THE “INTELLIGENZIA”
_January 6th._
I arrived at St. Petersburg this morning. I have been trying to
formulate my reactionary feelings. I will put them on paper; although I
know I shall only have to spend a very short time with real
reactionaries to be driven straight back into the opposite camp. But
lately at Moscow I have had a heavy dose of anti-governmental
unfairness. Too heavy for the present, although perhaps I shall one day
in the future think that it was not unfair at all.
I asked a man the other day, who is employed in the “Zemstva,” what
party he belonged to. “I belong to the party of common sense,” he
answered; “unfortunately it does not exist.” This exactly sums up, I
think, the impression that any impartial observer must necessarily
derive from the present situation in Russia. Common sense has gone.
Hysteria and undisciplined rant have taken its place.
First, the revolutionaries. There are two kinds of revolutionaries: the
active, who throw bombs at policemen and soldiers, who are ready to dare
anything and sacrifice themselves; and the passive revolutionaries who
sit at home and sympathise and talk a great deal. What is their point of
view?
1. They consider that all classes who are not definitely enrolled under
their flag are violent reactionaries and are fit to be classed with the
“Black Hundred.” The Duma that is to be, they say, will be a “Black
Hundred” Duma; the present Government is purely and simply a reactionary
Government composed of bureaucrats, and no good can come to Russia until
the ulcer is pierced to the core, and all bureaucrats, together with the
Emperor and all his family, and all his Court, are removed. The
objection that the present Government is merely temporary until the Duma
assembles, they meet with the counterargument that the Government, with
the franchise law as it is, is capable of influencing the elections to
any extent, and that the result will be a reactionary Duma.
2. The second question is—What do they want? They say they want a
Constituent Assembly and universal suffrage, and no doubt they do want
this. But whether they would be satisfied with this if they were given
it is another question. Personally, my experience has so far led me to
believe that they would in no wise be satisfied with this; I would lay
odds to this effect. I may, no doubt, be mistaken. I believe what they
really want is for Russia to become a federation of autonomous States
represented by a Republic. Some of the more moderate are either opposed
to this or refrain from stating any opinion in favour of it, owing to
the fact that they know that the Army and ninety million peasants are
ready to kill any one within reach if the “Gasudar” is to be tampered
with.
They fear that if the question of a Republic is brought forward there
will be a general massacre of the educated bourgeoisie, the so-called
“Intelligenzia.” Nothing is more probable. Some people say that nothing
will really change the attitude of these people: no more than any amount
of measures which one of Lord Salisbury’s Cabinets might have adopted
would have changed the opinion of the supporters of Mr. Gladstone or Sir
Henry Campbell-Bannerman, or _vice versâ_. That it is utterly futile to
expect common sense or common fairness from them. That they have their
party feeling, to which they are ready to sacrifice everything, and that
it is infinitely stronger and more bitter, and necessarily stronger and
more bitter, than anything of which we have had experience in England
during the last century.
Some people object that they understand the militant revolutionaries
being in this frame of mind, but they do not understand the more
intelligent passive and detached supporters of the advanced party
sharing such childish views. The more intelligent and detached
supporters are even more violent in their talk than the militant
fighters. At present the kind of argument one hears used is like the
following, which I have heard with my own ears. I have heard intelligent
cultivated people say: “How wicked and cowardly of the Government to
fire upon the revolutionaries, since they have guns and the
revolutionaries haven’t got any.” The English mind, which, be it Liberal
or Conservative, tends to common sense, revolts against such reasoning.
It is rare to find in Russia an Englishman who sympathises with the
revolutionaries. English common sense revolts at the hysterical
impatience which demands the immediate fulfilment of measures more
radical and socialist than exist in any European state, and the common
British sense of fairness is violated at hearing of the wanton murder of
policemen, who earn a poor living and are in no way responsible for the
misdeeds of the Government, exalted as a patriotic execution worthy of
Harmodius and Aristogiton.
On the other hand I think we fail—I am alluding to Englishmen who visit
Russia, and not to those who live here permanently—to realise that the
Russians have been up to now destitute of certain guarantees which
Englishmen regard as a matter of course, and that they do not consider
they have obtained these guarantees yet; and here it is difficult to
contradict them.
Lately an incident happened which has proved a kind of focussing glass
concentrating the opinions of both parties. The revolutionaries walked
into the house of the head of the detective police service, dragged him
from his family circle and shot him. Somewhat later a police officer
named Ermolov walked into the house of a doctor and shot him before his
wife’s eyes. The officer gave himself up to the authorities and said his
act was due to momentary aberration. Around these incidents both parties
wage a war of tongues. The sympathisers with the revolutionaries talk of
the martyrdom of the doctor; whereas their opponents say that the fuss
they are making is unjustifiable since they did the very same thing.
Personally I think that the weak side of the Government case is this:
that the revolutionaries are sure of punishment if caught; whereas the
official who does wrong is not punished, and his wrong-doing is surely
more heinous because he is the representative of the law. On the other
hand I think the wanton murder of policemen has nothing of the heroic in
it, and when I hear it spoken of in terms of admiration I am disgusted.
As to the opponents of the revolutionaries, they also attack the
Government, and especially Count Witte. They say that the only
supporters of Count Witte are foreigners. The _Slovo_ newspaper said,
for instance, that foreigners only supported Count Witte because they
desired the enfeeblement of Russia. But reactionaries say that the
Russian revolution is entirely fostered and supported by a foreign
Government. Now it cannot be to the French Government’s interest for
Russia’s credit to collapse, nor can it be to the German Government’s
interest for Russia to become a federation of autonomous States;
therefore it must be the English Government, and, when pressed, they
admit this. But if the English Press is trying to ruin Russia by
supporting Count Witte, it is obvious that it cannot be at the same time
trying to ruin Russia by supporting the revolutionaries. One of these
two statements must be untrue; quite apart from the question as to
whether the collapse of Russia’s credit would prove a material advantage
to England. The fact is that the reactionaries who talk in this strain
are politically limited in their ideas; they know practically nothing
either of England or of any other country, they merely repeat old
catchwords and musty traditions which have been proved to be absurd.
Now apart from these reactionary Jingoes, who are really of no
importance whatsoever now, there is a large class of people who six
months ago would have been called red revolutionaries, and who now call
themselves “Moderates,” and are called by the revolutionaries members of
the “Black Gang.”
These people wish for the most speedy fulfilment of the Manifesto of the
17th of October; they blame the Government for its delay in making laws,
and they blame Count Witte. But they look upon the Duma as being
competent to settle the various aspirations of the various parties. They
should be a strong party; the trouble is that up to the present time
they have never seen their way either to support the Government or to
form a homogeneous party among themselves. It is possible that the
recent events at Moscow may have the effect of causing them to coalesce.
It is to be hoped that this will happen; for in them lies the safe _via
media_ between the two extremes of reaction and anarchy.
It will be noticed that all these various parties are united with regard
to one detail, that is in their blame of Count Witte. It is also worth
mentioning that in all the innumerable attacks made on Count Witte
nobody has so far had the ingenuity or the perspicacity to name his
possible successor. Would the revolutionaries really like him to go? I
doubt it. They would have, in the first place, nobody to attack; in the
second place, they would risk having a more reactionary successor. For
that reason I have never up to now believed in any of the countless
reports regarding Count Witte’s immediate resignation.
At present the Government is feeling extremely confident owing to the
way in which recent events have turned out; the revolutionaries also
profess to be in no wise disheartened; they say that the Moscow rising
is nothing in comparison with what they will do in March, and that
seeing that they have exhausted the efficacy of strikes and armed
risings they will adopt the method of terrorism and blow up Government
buildings with dynamite (in March). I have heard intelligent
sympathisers with the revolutionaries talking of such a policy with
enthusiasm, saying that this is the only way to deal with the
Government, and that the Duma, such as it will be, is not only of no
account but will never come into existence.
These people are members of the Russian “Intelligenzia,” or middle
professional class. They have many admirable qualities, and I live among
them and like them; but I think that sometimes some of their members
talk most wildly and ought to know better. Up to now, of course, they
have been carefully prevented by the Government from taking any part in
politics whatsoever, and they feel now that vast possibilities have been
opened to them; that it is they who made the revolution, and that it is
they who are going to rule the country.
Only at present they have not succeeded in producing a great man. They
arrogate to themselves the position of sole spokesmen and
representatives of the Russian people, and at this also common sense
revolts. For apart from the fact of the peasants distrusting them, and
the Army hating them, what have they done for Russia? Possibly it was
not they who brought about the Constitution. They class the whole gentry
and aristocracy with the Bureaucrats under one sweeping ban of blame and
abuse; but the gentry laid the foundations of reform and revolution long
before they existed as a class at all (_vide_ the Decembrists, 1825).
Moreover, the gentry gave to Russia Poushkin, Lermontov, Gogol, Tolstoi,
Turgeniev, Tchaikovski, and Dostoievski; in fact, her literature, her
art, her music, her poetry; all her great men and men of genius. In the
sphere of the arts they have made Russia hideous by importing a debased
_art nouveau_ from Munich; and in the sphere of literature they have
produced some excellent writers of short stories. In verse (the verse of
such writers as “Skitaletzt” is weaker than the prose of Andreev and
Co.) the English equivalent would be the political poetry of Mr. Alfred
Austin; the political tendencies of the Russian writers, of course,
differ widely from that of the English Laureate, whose work, although it
has met with public recognition, would, perhaps, have made England less
famous as a literary nation were it the sole representative of our
poetical literature.
Now that I have disburdened myself on the subject of the unfairness of
the “Intelligenzia,” I feel better. According to the oriental fashion I
should at once add counter-arguments giving all that there is to be said
in their favour. This I will do another day.
MOSCOW, _January 13th_.
I came back to Moscow on the 10th. I saw the old year out (it is the
Russian New Year’s Eve) with the kind family who live on the floor above
mine, and with whom I always have my meals. They played Vindt all night.
When the New Year came “A happy New Year” was drunk in champagne.