BOOKS.
RUSSIA AND REFORM.•
IF Mr. Pares tells us nothing sensational in this stout volume, we are all the more ready to believe his word—in England we have been asked to believe rather too much about Russia lately—and if he tells us nothing exactly new, he at all events presents his points with a lucidity of the first order. The opening chapters embody the general principles of Russian nationality as they are revealed in the history of the Empire, and these chapters are so significant and terse that the latter portion of the work suffers somewhat by comparison. To serve its particular purpose, however, nothing has been written better than this book. It does not profess to compete with Sir Donald Mackenzie Wallace's book; it attempts to dissect rather what might be called the psychology of reform. If a national characteristic explains the progress or the set-banks of the Reform movement, Mr. Pares picks it out for dis- cussion, and diversifies his narrative with anecdotes from his experiences. Characteristics which do not illustrate his thesis he leaves alone. His power of selection is just and dis- criminating. He never gives us the feeling that his argument is being forced. It is a coherent description of Russian life, with a particular reference throughout to the agitation for reform. The foundation of the plan of the book is a • Rau& and B4fora. Barnard Pares. London: A. Constable sad Co. 11.0o. 6d, wt.]
recognition of the broad dividing-line between Slavophils and Westernism's. Their principles no doubt overlap; but their differences are so wide and so important that unless they are grasped the moral struggle between the great political schools cannot be understood. Mr. Pares examines the Slavophil tradition of " Tsar, Church, and People." He passes then to the origins and growth of the " Intelligence," or educated class. Next he shows the structural changesin Russia which resulted from the reforms of Alexander II. And finally he follows the course of the present. Constitutional struggle up to the elections to the second Duma.
All through Russian history certain well-defined principles have been at work,—one might deduce as wash from the tenacity of Russia. Mr. Pares describes these as the instinct of order, the championship of Christianity, and the family solidity and unity of the Russians. Russia fought her way Eastwards, but her cravings for civilisation had always to be satisfied in the West :—
" The great distances of Russia, comparatively unpeopled, called for civilisation, especially to eastwards ; and we have to under- stand that, from the very first, the Russians were a colonising people, especially on that side ; I have already mentioned the eastward direction of the rivers. The story is one of the great unwritten narratives of battles against the land. The Russians, like others of the more Eastern peoples, easily change their habitations; often enough the stress of events has obliged them to do so. l'he Slays followed the Germans when the Germans were driven westwards into the old Roman Empire. The first Russian Empire was itself little more than a road, consisting of that great waterway whieh ran from the Baltic to Constanti- nople. The Russians, as born travellers, were indeed, from the very first, born borrowers,—in a sense born to cosmopolitanism. They took their ruling race from the Baltic and their system of Church and State from Constantinople. At first, not so very much more than the through roads were in the bands of the Government, as is still the case in many parts of Siberia. But the stream of Russian energy went on flowing, and the wilderness was conquered step by step.'
As time passed the need to administer and teach the East, and the need to draw inspiration for the purpose from the West, became (as of course they ought not to have done) distinct and unrelated aims. The degenerate Slavophil preaches Eastern expansion as being a kind of anti-Western act. Perhaps in a way it is ; but it is not a good reason for the Eastern or forward policy. We would add to what Mr. Pares so truly says that the contact- of Russia with the West has almost without exception been to ber profit and credit, and her contact with the East almost without exception to her loss and discredit. Alexander II., who was a liberal reformer, was, of course, a Westerniser. His institution of the County and Town Councils (the former well known to foreigners as the Zemstvos) all over Russia provided a nucleus of representa- tive government which might have grown even in his day into something like a Parliamentary institution. The bomb which killed him put back the clock in Russia twenty-four years. At the moment of his death the document summoning delegates of the Zemstvos to St. Petersburg was actually signed and waiting to be promulgated. But we must not leave out of account the reactionary advice of the late M. Pobedonostzeff, whose philosophy of autocracy Mr. Pares examines. It was be whoinduced the new Czar Alexander III. to withdraw his signature, which had been added to his father's document a few days before. Of course M. Pobedonostzeff was sincere ; be even had what be supposed to be a construc- tive policy ; he was a Mazzini bent on joining the influence of religion to political method. But, by a wonderful irony, he caused more than any man the irreligion of anarchy to spread. A nation awakening to thoughts of Constitutional representa- tion never could and never will be satisfied with the assurances of a Monarch who is reduced to saying, like Louis XVI. Sets/ je feral is hien de Ines peuples. Plehve's advice did not differ from Pobedonostzeff's, except, perhaps, in its diminished emphasis upon religion. He is believed to have told the present Emperor that he could not be responsible for his life if concessions were made. The event showed that he could not be responsible for his own. Prince Mirsky, who succeeded Plehve as Minister of State, summoned the first Congress of the Zemstvos in November, 1904,—twenty-four years after the assassination of Alexander II. That Congress was, of course, the anteroom to Parliamentary govern- ment.
Mr. Pares's descriptions of the marshes and forests, the villages and country houses, of Russia are excellent, at once precise and entertaining. The following extract illustrates the primitive character of the village Councils
"As I drive through a little village of the Rost6ff district, a horn is sounding to call a meeting ; I dismount and seek out the Police Tenth man, a dreamy old man with pink eyes and long grey beard ; he is the only illiterate whom I have met in this district. We walk to the village green, where benches are placed and the men are gathering. The women stand together within earshot; they are now entitled to hold land independently. The elected, a hearty, capable, brown-faced man, welcomes me with evident interest ; we sit down on a bench and talk and smoke ; when all the men are assembled the elected stands up. 'God has sent us a good time,' he says ; • shall we all go hay-making to- morrow ?' As the pasture land is common and undivided, this question requires a meeting, and during hay-making time there may be as many as three meetings a week. It must now be decided whether to-morrow is a suitable day, and if so at what time the start should be made, and who should be sot to work on each part of the land. There is no vote-taking, only a general expression of opinion on each point. The meeting wavers for a while in deciding between 4 and 4.30 a.m. When everything is settled there is a kind of unanimous `Hurrah !' and the decision is ratified by general cries of ' Good luck !' (literally, • at a good time'). All face towards Rost6ff, whose domes shine up in the setting sun, and the elected says a word of prayer. This is the only time when I have seen the conventional village chorus off the stage."
The peasants, though hospitable and friendly, are not honest. They are also lazy, bat as a Liberal is quoted as saying, "If you never see your pay coming you lose intereet in your work." The arbitrary division of the people into the three classes of the nobility, the merchants, and the peasants mint be increasingly difficult to maintain, but it is still useful as broad distinctions go. Mr. Pares has great hopes of the service that will ultimately be done to Russia by the enormous and stable class of peasants. The peasantry are naturally the backbone of any agricultural country, and the rallying-power of Russia may be exemplified more brilliantly than ever if only the peasants, still improperly educated, can be educated in the right way. As for the "Intelligente," Mr. Pares has less faith in them. They are necessary to Russia, but responsi- bility alone can remedy their defects :— " For good or for evil, perhaps no country in Europe, not even France herself, can show the effects of the French Revolution developed in so extreme and logical a form as Russia. It is largely the fault of the Intelligente that the methods of autocracy have been able to exaggerate themselves so long. If Russia had learnt 'character' as soon as she had learnt intelligence, she would have been eactically free long before this. Probably the greatest obstacle to reform at the present day is what is called in Russia • unynye ' or despondency, an aspect of pessimism which is far more characteristic of the Intelligents than of any other class."
Russians are as fond as the Moors of discussing religion, and this fact is only an illustration of Mr. Pares's generalisation that mind is allowed to rank above character :—
" The Russian Intelligent is before all things a creature of mind ; mind in fact is what he idolises. A sure instinct tells him what is intellectually bad; and criticism is of a high order in this country, because people never scruple to say what they think. The cheap rubbish which is used in conversation' by the un- intellectual in England in order to mark time, would be utterly ineffective in Russia, because no one would pretend to enjoy it. A Russian is not very likely to offer to sing before company unless he really knows how to sing. Intellectual vigour is strong enough and general enough to prevent any one man from ever having a monopoly of a conversation, unless his superiority is exceptional. One of the highest compliments which can be paid to any one is conveyed in the words ` an educated man.' A good saying, a quick thought, runs like a spark through this sympa, thetio audience. The great Russian writers enjoy a consideration which makes them almost the gods of the Intelligente. We all have our consciences of different kinds ; is Russia a pointlesis criticism of Pushkin or Lermontoff would give something like a shock to all who heard it. A clever and good lady, with whom I used to discuss many subjects, once said to me ' What a terrible thing it would be if a girl married a man who couldn't answer questions !' I assumed that she was thinking of questions as to his past life, but no, she meant purely general questions such as 'What is the composition of coal ? ' or • Who was Attila?' I suggested that it would be more serious if she married a man who deserted her, as is constantly happening in Russia; • she owned that she had not thought of it in quite that way. In a word, the intellect altogether takes precedence of the character."
We must mention, finally, Mr. Pares's very useful sketch of the Liberation movement. Altogether, this book is valuable because it contains the comments and judgments of a com- petent and wise observer. Mr. Pares believes in the future of Russia, but he believes that it will be built on the moderate elements in the State. So do we. But is it not a discouraging reflection that at this moment the Government should be boycotting those very elements in the Duma
Previous page
