No More Learning

POLITICIAN. I thank you for an excellent example. I am, however, speaking of the creation of a State. The United States, as a European colony, was, of
course, founded not by war but by exploration, just as all other colonies were. But the moment this colony wished to become a State, it had to earn
its political independence by means of a long war.
PRINCE. From the fact that the State has been
created by war, which is, I agree, indisputable, you seem to conclude that war is all-important. In my
opinion, however, the only conclusion which can be
drawn from this fact is the unimportance of the
State for those people, of course, who no longer believe in the worship of violence.
POLITICIAN. Why all at once the worship of
? 70 SOLOVIEV
violence? What would it be for? Just you try to establish a stable human community outside the
compulsory forms of the State, or yourself reject in practice everything that takes its life from the State
then you will be able to speak legitimately of the unimportanceoftheState. Butuntilyoudoso,the
State, and everything for which you and I are in- debted to it, will remain a colossal fact, whilst your attacksagainstitremainbutemptywords. Now,I
say again that the supreme historical importance of war, as the principal condition in the creation of a
State, is beyond any doubt. But I ask you : Is it
not right to regard this great task of creating States as already completed in its broad outlines? As to
the details, these can be settled without having
recourse to such a heroic instrument as war. In
ancient times and during the Middle Ages, when the
world of European culture was merely an island in
the midst of an ocean of more or less barbarous
tribes, the military system was necessitated by the
very instinct of self-preservation. It was at that
time necessary to be always ready to repel any hordes which suddenly swooped down from an un-
suspected quarter to trample down the feeble growth of civilisation. At present it is only the non-
European element which can be described as the islands, for European culture has become the ocean whichisgraduallywashingtheseislandsaway. Our scientists, explorers, and missionaries have searched the whole earth without finding anything which is
? PROGRESS 71
likely to menace seriously our civilised world.
Savages are being successfully exterminated, or are dyingout; whilstmilitantbarbarians,liketheTurks
and Japanese, are being civilised and losing their likingforwarfare. Inthemeanwhile,theprocessof uniting all the European nations in the common bond of civilised life . . .
LADY (in a whisper}. Monte Carlo. . . .
POLITICIAN. . . . In the common bond of civilised life has grown to such an extent that war amongst these nations would really be something in the nature of fratricide, which could not be excused on any grounds now that peaceful settlement of inter- nationaldisputeshasbecomepossible. Itwouldbe as fantastic in our time to solve such disputes by war as it would be to travel from St. Petersburg to
Marseilles in a sailing boat or in a coach driven by
a"troika. " Iquiteagree,ofcourse,that"Alonely sail is looming white in the blue mist of the sea" or "See the troika flitting wild" 1 sounds vastly more
poetic than the screeching of railway engines or criesof"Envoiture,messieurs! " Inthesameway
I am prepared to admit the aesthetic superiority of the "bristling steel of lances" and of "with swing-
ing step in shining array the army is marching
along" over the portfolios of diplomats and the cloth-covered tables of peaceful Congresses. But
the serious attitude towards this vital question must,
1 Quotations from popular poems by Lermontov and
Poushkin.
(Translator. )
? 7'2 SOLOVIEV
obviously, be entirely independent of the aesthetic
appreciation of the beauty which belongs not to real war (this, I can assure you, has very little of
the beautiful), but to its reflection in the imagina- tion of the poet and artist. Well, then, once it has been understood by everybody that war, however
interesting for poetry and painters (these, of course, could be well satisfied with past wars), is useless
now, for it is a costly and risky means of achieving ends which can be achieved at much less cost and in a more certain way by other methods, it follows
then that the military period of history is over. I amspeaking,ofcourse,engrand. Theimmediate disarmamentofnationsisoutofthequestion. But I firmly believe that neither ourselves nor our sons will ever see a great war a real European war and that our grandsons will learn only of little wars
somewhereinAsiaorAfrica andofthosefrom historical works.
Now, here is my answer with regard to Vladimir Monomach. When it became necessary to protect the future of the newly-born Russian State, first from the Polovtziens, then from the Tartars, and so on, war was a most necessary and important enterprise. Thesame,withcertainlimitations,may be applied to the period of Peter the Great, when it was necessary to ensure the future of Russia as a European Power. But after that its importance has been becoming ever more disputable, and at the
present day, as I have already said, the military
? PROGRESS 73
period of history is over in Russia, just as it is everywhere else. And what I have said about our
country can be applied, of course, mutatis mutandis, to the other European countries. In every one of them war was, in days gone by, the main and inevit-
able means of defending and strengthening the existence of the State and the nation, and has
everywhere lost its raison d'etre when once this object has been attained.
I may say, by way of parenthesis, that I am puzzled to find some modern philosophers dis-
cussing the rational basis of war, independently of the time. Has war any rational basis ? Oest selon.
Yesterday it probably had everywhere a rational basis ; to-day it has a rational basis only somewhere
in Africa and Middle Asia, where there are still savages. To-morrow it will be justified nowhere. It is remarkable that with the loss of its rational
basis war is, though slowly, losing its glamour. This can be seen even in a nation so backward in
the mass as our own.
Judge yourself : the other
day the General triumphantly pointed out the fact that all our saints are either monks or soldiers. I
ask you, however, to what historical period does all this military holiness or holy militarism actually belong? Is it not that very period in which war
was in reality the most necessary, salutary, and, if you will, most holy enterprise. Our saint-warriors
were all princes of the Kiev and Mongolian periods, but I fail to recollect any lieutenant-general amongst
? 74 SOLOVIEV
them. Now, what is the meaning of it all? You have two famous warriors, having exactly the same
personal right to saintship, and it is granted to one and refused to the other. Why is it ? Tell me, why
is Alexander the Nevsky, who overthrew the Livonians and Swedes in the thirteenth century, a saint, whereas Alexander Suvorov, who overcame the Turks and the French in the eighteenth century, is not? You cannot reproach Suvorov with any-
thingincompatiblewithholiness. Hewassincerely pious, used to sing publicly in the church choir and
read out the Bible from the lectern, led an irre-
proachable life, was not even any woman's lover, whilst his eccentricities make no obstacle to, but
rather supply, a further argument for his being canonised. The sole difference is that Alexander
the Nevsky fought for the national and political future of his country, which, half battered down in
the East, could scarcely survive another battering in the West. The intuitive sense of the people
grasped the vital importance of the position, and gave the Prince the highest reward they could
possibly bestow upon him by canonising him.
Whereas the achievements of
Suvorov,
though
greatly superior in the military sense, particularly his Hannibalian passage of the Alps, did not
respond to any pressing need; he was not obliged to save Russia, and so, you see, he has for ever
remained merely a military celebrity.
LADY. But the leaders of the Russian army in
? PROGRESS 75
1812, though they were saving Russia from Napo- leon, yet failed to get canonised either.
POLITICIAN. Oh, well, "saving Russia from
Napoleon" that is merely patriotic rhetoric. Napoleon wouldn't have swallowed us up, nor was
he going to. The fact that we finally got the upper hand certainly revealed our power as a nation and a State, and helped to awaken our national consciousness. But I can never admit that the war
of1812wascausedbyanypressingnecessity. We could very well have come to terms with Napoleon.
But, naturally enough, we could not oppose him without taking some risks, and though the risks
proved lucky for us, and the war was brought to an end in a way that greatly flattered our national
self-esteem, yet its subsequent effects could hardly be regarded as really useful. If I see two athletes suddenly without any conceivable reason falling upon each other and one worsting the other, both suffering no harm to their health, I would perhaps
ofthe
victop,
"Heis a "butthe good sport !
say
need of just this particular form of sportsmanship and of no other would remain for me very obscure.
The fame of 1812, the national virtues revealed at that time, remain with us, whatever the causes of the war may have been.
This verity !
"
the sacred
"
is very good for poetry :
But I turn to what came out of that verity,
"The sacred verity of 1812
Was still alive in people's eyes. "
? 76 SOLOVIEV
and I find on the one side archimandrite Photius, Magnitsky, Araktcheiev, and on the other side, the
Decabrists' conspiracy, and, en somme, that thirty years' long regime of belated militarism, which eventually brought us to the debacle of the Crimean War.
LADY. And what about Poushkin?
POLITICIAN. Poushkin? Why Poushkin?
LADY. I have recently read in the papers that the
national poetry of Poushkin owed its inspiration to
the military glories of 1812.
MR. Z. And not without some special participa-
tion of artillery, as the poet's name indicates. 1
POLITICIAN. Yes; perhaps that is really how it is.
Tocontinuemyargument,however. Asyearsroll
on the uselessness of our wars becomes ever clearer
and clearer. The Crimean War is regarded in
Russia as very important, as it is generally believed
that the liberation of serfs and all the other reforms
of Alexander II. were due to its failure. Even sup-
posing this was so, the beneficial effects of an
unsuccessful war, and only because it was unsuc-
cessful, cannot, of course, serve as an apology for
war in general. If I, without any satisfactory
reason, try jumping off the balcony and put my arm out of joint, and later on this dislocation prevents
me from signing a ruinous promissory note, I shall be glad afterwards that it had happened like that ;
luPoushkin" of the "poushka" of the gun. (Translator. )
? PROGRESS 77
but I will not say that it is generally recommended to jump off a balcony and not to walk down by the stairs. You will agree that when the head is not hurt there is no need for hurting the arm in order
to escape signing ruinous agreements; one and the same good sense will save a man both from
foolish leaps from a balcony and from foolish signa- tures. I believe that even if there were no Crimean War the reforms of Alexander II. would most prob- ably have been carried out, and perhaps in a more
secure and far-reaching way. But I am not going toprovethisnow; wemustseethatwedonotdepart
fromoursubject. Atanyrate,politicalactscannot be rated at their indirect and unforeseen conse- quences; andastotheCrimeanWar,thatis,itscom- mencement brought about by the advance of our army to the Danube in 1853, it had no reasonable justification. I cannot call sensible the policy which one day saves Turkey from the smashing defeat inflicted on Mehmet Ali by the Pasha of Egypt, thus hindering the division of the Moslem world round two centres, Stambul and Cairo, which, it seems, would not have done us much harm; and which next day tries to destroy this same redeemed and reinforced Turkey, with the risk of running against the whole of the European coalition. This is not policy, but a sort of Quixotism. The same name I will apply also I hope the General will pardon me this to our last Turkish war.
LADY. And the bashi-bazouks in Armenia?
? 78 SOLOVIEV
Didn't you approve of the General for annihilating them?
POLITICIAN. Pardon me, I maintain that at the present time war has become useless, and the story told by the General the other day bears this out
particularly well. I quite understand that anybody
whose military duty made him an active participant in the war, and who happened to come across irre-
gular Turkish troops inflicting terrible barbarities
upon the peaceful population, I say that that man,
that man at the Prince1 free from every (looking )
"
preconceived absoluteprinciples,"wasobligedby
sentiment and by duty alike to exterminate those bashi-bazouks without mercy, as the General did, and not to worry about their moral regeneration, as the Prince suggests. But, I ask, in the first place, who was the real cause of all this wretched business ? And, in the second place, what has been achieved by the military intervention? To the first question I can answer in all honour only by pointing to that bad militant policy which irritated the Turks by
inflaming the passions and supporting the preten- sionsoftheChristianpopulations. Itwasonlywhen
Bulgaria began to swarm with revolutionary com- mittees and the Turks became alarmed at possible
interference on the part of the European Powers, which would have led the State to inevitable ruin,
that the Turks began to slaughter the Bulgarians. ThesamethingalsohappenedinArmenia. Asto
the second question, what has come out of it? The
? PROGRESS 79
answer supplied by recent events is so striking that
nobody can help noticing it. Judge yourself : in 1877 our General destroys a few thousands of
bashi-bazouks and by this probably saves a few hun- dreds of Armenians. In 1895, in the very same place, very much the same bashi-bazouks slaughter not hundreds but thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands of the population. If various corre-
spondents can be trusted (though I myself would not advise anyone to do so), the number of people
massacred was nearly half a million. Of course, this is all a fairy tale. But there can be little doubt that these later Armenian massacres were carried out on a much larger scale than the old Bulgarian ones. There you have the beneficent results of our
patriotic and philanthropic war.
GENERAL. Now, understand it who can !
Now it is bad policy which is to be blamed, now it is the patriotic war. One might believe that Prince Gorchakov and M. Hirs were soldiers, or that Disraeli and Bismarck were Russian patriots and
philanthropists.
POLITICIAN. Is my statement really not clear
enough? I have in view the indisputable connec- tion, and not some abstract or ideal one, but the wholly real, pragmatic connection between the war
of 1877, which was brought about by our bad policy, and the recent massacres of Christians in Armenia.
You probably know, and if you don't you will profit by learning it, that after 1878 Turkey, who could
? 80 SOLOVIEV
see her future prospects in Europe from the terms
of the St. Stephen's agreement, resolved at any ratetosecureherpositioninAsia. Firstofallshe
secured an English guarantee at the Berlin Con-
gress. She,however,rightlybelievedthatEngland would help her if she helped herself, and com- menced to reinforce and establish her irregular
" armiesinArmenia,moreorlessthosevery devils"
which the General had to deal with. This proved
a very sound policy; only fifteen years passed after Disraeli had, in exchange for Cyprus, guaranteed Turkey her Asiatic dominions, when English policy, in view of changed circumstances, became anti-
Turkish and Armeniophile, whilst English agitators
appeared in Armenia as Slavophile agitators did
earlierinBulgaria. Atthatmomentthosefamiliar
"""
to the General as devils found themselves the
men of the hour," and with the most polished manners helped themselves to the largest portion of Christian meat which had ever reached their teeth.
GENERAL. It is disgusting to listen to ! And why should the war be blamed for this ? Good Heavens ! if only the wise statesmen had finished their business in 1877 as well as the soldiers did theirs, you may be sure there would have been not even a mention of any reinforcement or establishment of irregular armies in Armenia. Consequently, there would have been no massacres.
POLITICIAN. In other words, you mean to say that
? PROGRESS 81
the Turkish Empire ought to have been totally destroyed ?
GENERAL. Emphatically I do. I am sincerely fond of the Turks, and have much esteem for them.
They are a fine people, especially when compared
with all these nondescript Ethiopians. Yet I verily believe that it is well-nigh time for us to put an end
to this Turkish Empire.
POLITICIAN. I should have nothing to say against
this, if those Ethiopians of yours would be able to establish in its place some sort of Ethiopian Empire of their own. But up to the present they can only fight each other, and a Turkish Government is as much necessary for them as the presence of Turkish
troops is necessary in Jerusalem for preserving the peace and well-being of the various Christian
denominations there.
LADY. Indeed !
I have always suspected that
you would not object to handing over the Sepulchre to the Turks for ever.
POLITICIAN. And you, of course, think that this would be owing to my atheism or indifference, don't you ? As a matter of fact, however, my wish to see the Turks in Jerusalem is the reflection of a faint
but inextinguishable spark of religious sentiment which I still preserve from my childhood. I know
positively that the moment the Turkish soldiers are withdrawn from the streets of Jerusalem all the Christians in the city will massacre each other, after having destroyed all the Christian shrines. If you
? 82 SOLOVIEV
doubt my impressions and conclusions, just ask any
pilgrims whom you may trust, or, what is even better,
go and see for yourself.
LADY. That I should go to Jerusalem ? Oh, no !
WhatcouldI seethere? . . . No; I shouldthinktwice before I did that !
POLITICIAN. Well, that only bears out my state- ment.
LADY. I cannot understand this at all. You argue with the General, and yet you both extol the Turks.
POLITICIAN. The General values them apparently as brave soldiers, and I do so as the guardians of peace and order in the East.
LADY.
Fine peace and order, indeed, when some tens of thousands of people are suddenly and
mercilesslyslaughtered. Personally,Iwouldprefer disorder.
POLITICIAN. As I have already had the honour of stating, the massacres were caused by the revolu-
tionary agitation. Why should you then demand from the Turks a higher degree of Christian meek-
ness and forbearance than is ever demanded from any other nation, not excepting a Christian one? Can you quote me a country where an insurrection has ever been quelled without recourse to harsh and cruel measures? In the case before us, in the first place the instigators of the massacres were not the Turks. In the second place, Turks proper took
hardly any part in them, acting in most cases
? PROGRESS 83
throughtheGeneral's"devils. " Andinthethird place, I am prepared to admit that the Turkish
Government, by letting loose these "devils," over- did the thing; as Ivan IV. overdid it when he drowned ten thousand peaceful inhabitants of Novgorod; or as the commissioners of the French Convention overdid it by their noiades and fusil- lades \ or lastly, as the English overdid it in India
when they quelled the Mutiny of 1857. And yet there can be little doubt that should these various
Ethiopians be left alone, there would be much more massacre than under the Turks.
GENERAL. Who told you I want to put these Ethiopians in the place of Turkey? Surely, the
thing is very simple :
we should take Constanti-
nople, we should take Jerusalem, and in the place of the Turkish Empire should form a few Russian
military provinces, like Samarkand or Askhabad. As to the Turks, they, after they had laid down their arms, should in every way be satisfied and
pleased, in religion as much as in everything else. POLITICIAN. I hope you are not serious now, or
I shall be obliged to doubt . . . your patriotism. Don't you see that if we started a war with such
radical ends in view, this would certainly bring to life once more a European coalition against us, which our Ethiopians, liberated or promised libera- tion, would ultimately join. These latter under- stand very well that under the Russian power they would not be so free to express their national spirit.
G2
? 84 SOLOVIEV
And the end of it all would be that, instead of destroying the Turkish Empire, we should have a
repetition only on a grander scale of the Sebas- topoldebacle. No,thoughwehaveindulgedinbad
politics sufficiently often, I am sure that we shall never see such madness as a new war with Turkey. If we do see it, then every Russian patriot must
exclaim with despair : Quern deus vult perdere, prim dementat.
LADY. What does that mean?
POLITICIAN. It means : Him whom God would destroy, He first makes mad.
LADY. I am glad history is not made according
to your argument. You are, I suppose, as much in favour of Austria as of Turkey, aren't you?
POLITICIAN. I need not enlarge upon this, as
people more competent than myself the national leaders of Bohemia, for example have declared
"
If there were no Austria, Austria
long ago:
should be invented. " The recent affrays in the
Vienna Parliament supply the best possible illus- tration of this maxim, and are a vision in miniature of what must happen in these countries should the
Hapsburg Empire be destroyed.
LADY. And what is your opinion about the
Franco-Russian Alliance? You seem always to reserve it somehow.
POLITICIAN. Neither do I propose to go into the details of this delicate question just now. Speak-
ing generally, I can say that rapprochement with
? PROGRESS 85
such a progressive and rich nation as France is, at any rate, beneficial to us. On the other hand, this alliance is, of course, an alliance of peace and pre- caution. This is, at any rate, the meaning which is put on it in the high circles where it was concluded
and is still supported.
MR. Z. As to the benefits of rapprochement
between two nations for the development of their
morals and culture, this is a complicated matter, which to me seems very obscure. But looking at
it from the political point of view, don't you think that by joining one of the two hostile camps on the European continent we lose the advantages of our free position as neutral judge or arbiter between
them; we lose our impartiality? By joining one
side, and thereby balancing the powers of both groups, don't we create the possibility of an armed
conflict between them? It is, for instance, clear that France alone could not fight against the Triple Alliance, whereas with the help of Russia she could certainly do so.
POLITICIAN. Your considerations would be quite
correct if anybody had any wish to begin a European war. But I can assure you that nobody has such a
wish. At any rate, it is much easier for Russia to
prevent France from leaving the path of peace than it is for France to lure Russia to the path of war,
undesirable, as a matter of fact, to both of them.
The most reassuring thing, however, is the fact that not only are modern nations averse to waging war,
? 86 SOLOVIEV
but, what is more important, they begin to forget how to do it. Take, for example, the latest con-
flict, the Spanish-American war. Well, was this a war? Now, I ask you : was it really a war? Mere dolls' play it was; an affray between a street
"
brawler and a constable !
After a long and furious
fight the enemy retreated, having lost two killed andonewounded. Wesustainednolosses. " Or: " The whole of the enemy's squadron, after a
desperate struggle with our cruiser Money Enough, surrenderedatdiscretion. Nolosseseitherofkilled
or wounded were sustained on either side. " And
thereyouhavethewholewar. Iamsurprisedthat
all seem to be so little surprised at this new char-
acter of war its bloodlessness, so to speak. The
metamorphosis has been taking place before our very eyes, as we all can remember the sort of
bulletins published in 1870 and in 1877.
GENERAL. Wait a little with your surprise until two really military nations come into collision. You will see then what sort of bulletins will be issued ! POLITICIAN. I am not so sure. How long is it sinceSpainwasafirst-classmilitarynation? Thank God, the past cannot return. It appears to me that just as in the body useless organs become
atrophied, so it is in mankind : the fighting qualities
have lost their usefulness, and so they disappear.
Should they suddenly reappear again, I should be as much startled as if a bat suddenly acquired eagle eyes, or if men again found themselves with tails.
? within the State.
"
the mailed fist," manus militaris,
PROGRESS 87
LADY. But how is it, then, that you yourself praised the Turkish soldiers?
POLITICIAN. I praised them as guardians of peace
In this sense the military power
tancy in the sense of disposition and ability to wage international wars, this national pugnacity, so to
speak, must entirely disappear and is already dis- appearing before our eyes, degenerating into that bloodless, though not altogether harmless, form
which is exemplified in Parliamentary squabbles. As, on the other side, the disposition to such dis-
plays will apparently remain as long as there are
conflicting parties and opinions, so in order to check them the manus militaris will necessarily remain in
the State, even at the time when external wars, that is, wars between nations or States, will have
long become merely things of the historical past. GENERAL. That is to say, you liken the police to
the coccyx, which still exists in man, although only the Kiev witches are credited with proper tails ! How very witty ! But aren't you just a little too
ready with your comparison? Your conclusion is that just because some nation or other degenerates,
becomes flabby, and can no longer fight, therefore the military virtues are decadent or lost all the
or, as it is said,
will yet for a long time be necessary for mankind. But this does not interfere with the fact that mili-
world over !
It is possible that under the introduc-
""""
tion of legislative measures and systems even
? 88 SOLOVIEV
the Russian soldier may soften to jelly !
Heaven
preserve us !
LADY (to the Politician}. You have not explained
yet in what manner, war being excepted, such ques- tions as, for instance, the Eastern Question should
be solved. However wicked the Christian nations in the East may be, they do feel a desire to be independent at any cost, and the Turks do for this
reason slaughter them. Surely you don't suggest
that we should look on with folded arms? posing that your criticisms of the past wars are really sound, I shall ask, like the Prince, though in
" What are we to do now, should
a different sense
massacres begin somewhere again? "
:
POLITICIAN. But before they do begin, we must
quietly exercise our judgment, and instead of a
bad policy follow a good one, even though it be German ; that is to say, we must not irritate the Turks, and must not shout when in our cups about raisingthecrossonthemosques. Insteadofallthis we must in a peaceful and friendly manner civilise Turkey for our mutual benefit : for ours, as much as her own. It depends entirely on us to make the Turks understand in the quickest time possible that
slaughtering inhabitants in one's country is not only a bad thing in itself, but, what is the main point, that it has no use and yields no profit.
MR. Z. These suggestions of yours involve rail- way concessions and all sorts of trade and com- mercial interests, in which the Germans, I am sure,
Sup-
? PROGRESS 89 will forestall us, and competition with them in this
1
direction would be a hopeless task.
POLITICIAN. But why should we compete? If
somebody does hard work for me, I shall be only too glad and thankful. If, however, this makes
me cross with him, so that I ask :
"
"
Why did he do
it and not I ?
I am acting in a fashion which would
be unworthy of a respectable man. In the same way it would be unworthy of such a nation as Russia
to imitate the dog-in-the-manger, which lying on the hay neither eats nor lets others eat. If others, using
their own means, can do more quickly and in a better way the good thing which we also desire, then so much the more profitable is it for us. I ask you : were not all our wars with Turkey during the nine- teenth century waged only for the sake of safe- guarding the human rights of the Turkish Chris- tians ? Now, what if the Germans achieve the same
object in a sure, though peaceful, way by civilising Turkey? It is clear that had they been as firmly
established in Asia Minor in 1895 as tne English are in Egypt, you may take my word for it we should not have to discuss Armenian massacres any
longer.
LADY. But you have already suggested that it is
necessary to make an end of Turkey. Only you
1 These words, which were written by me in Oct. , 1899, were fully borne out in a month's time by the announced German-Turkish convention concerning Asia Minor and the
Baghdad railway. (Author. )
? 90 SOLOV1EV
are, for some unknown reason, anxious to see her eaten up by the Germans.
POLITICIAN. It is just because the German policy has no desire to swallow such indigestible articles that I called it wise. Its object is more subtle : it is to bring Turkey into the company of the civilised nations, to help the Turks in educating themselves
and making themselves capable of undertaking a just and humane control over nations which, owing
to their mutual savage hostility, are unable to direct their own affairs peacefully.
LADY. What fairy tales are these? Who will ever think it possible to surrender a Christian people to the Turks for eternal control? I like the Turks myself for many things, but still they are barbarians, and their last word will always be violence. A
European culture will only make them worse. POLITICIAN. Exactly the same could be said about Russia at the time of Peter the Great, and even at amuchlaterperiod. Weremember"Turkishbar- barities," but how long is it since in Russia, and in
"" other countries as well, that Turkish barbarities
becameunknown? 'ThepoorunhappyChristians
"
groaning under the Moslem yoke !
about those who groaned under the yoke of our wickedlandlords weretheyChristiansorpagans? Or what about the soldiers who groaned under the punishment of the rod ? However, the only just and reasonable answer to these groans of the Russian peasants was the abolition of serfdom and of the rod, and not the destruction of the Russian Empire.
And what
? PROGRESS 91
Why, then, must the answer to the Bulgarian and Armenian groans be of necessity the destruction of the State in which these groans are heard, but also of States where they need not be heard either ?
LADY. It is one thing when disgusting things take place within a Christian State which can be easily
reformed, and another thing when a Christian people is being oppressed by a non-Christian one.
POLITICIAN. The impossibility of reforming
Turkey is merely a rooted prejudice which the Germans are disproving before our eyes, just as
they earlier helped to destroy the prejudice of the
inbornsavageryoftheRussianpeople. Astoyour
""" distinction between Christians and non-Chris-
tians," you will do well to remember that for the victims of barbarities this question is lacking in interest. If anybody strips off my skin, I shall
""
What is sir ? your religion,
surely not ask him
Neither shall I be at all consoled if I find out that
the people torturing me are not only extremely unpleasant and disturbing to me, but on the top of
this, being Christians themselves, are exceedingly abhorrent to their own God, who sees His com-
mands openly defied. Speaking objectively, it ""
cannot be denied that the Christianity of Ivan
1
the Terrible, or Saltykova, or Arakcheiev is not
1 The Moscow landlady of the middle of the i8th century, Saltykova, and the favourite of Alexander I. , General Arakcheiev, have become famous in Russia for the monstrous atrocity with which they treated those under their power. (Translator. )
:
? 92 SOLOVIEV
in any sense an advantage, but rather so utterly base that it is impossible to meet with its like in
other religions. Yesterday the General was describing the dastardly deeds of the savage Kurds, and amongst other things he mentioned
their Devil-worship. It is certainly very wicked to roast babies or grown-up people over a slow fire I
am quite prepared to call such acts devilish. It is a well-known fact, however, that Ivan the Terrible
was particularly fond of this very roasting of men
atheologistfirmlyattachedtoorthodoxy. Butwe need not probe so far into the remote past. Take
the Bulgarian Stamboulov and the Servian Milan
are they Turks, or are they representatives of the
so-called Christian nations? What is, then, this ""
Christianity of yours if not an empty title, which
carries with it no guarantee for anything?
LADY. One would think it is the Prince expound-
ing his faith. How strange !
POLITICIAN. When obvious truth is concerned I
am willing to be at one not only with our esteemed ,
Prince, but even with Balaam's ass !
MR. Z. But if my memory does not fail me, your
Excellency has kindly agreed to take the leading part in to-day's discussion not with the idea of
He would even keep the fire under-
on a slow fire.
neath well poked ! And yet he was not a savage or a devil-worshipper, but rather a man of keen intel- lect, and, for the age in which he lived, a man of wide learning, whilst at the same time he was also
? "
PROGRESS 93
arguing about Christianity or the animals of the Bible. I can hear ringing in my ears your soulful
For
"
Remembering this, may it please your Excellency to return to the subject of our discussion and to
explain one little thing that is puzzling me. It is
this. As you have rightly stated, our object must be not the destruction of the Turkish Empire, but the work of its civilisation. On the other hand, as you also admitted on quite reasonable grounds, the advancement of Turkey along the path of culture will be, and is now, much better carried on by the Germans than it could ever be by us. Now, if both these statements are correct, will you be good enough to tell me what in your opinion there is left for Russia as an object for a special and solely Russian policy in the Eastern question?
POLITICIAN. A special policy for Russia? Why,
it is clear that no such policy can exist. As you
understand it, the special Russian policy is obviously one which would be set up and pursued by Russia
independently of and against the plans of all the other European nations. But I must tell you that,
as a matter of fact, no such policy has ever been pursued. Wehavedeviatedsometimestoitstrack, as, for instance, in the 'fifties, and later on in the 'seventies; but those regrettable deviations, giving examples of what I may call bad policy, have instantly brought their own reward in the shape of
Only as little religion as possible ! God's sake, as little religion as you can help !
prayer :
? 94 SOLOVIEV
reversesofgreaterorsmallersignificance. Generally speaking, it is in no way possible to regard Russian
policy in the Eastern question as independent or isolated. Its object from the sixteenth century and
almost to the end of the eighteenth century was to defend the civilised world from the threatened
invasion of the Turks, working in co-operation with Poland and Austria. As in that defence we were
obliged to act conjointly with the Poles, the Cesarians, and the Republic of Venice, though free from any formal alliances, it is evident that that policy was a common and not an independent one. In the nineteenth century, and much more so in the twentieth century, its co-operative character must
remain the same as before, though naturally its
objectsandmeanshaveofnecessitychanged. The problem now is not to defend Europe from Turkish
barbarism, but to make the Turks themselves more
European. For the old object the means required
were military ; for that of the present day they must bepeaceful. Bothinthefirstcaseaswellasinthe
second the object itself remains constant : as for-
merly the European nations were bound in solidarity by the interests of military defence, so to-day they are bound in solidarity by the interests of spreading civilisation.
GENERAL. And yet the old military solidarity did not prevent Richelieu and Louis XIV. from
entering into alliances with Turkey against the Hapsburgs.
? PROGRESS 95
POLITICIAN. Just the bad Bourbon policy, which along with their senseless home politics duly re- ceived its just reward from history.
LADY. You call this history ? It used to be called regicide, if I am not mistaken.
POLITICIAN (to Lady}.