CHAPTER XXIX.

THE NATIONAL IDEA OF RUSSIA.

THE life of a nation resembles that of an individual. Its. early portion is spent in mere growth and preparation, which has, perhaps, no definite aims. There is enlargement of parts, a husbanding of strength, a discipline of faculties, with no distinct perception of the purpose which is to be attained. But the period at length comes when the object for which the man is to live and act presents itself clearly to the mind, and the individual perceives his task, his mission in life is revealed, and thenceforth his effort is to shape his actual life according to the idea which he has formed. So also with great nations. There is a preparatory period in which there is no consciousness of a special national destiny. Like the boy at school, a nation in childhood forms no settled plan for the future; but, in the progress of its growth, there is gradually shadowed forth-no one can explain how-a conception of what the national purpose should be, and this in time shapes itself to a clearly-defined idea, and becomes the object of national existence and effort. This may be called the national idea, and when truly so, it shapes the whole policy of a government, and directs upon itself the whole energy of a people. As with an individual, so with a nation, the actual achievement will bear some proportion to the grandeur of the conception and the loftiness of the aims, for, in the arrangement of the universe, there

seems to be some correspondence between desire and ca pacity.

Russia, as it would seem, has now so far emerged from her years of childhood as to have formed a distinct and individual national idea, upon which she has shaped a welldefined national policy, and to this all her efforts tend. This, then, must be the key to all her movements, and until we obtain a clear view of her national idea, Russia will remain an enigma, and we shall hear only of despotism and barbarism. This policy will, perhaps, be best understood by presenting, as preliminary, some negative statements. And first among these, it may be truly affirmed that the conquest of Western Europe is no part of the policy of Russia. The oft-repeated cry that the Crimean war was undertaken for the purpose of preventing the Czar from overrunning Europe, and that, therefore, it was a contest of civilization against barbarism, has no foundation in fact. There is not a single proof that Russia has ever entertained the idea of using her military power for the conquest of England, France, Germany, or any of the larger nations of Europe. Her designs in this direction have been confined to a control of the Baltic and the adjacent sea. The Russian Court has never been seized with such a madness for conquest. The Russian statesman knows full well that if all these Western crowns could be laid at the feet of the Emperor, the gift, if accepted, would be fatal to his country. The incorporation of such masses of heterogeneous material into her state, is no part of the Russian scheme. On the contrary, such an idea is the exact opposite of the one which really rules her. She is much more likely to draw around her a cordon of armies to keep Europe out and away, than to use them to conquer and incorporate the Western nations. In fact, this is precisely the signification of her military system, so far as Europe is concerned. Her fortifications are intended to keep Europe away, while within her bristling lines of artillery she pursues her national work. Russia would never attack Western Europe unless in selfdefense, to ward off a clearly-meditated blow. Whatever

has been written in regard to the peril of England or France from the arms of Russia, has been either in ignorance of her real and obvious policy, or with the direct design to cover the true character and objects of the war. That hereafter she may seek to cripple these powers, whenever she has the ability, may perhaps be expected.

France and England have made an issue not to be misunderstood or evaded. Their utmost strength was employed to humble Russia, and will be while a hope of success remains. Necessity will compel her to a similar course toward them. She has been taught, in a manner which she will never forget, that she has nothing to hope except from their inability to injure. The idea of the conquest and incorporation of the Western nations, Papal and Protestant, is clearly an absurdity too palpable to be entertained. It is not, by any means, a universal dominion of this sort to which Russian ambition aspires. The associating of all animals of different natures in one harmonious family, and within one cage, is a trivial feat compared with bringing into peaceful relationship, under one government, the dif ferent races and religions of Europe. The thing is impossible, even were there adequate physical power, until the people shall be all righteous-in short, until the millennial age.

But, possible or impossible, it is not a purpose which the rulers of Russia have ever seriously entertained. Whoever will glance at the map of Europe will perceive at once, that, so far from its being demanded by any interest of Russia that she should absorb the German states, she greatly needs them precisely where they are. They constitute her southern frontier defense, and help to render her impregnable, by standing between her and her more formidable Western foes. Not conquest and incorporation of Germany, but influence over its policy, is what Russia both requires and seeks; this, through the Sclavonic race, she will be very likely to attain. Of this, the course and position of Austria and Prussia afford sufficient proof. Instead of meditating aggressive war upon France and England,

Russia merely desires to be free from assault herself, that she may pursue unhindered her own separate career; and by what means will the influence of Russia over Austria be prevented, when seventeen millions of the population of Austria are Sclavonians? This fact of the alliance of races is the true key to the policy of Austria.

Neither does the policy of Russia contemplate aggressive war as the mere propagandist of despotic principles and forms of government. She abhors the theories of the atheistical movement; they shock the deep religious sentiment which pervades the Russian mind. The late Czar began his reign with the necessity of crushing a conspiracy which originated in French influence, and he detested a spirit which he regarded not as the spirit of freedom, but of lawlessness, which sought to trample all authority under its feet, and reproduce, even in his own empire, the scenes of the reign of terror in France. To prove that Russia opposes the infidel democratic tendencies of a portion of Europe is not necessarily to show that she is the determined foe of human liberty. There are millions in England, and millions in republican America, who regard the atheistical movement on the continent as hostile to the best interests of humanity, and tending to enslave, not to liberate, the race. There are millions of the firm and devoted friends of freedom and progress who would much prefer to have every throne in Europe remain, to the triumph of that lawless spirit which scoffs at and rejects all authority, both divine and human, and claims to be a lawgiver and a god unto itself. No man, of course, will attempt to prove that. Russia was not a despotic government, both in spirit and in practice, but it does not prove her love of despotism to show that she opposes such a democracy as has once convulsed Europe only to the destruction of popular rights. To such a miscalled liberty as many seek to establish in Europe, the vast majority of Americans are as steadfastly opposed as the Czar himself. Let, at least, this justice be done to Russia. Has she ever sought to overthrow the constitutional liberties of England? Has she ever shown herself

hostile to the republican liberty which has embodied itself in our own institutions? She should have all the benefit of a clear discrimination between a rational liberty, based upon a religious faith and a due recognition of the authority of God, and a mere desire to sweep all authority and restraint away, and enthrone the individual will, or human reason, or the bare decision of a majority, in the place of God himself. Has Russia shown a settled hostility to any movement for the elevation of the race, except the infidel one of Europe?

This question should be fairly answered before she is condemned, and Americans should be careful to distinguish between the theory of our Protestant republicanism and that false theory of freedom which, discarding religion, would begin with bloodshed, and end in the most hopeless forms of despotism.

Neither the conquest of Western Europe, nor a propagandism of despotic principles, nor the arresting of human progress, nor the destruction of human rights, are the purposes which shape the national policy of the Northern Empire. What, then, it may be asked, is the true national idea of Russia? Her territorial idea is of a kingdom which shall include the Baltic on the west, which on the southeast shall cover the Black Sea, the Caspian, and Constantinople, with a floating eastern frontier advancing toward India, while on the north-east her possessions already lie along the Pacific, including the mouth and valley of the magnificent Amoor. This is the Russian conception of territorial limits, and it is one whose grandeur stands unequaled by any idea of empire, whether of ancient or modern times, except by the American thought, which embraces the twin continents of the West. Rome herself, in the hight of her pride and power, was but as a thirdrate power compared with what Russia would be, could she once realize her vast conception. It is one of the most splendid ambitions that has ever stirred the human heart. Let those who so lavishly heap the epithets barbarous, and ignorant, and rude, upon Russia, take a map, and sit calmly