having produced a class of martyrs quite unheard-of in any other country, "Martyrs for the Beard."* As was then to be expected, the striking contrast between the vigorous revolutionary proceedings of Russian Socialists, and the sedate revolutionary acts of the German, could not fail to excite, against the latter, feelings of impatience which very soon turned into discontent and open hostility. The publication of the London Freiheit was nothing else but a protest against what its editor, the now notorious Most, stigmatized as the "cowardice" of the German Social Democrats. We read in the Russian Socialist paper, Tchernii Peredel of September, 1880, an article from M. Most, where he advocates all means which may serve to speedily attain the purpose of social revolution, and quotes analogous declarations made in the Freiheit of February 28, 1880, ending with these words: "To sum up, we (of the Freiheit) are the 'revolutionary' Social Democracy, they (of the Social Democrat) are 'progressist' Socialists. Hence there is between ourselves and them very little in common."

These words betray the deep division existing in the camp of German democracy, and division is not an element of strength. Moreover, by disavowing the publication of the Freiheit, and excluding Most from their ranks, the Congress of the German democracy held at Wyden has, as it were, made of him a martyr in the eyes of his adherents. Finally, the way in which Most greeted the assassination of the Tsar, the consequent prosecution of his paper, and his imprisonment, whilst bringing him and his partisans still nearer to the Russian Socialists, and procuring for him the sympathies of all those who, in France and elsewhere, extolled the murderers, have certainly not contributed to enhance, before the impatient Socialists of Europe, either the party of the German Socialist school, nor the course adopted by its leaders.

And a confirmation, if need there be, of our opinion, is to be found in a recent pamphlet of M. Dragomanov, "Le Tyrannicide en Russie et l'Action de l'Europe occidentale," where the famous Ukranian agitator, calmly discussing the situation, warns Europe against the epidemic contagion of political assassination, and points to the important fact that, whilst mere Socialist European schemes cannot have as yet any influence on the great mass of the Russian peasantry, the means adopted by the Russian revolutionists now engaged in the political struggle, in order to free themselves from autocracy, may well communicate to Europe "their sanguinary character, and excite those instincts, proceeding more from passion than from reason, which are always to be found among disinherited classes even in the most civilized countries."+

This is, for the present at least, the strongest point of Russian

*For information concerning the relations of the Russian Government with the beards of the people, see the Alphabetical Register of the first series of the complete collection of the laws (1649-12 Dec. 1825) at the rubric Tsopoga u Sopogaru" (Beard and bearded). + Dragomanov, "Le Tyrannicide en Russie," p. 13. Geneva Printing Office of the Rabotnik and Hiomada. A most interesting summary of this pamphlet appeared in the Times of April 22, 1881.

Socialism, and the one which is likely gradually, but steadily, to increase its prevalence over that of Germany. We are told, it is true, that German Socialism has spread its roots far and wide among the masses, whilst this is not the case with the Russian. But we are living at an epoch when a few years, sometimes a few months, are enough to create new feelings, or to give a new direction to the feelings of a nation. Moreover, if the immediate aim of the Russian revolutionary movement is, as yet, rather political than social, one must not forget that its final aim is the social economical transformation of Russia. Very soon Russia will have to face the solution of the great and momentous problems created by the way in which the emancipation of the Serfs has been carried on, and let it be remarked that there is not a single peasant who has not some interest in the solution of these problems. This is the same as to say that, once the political revolution is accomplished, the whole Russian nation will have to be engaged in the Social revolution.

Yet, this very expression, "Social revolution," exact as it may be to designate the economical transformation of society in Western Europe, can hardly be applied to the case of Russia. Let us listen to a competent authority:

"The Slavs," says again the Italian Socialist quoted above," whilst defending the collective property of the soil, and the inalienability of the land allotted to the peasants, are but Conservatives, whilst the other peoples, for instance the Italian, for doing the same are radically Socialist revolutionary."*

The reason is obvious; one is "conservative" when one keeps what one possesses; one is "revolutionary" when one changes what one possesses into what one possesses not. Now the collective property of the soil, and the inalienability of the land allotted among the peasants, are already to be found in that Russian Commune (Mir), already mentioned above, of which Count de Cavour is said to have predicted that it will create more dangers to Western Europe than any army. The official definition of the enjoyment in common (obschinnoe polzovanie) of this Commune is worth quoting, as entirely agreeing with what is the avowed end of all Socialists.

"Enjoyment in common," thus runs the definition, "is the mode of enjoyment regulated by custom, by virtue of which the soil is divided, or allotted, from time to time among the peasants; either by head, by tiaglo, or otherwise, joint responsibility being imposed upon all for the fulfilment of the obligations attached to the occupancy."

But in Russia this "enjoyment in common" already applies to all the land not belonging to the Crown and the landlords. It follows that for Russia what is commonly called "social economical revolution" would only be the application to the whole country of a system of land tenure there in existence for centuries, and in which, moreover, is already

* Gnocchi Viani, "Le tre Internazionale," p. 129.

engaged the vast majority, not to say nearly all, of the Russian population. Accordingly, whilst German Socialism is still in the period of theories, the Russian is fully entered into that of facts, which againwhen one remembers that patience is not the commonest of virtues-is a great advantage over the German Socialism.

66

"Be on your guard, make sacrifices, you proprietors of Germany," says a German to his fellow-countrymen ; conciliate the workmen by such reforms as will render their native country dear to them, else they will welcome the Russians as 'liberators.' . . . . Do you believe the German proletarian is likely to prefer remaining proletarian under a German lord, or a German, if not a Jew, land proprietor, rather than become 'collective' co-proprietor with the Tsars? I do not believe so."

So much has been published even in England about the Russian Mir, that I beg to refer the reader, for further information, to the various books where this important subject has been diligently and extensively discussed. It is enough for the scope of this essay to remark that, whatever the theoretical objections to the introduction into Western Europe of the Russian system may be, it is still making its way more, perhaps, than is generally believed. The French, Spanish, and Italian Socialists are, as we gather from several publications, in favour of the Russian system. Even in Germany this system is gaining adherents, and, whilst Russian Socialists sneer at any attempt to reconcile by a German Volks-Staat what, in their eyes, is irreconcilable—that is, State and people--the Münich Socialist paper, Zeitgeist, takes for its programme, "The Free Confederation of the Groups of the Communes." The reader, morcover, will not have forgotten that on the ninth anniversary of the Paris Commune (18th March, 1880), Hartmann publicly expressed, at a Socialistic meeting held in London, the hope that the Paris Commune would be the starting-point of the general confederation of the Communes throughout all Europe, Finally, nowhere does history prove that the triumph of a political or social scheme is in proportion to its reasonableness or its practical applicability; when society is in a state of feverish uneasiness it accepts the first change offered to it as a relief. Like a sick man,

"Col volger fianco al suo dolor fa schermo" (Dante).

VI.

"Ah! we have you now!" said Raoul Rigault, the well-known member of the Paris Commune, to Mgr. Darboy, when the Archbishop arrived at the prison, "You have been the masters these 1800 years. Our turn is come, but we shall treat you better than you treated us. Instead of burning you, we shall content ourselves with shooting you." * O'Meara (Grace Ramsay): "The Bells of the Sanctuary," p. 288. Mgr. Darboy. London: Burns and Oates, 1879.

1874-75.

and

Meyer (Rudolph): "Der Emancipationskampf" &c., tom. ii. pp. 399–401. Berlin, See, among others, Laveleye (Emile de), "Primitive Property." London, 1878; the article of M. Faucher, on the Systems of Land Tenure," published by the Cobden Club, London, 1876.

66

It would result, from this comprehensive epitome of the whole Christian history, that the Church, embodied in Mgr. Darboy, had done nothing else, during eighteen centuries, but burn the people; and the people, even at periods like those of the Reformation and the great French Revolution, had done nothing else but meekly, gently, and sweetly allow themselves to be burnt by the Church. And Raoul Rigault takes, moreover, to himself the credit of generosity for only shooting instead of burning a man guilty of a people-burning career, begun as early as some seventeen hundred years before the offender was born!

The Archbishop did not betray any personal resentment, and we are, moreover, informed by Mr. Washburne, the American ambassador in Paris at the time, that, in a conversation he had with the illustrious prisoner, though—

He

"Appreciating his critical situation, and being prepared for the worst, he had no word of bitterness or reproach for his persecutors; but, on the other hand, remarked that the world judged them to be worse than they really were. was patiently awaiting the logic of events, and praying that Providence might find a solution to those terrible troubles without the further shedding of human blood."*

The contrast could not be more striking. Which of the two loved mankind more sincerely!

Would to God that all who take a sincere interest in the condition of the labouring classes disdained not the powerful support they could derive from the Church! The intrinsic efficacy of her dogmas cannot be denied. She does not admit of any difference of nature among men, and, as for the differences of condition, she warns, most severely, the great and the happy of the world, that power and riches are not given to them that they might rest and find their peace therein, but only on behalf of the poor, the little, and the defenceless ones. Furthermore, a tendency towards constantly bringing all men into a closer connection, lies in the very nature of a religion, the first tenet of which is that God is our common Father, and we are all brethren. The whole Catholic worship is but an acknowledgment and a confirmation of this doctrine. Moreover, remarkably enough, the Holy Scripture sums up, as it were, all conditions which may secure the stability of thrones in this one, that the poor be judged according to justice. Qui judicat in veritate pauperes, thronus ejus firmabitur in æternum (Prov. xxix. 14)

But, passing from this point, let me quote from Manzoni's "Nome di Maria," that beautiful strophe where one of the most heart-winning characteristics of the mother of our Saviour is made to consist in her not allowing any "cruel" difference between the sorrow of the great and that of the little ones :

* "The Executive Documents," printed by order of the House of Representatives during the Second Session of the 42nd Congress, 1871-72, p. 333. Washington, 1872; France, 133 (423).

"A Te che i preghi ascolti e le querele
Non come suole il mondo, né degl'imi
E dei grandi il dolor, col suo crudele,
Discernimento estimi."

Then, as to the scientific side of the social question, if Socialists, sincerely anxious for the welfare of the people, were to read attentively what standard Catholic thinkers-like, for instance, Rosmini*— have written on the subject, they would spare themselves much time and trouble. Rudolph Meyer, the learned editor of the Berliner Revue, to whose contributions I beg to call the attention of the reader, fairly acknowledges that one cannot refuse to the so-called Ultramontanen Social Politiker substantial merits on the right appreciation of the social question.†

There is more. Many a time Socialists would also be compensated for their self-abnegation in listening to the refutation of what, in their theories, cannot be justified by many an unexpected confirmation of what may be legitimate in their aspirations. The following passage from an author of the past century, connected with England because of his criticism of Locke, will show, moreover, that the name of "social question" is not of a fresh date:

"It is then natural, just, convenient, and advantageous to society," says Card. Gerdil, "that there be an equality of riches and fortune in the State, but this equality must have limits; every excess is vicious. . . . . If a comparatively small number of citizens were to possess, they alone, the greatest part of the domains, the people in general would be poor. There would be an excess of riches on one side, and an excess of misery on the other. The luxury of the rich, and the indigence of the people, would create a contrast-humiliating for mankind."

As regards, finally, the practical side of the social question, one cannot shut one's eyes to the fact that silent immolations of one's whole life in nursing, assisting, and consoling the poor, are made every day in the Church by the mere love of our Redeemer, and the force of His example. If they do not attract attention it is only because they are so common.

Then, whilst every one knows that Peter the Great has not left any testimony of his love for the poor, how few know that a scion of the very family which gave to Russia the mother of Peter the Great, Natalie Narischkin, lived and died a humble Sister of Charity? On the day of her funeral, a guardian of the cemetery of Mount Parnasse, in Paris, on witnessing the tears of the innumerable poor, who accompanied her to the tomb, could not help exclaiming, " Oh! how good must she have been, being so much loved !"§ And, in Rosmini (Ant.): "Filosofia del Diritto ;" "Socialismo e Comunismo," &c. Meyer (Rud.): "Die neueste Literatur zur Socialen Frage," pp. 4, 5. Berlin, 1873. Gerdil (Sigismond), "Précis d'un cours d'instructions sur l'origine, les droits, et les devoirs de l'autorité souveraine," &c.; § xvi., Partage et distribution des biens fonds : "Euvres," éd. Rome, 1807, t. vii. p. 261. Of this author, I beg to mention, also, the "Discours philosophiques sur l'homme considéré relativement à l'état de nature et à l'état de société," which are a reply to Rousseau's "Contrat Social."

§ Craven (Aug. Mme., née de la Feronnays): "La Soeur Nathalie Narischkin, fille de la Charité, sœur de S. Vincent de Paul," p. 437. Ninth edition. Paris: Didier, 1878.