CHAPTER XIV THE PHANTOM OF NIHILISM

England's Sympathy with the Nihilists—Cabinet Ministers' Indiscretion—Mr. Gladstone's Incredulity—I Prove My Words—Mr. Gladstone's Action—A Strange Confusion—A Reformed Nihilist—His Significant Admission—The Nihilist's Regret—The Death of Revolutionary Russia—The Greatness of the Future—The Reckless, Impulsive Russian—The Russian Refugees at Buenos Ayres—They Crave for a Priest


Once upon a time the newspapers in Great Britain devoted quite a considerable space to Nihilism, almost invariably writing of it with considerable sympathy and very little insight. If the editors, in whose papers many "illuminating" articles appeared, were to imagine those self-same articles written to-day in Russian newspapers with the single alteration of the word "Nihilism" into "Sinn Feinism," they would understand something of the feelings their articles aroused in the hearts of Russians.

As an illustration of the fascination that the internal affairs of Russia seemed to possess for Englishmen, I may tell a little story which at the time caused me and other Russians no little annoyance. There was a paper that used to reach me more or less regularly entitled Free Russia. It was the organ of the English Society of Russian Freedom, and its amiable object was "to destroy the Russian {200} Government." In other words, it was Nihilistic. I believe the publication started in the autumn of 1893. As soon as I discovered its purpose I used to drop it into the waste-paper basket without a second thought. One day, however, I happened to glance at the title page, on which I found were printed the names of the General Committee of the Friends of Russian Freedom, and to my astonishment I found there the names of the Rt. Hon. Arthur Ackland, M.P., and the Rt. Hon. G. J. Shaw-Lefevre, M.P. (who became Lord Eversley), and Mr. Thomas Burt, M.P. The two first-named were members of Mr. Gladstone's Ministry.

CHURCH BUILT BY ALEXANDER NOVIKOFF ON HIS FATHER'S GRAVE AT NOVO-ALEXANDROFKA
CHURCH BUILT BY ALEXANDER NOVIKOFF ON HIS FATHER'S GRAVE AT NOVO-ALEXANDROFKA

By a curious chance, on the day of my discovery Lady Spencer was holding a reception, and there I saw Mr. Gladstone. I am afraid rather impetuously I burst into reproaches at the conduct of two of his ministers. He was incredulous, and asked me to send him proofs. I promised that I would, but alas! I found the waste-paper basket had been cleared, and the paper destroyed. This was the next morning. What was I to do? It was a miserable, foggy day. I hate London fogs, but I was determined to convince Mr. Gladstone. I therefore went into the City, and anyone who goes into the City on a foggy day must be either a lunatic or a patriot, I told myself. The only redeeming feature of that uncomfortable morning was that I proved conclusively that the circulation of Free Russia must be a very small one. I had two hours' hard work before at last I ran a copy to earth. Returning home I wrote to Mr. Gladstone in great triumph, and the result was that I received a letter from him which showed his uncompromising disapproval. He wrote:

{201}

"It appears to me that a minister in our country has no title to belong to a Political Society in another. Let him look to his own affairs—here, at any rate, these give us enough, and more than enough, to do."

Mr. Gladstone went on to say that his colleagues, Mr. Lefevre and Mr. Ackland, were of his opinion, and that he did not propose to worry about Mr. Burt unless I wished it, as he was not a minister.

I fancy there must have been a disapproving look in Mr. Gladstone's eye, and a stern note in his voice when he interviewed his ministers.

Oh dear, if English people had only refrained from directing that vast fund of sympathy which they undoubtedly possess towards Nihilists and men whose sole object is destruction and what the Germans call 'frightfulness'! I once said, and I believe it to be true, that as a rule the only thing known in England about Russians is that they take lemon with their tea.

There were some, even, who went to the length of asserting, always taking good care to add that their information came from unimpeachable sources, that "Panslavism and Nihilism went hand in hand." Imagine the astonishment of the British Imperialists if they were told on the best authority that "Imperialism and Sinn Feinism went hand in hand!"

What a calumny! What are the tenets of Panslavism? Religion, autocracy, and nationality. These three motives, according to us, are not only united but indissoluble. They form the very essence of our creed, of our life. In fact we are the opposite pole to the Nihilists, who hate every idea of God, {202} who detest autocracy and despise nationality! The hostility between these two lies in their nature. There can be no compromise between them. The Russian people abhor the Nihilists, who are perfectly aware of that feeling.

I am told that some years ago a judge offered a Nihilist the alternative of being left to Lynch Law, upon which the prisoner fell on his knees and implored to be punished by the existing Russian laws. All the Russians who deserve that name, who are devoted to their Church and their country, are particularly devoted to the present Emperor. They trust, they love him; they appreciate his noble and generous qualities, his extreme kindness, and his self-sacrifice. Anything done to injure him injures the whole of Russia. It needs, in truth, no effort on the part of the Panslavists to be devoted to Nicholas II. I have seen it stated that the peasants, disappointed with not receiving a new distribution of land at the last coronation, form a fertile ground for Nihilism. This is not the case. The Nihilists have long ago given up the hope of spreading their diabolical doctrines among the rural classes. If they got hold of a few peasants—thank God! very few indeed—those "Converts" of theirs have abandoned their plough and have been perverted in some public school only by a semblance of science. It is a fatal tendency, which is to be deplored and deprecated in all the public establishments in Russia as well as in foreign countries, that very young people, even children, are allowed to discuss and twaddle on politics, instead of studying their grammars and their geography! With that tendency {203} mistakes and false doctrines are unavoidable; any mischievous teacher may easily take hold of them and turn them into flexible tools.

People are misinformed about the hardships of compulsory military service, which gives every year, even in time of peace, a contingent of about 830,000, which is much below the number required by the Army.

Russia has never shown herself anxious to fight. In fact she has had fewer wars than her neighbours. From the Crimean War in 1855 till the year 1877 she fought only one serious war with a European Power. In the course of this time France had two—in 1859 with Austria, in 1870 with Germany; Prussia two—in 1866 with Austria, in 1870 with France; Austria two—in 1859 with France, in 1866 with Germany. So there is no actual ground for pitying the Russian soldiers more than any other. Of course, every soldier risks being killed. That is not, however, the speciality of my countrymen alone. All the great European countries, even Great Britain herself has been forced to sacrifice her ideals victim to emergency.

People often talk of the difficulty of an autocratic Government in crushing revolutions. Is this really so? Are the years of '48 and '49 meaningless or forgotten? Surely not in France, not in Germany, not in Austria, or Italy! The form of government has nothing to do with plots and assassinations. The prototype of a constitutional monarch was undoubtedly Louis Philippe, who during his eighteen years' reign had to face eighteen attempts directed against his life. The Emperor Louis Napoleon had {204} about ten; and the President of the United States, even his life is not unassailable. The assassination of Lincoln and McKinley are full of meaning.

There is an old English saying, "Set a thief to catch a thief." I would say, "Learn from an ex-Nihilist what Nihilism really means." In 1888 Mr. Leon Tikhomirov, an able author and accomplished scholar, who had been led into Nihilism, in a pamphlet entitled Why I have Ceased to be a Revolutionist, publicly recanted his former faith. This act on the part of one of its most prominent and active members spread something like dismay in the Nihilist camp. "A great misfortune has befallen us, brethren, a very great one," was the beginning of an open letter addressed by a contemporary Nihilist to his political co-religionists. "Yes, a great misfortune," he exclaims again, with Russian frankness at the conclusion of his epistle. From the Nihilistic point of view the event referred to was undoubtedly a very great loss, a most serious "misfortune."

I did not then know Mr. Tikhomirov personally, but he has since become a great friend of mine. Alter leaving the Kertch Gymnasium with the gold medal, he entered a Russian university, where he took a foolish part in one of the students' riots, and in the propaganda. Four years' prison life was the result of those follies.

The pamphlet which contains his confession is notable for its tone of extreme honesty and sincerity. In all Christian charity we are bound to sympathise with him who repents. "Do not strike a man on the ground" is a good proverb which should have a {205} practical application. In Mr. Tikhomirov the Nihilist party had a talented, cultivated and probably sincere member, who sacrificed his material interests and prospects in life in order to be true to his convictions.

At that time his idea, unfortunately, was that the only possible evolution for Russia was—Revolution. In that direction he worked and wrote for several years. The first edition of La Russie Politique et Sociale belongs to that lamentable period of his career. But the success which attended that mistaken book has not prevented its author from retracing his steps in an opposite and more worthy direction, with the result shown in his pamphlet Why I have Ceased to be a Revolutionist. The unreserved sincerity of this publication is remarkable. To speak out one's mind needs much moral courage, especially when one knows that all who sympathise are far away, and that one is surrounded by people who are only too ready to impute the meanest and most despicable motives. Mr. Leon Tikhomirov, however, faced that risk.

The sketch of his moral convalescence is worth study. Whilst pondering over his psychological diagnosis, one involuntarily recalls Shakespeare's—

Yes, indeed, none are so surely caught, when they are caught,
As wit turned fool!


But, fortunately, the wit is now restored. In order to render Mr. Tikhomirov full justice, it would be necessary to translate every line of his pamphlet; short of that, where I cannot give the words in full, I shall endeavour to carry the spirit.

{206}

"I look upon my past with disgust," says he, and this is not surprising when the details of that past are examined. He is not influenced by any expectation of the future. Having left the revolutionary party his only object now is to promote, by legitimate means, the cause of true progress; the conviction that he has been right in abandoning his former faith is only strengthened by the reproaches now heaped upon him by his former associates.... "When I was twenty," says he, "I used to write revolutionary programmes. If twenty years later I were unable to write something better, I should really have a very poor opinion of myself."

Still, that transition, from folly to wisdom, was not accomplished without struggle and hesitation. Mr. Tikhomirov frankly admits how hard it was for him to acknowledge that he was utterly wrong; that, in clinging to his theories, he held a dead body which could not be revived! He hesitated to bury it, in spite of its obvious lifelessness.

"About the year 1880," Mr. Tikhomirov continues, "I, and not I alone, began to feel that our party was becoming torpid, was daily losing more and more of its vital force, which had at first seemed so great. The following year I began wondering how it was that Russia was healthy and full of life, while the revolutionary movement, that very movement which, according to our ideas, was the very manifestation of national growth, was withering and decaying. This obvious contradiction reduced me to a morbid despair. I went abroad with the sole object of publishing my recollections of the events through which I had lived. Since then, all the {207} remains of the old organisations have perished, all, all have tumbled down! Reality has given me startling lessons. One consoling hope, however, remains. I deemed it possible to rebuild our party, while remaining within it. Oh, what a self-delusion that was! In reality it was I who enslaved myself, who was prevented from thinking, from meditating, as I ought to have done! Still the strokes fell too heavily; their weight became intolerable. I felt we were on a wrong track, and urged Lopatine and the other members of our party to search for some new paths. On finding that they would not, or could not, follow my advice, in 1884 I wrote to say that I had ceased to belong to their party, and withdrew their right to use my name. Thus ended my co-operation with all their circles and organisations."

There is in Mr. Tikhomirov's narrative a sincerity and truthfulness which appeal to our best nature. He is not melodramatic, he does not strain after theatrical effects, but he compels his reader to feel for him, almost to share his sorrow. But let us listen again to his own voice.

"Meditating upon recent events, I wrote in my diary of March, '86—'Yes, I am definitely convinced now that revolutionary Russia—taken as a serious intelligent party—does not exist. Revolutionists still exist, and may make some noise. But it is not a storm, only ripples on the surface of a sea. Since last year one fact seems to me perfectly obvious. All our hopes have to depend henceforth on Russia, on the Russian people. As to our revolutionists, hardly anything may be expected of them. I came to the conclusion that it was absolutely necessary to {208} arrange my life so as to serve Russia according to my own instinct, independently of any party. The Nihilist party, I now see too well, can only injure Russia. My common sense and my will might remain dormant, but once they awoke I had to obey them. If my former friends could leave their graves and come to life again, I would spare no effort to induce them to follow me, and then with them, or quite alone, I would take the path which I now feel to be the true one."

Mr. Tikhomirov has much sinned, but he has also loved much. Even in his revolutionary epoch, Russia was still precious to him, and he was always ready to die for her unity. In that respect, to his credit be it said, he was not a model Nihilist, whose creed it is to despise such "obsolete notions" as patriotism. How much freedom of thought was tolerated in those circles can be seen from the following incident. In an article intended by Mr. Tikhomirov for the Revolutionary Journal, The Popular Will, among many truisms he wrote: "Russia is in a normal state, while the revolutionary party is collapsing—a fact which can only be explained by some mistakes in the programme of our party." And again: "If terrorism is recommended to a country, the vitality of that country must be very doubtful." At these sentiments, Mr. Tikhomirov's comrades—the other editors of the paper were thunderstruck, and peremptorily declined to admit them into their columns.

This schism was the dawn of Mr. Tikhomirov's salvation. His better self rapidly developed. He soon recognised that the less a country at large is {209} desirous of revolution, the more compelled are revolutionists to resort to terrorism. Thus the weaker the cause, the stronger the necessity for terrorism, which obviously was a criminal paradox. Further on, Mr. Tikhomirov says: "I have not given up my ideas of social justice, but they take a clearer, a more harmonious shape; riots, revolts, destruction, are all the morbid results of the social crisis which now traverses Europe. These things are not easily introduced into Russia. That disease has not yet reached her; nor can revolutionary movements, however temporarily pernicious, divert Russia from the path of her historical development.

"Political murders (says he) produced a certain commotion in the Russian Government so long as it believed that it had to deal with a strong threatening power. The moment it was realised how wretchedly small was that handful of men who resorted to murder merely because of their weakness and inability to undertake something on a larger scale—since that moment the Russian Government shows no signs of any kind of anxiety. It determined upon a strong system, which it unflinchingly carries out. Of course the life of the Emperor and of his different officials is spoilt by the perpetual expectation of danger, but in spite of this the Government will certainly never make any concessions to the Terrorist. A legal Government recognised by the whole country naturally objects to subordinate itself to whims....

"The Russian Emperor has not usurped his power. That power was solemnly conferred upon his ancestors by an overwhelming majority of the Russian people, who have never since shown the {210} remotest desire to withdraw that power from the Romanoff dynasty. The law of the country recognises her Emperor as one above any kind of responsibility, and the Church of the country invests him with the title of her temporal head.

"Ten years of hard struggle have proved beyond possible doubt that all the revolutionists may well perish, one after the other; but Russia was dead against supporting them. The life of a Terrorist is a terrible one; it is that of a hunted wolf in momentary expectation of death. He suffers perpetual alarm from detectives, has to use false passports, to live in hiding, to resort to dynamite, to meditate murder.... Such a life necessitates the abandonment of all matters of most vital interest. All ties of affection under such circumstances are torture. Study is out of the question. Everybody, except the few ringleaders, has to be deceived. An enemy is suspected on all sides. No, the best among us, had they lived long enough to see the results obtained, would not have failed to give up such a struggle. We committed a terrible crime in demoralising Russian youth. One of our revolutionary chiefs—himself already doomed—to whom I expressed my present views as frankly as I am now doing, urged me to save our younger generation, and to exhort them to give up premature meddling with politics, and instead to prepare themselves for a useful life by hard study."

What good advice! "Think, observe, learn; do not trust words and shallow theories. That is what I now say to the inexperienced youth," says Mr. Tikhomirov. "I am utterly indignant," he {211} continues, "when I hear remarks of the following kind: 'Let them make riots. Of course it is foolish, but what does it matter? There is not much weight in all these fellows, and a riot is still a protest.' For my part, I now look upon these things quite differently."

After explaining at some length the stern duties of the rising generation, after earnestly entreating them to form their character and their principles, to study hard, to avoid the influence of political charlatans who simply exploit their ignorance, Mr. Tikhomirov goes on to say that "Russia has a great past, but a still greater future." He is, however, not blind to our shortcomings, of which a very serious one among our youths is their want of prudent resistance to mischievous influences. Their want of thought makes them accept every new political aphorism, however absurd.

"As soon as the universities are quiet for eight or nine months," he continues, "pressure is put upon the young students to make some absurd demonstration, some riots, something, and they listen to such instigations. Our censors are not infallible; but censorship is an institution whose importance is exaggerated. The principal mistake lies in ourselves. We Russians have an unlimited confidence in every new theory, in every hypothesis, no matter how superficial, how foolish. The so-called 'Intelligenzia' are far inferior in common sense and practical questions to the simple Russian peasant, who possesses few notions, few facts, but whose mental faculties and sound judgment have not been spoilt. The fantastic element, deplorably {212} developed in our middle classes, reaches its zenith amongst our revolutionists. What young revolutionists repeat now I, alas! used to think several years ago. Russia would immensely gain if her young people, instead of meddling with politics, resolved to spend some five or six years on a regular course of lectures and in studying their own country, her present position, and her history. Hundreds of Russian undergraduates perish merely thanks to evil influences from without."

This, unfortunately, is only too true. Such instigators have neither pity nor judgment. Any kind of riot equally serves their purpose, provided it makes mischief and commits foolish reckless boys. Mr. Tikhomirov, describing the difference between the students of 1840 and 1860, shows how superior were those of the former year. Their aspirations were much higher. He relates an anecdote which is charmingly characteristic: "Some undergraduates of the old school were engaged in an animated discussion one day when dinner was announced. 'How can you disturb us?' reproachfully exclaimed one of the orators, who afterwards became a celebrated Russian writer. 'We are just settling the existence (das Sein) of God, and you summon us to ... dinner.'"

What Mr. Tikhomirov says about the duties of a citizen may be endorsed by every wise patriot. "From the question of culture I now pass to that of autocracy. Whatever constitutes a man's general views, the moment he proclaims himself as opposed to the Tsar he belongs to the welcome set, he is 'one of ours.'"

{213}

This reminds one of the Irishman who, on landing in America, declared: "I do not know what is the form of government here, but I am against it."

Let Mr. Tikhomirov, however, continue his own story:

"If you point out the unreasonableness of this view, if you convict him of extreme ignorance, you are met with the protest, how can a man be cultivated as long as there exists in Russia an Autocrat! Unfortunately, such views may be sincere. To my great regret, at one time I used to share them myself. But now what pain they give me! In the first place, no form of government is able to prevent intellectual culture when the people are sincerely anxious to acquire it. Besides, let us refer to history. Were not Peter the Great and the Great Catherine Autocrats? Was it not in the Emperor Nicholas's time that the present social ideas originated? Is there any republic in the world which has carried out such great reforms as those of Alexander II? I regard autocracy in Russia as the result of our history, which cannot and ought not to be abolished so long as tens of millions desire nothing else. I deem unjust, unwise and useless the presumption to interfere with the wishes of a great nation. Every Russian desiring to carry out reforms should do so under the shelter of the autocratic power. Has autocracy prevented Poushkin, Gogol, Tolstoy, etc. etc., from developing the greatest possible progress in literature?

"For argument's sake, suppose that some Russian Emperor consented to impose limits upon his powers. Such concession would be only apparent, not real. {214} At the slightest hint an enormous majority of the people would disperse the handful of men who ventured to restrict the unlimited power of their Tsar. What every country needs above all is a strong and stable Government, which firmly carries out its programme. Russia needs this even more than any other country. The parliamentary system, although it has some good sides, has proved itself most unsatisfactory—a fact which our critics of autocracy should keep firmly in mind. Unfortunately, our young generation behave in a way to drive a rational statesman mad. One day they take part in a Polish insurrection: another day they try to organise a reign of terror. Like true fanatics, they display a passionate energy, a remarkable self-sacrifice. It is simply deplorable!"

Mr. Tikhomirov insists over and over again upon the necessity for sound learning and right thinking. In a footnote he still further develops this idea. Insisting upon the evils of half-culture: "I do not mean," he explains, "the small amount of information—a peasant is still less informed—but it is the manner of foolishly adopting anything said by others—on faith, without reflection—which is so fatal. It is the want of mental discipline which I lament."

Mr. Tikhomirov's sketch is of great psychological interest. It throws a true light on Russian nature. Russians, unfortunately, are too impulsive, not to be often misled—which, of course, is deplorable. With all this there lies in their heart of hearts a deep affection for their country, their Church, their traditions, their customs, their language—in fact, {215} everything Russian. To them "ubi bene, ibi patria," is a faulty phrase; there is no place where they can be happy when they are banished, when they are anathematised by their native land. Certain feelings are stronger than arguments.

I may be perhaps allowed to quote a case in point. Some years ago a colony of Russian refugees whose life, for some political reason or other, became uncomfortable in Russia, emigrated to Buenos Ayres. They deemed it would be quite easy to acclimatise themselves anywhere. Little by little, however, they discovered, with acute pain, that their soul craved for their former faith. At last they appealed to the representative of the Russian Government, begging him to secure for them a Russian Greek Orthodox priest, offering to build a church and to provide all the necessary means for supporting the clergy. The Russian Government did not hesitate to acquiesce. The Reverend Father Ivanoff, a brilliant theological student, sympathising also with the request, hurried across the seas to undertake this novel duty.

Yes! It is easy sometimes to be an absentee, but it must be intolerable to feel oneself a renegade! From this reproach Mr. Tikhomirov is now rescued. "There is more joy over one sinner that repenteth than over ninety and nine just men who need no repentance." The Russian authorities, however, were not at once convinced of the genuineness of Mr. Tikhomirov's recantation. But when all the official documents supported his statements, he was allowed to return to Russia at once.