I hope I may be allowed to refer to some facts, known naturally to me only through newspaper reports, letters, and conversations. Nevertheless, one sees thereby how history repeats itself. There is really nothing new even in politics, though this is not always what our politicians and reformers would like us to believe. Thus when we read that India is on the threshold of a vast political experiment, we know that such innovations have already been tried, though elsewhere. It is also of particular interest to us Russians, because we have shared in the past with England the great problem of administering Asia. The experience of the Russian Government in the past has been that autocracy eliminated separatist agitation, and, as unity forms the backbone of a nation, dissension is thereby avoided. On the other hand, the results of democracy seem to have been in the direction of splitting up nationalities.

In Russia separatist agitation was at its weakest, naturally, when the autocracy was firm. The present revolution there has turned a great and glorious empire into a mosaic of small states which have proved a veritable nightmare. India, in some respects, resembles Russia (in the varieties of languages, religions, and customs), and, as a lover of England, I hope earnestly that the introduction of Western democratic methods will not lead to unforeseen results, as in Russia. Can it not happen that the introduction of Western politics amongst the Indians may lead them, as others, to hold divergent opinions, thus paralyzing concentrated power? All these questions ought not to be treated a la legere.

Let me introduce my meaning by a small anecdote. If I ask a man of the world in Western Europe his opinion, for instance, about some boots, he will reply with astonishment that he is not a specialist in that subject. But if at a tea-party I, put a political question, it turns out that everybody present not only pretends to have opinions, but recommends himself as a specialist. But the most disquieting feature is that everyone of these experts has a different opinion. In that case I prefer my humble bootmaker, who undoubtedly is a genuine specialist. Is it not possible that the same kind of thing might happen in politics? That love for solving difficult questions without proper knowledge and training may indeed prove dangerous.

But in connection with the much vaunted principle of self-determination I venture to write the following:

A very wise and clever principle has been adopted by the League of Nations: the respect for self-government according to national ideals. Yes, indeed; let every country be governed as she likes and as she naturally craves for in spite of all difficulties. But what is the first step to be taken when you want to carry out that grand principle? That step is undoubtedly the acquisition of real knowledge.

As a Russian, I am therefore trying to do now what I have been trying to do all my working life, to spread knowledge about real Russia, and her ideals and cravings as we understand them.

In order to bring my arguments in their best form, I refer to my brother Alexander Kireeff’s works. He belonged to the National Party, and he was a remarkably well-informed man, tremendously patriotic; as was also my other brother Nicholas Kireeff. He died in Serbia as the first Russian volunteer, and his death was the match which, according to M. John Aksakoff’s definition, fired the trail in the Russo-Turkish War of 1876. His splendid death was described by Kinglake in his preface to “The Crimean War” and by Froude in the “M.P. for Russia,” edited by Stead. Real facts contradict in many respects views spread abroad chiefly by the enemies of Russia. Both my brothers Kireeff were deep patriots and monarchists. Alexander worked almost all his life for the cause of the Old Catholics, but it was only after his death that the Czechs seem to have embraced these views. We all three were born at Moscow, that splendid capital with its beautiful Kremlin and numberless churches, whilst St. Petersburg was always the home of cosmopolitan and foreign intrigue.

Now, it is frequently said that Russia received from Byzantium not only her religion, but also her political ideas, and that we had not yet advanced beyond the ideals of Byzantine Russia in the days before Peter the Great. “These ideals,” it is asserted, “are false, fruitless, and without any future. It is time, therefore, that we reconciled them with the more modern ideals of the West.”

Let us examine these statements, so obviously false in all points, except in the question of Greek Orthodox religion. That Byzantium had an influence over our State organization before the days of Peter the Great is, particularly as regards superficial formalities, undoubted. But in weighing the good and bad results of this influence, we Slavophils never forget one very important circumstance: our State could boast at least one great factor unknown to Byzantium, the Zemski Sobor (District Councils). The Byzantine Emperors consulted their Senates and Councils, but neither of these had any resemblance to our “Sobor,” which was evolved gradually and entirely by the wisdom of our Tsars. The autocracy before Peter the Great was kept in touch with the people by these Sobors, or Assemblies, which were frequently convened, and which varied as regards members and procedure according to the questions with which they had to deal. Their advice was required by the head of the State, between whom and the people they constituted a strong link. Doubt or misunderstandings are hardly to be found in those pages of Russian history which deal with the Sobor epoch. There was no room for any outside influence or party strifes. Mistakes were, of course, sometimes made, but generally in the means employed for the attaining of some purpose, not in the purpose itself. There could be no vacillating from one side to another, simply because the Government and the people constituted a complete and indivisible entity. The ship of State, though perhaps clumsy and cumbersome and slow, sailed safely through untroubled waters, and never lost its way.

In questions connected with autocracy, the opinions of Slavophils are even more greatly at variance with Western views than in religious matters.

The formula of autocracy, according to Slavophil ideas, may be summed up in the words “One will and many minds”—whereas the Western Parliamentary motto seems to be “Many wills and not always one mind to guide them.”

Here we have two types of State organization. Let us compare them and see what results are achieved by each in turn. What is it the Western mind finds so reprehensible in our autocracy? Is it the supposition that our people are not guaranteed against the blindness of evil intent on the part of the monarch? “The Tsar,” say our critics, “may be completely separated from his people, may have no knowledge of conditions in the country, may be surrounded by an impenetrable wall, built up by bureaucrats and temporary favourites.”

It would seem at first sight as if all these were indeed possible. On looking into the question more closely, however, it becomes obvious that under the constantly changing and improving conditions of an enlightened age, the chances of mental blindness on the part of the head of the State can only grow constantly smaller. As to evil intent, surely no one could seriously assert that such a factor as this is to any considerable extent probable. No sane person of even average intelligence desires evil intentionally. Surely evil is brought about either by mistake or by carelessness or through an imperfect knowledge of facts. At this period we come back to the question of mental blindness. As to party strife, the desire to ruin an opponent, the lust for revenge, the wish to attain dishonest or personal ends, etc., all these temptations, though they certainly beset the private persons involved in the Parliamentary system, must not touch an autocrat, since he stands alone, above parties or private interests. However, it is difficult to argue on this question theoretically. Let us rather turn to facts, and glance into the pages of Russian history during the last 300 years. What do we see? The autocracy of the late Emperor Nicholas II. was, in its form, identical with that of Ivan the Terrible. The personal power of the head of the State was just as unlimited, the supremacy of the Emperor just as unquestioned.

And yet, who would assert that, de facto, the conditions were the same as in the past? The dreariest pessimist would hardly imagine that the frightful abuses of the days of Ivan the Terrible, of Peter the Great, and even of the Emperor Paul, would be possible or thinkable to-day. And yet our late Emperor was bound by no constitutions or agreements. The changed conditions were due only to the fact that the moral atmosphere and cultured surroundings in which he lived precluded all possibility of anything in the nature of the abuses of the past. It is impossible not to see and acknowledge the enormous change for the better that has come about through the natural progress of events, quite independently of any written guarantees or formulas, to which such miraculous results are usually ascribed. There can be no doubt that we shall continue to work out our own salvation very successfully in the same way, without resorting to agreements and Acts of Parliament. When society is at a low moral level, no constitutions of new-fangled laws can make any difference or act as a safeguard for peoples. When, however, a nation is strong morally and physically, when the responsibilities of citizenship are ingrained in the people, together with a profound sense of duty and honour, constitutions and agreements are needless. Our constitution, our religious solidarity, our strength, must dwell within ourselves, where no one can take them from us.

Let us remember that on ascending their ancestral throne, our Emperors accept no obligations towards any kind of elective chamber and sign no documents or constitutions. But on their coronation they take upon themselves many very serious, important, and sacred responsibilities. Before placing the crown on the Emperor’s head, the Metropolitan of Moscow asks the question, “What dost thou believe?” The Emperor then pronounces the Orthodox Creed, and it is only after this that he is crowned. This custom has a very deep meaning. It symbolizes the indestructible link between Church and State—a link which makes Russia “Holy Russia,” and which gives our country an ethical foundation that distinguished it from the Parliamentary States of the West, founded as they are entirely on legal lines.

As to the much discussed reforms introduced by Peter the Great, our opponents are right when they assert that our Slavophils regret the disappearance of many old traditions swept away by the great reformer under the influence of Western bureaucratic ideas. But they are wrong when they point to Peter the Great as the introducer into Russia of Liberal principles. There could be no greater error. Peter the Great certainly brought new Western customs into Russia, but it would be difficult to discover any Liberal tendencies among his innovations.

He was indeed one of the most typical examples in history of the well-intentioned, gifted, passionate despot. In the new State which he founded, countless technical improvements were introduced, as also many frivolous changes, but there was far less liberty than in the old Muscovite system which he had inherited and destroyed. The Church, for instance, had, in the old days, far more freedom and influence, while the voice of the people could certainly reach the ears of their Emperors much more easily in old Muscovite Russia than under Peter the Great and his followers. He, no doubt, introduced too many foreign officials. I must add that, although Peter the Great was undoubtedly the founder of our administrative State, he cannot be held responsible for all its subsequent developments. History has shown very clearly the shortcomings of the administrative bureaucratic State, which may occasionally achieve good results, but whose success is always merely temporary. It is surrounded by every kind of danger, the chief of which is the tendency on the part of the servants of the State to identify themselves with the State which they serve. The proud words of Louis XIV., “L’etat c’est moi,” may be in a sense justifiable when uttered by the great “Roi-Soleil”—-though Louis XIV. had never the peremptory religious obligations which our Tsars always assumed. But when the same words аге uttered by other functionaries, such as chiefs of police, that undoubtedly is one of their blunders and mistakes.

History has shown that all Parliamentary States are subject to change and are unreliable. We Slavophils have no trust in the electoral systems, and would rather deal with the disinterested tyrant than with the type of modern politician often produced after centuries of Parliamentary government.

We in Russia were convinced that two years of a Committee’s work would never suffice to liberate, and to a very great extent even endow with land, forty-eight millions of serfs, as was done in Russia in 1860, to our national pride. But I do not want in this article to write a detailed history of Russia, and to explain how she became a great influential power, sometimes deserving admiration, as in the year 1812, and how she came to be called by us even Holy Russia.

Can our experience be useful to India ? That is a question which I do not venture to answer. No doubt in foreign, as in home, policy, Russia has made mistakes. Where is the country which has never made them? Even Paradise has had its Adam and its Eve. “Errare humanum est.” But as long as a country has not deserted her religious categorical principles, there ought to be no ground for despair or apathy. How can we ever forget that during the recent diabolical revolution in Russia there were some four or five hundred priests of the Greek Orthodox Church who met their murderers with the cross in the hand? These remained, even in spite of tortures, faithful to their sacred duty to their creed and their country.

A proverb is sometimes quoted, which strikes me as immoral and demoralizing: “One man cannot replace an army.” Undoubtedly. Yet a good example is never lost, and the feeling that you have to depend only on yourself, not counting on outside support, but have to forget yourself entirely, always acts beneficially on yourself and on others. A country which is guided by feelings of that kind, as was often done by my country, is deservedly described as “Holy Russia.” But the present usurpers are not even consistent in their madness. At this moment anyone possessing property in Russia is, for that reason, persecuted and often killed. These same Bolsheviks when they try to establish commercial relations with civilized countries are not hampered by their professed hatred for capital and every other kind of property.