"in no constitutional state is the practical influence of the head of the government so slight as in the autocracy of russia," was one of the sayings i heard most often in st. petersburg, when i endeavored to inform myself in regard to the personality and the acts of the reigning czar. there are, to be sure, individual opinions to the contrary. according to these it depends entirely upon the personality of the autocrat whether he exerts a strong influence or not. the conservatives incline to the latter view. prince esper ukhtomski held it; so did a former high functionary in the department of finance, as well as a conservative aristocrat in another department, all of whom i questioned on this point. one of them said in so many words that the czar needs only to lift a finger to banish all the evil spirits which now rule the land. the aristocrat believed the country might be delivered by an emperor better trained for his functions. prince ukhtomski ascribes to the leading statesmen, at least, influence enough to do good and to prevent evil, and, therefore, to do the contrary, as has been[pg 197] done for twenty years, especially under the régime of plehve. the liberals and radicals, however, who form the greater part of the so-called "intelligence," leave the personality of the ruler entirely out of the question, perhaps from a premature comparison with their constitutional model. they declare a change of conditions without a change of the system to be impossible. to be sure, they say, if a suspicious, inhumane, reactionary czar like alexander iii. is on the throne, the domination of the camorra of officials is made more oppressive. yet the present mild and benevolent autocrat cannot prevent the existence of conditions which are more insupportable than ever. only the press and a parliament could amend matters, not the good intentions of a single man.
i do not undertake to judge which of the two parties is right. in any case it seems worth while to sketch the czar's personality, which is certainly an element in the fate of russia and of europe. the portrait is drawn from the reports of people who have had sufficient opportunity to form a conception of him from their personal observation. it is, of course, impossible for me to name my authorities, or to indicate them in any but the most distant way. it must suffice to say that among them were people who have known not only the present rulers, but also their parents and grandparents, from intimate association. i myself have seen the czar only once. the current portraits of him are very good.[pg 198] the only striking and noteworthy thing in the handsome and sympathetic face is the expression of melancholy resignation. one authority alone—whose statements on other matters i have found to be invariably careful and accurate—expressed doubts of the good-nature of the czar, and accused him of designing and of rather petty malevolence. all others, including prince ukhtomski, who had been the companion of the czar for years, agree in emphasizing the extraordinary, almost childlike lovableness and kindliness of the emperor, who is said to be actually fascinating in personal intercourse. this agrees with the fact, which i know from one unquestionably trustworthy source, that the czar is intentionally deaf to everything in the reports of his counsellors likely to disparage or cast suspicion upon a colleague, while he immediately listens and asks for details when he hears from one of his ministers a word favorable to the action of another. it is an absolute necessity for him to do good, and it is a constant source of fresh pain to him that he cannot prevent the great amount of existing evil. again, while the single authority says he has found in the czar indications of a subtle if not powerful intellect, the others, while they praise his goodness of heart, do not conceal the weakness of his judgment, which, according to them, certainly has something pathological about it. prince ukhtomski alone speaks of the emperor with invariable respect and sympathy, without[pg 199] limiting each hearty statement with an immediate "but." all others, without exceptions, explain the pr?torian rule of plehve by the mental and moral helplessness of the emperor, who is entirely uninformed, and is treated by those about him in the most abominable way—under cover of all outward signs of devotion. the things that people dare do to him, presuming upon this helplessness, border upon the inconceivable. that threatening letters can constantly be smuggled into the czar's pockets, and even into his bed, without his finally hitting upon the idea of seizing his body-servant by the cravat, is a very strong proof of his mental inactivity; the more so, incidentally, because he hears himself ridiculed outside his own door. this police canard is told, moreover, of alexander iii., who was a dreaded despot. the r?le, too, which plehve played, although the czar did not esteem him in the least, shows how successfully the latter has been intimidated and persuaded into the entirely mistaken belief that plehve alone could avert the threatening revolution.
at the same time the czar is said to be anything but confiding in regard to his nearest counsellors. when a report is made to him he sits in the shadow; the man who makes the report sits in the light. he tries to decipher the man's expression and to control him, a thing which is, of course, impossible, since a good russian physiognomy is more impenetrable than a russian iron-clad. his lack of[pg 200] knowledge of affairs is as marked as his lack of judgment. i will give an instance of this. in the provinces a quarrel had broken out between the self-governing corporation, the "zemstvos," and the governors. this difference between self-government and autocracy was presented to the czar as turning merely on the question of centralization or decentralization, and as if it were a matter for disagreement between the governors and the minister of the interior, the governors striving against the same full authority that is held by the ministers of the czar. in this way the czar was successfully deceived in regard to the nature of the quarrel; he did not learn at all that the provinces were making a demonstration against autocracy. the result of the deception was, of course, that the czar declared himself for the ministry of the interior—that is, for plehve, the increase of whose power he by no means wished.
the r?le which certain adventurers like the hypnotist philippe and the promoter bezobrazov are able to play at court is also certainly a notable symptom. the former was to suggest to the czaritza the birth of a boy, while otherwise he carried through whatever he wished, since he used the spirit of alexander iii. to secure a hearing for his suggestions. his departure from court followed upon his impudently having the spirits recommend a specific firm of contractors for the building of a bridge. bezobrazov, one of the agents who have[pg 201] the asiatic war on their consciences, is now living somewhere abroad, and does not dare return, at least while the war lasts.
still more significant, it seems to me, is the authenticated statement that the emperor has many times received publications upon the condition of his empire, has carefully read them, and has praised them, without taking the slightest step towards carrying out the reforms recommended to him; indeed, after the lapse of a few days, he has ceased even to refer in conversation to the suggestions. this would seem to indicate an almost abnormal weakness of will, which makes it easy for a gifted, inconsiderate, and self-confident reactionary like the grand-duke alexander mikhailovitch to carry out his own ideas in everything.
according to these statements, which come directly in every case from original sources, the czar is to be regarded as a man upon the whole good-natured and lovable, who is, perhaps, too modest and too conscious of his insufficient knowledge to have the full courage of responsibility, without which an autocrat is the least able of leaders to endure his great burden. inconsiderate and crafty people, who profit by his weakness, govern him, and he may even be glad of this. in his perplexity and helplessness, which are due to his human sympathy and modesty, he is obliged to submit to others with whom he can at least leave the responsibility for affairs, which in general, as in the specific case[pg 202] of the war in eastern asia, go contrary to his wishes.
his timid temperament is shown especially in his relations with his mother, the dowager empress, who even now, supported by the reactionary members of the family, plays the part of the actual empress, and cruelly mortifies the young consort of the czar. it is an open secret that the relations between the two women are anything but untroubled, a condition which reacts upon the relations of the imperial pair themselves. the dowager empress has renounced none of her prerogatives in favor of her daughter-in-law, who consequently feels herself in a very false position, and complains bitterly of it. people assured me, moreover, that according to russian ideas none of the rights claimed by the young czaritza belong to her so long as the empress-mother lives. hence it vexes the czaritza that she cannot curb her so-called ambition. the empress-mother, however, is not at all popular, at least in liberal circles, where she is held responsible for the fact that her son cannot free himself from the evil traditions of his father, who was a strictly upright, but relentless and brutal despot. the young czaritza was blamed among the common people because she had borne no prince in spite of the prayers of the archbishop john; she is blamed at court also because she does not conceal her english sympathies.
one old friend of the imperial family, however,[pg 203] assured me that there is no more charming, upright, and affectionate woman living than this young hessian princess. she is, he said, completely intimidated by the enemies who surround her and shows them a lowering face. where she feels herself secure, however, her merry south-german nature comes to the top, and she can even now romp like a little child. it speaks for the innocence of her nature that she is prouder of nothing than of her potato-salad. for the rest, the same authority asserts, she has a mind of her own, and may be not always the most comfortable companion for a husband.
among the other members of the family the grand-duke constantine is called the poet. his interest in art and science is said to be sincere. he has also great personal attractiveness. in sharp contrast with him stands the grand-duke sergius, governor-general of moscow, and brother-in-law and uncle of the czar. the things commonly reported of his private life are unsuitable for repetition here, since in general i avoid giving space to scandal in a chronicle of important matters. the things worthy of publicity and important for the weal or woe of population are the opinions and abilities of princes, not their liaisons. it is difficult, however, not to speak of the passions of the grand-duke sergius, since they form such a violent contrast to his former bigotry. he is unanimously pronounced an unprincipled man with a black [pg 204]record—a man whose pleasure consists in the sufferings of others. his influence at court is second only to that of the grand-duke alexander mikhailovitch.
i found in all russia no trace of a dynastic sentiment. the loyalty to the house of the hohenzollerns in prussia, or to the house of the hapsburgs in austria has no counterpart in russia. if the personal influence of the occupants of the throne may be estimated, the czar means to the masses of the people the essence of temporal and spiritual power, to the intelligent class an element of fate. the grand-dukes are people who can aid and harm, and who are therefore persons of importance for all russians. the bond of loyalty between dynasty and people, however, which in the west has assured the safe existence of the royal houses through all revolutionary convulsions, does not exist in russia. on the contrary, people speak freely in private of the "saltikov dynasty," in unmistakable allusion to the well-known first lover of the empress catherine ii. thus the many murders in the imperial house are received by the people without great excitement. only the inhabitants of the baltic provinces are faithful to the dynasty; the spirit of feudal loyalty runs in their german blood. even there, however, it is being slowly but resolutely destroyed by the ruling anarchists.
in contemporary opinion alexander ii. and alexander iii. still live, while nicholas i. is practically[pg 205] forgotten. alexander ii. is surrounded with the martyr's halo, and is thought of only as the emancipating czar who was got out of the way before he could sign the liberty-giving bill for a constitution. public opinion will not be dissuaded from finding the fact remarkable that the nihilists succeeded for the first time in reaching the czar at the moment when all the privileges of the reigning oligarchy were threatened. therefore people will not remember any traits in him except good ones, a thing not altogether consistent with the picture of him left by kropotkin in his memoirs. of alexander iii., on the contrary, only evil is heard, which i, however, must doubt for many reasons. for i have been told little incidents of his most private life, incidents which i cannot repeat, out of consideration for the incognito of my informant, but which show a certain knightliness and uprightness, and a truly princely kindness to the weak. another man is answerable for the pitilessness of his fatal policy—pobydonostzev, the torquemada of russia. it is, however, inevitable that history should preserve only that picture which expresses the sum total of the effect of a personality. therefore the memory of alexander iii. is certainly overloaded with sins of omission.
