Professor Maxim Maximovich Kovalevsky, one of the greatestRussian sociologists, was born in 1851. Owing to his political convictions, he had to leave Russia. In 1901 he founded in Paris the Russian Higher School of Social Sciences, the faculty of which consisted of exiled Russian scholars and political emigrants. In 1905 he came back to Russia, resumed his University work and took an active part in the political movement. In 1906 he was elected to the Duma and in 1907 to the Imperial Council. He died in 1916.
Professor Maxim Maximovich Kovalevsky, one of the greatestRussian sociologists, was born in 1851. Owing to his political convictions, he had to leave Russia. In 1901 he founded in Paris the Russian Higher School of Social Sciences, the faculty of which consisted of exiled Russian scholars and political emigrants. In 1905 he came back to Russia, resumed his University work and took an active part in the political movement. In 1906 he was elected to the Duma and in 1907 to the Imperial Council. He died in 1916.
If the question should be put as to who at present stands in the way of Jewish equal rights and who demands still further limitations of the Jews' participation in both military and civil service, the answer is that no one class follows a more systematic and more definite programme in this connection than the League of United Nobility. In the year 1913 one of their conventions made the following recommendations, recorded in a volume published in the name of the league, and here quoted literally:
"I. Jews and converted Jews should not be allowed to serve in the army and navy either as regular recruits or as volunteers, nor should they be admitted to military schools."II. Jews and converted Jews should not beallowed to take part in the electoral conventions of the Zemstvos."III. Jews and converted Jews are not to be permitted to serve in the Zemstvos."IV. Jews and converted Jews are not to be permitted to serve in any municipal capacity."V. Jews and converted Jews should not be permitted to enter the civil service."VI. Jews and converted Jews should not be included in the lists of jurors; they may not be appointed or elected to serve in courts, they may not practice as either advocates or attorneys."
"I. Jews and converted Jews should not be allowed to serve in the army and navy either as regular recruits or as volunteers, nor should they be admitted to military schools.
"II. Jews and converted Jews should not beallowed to take part in the electoral conventions of the Zemstvos.
"III. Jews and converted Jews are not to be permitted to serve in the Zemstvos.
"IV. Jews and converted Jews are not to be permitted to serve in any municipal capacity.
"V. Jews and converted Jews should not be permitted to enter the civil service.
"VI. Jews and converted Jews should not be included in the lists of jurors; they may not be appointed or elected to serve in courts, they may not practice as either advocates or attorneys."
These recommendations are clearly at variance with the trend of Russian legislation throughout the reigns of Peter the Great, Catherine the Second and Alexander the First. Peter the Great called into the service of the Russian government all subjects irrespective of their nationality or religion. His fellow champions were representatives of different nationalities such as Bruce, Bauer, Repnin, Menshicov and Yaguzhinsky. As to Catherine the Second, our code of laws still retains the expression of her wish that all the peoples of Russia, each according to theprecepts of its religion, should pray to the Almighty for the welfare of its rulers, and should all be equally benefited by its government.
In his "Principles of the Russian Governmental Law" Professor Gradovsky says: "In the reign of Peter the Great there were no general regulations concerning the Jews." Measures against the Jews date from the reign of Catherine the First. During the reign of Catherine the Second, little was added to the existing array of limitations. In the districts in which the first Partition of Poland found them, the Jews at that time enjoyed almost all the rights of the native Russian citizen. Although the Empress recognized the "Pale of Settlement" created in the reign of Peter the Second, she, nevertheless, stretched its boundaries to include not only Little Russia but also the Vice-Royalty of Ekaterinoslav and the province of Taurida, wherein the Jews were granted all rights of citizenship. In the "Regulations Concerning the Jews" published in 1804, in the reign of Alexander the First, the principle of equal civil rights for this nation is brought out in Article 42. "All the Jewsin Russia," says this article, "whether residents or new settlers or foreigners coming to transact business are free and are to be under the protection of the law on a par with other Russian subjects." In commenting upon this article, Professor Gradovsky writes that this is clearly an attempt to fuse the Jewish nation with the rest of the Russian population by giving the former definite civil rights.
Only during the last year of the reign of Alexander the First were some measures adopted whereby the "Pale of Settlement" was narrowed down because of a certain sect of "Sabbathists," closely related to Judaism, which had greatly increased in numbers, particularly in the provinces of Voronezh, Samara, Tula, and others. According to the "Regulations Concerning the Jews" of 1835, enacted in the reign of Nicholas the First, the Jews retained the right to own all kinds of real estate, with the exception of inhabited estates and to deal in all kinds of merchandise on the same basis as the other citizens,—of course, only within the "Pale."
It is noteworthy that at this time the Jews were allowed to attend governmental schoolsof all grades, and that graduates from these were granted certain privileges. It is only toward the end of the reign of Nicholas I that the government adopts a system of limitations relating to the Jews, without, however, restraining their right to attend the governmental educational institutions. On the 31st of March, 1856, an imperial edict was issued ordering a revision of the existing regulations relating to the Jews. Therein it is clearly stated that the purpose of this revision is to conciliate these regulations with the intention of the government to fuse this people with the native population of the land. During the entire reign of Alexander II no limitations existed for the entrance of Jews into the Universities and the other educational institutions. On the contrary, according to Gradovsky, the limitations within the "Pale" did not apply to persons desiring to obtain a higher education, namely to those entering the medical academy, the universities, and the Institute of Technology. Gradovsky refers to the continuation of the "Code of Laws," of 1868. The book was published in 1875, while this freedom was in full swing. Within the "Pale," the Jews hadequal commercial rights with other citizens. Until the Polish rebellion of 1863 the Jews were permitted to own real estate, not only in cities but also in rural districts. After the rebellion this was forbidden to them as well as to the Poles. The foreign Jew could come to Russia freely and register on the same foreign passport as would be required from any other citizen of that country.
From what has been said, it follows that many of the limitations, which at present weigh down upon the Jews have been created only recently. The present reign, too, was begun with measures favoring the Jew. In 1903, in spite of the fact that the Jews, in accordance with a law which was confirmed in 1872, were forbidden to live in villages even within the "Pale," two hundred of these villages were turned into towns, and later fifty-seven more were added to this number. The measure rendered these places legally habitable by the Jews. On August 11, 1904, a law was passed wherein it was emphatically stated that Jews who were graduates from a university were to be permitted to live freely everywhere in the Empire. But since the repression of therevolutionary movement, this privilege has become a pretext for the restriction of the admittance of Jews into higher educational institutions.
From the viewpoint of the interests of the Russian state, the existing disabilities of the Jews are detrimental both to our economic life, and to the mutual relations among our citizens; they also work havoc upon the progress of education as well as upon the raising of the general level of our culture. Measures limiting a portion of the population in its rights to acquire property, to obtain an education in middle and higher state schools, to assume the responsibilities of a judge or of a lawyer, and, in general, restraining its freedom to pursue a professional career—are clearly irreconcilable with the promises given us in the manifesto of the 17th of October, 1906.
The fear that the granting of equal rights to the Jews may deprive the peasant of his land, is perfectly groundless. There are many other means whereby the tiller of the soil may be assured the possession of a portion of land. In the West we have systems such as that of the homestead, based on the inalienability of the family property (bien de famille). Suchsystems may be traced back as far as the Middle Ages. The mediæval law forbids the taking away from the peasant, even for arrearage, of his agricultural implements and the cattle necessary for his labour,—not to speak of his land, which, however, it would be impossible to take away, since it is the suzerain that is its rightful owner. The indivisibility of the family estate, which only a short time ago was recognised by the Appellatory Division of our Senate, with reference to the Western Section, was achieving the same results because for the sale of such property the agreement of all the members of the family was required. Such a protection of the interests of the peasant landowner is essential in his relation to the capitalist, whether it be a member of the landed gentry or a wealthy peasant, known as aKulak, or a Jew who lends money at interest, or an Armenian or, for that matter, a usurer of the Orthodox faith. In order that the land be retained by the peasant it is far more essential that only members of the peasant class be allowed to attend the auction sales of land sold because of the owner's arrears. And yet our law has permitted outsiders to attend if not thefirst auction sale, at least the second. I am strongly in favour of protecting the peasant's property, but I cannot see that to achieve this goal, it is necessary for a body politic based on law to limit any one's freedom of moving about, settling or choosing a profession. This view is shared by some of the political writers in Russia who, like the late B.N. Chicherin, Professor of the University of Moscow, have identified their names with the defence of the idea of equal rights for the Jews.
Dmitry Sergeyevich Merezhkovsky occupies an important place inmodern Russian letters and religious philosophy. He is responsible for several books of poems and for a series of ponderous historical novels. He is also the author of numerous critical studies distinguished by an original method and an extraordinary brilliancy. He was born in 1866.
Dmitry Sergeyevich Merezhkovsky occupies an important place inmodern Russian letters and religious philosophy. He is responsible for several books of poems and for a series of ponderous historical novels. He is also the author of numerous critical studies distinguished by an original method and an extraordinary brilliancy. He was born in 1866.
Russia ... Russia alone should be our deepest concern at present. The destiny of the numerous races and nationalities that go to make Russia is the destiny of the Russian Empire itself. One would ascertain the attitude of these nationalities by asking them: "Are you with Russia or is it your desire to exist apart from her? If you desire to exist apart from her—why, then, do you appeal to us for help? If with us—let us then, in this time of terror, disdain to consider our personal fortunes and let our thoughts be with Russia and with her alone. For without her your existence is inconceivable; her rise is your rise and her fall is your fall."
We would like very much to say that there is no such thing as the Jewish, Polish, Ukrainian, Armenian, Georgian, question, that thereis only one question—the Russian. Yes, we would like to, but we cannot; the Russian people have yet to earn the right to say that, and therein lies their tragedy.... The moment Russian idealism ventures to tackle any of those complicated national home problems,—it becomes weak, impotent and therefore irresponsible.
The Jewish question is a striking illustration of what we have just said. What do we owe the Jews? Indignation? Or the admission that anti-Semitism is abominable? But we admitted that a long time ago, and our indignation runs so high and is so clearly outspoken that it is beyond one's power even to speak calmly of it. The only thing we can do is to join our voice to that of the Jews. And we do.
But outcries, loud as they may be, are not sufficient, and it is the consciousness of the fact, that the outcries are insufficient and that at the present moment we possess no other weapons with which to fight the evil that wearies and harrows us.
What misery, and pain, and shame!
But in spite of the pain and the shame wecry out and reiterate and declare to the people around us, who are ignorant of the table of multiplication, that two and two make four, that the Jews are human beings like us; that they are neither enemies nor traitors to their country; that they are as good citizens as we are; that they love Russia no less than we do, and that anti-Semitism is a disgraceful stigma upon Russia's face. But apart from our righteous indignation, may we not be allowed calmly to utter one thought that occurs to us at this moment?
"Judophilism" and "Judophobia" are closely related. A blind denial of a nationality engenders an equally blind affirmation of it. An absolute "Nay" naturally brings forth an absolute "Yea."
Whom do we call a "Judophile" in Russia at the present time? Presumably, it is he or she who loves the Jews with a singular love, who finds in them greater values than in any other nationality. In the eyes of the so-called "true Russians" we, the Intellectuals, are such Judophiles.
"Why worry over the Jews all the time?" the Russian Nationalists say to us.
Now, how on earth can we stop worrying over the Jews, and, for that matter, over the Poles, Armenians, Ukrainians, Georgians, and so forth? When in our presence some one is being outraged, we cannot merely pass on; it is not humane. We must help him who is being assailed. At least, we ought to join our voice with his in crying out for help. This is precisely what we have been doing, and woe to us, if we cease to do it, cease to be human beings in order to become Russians.
A forest of national problems has grown around us, and the sounds of the Russian language are being drowned by the voices of all the numerous peoples that inhabit Russia. It is inevitable and just. We are not well, but with them it is still worse. We have great pain, but their's is greater. We must forget ourselves for their sake.
That is why we say to the "Nationalists":
Cease oppressing the non-Russian element of our empire, so that we may have the right to be Russians, and that we may with dignity show our national face, as that of a human being, not that of a beast. Cease to be 'Judophobes' so that we may cease to be'Judophiles.' Here is an instance taken at random.
The Jewish question has a religious as well as a national aspect. Between Judaism and Christianity, as between two poles, there are strong attractions and equally strong repulsions. Judaism gave birth to Christianity. The New Testament issued from the Old Testament. Paul the Apostle, who more than any one else fought Judaism, wrote: "For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh."
But whereas we may speak of attractions, it is not well for us to speak of repulsions. Indeed, how can we quarrel with him, who has no voice? The disabilities of the Jews seal our lips. We must not separate Christianity from Judaism, for it means, as one Jew put it, the establishment of another, spiritual "Pale of Settlement." Let us do away with the physical Pale, then we will be able to discuss the spiritual one. Until then, all our protestations and declarations of righteousness will only prove to the Jews our insincerity.
Why has the Jewish question become so keenin time of war? For the same reason that the rest of the national problems have made themselves felt.
We have called the present struggle a war of liberation. We entered the war with the avowed purpose of liberating those who are situated at a distance from us. While liberating distant strangers, why then do we oppress those who live close by our side? We wage war against tyranny outside of Russia, and we allow oppression to reign within her. We pity everybody but the Jews. Why?
Are they not dying on the battlefields for our sake? Do they not love us—who hate them? Do we not hate them—who love us? If we continue to act as we have done in the past, would not everybody lose faith in us, and would not the nations of the earth be justified in saying to us: "You can love only from afar. You are liars!"
We believed our righteousness to be our strongest weapon. We wanted to conquer brute force by the truth. If we persist in this desire, let us not lie; let us not weaken our truth by falsehood.
The Teutons say: "We fight to be therulers of the world,"—and they act accordingly. We say: "We fight for universal peace, for the emancipation of the world," but we do not act accordingly.
Let us begin then with the liberation of the Jews at home. Let the oppressed nations in our land bear in mind, however, that only a free Russian people will be able to give them freedom.
Let the Jews remember that the Jewish question is a Russian question.
Vyacheslav Ivanovich Ivanov was born in 1866. A poet of greatmastery and a refined critic, his thought, is steeped in hellenism and in the most abstruse mystic lore.
Vyacheslav Ivanovich Ivanov was born in 1866. A poet of greatmastery and a refined critic, his thought, is steeped in hellenism and in the most abstruse mystic lore.
One of the wiliest and the most harmful doctrines of our times is, I believe, the fashionable ideology of spiritual anti-Semitism. It attributes to Aryanism, which by the way, is a quantity ethnically if not linguistically enigmatical, many excellent and splendid qualities, while in the Semitic influences and admixtures to the Aryan element it sees nothing but negative energies, which have always hindered the free unfolding of the creative powers of the Aryan genius.
This doctrine would deprive Hellenism of Aphrodite, who came to the Hellenes from the Semites, and would cut the main and most profound root of Christianity, namely its faith in a "transcendental," or, plainly, living God. Spiritual anti-Semitism cuts the body of Christianity into two halves, and keeps only that halfwhose forms are justified by analogies borrowed from the Greek religious thought, justified, in the eyes of learned dodgers who choose to play the part of Romanticists of Aryanism.
This anti-religious and secretly anti-Christian theory, one of the Trojan wooden horses made in Germany, was clearly intended to "Indo-Germanize" the world, when suddenly the twilight of the Gods swooped down upon the Berlin Valhalla. Nevertheless it has succeeded in seducing many minds, obscured by prejudices. It was hailed by "immanent" philosophers and anti-Semites out of political considerations and psychological predispositions, as well as by Christians mindless of their kin, by anti-church people of all kinds, and even by atheists of Jewish birth, who are ashamed of their kin and who are in the world like salt which has lost its strength.
The more vivid and profound the church consciousness is in a Christian, the more vividly and profoundly does he feel himself, I shall not say a philo-Semite, but truly a Semite in spirit. We have so thoroughly confused, distorted and forgotten all the holy and true traditions, we have so thoroughly lost the habitof applying our reason to the lucid, old truths learned by heart, that this statement may sound like a paradox.
Vladimir Solovyov's touching affection for Judaism is a plain and natural manifestation of his love for Christ and of his inner experience of being merged in the Church. The body of the Church is for the mystic the true, although invisible body of Christ, and through Christ it is the body begotten of Abraham's seed. The latter body, like the curtain of the temple in Jerusalem in the hour of our Saviour's death, was rent in twain, and that half of it which is Judaism passionately seeks the whole, longs and yearns, and pours out its wrath upon the second half, which in its turn longs for the reunion and the integrity of mystic Israel.
Whoever is within the Church loves Mary; and whoever loves Mary loves also Israel whose name together with those of the patriarchs and prophets solemnly resounds in our liturgical hymns. The minds of those who in various times represented the earthly organisation of the Church could be poisoned by hatred of the Jews, in whom they suspected Christ's enemies, precisely because it seemed to them that theJewish nation was already void of the true Jewish spirit and was not of Abraham's seed. But what do all these errings mean in face of the single testimony of the apostle Paul?
I have placed myself, in these lines, on the standpoint of religious thought, and I wish to remind people of the truth that to be a Christian means to be not a heathen, not simply an Aryan by blood, but to become through baptism, which sacramentally includes also circumcision, a child of Abraham, and, therefore, in a sacramental sense a brother to Abraham's descendants, who, according to the word of the apostle, are not deprived of inheritance, and whom, according to Christ's word, we must bless even if they curse us. Personally, I do not believe that the Jews hate Christ, unless it be that they hate Him in spite of their secret, presensuous love for Him, hate Him with that peculiar hatred which comes from jealousy and which the Hellenes defined as the negative hypostase of Eros, as anti-Eros.
I think that Providence has appointed the Jews eternally to test the Christian peoples in their love for Christ and in their faithfulness to Him. And when His work will beconsummated in us, then their demands and expectations will be fulfilled and they will be convinced that they need not wait for another Messiah. As for us, if we were walking with Christ, we would not fear our examiners: for love conquers fear.
The accounts the Russian soul has to settle with that of the Jew are complex. In spite of the fact they have frequently and most completely been united in suffering, the Jew is loath to love that which is most sacred to the Russian soul. For the benefit of those in whom resound the separate clashing voices of this spiritual dispute, I shall quote in conclusion this final and irrevocable verdict of Dostoyevsky, who had the reputation of being an anti-Semite:
"All that is demanded by humanity, justice and Christian law, must be done for the Jews. I shall add to these words that in spite of the considerations exposed above, I definitely stand for an increase of the Jewish rights in formal legislation and, if possible, for the removal of all the legal disabilities which stand in the way of their equality with the rest of the population (although in some cases theyhave already more rights than the aboriginal population, or, better, they have greater possibilities to utilise the rights which they enjoy)."
("A Writer's Journal," March, 1877, III, p. 4.)
It is hard to tell this little story,—it is so simple. When I was a youth, I used to gather the children of our street on Sunday mornings during the spring and summer seasons and take them with me to the fields and woods. I took great pleasure in the friendship of these little people, who were as gay as birds.
The children were only too glad to leave the dusty, narrow streets of the city. Their mothers provided them with slices of bread, while I bought them dainties and filled a big bottle with cider, and like a shepherd, walked behind my carefree little lambs, while we passed through the town and the fields on our way to the green forest, beautiful and caressing in its array of Spring.
We always started on our journey early inthe morning when the church bells were ushering in the early mass, and we were accompanied by the chimes and the clouds of dust raised by the children's nimble feet.
In the heat of noon, exhausted with playing, my companions would gather at the edge of the forest, and after that, having eaten their food, the smaller children would lie down and sleep in the shade of hazel and snow-ball trees, while the ten-year-old boys would flock around me and ask me to tell them stories. I would satisfy their desire, chattering as eagerly as the children themselves, and often, in spite of the self-assurance of youth and the ridiculous pride which it takes in the miserable crumbs of worldly wisdom it possesses, I would feel like a twenty-year-old child in a conclave of sages.
Overhead is the blue veil of the spring sky, and before us lies the deep forest, brooding in wise silence. Now and then the wind whispers gently and stirs the fragrant shadows of the forest, and again does the soothing silence caress us with a motherly caress. White clouds are sailing slowly across the azure heavens. Viewed from the earth, heated bythe sun, the sky appears cold, and it is strange to see the clouds melt away in the blue. And all around me—little people, dear little people, destined to partake of all the sorrows and all the joys of life.
These were my happy days, my true holidays, and my soul already dusty with the knowledge of life's evil was bathed and refreshed in the clear-eyed wisdom of child-like thoughts and feelings.
Once, when I was coming out of the city on my way to the fields, accompanied by a crowd of children we met an unknown little Jewish boy. He was barefooted and his shirt was torn; his eyebrows were black, his body slim and his hair grew in curls like that of a little sheep. He was excited and he seemed to have been crying. The lids of his dull-black eyes, swollen and red, contrasted with his face, which, emaciated by starvation, was ghastly pale.
Having found himself face to face with the crowd of children, he stood still in the middle of the road, burrowing his bare feet in the dust, which early in the morning is so deliciously cool. In fear, he half opened the dark lips ofhis fair mouth,—the next second he leaped right on to the sidewalk.
"Catch him!" the children started to shout gaily and in a chorus. "A Jewish boy! Catch the Jew boy!"
I waited, thinking that he would run away. His thin, big-eyed face was all fear; his lips quivered; he stood there amid the shouts and the mocking laughter. Pressing his shoulders against the fence and hiding his hands behind his back, he stretched and strangely appeared to have grown bigger.
But suddenly he spoke,—very calmly and in a distinct and correct Russian.
"If you wish,—I will show you some tricks."
I took this offer for a means of self-defence. But the children at once became interested. The larger and coarser boys alone looked with distrust and suspicion on the little Jewish boy. The children of our street were in a state of guerilla warfare with the children of other streets; in addition, they were deeply convinced of their own superiority and were loath to brook the rivalry of other children.
The smaller boys approached the matter more simply.
"Come on, show us," they shouted.
The handsome, slim boy moved away from the fence, bent his thin body backward, and touching the ground with his hands, he tossed up his feet and remained standing on his arms, shouting:
"Hop! Hop! Hop!"
Then he began to spin in the air, swinging his body lightly and adroitly. Through the holes of his shirt and pants we caught glimpses of the greyish skin of his slim body, of his sharply bulging and angular shoulder-blades, knees and elbows. It seemed to us as if with one more twist of his body his thin bones would crack and break into pieces.
He worked hard until the shirt grew wet with sweat about his shoulders. After each especially daring feat he looked into the children's faces with an artificial, weary smile, and it was unpleasant to see his dull eyes, grown large with pain. Their strange and unsteady glance was not like that of a child.
The lads encouraged him with loud outcries. Many imitated him, rolling in the dust and shouting for joy, pain and envy. But the joyous minutes were soon over when theboy, bringing his exhibition to an end, looked upon the children with the benevolent smile of a thoroughbred artist and stretching forth his hand said:
"Now give me something."
We all became silent, until one of the children said:
"Money?"
"Yes," said the lad.
"Look at him," said the children.
"For money, we could do those tricks ourselves."
The audience became hostile toward the artist, and betook itself to the field, ridiculing and insulting him. Of course, none of them had any money. I myself, had only seven kopecks about me. I put two coins in the boy's dusty palm. He moved them with his finger and with a kindly smile said: "Thank you."
He went away, and I noticed that his shirt around his back was all in black blotches and was clinging close to his shoulder-blades.
"Hold on, what is it?"
He stopped, turned about, scrutinised me and said distinctly, with the same kindly smile:
"You mean the blotches on my back? That's from falling off the trapeze. It happened on Easter. My father is still lying in bed, but I am quite well now."
I lifted his shirt. On his back, running down from his left shoulder to the side, was a wide dark scratch which had now become dried up into a thick crust. While he was exhibiting his tricks the wound broke open in several spots and red blood was now trickling from the openings.
"It doesn't hurt any more," said he with a smile. "It doesn't hurt, it only itches."
And bravely, as it becomes a hero, he looked in my eyes and went on, speaking like a serious grown-up person:
"You think—I have been doing this for myself? Upon my word—I have not. My father ... there is not a crust of bread in the house, and my father is lying badly hurt. So you see, I have to work hard. And to make matters worse, we are Jews, and everybody laughs at us. Good-bye."
He spoke with a smile, cheerfully and courageously. With a nod of his curly head, he quickly went on, passing by the houseswhich looked at him with their glass eyes, indifferent and dead.
All this is insignificant and simple, is it not?
Yet many a time in the darkest days of my life I remembered with gratitude the courage and bravery of the little Jewish boy. And now, in these sorrowful days of suffering and bloody outrages which fall upon the grey head of the ancient nation, the creator of Gods and religion,—I think again of the boy, for in him I see the symbol of true manly bravery,—not the pliant patience of slaves, who live by uncertain hopes, but the courage of the strong who are certain of their victory.
Fyodor Sologub is the pseudonym of Fyodor Kuzmich Teternikov,novelist and poet. A considerable portion of his prose works has been recently made accessible to the English reader. Sologub's poetic output includes lyrical pieces of rare beauty. He was born in 1864.
Fyodor Sologub is the pseudonym of Fyodor Kuzmich Teternikov,novelist and poet. A considerable portion of his prose works has been recently made accessible to the English reader. Sologub's poetic output includes lyrical pieces of rare beauty. He was born in 1864.
The great war, which we did not want, but which we are conducting with intense fervour, exerting all our spiritual and material forces, has put before our consciousness and our moral sense the fundamental problems of our social and political organisation. Not in vain have the newspapers hastened to style this war a Fatherland War. The question of the Fatherland has suddenly acquired for us a peculiar keenness and significance.
The war has taken Russian society and the Russian people by surprise, but luckily it has come to us at the moment when the questions which were confronting us had already been settled both in our reason and conscience. The heroic labour of the Russian intellectual has not been in vain. And now what we have to do is not to argue and demonstrate, but todetermine the meaning of events. And the meaning of what is going on is such that we are forced to consider this war not only as one of defence, but also as one of emancipation. It appears to us not only as a struggle for the rights of small states threatened by large ones, and as a war against German militarism, but also as a strife against...[1]internal danger, whatever may be the various forms this danger assumes.
The first and chief danger which threatened, and is still threatening us, is the danger of internal division and disorder. The equal readiness and zeal to stand up for her which all the peoples inhabiting Russia have manifested has shown how unjust is the preaching of hatred and of narrow nationalism. The peoples who bear the same burdens of our state as the Russians do, who defend our common fatherland just as faithfully as the Russians, thereby assert that our fatherland is for all, that Russia is for every one who is considered a Russian subject and meets his duties toward the state. Russia is not only for thosewho are Russians by language and birth, she is for all who live under her sovereign dominion. No one in Russia is benefited by the unequal rights of her various peoples; this inequality does not add to our political power, it only supports our internal disorder. Its abolition by no means contradicts the fundamental conceptions of Russian statehood.
You will say that Russia has been created by the Russian race. Well, then, her policy must be determined by the qualities of the Russian popular spirit,—but animosity and exclusiveness are things strange and repulsive to it. The soul of the Russian people is trusting and open to all influences. And this is only natural: only that nation can become the basis of a great state which is able with ease and joy to unite with all the races it meets on its historic road. The history of Russia illustrates this. Besides, who has ever asserted that people born unto the Russian tongue are racially pure Slavs?
You will say that Russia is a Christian state. Agreed. But do not Christ's commandments teach us to see a friend and a brother and one's equal in every man? Themore we are Christians, the less of animosity and exclusiveness can be in our hearts. What difference does it make that two men speak different languages and pray in different ways? When it is a question of paying duties and taxes, and bearing arms in defence of the fatherland, religious and race peculiarities do not matter.
The fatherland is for all of us, because we are all for the fatherland. The fatherland is our common home, and this home we build, keep in good order, and defend. We build our common home not like hirelings, to whom, after they get their pay, the building becomes alien. In rearing, decorating and defending it we bargain with no one, we give everything that is necessary for its upbuilding and defence,—we give our property, our labour, our very life. Even when our labour appears selfish, even then—provided it is not criminal—it is for the good of our common home: for, all that adds to the happiness, well-being and freedom of each one living in the home, adds to its strength and beauty.
We build our common home, decorate it and defend it, and we do it with joy andwillingness because in our common home we are neither hirelings nor guests. In our common home, then, who are we? We must know and always remember that in our common home we are all masters of the house. It is not our right, but our duty toward our home, of which we must take care just as every good master takes care of his house. The consciousness of the fact that we are the masters of our common home is clear; for it is seen that every one of us in whom conscience and reason do not slumber, feels responsible for the disorder of our life.
Not an outsider, nor a congress of allies, nor some one social class shall regulate our affairs for the best of Poland, Finland, the Jews and the rest. Neither our allies, nor any one of our social classes, nor the wisest and strongest among us,—but all of us Russian citizens, all of us who joyously and willingly bear the burden of statehood, are called upon to settle in conscience and reason, the fundamental problems of our great home-building.