Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

The Slavophils searched diligently for something peculiarly Russian upon which they could establish the new type of civilization which was to redeem humanity. They claimed to have found this in the Russian Greek Orthodox Church, the Autocratic Government, and the Parish LandCommune of the Russian peasantry.

The Greek Church, they maintained, is a living organism of life and truth. It consists not in the number of believers, nor in the visible congregation, but in the spiritual tie which binds them together. Roman Catholicism curtails individual liberty for the sake of unity. Protestantism takes the alternative and loses its unity in its individualism. Greek orthodoxy assumes to be the only religion which remains true to the spirit of primitive Christianity, having harmoniously wedded unity and liberty by the principal of Christian love.

Autocracy, as its second peculiar institution, is not a product of conflict and brutal force, to which present parliamentary rule is but a natural reaction, as are the governments of the West. Russian autocracy was created by the free will of its citizens. The legend of the call of Rurik, the first dynast of Russia may not be true historically but it certainly is true tempermentally, reflecting the mind of the people. Thus autocracy is the " Holy Ark" of the Russian nation. The sovereign wishes but the good of the people and this makes parliamentary rule superfluous.

The Parish Land-Commune was called the cornerstone of all Russian institutions and was highly prized as a realization of the Utopian dreams of Western socialists, who hoped to attain to it by way of capitalism and a proletariat. The socialist ideal of communal ownership of land and of the tools of production, it was said, needed not to be attained in Russia by force. There it is a natural product having grown from the very heart of the people.

The creation of a proletariat is hence unnecessary and impossible in Russia. The spirit of Christian resignation and self-sacrifice has achieved there, what selfish Western Europe is trying to get by a bitter class-struggle. This shows, they concluded, that Russian society is based upon the principle of justice and voluntary self-abasement-immeasurably higher than the struggle principle of the "Rotten West".1

The Slavophils were voluminous writers and were often brilliant. They contributed not a little to the autocratic idea, although their theories have helped to stimulate Russia's national consciousness and have aided in emancipating the Russian serf by a peaceful method. Besides this they have gathered much valuable historical and ethnographic material, which, apart from interpretation, is some of the best that exists. They have shown what are the peculiarities of Russian Orthodoxy in comparison with other Christian Confessions. Better than any other authors they have pointed out the peculiar characteristics of the Russian people. They also have shown what there is in common among the various Slavic peoples. Finally they

2

It is hardly necessary to say that these "fundamentals" of the Slavophils are based upon imaginary premises which do not stand historical scrutiny. Autocracy in Russia has been severely shaken and will have to yield to the will of the people. The much eulogized parish-commune is in a state of decay and has since (1906) been abolished by law. In the nineties of the last century Russia entered her industrial era of capitalistic production on a large scale and her proletariat is growing daily.

2 Especially A. S. Khomyakov, Works, vol. v-vii (Russian).

8 The best author in this field is K. S. Aksakov, Works, vol. i-iii (Russian).

On this subject, see Valuev, Almanach for Historical and Statistical Information about Russia and Peoples Akin to Her in Faith and Race (1845) (Russian).

attempted to state the differences which exist between the Romano-Germanic and the Graeco-Slavic world.1

The Slavophils of the period covered by the reign of Nicholas I were metaphysical in their presuppositions and their premises were untenable after the decline of the Hegelian school. The newer Slavophils realized this and sought to re-establish their principles by the aid of sociology and of the natural sciences. Danilevsky is the most important writer of this group.

Even more exclusive than the Slavophils were the extreme Nationalists or Russophils who saw danger for Russian Autocracy in a mingling with other Slavs already influenced by Western liberalism. The creed of the Russophils was expressed by Nicholas I's faithful servant, Count Uvarov, who held the portfolio of the ministry of education from 1833 to 1849. Uvarov, when entering upon his position, outlined his program to all Russian educators in these words: "Our general task consists in establishing such an education for the nation as will unify in itself the spirit of Orthodoxy, of Autocracy and of Nationalism.' This formulation has since remained the Holy Trinity of Russian Autocracy; it is its alpha and its omega. Katkov, a former liberal Slavophil, advanced it through the press (in "The Moscow Vyedomosty" and other periodicals), and Leontiev attempted to give it a philosophical and sociological justification. The most famous of Russian reactionaries, however, was Pobyedonoszev (1827-1907). Under two czars he dictated the policies of the government. He was the teacher and advisor of Alexander III and he wrote

1 This subject has been exhaustively studied by V. I. Lamansky, see his doctor's dissertation, The Historical Study of the Graeco-Slavic World in Europe (1870). There are also some two hundred printed books, articles, etc., dealing with the Slavic world, all by the same author (Russian).

the reactionary manifesto of Nicholas II upon his accession to the throne.1

His social and political views are the exact antithesis of Russian Progressive Westernism. He hated Western philosophy, science and civilization and dogmatically postulated Uvarov's theocratic Trinity: Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationalism as the only institutions which can preserve Russia in continuous safety and happiness. He fought for the preservation of ignorance among the common people, being convinced that the peasant would gain nothing from learning to read, except the consciousness of his own poverty.

The nationalistic trend had fortunately also other intellectual representatives besides the extremists Katkov, Leontiev and Pobyedonoszev. Vladimir Soloviev, although not an Orthodox Slavophil nor Russophil, is still akin to them and tries to make Russian nationalism more inclusive and synthetic.❜

The oppressive policies of the rule of Nicholas I had eradicated every remnant of the Decembrist movement. However, new protests were ripening from among the intellectual classes. These protests were variously expressed in the writings of a group of thinkers who, when discriminated from the Slavophils were generally called Westernists. Chaädaev was among the first to raise a voice against the sterile, deadening Russian Theocracy, ad

8

1 This document, which was pronounced personally by the czar before the representatives of the nobility, the military classes and the Zemstvos (local governments), censures the latters' ambition to participate in matters of internal government as "senseless dreams" and concludes with the significant words, "Let all know that, in devoting all my strength to the welfare of the people, I intend to protect the principle of autocracy as firmly and as unswervingly as did my late and never-to-be-forgotten father."

For an analysis of his theories, see infra, pt. i, ch. ii.

[blocks in formation]

vocating as a remedy a yielding to the Roman Theocracy of the West. Chaädaev himself never became a Roman Catholic. The culture of the French people he seemed to have admired more than their religion, but he did not distinguish between the two, rather regarding French culture as a product of their religion.

A different interpretation was given to Western thought by Belinsky. This thinker rapidly passed through the intermediate stages from a metaphysical interpretation of civilization to a positivist view of society. He first began to gather around himself what is known in Russia as the "intelligenzia". (By the "intelligenzia", or intellectual class must be understood that progressive and radical wing of Russia's educated people which holds the emancipation of the common people from their misery and ignorance to be its principal task and which opposes the existing institutions of political and social control. Belinsky was followed as a leader by Herzen and Bakunin who, each in his own way, stirred the intellectuals to action.

The lifeless despotism of Nicholas broke down under its own weight. The occasion was the Crimean war. The reaction to the disaster was volcanic. The old régime was doomed to pass with the defeat of Russia's most uncompromising autocrat, Nicholas I. Alexander II, who succeeded him, promised radical reforms, and the great opportunity for the progressive elements of the Russian nation had come.

Emancipation was the cry of the day. Emancipation of the peasant from serfdom, of the citizens from the state, of the woman from patriarchal tyranny, of the thinker from authorities and tradition. There must be struggle to the end against every institution that was irrational or oppres

1 Cf. infra, pt. i, ch. iii.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »