Hungarian 
 campaign. The young men were accused of being 
 in favour of the '' pernicious doctrines " which 
 had gained ground in Western Europe and which 
 threatened to deprive the Western nations of 
 happiness and prosperity. In Holy Russia, where 
 the Government of the Tsar carefully watched all 
 such movements, a few wicked young men, some 
 thoroughly depraved, others merely their victims, 
 had formed a secret society w^ith the intention of 
 overthrowing the Government and introducing 
 anarchy in place of order. Twenty-one of these 
 criminals were condemned to death ; among these 
 were Petrashevski and Dostoievski. Nicholas read 
 the sentence and then deigned to commute it. He 
 wrote: *'The sentence should be read to the criminals 
 in presence of the troops ; then, after the prepara- 
 tions of all minute details preceding the execution, 
 it should be announced that the Emperor had 
 graciously pardoned them, and commuted the 
 death penalty into that of loss of civil right and, 
 according to the degree of their guilt, banishment 
 to the mines, penal servitude, fortress or incor- 
 poration in the army." 
 
 Once more the Tsar and autocracy had tri- 
 umphed.^ The spirit of revolt sighed in exile, in 
 
 ^ Cf. J. von Eckhardt, Nicholaus I — Alexander III, pp. 
 63-112. 
 
122 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 prison or on the snowfields of Siberia, whilst flat- 
 terers and reactionaries sang a hymn of praise and 
 hosannas to the guardian of absolutism and con- 
 servative principles. Loudest in this chorus was 
 the voice of Prussia. The land which has since 
 produced the " Hymn of Hate " produced a poet 
 who sang a hymn to the knout : " Hoch die 
 russische Knut " was published in 1852. 
 
 I have said that the oppressive measures 
 taken by the Government during the reign of 
 Nicholas I in the endeavour to crush the spirit 
 of revolt in Russia only succeeded outwardly. 
 Governments may imprison their subjects, may 
 torture or kill them ; they may prevent freedom of 
 speech, but they can never imprison the mind. 
 ''My thoughts are my own, and no power on earth 
 can prevent me thinking that which I am not 
 permitted to say aloud." Even in the darkest 
 ages of slavery man's mind was always free. 
 When man clamours for freedom, he really means 
 freedom of his body, or, at the highest, freedom to 
 communicate his thoughts to his fellow men ; his 
 mind is always free ; he can always think what 
 he will. 
 
 But what is the result ? Compelled to live intro- 
 spectively, to concentrate his thoughts, he learns 
 to develop them more fully ; he clings to them 
 more fondly, for they constitute his most precious 
 possession, and, when the propitious moment 
 arrives, his crystallised thoughts are sent forth 
 like a fertile stream to water the desert. It is 
 true that during the reign of Nicholas I men were 
 unable to do anything in Russia ; their bodies 
 were enslaved, but they thought all the more, and 
 their minds being busy the spirit of revolt grew 
 
THE TRIUMPH OF AUTOCRACY 123 
 
 stronger and more vigorous while waiting for the 
 opportunity to spread its wings. Educated people 
 read, thought and discussed in secret, whilst the 
 ignorant masses instinctively suffered and brooded, 
 gradually forming opinions, hopes and aspira- 
 tions. During the last few years of Nicholas' 
 reign a feeling that things could not go on as they 
 had done, that there must soon be a change, was 
 abroad in the land. 
 
 Though the number of secret malcontents and 
 rSvolUs greatly increased during the autocratic 
 reign of Nicholas, yet because of the severity of 
 the police and the network of spies, any organised 
 revolutionary party or parties was impossible 
 after the bloody days of 1826. There were only 
 three distinct homesteads, as it were, for the spirit 
 of revolt. These were, firstlv, the members of the 
 old boyarin families who had lost favour at Court 
 and been placed on the retired list. Among these 
 were the inheritors of the liberal tendencies of 
 1825 and the reign of Alexander I. The ideal of 
 this jronde was a limitation of absolute monarchy 
 by the aristocracy. Their discontent was stimu- 
 lated bv their hatred of the ever-increasing influ- 
 ence of the Court and military camarilla, which 
 were mostly German. The universities made 
 another homestead. Here a new and fresh life 
 was developing despite the numerous government 
 restrictions that dealt with every detail, from the 
 lectures to the life and dress of the students ; they 
 endeavoured to militarise the universities. 
 
 Then suddenly there arose an opportunity which 
 autocracy had hoped to use for its own purposes, 
 but which soon proved of great help to the grow- 
 ing ferment. This was the Crimean War. The 
 
124 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 wars which Russian autocracy has waged since 
 1812 have always been reflected in the internal 
 policy of the country, and have had a deep and 
 far-reaching effect upon the development of the 
 national consciousness. Until 1812, the wars 
 waged by autocracy had passed almost unnoticed 
 by the masses of the nation. The specifically 
 Russian patriotism set burning by Rostopt shin's 
 torches, changed into a new flame, the flame of 
 cosmopolitan — ecstasy for freedom, freedom of 
 nations, which in the course of a century has not 
 yet been extinguished. The events of 1825, though 
 apparently a failure, had sown seeds in fertile 
 ground. A system was gradually being prepared 
 which was diametrically opposed to that of 
 Nicholas I. Nicholas had triumphed over Russia, 
 triumphed over democracy in 1848, during the 
 Hungarian campaign, and the slaves and flatterers 
 of Tsardom were convinced that if the Tsar wished, 
 he could triumph over Europe. 
 
 Nicholas had failed. The bankruptcy of Russia 
 was proved ; the idol had feet of clay. Russia's 
 thinking sons, children of revolt, were genuinely 
 sorry and suffered deeply over the fall of Sebastopol, 
 but, nevertheless, they were convinced that the 
 true happiness and welfare of the nation, as dis- 
 tinguished from Tsardom, had nothing to fear 
 from the Anglo-French victories at Inkermann 
 and on the banks of the Tshernaya, and that the 
 fall of Saragossa would render a greater service 
 to Russia than those who had stormed Malakoff.^ 
 For a quarter of a century Nicholas' will had been 
 law, not only for Russia but for Europe. He 
 alone had been able to cry " stop " to the storm 
 ^ Cf. J. von Eckhardt, Russland vor und nach dem Kriege, p. 327. 
 
THE TRIUMPH OF AUTOCRACY 125 
 
 of revolution, to the demands of democracy, to 
 crush every liberal thought and gesture of free- 
 dom. The Tsar, it was thought, must return of 
 course triumphant and victorious, and the Tsar's 
 victories would be another of Tsardom's holds 
 upon the nation. But autocracy failed, for the 
 armies of the Tsar were beaten. 
 
 In the midst of the war Nicholas died. His 
 megalomania had received a check, his dreams of 
 omnipotence were shattered by stern reality, so 
 he died. His deathbed must have been a torture, 
 like that of the Roman Emperor Tiberius. Who 
 knows but that Tsar Nicholas I, in a prophetic 
 vision, saw the forces of revolution gathering 
 strength and finally triumphing over Tsardom, 
 and his great-grandson, the second Nicholas, giv- 
 ing up the struggle, abdicating and being sent to 
 Siberia in the midst of another war, with Russia 
 this time as an ally of the very powers he was 
 then fighting ? Imperial and human tragi-comedy ! 
 On the threshold of death this champion of auto- 
 cracy, this enemy of liberalism may have had a 
 glimpse into the future and heard the sighs and 
 curses of his numerous victims, all of whom he 
 had sacrificed to the Moloch of Tsardom. If 
 Nicholas I had no prophetic vision, at least one 
 knows that he would die of shock could he but 
 rise and see the Russia of to-day. If the dead 
 are aware of the doings of the living and can turn 
 in their graves, then, surely, the Tsar Nicholas 
 must be in a perpetual whirl ! 
 
 The autocrat died. Official Russia mourned 
 and lamented over his Imperial grave, but the 
 revolutionary spirit, the spirit of revolt, uttered 
 a sigh of relief in its prison house. France and 
 
126 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 England paid a tribute de convenance, whilst Berlin 
 and its Knutophiles deplored the disappearance of 
 the autocrat. The revolutionaries of Russia drew 
 new breath when Alexander II ascended the throne. 
 It seemed as if the dawn of liberty had risen on 
 Russia's horizon and that, at last, the long-ex- 
 pected and hoped-for renaissance was at hand. 
 The demand for freedom, for the abolition of 
 serfdom and the introduction of liberal, Western 
 ] institutions became louder. The aspirations of 
 I Russian society and the Russian nation found its 
 I expression in Alexander Herzen, an exile living 
 ; in London who had founded The Bell, in which 
 I he published his political programmes. I shall 
 deal with Herzen' s ideas in a subsequent chapter. 
 Suffice it here to say that what Herzen practically 
 demanded was the abolition of serfdom, the censor- 
 ship and corporal punishment. 
 
 Alexander II was one of the most liberal minded 
 members of the house of Romanov, but it should 
 be borne in mind that even in his case his liberal 
 measures and reforms were not so much the 
 result of an impulsive movement as brought about 
 by two external factors : public opinion and 
 popular discontent. Alexander stated his decision 
 to introduce reforms into Russia. The spirit of 
 revolt was still too inexperienced to know that a 
 Romanov could not grant a constitution, he must 
 either be an autocrat or abdicate. Thus every one 
 believed that a new era had dawned on Russia. 
 The Russian opposition, the heirs and successors 
 of the Decembrists, the men who had sighed and 
 hoped or brooded and despaired during the reign 
 of Nicholas I, never dreamed of replying : Tout on 
 rien, as their successors of 1917, grown grey and 
 
THE TRIUMPH OF AUTOCRACY 127 
 
 experienced in suffering, will say. They greeted 
 the Emperor's promises with exuberant joy and 
 hailed his declaration that " it is better to abolish 
 serfdom by an act of government coming from 
 above, than to wait until it was abolished from 
 below by the people themselves." 
 
 Russian liberals and revolutionaries greeted the 
 young monarch bent upon liberal reforms and 
 measures with great enthusiasm. Every one was 
 confident and full of hopes for a glorious future. 
 Millions would obtain freedom without a revolu- 
 tion, without bloodshed. The Tsar himself was 
 inspired by the best and most liberal intentions, 
 and decided to make a clean sweep of the past 
 and a tabula rasa of the regime of Nicholas I. 
 Herzen hailed Alexander II as a deliverer, and 
 heaped blessing upon his Imperial head. He com- 
 pared him to Peter the Great, and exclaimed : 
 " For the moment the spirit of revolt had volun- 
 tarily cut off its wings and was dazzled by the 
 golden cage which the representative of autocracy 
 was dangling before its e37^es." ^ 
 
 The great day, February 19th, 1861, arrived. 
 On this historical day serfdom w^as abolished in 
 Russia by Imperial decree. Thus millions of 
 slaves obtained a semblance of freedom ; it was 
 granted them, not as an act of justice, but as a 
 crust thrown to a beggar. And the masses were 
 expected to hail this crowned liberator as a heaven- 
 sent saviour I The poor, deluded fools did not 
 realise that he was only restoring to them their 
 own property, their liberty, of which they had 
 been deprived by his predecessors. They did not 
 even have the satisfaction of feeling that they 
 
 1 The Bell, 1858, No, 9. 
 
128 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 were the conquerors ; that they as victors had 
 dictated conditions to a conquered foe and usurper. 
 No, it was an act of grace on the part of the auto- 
 crat, and the world applauded him for it. Neither 
 the Russian revolutionaries nor the people had 
 any realisation of the deep humiliation of that 
 method of obtaining their freedom. 
 
 Alas, both the joy and the hope were of very 
 short duration. It was but natural that the 
 governing classes, all landed slaveowners, should, 
 with a few exceptions, be disinclined to yield up 
 such a lucrative source of income. The Russian 
 landed proprietor of those days led a life of happy, 
 idle luxury, a perfect dolce far niente. Slaves 
 worked for him; his " souls " piled up money that 
 he might rush off to Paris now and then and spend 
 it freely. The governing classes could not and 
 would not solve the question radically. The 
 slaves were liberated, men were set free, but the 
 economic situation was far from having been 
 ameliorated. The agrarian question had not been 
 solved as the liberals, revolutionaries and socialists 
 had trusted it would. The peasants did not re- 
 ceive the land they had been cultivating, for the 
 greatest part of the soil still remained in the pos- 
 session of the proprietors. Moreover, the peasants 
 did not receive what land was allotted to them 
 free of expense : they had to pay heavy rents and 
 taxes ; in many cases, indeed, the taxes came to 
 more than the peasant could earn by the cultiva- 
 tion of his land. Therefore, the liberated slaves 
 were economically much worse off than before. 
 Hence the strange phenomenon of men and women, 
 nominally free and their own masters, sighing 
 miserably for the happy, halcyon days of serfdom. 
 
■> ' , »-> ' ■'.* 
 
 J , ' J , 3 
 
 128] 
 
 Tsar Alexander II Monument. 
 
 (By Antokolsky.) 
 
THE TRIUMPH OF AUTOCRACY 129 
 
 After having celebrated the feast of freedom, 
 the Russian peasant wept for the flesh pots of 
 slavery. The peasants themselves believed that 
 the Tsar had decreed that they should receive the 
 land, but that the landowners refused to give it 
 up. The Moujiks clung to this belief for many 
 years ; indeed, itrhas only quite recently, thanks to 
 the energetic propaganda organised by the revolu- 
 tionaries, been eradicated. As for the intellectuals 
 they immediately understood that the Govern- 
 ment did not really intend to break with the past, 
 and that Alexander himself could not belie the 
 autocratic tendencies of his father.^ 
 
 In a word, the reforms of Alexander, especially 
 the emancipation of serfdom, did not have the 
 expected results. The Tsar had made an initial 
 mistake, a mistake that Tsars and autocrats are 
 bound to make : he wished to appear liberal and 
 yet remain an autocrat. The same mistake, in 
 the opposite sense, is often made by apostles of 
 liberty and democracy : they proclaim the prin- 
 ciple of nationality in the same breath as universal 
 peace ; they attempt to be national patriots and 
 international socialists at one and the same time, 
 not seeming to realise that these are contradictory 
 ideas. 
 
 On the other hand, the emancipation of the 
 serfs annoved the aristocrats and landowners, 
 idealistically inclined though these were. They 
 were far from pleased with the reality, for it 
 caused them to lose their source of revenue, whilst 
 the moujiks, liberty-struck, asked for more. The 
 peasants had heard of and hoped for "freedom," 
 but in the simplicity of their minds they had 
 
 1 Cf. Golovatshev, p. 6. 
 
 9 
 
130 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 imagined this freedom to be something quite 
 diiierent from what it proved to be in reahty. They 
 had fondly imagined that all the ground which 
 they, as serfs, had cultivated for the seigneurs, 
 would become their absolute property, free of 
 rates and taxes. The discontent of the masses 
 therefore grew; they were in a constant state of 
 seething fermentation. The intellectuals, seeing 
 the discontent and excitement of the peasants, 
 imagined that a peasant revolution was at hand 
 which would, like a human hurricane, sweep aside 
 and destroy the old regime and pull down the 
 bulwarks of autocracv. 
 
 But the hopes of the revolutionaries were 
 premature. The peasants were angry, but their 
 anger was against the nobility and the seigneurs, 
 not against the autocracy or Tsardom. However, 
 the peasants, though dissatisfied, resigned them- 
 selves to the existing state of affairs. It was not 
 5^et possible for the intellectual revolutionary 
 element to enlighten the peasants : firstly, because 
 the peasants distrusted the intellectuals — whom 
 they looked upon as mere seigneurs — and also be- 
 cause their social and political consciousness was 
 but slightly developed ; and secondly, the intellec- 
 tuals had not learnt how to penetrate the masses 
 and make them listen to them. The intellectuals 
 themselves were quite convinced that Russia could 
 expect nothing from autocracy, and that her 
 people would have to use force to secure their 
 liberty or any true reforms ; they could not hope 
 to receive them as gifts from the Tsar. 
 
 The peasants, among them the Stenka Razins 
 and Pougatshevs had stirred revolt as long as they 
 were serfs, were not satisfied with the new order 
 
THE TRIUMPH OF AUTOCRACY 131 
 
 of things. They were told that in Western 
 Europe there were neither taxes, conscription nor 
 passports, that the people were the real rulers, whilst 
 the Tsars were subject to the sovereign will of the 
 nation. The intelligent or educated classes also 
 had their own special grievance. " Why," they 
 asked, " should the Government grant liberty to 
 the serfs only and none to the other classes of 
 society ? Why should not the nobles have access 
 to the best posts and positions in the Government ; 
 why should they not be appointed as officials and 
 functionaries with good salaries ? " 
 
 But the Tsar, despite his good intentions, was 
 afraid to do this, to open the doors of the high 
 official positions to all of his subjects. He had 
 already alienated the sympathy and loyalty of 
 the seigneurs ; he had deprived them of their 
 " baptized property " and therefore of a large 
 source of revenue. Birth, and not merit, conse- 
 quently continued to be the open sesame of lucrative 
 administrative posts. The tshin was maintained, 
 bureaucracy flourished and. its privileges were in- 
 creased. The students of the middle classes, sons 
 of merchants and clergymen, when their studies 
 were finished, found all administrative posts closed 
 to them, for there the nobilitv held s\vav. 
 
 On the other hand, the smaller landowners were 
 dissatisfied because, unable any longer to have their 
 land cultivated by serfs, they were obliged to 
 employ hired labour, and therefore soon saw 
 themselves on the brink of ruin. They sold their 
 land and then sought State employment, and the 
 Government favoured them. Yet there was not 
 room for all of them, so the unluckv ones swelled 
 the ranks of the discontented. 
 
132 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 We have seen how the spirit of revolt worked 
 in the Orthodox Church ; a great number of the 
 revohitionaries were drawn from the sons of the 
 priests, veritable pariahs of Russian society. It 
 had long been the custom that the sons of the 
 clergy should enter the priesthood, but, unfortu- 
 nately, the sons were more plentiful than the posts, 
 with the result that a steadily increasing clerical 
 proletariat class was formed. They were subject to 
 many restrictions, since they were not nobles but 
 merely the sons of priests. All the liberal profes- 
 sions were closed to them, and they could only 
 aspire to the lower rungs of the administrative 
 ladder. It was but natural for these malcontents 
 to swell the ranks of the revolutionaries and foster 
 the spirit of revolt. 
 
 Another class, or rather, a nationality, furnished 
 many recruits to the revolutionary standard. 
 They were the natural apostles of revolt against 
 Tsardom and autocracy. They knew what the 
 French Revolution had done for their co-religionists. 
 But it must be admitted that the Jews were not 
 alone in being persecuted for their religious opinions. 
 It is erroneous to speak of other causes ; all the 
 other trumped-up causes were merely pretexts for 
 persecution. Persecution is always the result of 
 religious fanaticism, whatever other reason may 
 be put forward. Alexander, however, was more 
 tolerant towards sectarians than to the Jews. 
 He considered himself the head of the Greek 
 Orthodox Faith, and endeavoured to increase its 
 prestige as distinguished from the Church officials. 
 The Government persistently endeavoured to 
 force the Catholics to join the Greek Orthodox 
 Church ; many of the Catholic churches were closed 
 
THE TRIUMPH OF AUTOCRACY 133 
 
 and the Catholics forbidden to correspond with 
 Rome. 
 
 The army also was a hotbed of revolt. It must 
 be borne in mind that conscription, as it then 
 existed in Russia, was not conscription of free 
 citizens gathered to defend their country against 
 an invader, but of the slaves of autocracy. Men 
 were ruthlessly torn from their homes and families 
 and sent out to fight, not pro aris et focis, but in 
 the interests of Tsardom, of Imperialistic plans 
 and tendencies. Such a state of affairs naturally 
 fostered the spirit of revolt in the hearts of the 
 Russian soldiers, who, though clad in the military 
 uniform, were yet Slavs. Many of the soldiers 
 were former political offenders who had been in- 
 corporated, by force, into the army. The natural 
 result was that these " criminals " did not let any 
 opportunity slip of preaching and fostering the 
 spirit of revolt among their comrades. However, 
 it was not only the soldiers, corporals, sergeants 
 and sub-officers who had grievances, for, since it 
 was the custom for all the higher army posts to 
 be given to the noble by birth, men of merit and 
 distinction were passed over. Ambitious soldiers 
 w^io had distinguished themselves on the battle- 
 field were excluded from the officer ranks ; these 
 were filled by young nobles fresh from the military 
 school. These military malcontents furnished a 
 large contingent of the revolutionaries. 
 
 Thus, discontent was increasing in various 
 groups, social, national and religious. The spirit 
 of revolt was again raising its wings. The forces 
 of revolution were gathering, the doom of Tsardom 
 was approaching, the invisible hand was already 
 writing its " Mene, mene, tckel upharsin " upon 
 
134 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 the wall. But though the forces were accumulat- 
 ing in the various strata of Russian society, they 
 were scattered and lacked unity, organisation, 
 cohesion. Discontent and revolt were spreading 
 slowly but surely, yet, since the interests of the 
 various groups were so diverse, centralisation was 
 difficult of attainment. There were wide gulfs 
 between the groups, many of whom were jealous 
 of the others ; it has taken decades to make these 
 understand and trust one another. When all the 
 groups realised that however different their in- 
 terests might be, they had one object in common — 
 the abolition of Tsardom and autocracy — they 
 were able to reach their full power. It became 
 the work of the Russian intellectuals, philosophers 
 and sociologists to teach this truth, to show the 
 various groups that before a new Russian State 
 could be built upon the ruins of Tsardom, the 
 latter would have to be torn down, and, to do 
 that, the revolutionary forces would have to con- 
 centrate ; all the blind forces would have to run 
 the one way and that the right way. Thus these 
 Russian philosophers and sociologists gave articu- 
 late voice to what the masses were only vaguely 
 and inarticulately feeling. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 LITTERATEURS, PHILOSOPHERS AND 
 
 SOCIOLOGISTS 
 
 It has sometimes been asserted that the French 
 philosophers of the eighteenth century contributed 
 but little to the great French upheaval ; that 
 even if Rousseau had never written, the doctrine 
 of popular sovereignty would, in any case, have 
 asserted itself in France sooner or later. The 
 spirit of restlessness and discontent had long been 
 prevalent in France. When Lord Chesterfield 
 visited the country in 1753, he said that the sjmip- 
 toms indicative of great changes in government 
 were then present. On this account it is argued 
 that all that Voltaire, Rousseau, Condorcet, Mably, 
 Morelli and others did w^as to give voice and ex- 
 pression to latent feelings. It would probably be 
 truer to say that the French philosophers sowed 
 the seed of revolution by scattering new ideas on 
 soil prepared to receive them. The same service 
 has been rendered Russia by her philosophers. 
 Russia — real Russia, not the Russia of the 
 Romanovs — has long been vaguely craving for 
 reform ; her philosophers have taught her how 
 to give more or less definite shape to the vague 
 aspirations already in the hearts of the multitude. 
 During the reign of Catherine II the political, 
 
 135 
 
136 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 social, and philosophical ideas of the eighteenth 
 century gained numerous adherents in Russia. 
 Few, however, were the men capable of really 
 assimilating the theories of Voltaire and the 
 Encyclopaedists. The influence of Freemasonry 
 was more lasting. Basing itself upon Christianity 
 instead of breaking with it, Russian Freemasonry 
 aimed not so much at political and social reforms 
 as at the perfection of the individual. Yet, 
 indirectly, it exercised a certain influence upon 
 the political and social ideals of the day. Fighting 
 as it did against national and religious fanaticism, 
 it necessarily had to point out existing abuses, 
 and to condemn them. Its work was consequently 
 critical, as well as constructive. While in Ger- 
 many Freemasonry was of a mystical character, in 
 Russia it became an ethical and organising move- 
 ment ; it grouped together men of thought and 
 independent judgment and enabled them to ex- 
 ercise an influence upon the masses. 
 
 One of the most prominent figures among the 
 masonic societies in Russia under Catherine II was 
 Novikov. In his paper, the TJtrenyi Sviet, he not 
 only advocated a high ethical ideal, but also 
 carried on a vigorous polemic against Catherine's 
 foreign policy, and the warfare it devolved. He 
 said that war, except for defence, should be alto- 
 gether abhorred. For some time Catherine — her- 
 self a disciple of Voltaire and a friend of Diderot 
 — allowed Novikov to continue his philanthropic 
 and ethical Christian work, but the outbreak of 
 the French Revolution altered her views. She 
 then saw in every manifestation of independent 
 social thought a political agitation. Consequently, 
 the masonic lodges were closed and Novikov 
 
LITTERATEURS AND PHILOSOPHERS 137 
 
 himself, in spite of his advanced age, was thrown 
 into the dungeons of Schhisselburg. His work 
 may be regarded as the first sprouting of inde- 
 pendent thought in Russia, the first expression of 
 a craving for freedom. It was hazy, vague and 
 mainly humanitarian and ethical, for the phil- 
 osopher never dared to include in his programme 
 the reorganisation of society and of the State. 
 Nevertheless it was a subversive movement, as it 
 tended to create an independent public opinion 
 in Russia, and thus to provide the first essential 
 requisite for any social upheaval. 
 
 Towards the end of Catherine's reign, timid 
 voices demanding social reforms began to be 
 heard. Russian intellectuals who had come under 
 the influence of Rousseau's doctrine that all men 
 are born equal, were not content with the spectacle 
 of the few living in luxury whilst the many were 
 starving. One of the most noteworthy of the many 
 precursors of revolutionary thought in Russia at 
 this period was Radishtshev, the author of A 
 Journey from Moscow to St. Petersburg, an avowed 
 and famous imitation of Sterne's Sentimental 
 Journey. Radishtshev did not dare to demand 
 political changes, though he was definitely an 
 opponent of absolutism. He specially urged the 
 need for agrarian reforms. He created no organisa- 
 tion and no party ; he only gave expression to the 
 ever-growing unrest of the Russian intellectuals 
 who had absorbed the philosophical, political and 
 social doctrines of Western Europe. He was 
 finally arrested, tried and condemned to death ; 
 but Catherine, cahoiine that she was, showed her- 
 self magnanimous, and commuted his sentence to 
 that of exile to Siberia for ten years. Paul I re- 
 
138 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 called the exile, as he did many others whom his 
 mother had punished, and Alexander I invited him 
 to take part in a legislative commission. But 
 Radishtshev found that his radical ideas were too 
 advanced for the Russia of his day ; discouraged 
 and weary of life, he committed suicide in Sep- 
 tember 1802. 
 
 How many have been swallowed up by the 
 I Moloch autocracy and cut off in the prime of life ! 
 How many a noble existence has been crushed 
 in those living tombs where Russian autocracy 
 constantly flung her best and noblest citizens, 
 whose only crime may be summed up in one word 
 — Thought ! Russia's poets and prophets, Russia's 
 thinkers and philosophers, Russia's Bakunins, 
 Herzens and Kropotkins either suffered this fate, 
 or were in constant danger of it overtaking them. 
 The v/ords, " Woe unto the nations who stone 
 prophets ! " may rightly be applied in modern 
 times to Russia of the Tsars. The fate of Radisht- 
 shev calls to our mind the names of many Russian 
 authors, poets and thinkers who perished whilst 
 the noble family of Romanov presided over the 
 destinies of the Russian nation. If not exactly 
 stoned, the Russian poets and authors — the pro- 
 phets of modern times — met with suffering and 
 premature death. They were either hanged or 
 sent to Siberia among the lowest and most depraved 
 criminals. 
 
 " The history of Russian thinkers," Alexander 
 Herzen once exclaimed, " is a long list of martyrs 
 1 and a register of convicts." In Russia a terrible 
 j destiny awaited those who dared to step beyond 
 j the line traced by the Government, or who ven- 
 tured to look over the wall erected by Imperial 
 
LITTERATEURS AND PHILOSOPHERS 139 
 
 Ukase. Even in the most civilised countries of 
 Western Europe, ever and anon a cross-current 
 of reaction has traversed the stream of intellectual 
 evolution ; narrow-minded zealots, hypocritical 
 bigots, false prophets and literary Gibeonites, 
 gossiping old women arrayed in the mantles of 
 philosophers, have done their best to put fetters 
 on the independent thought of man, to nip free 
 intellectual development in the very bud, and 
 crush it under the iron heel of tradition and 
 authority. 
 
 But in Western Europe these reactionary ten- 
 dencies are, and have been, mere temporary aberra- 
 tions ; it was not so in Russia. There, the thinkers, 
 whose lives were spared by the paternal Imperial 
 Government of the Tsars, died in the zenith of 
 their youth before they had time fully to develop ; 
 they withered like blossoms hurrying to quit life 
 before they could bear fruit. Their number was 
 legion, but I shall mention at least a few of those 
 Russian authors whose glorious talent and melan- 
 choly fate add to the ignominy of Tsardom's 
 history. 
 
 Ryleev (1795-1826), a poet of considerable 
 talent, was hanged with four others in 1826 by 
 order of Tsar Nicholas I. 
 
 Prince Odoievsky (1802-89), whose poems are 
 full of poignancy and pathos, was sent to Siberia, 
 where he had to live as an ordinarv soldier. He 
 was not the only Russian author forced to serve in 
 the army as a punishment for daring to speak 
 the truth ; indeed, the Tsar and his Government 
 seemed to look upon the army as a sort of convict 
 prison. 
 
 Griboyedov (1794-1829), who is Russia's Beau- 
 
140 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 marchais and the author of the comedy Gore ot 
 Oumah, or Too much Intelligence comes to Grief, 
 met with so many obstacles in his hterary career 
 and was so disgusted with the intellectual and 
 moral state of the Russia of his day that suicide 
 seemed to him the only way out ; he finally went 
 to Persia, where he was murdered. 
 
 The promising poet and philosopher Vene- 
 vitinov (1805-27) died in his twenty-third year, a 
 victim of social circumstances. 
 
 The fiery poet, Alexander Polezhaev (1810-38) 
 attracted the attention of Nicholas I by his 
 satirical poem Sashha, which was secretly circu- 
 lated among his fellow students. The poet was 
 therefore expelled from the university and con- 
 demned to serve as a private in a Caucasian 
 regiment. The soldier-poet sought oblivion of his 
 misery in drink, and finally died in a military 
 hospital, aged twenty-eight. The manner in 
 which Polezhaev was treated by the Tsar was very 
 characteristic of the Romanovs, who committed all 
 their crimes against man's freedom in a spirit of 
 clemency. 
 
 Nicholas I ordered Polezhaev to appear before 
 him and to read the offending poem aloud. The 
 Tsar then kissed the student on the forehead as an 
 appreciation of his talent, and then ordered that 
 he should enlist in a regiment. This was very 
 evidently done with the view of breaking the 
 independent spirit of the poet, of crushing the 
 rising genius by cutting his wings. But this cruel 
 joke was not an exception on the part of the late 
 Imperial Government of Russia. 
 
 In 1836, Tshaadaev, the friend of Schelling and 
 the author of L'Apologie d'un Fou, published a 
 
LITTERATEURS AND PHILOSOPHERS 141 
 
 letter in French in which, Prometheus-Hke, he cast 
 his curse into the face of Russia. He told her 
 in clear and precise words that her past was 
 useless, her present superfluous and her future 
 hopeless. Tshaadaev's letter was a trumpet- 
 call by which he hoped to rouse Russia from 
 her sleep of inertia. But his voice was soon 
 silenced. The Government did not punish him, 
 but — by order of the Tsar — Tshaadaev was declared 
 mad. 
 
 Bestuzhev-Marlinsky (1795-1837), the founder 
 of " Romantic Criticism " in Russia, was sent 
 to the mines for a few years and died in the 
 Caucasus. 
 
 Byelinsky (1810-48), the Russian Lessing and 
 famous literary critic, who exercised an immense 
 influence upon Russian literature, died of priva- 
 tion in his thirtv-eiffhth vear. When the Govern- 
 ment of the Tsars did not openly condemn the 
 talented men to a life of misery in the mines or 
 army, or to degradation and death, it put so many 
 obstacles in their way that they were driven to 
 despair, and died miserably while still in the flush 
 of youth, victims of oppression, crushed under the 
 iron heel of tyranny. 
 
 The famous Russian novelist Dostoievsky, the 
 eminent psychologist who, with critical scalpel in 
 hand, analysed the Russian soul and laid bare its 
 most hidden cells, was sent to Siberia for four 
 years ; there he lived among thieves and mur- 
 derers. Later he served as a private in a Siberian 
 regiment. And how many were there who were 
 crushed before they really had time to raise their 
 voices ? Few had sufficient strength of character 
 to hide their emotions and the burning Are of 
 
142 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 enthusiasm in the innermost depths of their soul 
 without being consumed by their inward flame. 
 Few, indeed, were those who, with fetters on hands 
 and feet, succeeded in keeping their heads erect 
 and their spirits independent. 
 
 The great Russian poet Pushkin, liberty-thirsting 
 and revolutionary, was exiled to the Caucasus. 
 He returned home, but very shortly had to choose 
 between a second term of exile or the title and 
 uniform of Imperial Chamberlain. He chose the 
 latter. 
 
 If Tolstoi was spared, it was not because the 
 government of the Tsars was afraid of European 
 opinion and did not dare to touch him, but rather 
 because the author of Resurrection was in reality 
 quite harmless. Indeed, the Government, on the 
 contrary, availed itself of his doctrine of passive 
 resistance, of castration of the will and submis- 
 sion, for its own purposes. 
 
 Russian literature, therefore, under the rule of 
 the Tsars had a hard struggle. During the first 
 half of the nineteenth century it was principally 
 the product of the middle nobility. It bore the 
 impress of and reflected the ideas and conceptions 
 of this social group. It supported the tendencies 
 and ideas of monarchy, even of autocracy. Yet 
 side by side with this officially legal literature, 
 there were small intellectual groups that inclined 
 towards broader and wider conceptions of life. 
 These intellectuals were able to rise above class 
 and group influence and to deal with the interests 
 of society in general, thus emancipating them- 
 selves from narrow traditionalism and egoism. 
 These were the men who, with the power of true 
 seers, grasped the idea of evolution and historical 
 
LITTERATEURS AND PHILOSOPHERS 143 
 
 development and foresaw the coming changes, so 
 necessary and yet so fatal. ^ 
 
 The liberal tendencies which were promulgated 
 in Russian literature during the first quarter of the 
 nineteenth century were not unique phenomena 
 in the history of Russia's development. They 
 were links in a long chain. The seeds that had 
 been sown continued to blossom and bear fruit. 
 Politically, 1825 proved a tragic turning-point, 
 but though the autocratic government of Nicholas 
 made outward liberal manifestations almost im- 
 possible, the work of thought never stopped its 
 slow evolution. New ideals and ideas took hold 
 of and charmed Russian poets and philosophers. 
 In the place of the Hegelian philosophy, which 
 during the first quarter of the nineteenth century 
 had captured the minds of Russian thinkers, new 
 currents of thought swept in and reflected them- 
 selves in scientific and philosophical productions. 
 
 Thus, in spite of the strict censorship, a healthy 
 intellectual life flourished in Russia during the 
 reign of Nicholas I. In the history of Russian 
 belles-lettres, it was a period of glorious blossoming : 
 Pushkin, Gogol, Lermontov and others wrote their 
 masterpieces in those days. They prepared the 
 spiritual atmosphere, the different currents of 
 thought and aesthetic tendencies upon which the 
 new social and political ideals and ideas were 
 founded. They formed the stimulus for all future 
 movements, for all the great events which have 
 culminated in the great upheaval of to-day. 
 
 Autocracy could muzzle the press, but it could 
 not control thought. Russian intellectuals con- 
 
 ^ Cf. M. N. Pokrovsky, Russian History in the Nineteenth 
 Century, vol. ii, pp. 379-80. 
 
144 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 tinued to think that which they were not permitted 
 to say aloud, or to write openly. They accumu- 
 lated ideas and spread them slowly and persistently. 
 Though some yielded to the despair to which 
 Lermontov gave expression, others clothed their 
 thoughts in criticism or satire, a form of literature 
 which oppression always fosters and develops. 
 As they were not allowed to write criticisms of the 
 Government or directly to promulgate liberal 
 ideas, they wrote novels and comedies : Gogol, 
 his Revisor and Dead Souls, and Griboyedov, his 
 Gore ot Oumah, in which officialdom in Russia was 
 criticised and ridiculed. The press also, muzzled 
 though it was, found means to convey its criticisms 
 between the lines. The Russians, in fact, developed 
 to perfection the fine art — hitherto unknown in 
 Western Europe — of dodging the censor ! 
 
 Meanwhile Hegel's philosophy had made its 
 appearance in Russia and found numerous fol- 
 lowers. Officially, the Hegelian system was con- 
 sidered to be a conservative doctrine, therefore the 
 Russian Government put no embargo upon it. 
 Thus, in the place of the clear, lucid, humanitarian, 
 revolutionary doctrines of the French philosophers, 
 came the abstract, heavy, nebulous German 
 metaphysics. Russian society, not permitted to 
 grapple directly with political problems, as the 
 Encyclopaedists had done, adopted the language 
 of the abstract borrowed from German philosophy. 
 The influence of German philosophy upon Russia 
 has been most pernicious, by encouraging abstract 
 reasoning and theorising in place of practical 
 politics. But, temporarily, the discussion of Ger- 
 man metaphysics had its advantages, for it enabled 
 Russian thinkers to speak in philosophical terms 
 
»• • 
 
 t >• » » » » 
 
 
 ,5 , J »• 
 
 
 H. LOPATIN. 
 
 Michael Bakunin, 
 
 * ^ 
 
 Social Democrats in the First Duma. 
 
 144] 
 

LITTERATEURS AND PHILOSOPHERS 145 
 
 not too easily comprehended of the censors of 
 Nicholas I. Utopian socialism, too, that looked 
 for the liberation of humanity, not to a revolution 
 but to a moral and spiritual resurrection, slipped 
 over the frontier vdthout being suspected by the 
 Tsar's censors. 
 
 Thus, Russian philosophers were able to open to 
 Russian readers a v/hole Avorld of new ideas, and 
 to discuss, in carefully veiled language, the bases 
 of religion and authority, and even Tsardom itself. 
 Groups were formed in various cities to discuss 
 social and political questions. Aksakov, Khom- 
 yakov, Bakunin, Herzen and Ogarev met at the 
 house of Stankevitsh. It was in this atmosphere 
 that the seed sown by the Decembrists took root 
 and proved itself stronger than brute force. 
 
 Among the writers who gave most vigorous ex- 
 pression to these ideas was Alexander Herzen, 
 who has justly been called the Russian Voltaire. 
 No one could write the history of the French 
 Revolution without referring to Rousseau, Vol- 
 taire or Montesquieu, although they did not take 
 a direct and active part in the great upheaval of 
 1789. Just as little could the name of Alexander 
 Herzen and his activity be overlooked when the 
 movement of Russian liberation from the yoke 
 of autocracy is discussed. Yet Herzen was not a 
 revolutionary in the strictest sense of the word, 
 though he was one of the prominent pioneers and 
 forerunners of the Russian Revolution. Herzen' s 
 talent was too vast to be satisfied with the limited 
 field of politics ; literature — a much greater do- 
 main — attracted him, and it was in her realm that 
 he laboured and developed his genius and activity. 
 
 Alexander Herzen was born on March 25th, 
 
 10 
 
146 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 1812, at Moscow, shortly before the city was invaded 
 by Napoleon. At Stuttgart, his father had fallen 
 in love with a young lady, Louise Haag, who, ac- 
 cording to some, was of Jewish extraction. He 
 married her, but never legalised his marriage. 
 Alexander Herzen was the child of this love union. 
 His father's name was Ivan Alex eye vitsh Jakovlev, 
 but he gave his son the surname of Herzen, " for," 
 he said, "he is the child of my heart." ^ 
 
 Herzen studied at the University of Moscow, 
 together with his cousin Ogarev, who became his 
 most intimate friend and companion. In 1834 
 Herzen was exiled to Perm, on the outskirts of 
 Siberia, by order of Nicholas I, whose great-grand- 
 son, Nicholas II, has but recently travelled the 
 same road by order of the Provisional Government ! 
 In 1840 Herzen came back to Petrograd, but was 
 again exiled, this time to Novgorod. He returned 
 to Moscow in 1842. But a strange change had 
 taken place among his old friends ; their former en- 
 thusiasm and revolutionary ardour had cooled 
 down, and many who had been iconoclastic and 
 subversive in theory, paused and hesitated when 
 they were faced with hard, stern reality and com- 
 pelled to carry into practice what they had so 
 lightly accepted in theory. After the death of his 
 father in 1847, Herzen obtained permission to 
 leave Russia, to which he never returned. The 
 dawn of approaching revolution was tinting with 
 orient hues the sombre sky of conservative and 
 dynastic Europe. Liberalism was knocking at the 
 doors of the old feudal castles of Mediaevalism. 
 Herzen was in Rome in 1847-48, and in France in 
 1848-50. In Paris he became the friend of the 
 
 * Cf. Alexander Herzen, Erinnerungcn, Berlin, 1907, p. iii. 
 
LITTERATEURS AND PHILOSOPHERS 147 
 
 most advanced Republicans, and especially of 
 Proudhon, to whose paper, La Voix du Peuple, 
 he contributed. In view of recent events it is 
 interesting to note Herzen's description of his 
 meeting with Mazzini (Herzen's Memoirs). 
 
 " Ledru-Rollin," said Mazzini, " is the most 
 amiable man in the world, but Frenchman 
 ' jusqu'au bout des ongles ' ; he is firmly convinced 
 that Europe cannot make any steps forward 
 without a Revolution in France ! Le peuple 
 initiateur! But where do we see initiative at pre- 
 sent in France ? The ideas which have moved 
 France have come from Italy and England. You 
 will see, Italy will begin the era of revolution. 
 What do you think ? " 
 
 " I must confess I do not believe it.'* 
 
 " Perhaps the Slavonic world ? " said Mazzini 
 smiling. 
 
 " I did not say that, but I think it probable 
 that no revolution will succeed in Europe, so long 
 as France remains in a state of torpor.'* 
 
 "" France is asleep,'* replied Mazzini, " and we 
 are going to wake her up." 
 
 In London Herzen decided to consecrate his 
 time, energy and fortune to the work of acquainting 
 Europe with Russian despotism and the terrible 
 state of serfdom that reigned there, as well as to 
 endeavour to wake up Russia herself to her possi- 
 bilities. He published The Polar Star and The 
 Bell (Kolokol), which penetrated into Russia, in 
 spite of the censor, and was read at the Court of 
 Petrograd and even by Tsar Alexander II. In 
 1861, Bakunin, who had escaped from Siberia, 
 arrived in London and soon gained a preponderat- 
 ing influence over Herzen and Ogarev. He per- 
 
148 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 suaded them to support the PoHsh Insurrection, a 
 step that Herzen later regretted deeply, as the 
 Polish revolt found but little sympathy among the 
 democratic circles in Russia, and consequently 
 The Bell lost many of its regular Russian readers. 
 
 In 1864 Herzen and Ogarev went to Geneva, and 
 in 1869 The Bell ceased publication. Herzen 
 then settled in Paris, where he died in 1870. 
 Herzen' s most important work is his Memoirs. 
 which appeared in an English translation, under 
 the title of My Exile, in 1855. The Memoirs have 
 been called " a drama of a great moral personality," 
 " of a reformer and a revolutionary who suflered 
 shipwreck on the shoals of this world ; the 
 tragedy of an idea yearning for realisation." His 
 Memoirs show the life's battle of a politician who 
 was anxious to shape all human existence after 
 certain ethical models, and whom the resistance of 
 the stupid world drove back into the solitude of 
 his ideals, to the Pisgah heights of thought where 
 he could cool his burning brow, to the lifeless 
 silence of his solitary chamber. 
 
 In the realm of pure philosophy Herzen endea- 
 voured to reconcile and harmonise the two con- 
 flicting principles of social life : individual liberty 
 and collective action.^ This problem, he con- 
 tended, cannot be settled by fixed laws. It has 
 to be worked out separately and distinctly in each 
 period of time, with variations for each country. 
 
 His political ideal was a federal republic for the 
 Slavonic nations of Russia ; Poland to be inde- 
 pendent. He was in favour of the commimal 
 system of peasant holdings, and argued that this 
 svstem would make it easier to introduce the new 
 Vom Anderen Ufer, vol. y, pp. 166-241. 
 
LITTERATEURS AND PHILOSOPHERS 149 
 
 social order and save Russia from the domination 
 of capital and the bourgeoisie. Indeed, Herzen, \ 
 without being a Slavophil, saw in Russia a better i 
 prospect for a social revolution than in old Europe, i 
 because in his judgment the Russian was less a I 
 slave of the past. The rest of Europe has passed / 
 through so many revolutions that the individual 
 cannot take a step without stumbling upon re- 
 miniscences of the past which crush the spirit of 
 progress, whereas in Russia the individual has 
 no past to forget. 
 
 Herzen understood the psychology of his nation 
 better than any one. The Russians are absolute 
 in good as in evil, in affirmation of their rights as 
 in their passive obedience. Liberal politics appear 
 to the Russians a mere mockery of the real idea 
 of the sovereignty of the people and of the rule 
 of democracy. They know autocracy or demo- 
 cracy, but no middle course, no compromise. A 
 new label on the old bottle would never satisfv 
 them. A monarchic protestantism, called a 
 constitutional monarchy, would never appeal to 
 the soul of Russia. Yet Herzen was not an oppo- 
 nent of the State in the sense of the anarchic ideal 
 which demands the complete abolition of the 
 State principle. He was in favour of a " confra- 
 ternity of nations " rather than a " confraternity 
 of men ! " The State, however, had no claim to 
 existence per se ; it was merely an organising 
 function of the life of the people, and therefore was 
 bound to adapt itself to all the developments and 
 changes of the popular life. The State was the 
 servant of the people, not its master, as is the 
 conception of the Western socialists. 
 
 The manifesto of Alexander II announcing the 
 
150 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 liberation of the serfs confirmed Herzen's hopes 
 for Russia's future, and his optimism was at first 
 shared by the famous economist and critic, Tsherny- 
 shevski. As a philosopher, Tshernyshevski was, 
 to a certain extent, a follower of Feuerbach's 
 materialistic philosophy, whilst his ideas upon the 
 future state of society were based upon the doc- 
 trines of St. Simon and Fourier. Like Herzen, 
 Tshernyshevski attributed much importance to 
 the system of communal property. This system, 
 he said, was already known to the people in 
 1 Russia, and therefore they were prepared for the 
 I realisation of the socialist regime, whilst in Europe 
 . the system of individual property would be in the 
 < way. Russia could either at once introduce pure 
   collectivism, or, at least, shorten the period of 
 private property considerably. Tshernyshevski 
 was of the opinion that the organised masses were 
 entitled to exercise a democratic control over the 
 Government, but, considering the existing absence 
 of education among the people, reforms w^ould 
 have to come from above. In order, however, to 
 pave the way for such reforms, a movement from 
 below, a conspiracy, a revolt even, would be neces- 
 ^ sary. Every nation should have a right to decide 
 p^ its own destiny ; consequently, not only should 
 ^ Poland be independent, but the Ukraine also should 
 Jk receive autonomy. 
 
 ^' Tshernyshevski' s famous novel What is to be 
 
 Done ? (Tshto-Dyelatj) had a practical influence 
 upon revolutionary tendencies in Russia. It was 
 written, while in prison, for the Contemporary 
 Review (Sovremennik), and was passed by the 
 censor. This means that the work contains no 
 clear and definite political ideas. It is, how- 
 
LITTERATEURS AND PHILOSOPHERS 151 
 
 ever, full of subversive theories on metaphysical 
 and religious questions, family life and private 
 property. At first the authorities judged the 
 novel to be a work of pure fiction only, but the 
 Russian public could read between the lines, and 
 finally the censorship grew alarmed and confiscated 
 the -book. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 PHILOSOPHERS AND SOCIOLOGISTS 
 
 (continued) 
 
 Material and Moral Discontent 
 
 During the first years of Alexander's reign, new 
 social ideas and ideals developed : ideals not only 
 of political freedom and social equality, but also 
 of religion, philosophy and a conception of the 
 world in general. The most characteristic of 
 these new currents of thought were Realism, 
 Rationalism and Utilitarianism, a glorification of 
 life and freedom. The immediate result was a 
 tendency to criticise everything mercilessly and to 
 submit all things to a close analysis and pass them 
 through the crucible of reason. The adherents of 
 this rationalism were not afraid of the radical 
 deductions of their thoughts and arguments ; they 
 had entirely lost their reverence and awe for 
 tradition. 
 
 One of the by-results of the realism and rational- 
 ism of this period was Nihilism. Nihilism has 
 often been confounded and identified with bombs 
 and dynamite, with anarchy and terror, but, in 
 reality. Nihilism is merely an intellectual current 
 of thought. At first, it was a cult of extreme 
 individualism that took the human personality as 
 
 162 
 
PHILOSOPHERS AND SOCIOLOGISTS 158 
 
 its starting point and concentrated all its efforts 
 and endeavours upon the emancipation of man 
 from the factors of social life. Nihilism was not 
 concerned with the people as a social collectivity, 
 but with man as an individual, man bound and 
 oppressed by chains and shackles of all kinds, in- 
 tellectual and moral. Nihilism, therefore, criti- 
 cised religion, family and marriage relations, and 
 the numerous prejudices created by custom and 
 tradition. Turgeniev masterfully drew a perfect 
 type of a Nihilist in his novel Fathers and Sons. 
 It is said that he was the first to use the expression 
 Nihilism; but, as a matter of fact, J. de Maistre 
 had already spoken of " rienism " in his corres- 
 pondence.^ 
 
 Russian Nihilism was not an aspiration towards 
 the Neant, but, on the contrary, towards reality, 
 enjoyment of terrestial possessions and pleasures. 
 It was optimistic and revolutionary, in contradis- 
 tinction to the fatalism, pessimism and spirit of 
 resignation of India. In its indignation against 
 human and social iniquity, Nihilism railed against 
 tradition and the State as the responsible agents 
 of human misery ; it preached destruction with a 
 view to the pleasure of building up. " La joie de 
 detruire," wrote Bakunin, " est en meme temps 
 la joie de creer." ' Nihilism was not a war be- 
 tween classes like socialism, it was the desperate 
 fight of the people against autocracy, the incar- 
 nation of arbitrary authority and opposition. 
 Nihilism has often been described as negation ; 
 this is only partially true. It was negative, inas- 
 much as it denied the existing traditional order 
 
 1 Cf. J. de Maistre, Correspondance, vol. ii, pp. 287-290. 
 ' Cf. J. Bourdeau, Le Socialisme alleinand, Paris 1892, p. 275. 
 
154 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 of things; it was destructive, inasmuch as it 
 tended to make tabula rasa of the whole social 
 structure ! " Take earth and heaven, take life 
 and death, the soul and God and spit on it, that 
 is Nihilism," said one of its adherents.^ 
 
 But it would be wrong to imagine that the 
 ultimate goal of Nihilism was negation pure and 
 simple. Universal chaos was not the sole purpose 
 of Nihilism, just as wars, which are so destructive, 
 are not fought for the purpose of destroying. A 
 war is always considered by those who fight it as 
 a factor of reconstruction. The Nihilist never 
 preached annihilation, extermination and des- 
 truction for their own sakes, but with the sole 
 idea of rebuilding upon the ruins. The Nihilists 
 fought against the existing order of things, the 
 prejudicies and established institutions that have 
 enslaved humanity and stand in the way of any 
 real progress, and so make men suffer. Their aim 
 was deliverance : deliverance of the sufferers from 
 the chains of the past and tradition, chains which 
 the tyrants of all ages and nations had forged. 
 The aims of Russian Nihilism were certainly 
 never selfish, never egotistical ; they were always 
 characterised by a spirit of self-effacement, of 
 altruism, of mysticism, which one cannot but 
 admire whatever one may think of the means em- 
 ployed in the endeavour to realise these aims.* 
 But then, as I have said, wars, too, destructive in 
 themselves, are fought and justified because they 
 have a constructive purpose, a goal of delivery in 
 view. And after all, in our human society, it is 
 success alone that decides between crime and noble 
 
 1 Cf, Leroy-Beaulieu, The Empire of the Tsars. 
 
 2 Bevue dea Deux Mondea, October 15th, 1876. 
 
PHILOSOPHERS AND SOCIOLOGISTS 155 
 
 deed. I think it was Pascal who once said : 
 " Ne pouvant pas forcer la justice, on justifie la 
 force." 
 
 In the days of which I am writing the most 
 prominent exponent of Nihilism was Pissarev. 
 According to this writer — at least during the early 
 years of his activity — Nihilism was the expression 
 of a love of life and an eflort to shake oil all shackles, 
 whilst socialism was the manifestation of the dis- 
 content of those social groups who were oppressed 
 socially, economically or politically. Nihilism was 
 the expression of the discontent of a social group 
 living under tolerable, economical and material 
 conditions, but sighing beneath the yoke of moral 
 and religious thraldom, of tradition and custom. 
 The tendencies of Socialism and Nihilism, though 
 they were both expressions of discontent — that 
 discontent which, as I have shown, is the primary 
 cause of all revolutions — expressed the discontent 
 of entirely different groups. Social democracy 
 in Russia was wholly concerned with society as 
 a collectivity, with the labouring classes, the people 
 and the proletariat, whilst Nihilism was a more 
 intellectual anarchic tendency; it was, as it were, 
 a moral discontent that had a great deal in com- 
 mon w^ith the individualism of Stirner. Nihilism 
 in Russia certainly paved the way for anarchism, 
 that took the negation of the State as its first and 
 fundamental principle.^ 
 
 Nihilism first made its appearance in 1862, but 
 already, by 1870, it had practically ceased as a 
 separate intellectual current of thought. Prac- 
 tice had proved that the human personality is 
 intimately connected with and dependent upon 
 1 Cf. Kulcyzki, I.e. vol. i, p. 311. 
 
156 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 political and social circumstances and conditions. 
 All that remained of the Nihilism of the 'sixties was 
 the intense hatred of external oppression, princi- 
 pally political, and the effort to secure for the 
 human personality a free and natural develop- 
 ment. This new phase of thought Nihilism shared 
 with the radical, progressive and revolutionary 
 tendencies of the period. The socialistic current, 
 on the other hand, gradually developed into the 
 revolutionary anarchic doctrine of Bakunin and 
 the semi-anarchic of Lavrov. 
 
 Peter Lavrovitsh Lavrov was born at Melekhovo, 
 a village in the government of Pskov, on June 14th, 
 1823. He was at first educated privately and 
 then entered the Military Academy, or Artillery 
 School, where he obtained the rank of officer in 
 1842. He taught mathematics from 1844 to 
 1846. His literary activity began in 1856, and he 
 first attracted attention with his work on the 
 Philosophy of Hegel. He contributed to the 
 Russian encyclopsedic dictionary of Krajevski, 
 and became its chief editor. In this work he pub- 
 lished numerous articles on history, philosophy and 
 religion. The publication of the dictionary was 
 stopped by order of the Government. Lavrov 
 early became an enemy of Tsardom, and Tsar- 
 dom, in its turn, from the first kept a careful 
 eye on him. 
 
 In 1865, Lavrov returned to Russia from a 
 journey abroad with his wife, who was ill. Soon 
 after his return Karakasov fired his famous shot 
 in his attempt to assassinate the Tsar Alexander II, 
 in 1866. Lavrov was amongst the victims upon 
 whom Tsardom vented its wrath. He was exiled 
 to Vologda. Three years later he succeeded in 
 
PHILOSOPHERS AND SOCIOLOGISTS 157 
 
 escaping, thanks to the assistance and self-sacrifice 
 of the famous revolutionary Herman Lopatin. 
 He came to Paris in 1870, and was soon recognised 
 as the leader of the swiftly developing socialist- 
 revolutionary movement. In London, whither he 
 went for a short time, he met Marx and Engels ; 
 his acquaintance with these men greatly influenced 
 his mental evolution towards scientific socialism, 
 as the doctrine of Marx has been called. In 1871, 
 Lavr6v returned to Paris and was requested by 
 the Russian revolutionary party to found and 
 edit a socialistic review. In 1873, the first number 
 of the revolutionary-socialist review, Vpered {For- 
 wards), was published. Lavrov died in Paris on 
 February 6th, 1900. 
 
 Peter Lavrovitsh was the most scientific of 
 Russian philosophers. He attached little or no 
 importance to the theological or metaphysical 
 speculations of former generations, for the real 
 object of philosophy should be the study of facts, 
 and of the deductions to be made from them. 
 Lavrov therefore devoted his intellectual and 
 moral energy to the philosophy of history and 
 sociology, and to the elaboration of a system of 
 social ethics. One of the principal problems 
 which he endeavoured to solve was that of the 
 personality of the individual. The pivots of 
 Marx's theories are economic evolution and deve- 
 lopment of the productive forces ; the central 
 idea of Lavrov' s theories are the progress and 
 development of the individual. Progress, accord- 
 ing to his philosophy, consists in the physical, 
 intellectual and moral development of the indi- 
 vidual and in his realisation of truth and justice 
 through proper social organisation. Social happi- 
 
158 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 ness, according to Lavrov, is nothing but the 
 happiness of the individuals who compose social 
 groups or nations, and they therefore have a 
 right to modify the existing forms of society. 
 The intellectual Mite, possessing convictions based 
 upon thought, are the real makers of history ; all 
 others, slaves of customs and traditions which 
 they accept without investigation, are beyond the 
 pale of history. They may be as civilised and as 
 intellectual as possible, but as long as they dfciploy 
 their intellectual powers merely in defence of the 
 existing order of things hallowed by tradition, 
 without submitting it to a minute criticism, they 
 are only " civilised savages," or " savages of a 
 superior culture.'* 
 
 Among those who have remained beyond the 
 pale of history, Lavrov counts the governing 
 classes, who obstinately refuse to criticise and 
 to examine ; who cling to their privileges, based 
 upon historical traditions. Another group are the 
 poor labourers who, absorbed by their daily work, 
 by their struggle for existence, have neither time 
 nor leisure to think, to criticise, or to examine. 
 They are the victims of civilisation, the scapegoats 
 of humanity. It is therefore the duty of the 
 thinking minority to enlighten these victims upon 
 the causes of their sufferings, and thus enable 
 them to take part in the making and shaping of 
 history, and to advance along the road of progress, 
 through the development, at one and the same 
 time, of the individual consciousness and of social 
 solidarity. 
 
 In his own words : 
 
 " We are approaching an epoch when the realisa- 
 tion of the human ideal will be possible ; when the 
 
PHILOSOPHERS AND SOCIOLOGISTS 150 
 
 instinctive tendencies of the individual will be 
 brought to harmonise with the welfare of the 
 collectivity. Only the organisation of men into 
 one harmonious group, united by the interests of 
 collective w^ork and search for justice, can consti- 
 tute the happiness of the individual."^ 
 
 Men will then be able to overcome the struggle 
 for existence, to conquer the animal world, and, 
 above all, to bring about that domination of 
 critical thought over nature that is the basis of 
 true progress. But, says Lavrov, the solitary intel- 
 lectual can do but little ; he must base himself 
 upon the masses who are working and sufiering. 
 Wherever the intellectual minority have remained 
 isolated, civilisation has perished. Witness the 
 civilisations of antiquity, when the masses, kept in 
 slavery, found no interest in, and felt no inclina- 
 tion to uphold, a civilisation the inner meaning of 
 which they ignored. The so-called superman, 
 who creates a gulf between himself and the people, 
 alienates the masses and works out his own per- 
 dition. In other words, those intellectuals who 
 are really anxious for the development of the 
 individual and the welfare of the collectivity 
 should come down from their Pisgah heights 
 into the vast plain of common humanity, take 
 the wandering masses by the hand and lead 
 them to the promised land, flowing with milk 
 and honey. A superior civilisation, if it wishes 
 to exist, must be based upon democracy, for with- 
 out the help of the masses it must perish or fall 
 a victim to some invading race or some military 
 adventurer. 
 
 The Lettres Historiques above quoted were pub- 
 
 * Lettrea Historiqu9S. 
 
160 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 lished in 1868, and exercised a profound influence 
 upon the revolutionary movement. They crystal- 
 lised all that the intellectuals had been vaguely 
 feeling ; they gave a clear and definite answer to 
 the question : " What shall we do ? " The intel- 
 lectuals, Lavrov said, have a duty towards the 
 working classes, upon whose shoulders they are 
 resting. They are not themselves producing any 
 material wealth. If, therefore, they proudly and 
 aristocratically keep aloof from the masses, they 
 are not only selfish but are also in a social sense 
 ^valueless and declare themselves socially in- 
 solvent. They can redeem their debt to the 
 masses, who provide them with material comforts, 
 only by going among the people and enlightening 
 them as to their requirements, their eternal 
 rights, and also their strength. The intellectuals 
 should not hesitate to advise democracy to rise 
 and fight against the exploiting classes, and to 
 bring about a new order of things based upon 
 justice. 
 
 The established order of society Lavrov declares 
 to be hopelessly immoral. But what is " im- 
 moral " ? To this question Lavrov gives a clear 
 and definite answer : " All that impedes the pro- 
 gressive development, physical and mental, of the 
 individual." Only a society that is based upon 
 justice, that enables all its members to co-operate 
 for their common happiness and progressive 
 development, that endeavours to lessen, if not to 
 put an end to, human suffering, is moral. Thus 
 Lavrov is at once an individualist and a socialist. 
 His doctrines may be compared to those of Benoit 
 Malon, the father of " Integral Socialism." Lav- 
 rov, like Malon, dismissed both Kant's '' Duty for 
 
> > , » ' ' 
 
 ' ' i» • 4 » ' 
 
 3 » i », 
 
 3 ' t 
 
 ' » , 
 
 > • 
 
 J J 
 
 '5^ 3 
 
 • ' 
 
 i 3 it 
 
 » » 
 
 '«a^ 
 
 Catherine Bereshkovskaya. 
 
 Peter Lavrov. 
 
 Maxim E Gorky. 
 
 Plekhanov. 
 
 160] 
 
< ( C ( 
 
PHILOSOPHERS AND SOCIOLOGISTS 161 
 
 duty's sake " and the motive of self-interest of 
 the materiahstic school. He accepted to the full 
 Malon's doctrine, " Altruism will be the basis of 
 our new morality, which will be neither theological, 
 nor metaphysical, but simply social." To sum 
 up, Lavrov demands not mere partial reforms, but 
 a radical change of society, and this change 
 should, if necessary, be brought about by violent 
 means. 
 
 Such was the programme Lavrov traced in his 
 theory of the " insolvency of the intellectual 
 classes " ; and it was thus he answered the 
 questions which were agitating Russia's intel- 
 lectuals. Quite a different answer was given 
 by Michel Bakunin to the great question : 
 '' What shall we do ? " Bakunin was an anar- 
 chist, whilst Lavrov was a socialist, d la Malon, 
 but still a socialist ; hence the divergence of their 
 opinions. 
 
 Michel Bakunin was born in 1814. He was the 
 descendant of an old noble family, the scion of 
 boyars, the son of rich landed proprietors. His 
 studies finished, he entered the School of Artillery 
 at Petrograd. He passed his examinations, and 
 his rank and fortune should have opened all 
 doors to him and given him a brilliant future, but 
 he quarrelled with his father and soon found 
 himself exiled to a small garrison town in an 
 obscure corner of the Empire. Here he passed 
 the best years of his youth, and grew pessimistic 
 and bitter. When about twenty-two years old he 
 left the army and went to Moscow, where he joined 
 one of the clubs, or circles, whose members devoted 
 themselves to discussions of Hegelian philosophy. 
 The idle, rich Stankevitsh propagated the ideas of 
 
 11 
 
162 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 the German philosopher. The " essence of the 
 absolute Spirit " was one of the favourite subjects 
 of discussion. 
 
 In 1841, Bakunin left Moscow and went to Berlin, 
 where he hoped to be more thoroughly initiated 
 into the mysteries of Hegelianism. It may be 
 said that Hegel's philosophy owed much of its 
 success to its obscure phraseology. The students 
 of his system had to grope in the dark for his 
 meaning, with the inevitable result that each 
 found what suited him best, the meaning that was 
 most congenial to his personality and needs. It 
 was a spiritual food similar to the manna of the 
 Hebrews in the desert which, according to a 
 saying in the Talmud, had the taste of the favourite 
 food of each eater. That is the secret of the 
 success of many an obscure and contradictory 
 doctrine ; it can suit all tastes and palates. A 
 new doctrine, which is clear, logical and free of 
 mysticism and contradictions, rarely appeals to 
 the vast majority. Where certain students dis- 
 covered proofs of atheism in Hegel's philosophy, 
 others found the principles of faith. Hegel was 
 variously declared to be the most conservative of 
 conservatives, the upholder of the idea of State 
 and Church, and the most revolutionary of revo- 
 lutionaries. It merely depended upon the reader. 
 However, as a matter of fact, an entire revolu- 
 tionary school was founded upon Hegel's phil- 
 osophy.^ His disciples deciphered the cryptic 
 style of their master as if it were a sacred text, 
 the Bible of the revolution. 
 
 Bakunin was much attracted by Hegel's phil- 
 
 * Cf. Funck-Brentano, Lea Sophiates alletnanda et lea Nihiliatee 
 Ruaaea, Paris, 1887. 
 
PHILOSOPHERS AND SOCIOLOGISTS 163 
 
 osophy, which, though based upon the principle 
 of Hberty, nevertheless relegated it to the domain 
 of the spirit. In practice, Hegel sacrificed the 
 individual to the State, since he recognised the 
 omnipotence of the latter. His philosophy was 
 nothing less than an apology for absolutism and 
 autocracy as they existed in Russia, and in 
 Hegelianism Bakunin found some justification for 
 the autocratic government of Nicholas I. It is 
 interesting to note, in passing, that even the most 
 revolutionary doctrines promulgated by Germans 
 are not free from a certain homage to power. 
 Bakunin had been a member of the " Northern 
 League " which brought about the Revolution of 
 the Decembrists, but at that time he was not 
 sufficiently interested in the movement to take a 
 prominent part in it, and therefore escaped the 
 " tragic but glorious fate " of the majority of his 
 companions. Yet by nature and temperament 
 Bakunin was not a dreamer ; he was avid for 
 action. Whilst studying the philosophy of Hegel, 
 he also devoted himself to the doctrine of Proud- 
 hon. He finally became a revolutionary phil- 
 osopher ready to play the part of an " architect 
 of ruins." 
 
 He left Germany in 1843 and proceeded to 
 Paris, which was just then seething with socialistic 
 fermentations, with the ideas of Cabet and the 
 teachings of Louis Blanc. The revolution of 
 1848 gave Bakunin ample scope for his ideas and 
 doctrines, for his eager activity and superabun- 
 dant energy. In 1848 he was a pan-Slavist, and 
 was therefore hostile to pan-Germanism, yet 
 during the insurrection of 1849 he played an im- 
 portant role among the insurgents at Dresden 
 
164 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 against the Prussian and Saxon troops. He was 
 arrested at Chemnitz on Mav 10th, and condemned 
 to death, but his sentence was later commuted to 
 life imprisonment. Then Russia claimed him, 
 and sent him to Siberia. After some two years 
 of exile he escaped and managed to reach London 
 by way of Japan and America. Bakunin's liberty- 
 loving soul — that soul that slumbers in every 
 Russian — was now fully awake ; he abandoned 
 orthodox Hegelianism and joined the new philo- 
 sophic school known as the " Left Hegelians,'* 
 which criticised the political absolutism and 
 religious idealism of the master. 
 
 The leaders of the new school were Strauss, 
 Feuerbach and Bruno Bauer. Bakunin's intel- 
 lectual world was henceforth dominated by the 
 principle of liberty. Hegel had taught him to 
 seek liberty in the land of shadows, in the 
 realms of the spirit, in metaphysical worlds, 
 but now Bakunin refused to accept dreams for 
 realities. 
 
 " They are only pale reproductions and mon- 
 strous exaggerations of the real world, which we 
 are inclined to treat with such contempt. We 
 have at last learned to understand that soaring 
 into the more lofty regions of the spirit, we did 
 not grow richer but poorer, both in heart and 
 spirit ; not more powerful, but more powerless. 
 We have at last understood that when we amused 
 ourselves, like children, by peopling the vast void 
 with our dreams, we abandoned the real world 
 and our entire existence to false prophets, tyrants 
 and . exploiters of all kinds, religious, political 
 and economic. By searching for ideal liberty 
 beyond this real world, we were condemning 
 
PHILOSOPHERS AND SOCIOLOGISTS 165 
 
 ourselves to the saddest and most shameful 
 slavery." ^ 
 
 Bakunin was persuaded that there was no other 
 world than this real one, and that all transcen- 
 dental conceptions were inanities ; he was con- 
 vinced that humanity could attain to perfect 
 happiness in this world — the real— rif it emanci- 
 pated itself from all authority, and he believed it 
 to be his duty to help humanity, as far as it lay 
 in his power, to realise such an emancipation. 
 
 Being a materialist, Bakunin considered man 
 to be merely an animal that has reached a higher 
 stage of development ; thought in itself is only a 
 material product of the brain ; man is distin- 
 guished from the lower animals by his faculty of 
 thought and his sociability. Thanks to these 
 two qualities man is superior to all other animals 
 inhabiting our planet, among whom alone he has 
 a future. " Sociability and human solidarity " 
 constitute the primordial causes of human pro- 
 gress. Jean Jacques Rousseau was therefore 
 wrong when he maintained that man, who is per- 
 fectly free when he is isolated, has to sacrifice a 
 portion of his freedom as soon as he joins his fellow 
 men. 
 
 " Man," stated Bakunin, " is born a brute and a 
 slave. It is only in contact with his fellow men, 
 in the midst of the collectivity, that he has been 
 able gradually to humanise and emancipate him- 
 self, to acquire the faculties of thought, speech 
 and will-power. He would never have developed 
 them had he lived in isolation. IMan, therefore, 
 has only reached his present degree of development 
 
 1 M. Nettlau, The Life of Bakunin, London, 1896-99, 
 p. 37. 
 
166 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 thanks to the collective efforts of all members of 
 society, past and present." 
 
 The destiny of men, therefore, is to live socially, 
 to help one another and to conquer natm'e. Such 
 a goal can only be reached after a long historical 
 evolution. The final goal of humanity will be, on 
 the one hand, obedience to the laws of nature, 
 not because they have been imposed upon it by 
 external will, divine or human, by a collectivity 
 or by an individual, but because those laws are 
 innate in humanity ; and, on the other hand, the 
 emancipation of the individual from all authority 
 which to-day his fellow men are anxious to compel 
 him to submit to. These are the essential con- 
 ditions of liberty to which man can only attain 
 at the end of his evolution, and therein lies the 
 whole future of humanity. " The true, great, 
 supreme goal of history is the real, complete 
 emancipation of every individual." The past and 
 its traditions must therefore be entirely aban- 
 doned, for progress implies the gradual dismissal 
 and discarding of the errors of the past. " Our 
 animality lies behind us, our humanity, which 
 alone can lend us light and warmth, is before us. 
 We must never look behind us — always ahead. 
 If ever we look back into the past, it should be 
 for the purpose merely of realising what we have 
 been and what we should never be again." 
 
 Bakunin criticised sharply and mercilessly both 
 the bourgeois State and bourgeois society. He 
 proved that in the struggle between the working 
 classes and the bourgeoisie, the State would 
 always and inevitably become an instrument of 
 oppression. He thus arrived at conclusions dia- 
 metrically opposed to those of the socialists, and 
 
PHILOSOPHERS AND SOCIOLOGISTS 167 
 
 even of Lavrov, who has been called above an 
 integral socialist. Whilst Lavrov advocated pro- 
 paganda by the elite, and a preparation of the 
 masses for the future revolution and for the new 
 State, Bakunin called upon the oppressed, all 
 over the world, to shake off the yoke of authority, 
 to hurl down from their pedestals the two idols 
 man had made himself — the State and bourgeois 
 society. " This destruction," he maintained, " is 
 the holy, absolutely necessary process, without 
 which no social revolution is possible ; it would 
 be not only destructive but also constructive, 
 as it would call new worlds into being." The 
 new world would be "a confraternity of men " 
 without distinction of language, nationality or 
 race. 
 
 Bakunin' s thirst for liberty, his abhorrence of 
 slavery, of thraldom, of shackles, made him attack 
 every authority in the world, divine or human. 
 To him, man's belief in God was one of the chief 
 causes of man's slavery; therefore he condemned 
 that belief as one of the most false and pernicious 
 ideas w^hich had ever estranged man from his 
 natural destiny. He considered that man had 
 created God in his own image and had then 
 imagined himself to be the creature of this creation — 
 God — of his own brain ! And what was the result ? 
 Man had thus inaugurated an era of obscurity, 
 unhappiness and slavery for his species, had 
 developed principles, theories and doctrines, all 
 chains to bind him and stand in the way of his 
 emancipation and true freedom. '' L' existence de 
 Dieu implique I'abdication de la raison et de la 
 justice humaines, elle est la negation de I'humaine 
 liberte et aboutit nec6ssairement a un esclavage 
 
168 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 non seulement theorique mais pratique." ^ Ac- 
 cording to religion, God is truth, justice and life 
 eternal, therefore man must be falsehood, iniquity 
 and death. If God be the master, man must be 
 the slave ; again, if man be the slave of God, 
 then he must also be the slave of the Church and 
 of the State. 
 
 To Bakunin this deduction was the only logical 
 one. It is one that Catholicism has understood 
 better than all other religions, and it is therefore 
 that the Catholic Church stands for religion abso- 
 lute. Bakunin attacked Catholicism fiercely ; it 
 is the religion that more than any other upholds 
 and sanctifies the principle of State and authority. 
 " Dieu est," he exclaims, " done I'homme est 
 esclave. L'homme est intelligent, juste, libre, 
 done Dieu n'existe pas." * He considered that 
 religion implied intellectual subjection, and that 
 intelligent subjection must inevitably lead to 
 political and social slavery. " RSUgion, and even 
 deistic metaphysics, which is only theology in dis- 
 guise, is the most formidable obstacle in the way 
 of true emancipation of society. And that is the 
 reason why all governments, and all European 
 statesmen who are not metaphysicians, theologians 
 or deists, and who, in their heart of hearts, believe 
 ni d Dieu ni au diable, so passionately protect 
 metaphysics and religion, no matter which religion, 
 so long as it teaches patience, resignation and 
 submission." ^ 
 
 It was religion that enabled the conquerors in 
 the struggle for life to proclaim that they had been 
 
 ^ Federalisme, Socialisme, et Antitheologisme, Paris, 1895 
 (Bakounine, (Euvres, p. 64). 
 a I.e. p. 64. 8 ii)id.^ p. 65, 
 
PHILOSOPHERS AND SOCIOLOGISTS 169 
 
 specially designated by Providence to rule and 
 govern over other men ; and these others have 
 now grown convinced that if they revolted against 
 the existing order of things, they would gravely 
 offend Divinity. They have grown to believe that 
 it is their duty to cringe and to submit to the 
 dictates of the delegates of the Divinity. " Toute 
 autorite temporelle ou humaine procMe directe- 
 ment de 1' autorite spirituelle ou divine." ^ In 
 other words, the governing classes, the conquerors 
 in the struggle for life, by basing their momentary 
 victory, their autfiority, upon divine right, by 
 appealing to the approbation of Divinity and thus 
 sanctioning their victory, have compelled the 
 vanquished to resign themselves to eternal slavery. 
 And even when the vanquished feel that they 
 have grown stronger, that they could now attempt 
 a new battle and, in their turn, gain the victory, 
 they are assured that they have no right to declare 
 war, for it would be a grave offence against 
 Divinity. And thus the astute victors are allowed 
 to remain in undisturbed possession of the fruits 
 of their usurpation. The divine principle there- 
 fore, the belief in God, is the basis of all authority 
 — and authority is the negation of liberty. The 
 divine principle implies unquestioning, unreason- 
 ing submission to the two institutions : Church 
 and State, and all their representatives, high and 
 low ; so Bakunin stated. '' II est evident que tant 
 que nous aurons un maitre au ciel nous serons 
 esclaves sur la terre." * 
 
 Having thoroughly criticised the idea of God, 
 Bakunin next attacked the idea of State, which in 
 
 1 Dieu et VEtat, ibid., p. 283. 
 a Ibid., p. 282, 
 
170 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 itself is one of the principal obstacles to the libera- 
 tion of humanity, and impedes the realisation of 
 its destiny. The State can only guarantee and 
 maintain what it finds ready : wealth on the one 
 hand and poverty on the other — the status quo. 
 The State, too, perpetually fosters rivalry and 
 discord among men. " After all, the supreme 
 law of the State is merely a conservation of the 
 State ; all States, since their inception, have been 
 the cause of strife and war ; rivalry between the 
 State and its own subjects, and war between the 
 different States, since one nation could only be 
 strong and powerful if its neighbours were 
 weak. The State is therefore tjie cause of con- 
 tinual wars, internal and external, and thus, 
 by its very existence, is '' the most flagrant, 
 the most complete and cynical negation of 
 humanity." ^ 
 
 The State never recognises human right, hu- 
 manity and civilisation except within its own 
 boundaries. It has its own special morality : this 
 is called Raison d'Etat. Everything that serves 
 the greatness, preservation and power of the 
 State is right, however wrong, and even revolting, 
 it may be from the point of view of human morality. 
 On the contrary, the most holy and humanely just 
 thing is wrong if it does not further the interests 
 of the State.* 
 
 International law does not exist, and never 
 could exist, in a serious and true manner, without 
 at the same time undermining the very founda- 
 tions of the principle of State." 
 
 " In order to make liberty, justice and peace 
 
 1 Dieu et VEtat, p. 160. » Ihid., p. 161. 
 
 2 Cf. ibid., pp. 149, 150. 
 
PHILOSOPHERS AND SOCIOLOGISTS 171 
 
 triumph in Europe, in order to make civil war 
 impossible among the various peoples who con- 
 stitute the European family, there is only one 
 way, and that is the constitution of a ' United 
 States of Europe. ' " But was Bakunin's ideal at 
 all similar to that promulgated to-day by our 
 democrats who talk of a League of Nations, of a 
 United States of Europe ? Not at all. A forma- 
 tion of a United States of Europe by the States 
 as they are at present constituted would, con- 
 sidering the respective powers of the different 
 States, be a monstrous inequality. " Therefore," 
 said Bakunin, " all the lovers of liberty should 
 first set their respective fatherlands in order, pull 
 down the old order of things, all based and estab- 
 lished upon the principles of violence and au- 
 thority, and replace it by a new organisation 
 whose only basis would be the interests, require- 
 ments and natural attractions of the populations 
 and the free association of individuals into com- 
 munities, of communities into provinces, of pro- 
 vinces into nations, and of nations into a United 
 States of Europe. Consequently, the historic 
 rights of States must be abandoned, all questions 
 relating to frontiers, natural, political, strategical 
 or commercial, must be dropped and considered 
 as a part of ancient history.^ 
 
 In comparison with the other adherents of 
 Internationalism, Bakunin was very far advanced. 
 Mazzini, for instance, was always a decided adver- 
 sary of the autonomy of provinces. " Democracy 
 without liberty," wrote Bakunin, " cannot serve 
 us as a banner." Modern Csesarism, with all its 
 hideous consequences, suspended over European 
 
 1 Dieu et VEtat, pp. 16, 17. 
 
172 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 humanity like a terrible menace and nightmare, 
 also calls itself democratic. And the Moscow and 
 St. Petersburg Imperialism, this ideal of all mili- 
 tary and bureaucratic States, has it not crushed 
 Poland in the very name of democracy ? But 
 it is not sufficient to overthrow the monarchic 
 system in order to emancipate the nations and 
 endow them with the gifts of justice and peace. 
 On the contrary, we are convinced that even a 
 great military Republic, bureaucratic and poli- 
 tically centralised, would necessarily become a 
 conquering power, oppressive in the interior. 
 France, though constituted as a democratic Re- 
 public, nevertheless favoured a policy of expansion 
 and conquest. "It is strange," he added, " that 
 the great Revolution which, for the first time in 
 history, proclaimed the liberty not only of the 
 citizen but of man in general, became the inheritor 
 of the monarchic principle which it had abolished, 
 by resuscitating the very negation of liberty, 
 namely, centralisation and omnipotence of the 
 State." Thus, according to Bakunin, the French 
 Revolution, which, at first, had been inspired by 
 sentiments of love and liberty, committed moral 
 suicide when it endeavoured to reconcile these 
 principles with centralisation of State ; then, it 
 only gave birth to military dictatorship and 
 Csesarism. In order to give peace and liberty to 
 Europe, the centralisation of military and bureau- 
 cratic States, whether autocratic, constitutionally 
 monarchic or even republican, should be abolished, 
 and the great principle of Federalism be made 
 triumphant. 
 
 To sum up : Bakunin believed that the principal 
 result of the coming social and political revolu- 
 
 
PHILOSOPHERS AND SOCIOLOGISTS 173 
 
 tion would be the perfect liberty of man. Any 
 individual belonging to any group or association 
 of labour would have the power and freedom to 
 detach himself from it and join another. The 
 communes thus constituted would enjoy complete 
 autonomy, and would be able to form relationships 
 between themselves in conformity with their com- 
 mon interests. 
 
 TJhough the majority of revolutionary agitators 
 have been strong nationalists — for instance, Las- 
 salle, a German ; Mazzini, an Italian ; Blanqui, 
 a Frenchman — Bakunin, although he never ceased 
 to be a Russian, was at the service of humanitv as 
 a whole. For him, nations and races were but 
 fleeting waves in the vast ocean of humanity. His 
 ideal was a brotherhood : "a confraternity of 
 men " instead of a " league of nations." In this 
 respect, however, he was thoroughly Russian. 
 '' We Russians," wrote Dostoevski, " have at 
 least two countries — patries — Russia and Europe. 
 Our mission should be universally human. Our 
 efforts should be consecrated to the service, 
 not of Russia alone, or even of the whole Sla- 
 vonic world, but to the service of humanity at 
 large." 
 
 Here one notices the differences that existed 
 between Marx and Bakunin. The former was a 
 cold intellectual, the latter a sentimentalist and an 
 idealist, despite his realistic conception of the 
 world. Marx had a deep sense of justice, but no 
 instinct of liberty, whilst Bakunin' s soul thirsted 
 for liberty. Both temperament and nationality 
 account for much. Marx, although of Jewish 
 descent, was thoroughly Germanised ; Bakunin 
 was a Slav. The distinctive traits in their charac- 
 
174 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 ters are not the effect of their respective theories, 
 but rather the cause of the latter. If we search 
 the pages of history of human thought and action, 
 we invariably find that those who have, or are 
 supposed to have, worked in the service of a col- 
 lectivity, have been merely intellectual machines, 
 and have rarely, if ever, been moved by the suffer- 
 ing of the individual. We find that statesmen, 
 politicians, economists, philosophers and religious 
 teachers who, in the course of history, have 
 evolved theories and plans to bring happiness, 
 spiritual or material, to a race, a nation or a 
 class, to a collectivity of individuals, have always 
 been guided by intellect, rarely by love. To 
 love potential generations at the expense of the 
 individual, feeling and suffering before our very 
 eyes, is not love. The leitmotif of the benefac- 
 tors of future generations, of masses unknown to 
 them, may be inspired by a lofty purpose ; but 
 the honest psychologist will not fail to discover in 
 it some ingredients of ambition, self-interest, or 
 fanaticism. 
 
 The love dwelling in the human heart is, after 
 all, only finite, therefore, if it is to be bestowed 
 upon millions, especially potential millions, the 
 fraction obtainable by the single individual will be 
 infinitesimal. The really golden hearts — true, al- 
 truistic, unselfish emotions and unreasoning love 
 — are only to be found among the benefactors of 
 individuals ; among those who devote themselves 
 to a limited number, those who work in the 
 silence of obscurity, not in the glare of publicity or 
 history. Such a modest, real love is never the 
 appanage of the would-be saviour of a class, of a 
 race, a nation, or any other collectivity. All such 
 
PHILOSOPHERS AND SOCIOLOGISTS 175 
 
 benefactors, be they labelled Socialists, National- 
 ists, Pan-Germans, Pan-Slavs, Zionists et tutti 
 quanti, who dream of the welfare and happiness of 
 millions, though cold and indifferent to the suffer- 
 ings of individuals, are not altruists, sentimenta- 
 lists or idealists, they are merely dry-as-dust 
 intellectuals, if they be not egoists. To love the 
 parts constituting the whole is within human 
 possibility, but to love the whole whilst despising 
 the parts makes such a love, if love it can be 
 called, a mere emptiness. The soldier fighting in 
 the trenches and dying on the battlefield is doing 
 so because he loves his home and hearth, his wife 
 or sister, his mother or his children, not the poten- 
 tial children of future generations. Men have 
 also died, and are dying, for an idea ; but this is 
 because that idea has become a part of their very 
 being, their precious spiritual inheritance or pos- 
 session. 
 
 Bakunin and Marx, the Slav and the Teuton, 
 clearly illustrate the above statements. The 
 former, endowed with the simplicity of a child, 
 was animated by a real, unbounded love for 
 the individual; the latter, a would-be bene- 
 factor of a class, was an intellectual machine of 
 the finest type : "a scientific demagogue," " the 
 incarnation of a democratic dictator," as Bakunin 
 rightly said.^ Space does not permit the elabora- 
 tion of these points, but an impartial study of 
 the psychology of races and nations shows that 
 it was Germany who inoculated the world with 
 the virus both of love and hatred of collectivity. 
 Germany is the home of such movements as 
 
 1 Pr^audeau, Bakunine et V Internationale, Paris, 1911, 
 p. 37. 
 
176 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 '* Scientific Socialism," the *' Internationale," 
 *' Antisemitism," and many other " philisms " and 
 "" phobisms." 
 
 Even in their plans for the realisation of the 
 social revolution, Marx and Bakunin counted upon 
 different elements. The German looked to those 
 who were sufficiently educated to understand the 
 scientific bases of his system, whilst the Russian 
 appealed to those who craved most for liberty. 
 Marx believed that the nation that would first 
 give the signal for the social revolution would be 
 the State that was farthest advanced — Germany, 
 for instance. (He seems, however, to have changed 
 his views altogether after his sojourn in England.) 
 Bakunin, on the contrary, was of opinion that 
 the nation most richly endowed with the spirit of 
 revolt and the instinct of liberty would be the 
 first to give the signal. He did not believe that 
 the Teutonic races possessed this instinct of 
 liberty, they are so essentially authoritative ; but 
 it was fully developed in the Latin and Slavonic 
 races. 
 
 This belief explains why Bakunin took sides 
 with France during the Franco-Prussian war of 
 1870. He addressed a passionate appeal to the 
 members of the '' Internationale," especially to the 
 Swiss, calling upon them to take up arms and to 
 intervene in favour of the French Republic which 
 had just been proclaimed. France represented 
 liberty in Europe, whilst " Germany was the 
 common enemy of all European socialists," for 
 she " incarnated despotism and reaction." Ba- 
 kunin, the champion of liberty, to whom, para- 
 doxical as it may sound of this atheist, he had 
 erected a shrine, hated Germany as much aiS he 
 
Karl Marx, 
 
 17G] 
 
I 
 
PHILOSOPHERS AND SOCIOLOGISTS 177 
 
 loved France. " Ce Russe," wrote A. Richard, 
 '' cet anarchiste, cet ennemi des patries . . . con- 
 naissait bien I'histoire de 1' esprit fraii9ais, le genie 
 de la Revolution Fran9aise. II aimait la France, 
 et bien plus, il epousait les haines de la France, 
 et soufirait de son abaissement." ^ But what 
 was it that interested Bakunin in France ? Cer- 
 tainly not her political power, not the State. 
 It was neither Imperial nor Royalist France, 
 not even Republican France, that he cared for ; 
 it was the great national character, the French 
 spirit, the generous and heroic instincts, the 
 revolutionary audacity that had dared to pull 
 down all the authorities sanctioned and fortified 
 by history, all the old gods and idols. It was 
 this French iconoclasm, so vastly different to 
 the Teuton vandalism, that Bakunin so greatly 
 admired. 
 
 " If we were to lose" (he wrote) " this great his- 
 torical nation which is called France, if it were 
 to disappear from the arena of the world, or, what 
 is still worse, were now to be dragged down into 
 the mud to live as the slave of Bismarck, the 
 world would be the poorer and a great void would 
 ensue ; it would be more than a national catas- 
 trophe, it would be a misfortune, a universal 
 debacle." 
 
 For then, the German State, authoritative and 
 reactionary yar excellence, would make Europe 
 feel its power, and crush liberty wherever it raised 
 its head. The German people have no instinct of 
 liberty. They even found means to transform 
 the '' Internationale " into a Sozial-democratie ! 
 Therefore it was the sacred duty of every man 
 
 1 Bivu6 de Paris, 1896, S6ptembre-Octobre, p. 148. 
 12 
 
178 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 who loved liberty and was anxious to see humanity 
 triumph over brutality, of every man who cared 
 for the emancipation of his own country, to come 
 forward and take part in the struggle of democracy 
 against German despotism. 
 
 1 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 PEACEFUL PROPAGANDA 
 
 As we have seen, even during the despotic reign 
 of Nicholas I, the socialistic ideas of Western 
 Europe had found their way into Russia. With 
 the accession of Alexander II, when the Press was 
 given a little more freedom, many foreign works 
 were translated into Russian, and thus were more 
 readily accessible to the people. The authors 
 mostly en vogue were Spencer, Darwin, Mill, 
 Buckle, Fourier and St. Simon. The ideas and 
 theories elaborated by these authors w^ere the 
 starting points for Russian writers and publicists.^ 
 The revolutionary groups included not only the 
 nobility and officers, but officials and students 
 belonging to the bourgeoisie and the lower strata 
 of society ; they were men who hated the existing 
 order of things with their intelligence and with 
 their hearts. They hated autocracy, not only 
 intellectually and aesthetically, but instinctively, 
 as a slave hates oppression and thirsts for free- 
 dom ; their instinct told them to hate the one 
 and to love the other. Any human emotion that 
 is dictated by cold intellect is at its best only 
 artificial. 
 
 The true emotions are those dictated by instinct 
 
 1 Kulcyzki, vol. i, p. 294. 
 179 
 
180 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 and impulse. Thus the new intellectuals of Russia, 
 who belonged to the middle classes, hated auto- 
 cracy, not only with their intellects, but also with 
 their hearts. The result was that they did not 
 only discuss, plan, theorise, criticise and philoso- 
 phise, but they also began to prepare for action. 
 They stood nearer the masses than the aristo- 
 crats of 1825 had done ; they relied not only upon 
 their own power and energy, but also upon the 
 people. The most prominent leaders of the social 
 and political movement of those days were 
 Tshernyshevski, and later, Lavrov and Bakunin. 
 Tshernyshevski's ideas of socialism and his plans 
 for the solution of the agrarian question were the 
 starting point of all revolutionary programmes of 
 the 'sixties onwards. 
 
 The Russian intellectuals now earnestly devoted 
 themselves to gaining support from the people, 
 who alone were truly able to bring about an up- 
 heaval in Russia. They endeavoured clearly to 
 formulate their demands, to express their political 
 tendencies and desires in proclamations, to predict 
 the revolution, and even to urge it. The spirit 
 of revolt was at last entering the realm of reality. 
 M. J. Mikhailov published his proclamation ad- 
 dressed to the young generation in 1861,^ and for 
 this crime he was condemned to six years' penal 
 servitude. The proclamation was followed by 
 the first number of the revolutionary periodical 
 Velikoruss, or " The Great Russian." Openly 
 and in passionate language the revolution was 
 preached ; the writers addressing themselves to 
 the peasants and to the intellectuals. The aboli- 
 tion of autocracy and the solution of the agrarian 
 
 1 Cf. Byloe, 1906, i, pp. 101-132. 
 
PEACEFUL PROPAGANDA 181 
 
 question were clearly formulated demands, and 
 numerous agitators, with a superb contempt for 
 danger, prison, exile or death, busily devoted 
 themselves to the spreading far and wide of their 
 revolutionary propaganda, while Colonel Kranovski 
 and Lieutenant Grigoriev incited the soldiers 
 against the Government and the Tsar.^ 
 
 The Universities became a very hotbed of revo- 
 lutionary propaganda. With the enthusiasm and 
 impulsiveness of youth the Russian students threw 
 themselves into the revolutionary movement. In 
 1862 a new revolutionary organisation was founded ; 
 it was known as the League, of " Land and Free- 
 dom," " Zemlya i Volya." Its activity consisted 
 principally in spreading revolutionary ideas among 
 the intellectuals, and its members were recruited 
 mostly from the various groups of officers, lawyers, 
 civil engineers, medical practitioners, officials, 
 teachers, litterateurs and students. The demands 
 and aims of the organisation were : political free- 
 dom, transformation of Russia into a federal state 
 and the partition of the land among the peasants.* 
 These demands, however, made any union between 
 the various social groups almost an impossibility. 
 The nobles could not agree with the advanced 
 revolutionaries, who believed that the discontent 
 of the peasants should be stimulated and used to 
 bring about a revolution. 
 
 On the other hand, the industrial and mercantile 
 bourgeoisie were too ignorant and too suspicious 
 to understand and appreciate the plans and aspira- 
 tions of the intellectuals. Both the urban and 
 
 ^ Basilevski, Political Crimes in Russia during the Nineteenth 
 Century, i, p. 117. 
 3 Panteleev, pp. 256-266, 
 
182 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 rural populations were vaguely discontented, but 
 their discontent was chiefly directed against the 
 seigneurs, landowners or mighty capitahsts, not 
 against the Government, autocracy or the Tsar. 
 As a matter of fact, the so-called bourgeoisie was 
 greatly attached to and had real confidence in the 
 Tsar and the Central Government, and hoped for 
 the best. It must also be borne in mind that the 
 emancipation of the serfs and the subsequent 
 abuses were questions that but little concerned 
 the merchants and industrial classes. They har- 
 boured none of the grievances of the aristocracy 
 who had been deprived of their privileges, nor of 
 the peasants who had been disappointed in their 
 expectations. 
 
 Thus the revolutionary movement was limited 
 to the intellectuals, and even they were not united 
 into one well-organised body. On the one hand, 
 the Government was a strict watch-dog, so the 
 danger was great ; and on the other hand, the 
 members were mostly dreamers, theoreticians, not 
 experts or artisans capable of bringing about a 
 revolution. Besides, their scattered groups lacked 
 one recognised leader. The only man whom every 
 one would have accepted as a leader was Tsherny- 
 shevski, but he had decided to be as careful as was 
 possible. 
 
 One of the most prominent leaders of the 
 organisation Zemlya i Volya was Nicholas Serno- 
 Solovyevitsh ; he elaborated a plan for a Russian 
 Constitution. Zemlya i Volya was not socialistic, 
 although many socialists were among its members. 
 Russia was not yet ripe for true socialistic organisa- 
 tions ; indeed, it is doubtful if she is even now. It 
 must not be forgotten that in the early 'sixties the 
 
PEACEFUL PROPAGANDA 183 
 
 factory and working men, the proletariat, was not 
 at all developed ; the peasants cannot be styled 
 proletariat ; and, in any case, their psychology differs 
 greatly from that of the working men/ However, 
 the Zemlya i Voyla, in the course of time, would 
 have managed to spread the revolutionary move- 
 ment ideas, not only among all the scattered groups 
 and individuals of the intelligenzia, but also among 
 the peasants and working men, and so unite the 
 warring elements and direct them into one channel, 
 and thus centralise the various streams of dis- 
 content prevailing in the Empire of the Tsar. 
 
 But, unfortunately, different circumstances frus- 
 trated the realisation of these hopes. The (Govern- 
 ment and the police were informed of the existence 
 of the organisation in June 1862. The third 
 section of the Imperial Chancellery, the political 
 police, arrested a certain Paul Victoshin, who was 
 returning to Russia from a visit to London. Many 
 compromising documents, including letters from 
 Herzen to various revolutionary leaders in Russia, 
 were found among his possessions. Among the 
 names mentioned in the correspondence was that 
 of Tshernyshevski, who was just then on the point 
 of leaving the capital for his native town Saratov, 
 whither he had already sent his family. On 
 July 7th, 1862, Tshernyshevski was arrested and 
 sent to the fortress of Petropavlovsk. Shortly be- 
 fore his arrest, an adjutant of Prince Suvarov, the 
 Governor -General of St. Petersburg, called upon 
 him and advised him to go abroad, as otherwise 
 he would be imprisoned. But Tshernyshevski 
 refused to take the hint. On the one hand, he was 
 too deeply attached to the work he had taken up, 
 
 1 K\ilcyzki, i, p. 372. 
 
184 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 and on the other, he felt quite sure that the Govern- 
 ment could find nothing against him, he had 
 always been so careful and prudent. 
 
 Both Tshernyshevski and Serno-Solovyevitsh 
 were arrested on July 7th, 1862. The arrest of 
 Tshernyshevski was a terrible blow to the revo- 
 lutionary movement, and the efforts of " Land 
 and Freedom " to unite and concentrate all the 
 revolutionary forces in Russia were henceforth 
 almost futile. There was no leader powerful 
 enough to command respect and strong enough to 
 gather all the threads into his hands. There was 
 no one among all the revolutionary intellectuals 
 who could equal Tshernyshevski in political in- 
 sight, social understanding, erudition and, above 
 all, personal influence. Some of the members, 
 among them Pantaleev, reorganised the committee 
 of " Land and Freedom " and endeavoured to 
 continue their propaganda among the students 
 and officers, but it cannot be said that it proved 
 very effective. 
 
 In the meantime an event happened that for a 
 time at least put a stop to the revolutionary move- 
 ment in Russia. This was the Polish Revolution 
 of 1863-64. The insurrection of the Poles, which 
 the Russian autocracy quelled with all the cruelty 
 and bloodshed of which it was capable, became 
 the signal of a reactionary era. The Polish Revolu- 
 tion provided the Government with an excuse for 
 many reactionary measures. But no persecution 
 could now put an effectual stop to the revolutionary 
 movement in Russia. It spread, slowly but 
 gradually, among the intellectuals and students. 
 In I- order to escape the cruel persecutions of Tsar- 
 dom, numbers of the intellectuals went abroad, 
 
PEACEFUL PROPAGANDA 185 
 
 especially to Switzerland, where the Russian 
 revolutionary agitators found a new stimulus in 
 the work and influence of the Western socialist 
 movement and literature. At home, in Russia, it 
 was a terrible struggle between Tsardom and the 
 spirit of revolt. 
 
 Yet, though the Government of the Tsar was 
 bitterly severe against all revolutionary efforts, and 
 sent to prison, or Siberia, all those whom it found 
 guilty of revolutionary ideas or propaganda, it 
 introduced a number of minor reforms. These 
 chiefly affected the judicial, financial and military 
 administrations ; an effort was also made to 
 establish local self-government in the districts and 
 provinces, known as the Ziemstvos. The object 
 of these reforms was to show Russia and Europe 
 that the Tsar was really inclined to be liberal, and 
 that if he were severe towards the Poles and the 
 revolutionaries, it was with a bleeding heart that 
 he punished his beloved children. The Govern- 
 ment had decided to show Russia that it was 
 neither reactionary nor weak ; that the Tsar was 
 the real father of his subjects and knew what 
 they needed. He was solicitous for their welfare 
 and well-being, and had decided to grant all the 
 necessary reforms. But though he gave with 
 the one hand, he would not hesitate to punish 
 with the other. 
 
 The liberal measures were more fatal to the 
 development of the revolutionary movement in 
 Russia than the punishments of prison and exile. 
 The reforms continued from 1863 until 1870 ; it 
 was a period of struggle for the revolutionaries, 
 who had come to understand that autocracy would 
 always crush with her left hand whatever semblance 
 
186 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 of liberty she gave with her right. They had 
 given up all hope of ever receiving anything from 
 Tsardom or Autocracy. " Timeo Danaos et dona 
 ferentes." But society was satisfied with the 
 reforms and sang the praises of the Tsar. Thus, 
 Alexander's liberalism was more fatal to the spirit 
 of revolution than Nicholas' open, reactionary and 
 autocratic attitude had been. It is the old story 
 of the traveller, the sun and the wind. 
 
 I have already said that there was no leader 
 who could unite the scattered forces of revolution. 
 Herzen was abroad, and his influence at home was 
 on the wane. Bakunin, at that time, was a cos- 
 mopolitan revolutionary, and paid but little atten- 
 tion to events in his own country. Tshernyshevski 
 was in prison. The Government knew well how 
 dangerous Tshernyshevski was, and determined to 
 get rid of him. There were no proofs against him, 
 but that was a trifling matter. Forged incriminat- 
 ing documents were produced, false witnesses 
 appeared, and, in spite of Tshernyshevski' s clever 
 defence and his declaration that the documents 
 were forged and the witnesses false, the Senate 
 condemned him to fourteen years' penal servitude, 
 to loss of all his civil rights and perpetual exile to 
 Siberia. Alexander reduced the fourteen years to 
 seven years' penal servitude. It was while he was 
 in prison that Tshernyshevski wrote his famous 
 novel, Tshto Dyelatj {What Shall We Do?) 
 
 The revolutionary ferment continued, and it 
 was about this time that, by the side of socialistic 
 tendencies, the new current of revolt known as 
 Nihilism developed. In 1865 a small organisation 
 was formed at Moscow with the object of spreading 
 socialist propaganda. This propaganda was to 
 
PEACEFUL PROPAGANDA 187 
 
 be spread among the rural population, to convince 
 them that the land was the rightful property of 
 the people. The members of the group had de- 
 cided to incite the peasants against the land- 
 owners and the authorities. They also intended 
 to found schools, libraries, co-operative factories, 
 etc., so as to get in closer touch with the people.^ 
 But, as usual, the members greatly differed as to 
 the means to be employed. Some, like Matinin 
 and his friends (known as the Matinintsi) and 
 Sobello and his friends (known as the Saratovtsi), 
 were in favour of spreading propaganda among the 
 people ; thus they hoped to bring about a revo- 
 lution. 
 
 Others, known as the Ipatovstsi, and among 
 whom were Ishutin and Karakasov, were for bolder 
 and more energetic methods : they desired the 
 assassination of the Tsar. Ishutin went to St. 
 Petersburg and decided to form out of a few of 
 his most intimate friends a new group to be 
 known as " The Hell," whose aim should be to 
 undertake the immediate and direct fight against 
 the Government, employing terrorist methods. 
 One of Ishutin' s followers was Karakasov, a young 
 man of twenty-five. He decided to kill Alex- 
 ander in spite of the protests of his comrades, w^ho 
 believed that the propitious moment had not yet 
 arrived for such drastic methods. Karakasov 
 was a member of a noble family and had, as a 
 student, been expelled from the University. Being 
 both impulsive and obstinate, he ignored the advice 
 of his comrades, and on April 4th, 1866, he 
 fired at Alexander in the Summer Garden, but 
 
 1 Cf. Basilevski, vol. i, pp. 138-141 ; Byloe, 1906, iv, pp. 
 290-296. 
 
188 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 missed the Tsar, because a peasant, named Komis- 
 sarovo, caught his arm as Jhe raised it to fire. 
 
 The shot fired by Karakasov was the signal for 
 new reactionary measures ; indeed, it was a turn- 
 ing point in Russia's internal poHcy. The Govern- 
 ment now became openly reactionary, whilst 
 Russian society loudly manifested its loyalty. 
 Fear is a wonderful stimulus of patriotism and 
 loyalty. Arrests followed en masse; the revo- 
 lutionaries were tried and sentenced by the famous 
 Mouraviev, who had quelled the Polish Revolution 
 in 1863, had distinguished himself by his cruelties 
 in Lithuania, and who wais known as the butcher of 
 Vilna.^ The government now declared that the 
 revolutionary movement was a menace to right, 
 property and religion, and that the liberal inten- 
 tions of the Tsar had been misunderstood and 
 misinterpreted. Henceforth, the Government, 
 relying upon the aristocracy and the conservative 
 elements of the State, would take energetic and 
 severe measures against all revolutionary ten- 
 dencies. 
 
 It kept its word. Basilevski relates (v, p. 88) 
 that Karakasov appealed to the Tsar and asked 
 him to commute his death sentence. The reply 
 was, that as a man the Tsar pardoned the prisoner, 
 but as a ruler it was impossible that he should 
 commute the death sentence. Karakasov was 
 accordingly hanged on September 3rd, 1866. 
 Ishutin was also condemned to death, and he too 
 appealed to the Tsar. The prisoner was already 
 upon the scai^old and the executioners were ready 
 with the rope when the Imperial answer in the 
 affirmative arrived. When one reflects upon the 
 
 1 Cf. Basilevski, i, p. 250. 
 
PEACEFUL PROPAGANDA 189 
 
 refined cruelty and torture of this incident, and 
 remembers that Alexander II was the most liberal 
 and generous of all the Romanovs, any spark of 
 pity for Nicholas II dies in one's breast. Thus, 
 from 1866 reaction was once more in full swing 
 in Russia, and the revolutionary movement, though 
 continuing to live, went through a period of com- 
 parative calm. 
 
 But the spirit of revolt w^as still in existence, 
 even though its wings had been clipped. The 
 spark of revolution still glimmered under the ashes, 
 and it only required a stimulus to fan it into flame. 
 Two circumstances were especially calculated to 
 favour the renascence of the revolutionary move- 
 ment : the great spread of Western European 
 socialism and the large increase in emigration. 
 Western European socialism flourished during the 
 years 1863-71. Lassalle founded his workmen's 
 associations and Marx the " Internationale," and 
 social democracy was in full swing in Germany. 
 The Paris Commune caused quite a stir in Russia. 
 All these socialistic ideas, in perhaps a vague and 
 mystic form, filtered through into Russia and 
 permeated the strata of Russia's youth, alTecting 
 also, to some extent, the peasantry and the prole- 
 tariat. The vivifying breath of democracy and 
 revolutionary movements in W^estern Europe 
 could not but lend new vigour to Russia's en- 
 thusiasts, dreamers, reformers and revolutionists. 
 A new generation grew up — a generation that felt 
 that the time for deeds had arrived. It thirsted 
 for action, for facts, for the creative deed that would 
 replace the word. 
 
 Bat although every one felt that something ought 
 to be done, no one knew what to do, and there 
 
190 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 was no one who could tell them. Great numbers 
 of the women students, intellectuals to whom the 
 Government refused admission to the Universities, 
 went abroad in large quantities, but the revolu- 
 tionary movement was still fed by them. The 
 " Internationale," founded by Marx, exercised a 
 deep moral influence upon the enthusiastic Slavs. 
 » They saw in it a concentration of all the social 
 forces of the world, an attempt to resuscitate 
 humanity to new life, the renascence of the suffer- 
 ing classes. They hoped and believed that the 
 '' Internationale " would find new means and ways, 
 and would teach them to carry the revolutionary 
 movement to a successful issue in their own 
 country.^ As yet, however, the revolutionary 
 elements lacked a definite programme, an answer 
 to the question ; What is to be done ? 
 
 The discontent with the reactionary Govern- 
 ment increased steadily among the students at the 
 Russian Universities, especially at the capital. At 
 first, the unrest among the students was more of 
 a local, private character ; they were demanding 
 certain privileges. But the revolutionary elements, 
 still existing though scattered, decided to utilise 
 the growing discontent of the students, whose 
 demands were refused by the authorities, and 
 turn it into a political channel. 
 
 Sergei Nietshaev, professor at a school in the 
 capital, was especially active in fanning the sparks 
 of revolt among the students into a steady flame. 
 He left the capital in 1869 and went to Geneva, 
 where he met Bakunin, who introduced him into 
 the association of the " Internationale." Niet- 
 shaev was an energetic agitator ; he was a fanatic 
 
 1 Cf. Kulcyzki, vol. i, p. 474. 
 
PEACEFUL PROPAGANDA 191 
 
 and a man with an iron will, but exceedingly 
 ambitious. How often has ambition been the 
 cause, not only of the birth, but also of the death 
 of popular movements ! Nietshaev persuaded 
 Herzen to hand over to him the charge of the secret 
 revolutionary fund, a sum of about £1,000. 
 Everything was ready in Russia, Nietshaev pre- 
 tended, for a revolution. Bakunin then entrusted 
 him with the organisation of the Russian branch 
 of the Internationale. On his return to Russia, 
 Nietshaev founded a secret society whose goal 
 was the liberation of the people from social 
 misery. This organisation was supposed to be 
 ruled by a secret committee, which in reality did 
 not exist, and Nietshaev was their representative. 
 He persuaded his comrades that Russia was 
 honeycombed with secret and revolutionary 
 societies.^ 
 
 But if Nietshaev was ambitious, so also was one 
 of his comrades, a certain Ivanov. The two had 
 a quarrel, and Nietshaev, true to his motto, 
 " The end sanctifies the means " — which he had 
 borrowed from Ignatius Loyola — made up his 
 mind to get rid of Ivanov. He therefore persuaded 
 four of his colleagues that Ivanov was a dangerous 
 man and must be removed, or the organisation 
 would suffer. The result was that Ivanov was 
 assassinated, the victim of fanaticism and ambi- 
 tion, on November 21st, 1869. But this deed 
 proved the undoing of the organisation ; it was 
 discovered, and eighty-seven members were arrested. 
 Nietshaev managed to escape to Switzerland, but 
 was extradited in 1872 as a common criminal 
 and condemned to twenty years' penal servitude. 
 
 1 Cf. Basilekvsi, i, pp. 163, 167, 183. 
 
192 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 The Government saw an opportunity in the affair 
 to discredit the whole revolutionary movement, 
 and so decided to make the trial public. But it 
 defeated its own ends ; society condemned the 
 tactics of Nietshaev, but it could not help approv- 
 ing and applauding his theories. We may dislike 
 the men who are at the head of a movement and 
 yet appreciate the ideas underlying it. The trial 
 of the accused proved an excellent propaganda 
 for the spirit of revolt, for it expounded eloquently 
 the theories of the revolutionaries and spread 
 those very ideas that the Government was so 
 anxious to suppress. All the accused held them- 
 selves bravely before their judges and gained the 
 whole-hearted sympathy of their audience, who 
 could not but look upon them as martyrs in a 
 great and sacred cause. The students were 
 especially struck by the dignified conduct and 
 noble purpose of the accused. They condemned 
 Nietshaev the man, but they admired his ideas. 
 The thirst for deeds became greater, and the revo- 
 lutionary tendencies dormant in many a mind 
 suddenly awoke. ^ 
 
 The Universities and Colleges then became the 
 chief homesteads of revolt. The intellectuals and 
 students saw in the old traditions of the Russian 
 Mir, in the solidarity of the rural and peasant 
 communes, the seeds of socialism ; they therefore, 
 decided to follow the programme of Western 
 socialism, to get into closer touch with the people 
 and propagate the new ideas among them. Thus 
 they hoped to organise a powerful revolutionary 
 party, which one day would be strong enough to 
 abolish autocracy and bring about a new form of 
 
 1 Cf. Debagori-Mokrievitsh, Memoirs, vol. i, p. 36. 
 

 73 
 
 o t> 
 
 M o 
 
 l-l = 
 
 O i: 
 
 > ^ 
 
 
PEACEFUL PROPAGANDA 193 
 
 government.^ They did not stop to consider 
 whether the people were ready for these ideas. 
 The enthusiasts believed in the moujik, quite 
 forgetting that his mental processes and outlook 
 would be quite different to their own. The propa- 
 gandists, pessimists as to the position of the pea- 
 sants, saw their readiness for a revolution in too 
 roseate a light. They never thought that the 
 revolutionary spirit among the peasants was like 
 a delicate seed" that had to be carefidly tended 
 and watched before it would grow up and bear 
 fruit. In a word, they built their hopes upon the 
 golden clouds of optimism and imagination. They 
 were bitterly disappointed when the ideal and the 
 real came face to face. 
 
 Among the organisations of that period of pro- 
 paganda, the most famous was that of the Tshai- 
 kovtsi, called after its founder, Nicholas Tshaikovski. 
 The most prominent members of this society, whose 
 goal was the dissemination of revolutionary ideas 
 among the people, were Mark Natanson (exiled to 
 Siberia in 1871), Tshaikovski, Peter Kropotkin, 
 Sergei Kravtshinski, Klemens, Shishko, Sinegoul, 
 Tikhomirov, the two sisters Kornilov, Sophie 
 Perovskaya and Obodovskaya. The members of 
 this society, disguised as peasants and labourers, 
 went among the people, working with them in 
 factories and the fields.' They did so, either to 
 get acquainted with the people or to stir up their 
 consciousness, their feeling of justice, and thus 
 prepare them for a revolution, or, more enthusiastic 
 still, to prepare them for an immediate revolution. 
 
 1 Cf. Calendar Narodnaja Volya, 1883, p. 102. 
 
 2 Cf, Stepniak, Underground Russia ; ICropotkin, Memoirs of 
 a Revolutionary. 
 
 13 
 
194 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 But the results far from realised the hopes of the 
 propagandists. They only convinced themselves 
 that the people were not ready for any immediate 
 action, that the spirit of revolt was latent in 
 the moujik, but his ignorance and resignation were 
 obstacles in the Avay of a revolution. The propa- 
 gandists then came to the conclusion that the 
 people would have to be educated, taught to 
 understand and realise their aspirations, their 
 miserable position and their rights. Thus the 
 period of propaganda, of going among the people, 
 that had appeared quite futile to some, had, after 
 all, served a very useful purpose : it taught the 
 youths, the students, the mental condition of the 
 lower classes, of the people. 
 
 There is one characteristic trait of this period. 
 The spirit of revolt had been shifted in the course 
 of time to a diiierent milieu. We have seen how 
 at first it was latent among the Cossacks and the 
 serfs, when it manifested itself in the form of 
 Jacqueries and peasant risings, and the revolts of 
 Stenka Eazin and Pougatshev ; later, in conse- 
 quence of the Napoleonic wars, it had found 
 supporters and followers among the nobility and 
 officers, as in 1825. Now the very homestead of 
 revolt was in the Universities and Colleges, whilst 
 its adepts were recruited from among the intel- 
 lectuals, the poets, litterateurs and philosophers. 
 We also witness the increased participation of the 
 Jews and women in the movement.^ 
 
 Nietshaev's propaganda had indeed failed, but 
 so had the propaganda of the word. Yet its results 
 Avere not to be despised ; the ground was gradually 
 being prepared, the conflagration was spreading 
 
 1 Le's Nihilistes, etc., 1867. 
 
PEACEFUL PROPAGANDA 195 
 
 and was destined, one day, to devour the structures 
 of Tsardom, or autocracy, and sweep the house 
 of Romanov from the arena of history. The 
 enthusiasm and self-sacrifice that animated those 
 noble vouths should have made the Tsar reflect. 
 He should have taken warning, but he did not. 
 A generation of courageous young men and women 
 who would sacrifice their own personal interests 
 to go among the people to enlighten them, to 
 teach them their rights, their power and their 
 strength which, like a flood, can overturn every- 
 thing, would sufficiently prepare any people for a 
 revohition and general rising. 
 
 Influenced by the ideas coming from abroad, the 
 Russian youth of that day, with the impression- 
 ability characteristic of the Slav, threw itself whole- 
 heartedly into the work of active propaganda. 
 They went among the people {poshlee v'narod). 
 The people whom they did not know, the peasants 
 who to them were a terra incognita, they idealised. 
 The Prussian youth went out into the promised 
 land of the moujik. Regardless of mocking re- 
 marks, regardless of threats, the Russian student 
 gave up his career, his future, tore himself away 
 from his family, rubbed his face with butter and 
 then exposed it to the sun so as to become brown 
 and look less of a barin (gentleman), bathed his 
 hands in tar, put on a peasant shirt, threw his 
 knapsack with his books upon his shoulder, took 
 his stick and went out on his journey without any 
 fixed goal.^ We can have nothing but the highest 
 admiration for these apostles of liberty, these 
 youths who went out to preach the gospel of 
 human dignity and individual independence. 
 
 1 Cf. Obshtshina, Geneva, 1878, No. I, v, 4. 
 
196 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 No obstacle could restrain them ; they went 
 everywhere, they lived and worked among the 
 people. 
 
 The young women, especially, left their homes 
 and worked in the factories, in the fields and in 
 the workshops in order to be able to spread 
 their ideas and prepare the people to put those 
 ideas into practice. But — alas ! — the result was 
 but a poor one. The pilgrimage of these enthusiasts, 
 of the frail women, to the shrine of the people 
 was without real effect. One needs only to read 
 the articles in the revolutionary organs, Vor- 
 waerts ( Vpered) and The Commune, to be convinced 
 of the failure of the agitators' efforts and to realise 
 the despair that consequently took hold of them. 
 In spite of the enthusiasm and the many unheard- 
 of sacrifices, the propaganda bore but little fruit 
 among the peasants. The Vorwaerts relates ^ 
 how the peasants often denounced these young 
 enthusiasts and gave them up to the police. 
 
 The famous Bereshkovskaya, the grandmother 
 of the Russian Revolution, went about the country 
 dressed as a peasant woman and worked among 
 the people as one of themselves. The moujiks 
 listened to her, because the rumour had spread 
 among them that she was the Empress, who had 
 thus come disguised among her people. Beresh- 
 kovskaya heard about a new sect in the south of 
 Russia. She went there, worked among the 
 peasants and explained her ideas. But the pea- 
 sants replied : " What can we do ? It is God's 
 will ; we will pray and suffer, for such is the will 
 of God who is punishing us for our sins." At last 
 they even threatened to hand her over to the 
 
 1 Vol. ii, p. 122. 
 
PEACEFUL PROPAGANDA 197 
 
 police. A little later she was denounced to the 
 authorities and arrested. 
 
 The propaganda had proved a failure. The 
 agitators had too little knowledge of the peasants : 
 discontent was rampant among the latter, but they 
 were suspicious and distrustful of the agitators. 
 The revolutionaries learned to understand that the 
 moujiks were still far from realising either their 
 wrongs or their rights as men. It is false to imagine 
 that the numerous arrests had frightened the brave 
 apostles of freedom, or that it was for this reason 
 that they ceased to go amongst the people. Had 
 they found an echo in the vast forests of the 
 peasantry, had they found the moujik ready to rise 
 and revolt, they would not so easily have given up 
 the work. They would not lightly have slackened 
 their efl orts and the battle would not have been 
 given up as lost, but they saw that their work was 
 futile ; they had awakened from their dream ; 
 their ideals and hopes seemed shattered, and they 
 had to think of new methods and new weapons for 
 their fight against Tsardom.^ 
 
 Thus the chief cause of the failure of the propa- 
 ganda lay in the apathy of the people, the indif- 
 ference of the rural population and the moujik. 
 Yet there were also other causes underlying this 
 failure. It may be sought also in the lack of 
 unity and uniformity. The aims of those who went 
 among the people varied ; suspicious of mysterious 
 committees since Nietshaev's foul deed, they acted 
 independently of each other. The Malikovtsi, 
 founded by ^lalikov, and the Lavristi, were in 
 favour of peaceful propaganda, whilst the Buntari 
 and the Tshaikovtsi, believed in violent methods. 
 
 1 Cf. Fortnightly Review, February 1905, p. 390. 
 
198 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 The latter dreamed of a new world founded upon 
 a universal brotherhood, " a world where neither 
 misery nor tears would exist." 
 
 The Government, of course, was not idle. In 
 1878 several of the propagandists fell into the 
 hands of the police, and in 1874, in consequence of 
 a denunciation, arrests were made en masse. 
 Severe measures were taken by autocracy against 
 the secret societies, and once more the revolutionary 
 movement was retarded in its development. In 
 the course of a few months over 1,000 conspirators 
 were arrested.^ The propagandists realised their 
 mistake, but yet they had learned something during 
 their pilgrimage to the holy shrine of the people's 
 soul : they had learned that the time was not yet 
 ripe, that the peasant had not yet reached the 
 necessary phase of evolution that would render 
 him accessible to socialistic and revolutionary 
 propaganda. On the one hand the severe measures 
 taken by the Government, and on the other the 
 deep disappointment caused by their failure, 
 induced many to secede from the revolutionary 
 movement. Upon some, however, the severity of 
 the Government had the opposite effect : it in- 
 creased their decision to struggle to the bitter end ; 
 it enhanced their courage and spirit of self-sacrifice. 
 
 New tactics were adopted. The organisation 
 of Semlya i Volya — Land and Freedom — was re- 
 vived. The propagandists had learned that the 
 peasants were discontented, but that their dis- 
 content was directed chiefly against the bureau- 
 cracy and the landowners; not against the Tsar, 
 whose person was sacred to them. Yet the mou- 
 jiks, though ignorant, were not without common 
 1 Biloe, 190(5, No. 9, pp. 269-76. 
 
PEACEFUL PROPAGANDA 199 
 
 sense and had formed ideals and ideas of their 
 own. They desired the distribution of the land 
 and the abolition of rates and taxes. The latter 
 should be levied upon human work, but not upon 
 the soil that had been created by God. Such 
 were the positive demands of the peasants ; these 
 they understood, and could argue with shrewd 
 common sense about them. Socialistic or anar- 
 chistic ideas and ideals and abstract theories found 
 no echo in the consciousness of the moujik. There- 
 fore the propagandists decided to abandon the 
 Western ideals of socialism and concentrate their 
 activity upon the demands and requirements of 
 the Russian people. The propaganda should not 
 be of a nomadic sporadic nature, but of a per- 
 manent character ; the propagandists would settle 
 permanently in the villages in which they were 
 to agitate. The revolutionary ideas should be 
 spread, not only among the peasants but also 
 among the factory hands and the intellectuals. 
 
 In 1876 several old members of the Tshaikovtsi 
 formed a new group ; it was first known as the 
 Troglodytes, or Narodniki, and later, in 1878 and 
 1879, after their organ, Land and Freedom — 
 Semlya i Volya. Their programme insisted upon 
 the propagandists' settlement among the people. 
 The members maintained that there were a num- 
 ber of revolutionary elements among the people, 
 but that these had to be found and organised, and 
 then the fight could begin. The propaganda of 
 the word was to be followed by the propaganda 
 of the deed. This was about the time that Bakunin 
 died at Berne, July 1st, 1876, and Tkatshev 
 founded his paper Nabat, or The Stormhelt, at 
 Zurich. Tkatshev was in favour of a political 
 
200 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 revolution instead of socialism. He also reeom- 
 mended terrorism instead of lukewarm propa- 
 ganda. He criticised sharply the systems of 
 Lavrov, and even of Bakunin, in an essay en- 
 titled, Anarchy of Thought. Tkatshev was a 
 Jacobine and a Blanquist, but his ideas found no 
 echo among his compatriots of that day. 
 
 The revolutionary movement and its ardour 
 may be said to have somewhat abated during this 
 period. The reasons for this were twofold. The 
 vigilance of the police, the punishments, prison and 
 exile meted out to the revolutionaries made a 
 more intense activity difficult. But there was a 
 more psychological cause of this diminished 
 activity, and that was the Russo-Turkish War. 
 The enthusiasm of Russia's youth had found a 
 new goal, a new object, a new field for its energy. 
 The majority of the socialists in Russia were against 
 the war, but theirs were but voices crying in the 
 wilderness. Youth and ardour love war, and 
 governments know well how to picture the romance 
 and idealism of battles in glowing colours that 
 will appeal to the heated imagination of the people, 
 ignorant and educated alike. There has never 
 been a war in the history of the world which has 
 admittedly been fought for reasons of greed, 
 revenge or ambition. According to the statements 
 of the contemporary governments every war has 
 been a war of ideas, of altruism, a war for the 
 benefit of humanity and the future generations. 
 
 The war of 1878 was greeted with enthusiasm 
 by many of the revolutionaries. To them it was 
 a holy war, a war for the liberation of their Serbian 
 and Bulgarian brethren from the yoke of Russia's 
 hereditary enemy, the Turk. Sometimes it seems 
 
PEACEFUL PROPAGANDA 201 
 
 to one to be a pity that man has not been given 
 the power of foreseeing the future, of beholding the 
 world as it will be a century, or even half a century 
 hence. What a shock it would be to the idealists 
 and dreamers ! What a disappointment to the 
 hosts of martyrs and men of action who fondly 
 imagined they were laying the foundations of 
 happiness and well-being for future generations, to 
 see those very people scorn and laugh at the 
 ideals, political, social and religious for which 
 their forebears had sufl ered and bled ! How un- 
 happy man would be could he but raise the veil 
 of Isis and take peeps into the future I He would 
 witness scenes, quite natural to the contemporaries, 
 but which would shock and appal him and greatly 
 alter his mode of life and thought. Oh, what a 
 waste of time and labour, he would cry, waste of 
 blood and happiness. I sacrificed all these for 
 the future generations, and lo, they are not 
 even grateful, but throw away the goods I be- 
 queathed unto them for valueless baubles ! 
 
 Of course, such a revelation of the future w^ould 
 always be a shock and a disappointment to the 
 true dreamers and idealists, but not to the majority 
 of mankind. The majority of men too rarely 
 fight for altruistic motives or for the benefit of 
 future generations. If the Russian enthusiasts 
 of 1878 had been allowed to witness the events of 
 1915 and see the Bulgarian legions sending bullets 
 into the hearts of the descendants of the very 
 men who died for Bulgarian liberty, who, for a 
 moment, put aside Russia's grievances and rallied 
 around autocracy, European history might have 
 taken a difierent course. W^ith equal justice we 
 might say that if we of this generation were able 
 
202 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 to see the world as it will be fifty years hence, it 
 w^ould probably give us much food for thought, 
 and history might take a diiierent course. But, 
 alas, the future is a sealed book, the veil of Isis 
 cannot be lifted, and even if true prophets or seers 
 arise in our midst and foretell us the future, we 
 promptly howl them down and declare them liars. 
 If we go no further and do not stone, crucify or 
 imprison them, at least w^e do our best to hush 
 up their prophecy, spoken or written, 
 
 Like the Crimean War, the Balkan War proved a 
 failure. Russia's sacrifices were rewarded by the 
 sweet illusion of San Stefano and the rude realism 
 of Berlin, thanks to Bismarck. Bureaucracy that 
 had fanned the enthusiasm for war into flame 
 gained very little, but the revolutionary spirit 
 gathered new strength, as it is always bound to 
 do in time of war, and as has always been the case 
 in Russia, especially since the beginning of the 
 nineteenth century. 
 
CHAPTER X 
 
 REACTION AND TERRORISM 
 
 Russia of 1878, as ignorant as we of the future, 
 greeted the Balkan War with enthusiasm. The 
 Slavophils were enthusiastic over the freedom 
 and deliverance of their Slavonic brethren, and 
 their ardour was fed by the ideal expansion policy 
 of Panslavism, or Russian Imperialism. Bureau- 
 cracy also industriously fanned the patriotic flame 
 into war ; bureaucracy always gains in times of 
 national stress. Days of storm and strain, of 
 patriotic ardour and national sacrifice, when 
 every one will submit to the most absurd and auto- 
 cratic rulings in the belief that they are in the 
 interests of the country and that, in some way, 
 one is helping the nation by submitting to these 
 measures, these are halcyon days for bureaucracy. 
 Its power and its extravagance daily increase. 
 
 Again, Russian bureaucracy thought that the 
 war would be a splendid channel into which the 
 waters of discontent could be turned ; a bed into 
 which the sea of rebellion could discharge its 
 roaring waves. The dreamers and revolutionary 
 spirits could cool their burning brows safely on the 
 battlefields. The bayonets of the enemy would 
 open a vein for the tempestuous, delirious Russian 
 youth, and a little bloodletting would do them a 
 
 203 
 
204 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 world of good. So thought bureaucracy, and 
 therefore it urged the Emperor to go to war. The 
 superficial, enthusiastic, naive liberals rushed to 
 the war to fight for Bulgaria's freedom, but the 
 more far-sighted revolutionaries clearly perceived 
 that the war was merely a trap laid by the Russian 
 bureaucracy. The results of the war did not com- 
 pensate Russia for her sacrifices. Russia's Im- 
 perialism did not succeed in finding an aerie on 
 the Bosphorus for the eagle of the Tsars. And 
 if bureaucracy and Tsardom had hoped to 
 asphyxiate revolution in the powder atmosphere 
 of Plevna, to drown it in the blood oceans in 
 Serbia, they were mistaken. The spirit of revolt 
 rose rejuvenated, like a phoenix, out of the fire 
 and smoke of the battlefields. The revolutionary 
 spirit had gathered new strength during the war, 
 for the rottenness of the existing regime had been 
 revealed in all its ugliness and hopelessness ; it 
 had proved how very little the upper governing 
 classes and the bureaucracy cared for the people, 
 how the soldiers who had gone out to fight had 
 been mercilessly sacrificed to their selfishness and 
 ambition. The dirty water was grist to the mill 
 of revolution. 
 
 Meanwhile, the famous trials of the revolution- 
 aries and political criminals took place at Moscow 
 and St. Petersburg. Fifty, and then 193 accused 
 were implicated.^ This was a splendid opportunity 
 for the spirit of revolt. The revolutionaries had 
 not been permitted to announce their theories, aims 
 or goal publicly, either at meetings or through 
 the press ; now, they were able to proclaim to the 
 public in their speeches of defence all that they 
 
 1 Cf. Lavigne, I.e., p. 252. 
 
REACTION AND TERRORISM 205 
 
 were anxious to say. They turned the dock into 
 a tribune and a piibhc platform. The nation 
 heard, and for the first time learned, the truth 
 about it§ miserable position, of the failure of 
 the reforms, the guilt and duplicity of the Govern- 
 ment, and the absolute necessity for a revolution. 
 Russia heard and was astonished. The Govern- 
 ment kept the procedure as secret as possible ; few 
 were admitted, but every word spoken by the 
 accused, the reproaches they hurled at the Govern- 
 ment and the judges, all were known and eagerly 
 listened to by the public. 
 
 On January 23rd, 1879, Alexander signed the 
 sentence of the political criminals. The number 
 of people, inclusive of witnesses, implicated in 
 these trials has been estimated at 3,800 ; the 
 accused, including their accomplices, were 770 ; 
 193 alone were tried at St. Petersburg. Seventy 
 died during the long months of the trial ; thirteen 
 were sent to penal servitude and to the mines ; 
 a number were set free, but were not permitted to 
 enjoy their freedom, various administrative 
 measures being taken to punish them ; others 
 again were never tried at all, but were secretly 
 arrested and dispatched, no one knew whither, by 
 the Third Section. 
 
 On the day following the announcement of the 
 sentence passed upon the 193 political criminals. 
 Vera Sassoulitsh shot Trepov, the chief of police, 
 at St. Petersburg. Trepov, six months previously, 
 had administered corporal punishment to a poli- 
 tical prisoner, a man named Bogdanovitsh, and it 
 was with the intention of revenging this ignominy 
 that this Russian Charlotte Corday acted ; she 
 had gained an audience by pretending that she 
 
206 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 wished to hand him a petition. Her shot was the 
 signal for renewed activity on the part of the 
 revolutionaries. Yet that shot also found a 
 sympathetic echo in the society of the day. Vera 
 had fired at a moment when the public was feeling 
 greatly embittered against the Government, there- 
 fore it was ready to greet her act with sympathy 
 and admiration, to hail her as a martyr in the 
 struggle of humanity against brutality and op- 
 pression. 
 
 The tables were turned. It was not Vera now 
 who was being judged, but Trepov ; and not only 
 Trepov the man, the private person, but Trepov 
 the incarnation of the principle of administrative 
 arbitrariness and autocratic oppression. The eyes 
 of the nation, suffering and oppressed while its 
 Government claimed to be doing everything pos- 
 sible for its benefit, were opening at last. The 
 idea of terroristic methods gradually grew among 
 the revolutionaries. Single terroristic acts had 
 already taken place, but the spirit of revolt did 
 not systematically adopt terrorism until 1879. 
 The shot fired by Vera Sassoulitsh seemed to be a 
 trumpet call to the revolutionaries to begin active 
 terrorism. 
 
 Vera was acquitted ; it seemed that Tsardom 
 and not Vera was on trial. Truly the spirit of re- 
 volt was beginning, at last, to triumph. Terrorism 
 became a recognised method of work, and even the 
 fashion. Spies met their just deserts. Baron 
 Heyking, colonel of gendarmes, was stabbed at 
 Kiev. Valerian Ossinski, whom Speranski des- 
 cribes as the Apollo of Revolution, became the 
 leader of terrorism. The spirit of revolt had be- 
 come desperate. Pacific propaganda having proved 
 
REACTION AND TERRORISM 207 
 
 itself useless, it now adopted violent means. If 
 Tsardom would not listen to reason, then it would 
 have to yield to terror. Alexander appealed to 
 the public and called upon society and all loyal 
 citizens to help the Government against this 
 terrorism. But Tsardom had no friends. It was 
 paying the penalty. It had worked to create in 
 Russia a race of slaves, not free citizens ; and slaves, 
 unless they have willingly accepted the spirit of 
 slavery, are never the friends of their masters. 
 " The days when the Tsar was sacrosanct," were 
 long past. The belief that the Tsar was the 
 vicegerent of God on earth, a theory so care- 
 fully developed by Karamsin, was now held by 
 very few in Russia. The spirit of revolt was 
 brooding over the entire nation. Not all were 
 vigorous enough to help, but all yearned for the 
 deed of deliverance. 
 
 Semlya i Volya was reorganised by Mik- 
 hailov, Sundelevitsh and others. Tourgeniev, who 
 had been living abroad, now visited Russia and 
 was heartily lionised. The Government looked 
 askance at these demonstrations in honour of the 
 author of Fathers and Sons, but it dared not arrest 
 him ; it merely advised him to leave Russia 
 again. 
 
 A number of attempts were made to kill Alex- 
 ander. The Government answered them by a 
 system of repression and terrorism. The sus- 
 picious followers of revolt were arrested en masse, 
 sent to prisons, the mines, Siberia or the scafiold. 
 The fight between Tsardom and the spirit of 
 freedom became an open one. It was a fierce and 
 bitter struggle, a struggle to the death. Many 
 brave spirits disappeared and were swallowed up 
 
208 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 by the revenge of autocracy, in the desperate 
 efforts it made to continue its existence. 
 
 Valerian Ossinski died on the gallows at Kiev 
 on May 14th (26th), 1879. Then the revolutionary 
 camp split into two parties ; the organisation 
 Semlya i Volya divided into two distinct 
 sections : the Terrorists and the Social Federal- 
 ists. The former founded the Narodnaya Volya 
 (The Will of the People) organisation ; these 
 aimed at carrying terrorism to its very utmost. 
 The latter, with their organ, Tshornyi Peredel, 
 Black Division, w^ere more inclined towards again 
 attempting socialist propaganda. They proposed 
 to form the rural population into a sort of Irish 
 Land League and thus exercise pressure upon the 
 authorities and bring about a social upheaval and 
 transform Russia into a Federated Republic. 
 The terrorists had the upper hand ; passion always 
 triumphs over words of moderation. Besides, the 
 terrorists declared that as soon as the then State 
 was overthrown, they would again become simple, 
 peaceful socialist reformers. This they honestly 
 meant, but, nevertheless, they were mistaken in 
 their estimate of themselves. The venom out- 
 lives the serpent. 
 
 It is always wrong to employ terrorist methods 
 for peaceful purposes. Even Governments have 
 made this mistake. They imagine that they may 
 with impunity preach hate and destruction, and 
 still have the power suddenly to say : Stop ! it is 
 enough ; now it is time to love ! Once humanity 
 has grown accustomed to hating, it cannot learn 
 overnight to love what it has well hated. The 
 feeling of hate will take long to make way for that 
 of love. Once the powers, the passions, are let 
 
n B 
 
 O g 
 
 o 
 
 
 oo 
 O 
 &4 
 
REACTION AND TERRORISM 209 
 
 loose, it is not so easy to control them again ; if 
 they find nothing of the old, hated order to des- 
 troy, they will set to work against the new : the 
 feeling of destruction is so powerful. The present 
 state in Russia and the present war well illustrate 
 this. 
 
 Congresses of delegates of the two parties were 
 convened at Lipetsk and Voronezh ; among others 
 Mikhailov, Zhelyabov, Tikhomirov, Fomenko, 
 Shiriaev, Goldenberg, Sophie Perovskaja and Vera 
 Figncr attended them. The Narodnaya Volya 
 became the recognised organ, and an executive 
 committee of the revolutionaries was appointed ; 
 this was a secret organisation, reminding one of 
 the ancient Venetian Republic. The programme 
 of Lipetsk was as follows : Universal suffrage, 
 freedom of conscience, of press and of meeting ; 
 permanent national representative assembly ; abo- 
 lition of standing army ; self-government and 
 autonomy of communities ; the entire land to be 
 divided among the peasants and the factories 
 among the workers. As Alexander did not seem 
 inclined to realise this programme, the committee 
 condemned him to death on August 26th, 1879. 
 
 It was a desperate, let us even say, a wrong 
 step, but it was the logical outcome, the logical 
 result of the idea, of the spirit of revolt in Russia 
 that Alexander was endeavouring to crush. It 
 was war ; the belligerents were seeking each 
 other's downfall. The fight was not in secret but 
 in the open. Both belligerents, Tsardom and the 
 spirit of revolution, availed themselves of the 
 weapons at their disposal. If Tsardom has a 
 right, said the revolutiona^ries, to send our men, 
 women, and soldiers to the mines, the dry guillo- 
 
 14 
 
210 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 tine, or to the scaffold, we, too, have the right to 
 fight Tsardom and legally declare war upon it. 
 If we are not allowed to make our demands publicly, 
 to plead for democracy openly in legislative 
 assemblies, in parliaments and senates, to criticise 
 the Government and call upon it to answer, if we 
 are muzzled and throttled, then we are in a state 
 of self-defence. The man attacked by evildoers 
 who intend not only to rob but also to kill him, 
 can he stop to consider the delicacies of conscience 
 and scruple about the choice of a weapon with 
 which to defend himself ? He can only seize 
 whatever falls into his hand with which to defend 
 his life and his property. What we are doing is 
 not planned murder ; it is legitimate, legalised 
 war : war that all society and moralists heartily 
 approve of. If, when I kill the enemy of my 
 country I am called a patriot and a hero ; if by 
 shooting the general of a hostile army, I do an 
 act that my compatriots will applaud and history 
 record among the glorious deeds of man, then, 
 since the Tsar is not only my enemy but also that 
 of my country and of my people, and he refuses 
 to fight with me on an equal footing, I am justified 
 in choosing my own weapons against him. Such 
 were the reassuring arguments of the Committee 
 of Terrorism, and it must be admitted that they 
 were based upon the morality and ethics taught 
 and practised by society then as now. 
 
 The active revolutionaries found many sup- 
 porters among the members of the aristocracy and 
 the minor officials Avho either could not, or would 
 not, themselves take an active part in the revo- 
 lution, but who yet sympathised with the move- 
 ment. These were called the " Oukrivateli," or 
 
REACTION AND TERRORISM 211 
 
 hiders. This shows how the spirit of revolt was 
 advancing. Thus the illegal government, as the 
 revolutionary committee was called, found helpers 
 and adherents among the employees of the legal 
 government. Officers and even police officials 
 lent them a helping hand. The culminating point 
 of the Narodnaya Volya w^as reached on March 1st 
 (13th), 1881, when Alexander was assassinated by 
 a bomb thrown by Grinetzky. Five revolution- 
 aries, the agcomplices of the regicide, namely, 
 Zhelyabov, Mikhailov, Kibaltshitsh, Ryssakov and 
 Sophie Perovskaya, were condemned to death and 
 hanged on April 3rd (15th). Jesse Helfmann, being 
 enceinte, was spared. But the spirit of revolt 
 did not die upon the gallows with the regicides. 
 It merely fluttered forth in search of a new^ home- 
 stead. The next day the committee addressed a 
 missive to the new Tsar, Alexander III, in w^hich 
 they told him that the events of March 1st had 
 not been unpremeditated, and called upon him 
 to take the tragedy to heart and to read the mene, 
 tekel which the spirit of revolt was writing with 
 letters of blood upon the walls of Tsardom. 
 
 " You may rest assured. Sire," wrote the mem- 
 bers of the secret committee to Alexander III, 
 " that on the day on which the supreme power 
 ceases to be autocratic, on which you will firmly 
 decide to listen to what the conscience and the 
 will of the people are dictating to you, on that 
 day you will be able to free the streets of your 
 spies who are a dishonour to the Government ; you 
 will be able to leave your escorts in their barracks 
 and uproot your gallows that demoralise the 
 people. Once these conditions are realised, then 
 a peaceful conflict of ideas will take the place of 
 
212 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 the present violence, which, incidentally, we abhor 
 even more than your servants, and which necessity 
 and circumstances alone have forced us to use." 
 Terrorism was only a means, a weapon w^hich a 
 peaceful man vfielded against his foe ; it was the 
 war of the oppressed, the invaded against the in- 
 vader. The peaceful invaded hates war and its 
 awful horrors, but the brutal invader leaves him 
 no choice. Such was the philosophy of the Ter- 
 rorists. 
 
 Alexander answered the challenge by entrust- 
 ing the famous and ferocious Ignatiev with the 
 power to suppress revolution without pity. Every 
 kind of propaganda was then forbidden by the 
 Government of Russia. The fighters for political 
 freedom were at once imprisoned, sent to Siberia, 
 to the mines ; all without any form of trial by 
 jury or judgment. Many a young boy or girl 
 suddenly disappeared, and when their heartbroken 
 parents inquired concerning the fate of their chil- 
 dren, they were advised by the minions who 
 watched over the safety of the autocrat to stop 
 their researches. Their son or daughter had disap- 
 peared, voild tout. However, numbers of the 
 accused were granted a semblance of a trial before 
 a jury who had been commanded to condemn the 
 prisonei'. Unhappy boys and girls were sentenced 
 to death, or to penal servitude for life, for the sole 
 crime of having distributed proclamations. Very 
 often the accusation was utterly false ; it had 
 only been a simple daily paper that the prisoner 
 had handed to some soldier who had asked for 
 it. The following story, one out of hundreds, 
 typifies the system employed during the reign of 
 Alexander III. 
 
REACTION AND TERRORISM 218 
 
 Vanya Disappears 
 
 It was a beautiful day and the sun was shining 
 brightly when the student Vanya went out for a 
 stroll on the Nevski Prospect. Spring was out- 
 side, but not in the heart of Vanya. Neither the 
 glorious weather nor the song of the birds could 
 gladden the heart of the youth of twenty nor 
 dispel his gloomy thoughts. He was sad and his 
 heart was heavy. On the previous evening several 
 of his comrades, boys and girls, dreamers of free- 
 dom, had been arrested by the police, the slaves 
 of autocracy ; they had been dragged away to 
 prison, thence to the casemates and cells of the 
 Russian Bastille. Despair was in Vanya' s heart ; 
 for him nature was shrouded in a veil of unutter- 
 able sadness and hopelessness. 
 
 Aimlessly he strolled along the boulevard, bought 
 a copy of The Russian Thought {Rousskaya Myslj) 
 and sat down on a bench. The paper did not 
 cheer him ; the leading article spoke of many 
 arrests, and the name of a certain Colonel Lotov 
 was mentioned several times. With a sinking 
 heart Vanya read of the various cruel punishments 
 meted out to the political prisoners. He thought 
 he would smoke a cigarette, but found that he 
 had no matches. Looking round he noticed two 
 young soldiers standing at the gate of the barracks 
 near, so he went to them and asked if they could 
 give him a light. One of the soldiers handed 
 Vanya his matchbox, then seeing the newspaper, 
 asked if he might borrow it for a few moments 
 to read. 
 
 " Ah, so you are able to read?" said Vanya. 
 
 *' To read and to write," proudly replied the 
 
214 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 soldier; "he cannot though," he added, pointing 
 to his companion, " but we are both glad to learn 
 what is happening in the world." 
 
 " Take it," said Vanya, handing the paper to 
 the soldier, " but, alas, there is no news except 
 that of bloodshed, punishments and murders." 
 
 " Yes," said the soldiers, " these are difficult 
 times." 
 
 " Very difficult indeed," replied Vanya. " You, 
 for instance, does it make you happy when you 
 are ordered to shoot your fellow men ? What 
 horror ! " 
 
 At this moment the student was brutally inter- 
 rupted by a sergeant who suddenly emerged from 
 behind the gate. ' 
 
 " How dare you speak to the soldiers ? " he 
 shouted. " I see what you are up to." Turning 
 to the soldier he snatched the newspaper out of 
 his hand, examined it, and then scrutinised Vanya, 
 who stood there smiling. 
 
 " Call the officer on guard," the sergeant sud- 
 denly commanded one of the soldiers. 
 
 Vanya was still smiling. " Why are you so 
 angry ? '* he queried innocently. " I have done 
 nothing. I only gave my newspaper to the soldier 
 to read. Is that forbidden ? " 
 
 " You will know soon enough," began the ser- 
 geant, and then suddenly stood rigid. 
 
 The colonel was approaching. 
 
 " What's the matter ? " asked the latter, look- 
 ing severely at the group. 
 
 " I have caught an agitator," reported the ser- 
 geant. " I heard him ask one of the soldiers for 
 a match, and then, after entering into conversa- 
 tion with them, reproach them for shooting at 
 
 I 
 
(( 
 (( 
 
 REACTION AND TERRORISM 215 
 
 revolutionaries. He has even done more, he 
 handed a proclamation to the soldiers," 
 
 Vanya was surprised. 
 
 "What proclamation ? " he protested ; " it was 
 only a newspaper which I had just bought." 
 
 " We asked him for some paper," one soldier 
 ventured to explain, " in which to roll up some 
 cigarettes." 
 
 They were evidently afraid to admit that one 
 was able to read and write. 
 
 You be quiet," thundered the sergeant. 
 What newspaper was it ? " queried the 
 colonel. 
 
 " The Russian Thought,''* replied Vanya. 
 
 The colonel cast a glance over the paper, then 
 commanded briefly : 
 
 " Take him to the guard room ; I shall soon 
 follow." 
 
 Vanya did not understand. *' But what have 
 I done ? " he stammered. 
 
 " You had better go quietly or else you will be 
 taken by force," was the only reply he received 
 to his question. 
 
 He was led away, and in the guard room was 
 questioned by the colonel. 
 
 " I could hand you over to the police for agitating 
 among the soldiers and troubling discipline, but 
 I shall not do so," said Colonel Lotov, for it was 
 none other, and he smiled ominously. 
 
 Colonel Lotov v/as a zealous servant of auto- 
 cracy and notorious for the promptitude with 
 which he executed orders received from high 
 quarters. More than once he had been ordered 
 to pacify some revolted districts, and he had 
 pacified them in his own way. He had been told 
 
216 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 not to spare, and he had not spared ; he was a 
 faithful servant. His soldiers called him the 
 Butcher among themselves, but the colonel looked 
 upon himself as an ordinary upholder of discip- 
 line and order. Well, here was a young man who 
 had dared to hand a paper to his soldiers, a paper 
 in which some scribe had dared to criticise him, 
 Colonel Lotov. How gladly he would have 
 ordered his soldiers to direct their machine-guns 
 against all newspaper offices, but the higher 
 spheres had not yet issued such an order. What 
 a pity ! 
 
 " Is this your paper ? " he asked Vanya. 
 
 " Yes," quietly replied the student. 
 
 " Do you know its contents ? " 
 
 " Yes." 
 
 " Then how dared you offer it to my soldiers 
 and let them read these criticisms against me, 
 their colonel ? " 
 
 " I did not know your name was Lotov. I did 
 not know to what regiment the soldiers belonged. 
 It is a mere coincidence." 
 
 " Lies ! " thundered the colonel. " Now I 
 could treat you as an agitator and hand you over 
 to the police, but," and again Colonel Lotov 
 smiled his ominous smile, " I shall treat you like 
 a naughty school boy." 
 
 " Bring the lash," he ordered, turning to his 
 orderly. 
 
 Vanya was no longer smiling ; he was boiling 
 with indignation. 
 
 How dare you ? " he cried. 
 You will soon know how I dare," replied 
 Lotov. '' The lash, I say," he commanded again; 
 "" hurry." 
 
 
REACTION AND TERRORISM 217 
 
 The vein on his forehead was visibly swelling ; 
 his soldiers knew what it meant. 
 
 Vanya dragged himself along, stealthily, like a 
 criminal hiding from men ; he dared not return 
 to his lodgings. There was but one human being 
 whom he could face now ; that was his friend 
 Sergey. He stumbled into Sergey's room and, 
 falling on his friend's neck, uttered a piercing cry, 
 the cry of a hunted animal. 
 
 " I have been horsewhipped I '* 
 
 A week elapsed. Colonel Lotov had already 
 forgotten the adventure ; he was in a good 
 humour. Everything was going well with him ; 
 order and obedience reigned everywhere ; his 
 wife and children, his servants, his subordinates, 
 not to speak of his soldiers, all were showing the 
 proper spirit of submission. Only that morning 
 he had punished his son, and the latter had humbly 
 begged for forgiveness and promised to obey in 
 future. Lotov had also boxed the ears of his 
 orderly and asked him whether he realised that 
 he was a fool. 
 
 " Yes, your honour is right," the latter had 
 submissively answered. 
 
 Colonel Lotov walked along proudly, as befitted 
 a man who had done his full duty. He had ren- 
 dered valuable services to the autocratic and 
 bureaucratic regime and he was expecting some 
 signal reward for his zeal. Suddenly a young 
 man, haggard and pale, barred his way. 
 
 " I have seen him somewhere," thought Colonel 
 Lotov, but he did not recognise in the haggard 
 and pale-faced individual, whose eyes were so 
 
218 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 threatening, the rosy-cheeked student whom he 
 had ordered to be whipped but a week ago. 
 
 " Colonel Lotov," cried Vanya, " your day will 
 come, the day when Russia's Lotovs will pay the 
 penalty of their crimes, but, for the present, take 
 this on account," and he boxed the ears of the 
 astounded colonel and disappeared before Lotov 
 could stop him. 
 
 Vanya became a revolutionary. He distributed 
 proclamations among the soldiers and spoke to 
 them of their real duty, their duty to the suffering 
 masses. One evening a secret meeting was held 
 in some back room; the police made a raid and 
 arrested all present, among them Vanya. The 
 student disappeared and was dead to the world. 
 
 Far away, in a small provincial town in the 
 government of Saratov, a poor, lonely woman 
 paced her room restlessly. From time to time she 
 approached the window and looked out, anxious 
 to catch sight of the postman. She was expecting 
 a letter from her dear boy away in the capital. 
 
 " Strange," she murmured, " Vanya has not 
 written for weeks. He must be ill," thought the 
 mother in despair. Then suddenly a dread thought 
 flashed through her brain ; her heart stood still, 
 her very blood seemed to freeze. Had not her 
 nephew Polivanov had an affair ? And it was 
 only years afterwards that her brother had learned 
 that his boy was still alive in Schluesselburg, but 
 the poor heartbroken father was allowed to die 
 without seeing his son. 
 
 With a mother's instinct Vanya' s mother guessed 
 the cause of her son's silence. He was dead, dead 
 to her and to the world. Somewhere he w^as 
 
REACTION AND TERRORISM 219 
 
 stretching out his arms to her, calling to her, but 
 she was helpless to aid him. There was no mercy 
 shown to political prisoners at the throne of the 
 Tsar. There was the sound of a fall, and when 
 the servant rushed in she found the old woman 
 in a swoon on the floor. 
 
 When the unhappy mother recovered and was 
 able to travel, she at once left for the capital. 
 Alas, her efforts, her supplications, her tears were 
 futile. Vanya had disappeared. It was montlis 
 afterwards that she learned from an oflicial whom 
 she had heavily bribed that her son was still alive. 
 
 " But," added her benefactor, " take my advice, 
 do not inquire further after your son ; go home 
 and forget him. The higher spheres might resent 
 your insistence ; they do not like to be reminded 
 of the fact that there are such things as oubliettes 
 and bastilles in Russia." 
 
 This story was told to me one day in the Caf^ 
 de la Regence, while outside an enthusiastic crowd 
 was cheering " Le Tsar blanc ! " 
 
 For generations, oceans of tears, oceans of blood 
 have been shed by Russian mothers, tears for 
 which autocracy has been responsible. Numerous 
 Russian mothers are once m.ore shedding tears, 
 but now they are tears of joy, for no longer will 
 their boys and girls be hurled into the casemates 
 of autocracy's bastilles, the fortresses of Petro- 
 pavlovsk and Schluesselburg, there to die, commit 
 suicide or lose their reason. The dav of freedom 
 has broken at last. 
 
 Death and penal servitude were the mild punish- 
 ments which Tsardom meted out to its enemies. 
 In its refined cruelty, Autocracy conceived of 
 
220 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 solitary confinement. It was a slow, gradual 
 death that drove its victims to despair. The 
 bastilles into which the Tsars used to throw their 
 enemies were, at first, the fortresses of St. Peter 
 and St. Paul — oh, apostles of the religion of love, 
 what a mockery of your teaching ! — and then the 
 famous fortress of Schluesselburg. In the case- 
 mates of Schluesselburg, in its living tombs, the 
 " politicals " passed their unfortunate lives, dead 
 to the world. The names and memoirs of the 
 prisoners of the Russian bastilles would fill 
 volumes. At random, let me mention the names 
 of a few of the pioneers of Russian freedom in its 
 struggle against autocracy. 
 
 The daily papers have mentioned that among 
 those who went to the Taurida Palace to applaud 
 the Russian Revolution and to rejoice over the 
 downfall of Tsardom, was an old man, Herman 
 Lopatin. Lopatin was one of the victims of the 
 regime of autocracy — one of the lucky victims, for 
 he has lived to see the triumph of liberty and the 
 defeat of oppression. He is one of the few sur- 
 vivors of that glorious epoch when thousands of 
 Russian boys and girls fought and suffered and 
 died for freedom. Many of Lopatin' s comrades 
 went to an early grave, and only their shades now 
 see with grim satisfaction the tragedy of the house 
 of Romanov. 
 
 Herman Lopatin was born in 1845, and belongs 
 to a noble Russian family. He studied at the 
 Gymnasium (Grammar School) of Stavropol, and 
 then entered the University of St. Petersburg, 
 where he took his degree in 1866 with a treatise 
 on biology. A scientific career was open to the 
 young savant, but his ardent nature craved for a 
 
REACTION AND TERRORISM 221 
 
 life of action and endeavour. Garibaldi had just 
 then unfurled the banner of revolt, so Lopatin 
 went to Italy to join his movement for freedom. 
 But he arrived too late, for Garibaldi had already 
 been made a prisoner (November 15th, 1867). 
 Lopatin then returned to Russia, where he became 
 a member of a society formed to teach the moujiks 
 to read and write. Lopatin was arrested, for 
 to spread instruction among the ignorant peas- 
 ants was a crime under the rule of autocracy. 
 He escaped however, and reached Paris in 1870. 
 From Paris he went to London, where he met Karl 
 Marx and Frederick Engels. It was while in 
 London that he translated Marx's famous work, 
 Das Capital, into Russian. 
 
 Suddenly, the young revolutionary disappeared. 
 Whither had he gone ? His friends soon learned 
 where. The Russian revolutionary movement at 
 that time had no leader, no competent chief ; there 
 was but one man who could have taken up the 
 reins of leadership : Nicholas Tshernyshevski. 
 Nicholas Tshernyshevski, however, was exiled in 
 Siberia, sent there by Tsardom. Lopatin had 
 conceived the daring plan of attempting to liberate 
 the leader from captivity and bring him out of 
 Russia where he would be safe. He arrived at 
 Irkutsk, and was on the very point of realising his 
 daring project, but — the servants of autocracy 
 were not easily caught napping. An agent of the 
 Russian secret police in Geneva wired to his head- 
 quarters in Russia that Lopatin was in Siberia 
 to help Tshernyshevski to escape. Autocracy 
 was alarmed. Lopatin was arrested at Irkutsk 
 and remained in prison for fully three years. Then, 
 with a daring and courage that would scarcely 
 
222 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 find their equal in the annals of famous prison 
 escapes, he managed to regain his freedom, and, 
 after many vicissitudes and dangers, arrived at 
 Tomsk. He was arrested once more and taken 
 back to Irkutsk. Here, while he was in the pri- 
 vate room of the judge, through the open window 
 he saw a horse waiting for him. To jump through 
 the window and mount the horse was the work of 
 a moment, and before the astonished judge could 
 call for help, Lopatin had galloped safely away. 
 Disguised in the garb of a peasant he arrived at 
 St. Petersburg, and thence proceeded to Zurich, 
 where he collaborated with Lavrov in the review 
 Forwards. 
 
 It was dangerous for Lopatin to return to Russia, 
 but nevertheless, for the sake of the cause, he did 
 so. He was tracked by an agent of the secret 
 police and again arrested. Once more he escaped, 
 and reached Paris in 1883. Here he became one 
 of the most active members of the party " Narod- 
 naya Volya " (The Will of the People), and a con- 
 tributor to their organ, the Messenger of the Will 
 of the People. 
 
 Few men would again have dared to return to 
 Russia, but the good of the cause demanded it, so 
 Lopatin did not hesitate to place his head in the 
 lion's mouth. He was arrested for the last time 
 in October 1884, and remained in prison for three 
 years before he was tried. On June 17th, 1887, 
 Lopatin was condemned to death, as were also 
 his colleagues, Salova, Soukhomlin, Henriette Do- 
 brushkin, Sergius Ivanov and the famous poet 
 Yakubovitsh. In his great clemency, the Tsar 
 commuted the death-penalty into that of penal 
 servitude for a time, to be followed by perpetual 
 
REACTION AND TERRORISM 223 
 
 solitary confinement in the fortress of Schluessel- 
 burg. 
 
 The fortress of Schluesselburg is situated at a 
 distance of about fifty-four versts from Petrograd, 
 on an island of the Lake Ladoga. If walls could 
 speak, what terrible tales those of Schluesselburg 
 could tell ! They have heard the cries of agony 
 of the victims of autocracy and witnessed scenes of 
 unspeakable horror. Schluesselburg was the living 
 tomb where the fighters for freedom passed their 
 unhappy days, dead to the outside world. The 
 prison of Schluesselburg was built in 1883, during 
 the reign of Alexander III, father of the ex-Tsar 
 Nicholas II, and received its first inmates and 
 guests in August 1884. Within its w^alls, from 
 1884 to 1905, it harboured sixty-seven politicals, 
 among them the famous Vera Figner and Ger- 
 shuni. Thirteen of the prisoners were executed, 
 three committed suicide — Klimenko, Gratshevsky, 
 and ^Mlle. Sophie Ginsburg — and sixteen died in an 
 access of insanity. 
 
 Herman Lopatin, whose spirit, in spite of the 
 years passed in the casemates of the Russian bas- 
 tille, was still undaunted, was one of the eight 
 prisoners liberated in 1905 during the short-lived 
 revolutionary triumph. The veteran fighter is 
 but one of the thousands who have sufiered for 
 freedom. The road to Russian liberty is strewn 
 with the numerous graves of the heroes and heroines 
 who have fallen in the sacred cause, the graves 
 of poets, philosophers and dreamers, of men of 
 thought and of action. Like the heroes of ancient 
 Sparta, their spirits will call to future travellers 
 in a free Russia : " Stranger, tell them at Moscow 
 and at Petrograd, at Pskov and at Kiev, that we 
 
224 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 died because we loved our country and liberty. We 
 fell victims to the cruelty of Tsardom and bureau- 
 cracy. Tell them to cherish the newly won freedom 
 and to swear vengeance on all tyrants, autocrats 
 and oppressors, be their names Romanov, Haps- 
 burg or HohenzoUern." 
 
 At first, the political prisoners were kept in 
 Petropavlovsk — the fortress of St. Peter and St. 
 Paul — and the portion which harboured them was 
 known as the " Ravelin of Alexis," or the Bastion 
 Troubetskoy. Why Ravelin of Alexis ? Because 
 it was here that Peter the Great imprisoned, tor- 
 tured and put to death his own son Alexis. It is 
 an oubliette far away from the world ; no noise 
 from without can enter or penetrate it. The cells 
 — nineteen in number — are scarcely aboye the water 
 level ; they are tombs, and when the Neva rises 
 many disappear. It was here that Princess 
 Tarakanov died. The Romanovs have often got 
 rid of their opponents in this way. One prisoner, 
 a lady — Yakinova — had a young baby but a few 
 months old, with her, and she had to be per- 
 petually on guard that the rats did not devour 
 the child. It was also in the Ravelin that Bakunin 
 was imprisoned. Out of the seven politicals im- 
 prisoned in the Ravelin in March 1882, five died 
 before two years were out. Many men, strong 
 and vigorous in health when imprisoned, suffered 
 terribly from various diseases ; some were unable 
 even to articulate one word when finally set free. 
 From Petropavlovsk the prisoners were taken 
 by boat to Schluesselburg ; the boat itself was a 
 floating tomb with cells. It was the custom to 
 seize the political prisoners, bandage their eyes 
 and carry them off in that helpless and terrifying 
 
o 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 H 
 
 P3 
 iJ 
 K 
 
 O} 
 
 W 
 P 
 Hi 
 K 
 o 
 
 ■M 
 
REACTION AND TERRORISM 225 
 
 condition : they had no idea whither they were 
 being taken, and often imagined that they were 
 to be drowned. One of the most terrible punish- 
 ments, worse than the ill-treatment, bad food, 
 privation of freedom, etc., was the silence and in- 
 activity to which the criminals were condemned. 
 This awful silence of the tomb I — " By order of 
 the Tsar" — no right to speak, even half-aloud ! 
 and if they dared to speak, the jailers had no right 
 to reply. 
 
 " You have no right to speak to the jailers," 
 said the prison director to one political; "they are 
 all mute ; I alone here am allowed to speak." 
 
 Silence, inactivity, isolation ! Such was the 
 punishment meted out to the opponents of auto- 
 cracy. The prisoner was dead ; not even his parents 
 had a right to inquire after him. The father of 
 Konashevitsh died many years after his son had 
 disappeared, not knowing where his boy was, or 
 even if he were still alive. Sometimes, by means 
 of long research and much bribery, parents would 
 obtain the knowledge that " Your son is still 
 alive." 
 
 When the prisoners cried out in their agony, 
 they were dragged away to a distant cell. If the 
 comrades who heard the cries protested, or even 
 inquired, they were rudely told not to inquire or 
 care about others: "There are no others; here 
 you are alone." 
 
 Bogdanovitsh, one of the political prisoners, was 
 dying of phthisis ; the cell near his being empty, 
 Vera Figner asked to be transferred to it. By 
 means of knocks she hoped to let him know that 
 there was another human being in the world, 
 there was a friend, a comrade near him. Her 
 
 15J 
 
226 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 request was refused, and Bogdanovitsh died alone. 
 At last, in 1896, it was graciously granted to 
 '* the others " that they might be present when a 
 comrade died. 
 
 Many of the prisoners committed suicide. Grat- 
 shevsky soaked his mattress in petrol and burned 
 himself alive. One can imagine what tortures he 
 must have suffered to have preferred such a 
 death. Sophie Ginsburg cut her throat with an 
 old and rusty pair of scissors. Arontshik was one 
 of those who lost his reason. Vera Figner and 
 Wolkenstein, the two lady prisoners, had some 
 small privileges granted them. They received a 
 little milk and sugar. For hours they would hold 
 the cup of milk with the sugar in it over their 
 lamps in order to make a kind of sweet known as 
 tianoutshki, which they then smuggled in to some - 
 of their comrades. Their crime was eventually 
 discovered and the sweets were confiscated. 
 
 It is a strange coincidence that Goremykin, who 
 is a prisoner in Schluesselburg and who is said to 
 have lost his reason, was in power when Konashe- 
 vitsh — a descendant of the famous hetman of 
 the Cossacks, Konashevitsh Zagaidatshny — and 
 Shtshevni were, though mad, imprisoned in 
 Schluesselburg ; one was there for seven and the 
 other for ten years before they were sent to a ' 
 lunatic asylum. 
 
 Amxong the sixty-seven political prisoners at 
 Schluesselburg from 1884 to 1905, five were sent 
 to a prison in Moscow and thirteen to Siberia. 
 Vera Figner, after twenty years of detention, was 
 deported to the province of Arkhangelsk in 1903. 
 Mme. Wolkenstein left the prison after thirteen 
 years' detention, but in 1906 was shot in the street 
 
REACTION AND TERRORISM 227 
 
 during a revolt at Vladivostock. When Polivanov 
 was freed from the prison after twenty years de- 
 tention, he said : "I am only twenty-four years 
 old." That had been his age when he was first 
 incarcerated. He committed suicide at Lorient 
 in France in 1903 ! 
 
 Such was the answer of Alexander III to the 
 letter addressed to him by the executive com- 
 mittee. His v/hole reign was a reign of silence and 
 terror. Autocracy vv^as confident, for it knew that 
 the Narodnaya had not the masses behind it. 
 While the members of the Narodnaya claimed that 
 they expressed the voice of the m.asses, autocracy 
 and its supporters maintained that Tsardom was 
 the expression and the very incarnation of the 
 Slavonic soul, that democracy was dangerous 
 and that autocracy alone was capable of furthering 
 the welfare of the people. Of course, both sides, 
 autocracy and the spirit of revolt, were, or pre- 
 tended to be, v,"orking in the interests of the people. 
 Among the supporters of autocracy and of the 
 policy of Alexander III one man deserves especial 
 mention : I refer to Pobiedonostzev. 
 
CHAPTER XI 
 
 THE JEWS AS PIONEERS OF THE RUSSIAN 
 
 REVOLUTION 
 
 Among the ethnic groups whose discontent and 
 opposition to Tsardom had necessarily reached 
 vast proportions, and who largely contributed to 
 the downfall of autocracy, is that of the Jew^s. To 
 a greater degree than the Poles, the Letts or Finns, 
 or, indeed, any other ethnic group in the vast 
 Empire of the Romanovs, they have been the 
 artisans of the Revolution of 1917. . The martyr- 
 ology of the so-called foreign races in Russia, 
 who, one must admit, have all been compelled to 
 bring their holocausts to the Moloch Tsardom, 
 cannot be compared to that of the Jews. The 
 persecutions, the marytrdom the Jewish race has 
 undergone in Russia is well known ; their " legal 
 sufferings," the vexatious laws promulgated against 
 them, the pogroms and massacres are still recent 
 liistory ; I hope that the memory of their suffer- 
 ings has not been wiped away by this world war 
 that is now raging over Europe, a war that is being 
 fought for the deliverance and the emancipation 
 of oppressed nationalities. Certainly the Jews of 
 Russia have a right, by suffering, to a place of honour 
 among the oppressed nationalities of the world. 
 
 It was but natural that the Jews should take a 
 prominent pai't in the movement of Russian 
 
 228 
 
THE JEWS AS PIONEERS 22d 
 
 liberation. When Professor Errera wrote that 
 few Jews could be found among the revolutionaries 
 in Russia, he was absolutely wrong. " Loin de 
 pouvoir accuser les Juifs russes d'etre revolution- 
 aires, on serait porte plutot k s'etonner de leur 
 resignation plus qu'evangelique, car il y a long- 
 temps que leur joue gauche comme leur joue droite, 
 a ete mcurtrie de soufflets." ^ To this statement 
 I cannot subscribe. On the contrary, I main- 
 tain that not only have the Jews of Russia good 
 and valid reasons to be on the side of the revolu- 
 tion, but that, in reality, they have contributed 
 individually and collectively, as an ethnic and 
 religious group, to the movement of emancipation 
 in Russia and to the triumph of democracy. Yet 
 Professor Errera' s opinion has for a long time 
 been accepted by many Jews, at least officially. 
 
 In W^estern Europe, Englishmen and French- 
 men of the Hebrew persuasion — as many sons of 
 Israel prefer to style themselves — have constantly 
 endeavoured to prove that their co-religionists in 
 Eastern Europe, and in all oppressed countries, 
 were very loyal subjects of their respective sove- 
 reigns, especially of Caesar-Nicholas II, that indeed 
 their love and affection for the house of Romanov 
 was unbounded. Certainly it is a noble act to 
 love one's enemies, but it is a form of nobility of 
 which one can accuse but very few men. It is 
 absurd to state as a fact that which our common 
 sense tells us must be false. I therefore unhesi- 
 tatingly affirm that it is not only inaccurate but 
 a gross calumny to declare that Russian Jews 
 took no share in the struggle of the Russian nation 
 against their autocratic Government. A people 
 
 * Cf. L. Errera, Les Juifs Busses, Bruxellea, 1893, p. 1-45. 
 
280 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 which for centuries has been systematically op- 
 pressed; tortured and massacred, must be either 
 devoid of all human feelings, or else be possessed 
 of truly angelic virtues, if it can, not only forgive, 
 but love its tormentors. And the Jews are cer- 
 tainly neither dull brutes nor angels. They are 
 quite human, for " Hath not a Jew eyes ? Hath 
 not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affec- 
 tions, passions ? Is he not troubled by the same 
 diseases, healed by the same methods, warmed 
 and cooled by the same v/inter and summer as is 
 a Christian ? If you prick us, do Vv^e not bleed ? 
 If you tickle us do we not laugh ? If you poison 
 us, do we not die ? And if you wrong us, shall we 
 not take revenge ? " 
 
 But with all respect to Shakespeare I do not 
 by any means attribute the revolt of the Russian 
 Jews against autocracy solely to the spirit of re- 
 venge, though this revenge-idea is upheld strongly 
 by several writers upon Russo-Jewish affairs. 
 Indeed, many seem to be of the opinion that the 
 Russian pogroms turned the Jews into revolu- 
 tionaries, flung them into the arms of democracy 
 and revolution. This I emphatically deny, and 
 my denial is based upon a thorough knowledge of 
 Jewish histor}^ and Jewish psychology. The Jew 
 does not call a cause just and right merely because 
 it is Ms cause, but, because he believes it to be 
 just and right, he makes it his cause and defends 
 it with all the ardour of his soul and, upon its altar, 
 sacrifices his material welfare.^ 
 
 In his excellent Vv^ork on the Empire of the 
 Tsars, Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu seems to incline 
 
 1 Many Jews are constantly claiming "Justice for the Jew," 
 but my own humble cry is simply, " The Jew for Justice." 
 
THE JEWS AS PIONEERS 231 
 
 towards the revenge-idea. "Is it the Polish 
 Jew," he wrote, " the Jew of Russia and Rou- 
 mania, who is the artisan of innovation ? Look at 
 him. Was it he who could have pushed the world 
 upon paths untrodden ? Is it he who could have 
 endangered the Austrian civilisation ? No," says 
 Leroy-Beaulieu, "it is the pogroms that have 
 made the Jew an opponent of autocracy, of Tsar- 
 dom, nothing else ; but for them the Russian 
 Jews would have shunned subversive movements 
 and all struggles for democracy. *I1 est pour 
 cela trop Juif, trop religieux, trop devot, trop 
 traditionnel, trop. conservateur en un mot.' " ^ 
 Thus the revolutionary tendencies of the Jews in 
 Russia are due only to the pogroms, to a spirit of 
 revenge against autocracy and Tsardom, otherwise 
 the religion and the conservative spirit of the Jews 
 would have prevented them joining the ranks of 
 democracy, the ranks of the pioneers of freedom. 
 With these ideas of the famous French author I 
 cannot agree. 
 
 Neither can I agree with M. AUemand, when 
 he states that apart from the pogroms which 
 stimulated the hatred of Tsardom amongst the 
 Jews, it is the weakening of the religious spirit 
 that has turned the sons of Israel into adherents 
 of socialism and democratic ideals. " In the 
 course of the nineteenth century the religious spirit 
 weakened among the Jews. They ceased to con- 
 sider the Talmud as their unique book. The Rabbi 
 was no longer their only oracle. The Jews no longer 
 looked upon their religion as a consolation ; they 
 therefore required a new faith." ^ This new faith 
 
 * Cf. Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu, Ejnpire des Tsars, Paris, p. 039. 
 2 Cf. L. AUemand, Les Soiiffrances des Juifs Busses, Paris, 1907. 
 
2S2 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 the Jew found in socialism. Thus M. Anatole Leroy- 
 Beaulieu is a partisan of the theory of revenge, 
 whilst M. Allemand upholds the idea of irreligion. 
 These theories of the eminent Christian writers, 
 both so thoroughly, whole-heartedly sympathetic 
 to the Jews, are, in my opinion, entirely wrong ; 
 they are based upon mistaken premises. The 
 Leitmotif of Jewish action is never revenge, with 
 all due respect to Shakespeare, but justice ; whilst 
 his religion has never prevented the Jew from 
 joining the ranks of the fighters for freedom, 
 equality and justice. These three principles are 
 the very quintessence of the Jewish religion, of 
 the Bible and the Talmud alike. It was not be- 
 cause Tsardom wronged him that the Jew was 
 against autocracy, but because Tsardom wronged 
 humanity. The real Jew, the Jew who is really 
 penetrated by the true spirit of Judaism, is always 
 on the side of the suffering and the oppressed ; he 
 has always been, and still is, an opponent of the 
 principle of the divine right of autocrats and 
 absolute monarchs, for the sovereign right of 
 nations is his ideal. He is always — I am speak- 
 ing of the real Jew, not of the Aryanised Jew 
 — on the side of the proletariat and Labour as 
 opposed to Capital, because Capital has made a 
 slave of Labour. It makes no difference to the 
 Jew — the Jew who is inspired by the teaching of 
 the Prophets — whether this capitalist be Christian 
 or Jewish. Now, in Russia, the Jews have been 
 on the side of the enemies of Tsardom for various 
 reasons, political, economic, religious and humani- 
 tarian. Let us first see which were, and are, 
 their own personal claims to emancipation and 
 full citizen rights. Could they expect any favour 
 
THE JEWS AS PIONEERS 233 
 
 from the rulers of the house of Holstein-Gottorp ? 
 The answer must certainly be in the negative. 
 
 The Russian Jews were justified in demanding 
 emancipation in the dominions of the Tsar. When 
 in the English Parliament Macaulay spoke in 
 favour of the Bill to abolish the disabilities fetter- 
 ing the Jews in England, he pointed out to its 
 opponents that there was nothing in the national 
 character of the Jews that would unfit them for 
 the highest duties of citizenship. " In the in- 
 fancy of civilisation,*' said the noble orator, 
 " when our island was as savage as New Guinea, 
 when letters and the arts were still unknown to 
 Athens, when scarcely a thatched hut stood on 
 what was later the site of Rome, this contemned 
 people had their fenced cities and cedar palaces, 
 their splendid Temple, their fleets of merchant 
 ships, their schools of sacred learning, their great 
 statesmen and soldiers, their natural philosophers, 
 their historians and their poets. What nation 
 ever contended more manfully against overwhelm- 
 ing odds for its independence and religion ? What 
 nation ever, in its last agonies, gave such signal 
 proofs of what may be accomplished by a brave 
 despair ? Let us open to them the door of the 
 House of Commons. Let us open to them every 
 career in which ability and energy can be dis- 
 played. Till we have done this, let us not pre- 
 sume to say that there is no genius among the 
 countrymen of Isaiah, no heroism among the 
 descendants of the Maccabees." 
 
 I hope that I shall be forgiven for the above 
 long quotation, but those words apply equally as 
 well to the Russian Jews as to their co-religionists 
 of eighty years ago. But if it had been Macaulay' s 
 
234 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 task to raise his voice to-day in defence of the 
 Russian Jews, he could have found much weightier 
 arguments to support the motion. Macaulay 
 could not say that the English Jews had been 
 established in the country long before the English- 
 men themselves ; that they had fought the battles 
 of Hastings and Agincourt ! It is true that, 
 according to William of Malmesbury, the Con- 
 queror brought some Jews from Rouen to England, 
 but, as is well known, all Jews were expelled from 
 England during the reign of Edward I in 1290. 
 And, as regards earlier times, there is not a shred 
 of evidence that any Jews had resided in England 
 previous to the Norman Conquest. 
 
 But it is not so in Russia. The Russian Jews 
 are amongst the most ancient inhabitants of the 
 Slavonic Empire. They were settled in the Crimea 
 as far back as the third century B.C. In conse- 
 quence of the economic and commercial expansion 
 that followed the conquests of Alexander the 
 Great in Asia, many Jews settled in the Greek 
 towns, especially in the ports. Therefore it was 
 somewhat ludicrous that the rulers of the house 
 of Hoist ein-Gottorp looked down upon, and des- 
 cribed as aliens and intruders, some of the most 
 ancient inhabitants of the country. In the 
 seventh century, a Finnish population, the Khazars, 
 was converted to the Mosaic faith ; the kingdom 
 of the Khazars existed until the end of the tenth 
 century, when it was destroyed by Sviatoslav, 
 Prince of Kiev. The vanquished Khazars fled to 
 the Crimea, where they intermingled with the 
 Jewish communities established there. Thus there 
 were Jews in Russia before the advent of Chris- 
 tianity, and certainly long before the Slavs adopted 
 
THE JEWS AS PIONEERS 285 
 
 the Christian teaching or the German Jews had 
 immigrated into Poland. These ancient Jewish 
 dwellers, before and after the conversion of the 
 population to Christianity, were not only engaged 
 in commercial pursuits, but exercised all the 
 industries of the other inhabitants. 
 
 From an ancient chronicle relating to the in- 
 vitation extended by the inhabitants of Kiev to 
 Vladimir Monomachus to accept the throne then 
 recently vacated by Sviatopolk, it is evident that 
 the Jews took an active part in the wars waged Igy 
 the various Slavonic princes. They w^ere to be 
 found in the different camps, taking arms for one 
 or the other ruler. The famous Russo- Jewish 
 orientalist Harkavy published some important 
 statements, from which we gather that there were 
 many Jews among the Cossacks when they began 
 to organise themselves in the sixteenth century. 
 Thus the Jews were then — as now — the brothers- 
 in-arms of the Slavs among whom they dwelt. 
 They shared their life and defended the common 
 cause for several centuries. Slav- and Jew fought 
 side by side, undertook military expeditions, or 
 defended the country against foreign invaders. 
 The greatest proof that the Jews shared, with 
 their Slavonic fellow-citizens, the hardships of war 
 and took part in the strifes of the inhabitants 
 of Moscovy, lies in the fact that they were to be 
 found among the prisoners of war. 
 
 From a document quoted by a foremost authority 
 on the subject, M. N. Gradovsky, and dated 1655, 
 it is evident that under the reign of Tsar Alexis 
 Mikhailovitsh, during the war with Poland, there 
 were Jewish soldiers among the Lithuanian 
 prisoners sent to Kaluga. None of these docu- 
 
286 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 ments concerning the Jews of ancient Russia bear 
 any trace of there having been any restrictive 
 laws against them. They enjoyed equal civil and 
 political rights with their fellow citizens, and it 
 is worthy of note that during the period of the 
 Mongol dominion their situation remained un- 
 changed. The Jews of ancient Lithuania and 
 Russia, like their co-religionists in Western Europe, 
 although remaining faithful to their religion, were 
 to all intents and purposes Slavs. They had as- 
 similated themselves to such an extent that they 
 spoke the language and bore Slavonic names. 
 
 " The Russian Slavs," writes Gradovsky, **had 
 entered into relationship with the Jews long before 
 the Slavs of Poland, and, being of a more tolerant 
 disposition in religious matters, treasured them as 
 their fellow citizens, whilst the Jews, on the other 
 hand, saw no reason, in spite of their observance of 
 the law of the Talmud, to keep aloof." 
 
 All was changed however with the accession of 
 the Romanovs, especially when Poland was prac- 
 tically swallowed up by the Russian Empire. 
 The Romanovs have always, with but few excep- 
 tions, followed a hostile policy with regard to the 
 Jews. The Ukraine fell under the sway of Mos- 
 cow during the reign of Tsar Fedor Alexeievitsh 
 Romanov, and then the numerous Jews who 
 lived there became the subjects of the Tsars. Al- 
 though they had enjoyed equal rights with their 
 fellow citizens under the rule of the Polish kings, 
 they were at once treated as strangers and aliens 
 by the Tsar of Moscow. Restrictive laws and 
 measures against the Jew^s became the order of 
 the day. Whilst the first rays of liberty and 
 emancipation w^ere tinting the dark sky of 
 
THE JEWS AS PIONEERS 287 
 
 mediaevalism, whilst a new day was slowly dawn- 
 ing upon the Europe of the eighteenth century, 
 the Russian Tsars busily engaged themselves 
 issuing ukases worthy of the darkest times of the 
 ignorant Middle Ages. Whilst the Renaissance, 
 the revival of classic learning, and the Reforma- 
 tion were slowly helping to dissolve the veil of the 
 barbarian days, the veil woven by illusion, super- 
 stition, and fanaticism, whilst Western thought 
 was gradually emancipating itself from the old 
 ecclesiastical shackles, Tsardom vainly pursued 
 the phantom of a unity of faith — the ancient 
 dream of Rome and Bvzantium. The final annexa- 
 tion of a portion of Poland in 1772 made a great 
 number of Jews Russian subjects, henceforward 
 to be treated as aliens and undesirables. 
 
 M. Gradovsky has endeavoured to prove that 
 Catherine II granted the Jews equal rights with 
 the other citizens of her Empire, but the Senate, 
 in spite of the Imperial ukase, adopted restrictive 
 measures against them. Gradovsky evidently 
 does not like admitting that the friend of Diderot 
 and D'Alembert could have been so unjust to 
 millions of her subjects. An impartial study 
 of history has, however, convinced me that it 
 was Catherine herself who inaugurated an era 
 of new persecutions against the Jews, an era 
 of severe laws, of a policy which was foUovv'ed 
 by all her successors upon the Russian throne, 
 excepting, perhaps, to some extent, Alexander II. 
 The ukase that definitely fixed the zone of resi- 
 dence of the Jews in the Russian Empire was 
 promulgated on June 24th, 1794.^ Catherine, the 
 
 ^ Cf. Leon Allemand, Le$ Sou§ranQes des Juifi %n Rutsie, 
 Paris, 1907, p. 49. 
 
238 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 friend of Diderot and Voltaire, who had flirted 
 with philosophy and literature, with the theories 
 of the Encyclopaedists and with themselves, with 
 the men and their doctrines, became a fervent 
 persecutor of the Jews in the interests of autocracy. 
 And yet she pretended, writes Allemand,^ that 
 Montesquieu's Esprit des Lois had inspired her 
 projects for a constitution ! But Catherine changed 
 her would-be— it had never been very real with 
 her — policy of tolerance as soon as the revolution 
 broke out. 
 
 The French Revolution made this Imperial 
 philosopher suddenly turn reactionary. The 
 French Revolution that proclaimed les droits de 
 rhdmme, the Revolution that threatened the 
 thrones of monarchs and autocrats, that opened 
 wide the doors to democratic and republican 
 principles : this revolution so disgusted her, 
 autocrat that she was at heart, that she beca,me 
 the violent enemy of any principle of freedom 
 and of all those who were, so to speak, the spirit 
 of democracy, of justice, equality and freedom 
 incarnate. The Revolution gave the Jews emanci- 
 pation and freedom, declared them to be men 
 and fellow citizens. The Jews had taken no part 
 in the French upheaval collectively, but the 
 Russian Empress was sufficiently well versed in 
 history and philosophy to understand what a 
 danger the Jews could be to autocracy or to 
 absolute monarchy, to Imperialism and the famous 
 Raison d'Etat policy upon which autocracy and 
 bureaucracy have, and still are, basing their 
 arbitrary and despotic measures, their secret 
 diplomacies and their wars of conquest and ex- 
 
 1 I.e., p. 50. 
 
THE JEWS AS PIONEERS 239 
 
 pansion. The Jewish sphit, allowed to develop 
 freely, could not but prove subversive of all these 
 feudal and mediaeval doetrines. The Empress 
 therefore decided that the Jewish spirit should be 
 crushed; all Israel's revolutionary tendencies 
 should be nipped in the bud. 
 
 Thus, in my opinion, Catherine II became a 
 Jew-hater, not only because, as Allemand states, 
 she did not wish to follow the liberal policy of revo- 
 lutionary France, and in any way seem to approve 
 of the principles of the Revolution,^ but beca,use 
 she was astute enough to understand that the 
 Jew emancipated would be even more dangerous 
 to autocracy than the Jew oppressed. The revo- 
 lutionary discontent of oppressed and enslaved 
 Jews would only be the revolt of slaves, whilst the 
 discontent of emancipated Jews, equal in rights 
 to their fellow citizens, would be the revolt of 
 free men. A revolution made by men. enjoying a 
 certain amount of rights and freedom, is vastly 
 more dangerous than a revolt of slaves, chiefly 
 because it is not inspired solely by motives of 
 envy and greed, but by an idea, by the principles 
 of justice and equality. 
 
 " En resum6,'* says another author, " 6, un cer- 
 tain moment elle prit peur, et pour accomplir 
 son metier d'Imperatrice elle cut rccours aux 
 mesures represeives. D^s I'aurore de la revolu- 
 tion elle avait dit adieu aux idees de liberte et de 
 tolerance, et elle. avait inaugure un regime de re- 
 action. Aussitot qu'elle sentit le peril pour son 
 Empire, elle redoubla de rigueur." * She knew 
 that the revolution was coming slowly but surely. 
 
 1 Cf. Allemand, p. 60. 
 
 2 Ch. de., Lariviere. Cath$rim le Grand, Paris, 1895, p. 186. 
 
240 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 Well might she exclaim : " De pareils d^sordfeS 
 sont impossible en Russie " ; well might she rely 
 upon the inertia of the masses, yet she felt that 
 the revolutionary ideas were but latent in the 
 land of her adoption, and that the throne she had 
 usurped would, sooner or later, totter to its fall. 
 Indeed, Vorontzov told her so in 1792. " La con- 
 tagion sera universelle. Notre ^loignement nous 
 garantira pour quelque temps ; nous serons les 
 derniers, mais nous serons aussi les victimes. 
 Notre tour viendra, plus tard, a cause de notre 
 eioignement, mais il viendra." ^ And like Voront- 
 zov and Kotshoubey, Catherine understood that 
 the French Revolution was not only French but 
 would spread over the world. She knew, too, that 
 the Russians rejoiced over the Revolution and 
 loudly proclaimed in the streets of Petrograd that 
 tyranny was now dead in France ! 
 
 Catherine II therefore became a reactionary. 
 She suppressed liberalism and Freemasonry in 
 Russia. She sent Novikov to Schluesselburg and 
 exiled Radishtshev, and last, but not least, she 
 inaugurated a new era of persecutions of the 
 Jews : not of the race but of the spirit. She felt 
 sure that the Jews, if they embraced Byzantine 
 Christianity, would become more submissive to 
 Coesarism ! And so all the Tsars believed ; these 
 ideas were philosophically explained by the 
 late Pobiedonostzev. But whatever motive the 
 Northern Semiramis had for her attitude towards 
 the Jews, she undoubtedly inaugurated a policy 
 of repression as far as they were concerned. From 
 that time the Jews were massed in the towns of 
 the Pale of Settlement, as in the mediaeval Ghettos, 
 
 1 Cf. Larividre, U., p. 190, 
 
Catherine II at the Time of the French Revolution, 
 
 240] 
 
THE JEWS AS PIONEERS 241 
 
 and all the restrictive laws passed against the 
 Jews by the Tsars during the nineteenth century 
 were based upon the ukase of Catherine. The life 
 of the Jews of Russia henceforth was a veritable 
 inferno. Prince Demidov San Donato has well 
 summed up their situation in the following lines : 
 
 '' They are placed on a footing of equality with 
 the other subjects of the Tsar as far as taxes and 
 duties are concerned, but are considered as aliens 
 with regard to civil and political rights. They 
 have all the burdens and responsibilities of the 
 commonwealth, but they neither share the privi- 
 leges nor do they enjoy the same protection of 
 the law as their fellow citizens.*' 
 
 For long the Jews of Russia looked to Western 
 Europe and their co-religionists to help them. 
 They hoped that succour would come from them. 
 They had evidently quite lost the sense of reality, 
 of topographical orientation, were merely con- 
 vinced that the sun of liberty would rise in the 
 West instead of the East. But the hopes of 
 Russian Jewry in this respect were frustrated. 
 Neither Western Europe, nor Western Jewry, in 
 spite of efforts made by those who were not 
 Zionists, for these practically impeded emancipa- 
 tion, brought any deliverance. In an able article 
 that serves as preface to M. Semenoff's book on 
 the pogroms, Mr. Lucien Wolf blames the attitude 
 of the Governments of Europe, and declares that 
 their attitude of complaisance made the pogroms 
 and oppression possible, and that their " blunted 
 moral sense has been a substantial encouragement 
 and help to these highly-placed massacre-mongers." 
 Far be it from me to pose as the advocate of the 
 very elastic moral conscience of Europe. Its 
 
 16 
 
242 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 moral indignation can so easily slip into tactful 
 passivity and a policy of laissez-faire. 
 
 The great indignation of Europe over the Congo 
 atrocities will be remembered by many ; the 
 pitiful tales of the cruelties practised created an 
 atmosphere akin to that which animated the days 
 of the Crusades. The number of people ready to 
 play Peter of Amiens was legion, and, finally, the 
 Congo atrocities proved too heavy a burden for 
 the European conscience. Yet when the Russian 
 moujiks, vodka-mad, committed dastardly crimes 
 and indescribable outrages, when the Cossacks, in 
 the name of the Tsar, let loose the tide of brutality 
 upon innocent men, women and children, Europe 
 merely replied that she had no right to interfere 
 in the internal affairs of a friendly Powder ! And 
 when a few quixotic members of the House of 
 Commons spoke against a tyrannical Government, 
 they were told to recollect themselves, were turned 
 out of the Legislative Assembly and advised to 
 give vent to their feelings in Trafalgar Square or 
 Hyde Park among the socialists, itinerant preachers, 
 religious cranks and suffragettes. How, indeed, 
 does the honour of young Russian girls, the misery 
 of cultured men slaving under the knout and 
 tortured in Siberia, and in narrow cells, compare 
 with that of the negroes ? Government could not 
 interfere in the one instance — it would have been 
 rnauvais ton — but in the other, it was a moral 
 duty, especially since the negroes were African, 
 for Nurse Europe looks upon herself as justified in 
 interfering in all African affairs. Long ago we 
 came to the conclusion that the European Powers 
 have a " Black and White " political conscience — 
 that is, one for the white races and one for the black 
 
THE JEWS AS PIONEERS 243 
 
 ones. The white men in the Empire of the Tsar, 
 or in Armenia, were supposed to be eompetent to 
 take care of themselves, but matters are different 
 where negroes are concerned ; they cannot. But 
 to-day the poHtical conscience seems to have 
 awakened to the needs of both races. 
 
 Yet if Europe was guilty, the Jews themselves 
 were not free of blame. Yes, the Jews themselves, 
 not so much, perhaps, those w^ho yearned to be 
 saved as those who played the saviours. The 
 Russian Jews, the majority of them in any case, 
 knew exactly what they wanted ; they showed it 
 by their actions ; they expressed it in unmistak- 
 able words. They demanded the abolition of all 
 restrictive laws ; they claimed equal rights with 
 their fellow-citizens, and they knew that as soon 
 as Russia became a free country they would, 
 sooner or later, obtain their emancipation. There- 
 fore they fought, in self-defence, against the auto- 
 cratic and bureaucratic regime. 
 
 When it was bruited that Bulygin wished to 
 deprive the Jews of the right of sending repre- 
 sentatives to the First Duma, the Jew^s raised a 
 vehement protest. They did more ; they erected 
 barricades. They protested and, bleeding from a 
 thousand wounds, they fought for liberty. And 
 if I may be allowed to tell the truth without 
 offending Western European Jews, I shall go 
 so far as to state that the Russian Jews have fought 
 much more ardently for their emancipation, and 
 certainly made greater sacrifices, than did their 
 more fortunate co-religionists in either France or 
 England. French Jews towards the end of the 
 eighteenth century had to meet the slight opposi- 
 tion of a Republican Government which, in itself, 
 
^44 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 was obliged to subscribe to the principles of 
 equality. Moreover, the Jews had great defenders, 
 tu^h as Abbe Gregoire and Mirabeau. The Eng- 
 lish Jews, who had a Macaulay to champion them, 
 had only to fight with an assembly of English 
 gentlemen, and, besides, were sure of the support 
 of the benevolent rulers of the House of Windsor, 
 though the bluff sailor King William seems to 
 have been antagonistic to the abolition of Jewish 
 disabilities. 
 
 Bvvt it was far otherwise in Russia. There were 
 but few Macaulays, no Abbe Gregoires, and if a 
 Herzenstein, a Kerensky, a Tshekheidze, a Milyoukov 
 raised their voices, they were either silenced by 
 murderous shots or cried in the wilderness. Be- 
 sides, the Romanovs were traditional enemies of 
 the Jews. Alexis Mikhailovitsh, the second ruler 
 of the house of Romanov, refused the request of 
 the King of Poland that his Jewish subjects should 
 be allowed to trade in Russia. And again, in 1749, 
 Elizabeth Petrovna, " la Catin du Nord," as 
 Frederick II called her, the libertine daughter of 
 Peter the Great, whose debaucheries are thoroughly 
 known, in a fit of pious horror expelled her phy- 
 sician Sanchez when she discovered that he was a 
 Jew. This same Imperial lady refused to grant 
 any privileges to her Jewish subjects, even though 
 they would increase the revenues of the State. 
 '* I refuse to derive any benefit from the enemies 
 of Christ," replied the daughter of the Livonian 
 servant, Catherine I. And as for Catherine II, 
 who, as some maintain, was the daughter of 
 Frederick II, we have seen that she inaugurated a 
 new era of persecution of the Russian Jews. 
 
 This hostility against the Jews was also in- 
 
THE JEWS AS PIONEERS 245 
 
 dulged in by Nicholas I, Alexander III and 
 Nicholas II. The obstacles which the Russian 
 Jews had to overcome were greater and more in- 
 surmountable than those against which the Wes- 
 tern Jews had to fight. The emancipation of the 
 latter was simply the logical sequence of the 
 general principle of equality of all the citizens 
 before the law. Western Jews obtained their 
 rights simply because they were lucky enough to 
 be living under the rule of humane kings and in 
 the midst of populations possessed by a sense of 
 justice. The Russian Jews, on the contrary, were 
 living among an oppressed people. 
 
 Certainly, judging by their efforts, the Russian 
 Jews have deserved freedom more than their more 
 fortunate Western brethren. The number of 
 Russian Jews who lost their lives in the struggle 
 for liberty, nay, even of those who fell on the barri- 
 cades of Lodz, is far greater than that of all the 
 martyrs w^ho fell on the barricades of Europe. 
 If liberty is bought with blood, then the Russian 
 Jews long ago paid their price in full. 
 
 The aims of Russian Jew^y w^ere quite clear and 
 defined : to settle the Jewish question in Russia 
 itself. But, unfortunately, the curse of the op- 
 pressed is alwaj^s the inconceivably large number 
 of their would-be saviours. It is really astonishing 
 how numerous these saviours become. The streets 
 of Jacob and the lanes of Israel are full of them. 
 One finds them in the East and one finds them in 
 the West ; they dwell in Brick Lane and they 
 reside in Park Lane. Brick Lane shrieked and 
 went into hysterics whenever a calamity occurred, 
 whilst Park Lane Jewry shivered in its patent- 
 leather boots and — ultimately — paid the expenses. 
 
246 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 But both the East and the West had, and still 
 have, one thing in common : that they both 
 committed the same errors, whether in sheer 
 ignorance or obstinacy, one cannot tell. 
 
 All these would-be saviours endeavoured to 
 settle the Jewish question in their own way with- 
 out in the least troubling themselves to consult 
 those whom it certainly most concerned: the 
 suffering Jewish masses in Russia. These saviours 
 of the Jews also scorned the idea of saving indi- 
 viduals when the opportunity offered. " What 
 are single individuals ? They do not count. We 
 want to save the millions," they cried, and the 
 natural result was that whilst the philanthropists 
 were discussing and scheming, and also plotting 
 and fighting among themselves, the masses were 
 left to themselves, and finally, growing weary of 
 waiting, decided to help themselves. It is, indeed, 
 almost inconceivable that, though so much time 
 and energy was spent by influential friends of the 
 Russian Jews in the West in an endeavour to find 
 a solution of the Jewish question by advocating 
 this or that scheme, practically nothing was done 
 to bring influence to bear upon the settlement of 
 the Jewish problem in Russia itself. That the 
 financiers of Europe could have influenced the 
 Government of the Tsar I have never had any 
 doubt. Such was the opinion of Stepniak and of 
 many leaders of the liberal movement in Russia. 
 As a rule, however, the Jewish financiers merely 
 replied that they did not control the money-markets 
 of the world to the extent that is usually imagined, 
 but surely, where there is a will, there is a way ! 
 
 This reminds me of an incident that happened 
 more than half a century ago. Alexander Herzen 
 
THE JEWS AS PIONEERS 247 
 
 was compelled, as we have seen, to leave Russia. 
 He fled to England, where he started his paper 
 The Bell. Herzen, however, was a rich man, and 
 before going into exile he had converted his pro- 
 perty into State bonds. The Russian Government 
 knew the numbers of Herzen' s bonds, so when they 
 were presented for payment, after Herzen' s arrival 
 in London, Nicholas I, in the hope of crushing his 
 enemy, gave orders that the State Bank of St. 
 Petersburg should refuse payment. The bank 
 naturally obeyed, but, fortunately for Herzen, he 
 found a champion in the elder Rothschild, who 
 informed the Tsar that as Herzen' s bonds were 
 as good as any other Russian bonds, he was com- 
 pelled to conclude the insolvency of the Russian 
 Government. Should the bonds not be paid 
 immediately, he would at once declare the Tsar 
 bankrupt on all the European money-markets. 
 Nicholas I was beaten ; he put his pride in his 
 pocket and paid. Herzen himself related this 
 story in The Bell, under the title of " King Roths- 
 child and Emperor Nicholas I." 
 
 There were plenty of kings in the monej'-markets 
 of the world, who, if they had but combined and 
 concentrated their eiiorts, could have forced 
 Nicholas II to waken to a sense of justice. But 
 they did not. Tant pis. Now, the Russian Jews 
 have obtained their emancipation by their own 
 efforts. They have fought heroically for their 
 liberty and New Russia will not forget their 
 sufferings or their sacrifices under the old regime ; 
 it will not forget that the Russian Jews have fought 
 with courage and perseverance for the liberation 
 of Russia from the yoke of tyranny and oppres- 
 sion. They have suffered exile and prison, soli- 
 
248 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 tary confinement, corporal punishment, Siberia, 
 the mines, the knout and the nagayka of the 
 Cossacks, but their revolutionary spirit could not 
 be crushed. They fought for their very lives. 
 Yet they simply asked to be treated as their co- 
 religionists in other countries—as human beings — 
 and to be permitted to enjoy the protection of the 
 same laws as their fellow citizens. They were 
 quite ready to obey those laws, to pay the taxes, 
 to do their full civic duty, to be faithful sons of 
 the fatherland, did it but grant them the rights 
 of children ; the child, beaten and tortured, can 
 scarcely be expected to love its heartless step- 
 mother or to wish her long life I 
 
 Even a glance at the history of the Liberal 
 movement in Russia will convince any one that 
 the struggle of the Jews, not only for their own 
 emancipation, but also for the freedom of Russia 
 and the Russian moujik, has been a very fierce and 
 bitter one. The annals of the fortresses of St. 
 Peter and St. Paul and of Schluesselburg, the Rus- 
 sian bastilles, contain many names of Jewish 
 martyrs who died for the sake of freedom. And 
 although Jewish revolutionaries were more heavily 
 punished than their orthodox colleagues, their 
 spirit was never daunted. " I have never heard," 
 wrote Stepniak, " that such punishment had pro- 
 duced any impression upon the Jews, and now, as 
 before, there are many among them who are 
 quite willing to give up their all for the better 
 future and freedom of their country.'? 
 
 It is no exaggeration to say that the small, even 
 insignificant, amount of freedom obtained by the 
 Russian Liberals in 1905 and 1906 was largely 
 due to the efforts of the Jews. 
 
THE JEWS AS PIONEERS 249 
 
 Their blood has saturated the Russian soil, from 
 which, like the soldiers of Cadmus, the avengers 
 and champions of liberty have come forth, armed 
 and booted. 
 
 When the Constitutional Democratic Party was 
 dreaming of a regime somewhat similar to that of 
 the United States or Great Britain, the Liberals 
 decided that the abolition of all class privileges 
 and prerogatives, the emancipation of all the 
 citizens dwelling in the dominions of the Tsar, was 
 their first and most sacred duty. But even in 
 the palmy days of the First Duma the landed 
 gentry were organised to oppose any measures 
 that tended to remove Jewish disabilities. And 
 the peasants who were willing to vote for the 
 abolition of the restrictive laws against the Jews, 
 in so far as trade and commerce were concerned, 
 were resolutely decided to oppose vehemently the 
 admission of Jews to civil or State service. They 
 could not reconcile themselves to the prospect of 
 a Jew becoming a Tshinovnik and ruling over 
 Christian souls. But need we be astonished at the 
 prejudices inculcated in the minds of the ignorant, 
 uneducated Russian moujik by the agents of 
 Tsardom ? The objections raised in the English 
 Parliament against the abolition of Jewish dis- 
 abilities were very similar. Members of the House 
 of Commons who would indignantly have repudi- 
 ated the thought of oppressing the Jews, could not 
 reconcile themselves to the idea of their possessing 
 political power in England. And what about the 
 hue and cry raised by the Anti-Semitic press in 
 modern England, during a war of liberation, a 
 war for right and justice, at the appointment of 
 a Jew as Secretary for India ? But nevertheless 
 
250 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 the Russian Jews still continued their fight against 
 tyranny. 
 
 In the great struggle which the Russian people 
 have fought against Tsardom, against autocracy, 
 against the descendants of that " cretin alcoholique 
 Pierre III," German Duke of Holstein-Gottorp, 
 the Jews have taken an active part. '' The 
 heroism," says a writer in La Revue — who adds, by 
 the way, that he is not himself a Jew — "-which 
 the Jews have manifested in this gigantic struggle 
 calls to mind their formidable resistance to the 
 Roman Empire. They have once more shown to 
 the world that the spirit of sacrifice, the courage 
 and ingenuity, which characterised their fight 
 against Titus have not died out of the Jewish 
 soul." ^ They have once more revealed them- 
 selves in the supreme fight for preservation. 
 " Russia," continues the writer of the article, " will 
 owe the greatest part of her freedom to the Jews. 
 Without them the Liberals would never have been 
 able to obtain a victory." 
 
 The heroism of the members of the Bund not 
 only stupefied the reactionaries, but also served 
 as a model to the fighters for freedom, the pioneers 
 of the Russian Revolution. There was no poli- 
 tical organisation in the vast Empire that was not 
 influenced by Jews or directed by them. The 
 Social Democratic, the Socialist Revolutionary 
 Parties, the Polish Socialist Party, all counted 
 Jews among their leaders. Plehve was, perhaps, 
 right when he said that the struggle for political 
 emancipation in Russia and the Jewish question 
 were practically identical.^ The " Bund," or 
 
 1 Cf. La Revue, January 1906, p. 31. 
 
 a Cf. Ular, La Revolution Ruase, Paris, p. 290. 
 
THE JEWS AS PIONEERS 251 
 
 General Union of the Jewish working men was 
 founded in 1897. It is a poHtical and economic 
 association of the Jewish proletariat, " at first 
 averse to all national distinctions, but gradually 
 impregnated with Jewish national sentiment." ^ 
 It made active propaganda in Yiddish, published 
 numerous pamphlets and such organs as The 
 Jewish Working-man^ The Voice of the Working- 
 men. 
 
 During the reign of Alexander II the Jews en- 
 joyed certain favours, but, neverthless, they took 
 part in the movement of liberation. The Jewish 
 intelligenzia assimilated itself with the Russian 
 intelligcnzia during the seventies, just as the 
 Jewish proletariat was destined to make common 
 cause with the Russian proletariat later on. Thus, 
 the revolutionary movement — that is, the move- 
 ment for freedom and equality — has counted many 
 Jews among its adherents for the last forty years. 
 The names of Zoundelevitsh, Mlodetsky, Viteni- 
 berg, Kogan-Bernstein, and above all, Gershouni, 
 are well known and honoured among the pioneers 
 of freedom.^ 
 
 The Bund has organised numerous strikes in 
 Russia : between 1897 and 1900 alone, there 
 w^ere 312 strikes at which over 27,890 working 
 men took part.^ When I say that the Bund is 
 a proletarian or labour organisation, it must not 
 be imagined that only manual labourers belong to 
 it. I have already pointed out that there are 
 two proletariates, the manual and the intellectual, 
 
 1 L. Wolf, Edinburgh Review, July 1917, p. 309. 
 
 2 Cf. E. Semenoff, Une page de la contre-revolution, Paris, 
 1908, p. 36. 
 
 3 Cf. Eb6rlin, Les Juifa Busses, p. 43, 
 
252 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 and perhaps of the two the latter has suffered, 
 and is suffering, more than the former. This 
 latter proletariat may be called " La mis ere en 
 habit noir." Many members of the Bund belong 
 to the intellectual proletariat. The members of 
 the Bund have never hesitated to show an example 
 of self-sacrifice to the fighters for freedom. They 
 indeed deserve the appellation of pioneers of the 
 Russian Revolution. They have suffered and 
 bled upon the altar of Russian freedom, and have 
 fought heroically for their Jewish brethren. They 
 Avere sent to prison, the mines and Siberia ; in- 
 deed, the victims of this revolutionary party are 
 proportionately greater than those of other social- 
 democratic parties. The Jewish revolutionaries, 
 holocausts devoured by Moloch Tsardom, are 
 legion ; they have written with their heart's blood 
 the history of the Russian struggle for freedom. 
 The number of the Bundists arrested, imprisoned 
 and deported amounted to 1,000 during the years 
 1897-1900, and to 2,180 between 1901 and 1903. 
 Altogether, from March 1903 to November 1904, 
 384 politicals passed through the prison of 
 Alexandrovskane. The following is the per cent- 
 age of these prisoners according to their nationality : 
 53*9 per cent. Jews, 26*4 per cent. Russians, 10*4 
 per cent. Poles, 5*9 per cent. Georgians, 1*5. per 
 cent. Esthonians, Letts and Lithuanians, and 1*9 
 per cent, other nationalities. 
 
 As for the women, 64*3 per cent, were Jewesses.^ 
 Plehve maintained that 80 per cent, of the revolu- 
 tionaries in Russia were Jev/s. 
 
 1 Cf. Eberlin, I.e., p. 47 ; J. Melnik, Buasen uber Buisland, 
 Frankfort, 1916, pp. 585-586. 
 
CHAPTER XII 
 
 ISRAEL'S CRY FOR JUSTICE 
 
 The Jews of Russia were also opposed to auto- 
 cracy for religious reasons. Autocracy meant 
 unity of faith, the triumph of the Orthodox 
 Church at the expense of all other religions and 
 beliefs. Liberty of conscience is one of the tenets 
 of Judaism. Froselytism has never been the 
 appanage of the Jew. To save the soul of man by 
 fire and sword, by crucifying his body, by burning 
 it on the stake or torturing it in the subterranean 
 vaults of a cruel Inquisition, has been the policy 
 of Catholicism, but never of Judaism, in whicli 
 it is at one with Protestantism as distinguished 
 from Missionarism. The Jews were thus opposed 
 to Russian autocracy, which wanted to convert 
 them to the orthodox faith by force. Tsardom 
 offered them, if not the liberty of the West, a 
 liberty which even its orthodox subjects did not 
 possess, at least equality with all the other slaves 
 of the vast Empire. It was still slavery but a 
 gilded slavery — a social state preferable to that 
 which was their lot for centuries. And what were 
 the conditions of Tsardom ? Simply that Israel 
 should abandon its religion and its God and em- 
 brace the faith of Byzantium. Israel refused ; it 
 preferred to cling to its ancient beUefs, thus 
 
 253 
 
254 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 proving that without reUgion the Jewish nation has 
 no raison d'etre and simply ceases to exist. 
 
 In other words, the existence of Israel, con- 
 sidered as a separate national unit, is intimately 
 connected with religion, which is its fundamental 
 principle. A Jew who is not a nationalist is still 
 a Jew, but a Jewish nationalist who has embraced 
 another religion, or who has no religion at all, 
 who believes neither in God nor in the devil, is no 
 longer a Jew ; and when he calls himself a Jewish 
 nationalist, he is merely playing with words, 
 unaware of the illogism into which such an atti- 
 tude must lead him. The theory of Jewish 
 nationalism, independently of religion, is based 
 upon wrong premises and is utterly illogical. 
 Had all the Jews in Russia yielded to the tempta- 
 tions of State and Church, and embraced Chris- 
 tianity in the fond hope that nevertheless they 
 would be a separate national unity, there would 
 have been no Jews to-day in Russia, and not only 
 would the so-called Jewish question have disap- 
 peared long ago, but there v/ould have been no 
 so-called Jewish nationalistic tendencies nowa- 
 days. 
 
 Thus the Jews of Russia have truly been among 
 the pioneers of the Russian Revolution and shared 
 with their fellow citizens their anxiety to shake 
 off the yoke of Tsardom. They knew full Avell 
 that a Republic, or even a Constitutional Monarchy, 
 could not but proclaim the principle of " droits de 
 rhomme et du citoyen," which meant the emanci- 
 pation of all the inhabitants of the commonwealth, 
 irrespective of race and religion. I venture, 
 however, to affirm, most emphatically, that even 
 had the Jews enjoyed equal riglits in Russia and 
 
ISRAEL'S CRY FOR JUSTICE 255 
 
 not been submitted to special exclusive laws, 
 they would nevertheless have furnished a vast 
 contingent to the revolutionary forces. This ethnic 
 or religious group — I am not now discussing the 
 question whether the Jews are a nation or a 
 religious community — could not but be an opponent 
 of Tsardom and autocracy. It was bound to be 
 an inveterate enemy of the policy of Byzantium 
 that incarnated the spirit of Imperialism, a policy of 
 conquest and expansion, and was opposed to both 
 the ideals of the principle of nationality and to the 
 universalism and internationalism of the Prophets. 
 For, apart from the political, religious and eco- 
 nomic causes which threw the Jews of Russia into 
 the arms of the Revolution and made thousands 
 of them, men and women, sacrifice their lives upon 
 the altar of liberty, face prison, exile, Schluessel- 
 biu'g, solitary confinement, Siberia, the mines 
 and death, there were other reasons for their atti- 
 tude. They are to be found in the revolutionary 
 spirit inherent in the Jew. When I say revo- 
 lutionary spirit, I mean the spirit that thirsts 
 for liberty and independence as it is compatible 
 with truth, right, justice and equality. The cry 
 for justice and equality uttered by the Prophets 
 still resounds in the ears of the Jew wherever he 
 is. It was the sentiment of justice and equality 
 which gave birth to Christianity in the midst of 
 Judaism. 
 
 Throughout history the spirit of the Jew has 
 always been revolutionary and subversive, but 
 subversive w4th the purpose of building upon the 
 ruins. It is progressive and evolutionary ; even 
 in its first national establishment it contained the 
 seeds of universalism which were destined to 
 
256 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 blossom forth and bear fruit in the ages to come. 
 Onwards, ever onwards, is the motto of the Jewish 
 spirit. The Jew, therefore, who desires a return 
 to the past, who ignores the laws of evolution and 
 progress, and the steps his own race has made in 
 advance of other nations by throwing off the 
 shackles of narrow nationalism in the great march 
 towards the true goal of humanity, when all men 
 will be brothers, when there will be no difference 
 between classes, tribes, nations and peoples — in 
 a word, the march towards the great and glorious 
 ideal of a '' confraternity of men " instead of the 
 empty, meaningless and contradictory conception 
 of a " Society of Nations" — that Jew is unfaithful 
 to the spirit of Judaism. The Jewish spirit has 
 always yearned for justice, truth and equality : 
 these are the fundamental principles of Israel. 
 They are embodied in the cry that rings through 
 the words of the Prophets, that was echoed by 
 the first teachers of Christianity. It was a pro- 
 test, a revolt against iniquity and inequality. The 
 first Christians w^ere therefore the good Jews — or 
 the good Jews were the first Christians. And 
 even to-day, if one analysed religious sentiments 
 closely, one might find that the Jews and not the 
 Catholics were the people who most tenaciously 
 cling to Christian morals. 
 
 There was therefore practically no difference 
 between the real Jews — Jews inspired by the 
 sentiments of justice and equity, and a spirit of 
 revolt against iniquity, political, social or economic 
   — and the first Christians. But when Christianity, 
 under the influence of Greek and Roman thought, 
 despairing of ever securing political and social 
 equality in the world, consoled its followers with 
 
o 
 
 w 
 
 CO 
 
 « 
 
 o 
 
 K 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 CO 
 
 12; 
 
 i-i 
 o 
 
 
 *--- 
 
 
ISRAEL'S CRY FOR JUSTICE 257 
 
 *' a kingdom to come " where all would be equal, 
 the Jews and Christians parted ways. It has beea 
 pointed out that because the Jew did not enter- 
 tain the belief in future compensation (he only- 
 accepted the theory of immortality at a much 
 later date, when he came under the influence of 
 Parsism) he could not submit to the misfortunes 
 of life. Whilst, therefore, the peoples and nations 
 who believed in a *' Beyond," who found consola- 
 tion in the sweet chimera of compensation, of 
 reward and punishment after life, of heaven and 
 hell, bowed their heads and resigned themselves 
 to the misfortunes of earthly life, to illness and 
 poverty, the Jew alone, averse both to the fatalism 
 of the Moslem and to the spirit of resignation of 
 the Christian, replied by revolt. 
 
 Thus these inveterate idealists who conceived 
 the idea of one God, became the most determined 
 sensualists.^ " It was their conception of life and 
 death that furnished the Jews with their revo- 
 lutionary spirit." These remarks of my late 
 lamented friend seem to me to be only partially 
 correct. One need not be a disbeliever in a future 
 life, in the immortality of the soul, to be an ardent 
 partisan of justice and equality. If it were so, 
 it would logically follow that only those who do 
 not accept the immortality of the soul, the exist- 
 ence of a ** Beyond," could be inspired by the 
 spirit of revolution, could yearn for justice and 
 social equality, and that all those who proclaim 
 themselves as being inspired by these ideals must 
 all be atheists and materialists who look upon 
 the Beyond as a product of the imagination, a 
 superstition, or, if they still profess to believe in 
 * Cf. B. Lckzare, AntisemiHame, I.e. 
 
 17 
 
258 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 it, are simply hypocrites and liars ! But it would 
 also follow that the only logical, honest Christians 
 are the anchorites who despise life, and that the 
 true believer in the Beyond, in after reward and 
 punishment, should court suffering and oppression 
 so as to obtain a larger share of eternal bliss. The 
 logical position of humanity would then be this : 
 All those who are reformers, social reformers, 
 innovators, apostles of justice and equality, who 
 are anxious for the amelioration of the suffering 
 classes, do not believe in a world to come, in God 
 or in the devil ; and all those who do not believe 
 in a next world, in a Beyond, must be inspired by 
 a spirit of justice and equality. Furthermore, all 
 those who profess to be religious and yet pretend 
 to be working for the alleviation of suffering are 
 hypocrites and liars. 
 
 In reahty, however, the case is quite different. 
 We may be firmly convinced of the eternal ex- 
 istence of the soul, of reward and punishment, 
 of heaven and hell, but we may also feel that 
 no reward in a world to come can be adequate 
 compensation for suffering here below. Must 
 one really conclude that because some men, who 
 do not believe in a Beyond, are anxious to see 
 justice upon the earth, that all those who are 
 partisans of justice in this world do not believe in 
 a Beyond ? Genius, for instance, may be inclined 
 to madness, but it does not necessarily follow that 
 an imbecile is the only sane and reasonable per- 
 son ! No ; I maintain that justice and social 
 equality have always been the ideals of the Jew, 
 whether he believed in a world to come, in a 
 Beyond or no. What the Jews could not accept 
 from Christianity, as taught, not by the Saviour, 
 
ISRAEL'S CRY FOR JUSTICE 259 
 
 but by the Roman Church, was to submit to 
 slavery and oppression, to allow the usurpers, the 
 momentary victors in the battle for political and 
 economic power, to remain in undisturbed posses- 
 sion of their unjust and dishonestly acquired 
 wealth and dominance, be it political, social or 
 economic. From Isaiah down to Lassalle, the 
 cry for justice and equality has been reiterated by 
 the Jews, but it has always been universal justice, 
 for the cry of a collectivity for justice for itself, 
 is, in reality, not free from selfishness. 
 
 " To hasten the coming of real justice upon 
 earth, to distribute to every one the greatest pos- 
 sible sum of well-being in this world," such is 
 part of the mission of Israel. " This idea," writes 
 a Christian author who cannot be accused of too 
 great a sympathy for the Jews, "was, if not un- 
 known to the old Aryan societies, at least placed 
 on a secondary plane." ^ It seemed to the Aryan 
 quite just and natural that the powerful and the 
 rich should rule over the poor and the weak. 
 Every revolution of the weak and oppressed was 
 quelled by the mighty, the usurpers of power and 
 wealth. And even the best among the Aryans, 
 the philosophers and thinkers, consoled the slaves, 
 the proletarians, with the hope of a future life 
 where things would be different. Such a phil- 
 osophy could not satisfy the Jew. It is in this 
 world that " this arch -type of a revolutionary " 
 wanted to see justice reign. Long before they 
 had been formulated in French, the principles of 
 Droits de Vhomme had been announced in Hebrew.' 
 
 It has further been maintained that the Jew, 
 
 1 Cf. Muret, U Esprit Juif, Paris, 1901, p. 46. 
 a Ibid., p. 49. 
 
260 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 being an individualist, is unable to sacrifice him- 
 self for the collectivity. " The Jew," writes. 
 Sombart, " is politically an individualist. He is 
 the born representative of a liberal conception." * 
 But the individualism of the Jew, which I recog- 
 nise and admit, does not exclude a readiness to 
 fight for a collectivity — for a collective ideal, as 
 long as that ideal tends to procure happiness for 
 all the individuals, without exceptions, that con- 
 stitute the collectivity. 
 
 Now let us see what is a collective ideal ? A 
 collectivity is an agglomeration of individuals, 
 some of whom are happy, mighty, rich and power- 
 ful, whilst others are unhappy and drag the chains- 
 of misery, poverty and slavery about with them. 
 If men were therefore to fight and die for the con- 
 servation of such a state of affairs, they would no 
 longer be fighting for a collectivity but for certain^ 
 individuals, for a privileged class. This the Jew may 
 refuse to do. He will fight and die, willingly, for 
 an amelioration, for a social change, for the realiza- 
 tion of a State in which all the individuals shall 
 enjoy equal rights and happiness. Only such a 
 society, or a collectivity based upon such principles — 
 i.e. in which all the individuals are happy — may 
 be called a truly collective ideal, and for such a 
 collective ideal the Jew has never refused ta 
 fight and to die, for it is in accordance with hi& 
 inherent individualism. 
 
 Individualism is opposed to the sacrifice of 
 some individuals for the benefit of other indi- 
 viduals who style themselves a collectivity, but 
 it is never opposed to the sacrifice of one indi- 
 
 1 Cf. W. Sombart, Die Juden u. daa WirtscJiaftaleben, Berlin^ 
 1911, p. 318. 
 
ISRAEL'S CRY FOR JUSTICE 261 
 
 vidual for a collectivity in which all individuals 
 hold equal rights, powers and privileges. In other 
 words, the Jew has never refused to fight and to 
 die for a collective ideal, truly collective in so far 
 as it represented the happiness of all individuals 
 constituting the collectivity in question. Thus, 
 Jewish individualism does not exclude sacrifice 
 for a collectivity of individuals in which all are 
 equal. The Jew has fought and died, and will 
 continue to do, for social amelioration, but not 
 for social status quo. 
 
 Judaism told its followers that man is a slave 
 of God but not a slave of slaves ; i.e. that all men 
 should be equal. The leader should, at the ut- 
 most, be intellectually superior, a man of science 
 and erudition, but not he who has been placed 
 by chance of birth or blind hazard upon the top 
 of the social ladder. Authority based upon such 
 principles is distasteful to the Jew and to the 
 Jewish spirit. The old State ideal of the Jews, 
 when they had a political state, was therefore 
 anarcho-theocratic.^ Catholicism and autocracy, 
 therefore, which based their claims upon divine 
 right, or right of birth, could never appeal to the 
 Jews. Judaism, being based upon the principle 
 of individualism, as is abundantly shown in the 
 Bible and the Talmud, could not but be opposed 
 to autocracy, justifying all its laws of oppression 
 by the idea of Raison d'Etat. 
 
 Individualism means that the interests of the 
 individual should not at any moment be sacrificed 
 for the collectivity, since the collectivity, being an 
 aggregation of individuals, loses its raison d'etre^ 
 once the rights of the single individual are ignored. 
 
 1 Cf. Muret, Z.c, pp. 34, 35. 
 
262 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 The Raison d'Etat principle is diametrically opposed 
 to it, for it never hesitates to sacrifice the indi- 
 vidual to this phantom idea, an idea that at the 
 best is only advantageous to the governing classes, 
 who, d la Louis XIV, could always, at all epochs 
 and in all countries, exclaim : " L'Etat, c'est 
 nous." Raison d^Etat, therefore, simply means the 
 sacrifice of individuals that belong to the op- 
 pressed classes for the benefit of the ruling classes. 
 The Russian Jews have thus been among the 
 principal opponents of Tsardom, and have swelled 
 the ranks of the pioneers of the Revolution, for 
 political, religious, economic and psychological 
 reasons. 
 
 One of the best proofs that the Russian Jews 
 have not fought in the ranks of the pioneers of 
 the Revolution solely for their own benefit, but 
 for Russia, their country, may have been found 
 in the strenuous opposition of Jews of all shades 
 of opinion to the formation of a Jewish regiment 
 in Great Britain. This regiment, we were told, 
 was to be used for a specifically Jewish purpose. 
 But thousands of Russian Jews returned " home," 
 went to Russia to serve in the Russian army and 
 to fight shoulder to shoulder with the Slavs for 
 the Russian Revolution and freedom and against 
 German militarism. And those who had remained 
 in Great Britain replied : " We are fighting not 
 as Jews but as Englishmen or Russians. Your 
 cause is our cause, and your country is our coun- 
 try." One cannot but applaud such sentiments I 
 It is not for me to criticise the decision of the War 
 Ofiice, but I venture to say that from a Jewish 
 point of view the idea of a Jewish regiment for 
 *' a specifically Jewish purpose " is ridiculous. 
 
ISRAEL'S CRY FOR JUSTICE 268 
 
 That is the reason why both the plan and its 
 realisation have been hailed and applauded by 
 the entire anti-semitic press. It is clear to any 
 impartial observer that the anti-semitic scribblers 
 are already " rubbing their hands " anticipating 
 excellent copy. 
 
 At the present moment, however, I am con- 
 cerned with the idea of a Jewish regiment only 
 in so far as it affects the sentiments of Russian 
 Jews and their activity as pioneers of the Russian 
 Revolution. As such, it was only logical that they 
 should have opposed the realisation of the plan 
 with all the power at their disposal. " I cannot 
 imagine," wrote an old volunteer,^ '' the Govern- 
 ment conscripting, say, a unit of Sinn Feiners and 
 naming it the ' Catholic Regiment ' without a pro- 
 test being raised." " We are fighting the German 
 nation," wrote another correspondent. " The 
 question is a national, not a religious one." * 
 
 '* Our religion and descent," wrote a third 
 eminent correspondent, " are no concern of the 
 State." ^ It is evident that a soldier fighting in 
 the ranks of the Allies can only be asked to what 
 nationality he belongs, of which State he is a 
 citizen, but not which are his metaphysical ideas 
 about God, or in which place he is in the habit of 
 worshipping the Deity. He may pray in English 
 or in Hebrew, at the top of Mont Blanc or on 
 the waves of the ocean, in the Synagogues at 
 Salonica or in the Cathedral of Rheims. " Wher- 
 ever you call me," says the God of Israel, " I 
 shall hear you." The idea of a Jewish regiment, 
 I say it most emphatically, for "a specifically 
 
 1 Cf. Jewish Chronicle, August 24th, 1917, p. 15. 
 » lUd, 3 Ibid., p. 16. 
 
264 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 Jewish purpose," viz. the conquest of Palestine, 
 is a misrepresentation of Jewish ideals, of Jewish 
 sentiments. 
 
 The question of enlisting the non-naturalised 
 Russian Jews living in Great Britain or transport- 
 ing them to Russia agitated public opinion and 
 led to much discussion and many protests. " Fair- 
 play " is the appanage of the Briton. Now let 
 me say at the outset that, in my opinion, it is only 
 right that every man of military age and medically 
 fit should do his duty by swelling the ranks of 
 those who are fighting a desperate foe and defend- 
 ing the cause of justice. This is so evident that 
 it requires no further elucidation or pieces justi- 
 §catives. 
 
 The British Government had a perfect ethical 
 right thus to speak to the non-naturalised Russian 
 Jews in England : " Now that we have intro- 
 duced conscription, you, strangers at our gates, 
 must quickly make up your minds : Join the 
 British army — and by doing so you, eo ipso, become 
 British subjects, sharing all the duties but also 
 all the privileges of the natural-born Briton. If 
 you prefer, however, to keep your Russian nation- 
 ality, and yet refuse to return to your native land 
 to perform your military duties there, we must 
 consider you as military deserters of an allied 
 nation. Some years ago we gave you an asylum 
 on our hospitable shores, but, alas, circumstances 
 have changed, and we can no longer harbour in 
 our midst military deserters of a friendly Power 
 at war with our common foe. You must leave 
 our shores and emigrate wherever you like. You 
 trusted us when you came here years ago, and 
 we Britons never retract even a tacit promise. 
 
ISRAEL'S CRY FOR JUSTICE 265 
 
 and even if there be no vestige of a scrap of paper. 
 We have no intention of keeping you like mice in 
 a trap. Join, therefore, the British army as 
 British subjects, or leave Great Britain, going 
 wherever you like, to Russia or elsewhere, c'est 
 voire affaire.^^ ' 
 
 However sad are the circumstances necessitat- 
 ing such a step — no juris- consult could have ques- 
 tioned the legal and ethical right of the British 
 Government to speak thus. To enlist, however, 
 these young men in the British army without at 
 once granting them British citizenship was illogical ; 
 to have transported them to Russia where, as yet, 
 they had no rights, except those of dying for their 
 native land, would have been unethical. In the 
 meantime the Revolution had broken out, and the 
 Russian Jews were ready to fight in the Russian 
 or in the British army, either as Britishers or as 
 Russians. 
 
 Many Zionists, however, in appealing to these 
 Jews to enlist had strengthened their appeal by 
 the argument that in so doing the recruits would 
 be helping the cause of Israel, lend strength to the 
 claims of Jewry to emancipation or an autonomous 
 state. Now it seems to me that there is a vast 
 difference between sacrificing our own lives on the 
 altar of duty, and telling our fellow men to give 
 their lives for a great cause, so that over their bodies 
 we may lead the remaining to the goal. Moses 
 himself never saw the promised land ; he died in 
 the desert, and only caught a glimpse of Palestine 
 from the heights of Pisgah. Leaders of great 
 movements usually fall on the roadway. What 
 these Zionists leaders were really aiming at was 
 nothing less than buying Jewish emancipation, or 
 
266 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 a Jewish autonomous state, and paying for these 
 boons with the lives of a few thousands of their 
 own race. I confess that the gifts would be 
 cheap at the price ; and just because they would 
 be cheap, I am afraid that the price would be 
 considered inadequate. If the price to be paid 
 for Jewish emancipation and a Jewish autonomous 
 state are the lives of so many Jews, then I ven- 
 ture to think the price has already been paid, a 
 thousandfold, long ago ! 
 
 But many Jews were in favour of the idea of 
 a few Jewish self-seekers, saviours of Israel, that 
 the 15,000 or 20,000 Russian Jews in England 
 should be enlisted, formed into battalions, and 
 sent to Egypt to fight for and conquer Palestine. 
 The idea is not a new one ; and even if it were 
 possible to gather all the Jewish soldiers from all 
 over the world together and send them as a huge 
 army to fight the Turk and conquer Palestine, I 
 would not oppose it, but the so-called Zionist 
 leaders seem to have forgotten one important 
 factor ; viz. that the Jews are not gathered together 
 in one army, but are scattered and serving in all 
 the belligerent armies. It is a tragic fact, but a 
 fact none the less, and which in their ardour these 
 Zionist leaders seem to forget. 
 
 Now suppose that 15,000 or 20,000 Jews are 
 sent out by the Allies — by England, to be precise — 
 to fight in Palestine, what is to prevent the enemy 
 in his diabolical cunning, what is to prevent the 
 modern Caligula from picking out a huge army 
 of Jews, preferably Zionists, and sending them, 
 headed by some German Zionist leaders, with the 
 Rabbi of Strasburg as chaplain, to fight on the soil 
 of Palestine against the Jewish battalions sent out 
 
ISRAEL'S CRY FOR JUSTICE 267 
 
 by Great Britain or France ? The mind positively 
 freezes at the thought of such an event, but it is 
 quite within the range of possibiHty. Did not the 
 Germans sefid Bulgarian detachments against Russia ? 
 They might equally well send Jews to fight Jews 
 on the soil of Palestine. It would be a devilish 
 device, a tragedy too terrible to contemplate, but 
 one which may be expected from those who com- 
 mitted such unspeakable atrocities in Flanders 
 and Northern France. What is to prevent the 
 enemy from sending the Chief Rabbi of Turkey, 
 M. Naoum, to fire and stimulate the ardour of their 
 Jewish battalions ? 
 
 I am, of course, aware that there are many 
 Zionists steeped in Realpolitik, who readily scoff 
 at the Jewish spirit, the ancient religious super- 
 stition ; but then, the very restoration of the Jews 
 to Palestine is considered a dream and a super- 
 stition by many, and the superstition of politics 
 has no right to scoff at the superstition of faith. 
 The chasm yawning between the religious Jewish 
 spirit and a conquest of Palestine by the Jews, as 
 a separate army, is too vast to be overbridged. 
 The idea of a conquest of Palestine, by the Jews, 
 is neither Jewish nor Christian. It is a German 
 and pagan doctrine, based upon the Nietzscheism 
 of the conquering blonde beast. 
 
 It was Germany who started this war with a 
 view to annexation — not the Allies. The latter 
 are fighting not for new lands and territories, but 
 for right and justice. France never abandoned 
 her claim to Alsace-Lorraine, Italy never gave up 
 Trieste; but neither France nor Italy wanted a 
 war, and would never have started it, had it not 
 been forced upon them by Germany. But even 
 
268 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 if Christians sometimes forget the teaching of the 
 Saviour, there is no reason why Zionists should 
 ignore the spirit of Judaism, the teaching of 
 the Prophets which superseded the book of 
 Joshua. And, after all, the walls of Jericho did 
 not fall by heavy artillery but at the blast of 
 the horn ! 
 
 " Germany," says Mr. Zangwill rightly, " has 
 challenged the world on the lower plane of matter ; 
 she is trying to assert herself in fire and is writing 
 her edicts in blood. But fire burns down and 
 blood dries up and fades, and the only durable 
 influence is the power of the spirit." If the Jews, 
 I say, have not disappeared in the dispersion, 
 and Zionists are able to speak of a Jewish entity, 
 it is not the result of the Jewish sword but of 
 the spirit, still alive. To build up a new Jewish 
 state with the sword is an anachronism. Jews all 
 over the world are fighting on Armageddon's 
 battlefields, and are shedding their blood, not with 
 a view to conquests, but in defence of their adopted 
 homes. As a matter of fact, they went out to 
 fight not because they expected emancipation or 
 a Jewish autonomous state as a reward, but they 
 may expect reasonable human treatment all over 
 the world, because they have been, and are, 
 fighting the battles of civilisation. Voila la 
 di^irence! " 
 
 Let the advocates of Jewish battalions conquer- 
 ing Palestine beware lest they put the share the 
 Jews are taking in the war on a politic rather 
 than a patriotic plane. The Jews, like the Chris- 
 tians, are simply doing their duty, and the true 
 Jew does not expect a reward for his duty. As 
 one of Israel's great sons, though excommunicated 
 
ISRAEL'S CRY FOR JUSTICE 26^ 
 
 by the Synagogue, said : " Beatitude non est 
 virtutis pretium, sed ipsa virtus." The Briton is 
 not fighting Britain's battles because Greater 
 Britain promised him the fleshpots of Egypt, nor 
 is the Jew in the AlUed armies fighting because he 
 has been promised the vineyards and fig trees of 
 Judaea. 
 
 No, if I may venture to make a suggestion, 
 I say that it is right that all the non-naturalised 
 Russian Jews in England should enlist because 
 they owe a deep and everlasting debt of gratitude 
 to England, the home of liberty, the champion of 
 the downtrodden and oppressed, but let thera 
 ask to be sent to Flanders and France. Let them 
 go and fight on the banks of the Somme instead 
 of the Jordan ; let them conquer Cologne and 
 Berlin ! Israel would then have done her duty 
 in the cause of civilisation, and, I feel sure, 
 civilised Christendom would not, could not, forget 
 it. Noblesse oblige. 
 
 Such are my impartial convictions, and I am 
 happy to state that such are also the sentiments, 
 not only of British but also of Russian Jews — 
 those mostly concerned in the matter. Russian 
 Jews, who may claim the title of pioneers of the 
 Russian Revolution, who have largely contributed 
 to its triumph and to the overthrow of autocracy, 
 could not belie their attitude of the past. They 
 were bound to deprecate the idea of a Jewish regi- 
 ment sent out to conquer Palestine for the Zionists, 
 not only of Great Britain and America, but also for 
 the Zionists of Germany, Austria, Bulgaria and 
 Turkey. However, one of the gentlemen mainly^ 
 responsible for the formation of a Jewish regiment 
 for the object of conquering Palestine for the- 
 
270 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 Jews — as Jews — assured us that " there is nothing 
 in the whole history of the present war to justify 
 the apprehension of Germany or Turkey also 
 forming a Jewish regiment and sending it to 
 defend Palestine against the British invader and 
 his Jewish regiment." ^ He felt quite convinced 
 that Germany — the land of Kultur — was above 
 such a trick ! "It would have been very easy," 
 he wrote, " for Germany to form battalions of 
 Alsatians, to give them all the paraphernalia of 
 ' national ' regiments, and to send them against 
 the French in order to show the world that 
 Alsatians themselves opposed the re-annexation of 
 Alsace by France. But Germany did not try the 
 trick ; on the contrary, she preferred to send her 
 Alsatian soldiers to frontiers where they would 
 meet other, not French, adversaries. Nor did 
 Austria, with her Italian soldiers, or Turkey, with 
 her myriads of Armenians, try the trick." 
 
 These statements are very interesting and 
 illuminating, but I wonder if the writer has really 
 measured the significance of his words. Let us 
 read them attentively. In the first place this 
 saviour of Judah reveals himself as a very advo- 
 catus diaboli (diabolus being equivalent in this 
 case to Austria, Germany, Bulgaria and Turkey). 
 The Central Empires and Turkey, he maintains, 
 and he must have good cause for his emphatic 
 declaration, are above a trick, ^ the very same trick 
 which he was advising the Entente Powers to make 
 
 ^ Cf. Jewish Chronicle ^ August 17th, 1917, p. 15. 
 
 2 Look up any dictionary and you will find the following 
 definition of the word trick : " An artifice, a stratagem, an 
 artful device, an underhand scheme, a vicious, foolish action or 
 practice. Anything mischievous and roguishly done to cross 
 and disappoint another. 
 
ISRAEL'S CRY FOR JUSTICE 271 
 
 use of, namely, to form a Jewish regiment so as 
 to show the world that Jewry, as a national unit, 
 is on the side of the Entente Powers. I am 
 sorry I cannot share this gentleman's faith in 
 the noble intentions of William Hohenzollern or 
 his appreciations of Germany's fair play. I am 
 rather inclined to think with President Wilson that 
 '' the Kaiser has never allowed himself to be 
 stopped by any considerations of justice or 
 pity," that " he has pulled down all the barriers 
 of morality which he has met on his way." 
 There is no reason to presume that what this 
 modern Caligula has been guilty of in the past, 
 he will hesitate to commit in the future, once 
 it is in his interest to do so. He will only have 
 as his excuse the power to say : " You tried it 
 first ! " 
 
 But the arguments of the advocatus of Kultur 
 contain even more weighty and significant words, 
 that affect not only the Kaiser and Kultur, but the 
 Jews all over the world. " Nor can I believe," 
 the instigator of a Jewish regiment told us, " that 
 the German Jews would countenance such a 
 trick." Again a certificate of nobility for German 
 Jews, as distinguished from the Jews of the 
 Entente Powers. The German Zionists would 
 refuse '' to fight against a regime friendly to 
 Zionism for the conservation of an order of things 
 forbidding Jews to colonise theHoly Land." ^ The 
 '' very idea seems to him to be preposterous." 
 Now, if the German Jews are wielding such a 
 mighty power in the land, and can either fight, 
 or refuse to do so, as it pleases them, why then, 
 I ask, did they not refuse to march against 
 
 1 Jewish Chronicle, August 17th, 1917, p. 15. 
 
272 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 Belgium ; why did they lend their assistance to 
 the invasion of that brave little country ? 
 
 Moreover, this gentleman is evidently not aware 
 that in his frankness he has " let the cat out of 
 the bag " as far as he himself is concerned. It is 
 very evident that for him the loyalty of the 
 Jews to their respective countries is only condi- 
 tional. It is the result of a bargain made with 
 the Governments of the belligerent countries. 
 They are on the side of the best bidder. The 
 Zionists are on the side of the Entente Powers 
 because the Entente Powers are not only going 
 to be victorious, but also because they are friendly 
 to Jewish national aspirations and will " secure 
 the realisation of Zionism." And if it were not 
 so — if for some reason or another the Entente 
 Powers were not friendly to Zionism — then on which 
 side would these advocates of Jewish regiments 
 be ? I wonder ! Anyhow, I consider such state- 
 ments and the issues they raise as a gross libel 
 upon, and insult to, the hundreds of thousands of 
 Jews who are fighting on Armageddon's battle- 
 fields unco7iditionally ! The Jew, his whole his- 
 tory proves it, is never on the side of the victor 
 because the latter is the victor, but because he 
 represents justice, momentarily triumphant or not. 
 
 Let us suppose — a mere supposition — ^that the 
 Central Powers had been victorious and that 
 Turkey had maintained her power in the Holy 
 Land, and that these victors had declared them- 
 selves favourable to the creation of a Jewish 
 autonomous state in Palestine ? Would these 
 advocates be on the side of the victorious Central 
 Powers or of the beaten Entente ? — both animated 
 by friendly intentions. As a matter of fact. 
 
ISRAEL'S CRY FOR JUSTICE 273 
 
 both the Central Powers and Turkey are now- 
 favourable to the idea of creating a Jewish auto- 
 nomous state in Palestine, and even Djemal Pasha 
 has changed his views on the subject/ It is also 
 significant that the cry for a British Protectorate 
 in Palestine was only raised by certain Zionists 
 when the British troops were at Gaza and the 
 probability of their entering Jerusalem became a 
 certainty. Up till then the advocates were silent ; 
 they were biding their time, waiting until fortune 
 had declared herself, and in the meantime they 
 allowed the Lichtheims and Jacobsons to pull the 
 strings.* 
 
 I could largely expatiate upon this question, 
 and quote numerous passages from the Jewish 
 press and the Zionist activity since August 1st, 
 1914, but in this chapter I am not dealing with 
 Zionism, but with the Jews of Russia. Suffice it, 
 therefore, to say that I merely wish to record my 
 own humble but emphatic protest against, and 
 deprecation of, those Jews who were advocating 
 a Jewish battalion for the conquest of Palestine, 
 and thus putting the share the Jews are taking 
 in this world war on a politic rather than a patriotic 
 plane. 
 
 These agitators, besides showing their manifest 
 ignorance of the real Jewish spirit and its pas- 
 sionate attachment to justice, have rendered but 
 little service to Judaism, or even to Zionism, 
 which is, after all, an internationally-national 
 movement. One feels even inclined to think 
 that such agitators are, at the bottom of their 
 hearts, not Zionists at all, as I understand the 
 
 1 Cf. Le Pays, August 30th, 1917. 
 « Ibid. 
 
 18 
 
274 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 movement, and as only a few Zionists seem to 
 understand it/ 
 
 It is futile to attempt to reconcile sentiments 
 and ideals which are in themselves antagonistic 
 and cannot be reconciled. That is what some of 
 the Jewish agitators are endeavouring to do : 
 they maintain, on the one hand, that it is natural 
 for Jews, as Jews, to fight for Jews (Jews in 
 all belligerent countries I assume) getting Pales- 
 tine,* whilst on the other hand they pretend that 
 the Jews all over the world are loyal to their 
 respective countries of adoption, or birth, and 
 have the interests of these countries, which are 
 necessarily antagonistic, at heart. For my own 
 part, I fail to see how these two statements can 
 be reconciled. One must choose between them. 
 Either the Jews are a separate nation or they are 
 not. If Israel be a separate nation, and all its 
 scattered members — whether in belligerent or in 
 neutral countries — constitute one national unit, 
 then the Jews, to be logical with themselves, if 
 they wish to have a commonwealth of their own 
 in Palestine, must, first of all, consider the interests 
 of their own nation, irrespective of the possible 
 interests of any European Power. The announce- 
 ment therefore of the British Zionists who pro- 
 claim urbi et orbi, now that Great Britain is 
 victorious in Palestine, that they are anxious to 
 have an autonomous state in the Holy Land as 
 a British Protectorate, becomes a mere empty 
 boast. Every loyal British citizen, whether Jew 
 or Gentile, naturally prefers the Holy Land to 
 
 1 We refer to men like Dr. M. Gaster, Dr. Daiches and the 
 late Dr. Tshlenov. 
 
 2 Jewish Chronicle f August 17th, 1917, 
 
I 
 
 ISRAEL'S CRY FOR JUSTICE 275 
 
 belong to Great Britain rather than to Turkey. 
 There we are all Zionists, Jews and Gentiles. 
 
 If, on the other hand, the Jews all over the 
 world are, first of all, loyal citizens of the countries 
 of their birth or adoption and have the interests 
 of these countries at heart, then it follows, logically, 
 that the British Zionists who are anxious to have 
 an autonomous state in Palestine under British 
 protection, are certainly loyal British subjects, 
 but that the Zionists in the Central Empires, who 
 agree to it, are not loyal citizens of their countries. 
 Far be it from me to blame them for it ; but I 
 cannot help observing that if citizens, whilst 
 enjoying citizen rights in one country, are disloyal 
 to it, they can hardly be trusted to be loyal to 
 another. Again, they might endeavour to make 
 the influence of the country of their birth pre- 
 dominant in their new home. This is the dilemma 
 which men who try to reconcile antagonistic senti- 
 ments are consciously, or unconsciously, creating 
 in the minds of impartial observers and students 
 of history. • 
 
 I may prove to have been a false prophet, but 
 I certainly feel that a Zionism built, ab ovo, upon 
 contradictory and even antagonistic principles 
 may ultimately split upon the rock of Jewish loyalty 
 and allegiance to the countries of their birth or 
 adoption. Time will show. Anyhow, I cannot 
 but applaud the attitude of the Russian Jews in 
 Great Britain who declared that they were anxious 
 to serve either as Russians or as Englishmen, but 
 not as Jews. The Russian Jews, the pioneers of 
 the Revolution, who have been suffering and 
 fighting for freedom and justice against Tsardom 
 and oppression, could not do otherwise. They are 
 
 18* 
 
276 THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION 
 
 now continuing to fight for the cause of justice, 
 for the principles of democracy against German 
 mihtarism. They have made cause commune with 
 all the other defenders of democracy, no matter 
 who makes the best bid to Israel, as a national unit 
 or as an ethnic group. 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 In addition to the books quoted in the text, the follow- 
 ing works have been consulted for the compilation of the 
 present volume. 
 
 Amfiteatrov, A. : La race nuisible. Paris, 1907. 
 
 Andreas, A. : Feuer. Leipzig, 1903. 
 
 Bakounine, P. : CEuvrcs, 6 vols. Paris, 1903-13. 
 
 Basilevski : Gosudarstvcnnia prcsluplenia v. Rossiu. 
 Stuttgart, 1903. 
 
 Biloe (Past), 1906, 1907. 
 
 Biographies Rivolutionnaires. 
 
 Bogatina, S. : Beitraege. Bonn, 1907. 
 
 Bulow, H. V. : Die Revolution in Russlcmd. Wien, 1905. 
 
 Burtsev, Za sto lijet. London, 1897. 
 
 Dmitriev-Mamonov, A. T. : Dekabristi. St. Peters- 
 burg, 1905. 
 
 Eckhardt, J. : Jungrussisch. Leipzig, 1871. 
 
 Funck-Brentano : Les sophistes Frangais. Paris, 1905. 
 
 Gerschuni, G. : Aus-jiingster Vergangenheit. Berlin, 1909. 
 
 Herzen, A. : Works. Geneva, 1875-85. 
 
 Iskra. Geneva, 1904. 
 
 Kalendarj narodnoy voli, 1883. 
 
 Katenin: Otsherki, etc. 1906. 
 
 Kropotkin, P. : Zapiski. St. Petersburg, 1906. 
 
 Kulczycki, L. : Geschichte der russ. Revol. Gotha, 1910. 
 
 Lavrov, P. : Narodniki propagandisti. 1895-96. 
 
 Libanov, G. M. : The Student Movement in Russia. 
 London, 1901. 
 
 Lombroso, C. : Le crime politique. 2 vols. 
 
 Materiali (Material for history of Russian Revolution), 
 1893-6. 
 
 Ivlelnik, J. : Russen uber Russland. Frankfurt-am- 
 Main, 1906. 
 
 277 
 
278 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Messager de la volonU du peuple, 1883, 1884. 
 
 Michelet, E. J. : Essai sur la Revolution Riisse. Paris, 
 1907. 
 
 Mikhailov, A. : Nikolay I. London, 1906. 
 
 Moukha, 1906.. 
 
 Narodnaya revoliisionnaya biblioteka, 1000-1902. 
 
 Nevinson, H. W. : The Dawn of Russia. London, 1905. 
 
 Obshtshestvennya dvizhenia v. Rossiu. St. Petersburg, 
 1905. 
 
 Orlov, P. : Russkaya Revohitsia. 1905-1906. 
 
 Perris, G. H. : Russia in Revolution. London, 1905. 
 
 Petrunkewitsh, T. T. : Zur Agrarbewcgung. Leipzig, 
 1907. 
 
 Plekhanov, G. : Russkiy Rabotshiy. Geneva, 1902. 
 
 Pyipin : Die geistigen Bewcgungen; 1894. 
 
 Rappoport, A. S. : The Curse of the Romanovs. Lon- 
 don, 1907. 
 
 Revolutsionnaya Rossia. Geneva, 1903-1904. 
 
 Romanoff, E. : Die revolutionnaire Bewegung. Heidel- 
 berg, 1910. 
 
 SemenofT, E. : Une page de la contre-r6volution russe. 
 Paris, 1906. 
 
 Shilder, N. K. : Tsarstvovanie Imperaiora Nikolaya /. 
 St. Petersburg, 1901. 
 
 Shtshegolev, P. E. : A. S. Griboyedov i dekabristi. St. 
 Petersburg, 1905. 
 
 Trotsky, L. : Nasha revoluietsia. St. Petersburg, 1907. 
 
 Tshernyslievski, N. G. : Works. Vevey, 1868-70. 
 
 Vietsnik Russkoy Revoluitsii. Geneva, 1905. 
 
 Vpered, 1873. 
 
 Vrba, R. : Die Revolution in Russland, 2 vols. 
 Prague, 1906. 
 
 Weber, M. : Istoritsheskiy Otsherk. Kiev, 1906. 
 
 Zavalishin, D. T. : Zapiski dekabrista^ 2 vols. Munich, 
 1904. 
 
 Ziliacus, K. : The Russian Revolutionary Movement. 
 London, 1907. 
 
 
INDEX 
 
 Agrarian problem, 24 
 
 Alexander I, 65 
 
 Alexander II, 106, 126 ; mani- 
 festo of, 149 
 
 Alexinsky, 26 
 
 Alexis Mikhailovitsh, reign of, 
 53 
 
 Araktsheev, 06 
 
 Axelrod, 26 
 
 Babeuf, on French Revolu- 
 tion, 19 
 
 Bakmiin, 23, 38, 153, 161-78 
 
 Balkan War, 203 
 
 Bardoux, on French Revolu- 
 tion, 11 
 
 Benedict XV, 29 
 
 Bereshkovskaya, 196 
 
 Berlin Revolution, 120 
 
 Bestuzhev-Marlinsky, 141 
 
 Blanqui, 24 
 
 Bluntschli, on Revolution, 2 
 
 Bolsheviki, 25 
 
 Bouchez, on French Revolu- 
 tion, 23 
 
 Boyarins, 52, 57 
 
 Bund, The, 27, 250, 251 
 
 Buntari, 197 
 
 Bureaucracy, German, in Rus- 
 sia, 58 
 
 Byelinsky, 141 
 
 Byzantine Christianity in I^us- 
 sia, 47 
 
 Cabet, on French Revolution, 
 
 23 
 Cadets, 25 
 
 Cahiers des doleances, 11, 17 
 Catastrophic idea, 6 
 
 Catherine II, 50, 135, 237, 240 
 
 Ch'\teaubriand, on Revolu- 
 tion, 2 
 
 Chesterfield, 135 
 
 Christians, 15 
 
 Church and State, struggle be 
 tween, 54 
 
 Commune, The Paris, 189 
 
 Congresses, Socialist interna- 
 tionalist, 28 
 
 Constantine, 77 
 
 Constituent Assembly, 33 
 
 Cossacks, 52 
 
 Crimean War, 123 
 
 Dostoievski, 121, 141 
 Dufournoy de VlUiers, on 
 
 French Revolution, 21 
 Duma, First, 26 ; Second, 
 
 26; Third, 26 
 
 Encyclopcedists, 30 
 Engels, 23, 24 
 
 " Fedei'alism," idea of, 32, 35 
 
 Feuerbach, 164 
 
 Figner, Vera, 209, 225, 226 
 
 Finland, 34 
 
 France, Bakunin on, 177 
 
 Freemasonry, 136 
 
 CTcrmany, Bakunin on, 177 
 Gershouni, 251 
 Ginsburg, Sophie, 223, 226 
 Girondins, 17, 33 
 GHnka, Theodor, 71 
 Gogol, 143, 14t 
 Gradovsky, 235, 237 
 Griboyedov, 139, 144 
 
 279 
 
280 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Grinetzky, 211 
 
 Guizot, on the French Revo- 
 lution, 9 
 
 Harkavy, Professor, 235 
 
 Hebrews, 15 
 
 Hegel, philosophical system, 
 
 144, 156. 162, 163 
 Herzen, Alexander, 112, 116, 
 
 126, 138, 145-50, 186 
 Holy Alliance, 67 
 
 Individualism, 260 
 
 Integral Socialism, 160 
 
 Internationale, The, 177, 190 
 
 Internationalisrn, 14, 27 
 
 Ipatovstsi, 187 
 
 Italian national movement, 
 
 1848, 31 
 Ivan Grozny, 51 
 
 Jacobins, 18 
 
 Jakubovitsh, 73, 82. 87, 91 
 
 Jewish question, 246 ; regi- 
 ment, 262 
 
 Jews, 132 ; Russian, aims of, 
 245 ; psychology of, 230 ; 
 sense of justice, 256, 259 
 
 Jingoism, 29 
 
 Judaism, spirit of, 261 
 
 Karakasov, 187 
 Karamzin, 66 
 Khazars, 234 
 Kornilovitsh, 76 
 Kropotkin, Peter, 193 
 
 Landed proprietors, 128 
 
 Lassalle, 23 
 
 Lavrov, 23, 25, 37, 156-01 
 
 Ledru-Rollin, 147 
 
 Lenin, 25 
 
 Lermontov, 143 
 
 Lettish Social Democratic 
 
 party, 27 
 Liberalism in Russia, 62 
 Liberals, 25 
 Lithuania, Jews of, 236 
 Lobanov-Bostovski, 78 
 
 Lopatin, Herman, 157, 221, 
 223 
 
 Lorer, 75 
 Lunin, 98, 103 
 
 Malikovtsi, 197 
 
 Malon, B., 160 
 
 Martov. 25 
 
 Marx, Karl, doctrines of, 23, 
 24, 29, 157, 173, 175, 221 
 
 INFasonic influence, 70 
 
 Matinintsi, 187 
 
 Mazzini, 147, 171, 173 
 
 Menshoviki, 25 
 
 Militarism, 28 
 
 Mill, John Stuart, on Revolu- 
 tion, 2, 3 
 
 Miloradovitsh, 78 
 
 " Mir," 25 
 
 Mlodetsky, 251 
 
 Mongol invasion, influence of 
 the, 49 
 
 Mouraviev, 70, 76, 108, 110 
 
 Napoleon, 30 ; and Nicholas I, 
 
 115 
 Napoleonic Wars, 30 
 Narodnaya Volya, 209, 222 
 Narodniki, 199 
 Nationalism, 14 
 Nationality, principle of, 30, 
 
 31, 35 
 " Nations, League of," 67 
 Nicholas I, 76 
 Nietshaev, 191, 194, 197 
 Nihilism, 152-5 
 Nikon, Patriarch, 54, 55 
 Novgorod, 43, 51 
 Novikov, 136 
 
 Odoievsky, Prince, 139 
 " Officers, Union of," 25 
 Ogarev, 145 
 Old Russia, 44 
 Orthodox Church, 53, 132 
 Ossinski, V., 200, 208 
 Oukrivateli, 210 
 Owen, Robert, 23 
 
INDEX 
 
 ^81 
 
 Palestine, conquest of, 268, 272 
 
 Pascal, 155 
 
 Peasants, 52 
 
 Perovskaya, 209, 211 
 
 Pestel, 70, 72, 75, 97, 112, 115 
 
 Peter the Great, 55, 56 
 
 Petrashevski, 1 1 9 
 
 Pissarev, 155 
 
 Plato, 14, 15 
 
 Plekhanov, 24, 25, 26 
 
 Poland, 34, 68 
 
 Polezhaev, 140 
 
 Polish Revolution, 184 
 
 Pougatshev, 59, 130 
 
 Proudhon, 163 
 
 Provisional government in 
 
 Russia, 34 
 Pskov, 43 
 Pushkin, 142, 143 
 
 Radishtshev, 137 
 
 Raskol, 54 
 
 Rationalism, 152 
 
 Razanov, 26 
 
 Razin, Stenka, 55, 130 
 
 Realism, 152 
 
 Reclus, E., on Revolution, 2, 8 
 
 Revolution, French, 1789-93, 
 
 24, 30, 32, 35, 113, 238 
 Romanov, Mikhail, Tsar, 53 
 Rosen, Baron, 82 
 Rostovtsev, 79 
 Rousseau, J. J., 38, 135, 137, 
 
 165 
 Russo-Turkish War, 200 
 Ryleev, 72, 77, 82, 88, 97, 98, 
 
 139 
 Ryssakov,' 211 
 
 Saratovtsi, 187 
 Sassoulitsh, Vera, 205 
 Schluesselburg, fortress, 220, 
 
 223 227 
 Semlya i Volya, 183, 198, 207, 
 
 208 
 Semski Sobor, 52, 56 
 
 Seraphim, Metropolitan, 91 
 Serfs, freedom of the, 1801, 
 
 Feb. 19th, 127 
 Serno-Solovyevitsh, 182 
 Sietsh, destruction of, 59 
 Social Democrats, 24, 25, 26, 
 
 39 
 Socialism, 14, 22, 27, 155 
 Soldiers, council of, 24 
 Soldiers and Sailors, union of, 
 
 25 
 Sombart, W., 28 
 " Sons of the Fatherland," 70 
 Soviet, 24 
 
 Speransky, ^Michael, 65, 81 
 Stael, Mme de, 30 
 Stankevitsh, IGl 
 Sticklov, 26 
 
 Taine, on the French Revolu- 
 tion, 8 
 
 Tkatshev, 199 
 
 Tourgeniev, 63, 64, 153 
 
 Troubetzkoy, 72, 83, 90, 97 
 
 Tsar, 51 
 
 Tsardom, 42 
 
 Tshaikovtsi, 193, 197 
 
 Tshernov, Victor, 25 
 
 Tshernyshevski, 150, 180, 183, 
 186, 221 
 
 Ukraine, The, 34, 150, 236 
 Universities, Russian, 181 
 
 Venevitinov, 140 
 Virtue, Society of, " Northern 
 and Southern Leagues," 70 
 Vyborg Manifesto, 26 
 
 Yakushkin, 99 
 
 Zhelyabov, 209 
 Ziemstvos, 185 
 Zionism, 265, 271. 272 
 Znamya Trouda, 25 
 
PRINTED BT 
 
 HA.ZELL, WATSON AND VINEY, LD., 
 
 tONDON AND AYLE3BURY. 
 
i^XX^XUf XIX^ X>XlJJV/VV 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO SO CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO $t.OO ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 MAR 22 ^a; 
 
 v» 
 
 Ml fi 151942 
 
 f/lAy 
 
 M 
 
 -f^ft 
 
 w i" * '003 aojj 
 
 f> 
 
 - ^1 ' ' ." 
 
 \^0e^ - 
 
 9J^1 
 
 ^"SOBM 
 
 RKC'D LP 
 
 UZJJ 
 
 ] 1 i l 
 
 KJyJ>.. 
 
 f^¥/ 
 
 u 
 
 ij 
 
 •i>'b4-7-PiVi 
 
 MAY 4 - 1968 5 ^- 
 
 LD 21-5m-l,'39(7053s7) 
 
U C BERKELEY LIBRAR 
 
 ES 
 
 CDS1117TSb 
 
 ^^0 1 DK^ 6^ 
 
 Job 1^1 -^ s 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY