“To the great army of Russophobes, who mislead the others, and Rossuphiles, whim others mislead, I dedicate this book.”

This dedication is the best part of the book. It would be still better if addressed to “the great army of Russophobes and the small handful of Russophiles.” It would then also serve as an answer  to the accusation, otherwise a most deserved one–levelled at us in one of the footnotes–namely, “If the Russians are anywhere misrepresented or misunderstood in foreign countries, it is their own fault, for they stupidly refuse the sole means of correction or substantiation.”

By “sole means” are meant, I suppose, simple facts and truthful details. I, for one, could give an interesting  account of how these “sole means” are generally received in England. I may have been clumsy, incautious, and undiplomatic, but I did honestly give facts which I knew to be absolutely true. Well, I know the hospitality that has been accorded to my “simple facts.” I myself do not mind a fiasco or several fiasco, but still it does make one rather ludicrous in the eyes of those who, being apathetic or indifferent to what is said or thought in England about Russia, look upon such efforts as a foolish waste of time. If, however, Russians want to furnish a clue to their policy, they have to explain their aspirations, their sympathies, their hopes, as well as their official and unofficial deeds, for these are factors which are indissolubly united. But when listeners and readers doubt your words and  are too lay to verify your statements, then one involuntarily repeats the favourite saying of one of our diplomates biasés, “Ah, vraiment! Après tout, cela m’est indifférent!”

If the handful of Russophiles were expanded to an army, like that of the Russophobes, the relations between England and Russia would be different. We might then hope to open to both countries a new route through the almost frozen sea of distrust, to the infinite wealth of mutual confidence–a connection such as Captain Wiggins’s grand scheme would, in commercial matters, establish between English and Siberian shores!

Mr. Curzon cannot be described as a Jingo, and this probably accounts for the numerous truthful admissions which form an attractive feature of his work. He would, however, do still better by learning more and teaching less. The dogmatic tone of our English accusers has long been a source of amusement to us.

It is a mistake to compare our position in Central Asia with that of the English to India. We have to deal with slavetraders and murderers. India has a great past, a splendid literature, and culture which shines through many centuries. Buddhism is developed now by the Schopenhauer and the Theosophical schools in the most civilized parts of the world. As a thorough Greek Orthodox I cannot, of course, endorse the doctrines of the Budhists, but I must admit that they are supported by deep learning and a very ancient civilization. With us the first thing we have to do in Central Asia is to teach the very A B C of common morality, as, for example, to prohibit slavery and suppress a slave trade of the grossest kind.

I was studying the remarkable work on India by Sir John Strachey while at the same time reading Mr. Curzon’s book, and it amused me to compare sometimes my two authorities–Sir John, with the independence of a practical statesman, not only accepts but defends the very thing which Mr. Curzon assures us England hates most to do: annexing and subduing the natives to English rule. 

Mr. Curzon says, “The watchword of Russia is: ‘J’y suis et j’y reste.’ She will neither waver, nor fall back. How different from the English method, which shrinks from annexations as from a spectre,” exclaims he, full of disgust. Such, with delightful solemnity, is the declaration made on page 388. But, in the first place, this, as regards Russia, is not quite correct. Russia occupied, for instance, Roumania and Bulgaria, evacuating both at the very date fixed beforehand. 

Further on, another parallel is drawn. “The prodigious prestige of the Russians has had the effect of Joshua’s trumpet before the walls of Jericho. ‘Where are the giants that breathed out fire?’ asked the Urateke greybeards of the Russian commander, whilst England only won India after terrific battles.”

This again is not accurate: Russians have often been enormously outnumbered, and had to fight like lions to hold their ground.

But here is a statement which has all the charm of freshness and unexpectedness: “We (the English) have no interest in further advance. Our hands are full. Aggression may be sense of Russia; it is folly for us.” Mr. Curzon was, probably, so preoccupied with the Russian advance in Central Asia as not to hear of the immense annexations to his own Empire in recent times, but which are a secret to nobody else, and certainly not to the Russians. The “mote” of Bokhara left him blissfully unconscious of the “beam” of Upper Burmah!

What remains to be revealed to the world is the reason for those endless annexations, if England is so thoroughly “averse to further advance” as we are told to believe. If her heart’s longings are fro non-intervention and peace, why are those longings so cruelly and continually crushed?! Egypt no doubt would pardon the retirement of her self-sacrificing protectors. Cyprus is also ready to improve her position without  England’s liberal rod. The new African annexations are an additional heavy duty. . . . Poor England! Is not her lot too hard indeed? Mr. Curzon is fond of parallels. On page 393 he says:–

“England aspires to create converts almost before it has made citizens.” As to Russia, she is blamed for her laissez-faire policy in dealing with the religion and education of the native peoples. 

The former she has absolutely left alone. The Mullahs have been allowed to teach and preach the Koran. The Dervishes alone have been restrained in their fanatical importunities. Mosques have been in some cases repaired by Russian means, and at one time the Government actually went so far as to build mosques itself for the conciliation of the Kirghiz. No Russian propaganda has been tolerated in Central Asia. Proselytism is tabooed.

This is absolutely true, and not restricted to Central Asia alone. But that this should cause an advanced Englishman to shed tears is curious!

Still more unexpected is the remark that the task of Russia is light, as she “only came into contact with a monotheistic creed, while the English have found themselves plunged into a weltering sea of pagan superstition an blind idolatry.” This is surely to do cruel injustice to your Indian fellow-subjects.

Mr. Curzon might study with advantage the famous “Kanjur,” but if he does not care to read 348 folio volumes, Burhouf’s and Max Muller’s works on Indian civilization would enlighten him, as also Fergusson’s splendid work on Indian architecture, Leitner’s “History of Indigenous Education in India,” with special reference to the Punjab before and after annexation.

Thus we are sometimes vigorously blamed for our want of religious toleration, sometimes for the excess of it.

But with these few remarks I must leave Mr. Curzon’s undoubtedly interesting book, which is many respects deserves a friendly recognition; and as to what appear to me its few blemishes–well, let me say with our idle diplomatist, “Après tout, cela m’est indifférent.”

O.K.

Claridge’s Hotel, Nov. 17