shortly before my departure from vienna i chanced to meet an acquaintance, a viennese writer.

"are you really going to russia?" said he. "i almost envy you, for it is to us a land of riddles. it has great artists and writers and undoubtedly a highly educated upper stratum of the nation; at the same time it displays political conditions really barbarous in their backwardness. how are these co-ordinated? how is the maintenance possible, in the close proximity of comparatively free governments, of a régime which knows no personal liberty, no privacy of the mails, and in which there is but one master—namely, the absolute police?"

"you are raising the very questions which lead me there," i replied. "we do not know russia.[pg 2] we wonder at its great writers, but we cannot conceive how their greatness is possible under the existing conditions of public life, which remind one of a penitentiary rather than of a civilized state. and the question that persistently arises is whether our conception of these conditions corresponds to reality, or whether we are laboring under such a delusion as would befall one attempting to judge public life in germany from the speeches of bebel and other radicals. in truth, we know only the opposition or revolutionary literature of russia; and, as far as appearances go, it is hardly credible that a system such as it describes and brands for its inhuman wickedness can long retain the ascendency."

"you are going, then, without prejudices?"

"i think i may say that i have none. we have long been cured of the notion that one and the same form of government may be prescribed as the only one leading to contentment in all times and in all countries. deductive philosophy in political science has been replaced by inductive realistic philosophy, and a true understanding of existing conditions appears now to us of greater moment than the most beautiful ideals. above all things, i feel myself free from the childish moral valuation of different political beliefs. one person may be at the same time a conservative and a gentleman or a radical and a knave. should i come to the conclusion that russian absolutism is or can be defended in good[pg 3] faith by upright russian patriots there will be nothing to prevent my freely admitting it. an unbiased observer should not be wedded to any doctrine."

"in that case i shall be doubly curious as to the results of your studies."

we parted.

i have cited here this characteristic conversation because it demonstrates better than any introduction what the intelligent european is nowadays eager to discover about russia, and what led me in the depth of winter, at the critical moment before the outbreak of a great war, to the northern empire. that this war was imminent was then (at the beginning of january) apparent to every statesman free from official bias. there was scarcely a foreboding of it in russia itself. for me, however, that particular moment was of value, for it offered an opportunity to study for a short time russian society, first in a state of calm, and then in the excitement which naturally followed the declaration of war. i made provision for both war and peace and set out on my journey.

to be sure, i was not as light of heart as if i had been preparing to spend the winter on the riviera or in sicily. the climate had no terrors for me, for i knew that nowhere is one so well protected from the severity of the season as in the regions where ice and snow hold sway for at least one-third of the year. but it was the gorgon-headed russian police that confronted me threateningly. my aim in travel[pg 4] was the study of political conditions, the unreserved discussion with clear-sighted and well-informed persons of the existing state of affairs. it was my purpose to record carefully my impressions and observations, and to report them to all who were interested in my studies. but we are told that all political conversation is forbidden in russia. one may subject himself and his friends to great annoyance by allowing some meddling ear-witness to catch accidentally a fragment of a political conversation. writing and note-taking are even more dangerous; for the police open all letters, and they are not deterred by any conscientious scruples from confiscating the notes even of foreigners when they appear suspicious. ambassadors and consuls are loath to engage in altercations with the russian police, for statesmanship enjoins friendly relations with the government of the powerful russian empire, and when an inconvenient foreigner disappears somewhere in darkest russia—as was the case with a french engineer who came in conflict with the police in a concert-hall and was never seen again—no one is disturbed by the incident. all these reflections were not cheering to me, who, besides, was unfamiliar with the language of the country. none the less was i averse to returning home without my whole skin or with empty hands.

here i would state that i did not experience the slightest annoyance throughout my entire journey. i was not subjected to police surveillance, nor did i[pg 5] notice in my meagre correspondence the least trace of police interference—the latter being probably due to the extreme precautions taken by me in sending my mail in inconspicuous envelopes. and yet what a condition of things for a great country—that every traveller who wishes to enter its territory must arm himself with precautionary measures, as if he were preparing to visit a robber's den! is it compatible with the usages of modern europe, forsooth, that no step may be taken in this country without one's being provided with documents of identification; that one may not cross the boundary either into or out of the country without the special permission of the consulate or of the police? is russia a state or a prison? is it a modern tauris full of terrors to the stranger? i am not now speaking of the passport difficulties peculiar to jews, who, generally speaking, can hardly obtain entrance to holy russia, and who, when they succeed in gaining admission, must be in constant dread of unpleasantness in every town and in every hotel. i merely ask whether it is compatible with the good name of a state that still wishes to exchange courtesies with neighboring states to appear in the popular imagination as a ferocious monster ignoring right and without decency? how can trade and intercourse develop; how can the unimpeded flow of the sap of culture, the circulation of the national blood, take place in a land where terror guards the boundaries and where the reputation of arbitrariness impedes[pg 6] all progress? and what modern state or system of national economy may, without the unimpeded circulation of the sap of culture, maintain itself at a level corresponding to the modern requirements of its internal and external productive capacity? are the advantages of an all-controlling police system in any degree proportionate to its innumerable economic disadvantages? is the occasional annoyance of a really objectionable intruder sufficient compensation for the evil reputation which this system attaches to the whole country? it is a sheer impossibility to watch daily and hourly a hundred million people. why are such enormous sacrifices made at all for the sake of an undertaking injurious in itself and, moreover, impossible of execution?

such are the thoughts that the traveller approaching the frontier cannot escape. i may here say, in advance, that the police could not prevent my holding conversations throughout russia with men in various walks of life on subjects very objectionable to the police officials. is it worth while, then, to bear the evil repute that russia is a prison where no man's life or property is secure? apart from actual fact, the stranger does not know, before crossing the boundary, whether the police tyranny is really as inexorable as it is pictured and is believed abroad, but of this he is certain, that such an evil reputation does the country incalculable economic injury, and that a country with such an evil[pg 7] repute can never be regarded as mature from the economic stand-point, to say nothing of political honor, to which, perhaps, there is a disposition to attach less value in the high places of autocratic rule.