« EdellinenJatka »
remember, Mr. Jebb informs us, that'things stronger than blood
gave him his affinity with Jeremiah and Ezekiel' (ü. 417), and with the great preacher who with something like the
same gifts, stood in something like the mental attitude of • Demosthenes, and this in the city which of all cities has most ? resembled his own.' For all these there was the same mission, to be read out of a book full of lamentation and mourning and woe, yet sealed to all eyes save their own. The Athenian orator, the Florentine monk, toiled on, each to the end, because, while they spoke, there was yet time to heed their warning, although they uttered it hoping against hope ; and well indeed may Mr. Jebb say that the soul of Demosthenes was among
men when in the Dome of Florence, above the sobs and wailings of a great multitude, the anguish of Savonarola went forth on words that were as flame (ii. 418).*
Grateful as we are to Mr. Jebb for a picture the truth of which must touch every heart, we cannot but regret that his criticism of Æschines should have a few of those jarring chords which mar his criticism of Antiphon. He may, indeed, be thought to depreciate Æschines unduly when he speaks of the great contest with Demosthenes as one in which · art allied ' with genius wins the day against clever empiricism (i. 398). Æschines had not been systematically trained as a rhetorician, and his experience as an actor and a scribe may not have been altogether to his advantage. But his natural powers were so great, and these powers were so aided by a splendid voice under perfect musical control, that nothing but the moral superiority of his adversary can account for his defeat. We may be doing him an injustice in speaking of the vulgarity of his soul as counteracting his wonderful gift of eloquence (ii. 396), unless we have good reason for thinking that this vulgarity was innate. He may, again, in his peroration have passed at a bound to the most tremendous failure that ever * followed so close upon a triumph,' because, having reached his true climax, he felt the pressure of the Attic rule that the storm must be laid in a final harmony (ii. 407); but we have scarcely completed the picture until we add that Demosthenes could afford and dared to disregard this rule, because he knew that he was in the right and that his enemy was in the wrong. It is indisputably true, as Mr. Jebb insists, that Æschines had not • dared to show his colours. He had not dared to say, “I ““ maintain that it was expedient to be friendly with Macedon, «" and therefore I deny that Demosthenes was a patriot." He
* A recent translation of the celebrated Oration for the Crown' by Sir Robert Collier does credit to his scholarship and good taste ; and we observe that this version has been used, as preferable to many others, in the volume devoted to Demosthenes in Mr. Blackwood's series of Classical Authors.
had tried to save appearances. He had dealt in abuse and in • charges of corruption. But he had left the essence of the • Demosthenic policy absolutely untouched' (ii. 487). Had Mr. Jebb substituted right for expediency as the test of patriotic conduct, and had he said that Æschines dreaded to show his true colours because he knew that he had received the wages of a traitor and that his life had been for years a lie, we should have been amply satisfied. But in spite of this fatal weakness, the skill of Æschines in the use of words was so consummate, and his enthusiasm in an evil cause so great, as to make his speech well worthy of the trial in which the theory
of Greek eloquence had its final and most splendid illustra' tion' (ii. 398). Fifty years later the Athenian public could take delight in the ‘jerky magniloquence' of Hegesias (ii. 443). Of the revival which after this pitiable downfall shed its glory on the Rome of Hortensius and Cicero we must not say more than that it is treated by Mr. Jebb with the same wealth of learning and the same refinement of taste which impart to his work as a whole a singular and delightful charm.
ART. III.-1. Russia. By D. MACKENZIE WALLACE,
M.A. 2 vols. 8vo. London: 1877. 2. Russische und Baltische Characterbilder aus Geschichte
und Literatur. Von JULIUS ECKARDT. 1 vol. 8vo.
Leipzig: 1876. 3. Études sur l'Avenir de la Russie. Par D. K. SCHÉDO
FERROTI. Quatrième Edition. Berlin : 1859. 4. Aus der Petersburger Gesellschaft.
Von einem Russen. Berlin: 1874. 5. Savage and Civilized Russia. By W.R. London : 1877. 6. La Russie Épique. Études sur les Chansons Héroïques de
la Russie. Par ALFRED RAMBAUD. Paris : 1876. IF Mr. Wallace had published this book under the more
modest title of Rural Russia,' it might deserve to be considered the best work we possess in English on the peasantry and country life of that vast empire. The writer has unquestionably some qualifications unusual in a foreigner. He is well acquainted with the Russian language. He has lived for several years, not only in St. Petersburg and Moscow, but amongst the people; and in his zeal for the acquisition of a thorough knowledge of the country, he braved the discomfort of a Russian parsonage and the dullness of a provincial town. Applying himself more especially to the study of the communal tenure of land and the results of the recent emancipation of the serfs, he has published, on those subjects, a large amount of valuable information. He writes in a spirit of fairness and good temper, not always. to be found in the books relating to the institutions of the Russian Empire; and if he is biassed at all, it is by a kindly sense of the hospitality he has met with and by a lively appreciation of the good qualities of the Russian people. He has collected with scrupulous care all that it is possible to say in their favour, but unfortunately his benevolent theories are not always borne out by the facts which his candour compels him to disclose. We receive his evidence, however, with pleasure and confidence as far as it goes. But it is impossible not to remark that the scope of this work is very limited. We are struck at once by surprising omissions of the most important subjects, which affect the whole social and political condition of the Empire. Mr. Wallace has nothing to say of the army, or of the finances, or of commerce, or of the Imperial administration. But these are the four pillars of the edifice. The life and manners of the peasantry are interesting, and very unlike anything that exists in Western Europe. Perhaps the time may come when their primitive institutions may exercise some power in the State. But at present they are entirely subject to the exigencies of a vast military establishment, to an oppressive and demoralising system of finance, to a prohibitive commercial system, and to the absolute control of a despotic government. A book on Russia which omits these subjects appears tous, therefore, to be essentially defective and incomplete. The author tells us that he hopes in a third volume to repair some of these omissions. But he has failed to show the bearing that the obligations of military service, the mode of taxation, commercial restrictions, and the application of arbitrary power have on all the subordinate institutions of the country; and this deficiency can never be supplied.
If therefore the object of the reader were to obtain knowledge of Russia, as a State and a Power in Europe, he would derive much fuller and more accurate information from several works recently published on the Continent, such as M. SchédoFerroti's · Études sur l'Avenir de la Russie,' or the • Peters
burger Gesellschaft,' by a Russian; or Herr Julius Eckardt's • Russische und Baltische Characterbilder;'* not to mention Prince Dolgoroukow's somewhat defamatory volume on the state of his own country. The peasantry of Russia, though they exceed by incalculable numbers the population of the towns, are still an inert mass. The communal institutions which have existed for some centuries among them are confined to their own very limited sphere of action. They have not as yet shown the slightest aptitude for political power or even the slightest desire to exercise it, except when their own immediate interests were concerned. The emancipation of the serfs was unquestionably a great revolution in Russian society, and a measure which does the highest honour to the firmness, benevolence, and wisdom of Alexander II. But never was a great social revolution more exclusively accomplished from above. It was imposed on pobles and serfs alike by the Imperial will; and we gather from Mr. Wallace's own pages that it has had little or no effect in changing the condition of the peasantry, except in so far as their relations to their former are concerned.
Herr Eckhardt states emphatically * A translation of the first edition of this work was published in London in 1870, under the title “Modern Russia ;' but a second edition has since appeared in Germany, considerably enlarged. It is a most valuable and instructive work, and far superior, in our estimation, to tbat of Mr. Wallace.
that after the emancipation, in the agricultural arrangements, in the relations of the individual members to the community, in the periodical re-allotments, in the mode of taxation, and in the division of the soil, absolutely nothing was changed.
The omission of all mention of the army in Mr. Wallace's volumes is that which most surprises us, because we have always understood that Russia is essentially constituted on military principles, and the maintenance of an enormous army is regarded as the great end of the State. All rank in Russia may be said to be military, or represented by military equivalents. Thus even M. de Kancrine, the late Minister of Finance, and a civilian, had the rank of a general; and when two young men of high birth, a Soumoroff and a Woronzoff, announced their intention of entering the civil service, they were told that this was a derogation from their proper position, measured by the military standard.
The army was the grand object of the solicitude of the Emperor Nicholas; and although a milder régime has succeeded to that of the late Czar, the military establishment of the Empire has been largely increased and extended within the last three years by the introduction of universal compulsory service,-a fact which must have the most serious effect on the whole rural population, from whom the troops are raised.
• Russia,' says M. Schédo-Ferroti, 'is a state militarily organised. Everything in our country breathes of arms, and people of the most unwarlike professions are obliged to put on the uniform of
soldiers. The profession of arms has always been regarded in Russia as the noblest pursuit in life—the only one that a man of a certain social position could follow, or that led to rapid advancement, The reason of this preponderance of the army is thus explained by the Russians themselves :
At its origin the Russian monarchy already occupied a vast territory comprising the sources of six great rivers—the Northern Dwina, the Volchow, communicating with the sea by Lake Ladoga, and the Neva, the Duna, the Dnieper, the Don, and the Volga. All these great streams flowed into territories not then subject to Russian dominion, except the Northern Dwina, the mouth of which was Russian but in accessible to trade, as the passage to the White Sea was only discovered by the English in 1553. Thus, a great political body was circumscribed within narrow limits, which, as it were, suffocated it; it had to spread in order to breathe; it had to conquer the mouths of the rivers crossing its territory or to perish. Hence that tendency to conquest which may be traced in any reign from Rurik to our own time. (SchédoFerroti. Etude v. p. 3.)
If this be the true explanation of the Russian policy of