

E-text prepared by Brian Coe, Turgut Dincer, and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images generously made
available by Internet Archive (https://archive.org)



Note: Images of the original pages are available through
      Internet Archive. See
      https://archive.org/details/slavnations00tuciuoft





The Daily Telegraph

War Books


THE SLAV NATIONS



      *      *      *      *      *      *

  Cloth                            Post
  1/—      The Daily Telegraph     free
  net           WAR BOOKS          1/3
  each                             each


  HOW THE WAR BEGAN By W. L. COURTNEY, LL.D., and J. M.
    KENNEDY

  THE FLEETS AT WAR By ARCHIBALD HURD

  THE CAMPAIGN OF SEDAN By GEORGE HOOPER

  THE CAMPAIGN ROUND LIEGE By J. M. KENNEDY

  IN THE FIRING LINE By A. ST. JOHN ADCOCK

  GREAT BATTLES OF THE WORLD By STEPHEN CRANE

  BRITISH REGIMENTS AT THE FRONT

  THE RED CROSS IN WAR By Miss MARY FRANCES BILLINGTON

  FORTY YEARS AFTER The Story of the Franco-German War By
    H. C. BAILEY With an Introduction by W. L. COURTNEY, LL.D.

  A SCRAP OF PAPER By E. J. DILLON

  HOW THE NATIONS WAGED WAR By J. M. KENNEDY

  AIR-CRAFT IN WAR By S. ERIC BRUCE

  FAMOUS FIGHTS OF INDIAN NATIVE REGIMENTS By REGINALD
    HODDER

  THE FIGHTING RETREAT TO PARIS By ROGER INGPEN

  THE FIRST CAMPAIGN IN RUSSIAN POLAND By P. C. STANDEN

  THE BATTLES OF THE RIVERS By EDMUND DANE

  FROM HELIGOLAND TO KEELING ISLAND By ARCHIBALD HURD

  THE SLAV NATIONS By SRGJAN PL. TUCIC

  SUBMARINES, MINES AND TORPEDOES By A. S. DOMVILLE-FIFE

  WITH THE R.A.M.C. AT THE FRONT By E. C. VIVIAN

  MOTOR TRANSPORTS IN WAR By HORACE WYATT

  HACKING THROUGH BELGIUM By EDMUND DANE

  _OTHER VOLUMES IN PREPARATION_


  PUBLISHED FOR THE DAILY TELEGRAPH

  BY HODDER & STOUGHTON, WARWICK SQUARE, LONDON, E.C.

      *      *      *      *      *      *


THE SLAV NATIONS

by

SRGJAN PL. TUCIĆ

English Translation by Fanny S. Copeland






Hodder and Stoughton
London New York Toronto
MCMXV




CONTENTS.


  _PART I._—THE NORTHERN SLAVS.


  CHAPTER I.

  PAGE

  THE SLAV RACE                                               11

  Slav Characteristics—Slav Power in the Past—The Decline—The
    Dawn?


  CHAPTER II.

  RUSSIA                                                      20

   I. Russian Landscape and the National Character—Rurik
      to Peter the Great—German Influence—The Russian
      Awakening.

  II. Siberia—White Russians—Little Russians—Great
      Russians—Cossacks—The People of the Sunflower—Made
      in Germany—The Reaction.


  CHAPTER III.

  RUSSIAN NATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS                            37

  Russian Slavdom—The Mir—Stress and Famine—The
  Duma—Russian Literature—Gogol—Tolstoi—Dostoievski—Realistic
  Ideals—The Russian Soul.


  CHAPTER IV.

  POLAND AND BOHEMIA                                          50

    I. The Contrast—National Character of the Poles—Our
       Lady of Csenstochova—Dancing Peasants—Galician
       Poles—Selfish Policy—Austria a Slav State.

   II. The Poles in Russia—Russia’s Repressive Measures—The
       Slav Ideal—A Better Understanding—The Poles in
       Prussia—The Iron Heel—Law of Expropriation.

  III. Csech Characteristics—Professor Masaryk—Jan Huss—Slav
       Puritans—The Hradčin—Modern Politics.


  _PART II._—THE SOUTHERN SLAVS.


  CHAPTER V.

  BULGARIA                                                    77

  Country and People—The Building up of the Bulgarian
  State—Relations with Russia—German Influence—Alexander
  of Battenberg—King Ferdinand—Bulgaria’s Immediate Duty.


  CHAPTER VI.

  SERBIA                                                      98

    I. Serbian Self-reliance—Characteristics of the Serb
       People—The power of the Folk song—Race-consciousness.

   II. History of the Southern Slavs.

  III. The Birth of a Nation—Prince Miloš—“The Great
       Sower”—Alexander Karagjorgjević—Michael Obrenović—King
       Milan—Fall of the Obrenović Dynasty—King Peter—The
       Restoration of Serbia’s Prestige.

   IV. Serbia and Austria—A Campaign of Calumny—Annexation
       of Bosnia-Hercegovina—The Balkan Wars—Serbia
       Rehabilitated—The Tragedy of Sarajevo.


  CHAPTER VII.

  MONTENEGRO                                                 129

  The Country of the Black Mountain—Women Warriors—King,
  Poet and Farmer—Historical Sketch of Montenegro—Petar
  I., Petrović—Petar II.—Pro-Russian Policy—A Royal
  Poet—Nikola I.


  CHAPTER VIII.

  THE SOUTHERN SLAVS OF THE DUAL MONARCHY                    138

    I. A Homogeneous People—A Militant Past—The
       Bogumili—National Bondage—Napoleon—Illyrism—Agreement
       with Hungary—Count Khuen-Hedervary.

   II. The Greatest Representative of the Southern
       Slavs—Strossmayer’s Generosity and courage—Fall of
       Count Khuen-Hedervary—Death of Strossmayer.

  III. False Dawn—Conference of Fiume—Ban Paul Rauch—Monster
       Trial in Zagreb—The Friedjung Case—Cuvaj—Frano
       Supilo.

  IV. Dalmatia, Istria, Carniola—The Italian
      Element—Bosnia—Hercegovina—Conclusion.


  EPILOGUE.

  “BURIED TREASURES” _by Dimitrii Mitrinović_                178




PREFACE.


The task of writing a book on the subject of the Slav nations has
afforded me very great pleasure, and I hope my work will succeed in its
object and arouse the sympathies of the British public for my race. In
preference to giving long disquisitions, I have purposely adopted a
simple narrative tone in sketching some of the most interesting points
in the national life of the Slav peoples. I have only touched upon
historical events in so far as this was necessary for the context, and
owing to lack of space I have been unable to do more than allude to
Slav art and literature. On the other hand, a good deal of valuable
information on this subject will be found in the epilogue “Buried
Treasures,” which the eminent Serbo-Croat essayist, Mr. Dimitrij
Mitrinović has kindly placed at my disposal.

As I am at present completely cut off from my sorely-stricken country,
I have been unable to apply for permission to quote from certain books
that I have consulted, but I feel sure that my literary colleagues, Dr.
Dragutin Prohaska, Niko Županić and Dr. Gjuro Šurmin, will not object
to my having had recourse to their works in the interests of our race.

I am also indebted to Mr. Frano Supilo, the leader to the Croatian
people, as well as to my above-mentioned friend, Mr. Dimitrij
Mitrinovič; of the Serbian Legation in London, for several valuable
hints.

My special thanks are due to my translator, Mme. Fanny S. Copeland, and
Miss Ella C. Seyfang, who have given me invaluable assistance in my
work.

  LONDON,                                            THE AUTHOR.
    _November_, 1914.




_PART I._

THE NORTHERN SLAVS.


THE SLAV NATIONS.




CHAPTER I.

THE SLAV RACE.

  Slav Characteristics—Slav Power in the Past—The
    Decline—The Dawn?


Although the Slav race does not appear as a united state or Union,
it certainly forms a family of nations linked by ties of blood, the
tradition of centuries, similar language and customs, and especially by
ties of mutual love and sympathy. It is the greatest and most powerful
of the European races, yet to this day it does not hold the pride of
place which is its due and which it once held. Not the precedence of
mere strength, which is surely sufficiently represented by Russia, but
the place due to a people of recognized culture, who have not yet been
justly appreciated in spite of overwhelming proof of their intellectual
gifts. Slavs are still popularly supposed to be a mentally undeveloped
host of semi-barbarians and troglodytes. Of course the educated public
of Europe has long abandoned this attitude; but it has done little
to spread a more just and liberal view among the people at large.[1]
The German scholars made it their business to lay stress on “Slav
barbarism” wherever possible, to obscure the bright and glorious pages
in Slav history, and to emphasize everything that can be taken as a
proof of savagery and arrested development. Unfortunately, no one has
written at such length about the Slav question, or attached so much
importance to it, as the German scholars, with the result that other
European nations have derived their views from them—so much so that
one might almost say that _German_ opinion on the Slavs has become
the opinion of Europe. Constant unrest in Russia, and the consequent
reprisals of the authorities afforded a welcome pretext for misjudging
the Slavs, and the ordinary public of Europe came to know of them only
as mediæval inquisitors with Siberia as their great torture-chamber.
No one seemed to realize that these revolutionary movements, no less
than the insurrections in other Slav countries, merely represented the
resistance of a virile people craving enlightenment against autocratic
barbarism; and that it is obviously unfair to judge the Slavs by the
deeds of their _oppressors_, who in every case have followed the German
methods cultivated by their governments in most Slav countries, and
imported into Russia by Peter the Great. On the other hand, if the
Slav nations are judged by the _soul of the people_, and not by their
rulers and state-systems, they show a high standard of civilization and
a trend towards culture of a kindly, humanitarian type, which promises
to be a far better contribution to Western European progress than the
much-advertised German “Kultur.”

Certainly the Slavs have not yet attained to their full stature as a
race. At present they are passing through a period of strong ferment,
but the wine that has so far resulted from this ferment gives excellent
ground for the hope that when the Slavs have solved their various
national and economic problems they will prove themselves the equals of
the other cultured nations of the world.

In the world of politics they must attain the degree of power necessary
to safeguard their racial individuality and the freedom of the Slav
peoples. This power must stand in due proportion to their capability
for intellectual progress, and should in itself be a guarantee for
the peace of the world in the future. For the Slav is not naturally
domineering, and has no craving for power as a mere means of
aggression. He belongs to a kindly race, melancholy, as shown in the
national poetry in which his soul finds expression. He has a craving to
love and to be loved, and would fain join the other European nations as
a friend and brother. His strength will be the strength of love. Russia
has neither need nor desire to extend her boundaries further. The
Balkan Slavs only wish to accomplish their own destiny quietly within
the borders of the _Slav Sphere_, and the rest of the Slavs desire
their freedom—_only their freedom_. And when this is accomplished,
the Slav Colossus will no longer constitute a danger to Europe, but
a safeguard. His political power will only threaten those who would
tamper with the foundations of peace from mere lust of dominion.

       *       *       *       *       *

In the present crisis the Slav race is by no means seeking a return to
the past. The past has seen the Slavs masters of a great empire and a
real menace to the rest of the world. If one were to take the political
map of Europe and indicate upon it the frontiers of the ancient Slav
Empire, the Slav race would appear like an irresistible deluge. The
huge Muscovite Empire, almost the whole of Austria-Hungary, the whole
of the Balkans, two-thirds of the German Empire, part of Italy, and
a large part of Scandinavia—all these once formed the Slav Empire.
Historical maps show the single triumphant word “Slavs” (“famous” or
“glorious” ones) inscribed over all these countries throughout the
centuries. Their history and development can be traced back to 400 B.C.

The Taurians that guarded the Golden Fleece were Slavs, as were the men
of the Baltic with whom Phœnicians and Greeks traded for amber. The
forest lands of the North, that grey home of magic, wisdom and valour,
hang like a dark background full of strange possibilities behind
sunny Greece and clear-headed, practical Rome—and this was the Empire
of the Slavs in the past, the Gardariki and Iotunheim (Giant-land)
of the Norsemen. From one century to another they played a part of
increasing importance among the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe
and were feared as a strong, homogeneous race. Their power reached its
zenith towards the end of the fifth century, before the tidal wave
of the Hun invasion swept over Europe. At that time they held the
mastery from the Alps to the mouth of the Elbe, and from the Baltic to
the Black Sea. They were then one great people divided into several
tribes speaking slightly differing dialects; but only a fraction of
their number—the inhabitants of the present Dalmatia—was subject to
the Emperor Nepos. The invasion of the Avars, who took possession
of a large strip of the Slav possessions between the Danube and the
Dniester, made the first breach in the unity of the great Slav family.
Henceforth they were known as Northern, Eastern, and Southern, Slavs,
and began to form separate nationalities. In the age of Charlemagne
these nationalities had already crystallized into independent states,
whose power and prosperity are recorded in history. The strongest
of these was eventually Poland, extending far into the Russia of
to-day. The Moravian Empire of Svatopluk, the Empire of Serbia, the
kingdom of Croatia, and the Slavicized Bulgars in the South, together
with the Grand-Dukedom of Muscovy (and the Wendish kingdom in North
Germany), complete the family of Slav States. It would take too long
to enter into the historical importance of all these states, but it
is a characteristic proof of their power that not only European, but
Asiatic, nations courted their favour.

Some of the main trade routes of the world led from Northern Europe
through the heart of Russia to Byzantium (the “Mikligard” of the
Sagas)—and Asia. Slav, Norwegian, Tatar and Arab traded peacefully
together on the banks of the Volga, and sundry passages in the
Norse Sagas as well as the journal of an Arab trader give us vivid
glimpses of those days. Somehow these searchlight pictures of the
Slavs and their country, recorded with positively journalistic
freshness and love of detail, do not corroborate the biassed accounts
of German historians. But this world-power which Russia alone has
developed steadily up to the present day began to wane among the
other Slav nations soon after the first Crusade (1097). Already in
1204 (the fourth Crusade) Slavonia, Croatia, Dalmatia and Bosnia were
incorporated in the German (Holy Roman) Empire, together with Hungary,
Istria, Carniola and Carinthia. Under the Hohenstaufens, Bohemia and
Moravia also became vassal states, and in the fourteenth century the
victorious Osmanlis robbed the Bulgars and Serbs of their independence.
With the exception of Russia, Poland alone maintained her independence,
until the first partition in 1772, followed by the second in 1793. The
third and last partition in 1795 sealed her fate, and the Poles were
parcelled out under Russian, Prussian and Austrian rule.

       *       *       *       *       *

The partition of Poland was the beginning of the complete political,
and to some extent even the national, decay of the non-Russian Slavs.
Just as Russia began to spread her mighty pinions, the Slavs under
alien yoke fell deeper and deeper into an apathy of gloom, only broken
from time to time by rare flashes of patriotism, or a tempest of
revolt. The book of history lay open before them with its pages of
gold and black; but to their aching eyes the black ever loomed larger
than the gold, and they yielded to a despondency that knew no comfort
and saw no escape. And, while they were thus sunk in apathy, their
rulers brought strong pressure to bear on them, so that they might
eradicate the stamp of their nationality, not only from their faces,
but from their souls. Germany and Austria scented the Eastern question,
and divined that in its solution the Slavs might renew their strength.
So they determined to approach the problem supported by a totally
emasculated and denationalized Slav following. To this end they strove
above all things to turn the Slavs into docile citizens of a Germanic
Empire; for from the days of Charlemagne the German has reiterated the
parrot-cry that the Slav is barbarous, obstinate, dangerous and ugly,
and that his only chance of salvation lies in merging his identity with
that of the German of the Empire. It is a fact that during this period
the Slavs did nothing to help themselves. A great weariness weighed
upon the people, no less than upon the educated classes, and they were
preparing to reconcile themselves to the fate that had already befallen
their brothers, the Serbs and Bulgars. But the progress of history
did for the Slavs what they failed to do for themselves. Napoleon,
the personification of destruction for the whole of Europe, brought
salvation to the Western Slavs, for he re-awakened them to a sense of
national self-consciousness, and so prepared the way for the long and
bitter struggle they have waged since then against their oppressors.
As soon as these struggles commenced Russia, who had hitherto regarded
the ruin of her brothers with equanimity, began to take an interest in
their sufferings, and to afford them strong moral support.

These struggles, however, could not bring immediate relief. The Slavs
knew full well that the way to freedom is long and has to be won step
by step. The problem of the Near East, which advanced one stage with
the liberation of Serbia, must first be solved in every phase and
detail to clear the way for a solution of the purely Slav problem.
Europe cannot take a vital interest in this problem before the Balkan
problem is disposed of, and the conditions for the liberation of the
Slavs so far fulfilled, that the difficulty can be solved in the
ordinary course of the progress of civilization.

The psychological moment seems to have arrived, and the Slav question
deserves to be fully put forward. Surely the British public, which
has entered into the present crisis with such splendid spirit, will
not withhold its interest from the Slav question, more especially
as England will have a strong voice in the matter when the final
settlement comes to be made.




CHAPTER II.

RUSSIA.

  I. Russian Landscape and the National Character—Rurik to
       Peter the Great—German Influence—The Russian Awakening.

  II. Siberia—White Russians—Little Russians—Great
        Russians—Cossacks—The People of the Sunflower—Made in
        Germany—The Reaction.


I.

Roughly speaking, there are 172 million Slavs in the world. The
Russians alone number about 110 millions, and these millions occupy a
vast country reaching from the snows of the far North, to lands where
the orange-trees bloom all the year round. The Russian holds that his
dear “little mother Russia” is the most beautiful land of all the
earth. The mountain fastnesses and precipices of the Urals, the green
<DW72>s of the Caucasus, the Siberian wastes, the grey shores of the
Baltic and the sunny shores of the Euxine—the Volga and the Don, and
even the sacred steppes—to him they are all beautiful, to him they
reflect the image of his soul and his feelings. The Western traveller
will find some difficulty in understanding this passionate love of
the Russian for his country, and will feel tempted to draw sharp
comparisons between the degrees of beauty in the various districts.
But the landscape of Russia is as peculiar as the Russian people. It
is as Russian as the Russian himself. There is probably not another
country in the world where the climatic and geological conditions have
so deeply influenced the inmost character of the people, even to their
external features. Where the landscape is beautiful and the climate
sunny, the handsome noble Russian type prevails; whereas the cold,
inhospitable tracts produce the characteristic wide-faced, flat-nosed
type. Yet there is a strange resemblance between the rough type and the
handsome type analogous to that which a careful observer cannot fail
to notice between the different types of Russian landscape. For though
the steppe is grey, and the fields of Caucasia are green, yet both are
animated by something that wears the same countenance, breathes the
same purely Russian atmosphere, and is suffused with the same wonderful
charm. It is the charm of perfectly balanced contrast. The soil of
Russia has a soul like the soul of her children, for whom she cares and
lives and breathes. This soul appears everywhere the same; it exhales
the same perfume from the dry grass of the steppe as from the Crimean
groves of syringa.

The Russian soil is fertile, inexhaustively fertile, as if it were
conscious of the millions dependent upon it. Metaphorically speaking,
this soil produces its gifts out of itself, and offers them lavishly
to its children. The Russian never works more than he is obliged to—he
need not wrestle with the soil, he need only not forget it. But he
tills it with love; he does not force the gifts of Nature, he coaxes
them from her, and where these fruits do not appear on the surface, he
seeks them in the heart of the earth, and goes down the coal-shafts and
lead-mines with the same serene confidence with which he ploughs the
sunlit surface. Is he not still with his “little mother”?

The Russian is a farmer by nature. The great industrial developments of
the last decades have resulted automatically from the natural wealth
of the country, but the true Russian reaps little benefit from this
industrial boom. His commercial gifts are not great, and he has been
content to leave the business exploitation of the country in the hands
of foreigners, so long as he makes his own little profit. Mills and
factories are “German monsters” in his eyes, and he prefers to give
them a wide berth. But latterly there has been a great agitation in
favour of the resuscitation of all home industries. The Russian has
grasped the fact that his policy of sentiment in business will have to
be modified to suit modern times, and that the welfare of the people
must not be dependent on foreign middle-men. The present great conflict
with the Germans, who have hitherto so largely monopolised Russian
industry, will doubtless do much to further this movement towards
industrial emancipation.

       *       *       *       *       *

The History of Russia begins practically with Rurik (862) who is
supposed to have come from Scandinavia and laid the foundations of
a Russian state.[2] At the coming of Rurik the Russians were split
up into many separate communities under independent chiefs. Rurik
introduced a new spirit of united organization, and all efforts
towards establishing a Russian Empire date from him. Of course it
was inevitable that this founding of an Empire should involve much
opposition, revolt, war, and bloodshed. Each district was proud and
jealous of its independence, and only yielded after a hard and bitter
struggle. During the period of Empire-making Russian history abounds
in such bloody episodes. The Grand-Dukedom of Muscovy was the largest
of the Russian petty States and in every way the best equipped, so
that the task of organization naturally devolved upon it, together
with the fruits of victory. Six centuries of ceaseless struggle
against foes from without and within bring us from Rurik’s day to the
accession of Ivan Vassilievitch III. (1462-1505), who is regarded as
the founder of Russian Tsardom. He incorporated the still independent
principalities of Twer, Moshnik, and Vologda with the Grand-Dukedom
of Muscovy, defeated the powerful Republic of Novgorod, and freed
himself completely from the Tatar yoke (1480). In 1472 he married Zoë,
a daughter of Thomas Palaeologus, the brother of the last Byzantine
Emperor. European customs were first brought into Russia through this
princess, and the double-headed eagle of Byzantium introduced in the
Russian coat of arms. The celebrated Uspenskij and Blagoveshchenski
Cathedrals in Moskva were built in the reign of Ivan Vassilievitch III.
He promulgated a decree pronouncing the realm henceforth united and
undivisible by law, and was the first Russian ruler to assume the title
of “Tsar of all the Russias.” Christianity, introduced by St. Vladimir
(980-1054), had by this time fully blossomed forth as the national
religion, so that we can date the foundation of “Holy Russia” of to-day
in all her greatness from the age of Ivan Vassilievitch III.

During the following ages the power of Tsardom increased and finally
reached its zenith with Peter the Great, who may be called the first
of the modern Russian Tsars. He applied his own acquired Western
knowledge to Russia, and enormously improved the general status of
the realm. In his reign Russia began to play her part as a political
and military power, for it was he who founded the Russian navy and
mercantile marine. He was a ruthless autocrat, and many pages of his
reign are traced in blood; yet with him autocracy was not so much a
matter of sentiment as of dire necessity. He loved his Russian people
passionately, but said that it was a people who had to be made great
by force. Confident in the inalienable national character he saw no
danger in importing foreigners wholesale to help in the building up of
Russian administration. He surrounded himself with German advisers,
appointed Germans to responsible offices, and freely admitted the
German element into Russia as a means of spreading “culture.” In many
ways German thoroughness proved a most useful asset in carrying out the
Tsar’s intentions. On the other hand it gave rise to a dynasty and an
autocratic aristocracy of foreign stock who failed to understand the
Russian people, and whose influence proved disastrous to civilization
and intellectual freedom in Russia. _Outwardly_, Russia became a
world-power under Peter the Great, but _internally_ it fell a prey to a
system of spiritual slavery, which has been perpetuated even to recent
years by the successors of Peter and their councillors, the descendants
of German immigrants. _Here lies the true cause of the revolutionary
movement of more than a century._ The last three Tsars of Russia—the
two Alexanders and the present Tsar—have taken steps to eliminate the
great evil, and if, so far, they have only been partially successful,
the fault lies not with them nor with the Russian people, but with
the _still German_ mind of their advisers. The abolition of serfdom,
repeated constitutional manifestos and the introduction of the Duma
system are momentous steps towards a brighter future. But the gate to
this future can only be fully opened with the conclusion of the present
war.


II.

Although Russia has acquired millions of non-Russian subjects—chiefly
through the Crimea, Bessarabia and her Asiatic possessions—she has
never lost her purely Russian character. The laws concerning land
purchase are so constituted that the territories belonging to the heart
of Russia cannot to any great extent pass into non-Russian hands, which
accounts for the fact that these parts of the Empire have remained
essentially Russian. Siberia holds an exceptional position, and is
to-day a great colonial province with a mixed population. Every year
the wealth and fertility of Siberia become more and more apparent, and
instead of being bleak and uninhabited, this country is now distinctly
populous. The horrors of Siberia as a penal colony are becoming a
thing of the past, and only the perpetrators of grave crimes are still
condemned to labour in the lead-mines and languish in the Katorga
(penal servitude). Convicts who are simply exiled to Siberia are able
to earn a comfortable livelihood under tolerable conditions—apart from
the loss of liberty and vexatious police supervision. Thus it often
happens that time-expired convicts prefer to remain in Siberia, and
eventually find not only a home but prosperity in the new country.

Siberia, the Crimea and Bessarabia are all three interesting as
countries and as Russian territories, but in a sketch of the Russian
people they are unimportant. The true Russian stock falls into three
great bodies, the “Bielorussi” (White Russians), the “Velikorussi”
(Great Russians) and the “Malorussi” (Little Russians). They represent
the North, the Centre and the South of Russia. Ethnologically,
economically, and intellectually the White Russians represent the
lowest type. They inhabit the Northern tracts from the borders of
Poland, ancient Lithuania, and Novgorod. The governments of Minsk,
Litav, and Smaljensk are their central provinces. Theirs is a
poverty-stricken and, one might add, a slothful Russia. Agricultural
facilities are limited, the soil is not very fertile, and the White
Russian is not sufficiently industrious or persevering to improve it
by rational farming. The people are more apathetic than elsewhere in
Russia, and less inclined to adopt modern ideas with enthusiasm. These
people become nervous and excitable only when menaced by a dearth of
food; then their attitude is often much more dangerous than the tide of
social revolution. At least the White Russian has kept his type fairly
pure and in spite of alien neighbours he shows little trace of racial
admixture.

The Little Russians, who inhabit the entire South of Russia, and from
whose stock the famous Cossacks are sprung, differ most radically
from their northern brothers. They are the excitable, hot-blooded,
dare-devil Russians. In type the men are fine-looking and handsome
almost without exception, and the women often exceedingly beautiful.
Their language differs from other Russian speech by the extreme
softness of the dialect (which is not unlike Serbo-Croatian), and
their music and poetry are the finest in the Slav race. In the past
the Little Russians were divided into many small and independent clans
who outvied each other in reckless warlike enterprises. Of course
the wonderful Cossacks always took the lead. They still occupy their
original home on the Don and in Caucasia, and furnish the _élite_
of the Russian Army, even as they once were the flower of the Little
Russian tribes. Moreover, they preserved to the very last their freedom
and their privileges in Russia. To-day one is accustomed to look upon
the Cossacks as merely a body of men especially devoted to the Tsar,
but, as a matter of fact, the Cossack people have had a most chequered
and interesting past. Once they formed an independent warrior-nation,
feared and courted by their neighbours; and so secure in their
strength did they feel, that they even dared to answer the Turkish
Sultan’s demand for submission with a letter of taunting derision (the
well-known Cossack Ultimatum). They played a great part in the history
of Russia, and each Russian ruler in turn endeavoured to assure himself
of their support. After their final subjection to Russia (1851) the
Cossacks gradually exchanged their political importance for their
present military value. Tolstoi wrote about them as follows—though his
remarks really apply to the whole of the Little Russian people: “Many
years ago the ancestors of the Cossacks, who were ‘Old Believers,’ fled
from Russia and settled on the banks of the Terek (Caucasus). They are
a handsome, prosperous and warlike Russian population, who still
retain the faith of their fathers. Dwelling among the Chechentzes, the
Cossacks intermarried with them and acquired the usages, customs and
mode of living of these mountaineers. But their Russian tongue and
their ancient faith they preserved in all their pristine purity....
To this day the kinship between certain Cossack families and the
Chechentzes is clearly recognizable and a love of freedom and idleness,
a delight in raiding and warfare are their chief characteristics.
Their love of display in dress is an imitation of the Circassians.
The Cossack procures his admirable weapons from his mountaineer
neighbours, and also buys or ‘lifts’ his best horses from them. All
Cossacks are fond of boasting of their knowledge of the Tatar tongue.
At the same time this small Christian people considers itself highly
developed, and the Cossack only as a full human being. They despise
all other nationalities.... Every Cossack has his own vineyard, and
presses his own wine, and his immoderate drinking is not so much due
to inclination as to sacred custom, to neglect which would be regarded
as a kind of apostasy.... Women he looks upon as a means for promoting
his prosperity. Only the young girls are allowed by him to enjoy any
leisure: from a married woman he demands a life of drudgery from early
youth to old age, and he is quite Oriental in expecting deference and
hard work from his wife.... The Cossack who considers it unbefitting in
the presence of strangers to exchange a kind or affectionate word with
his wife involuntarily feels her superiority as soon as he is alone
with her. For the whole of his house and farm are acquired through her
and maintained by her labour and care....”

Between these extremes of Northern and Southern Russia, the Great
Russian stands out like a beacon or an indestructible landmark. He
represents the _purest_ type of the Russian people, the children of
“matyushfia Moskva.” Whatever Russia has produced in the way of true
greatness in every sense of the words, has its cradle in Great Russia,
and has been nursed at the breast of Mother Moskva. This truly Russian
people inhabits the huge central tracts of Russia, and the governments
of Moskva and Novgorod are their particular home. The Russian faith
owes its beauty, the Russian ideal its purity to this people, and
to the race they have given the _All-Slav Ideal_. And they are the
only Russian people whose soul has two faces, an outer and an inner
one. The Russian sculptor Tsukoff has symbolized them in a figure
resembling a sunflower. It is as well to know that the Great Russian
cannot live without sunflower-seeds. He calls them “podsolnushki.”
Everything is smothered in “podsolnushki” shells—streets, floors of
rooms and railway carriages, even the corners in the churches. Every
Great Russian munches “podsolnushki,” and by temperament he himself
is a “podsolnushki.” He has an outer shell and a kernel. In Russia
the sunflower is queen of the flowers, and as the sunflower is among
the flowers so is the Great Russian among the Russian peoples. He is
the true “tsarkiya Rus.” The Tsar is the sun, the heart of the realm,
and the Muscovite people are the “podsolnushki.” Each individual
is only one among many, a particle, a seed for the propagation and
glorification of his own race. Probably, the Great Russian has no equal
in the world as regards idyllic simplicity. Not because he munches
“podsolnushki,” crosses himself in tram-cars when passing a church,
goes about in big boots in the heat of summer, and drinks vodka, wine
and beer without regard to time or season, but because he is a true
yeoman soul. He is quite indifferent to all that does not interest
him personally. The surface of his soul is as hard and impervious as
the shell of the sunflower seed. His face wears an imperturbable,
changeless expression. To reach the kernel of his _human_ soul one has
to discard every formality, thrust aside every obstacle, and _bite_
into it as if it were a sunflower seed. If you abuse him roundly
and “have it out” with him, he suddenly shows himself in his true
colours, the best and kindliest of souls; but if you handle him with
kid gloves you will never get a glimpse of his inner nature. As an
acquaintance the charm of the Great Russian consists chiefly in his
sudden transition from sharp resistance to an unexpected exhibition of
gentle, unaffected loveableness. The Great Russian has a strong natural
talent for philosophy, but, metaphorically speaking, his philosophy is
as vegetarian as his cooking has largely remained to this day. There is
a scent of dried herbs, new-mown hay, and southern-wood about it; it
recalls dark forests where the sunlight, piercing the rifts between the
tree-tops, shines with golden-blue, unearthly splendour—a ray of the
light Divine. His philosophy is innocent of blood like the saints of
the old ikons.

This Great Russian people is the flower of Russia, the Sunflower, whose
golden petals point the way for the future of the whole Russian nation.

       *       *       *       *       *

The problem of Russian culture has its roots in the Russian _people_,
and not in the educated classes. The desire for culture has emanated
from the people themselves, and the spirit they evinced has pointed
the way for the educated classes in the great struggle for national
culture within recent years. The educated man is the interpreter of the
popular demand for culture, and of the intellectual wealth dwelling in
the soul and mind of the Russian people. Almost the whole of Russian
art and literature is derived from this source, and it has never shown
the world so much the genius of the poet, painter, or the sculptor in
question, as the genius of the Russian people that produced him; and
the best that is revealed in Russian art is the face of the Russian
soul with its manifold aspects of thinker, philosopher, and purely
human being. Dostoievski, Tolstoi, Gogol, Gontsharoff, Tshekhoff,
Gorki and Andreeff in poetry; Repin, Vasnetsoff, Tsukoff, Troubetzkoy
and many others in the pictorial arts;—all have learnt what they had
to tell from the soul of the people and the _wisdom_ of this soul;
and the Great Russian musicians have used the voice of the people
throughout for the expression of their art. They are all of them
merely interpreters of the rich fund of culture, the latent culture
of the Russian people. This latent culture, in conjunction with the
holy Russian faith, has advanced towards the highest development of
human dignity and nobility, towards peace founded not upon blood, but
upon love. The abuse the Germans have heaped upon Russian barbarism
is merely the outcome of envious rage on the part of an inferior, who
sees his artificial pseudo-culture endangered by another culture which
blossoms from the depths of the human heart.

The non-Russian Slavs stood for a long time under the influence of
German culture. With their characteristic aggressiveness the Germans
represented their culture as the high-water mark of civilization and
inculcated it everywhere with the same violence which at present
distinguishes the advance of their invading hordes. Even nations
possessing a peerless millennial culture, like the French and Italians,
have found it difficult to escape their influence. But a sham must
inevitably die of its own exposure. Every people, every nation has
its own peculiar susceptibility, a kind of instinctive taste, which
refuses to tolerate anything that does not appeal to its soul, and
could act destructively upon it. The peoples of the West have for
some time past boycotted the “Williamitic” culture, and only sundry
isolated Slav peoples have admitted it—principally those who were
practically dependent on Germany, and whose native culture was forcibly
suppressed. The result was that a few years ago a non-Russian Slav knew
his sentimental Schiller better than his Dante, Lenau better than his
Pushkin, Kleist better than Shakespeare, and Gottfried Keller better
than Dostoievski. In the Slav schools in Austria-Hungary the German
language is obligatory as the official language (the other languages
are to this day not permitted in the schools), German history is taught
as the standard of national greatness and civilization and German
literature and art as practically unique and unequalled. All that bore
the hallmark “Made in Germany” was inculcated as ideal. Thus it was
not at all strange that German culture has for a long time predominated
among these Slavs. But the Slav instinct always hated this culture,
though at first unconsciously, and sensed it as a false and treacherous
enemy. Then Russia began her intellectual campaign among the Slavs. At
first it was an uphill struggle, for the Government authorities placed
every possible obstacle in the way of this propaganda. But when the
Slav peoples realized that the Russian influence could only reach them
as forbidden fruit, they began greatly to desire it. To the power of
the State they opposed the power of their will and their instincts.
This struggle is still in progress, but it has been uniformly
successful in favour of the Russian influence. During the ’eighties
the results of this influence began to show fruit, and since that time
Slav intellectual and educational development has safely entered the
fairway of Russian intellectualism. Art and literature have followed
the lines laid down by Russia, and become more definitely Slavonic. The
latent mental wealth and resources of the Slav nations have come to the
surface and appear pure and unaffected and entirely free from German
“angularity,” while their social problems betray a distinct kinship
with the Russian social movement. In recent years this process of
emancipation and affiliation has so far developed that it has entered
the field of politics and materialized in the _Russian protectorate
over all the Slavs_. This, however, required no propaganda—it arose out
of itself, as will appear in the chapters dealing with the other Slav
nations.




CHAPTER III.

RUSSIAN NATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS.

  Russian Slavdom—The Mir—Stress and Famine—The
    Duma—Russian Literature—Gogol, Tolstoi,
    Dostoievski—Realistic Ideals—The Russian Soul.


The eminent Russian publicist Menschikoff, in one of his works on
Russian nationalism, writes the following: “In a world-wide sense only
we Russians are Slavs and—unfortunately—so far no one else. The other
Slav nationalities are so dismembered, so stupidly and artificially
kept apart and hostile among themselves, that they scarcely count
either politically or otherwise. The majority of the Outer Slav nations
are still under the German, Hungarian or Turkish yoke, and at present
they are quite unable to shake off this yoke. There are many reasons
for the decline of the Western Slavs, but the principal one is the
_negative_ type of their character and the consequent tendency to
dissensions and mutual jealousies.... Even as regards national culture,
Russia—in spite of all her internal miseries—takes the lead among
the Slav nations. In every respect she has the right to say: ‘I am
Slavdom.’”

The somewhat bitter tone adopted towards the other Slav nations in this
dictum might easily be modified by an appeal to evidence, but, for
all that, Menschikoff’s remarks are correct in essentials. The truth
of his assertion as to the world-wide importance of the Russians and
the relative unimportance of the other Slavs to-day must be freely
admitted. And that is why a special interest attaches to the question
of the Russian people. It is too early in the day to judge of the full
significance of the Russians as a factor in the world’s development,
for they have scarcely yet come into their own. The birth of the
Russian people has been in progress for the last century. First the
head appeared—_Russian literature_, and then slowly, deliberately,
the giant body—the _Russian people_, who are gradually attaining to
political and national self-consciousness.

Till 1861 the Russian people led an embryonic existence within the womb
of Holy Mother Russia. A nobility of mixed Mongolian, German, British,
French and even Negroid (Pushkin) stock ate, breathed and thought
for the people. Most foreigners imagine that the Russian people were
“emancipated” in 1861. But this emancipation was only partial, and
more apparent than real; for though serfdom had been abolished, there
still remained the heavier yoke of the “Mir”—a conservative, iron-bound
institution, which has greatly hindered the development of the Russian
people by restricting the liberty of the individual. Strictly speaking,
the “Mir” was the village or parish, but in an economic sense it was
the association of several families under one head. The Slavophil
writers, Homiakoff and the brothers Kirieyevaki, with their followers
down to Pobyedonszeff saw in the “Mir” a guarantee, not only for the
welfare of Russia, but for all the world. They believed the “Mir” to
be that economic communism and moral brotherhood which Western Social
Democracy is vainly trying to discover in other ways. They held that
the “Mir” was destined to assure the future of the Russian people and
to afford it the means of solving all the social problems of the world
in accordance with the laws of justice and of love. Russian literature
is full of poems, treatises, and religious contemplations in praise of
it. Even the greatest Russian minds, such as Dostoievski himself, were
smitten with this idea. No “Western” doctrine was potent to disabuse
the Russians of their fallacy. Nature herself had to come to the
rescue, destroy the chimera and lead Russia back to the high road of
common sense and progress.

It happened very simply. The periodic famine arose in Russia, and the
vast Empire, the “granary of the world,” had no bread for millions
of her honest, hard-working children. They could not understand how
there could be a famine in a fertile, sparsely populated country,
whilst the teeming populations of the Western countries had enough to
eat. The starving Russian people argued that the famine was caused by
an insufficiency of _land_, and that they had been cozened in 1861
when the land was divided up between the nobles and the peasants. The
result was a growing ill-feeling against the ruling classes, to whom
the peasantry still had to pay “redemption-dues” either in money or
in kind. In accordance with ancient custom the “Mir” periodically
divided the land among its members. Obviously, in many communities
there was not enough land for each member. Result—Famine. The “Mir” was
self-governing, and had the same powers over its members as formerly
the lord of the soil. It exercised a paternal jurisdiction, punished
with blows, or with banishment to Siberia, divided the land, collected
taxes, issued travellers’ passes, and often made itself arbitrarily
unpleasant. During the ’nineties it became increasingly evident that
the “Mir” constituted a moral and material danger to the people. Poor
harvests followed by famine were the bane of the people from 1871 till
1907 and even as lately as 1911.

Space forbids me to enter into the agrarian crises—questions of
reform, experiments and reactions, which loom so large in the pages
of modern Russian history. Suffice it to say that all this led up to
the revolution in 1905, and that in consequence of this revolution
the Government decided upon a step it might equally well have taken in
1861. In 1906 the Government decided partially to dissolve the “Mirs,”
and by establishing freehold farm properties owned by _individuals_ it
created the yeoman farmer class with full civic rights. This reform
which was only fully carried through in 1911, marks the beginning of
a new political era for the Russian man of the people. It is still
too soon to feel the consequences of this truly great reform to
their full extent. The Russian peasant has scarcely got used to his
new position of individual freedom, and has not yet learnt to give
effect to his political and social will. There can be no question of
a constitution so long as the “Muzhik” has not attained to the full
stature of a citizen and agriculturist. In Russia we speak of a “first
Duma,” a “second Duma,” a “third Duma,” whereas no one in the rest of
Europe would speak of a “first,” “second,” or “third” Parliament, but
simply of “the Parliament.” These “first,” “second,” “third” and now
“fourth” Dumas are simply so many editions of one and the same Duma,
with each edition more rigorously pruned by the Government, till the
merest shadow is all that remains. At this moment the entire social
structure of Russia is analogous to this Duma-system. The Russian world
of intellect is no more entitled to represent the Russian people, than
the fourth Duma is to represent the first. The Russian intellectuals
may speak in the name of the people, but their word is really no
better than a third-hand account. Even when there is no attempt at
falsification, they always stand at a certain distance from the people.
Whatever the great Russian realists have written concerning their own
people is merely intuitive conjecture from a distance. A poet projects
his own world into the people. The psychology of the great Russian
writers of fiction is a _tendency_, an illusion based not on exact, but
on intuitive knowledge of the people. Russian realism borders on the
visionary, and on mysticism. Europe has hitherto failed to discern the
actual foundations of this poetry in its relation to Russian life, and
has simply allowed herself to be fascinated by the “keen psychology”
of the writers. The result has been a false impression. The facts are
really different—instead of _real truthfulness_ we find in the Russian
writer a realistic tendency, a _real ethical resentment_; thence the
increased “keenness” of his psychology, the critical touch in his
imagination, which gives such a striking effect of verisimilitude.
European critics have never detected the seam in the fabric of the
Russian novel; they have accepted the masterpiece as the outcome of a
single creative inspiration. Even though Russian realism comes nearer
to life than that of any other literature, still it is more art than
life.

Proof of this is to be found in Gogol’s private correspondence. He
frequently complained that nobody would send him “copy” from Russian
life. He begs in vain for hints, anecdotes and descriptions; he has to
“invent” his stories, and is ashamed of having to “deceive” his reader.
In his immortal comedy, “The Revising Inspector,” Gogol satirizes his
own “untruthfulness,” and in Hlestakoff, the great adventurer, who is
mistaken by every one for the real revising inspector, he ridicules
himself. For the sake of the people Gogol consents to play the
“revising inspector!” But Gogol’s “untruthfulness” is simply creative
genius. An eminent Tolstoi student, Osvianiko-Kulikovsky, has plainly
asserted that even Tolstoi was not of the soul of the people but of the
soul of the gentry. Tolstoi is a “_barin_” (landlord) and he thinks and
feels only as a _barin_. Turgenyeff was blamed even during his lifetime
for writing about Russia without knowing it; for he practically never
lived in Russia.

The inmost soul of the Russian people has, however, found an excellent
representative in Dostoievski. “Do not judge the Russian people”—pleads
Dostoievski—“by the atrocious deeds of which they have often been
guilty, but by those great and holy matters to which they aspire in
their depravity. And not all the people are depraved. There are saints
among them, who shed their light upon all, to show them the way.”

Dostoievski himself was such a light and such a saint. His works
reflect the character of the Russian clearly and faithfully as it is:

“In the Russian man of the people one must discriminate between his
innate beauty and the product of barbarism. Owing to the events of the
whole history of Russia, the Russian has been at the mercy of every
depraving influence, he has been so abused and tortured that it is a
miracle that he has preserved the human countenance, let alone his
beauty. But he has actually retained his beauty ... and in all the
Russian people there is not one swindler or scoundrel who does not know
that he is mean and vile.”

Dostoievski further adds: “No! The Russian people must not be judged by
_what they are_, but by _what they aspire to be_. The strong and sacred
ideals, which have been their salvation from the age of suffering, are
deeply rooted in the Russian soul from the very beginning, and these
ideals have endowed this soul for all time with simplicity and honesty,
with sincerity, and a broad, receptive good sense,—all in perfect
harmony.”

Concerning the part the Russian people are destined to play in the
world, Dostoievski wrote the following:

“The Russian people is a strange phenomenon in the history of mankind.
Their character is so different from that of the other peoples of
Europe that to this day Europeans have failed to understand it, and
misconstrue it at every turn. All Europeans move towards the same
goal. But they differ in their fundamental interests, which involve
them in collisions and antagonisms, whereby they are driven to go
different ways. The ideal of a universal humanity is steadily fading
from among them. The Russian people possess a notable advantage over
the other European nations,—a remarkable peculiarity. The Russians
possess the synthetic faculty in a high degree—the gift of feeling
_at one_ with the universe and a universal humanity. _The Russian has
none of the European angularity, he possesses the gift of discernment
and of generosity of soul._ He can adapt himself to anything and he
can _understand_. He has a feeling for all that is human, _regardless
of race_, _nationality_ or _fundamental ideas_. He finds and readily
admits reasonableness in all that contains even a vestige of true human
instinct. By this instinct he can trace the human element in other
nationalities even in exceptional cases. He accepts them at once, seeks
to approximate them to his own ideas, ‘places’ them in his own mind,
and often succeeds in finding a starting-point for reconciling the
conflicting ideas of two different European nations.”[4]

This characteristic is so general and so true, that all other opinions
on the character of a great people must take second place. It finds
room for the Cossack with his nagaika and for Tolstoi with his gospel.
It embraces every aspect of the human soul. Dostoievski himself
possessed the synthetic faculty, the wonderful gift of universal
understanding. He could make it clear that a crime may be a holy
deed, and holiness mere prostitution, even as he succeeded in fusing
Russian Christianity with the Tatar “Karat”[5] in one soul. Whence
came all these paradoxes in the one man? On one occasion he wrote: “I
am struggling with my petty creditors as _Laokoon wrestled with the
serpents_. I urgently require fifteen roubles. Only fifteen. These
fifteen roubles will give me relief, and I shall be better able to
work.” Here lies the secret of the Russian synthesis in Dostoievski.
Mental work is restricted by hard external circumstances. The inherent
tendency to despond when in trouble is one of the greatest dangers to
the Russian. He would fain lead the contemplative life, and hesitates
“to take up arms against a sea of troubles.” To combat this he has
had to lash himself into a state of hard practical efficiency. The
Russian must grow strong against himself before he can again take
up his ideal of an aggressive inner life. It is once more a case of
Laokoon and the serpents. For this very reason Tolstoi’s teaching
did not appeal to Dostoievski. When he had read a few sentences of
this doctrine he clutched his head and cried: “No, not that, anything
but that!” A few days later he was dead, and the world will never
know what was gathering in his mind against the great heretic. But
Dostoievski’s works are really in themselves a most vehement refutation
of the Nazarene doctrine—it is as if he had prophetically discerned
Tolstoi. Dostoievski solves the contrast between European culture and
Christianity in accordance with both the Church and culture. He bows
before the miracle, the mystery, and authority, and thus creates the
union between material culture and Christian culture. He accepts the
world as a whole, even as the Russian people take it.

Tolstoi denies the divinity of Christ and the entire synthesis of
Russian philosophy. But even Tolstoi could only have been born in
Russia. Personally he liked being accepted by the Russian peasants
as one of themselves. The figure of the “Muzhik” is inseparable from
Tolstoi’s doctrine, because Tolstoi’s doctrine is inseparable from the
Russian people. It lives in the Great Submerged, who are as far removed
from Western culture in fact as Tolstoi himself is in theory. Russian
law courts have to deal every day with people who refuse to pay taxes,
to serve in the army, or to acknowledge the “pravoslav” clerical
authority. The Church calls these people “Shkoptzi,” “Molokami,” or
“Hlisti.” There are about twenty million of them. They style themselves
“White doves,” “The New Israel,” “Doukhobortzi.” In principle they are
“pure Christians” like Tolstoi. Both have the same “tone” of soul.
Dostoievski says of Tolstoi that he was one of those who fix their eyes
on one point, and cannot see what happens to the right or to the left
of that; and if they _do_ wish to see it they have to turn with their
whole body, as they invariably move their _whole_ soul also in one
direction only. This correctly observed obstinacy is the very opposite
to the synthetic gift and generosity of soul mentioned before, and this
peculiarity of the Russian mind has often been called “Maximalism,” to
denote the rigid criterion, which loves no happy mean, but always goes
to the utter extreme.

Many Western writers, among them the British author Bering, have
asserted that the Slavs have no strength of will. This view is
erroneous and harmonizes neither with Tolstoi’s tendency to extremes,
nor with Dostoievski’s universal charity. It applies only to such
phenomena in Slav life as are accessible to the European tourist, as,
for instance, technical undertakings and colonial enterprise; for
in this matter the Slav is naturally not so well qualified as the
Englishman.

The Russian soul, and consequently the character of the Russian people,
is many-sided and paradoxical in its obstinacy and its generosity. It
is the historical outcome of such extremes as are represented by yellow
positivist Mongolism, and gentle altruistic Christianity. But the soul
of the Russian people has not yet clearly found itself, like the souls
of the Western nations; first, because the head has not yet acquired
control over the body; secondly, because the work of enlightenment and
emancipation is only being completed by the present war. Hitherto it
has laboured in its birth-throes. It has been a Laokoon wrestling with
serpents.




CHAPTER IV.

POLAND AND BOHEMIA.

  I. The Contrast—National Character of the Poles—Our Lady
       of Csenstochova—Dancing Peasants—Galician Poles—Selfish
       Policy—Austria a Slav State.

  II. The Poles in Russia—Russia’s Repressive Measures—The
        Slav Ideal—A Better Understanding—The Poles in
        Prussia—The Iron Heel—Law of Expropriation.

  III. Csech Characteristics—Professor Masaryk—Jan
         Huss—Slav Puritans—The Hradćin—Modern Politics.


I.

Roughly speaking the Group of the Northern Slavs includes twenty
million Poles and eight million Csechs. Numerically, therefore, they
are the greatest of the unliberated Slav peoples. Bohemia and her
sister-country Moravia are under Austrian rule, while Poland has been
dismembered and partitioned between Russia, Germany and Austria. At one
time both countries were great and flourishing, and played a prominent
part in history. In 1526 the Csechs acknowledged the Hapsburgs as
their ruler,[6] and Bohemia’s political decay and gradual loss of
independence date both from this point. The first partition of Poland
in 1772 deprived the Republic of liberty. Her dismemberment was finally
completed and sealed by the third partition in 1795, and henceforth the
Poles were even deprived of the possibility of co-operating as a nation.

The Csechs and Poles have both passed through a national tragedy,
but of the two the Polish tragedy makes a stronger appeal to the
imagination, because of the contrast between their former greatness and
their present position, the high level of their culture, and the lofty
principles at stake in the Great Polish Revolution. The Poles fell
victims to the foreign yoke just as their civilization, their culture,
and their _esprit_ were on the fairway to rival the intellectual
splendours of France under Louis XIV. They were a brilliant
people—mentally and intellectually refined, but physically decadent,
and quite incapable of surviving their political freedom. They yielded
to listless sentimentality and bewailed their lost greatness instead
of fighting to retrieve it. You may love the Poles with your _heart_
but never with your reason! In this they are the very antithesis to the
Csechs whom you cannot love except with your reason. You may admire
them for the culture they have so laboriously won, but you cannot love
them for it.

To the German and Austrian the Csech presents a comic type. But no one
looks upon the Pole as comic; you hate him or you love him, but you
cannot ridicule him—there is something great and tragic about him. The
Russians who hate him for _political_ reasons are fired by religious
fanaticism. They hate the Jesuitical principles of the Pole. The
Germans hate the Polish want of management, and “Polnische Wirtschaft”
(“Polish management”) is a German idiom. But no one would insult Polish
idealism and the innate nobility of the Pole. He compares with the
Csech as Don Quixote with Sancho Panza. He is a dreamer and visionary
who prostrates himself before an invisible shrine and awaits the
miracle of salvation and liberation. This life of dreams has endowed
the modern Pole with hyper-sensitive nerves, dogmatic onesidedness,
and extreme passivity. Lost in the contemplation of their royal past,
the Polish people wait in breathless silence for the first bird-note to
herald the dawn of freedom that shall dispel the night of tribulation.

But, while the conscience of the nation languishes, crucified in the
bitter suffering of a Messianic ideal, the Masses—the common people—are
sane and sturdy; they live and multiply far removed from the griefs of
the Classes. Their hard life has made them dull and unfeeling; caught
in a world of factories, mines, and social democracy, they are only
interested in their own immediate concerns and personal pleasures.
Anything beyond that they expect from the mediation of “Bogarodjitza”
(Mother of God).

Wijspianski, a fine Polish dramatist, has strikingly sketched the
national character in one single scene in his play “Wesele” (The
Wedding). The people are dancing their Polonaise and Mazurka, with
gay cockades and ribands on their shoulders. The pretty bride leads
off with her herculean bridegroom. Suddenly Yasiek rushes in upon the
dancers and cries, “To arms! rise and rebel, for Poland!” But the
couples—as if bewitched—continue to dance the _national_ measure.
Yasiek, bitterly disappointed, sees his hopes blighted and, choked
with despair, he sinks to the ground. But the couples go on dancing,
and he is _trampled to death_ by the feet of those whom he came to
lead to freedom. This scene epitomises the position of affairs in
modern Poland—the despair of the great lord with his pedigree, broad
acres, and capital, who has absolutely no hold over the plain people
because they have turned away from him. They have lost their rights,
their land and their traditions; the only link between the two is the
Catholic ideal, the ideal of _Polish_ Catholicism, which is hallowed in
the image of Our Lady of Csenstochova, whose brow is encircled with the
crown of the ancient Queens of Poland.

The younger generation in Poland has realized that this link between
the Classes and Masses must rest on a surer foundation.

Between the aristocracy and the masses has arisen the class of
the _educated poor_. These people are mainly of Russian descent,
but the sons of Polish Jews form an important proportion and have
acquired considerable influence, chiefly in the journalistic world.
This young Poland saw itself confronted by a great vanished Polish
age of romanticists and poets, with pronounced aristocratic and
Catholic sentiments. The whole intellectual struggle of the modern
democratic generation consists in an attempt to find contact with this
past. Science also is endeavouring to reconcile the spirit of the
present with the spirit of the past, and hopes to prepare the future
development of an individualistic Polish culture on this foundation.

The contrast between German and Polish culture is the contrast
between the culture of the masses and the culture of the individual.
The principal social feature in mediæval Germany was _feudalism_.
Germany was ruled by a number of feudal _princes_, Poland by a number
of aristocratic _families_. But this _régime_ proved disastrous to
Poland. A state where individuals rule by mutual consent is bound to
develop differently from one where families rule without any mutual
consent. In the expansive Western monarchies the power of the State
increased, while the aristocratic republic of Poland steadily declined.
The main reason for this difference probably lies in the geographical
position of Poland. It lay too far from the West—too far from Rome and
its culture.

       *       *       *       *       *

The province of Galicia, which fell to Austria’s share by the partition
of Poland, undoubtedly fared better than the rest of the country. It
is inhabited by 4,252,483 Poles and 3,381,570 Ruthenes (including
Bukovina). As geographical and racial neighbours of the Csechs, who
were already displaying the greatest determination in their national
struggle, the great population bade fair to become a danger to Austrian
policy. Vienna was quick to realize this, and arranged her tactics
towards the Poles accordingly. As soon as the Russian and German Poles
began to be down-trodden, it was an easy matter to dispose of any
separatist tendency among the Austrian Poles by reminding them of the
position of their brothers. At home the Government began by fomenting
the national discord between the Poles and the Ruthenes. It neglected
the latter in favour of the Poles, and absolutely disregarded their
reasonable claims. The Poles were not only granted great national
and political concessions; they became the Slav favourite of the
Viennese ministry. Not only were they represented by their own
“_Landmannsminister_” (“the Secretary for Galicia,” so to say), but
one other important portfolio (usually that of Finance) was always
entrusted to a Pole.

The Poles were quite content with this position and supported Austrian
policy accordingly. As this policy is above all things anti-Slav, this
meant that the most chivalrous of all the Slav nations became a tool
in the hands of Slavdom’s chief oppressor. This was partly due to the
fact that this staunchly Catholic people is surrounded by non-Catholic
enemies—by Protestant Germans on the one hand and Orthodox Russians
on the other. Moreover, they look upon Catholicism as the one safe
harbor—hence their attachment to Roman Catholic Austria. Here also
lies the clue to Polish views, their sympathies and antipathies. But
there is no justification for this position. Catholicism is not a Slav
national religion, and can never become part of the soul of a Slav
people. Strictly speaking, it is responsible for the decline of part
of the Slav race. _All_ Catholic Slav countries up to date have been
in captivity, whereas _all_ such Slavs as have retained their national
orthodox religion are _free_. It is quite natural that the Poles should
cling to Catholicism as an acquired religion which appeals to them,
but they should not have used it as a national and traditional basis
for their attitude towards the rest of the Slavs. It is a mistake
which has done little good to their own national aspirations, and
incalculable harm to the Slav cause.

In many Slav circles there is a tendency to ascribe this attitude of
the Poles, not to their Messianic ideal, but to a purely individual
egotism. This view is at least partially true, were it only because
Polish politics are not the politics of the nation, but of the ruling
class. The Polish aristocracy, who were unable to forget their past
glories, saw in the feudal and aristocratic principles of the Austrian
Government a possibility of retaining their position in the Dual
Monarchy. They made full use of their opportunities even while (in
theory) they were careful to guard Polish national interests. This
aristocracy had no feeling for the common Slav cause, and whenever they
had a chance of authority (Goluchowski, Bilinski) they have proved
themselves a positive danger to the cause. That this aristocracy has
cast its spell over the greater part of the educated classes and
formed political parties as it chose is due to the inherent moral
dependence of the Pole upon his aristocracy;—snobbery is as much a
disease with him as Roman Catholicism. Not however among the common
people are they always the heedless dancers of Wijspianski’s drama.
They allow everything to pass _over_ them, and only trample upon that
which happens to lie beneath their feet. Moreover, their inmost soul
is rich in the true Slav qualities; but this wealth is hidden as in a
fast-locked casket, and there it will lie until the radiant smile of
the “Mother of God” of Csenstochova shall miraculously reveal it.

For a long time Polish politics have disturbed the Slav balance in the
Dual Monarchy. The Austro-Hungarian monarchy is properly a Slav State
in the fullest sense of the word. According to official statistics
22,821,864 out of 51,351,531 souls are Slavs. The ruling races, Germans
and Hungarians, number 21,259,644 between them, and the remainder are
accounted for by Roumanians, Italians and other nationalities. It must
be pointed out that Slavs living in Hungary (especially in Baczka and
in the Banat) are—much against their will—simply entered in the census
as Hungarians, and that in like manner hundreds of thousands of Slavs
in Bohemia, Carinthia, Styria and Carniola are put down as Germans.
Protests against these proceedings pass unheeded, and Slav National
Census Unions were formed to check the Governmental statistics;
according to these more than 50 per cent. of the entire population
are Slavs. This percentage is proportionately increased if we further
include the Slav emigrants in Australia and America. These number
about five million, and would doubtless return to their homes if more
tolerable conditions could be procured.

And yet this Monarchy aspires to be anything but a Slav State. German
and Magyar rule has sought to swamp the Slav element in every possible
way. Following Metternich’s principle “_divide et impera_” the Slavs
were divided into two “spheres.” The Northern Slavs were handed over to
Austrian autocracy, and the Southern Slavs to Magyar plutocracy. Thus
it came to pass that _9 million Germans_ rule _15 million Slavs_, and
10 million Magyars, Jews, or spurious Magyars rule 7-1/2 million Slavs.

Even if theoretically the balance of power seems more rational
in the Hungarian sphere, in the Austrian it is plainly absurdly
disproportionate. And here the Poles were the straw in the balance
which decided in favour of German hegemony. If the Poles had recognized
their duty to their own race the Slav question would long ago have
been on a better footing. A just understanding with the Ruthenes and
a joint national struggle with the Csechs would certainly have broken
German supremacy, or forced it to accord more tolerable conditions to
all the Slavs. But the Galician Poles have never done anything for the
Slav cause in the Monarchy, but rather sought to curry favour with the
Government in Vienna, and, by repudiating their kinship, to obtain
concessions for their own negative national ideals, and for their
intellectual and economic development. Austria had no objection to this
platonic nationalism so long as the Poles by their pro-German policy
supported her in oppressing the other Slavs.

The Csechs and Ruthenes have been specially handicapped in their
national struggle by the attitude of the Poles. And the result was an
implacable enmity between the Poles and the Ruthenes, which was, if
anything, encouraged by the Government. In this struggle the Ruthenes
undoubtedly fared the worse. They are in a national minority in
Galicia, and unmercifully oppressed by the Poles, who hate them all the
more for being the descendants of the hated Russians (Little Russians)
and because they refused to conceal their sympathy with Russia. The
Ruthenes fought hard for the right to speak their own tongue and have
their own school system. But the Poles were ruthlessly opposed to these
demands, which were in consequence also denied by the Government.
The struggle finally degenerated into wholesale denunciations of the
Ruthenes by the Poles, who accused their enemies of high treason and
conspiracy with Russia.

It must, however, be admitted that even among the Poles there were many
who deeply deplored this fratricidal struggle, and did their utmost
to induce the Northern Slavs of the Monarchy to combine in the common
cause. Time and again the Csech patriots urged the desirability of a
union, and, as similar appeals came from other Slav countries also,
the realization of a true _Pan-Slav_ and _democratic_ ideal often
seemed imminent. The spectre of _Pan-Germanism_, waiting like some
ravenous monster to devour the Slav nations limb by limb, appeared even
to the Poles, but unscrupulous politicians, bureaucratic upstarts, and
slippery diplomats from Vienna conjured up the bogey of _Russification_
to alarm them, and all patriotic efforts were in vain.

Still it is psychologically interesting that a Slav race through fear
of Russification should have thrown itself into the arms of—Germanism.

       *       *       *       *       *


II.

The favoured position of the Poles in Austria contrasts sharply with
that of their brothers in Russia and Germany. They were oppressed in
every way;—Russian _official_ policy towards the Poles bears all the
stamp of autocratic tyranny. Their political rights are restricted to
a minimum, and as regards civil rights they are nearly as badly off as
the Russian Jews. Still it is characteristic that the reason for this
oppression lay, not in the national, but in the religious element.
Roman Catholicism, which was an advantage to the Austrian, proved a
misfortune to the Russian Poles. For the Russian looks upon Catholicism
as the very antithesis to his conception of the Slav ideal. Pravo-Slav
Russia, with her ancient, wondrously pure Slavo-religious traditions,
and all the warmth of her faith, could not take kindly to the haughty,
frigidly cold Catholic Poles. The great political power of the Holy
Synod, the supreme (unfortunately too clerical) representative body
of this faith, exercised an influence adverse to the Polish people,
and the Russian Government, which only too often has been the mere
executive of the will of the Holy Synod, established an autocratic
_régime_ with far-reaching national and personal restrictions. The
first result of this policy was unmitigated hatred on the part of the
Poles, and a craving for vengeance and freedom. The Russian Poles
intrigued with their Austrian brothers, and envied them their favoured
position. But the only support the Austrian Poles vouchsafed their
brothers was that they applied the Russian methods of oppression to the
Ruthenes.

Whoever knows anything of Russia’s repressive measures, will realize
that the Poles were in a hard case. Owing to the passive character of
the Poles their struggles were never sufficiently organized to assume
the proportions of a well organized revolution. But oppression has
strengthened their national self-reliance, their ideals have burned
more brightly, and a longing for freedom has entirely dominated them.
Still, even now, they are far more inclined to wait for the miracle
than to bestir themselves on their own behalf; and if in recent years
their position has somewhat improved, it is not so much due to their
own efforts as to the wave of modern thought among the Russians
themselves.

The _Russian Governmental_ policy made no distinction between the Poles
and her Russian subjects who were thirsting for social regeneration.
So the Russians discovered for themselves that they had to seek the
friendship and collaboration of the Poles. The wide horizon of the
modern Russian movement will not permit the exclusion of a single
capable member of the Tsar’s great realm from the benefits of the
future. Not only the Russian people, but the whole of Russia had to be
won over to the cause of the great ideal. The regeneration of Russia
was to herald the regeneration of the whole of the Slav race, and the
Poles as Slavs had a right to help in this work. The Russians have
always said that they are very fond of the Poles, but that they are not
sufficiently _Slav_—they ought to be Slavicized. The Russian Government
sought to accomplish this by violence, whereas the _Russian people_,
represented by the Russian revolutionaries, chose the better path of
mutual understanding and respect. Of course, the official policy of
the Holy Synod is still in force, and although the constitutional
manifesto and the Duma have brought about certain changes, these are
at present quite unimportant. The Poles, however, are winning an
increasing number of friends and advocates among the Russians, who are
pleading for equal rights and a constitution for Poland. Moreover, the
times have changed, and when Russia was confronted by the present great
European crisis the Poles displayed a marvellous loyalty, which has,
perhaps, unintentionally brought them nearer the realization of their
dreams than they have ever been before. The Manifesto of the Grand Duke
Nikolai Nikolaievitch is the greatest event in Polish history since the
partition.

The hardest lot of all has befallen those Poles who have been most
loyal to their race. I mean those who came under Prussian rule. For
whereas Polish Slavdom is tolerated in Austria, and actually encouraged
in Russia, in Prussia it is remorselessly ground down under the iron
heel of Germanism. Germanization is carried out by Prussian rule,
aggressively, in a strictly military sense. It is not a question of
political tactics—no opinion at home or abroad is considered; there
is nothing but frank coercion. Germany’s ambitions are only too well
known—they have been advertised loudly enough, and they have been
expounded again quite recently in General von Bernhardi’s notorious
book, “Germany and the Next War”—a book written with all the brusque
insolence of which only a German is capable. If Germany’s future
programme includes the Germanizing of the whole of Europe, it is surely
superfluous to relate in detail how she strove to Germanize a people
under her own rule—it is one of the blackest chapters in the histories
of oppression.

By the constitution of Germany the Prussian Poles cannot forfeit their
rights as citizens of the realm. This circumstance afforded them a
chance of laying their grievances before the legislative assemblies.
But in spite of their gallant courage, the struggle brought them no
particular advantage except the moral satisfaction of knowing that
their pleading could reach the ear of Europe. But whenever their voice
grew too loud, the mailed fist fell on their lips and struck them dumb.
When the German Reichstag passed the Polish Expropriation Law (1886)[7]
all Europe was scandalized; but from the point of view of Germanization
it was highly successful. Germany disregarded foreign opinion and the
law was put in force.

It is to be hoped that the conclusion of the present European war will
also put an end to the sufferings of these martyrs, and that the whole
Polish nation will be granted an opportunity of applying its many
admirable qualities for its own welfare and for the union of the Slav
race.

       *       *       *       *       *


III.

The Csechs have always been a strong, tenacious, energetic people, and
no sooner did they begin to feel the iron fist of their oppressors
than they opened a determined campaign against them and pitted
their strength against their tyrants. They have won their present
civilization inch by inch from their oppressors.

The eminent Csech political economist, Professor Masaryk, admirably
forecasts the future of his people. He says—“The humanistic ideal,
the ideal of regeneration, bears a deep national and historical
significance for us Csechs. A full and sincere grasp of the human ideal
will bridge over the spiritual and ethical dreams of centuries, and
enable us to advance with the vanguard of human progress. The Csech
humanitarian ideal is no romantic fallacy. Without work and effort the
humanitarian ideal is but dead; it demands that we shall everywhere
and systematically oppose ourselves to all that is bad, to all social
_un_humanity—both at home and abroad—with all its clerical, political
and national organs. The humanitarian ideal is not sentimentality—it
means work, work, and yet again work!”

Now all this is by no means a characteristic of the Csech people, but
only a forecast of what they shall be. Political tactics must always
correspond to the principles of decency and humanity. Masaryk further
says—“Our fame, our wars, and our intervention in the past have borne
a religious, not a national stamp. Our _national_ ideal is of more
recent birth—it only belongs to the last, and more especially to the
present century. The history of Bohemia must not be judged from this
standpoint.”

Perhaps this programme will prove too historical and too unpractical
for the present day. The small commercial and industrial Csech nation
is too far removed from the age of Jan Huss, and the Csech reformation
has lost its significance for them. But deep down in the soul of
the Csech people there still dwells a spark of the Hussite spirit.
Of course, the battle-cry is nationalist, the phrasing that of the
twentieth century, but the underlying spirit differs in no way from the
righteous indignation of Huss, when he preached against high-handed
oppression and violence. The physical inferior is never anxious to
see his affairs settled by physical force. For this reason it is not
a matter of indifference to the Csechs, whether they fight for a
higher principle or merely for material advantage. At present they are
principally fighting for their language, for the right to speak their
own tongue—they are fighting against Germanization. Their strongest
weapon in this fight is their striving for economic prosperity—a
physical power through which they may hope to obtain a spiritual
victory.

The principal trait in the Csech character is _initiative_. The very
name points to this, for “Csech” is derived from the old-Slav word
“Chenti,” meaning “to will” or “to begin.”

History finds the Csechs in the vanguard of all the Slav tribes in
their wanderings westward. Their legendary leader was Csech, one of
three brothers, and his tribe penetrated the farthest. In the Middle
Ages the Csechs were the first to challenge the power of Rome, and to
this day they send numbers of enterprising emigrants to all parts of
the world. But the Csechs have one great fault—they are fickle. Their
enthusiasm flashes up quickly and then as quickly dies down. This is
the reason of the failure of the Hussite Reformation. The Germans
finished what the Csechs began—Luther was the successor of Huss and
completed his work.

The Csechs are not by nature a commercial and industrial people. Their
business capacity is born of necessity—it is a weapon, not a means
of gain. It is kept going by an unwearied agitation on the part of
the national leaders, and if the Csech national ideal should suffer
shipwreck, then Csech finance, ambition, and industry will likewise
perish.

Sundry Slavophil thinkers would exclude the Csechs from the group
of Slav peoples, just because of their initiative and business
capacity. The Russian ethnologist Danilevski calls the Csech people a
monstrosity, a German people with a Slav tongue. But these men have
overlooked the fact that the foundation of modern Csech prosperity
was laid by the religion of the Csech Brethren. During the Catholic
reaction the Csech Protestants were driven from their possessions
and treated as aliens in their own country. Being thus compelled to
evolve a new means of gaining a livelihood, they turned to industry.
Trade and the towns were closed to them, and the Csech Brethren had
to seek refuge in the Bohemian and Moravian hills, and the Orlic
mountains. They became weavers, wood-carvers and miners, and laid the
foundation of the great modern Bohemian textile, glass and earthenware
industries. Religious considerations and nothing else have made the
Csechs into a mercantile nation. England’s wealth also springs from a
religious movement—the rise of Puritanism. Thrift and industry led to
the accumulation of capital. Only a religious man understands work and
thrift, and he alone knows how to utilise capital as a moral lever.
For this reason it would be wrong to adopt the views of the Russian
ethnologist. The Csech people _as they are_ have a right to their
future and to freedom.

       *       *       *       *       *

In the centre of Prague, on the summit of the Hradčin, stands the
old Csech Royal Castle, a splendid monument of past greatness. Proud
and lofty, visible from afar, it speaks to the Csech people of the
days when it sheltered—not the foreign invader, but flesh of their
flesh, Csech kings and princes of their own blood. And even as it
is a monument of the past, it is also a beacon for the present and
the future. When the setting sun sheds his crimson glory upon Castle
and Hradčin, it seems as though the very stones were aglow with the
reflection of all the Csech blood that has been shed in the defence
of right and liberty. But—the royal splendour vanishes with the sun,
and the shadow of night descends on Castle and height like a symbol
of the present age of gloom. Day by day, with burning eyes, the Csech
reads the wordless message. Yet he does not give way to dreams, or sink
into deep melancholy, nor does he wait for a miracle. He clenches his
fist and smiles the grim smile of the tireless warrior. His fickleness
at the time of the Reformation weighs like a sin on his conscience,
but its ideals have set their mark upon him and quickened the seed of
_political_ reformation in his soul. In this matter the Csechs take the
lead among all the Slavs in Austria-Hungary.

I have already mentioned that in certain Slav circles the Csechs are
looked upon as Germans with a Slav tongue. But, if their industrial and
mercantile prosperity and certain individual characteristics lend some
colour to this view, it is quite refuted by the Csech activity in the
Slav national and political cause. In their sturdy and _progressive_
struggle against Germanization the Csechs have set the other Austrian
Slavs a tactical and practical example as to how the struggle should be
fought—_tactically_ on constitutional lines, and, _practically_, with
indomitable courage and perseverance.

In spite of their long subjection to an absolute autocracy, the Csechs
developed into so strong a political factor, that even Vienna began
to fear the weight of their hand. They achieved this not only from a
sense of self-preservation or separatist selfishness like the Poles,
but the Slav ideal runs like a gold thread through all they have done;
it is their motto, task and goal. They were beset from three sides,
by the Austrian Germans in all their power, by Polish opposition, and
by Magyar agitations and hostile influences in Vienna. The Southern
Slav deputies in the Reichstag were their only helpers in the unequal
struggle. But they never relaxed their energy and they never yielded a
position they had won.

The national struggle in Bohemia took on its present form in the first
half of the nineteenth century, and it first centred round “cultural”
interests as in other Slav countries. The love of the people for their
own language had to be established and even rekindled to a pitch of
fiery enthusiasm, and national education had also to be fostered by the
foundation of Csech national schools. The State was by no means anxious
to enlighten the people, and the number of schools maintained in the
country was quite inadequate. The fiscal schools were all German and
served to spread the German propaganda. But the Csech educated classes
founded schools at their own expense, as well as the “Matica Školska”
(School Union), which undertook the organization of these schools.
This was an effective counter-stroke to Germanization as well as a
good foundation for further success. Palacky, Kollar and Havliček were
leaders of the National movement of the time.

Palacky was the source from whom the others drew their inspiration. He
was a great thinker, a brilliant author, and a cautious, liberal-minded
politician who may be considered the founder of modern Csech national
life. And through him radiated the light that pointed the way which
these people must take. Kollar, the poet and publicist, and Havliček,
as politician and political economist, shared the Csech leadership
with Palacky, and paved the way for a great national intellectual
movement which kept pace with the national political movement. They
founded a strong nationalist party in Bohemia (The Old Csechs) in
opposition to the Viennese Government. With their majority in the
Landtag, and their appearance in the Viennese Parliament, the Csech
people became a factor with whom the Government had to reckon for good
or for evil—a people who refused to be ousted. Bohemia, which official
Austria loves to consider a German country, had to be divided into
“spheres.” The State had to pay for the upkeep of Csech schools and the
administration became bi-lingual! Of course, in accordance with the
usual Government policy, many Csech localities were included in German
spheres and promptly became bones of contention. The “Matica Školska”
founded more schools in these spheres to prevent the Germanization
of Csech children, whilst the German schools pursued their system of
an unofficial propaganda with the tacit support of the Government.
This state of affairs led to constant disturbances, which frequently
degenerated into riot and bloodshed. With the rise of the “Young
Csechs” the struggle assumed a more drastic and determined character,
for this party aimed at nothing less than a purely Csech government
for Bohemia, and a proportionate share in the management of Imperial
affairs. They repeatedly succeeded in wrecking the Austrian Government,
and under Prince Hohenlohe they were so strongly represented in the
Cabinet that they succeeded in making their power felt. The “Young
Csechs” have greatly helped the national cause in Bohemia, and also
furthered the Slav cause by their enthusiastic championship of the
All-Slav Ideal.

One of their leaders, Dr. Kramarz, who was very friendly with Russia,
has been specially active in this cause. Though the “Young Csechs” are
still the leading party, recent years have seen the rise of parties
even more radical in their demands. The Social-Nationals and the Csech
Radicals desire to see Bohemia an absolutely autonomous State, whereas
the followers of Professor Masaryk aim at the regeneration of the Csech
race on a different basis (see opening of this article).

Events have moved rapidly in Bohemia since the last Balkan war, which
made a profound impression on all the Austrian Slavs. Owing to the
uncompromising attitude taken up by the various parties, the Government
dissolved the Bohemian Landtag, suspended the constitution and placed
the administration in the hands of a Commission appointed by the
Government and responsible to none. The Csechs retorted by a violent
obstruction in the Viennese Parliament and so paralyzed the House, that
it had to be prorogued indefinitely. The Csechs demanded the immediate
convocation of the Landtag. “No Landtag, no Austrian Parliament,” was
their watchword, and they stood firm. When the crisis with Serbia and
the outbreak of the war occurred, the Parliament was unable to adopt
any attitude towards these events, and the only _constitutional body_
in the Monarchy able to deal with them was the Hungarian Parliament.




  _PART II._

  YOUGOSLAVIA.

  (THE SOUTHERN SLAVS.)




CHAPTER V.

BULGARIA.

  Country and People—The building up of the Bulgarian
    State—Relations with Russia—German Influence—Alexander of
    Battenberg—King Ferdinand—Bulgaria’s Immediate Duty.


Although it is asserted on historical grounds that the Bulgarians are
a mixed race, and merely “Slavicized” by the influence of neighbouring
Slav races, they certainly ought to be included in the great Slav
family. In many ways they have always held aloof from the Slav Ideal,
and emphatically preferred to stand alone, but, nevertheless, they
have done great service to the Slav cause in the past, and often
fought for it with true enthusiasm. In the early days of Christianity
the Bulgarians also did much for Slav culture through the Bogumili—(a
sect of reformers which will be dealt with in the Chapter on the
Southern Slavs)—who spread religious enlightenment, and through the
old Bulgarian tongue laid the foundation of the other Slav languages.
The Bulgarians, who were once masters of a great Empire, and enjoyed
worldwide importance under Simeon the Great, had to share the
age-long tragedy of all the Eastern Slavs, and it speaks volumes
for their national character that they emerged from Turkish bondage
as a strong, self-reliant people. Whoever knows the Bulgarians
well, cannot fail to respect them, even if they do not inspire great
affection. I believe as a race they are not affectionate—they prefer
to command respect. The gentle, dreamy, love-craving element in the
character of the other Slavs is quite absent in them, and even their
fire and enthusiasm is not a matter of sentiment, but a practical
necessity—almost a matter of mathematical calculation. Industrious
and thrifty as no other Slav nation, cold-blooded and calculating,
they have justly been called the “Slav Japanese.” Their type is very
interesting and differs considerably from that of the other Slavs.
Almost without exception the men are handsome and strongly built,
whereas the appearance of the women is spoilt by their wide cheek-bones
and thick-set build. Like most of the Slav peoples they are mainly
farmers and cattle-breeders, and as the country is fertile, they make
quite a good income out of their exports of grain, field-produce and
cattle.

Although Bulgarian intellectual life springs from the people, and
the Bulgarians are essentially a democratic nation, it is necessary
to distinguish between the educated classes and the common people.
The Bulgarian peasant is an exceedingly good fellow; physically very
active, mentally rather stolid, he pursues his calling in a calm
deliberate way, and is not easily ruffled. His food is most simple;
he takes practically no alcohol and, owing to his temperate mode of
life, lives to a very great age. The entire population numbers about
four millions and shows a greater percentage of centenarians than any
other nation. The Bulgarians are very fond of music and dancing, but
they have no music or poetry of their own, and what they do possess
has been borrowed from the Turks or other Orientals. The traveller may
often come upon the genuine Nautch dance in a Bulgarian village, and
will hear songs sung to purely Turkish melodies. If the Bulgarians
have any advantage over the other Slavs, it is in the beauty of their
unadulterated Orthodox faith. The people are narrowly religious, and up
to now their religion represents the zenith of their culture. In this
respect they resemble the Russians and all the Slavs who have retained
the Slavo-Orthodox faith. It is superfluous to enlarge on the fighting
qualities of the Bulgarians—Kirkilisse, Lule Burgas, and Adrianople
have given ample proof of these.

The educated classes are distinct from the people in two ways: they are
free-thinkers and quarrelsome. Religion is cultivated among them as a
fashion, and the churches have become mere rendezvous, as in Paris,
Berlin and Vienna. But, in spite of all this, one must admit that the
educated classes of Bulgaria are excellent social organizers, though
politically and intellectually they are not particularly brilliant.
The amount achieved in social matters by these men in the short time
that has elapsed since the emancipation is marvellous. Bulgaria in
this respect has become a truly modern state. This bright side is,
however, eclipsed by the countless blunders they have committed in
other respects. The worst of these is their headstrong blindness in
the political administration. Bulgarian politics have degenerated
into a devastating party-system, and are largely responsible for the
tragical happenings of recent years, in which the whole country, and
more especially the innocent mass of the people have been involved.
The chief characteristic of the educated Bulgarian is his distrust of
everyone; he does not confine this distrust to strangers, but extends
it even to his King and his own party leader.

Hitherto intellectual Bulgaria has created but little, and that little
is quite out of proportion to the achievements of some other much
smaller Slav nations. Bulgarian art and literature are merely poor
reproductions of foreign originals and by no means express the strength
and vitality of the people. Of all their poets Ivan Vasoff, Hristoff,
and Aleko Konstantinoff alone have understood anything of the soul
of the people, and only their work will live. In art we seek in vain
for anything purely Bulgarian. But there is one thing of the greatest
value that the educated Bulgarians have done for their nation, and
for this they deserve a true crown of laurels. I am referring to the
organization of the Macedonian bands during the last half-century.
Their perseverance and heroism call for the greatest admiration.

The country owned by the Bulgarians is one of the most beautiful
inhabited by Slavs. Only Dalmatia and Bosnia can compare with it, and
whoever has once been there will never forget it. It is the land of the
great Balkans in all their wild beauty—the land of the Kazanlik Valley
with its vast glorious rose-fields; the Vratza Gorge with its romantic
cliffs, dark primeval forests, and hills covered with lilac; the Black
Sea, and the beautiful shores of Varna and Burgas, and above all tower
the snow-capped summits of the Vitosha. Everywhere, and in everything,
dwells a throbbing life, full of variety and contrast, beautiful as the
men of Bulgaria and rugged as their women.

       *       *       *       *       *

Bulgaria was freed from the Turkish yoke in 1878. The work of
emancipation was carried out by Russia with the help of Bulgarian
bands and many volunteers from all the Slav countries. By the peace
of San Stefano Bulgaria was _de jure_ declared mistress of the entire
territories from the Black Sea to Silistria, and along the Danube as
far as Vidin in the north, from Vidin along the Morava _via_ Ochrida
as far as Yanina in the west, from Yanina _via_ Salonika to Kavala in
the south, and in a straight line from Kavala to Varna in the east.
_De facto_ she was only given independent jurisdiction over such
territories as she possessed up to the first Balkan war. The complete
liberation of Bulgaria was by no means achieved by the emancipation,
and she continued to remain under Turkish suzerainty.

The first task after the emancipation was to reconstruct the country on
the lines of a modern European state, and to infuse new life into it
after so many centuries of Turkish misrule. Education was represented
solely by the priests and the schoolmasters, who had laboured for the
enlightenment of the people even before the emancipation. Of course,
there were a few Bulgarians who possessed a European education, and had
graduated at European universities, and upon these devolved the task of
solving the problems of the newly-created state. There were however so
few of them that, at the beginning, many men of culture were imported
from other Slav countries, chiefly from Russia, Croatia and Bohemia.
The military administration was entrusted to Russia, who established
garrisons of her own in Bulgaria and undertook to create the Bulgarian
army. Considering the transitionary stage of the country at the time,
it was inevitable that the Russian military authorities should obtain
considerable influence over the civil administration also, and that
Bulgarian affairs fell under Russian influence from the very beginning.

Prince Alexander of Battenberg, the first Bulgarian ruler, came to
the throne under similar conditions as King Carol to the throne of
Roumania. He was confronted with a super-human task, and Bulgarian
history can never deny the great service he rendered the country. He
came with a definite mission and set to work with the greatest possible
zeal. He devoted his attention chiefly to the education of the people
and to the army, and he found his most energetic ally in the people
themselves. The prompt efficiency of the school system would have done
credit to many a more modern state. The Bulgarians are intelligent,
persevering, and fond of learning, and popular education made immense
strides. At the present day the percentage of adult Bulgarians who
cannot read and write is exceedingly small compared to most other
countries—it is 2-1/2 per cent. of the adult population. The national
system of compulsory education affected the very poorest peasants
as well as the better classes. Before the foundation of secondary
schools in the country large numbers of young men were sent to foreign
secondary schools and universities, and every year yielded its quota
of well-equipped youths capable of providing the motive power for the
machinery of the State. Similar purposeful energy characterized the
military organization, with the intention of forming an independent,
purely Bulgarian army. For, in spite of his great admiration for Russia
and the Tsar Liberator, Prince Alexander felt that dependence upon
Russia—more especially a military dependence—would render his country a
vassal _de facto_ of Russia, no less than it was _de jure_ already the
vassal of Turkey. He therefore strove to render the Russian military
administration superfluous in Bulgaria by building up an efficient home
army.

As soon as this was accomplished he sent a letter of thanks to the
Tsar, made a public manifesto, gave a big dinner to the Russian
generals, and gratefully dismissed the Russian co-operation. Then
the Russian generals had to leave Bulgaria. No one can deny that
Prince Alexander showed himself manly and self-reliant in taking this
decision, which was prompted by a very proper ambition. But he gave
mortal offence in Russia, and from that moment he fell completely
from Russian favour. The Court circles in St. Petersburg, which had
been hostile to him from the beginning, now began to intrigue against
him in Bulgaria, their efforts finding a ready response in the
pro-Russian party. The first Serbian War in 1885 afforded splendid
proof of Alexander’s military organization, but his influence was too
far undermined, and even his victories failed to save him. The tide
of adverse circumstances was too strong and led to the inevitable
but, fortunately, bloodless _coup d’état_ in 1886. Prince Alexander
was taken from his palace by night, transported over the frontier and
formally deposed.

Prince Alexander left Bulgaria a well-organized State, only disturbed
by internal party hatreds. The new ruler, Prince Ferdinand of Coburg,
was received with divided sympathies. Already in many ways his path had
been smoothed for him, but he met with far more opposition from his own
people than his predecessor, whom Russia had installed. In spite of all
this, the machinery of State continued in the path of progress, the
constitution of the country was established on a broad liberal basis,
and the army increased in importance from year to year. With iron
perseverance Bulgaria steadily advanced to take her place among modern
states, and even succeeded in taking the lead in the Balkan question.
The proclamation of Ferdinand as King of Bulgaria put an end once and
for all to the shadow of Turkish suzerainty, and since then Bulgaria
has been frankly acknowledged as a strong, free and independent State.

       *       *       *       *       *

In the course of years Bulgarian relations with Russia have passed
through many phases, especially during the reign of King Ferdinand.
As a rule the will of Russia was decisive, but her general influence
always depended on home politics and varied with the party in power.
Enthusiasm for Russia and antagonism against Russian influence were
alternately the order of the day. Only the people of Bulgaria remained
constant in their confidence and affection for Russia; they could
never forget whose hand had set them free, and even political changes
could not shake them. Certain political circles took the emancipation
from Russia as their party cry and hoped to make the country great
_outside_ the Russian protectorate. They desired to translate their
motto “Bulgaria for the Bulgarians” into an absolute fact. This party
was founded by the notorious Stambuloff, and whenever they came into
power they insisted on regarding not only Russia as the national enemy,
but also the Bulgarian _people_ who were in sympathy with Russia, and
they did their utmost to tyrannize the people out of this “disease.”
In fighting for this idea they coined the party catchword—“Greater
Bulgaria” in the hope of bribing the people by promises of Macedonia,
Serbia, Greece, and even Constantinople as future tit-bits. This
particular party knew very well that Russia would never allow the
Slav equilibrium in the Balkans to be upset, and, as it was not over
Slavonic in its sympathies, it waged a bitter opposition against
the Russian protectorate, under which all the Balkan Slav nations
stand to benefit equally. In opposition to Stambuloff’s party there
arose another, founded by Karaveloff, the greatest of Bulgarian
patriots, who fought with all the enthusiasm of which grateful hearts
are capable. Karaveloff saw clearly that Bulgaria would be too weak
to stand alone for a very long time to come, and that the Russian
protectorate was a strong guarantee against foreign hostile influence.
After Karaveloff’s death his ideas found enthusiastic partisans in
Czankoff, Radoslavoff and Daneff in spite of minor tactical party
differences. Stambuloff’s violent death—he was assassinated in
the open street—put an end to the _régime_ of his party for many
years, and brought the moderate pro-Russian parties into power. But
Bulgaria was deeply injured by his policy. He bequeathed a legacy of
discord and hatred at home and provoked Russia’s displeasure abroad.
The new pro-Russian Government did its utmost to heal the breach,
and succeeded in improving relations with Russia, but Stambuloff’s
partisans agitated in every possible way for the re-instatement of the
radical anti-Russian party. In Dushan Petkoff and Evlogij Genadieff
they had energetic leaders, who pursued their goal with all the
characteristic Bulgarian tenacity and a ruthless persistence that
was positively Asiatic. After Ferdinand had established a personal
_régime_ in Bulgaria, they realized that the turn of fortune’s wheel
no longer depended on the temper of the nation or the strength of a
party, but on the _will of the ruler_, and they were content to bide
their time. _Among the people they had no following whatsoever._ But
whichever party is in power by the will of the ruler is assured of
a majority in the Parliament. Elections are invariably manipulated
by terroristic pressure from the authorities. There is no difference
except that, whereas the pro-Russian parties are content to employ
demagogic means, the Stambulovists have had recourse to bloodshed.
At last the Stambulovists were successful; they came into power in
1902—(in accordance with the wish of the highest power in the land)—and
established a reign of terror equal to that of Stambuloff himself in
its cruelty, but breaking all previous records as regards corruption.
The Stambulovists commanded a crushing majority in the Sobranye
(Parliament) and pursued a policy of secret provocations against Russia
and the nation. General Ratsho Petroff, a personal favourite of King
Ferdinand and an absolute nonentity, was the Premier; but the actual
dictator and leader of the Stambulovist party was Dushan Petkoff,
Minister of the Interior. Once more the policy of the Government took
an anti-Russian trend, but in the meantime the nation had developed and
steadfastly pursued a different policy. To be sure, under compulsion
they had given the Government a _majority_ but not their heart, and
this heart now belonged to Russia more than ever. This sentiment found
expression in various violent demonstrations; it culminated in the
assassination of Petkoff (likewise in the open street) and in the abuse
showered upon King Ferdinand as he drove to the opening of the National
Theatre at Sofia. From that point Bulgarian policy took a totally new
turn, and for a time it seemed as if the Slav renaissance had really
taken root and Bulgaria had at last found herself. The Balkan Alliance
before the war certainly seemed strong evidence of it.

       *       *       *       *       *

Bulgaria’s relations with Serbia have varied quite as much as those
with Russia, but with the difference that in these ups and downs the
nation has always been undivided. Bulgarian distrust of Serbia dates
from the beginning of the political independence of the former. Instead
of trying to settle their differences in a brotherly spirit, and to
eliminate the Macedonian bone of contention by fixing the spheres of
interests, both parties—especially Bulgaria—worked themselves up into
a fever of enmity which could only be mutually detrimental. Actual
frontier collisions added fuel to the fire, and the situation grew
steadily worse. It is safe to say that there was never any love lost
between the Serbs and the Bulgarians, even if political opportunism
at times dictated a more friendly attitude. Many discerning Bulgarian
politicians have often tried to promote a more cordial and neighbourly
understanding between the two states for the sake of the Slav cause
and the common good, and their Serbian colleagues loyally supported
them in this. But their work was always undone by the distrustful
attitude of Bulgaria, which was even increased by foreign influence.
In 1885 the nation entered into the war with Serbia with unanimous
enthusiasm and a bloodthirsty spite almost inconceivable between
brother nations. The war was fierce, and fate favoured Bulgaria;
but, instead of being content with their success, and exhibiting a
victor’s finest quality—humanity, the Bulgarians only grew increasingly
bitter in their hatred towards Serbia, and showed it in offensive
taunts. After their defeat the Serbs obviously could not feel very
friendly towards their neighbours, but I do not believe they hated
them in their souls. But from one cause or another it was impossible
to find the way to friendship. The Bulgarians declared that their
differences with Serbia were by no means settled in this war, and that
the Macedonian question would have to be decided beyond dispute. Thus
the war was continued, unfortunately not only with the pen, but also
with arms, for the Serbian and Bulgarian bands in Macedonia waged war
upon each other more fiercely than upon the Turks. Matters went from
bad to worse for both nations, and especially for the Slav cause in
the Balkans. Russia exerted all her influence to reconcile the two,
but with no result beyond promises of amendment. Several influential
Slav personages were equally unsuccessful until the youth of the
Southern Slavs entered the lists with a new plan of campaign, and
attacked the problem from _the standpoint of Southern Slav Culture_.
The authors and artists of Croatia and Slavonia, who had long stood in
friendly relations with Serbia, made it their business to include the
Bulgarians in the cause of Southern Slav Culture. As the intellectual
youth of Bulgaria was at that time passing through a phase of national
regeneration and desired to widen their horizon, these efforts fell
on fruitful soil. Soon afterwards joint exhibitions of Southern Slav
artists were arranged in Belgrade, Sofia, and Zagreb, and in each case
an Authors’ Congress was held simultaneously. By these meetings and
mutual intercourse many sharp corners were smoothed away, and many
points of difference were abolished, chiefly by the help of the Croats.
Serbs and Bulgarians meeting eye to eye at last realized that they were
brothers, sharing a common future. The Exhibition in Belgrade coincided
with the coronation of King Peter, and we witnessed the unexpected
spectacle of Bulgarians acclaiming the King with as much enthusiasm as
the Serbs. Those were the days of brotherhood and fellowship. The
representatives of Bulgarian art and literature took their mission
seriously and sincerely, proving true apostles of peace and friendship
between the two peoples. They reaped considerable success, for the
tide of mutual enmity subsided, and when King Peter came to Sofia on
an official visit he met with a reception that expressed not merely
the pomp and circumstance of a Court but the heartfelt cordiality of a
friendly people. It must not be forgotten that in this _rapprochement_
good service was rendered by those politicians of both countries who
persistently did their best to improve mutual relations. Chief among
these is the Serbian statesman, Nikola Pašić. He cultivated this mutual
friendship so successfully that it culminated in the Balkan Alliance,
which would have proved a lasting blessing to the whole of the Balkans
if it had not been broken by the attack of Bregalnica. Yet the collapse
of the Alliance was not due to Bulgaria, but to other extraneous
influences.

       *       *       *       *       *

I have briefly touched upon Bulgarian relations with Russia and Serbia
in order to give a brief sketch of the only too frequent mistakes
made by Bulgaria’s official Government. The Bulgarians possess many
excellent qualities, and, as a nation, have a distinct claim on our
respect; but they have one drawback: they are not independent in
politics, and their policy is not the outcome of the requirements of
the times,—as a rule it is not even suited to them, but is merely
the mouthpiece of foreign influences. Whenever these influences were
Russian they at least did not clash with the interests of the people
or do any particular harm. But, unfortunately, Bulgarian policy has
to a great extent followed in Germany’s footsteps, and for a long
time German influence—especially in recent years—has made alarming
progress in Bulgaria. The first to fall a victim to this influence
were Stambuloff and his followers who had made so free with the motto
“Bulgaria for the Bulgarians.” And, in proportion to the vehemence
with which they pursued their corrupt policy, they imported the German
element into Bulgaria. Intellectually it would be quite impossible to
Germanize the Bulgarians, but, as regards their political economy and
foreign policy they fell more and more under German ascendancy. The
Eastern expansive policy of Germany and Austria-Hungary, finding the
doors fast closed in Serbia, was content for the moment to ignore an
obdurate opponent, and insinuated itself into Bulgaria as being free
from the infection of “fantastic Slav ideals.” In King Ferdinand, as
a German prince, German propaganda found a distinct well-wisher. The
Bulgarian stock market was controlled by German trade, Austria-Hungary
and Germany founded branch banks and business houses in Bulgaria.
German and Austrian Ambassadors could always command the ear of
the Foreign Office. And Germany bestowed her favour or disfavour
in proportion to the pro-German or pro-Russian sympathies of the
Government. In face of this tide of Germanism all honest Bulgarian
politicians are confronted with a herculean task, if the country is to
be saved from becoming simply a vassal state to Germany. In the events
which preceded the second Balkan War their labours appeared to have
borne fruit, and Germany and Austria were suddenly confronted with a
fact they had never even contemplated—an alliance between Bulgarians
and the detested Serbs, and even a military convention between these
two _against_ Austria. But their amazement was only a thing of the
moment—German influence redoubled its efforts, and the second Balkan
War was due to its machinations.

       *       *       *       *       *

Bulgaria’s defeat in the second Balkan War has filled the nation with a
burning, unquenchable hatred against Serbia. The realization of their
Macedonian ambition, which had been almost within their grasp, had
vanished in a bitter disappointment and plunged the heroic victors of
Kirkilisse into an agony of sullen despair. When the first stupefying
shock was over, the thought of revenge came uppermost, and everyone
foresaw that at the next opportunity the brother nations would again
fly at each other’s throats.

It would be unreasonable to deny the Bulgarian claim to part of
Macedonia. If a great national problem is to be permanently and
satisfactorily solved, the principal of nationality cannot be
ignored. But Bulgaria exceeded the principles of nationality in her
demands and aimed at a position of _supremacy_ in the Balkans. By her
acquisition of Thrace it became necessary to revise the stipulations
of the Alliance Treaty, and, if the Allies could have arrived at
any conclusion, or accepted the arbitration of the Tsar, to-day the
position of the Balkans in the present crisis would be more favourable.

The Bulgarian nation cannot be held responsible for the crime of
Bregalnica. It merely played a passive part. The official perpetrator,
supposed to have remained undiscovered to this day, was guided not
by the will of the nation, but by orders from Vienna and Berlin, who
desired to be revenged for the affront they had suffered through the
Balkan Alliance. Nothing short of a despicably devastating blow aimed
at all the Balkan States would suffice, and unfortunately they found
a ready tool in the wild ambitions of certain Bulgarian circles. Of
course, the blow was aimed at the detested Serbians, but with the
relentlessness of fate it fell upon those who had hoped to profit by
the Austro-German intrigue. Though Bulgaria alone suffered material
loss through the war, the whole of the Balkan States have suffered
morally. For their deadly enemy achieved his main object—the breaking
up of the Balkan union. Such was the lamentable state of affairs in the
Balkans when the present European crisis came to a head. The Austrian
declaration of war upon Serbia caused a positively insane joy in
Bulgaria. It was balm to the Bulgarian wounds that the great monarchy
should devour their small neighbor—_their brother nation_—and not one
of the heroes who had helped in the conquest of Adrianople be left
alive! All this time they overlooked the fact that, when Serbia had
been disposed of, their own country would have been the next dish in
the menu! It was a sordid triumph, neither manly, nor _Slav_.

In their satisfaction they even forgot Russia. No one dreamt that
Russia would raise her mighty hand and cry Halt! to the Austrian
devourer. But when the inevitable occurred, Bulgaria suddenly found
herself face to face with a problem. Russia’s word—“Serbia’s enemies
are my enemies”—staggered the honest Bulgarian people, who are attached
to Russia, and they began to ask themselves very seriously, “What
next?” The first upshot of this was the perceptible cooling of the
anti-Slav agitation; then the nation began to reflect. The _people_
and the patriotic Slavophile circles sent their best wishes, and
their finest General—Ratko Dimitrieff—to fight for Russia, and the
official Government proclaimed a strict neutrality. Both these facts
bode well for the future. But the anti-Slav agitation has by no means
lost all its power, and the Stambulovist circles, in conjunction with
Austro-German emissaries, have not ceased to stir up the people and
the masses against Serbia and against Russia. Which will prevail? It
is difficult to make any forecast, especially if one remembers the
personal _régime_ of King Ferdinand, who, in spite of the constitution
of the country, reigns supreme. At the same time it would be wrong
to lose hope and we must trust that in the decisive hour the _Slav_
instinct will dominate all other instincts, and thus not only assist
the Slav cause, but also prove of the greatest service to civilized
Europe, and above all things to Bulgaria herself.

  Among Bulgarian authors we must also mention Pencho
  Slavejkoff (a native of Macedonia), some of whose work
  has been rendered into English.




CHAPTER VI.

SERBIA.

  I. Serbian Self-reliance—Characteristics of the Serb
       People—The Power of the Folk-song—Race Consciousness.

  II. History of the Southern Slavs.

  III. The Birth of a Nation—Prince Miloš—“The Great
         Sower”—Alexander Karagjorgjević—Michael Obrenović—King
         Milan—Fall of the Obrenović Dynasty—King Peter—The
         Restoration of Serbia’s Prestige.

  IV. Serbia and Austria—A Campaign of Calumny—Annexation
        of Bosnia-Hercegovina—The Balkan Wars—Serbia
        rehabilitated—The Tragedy of Serajevo.


I.

The free and independent kingdom of Serbia is undoubtedly the most
important of the Southern Slav States, although she has only three and
a half million inhabitants, and is shut in on all sides by her six
neighbours—Austria-Hungary, Roumania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania and
Montenegro. In 1817 she was freed from the Turkish yoke, and in less
than 100 years she has developed into a sturdy, self-reliant state,
efficient in an intellectual, economic and military sense in spite of
constant upheavals at home and abroad. For all she is and has achieved
Serbia is indebted only to herself, to the capabilities, valour
and perseverance of her own children. Russia was her only foreign
protector. The Serb is a straight-dealing, industrious man, and, like
all the Southern Slavs, essentially poetic. Judged by the standard
of modern _school_ education the average Serbian peasant is perhaps
not so very far advanced, and usually limits his accomplishments to
reading and writing; but he is keenly observant, and his natural
gifts and mother-wit are so great as to warrant a very different
forecast for his future than exponents of German “Kultur” have so
far predicted. Like the Russian and the Croat, the Serb is above all
things a farmer, who loves his bit of black earth, and cultivates it
with care; and from this love of the soil spring his pleasures, his
shrewd philosophy, his large charity towards man and beast, and, above
all, his love of truth and justice. Shall not all the world be just,
even as the earth is just when she bestows or withholds her gifts?
From time immemorial the Serb has had a great feeling for family ties
and the bond of the community. The love he bears his own homestead
he extends to that of his neighbour, and then in a wider sense to
his whole country. Where his love of country is concerned, political
and economic considerations take a second place. The Serb loves his
country as a bridegroom his bride—passionately, often unreasonably,
but never with calculation. He desires his beloved land for himself—to
keep it untouched by strangers. In spite of considerable business
capacity he is not aggressive, and does not covet his neighbour’s
possessions. But, should his neighbour dare to move his fence even one
inch over the boundary, or purposely let his cattle stray into his
meadow, then the Serb becomes fierce, wrathful and unforgiving. The
Serbian farmer has no need to study history in order to learn where
his neighbours have removed his landmarks. His history lives in his
songs and ballads, and goes back a thousand years. These poems tell
him everything. Every one of his beautiful folk-songs is a piece of
history, a bit of the past; and they sink deeper into his heart than
any historical education. The _dates_ of his power, past splendour and
decline are meaningless to him; but the sad, deeply-moving legends in
his folk-songs, telling of his triumphs and his tragedies, plaintively
thrilling with love of country, and his tempestuous ballads of heroism
and revenge—_these_ have fostered his sense of patriotism, his yearning
for his downtrodden brothers, and his thirst for retribution. These
folk-songs have been handed down from one generation to another, and
to this day they have been preserved in all their pristine purity of
text and melody in the souls and memories of the Serbian people. It is
not necessary at a time of foreign menace to appeal to the Serb people
with elaborately-worded proclamations and inflammatory speeches. The
refrains of their songs suffice, and they take up arms as one man. But
the cause must be in harmony with the traditions of the past. They
fight like lions when they go to battle with their ancient songs upon
their lips. Thus did they war with the Turks—thus they are warring now
against Austria.

To the Serb the love of his language is second only to his love of
country. The most beautiful and melodious of all the Slav tongues,[8]
rich in idiom and soft in modulation, it is specially fitted to be the
medium of folk-poesy. This language, which is identical with that of
the Croats (thence the name Serbo-Croat tongue), has been the sacred
and abiding link between the Serbs and their still enslaved brothers in
Turkey and in Austria. The Serbian peasant is in the habit of calling
every one who speaks to him in a foreign language a “Schwabo”;[9] but
should the stranger address him in Serbian, or, indeed, in any of
the Slav tongues, he will say: “Pa ti si naš” (Thou art one of us).
Undoubtedly, apart from their national music, this bond of union has
been one of the strongest factors in the preparation of the future, for
through it the Serb can freely communicate with his brothers beyond
the frontier. Those dear familiar sounds tell him that his brothers
still live and share his speech, his songs and his yearnings. This
explains the unanimous enthusiasm of the _whole_ nation in the Balkan
War, as well as in the present second war of liberation. They are not
the soldiers of the king who have gone to war, but the soldiers of an
_ideal_. The miracles of valour these men have performed are not the
exploits of a war-machine, but of a great heart, in which hundreds of
thousands of hearts beat as one.

Many people, and especially Germans, have said that the Serbs are
dirty, lazy and dull. As regards the last of these accusations I
am ready to admit that such Germans as have come in contact with
the people may be excused for this impression. The Serbian peasant
regards the “Schwabo” with extreme distrust. His natural shrewdness
teaches him the wisdom of appearing as dull as possible before the
unscrupulous exploiter he knows so well. It would be no advantage
to him to inspire confidence in that quarter, and, as a matter of
fact, the Serbian peasant has often got the better of the apostles
of “Kultur” by this little deception. English and French travellers,
who have had dealings with the Serbs, have spoken of them in most
flattering terms. As regards the other two indictments, they are only
absurd. The Serbian peasant works very hard indeed. If we consider the
results of his labours, which can be gauged by the considerable export
of farm-produce and cattle, and remember that in so poor a country as
Serbia the farmer has not all the latest agricultural improvements at
his disposal, it becomes obvious that he has achieved marvels by the
industry of his bare hands. The dirt commented upon by his critics is
nothing more than the honest dirt of the soil on his hands and clothes;
but if the immaculate “Michels” had taken the trouble to glance round
his house they could not have failed to notice that in cleanliness and
neatness most Serbian farm-houses compare very well with the average
farm-house of Western Europe. A guest of gentle birth receiving
hospitality in a Serbian farm-house will certainly find nothing to
complain of in the way in which he is fed and accommodated, and his
wants considered. Of course there are cases of dirt and idleness in
Serbia, but then where shall we find a country quite free from these...?

A prominent characteristic of the Serb is his race-consciousness.
Russians, Poles, Csechs, and Bulgars are Russians, etc., _first_ and
only Slavs in a general sense. But the Serbs and Croats are as much
Slavs as they are Serbs and Croats. Possibly this has not always been
so. Perhaps, from being more oppressed and beset by foes than any of
the other Slavs, these nations have come to look upon their sense of
race as a sheet-anchor to which they clung, at first with hope, and
then with heart-felt love. To a Russian, Slavdom is the symbol of his
protectorate, but to a Serbo-Croat it is the breath of life.

       *       *       *       *       *


II.

[10] In prehistoric times, the south-eastern tracts of the Balkan
Peninsula were inhabited by Armenians, who were eventually compelled
to retreat to Asia Minor, about 700 B.C. The next inhabitants were the
Phrygians, who possessed a well-developed civilization, and penetrated
very far westward; but with the invasion of the Thracians from the
north, the Phrygians were likewise forced to migrate to Asia Minor and
only a few scattered groups were left between the Danube and the Balkan
Mountains, where they remained until the Roman invasion. Unlike the
above-mentioned Semitic races, the Pelasgians and Lepese, who formed
the aboriginal population of Greece, were of pure Indo-European stock.
They were eventually conquered by the Hellenes, and the illustrious
Greek nation sprang from the intermingling of these three tribes.

The dawn of history shows the great Peninsula of Eastern Europe divided
between three tribes. The Greeks dwelt south of Heliakmon and Olympus,
the Thracians west of the Tekton valley in the eastern portion of
the Peninsula, and the Illyrians west of the Pindus. Their territory
extended north as far as the site of modern Vienna, and south to the
Gulf of Corinth. Of these three peoples the Greeks alone attained to a
high degree of civilization and culture. They founded several colonies
on the narrow coast-line of Macedonia, but the greater part of the
Peninsula to the west of the Vardar remained Illyrian, and, to the
east of the Vardar, Thracian. Only the wealthier classes and the royal
family from which Alexander the Great traced his descent migrated into
these countries from Grecian Thessaly in search of conquest.

The Roman invasion was followed by considerable colonial development.
Under the sound administrative policy of the Romans a certain level
of civilization penetrated to the greater part of the Peninsula, and
a Latinized dialect became the general language. The Thracians very
speedily became Romanized, as did most of the Illyrians; the Hellenes
alone retained their national distinction. The Illyrians eventually
disappeared from Macedonia; but their kindred tribe, the Albanians
(Skipetars, Arnauts) remain there to this day, although they show a
strong admixture of ancient Roman and Slav blood. The _Roumanians_ are
the product of a lingual and racial mixture of Thracian, Roman and Slav
elements.

The Great Migration broke up the Roman Empire (476 A.D.) and Europe
was re-distributed—the resulting racial boundaries having for the most
part persisted to this day. The Germanic tribes set their mark on the
North and West, and the Slavs on the East of Europe. In 525 A.D. the
Slavs under the name of “Εκλανεοι” are mentioned as dwelling on the
lower Danube. From that time, and for a century, they waged fierce
warfare against the Eastern Empire, until the latter became exhausted,
and the Balkan Peninsula was left open to the invaders from the north.

In the first half of the seventh century, during the reigns of the
Emperors Phokas (602-610) and Heraklies (610-642) the Slav hordes
over-ran the countries of the upper and lower Danube like a flood from
Venice to Constantinople, sweeping southward as far as Cape Matapan.
The aboriginal inhabitants fled before them and took refuge in mountain
fastnesses, islands, and walled towns. Christianity eventually tamed
these wild hordes, and peaceful intercourse was once more established.
Constantinople, Adrianople, Seres, Salonika, Larissa and Patras
were the centres whence the light of Christendom and Greek culture
penetrated to the Slavs.

Who and what manner of people were the Slavs? The Roman historian
Jordanis (551 A.D.) already distinguishes the “Sloveni,” as he calls
them, from the rest of the Slavs, whom he calls “Veniti.” He speaks of
an innumerable Slav people (“Venetharum natio populosa”) divided into
many tribes, of which the chief were the “_Russi_,” (“_Anti_”) between
the Dniestr and Dniepr, and the “_Sloveni_” on the lower Danube. It is
true that a number of different tribes were included under this name,
just as to-day it is used to designate the whole Slav race (“Slavyane”
in Russian, “Slovane” in Csech). Strictly speaking only the Southern
Slavs have a right to this name, and until well into the nineteenth
century they styled themselves “Sloveni” in addition to their local
appellations of Croat, Serb, Bulgar, etc. With the formation of local
states, the local names came more into use, but in literature and
folk-poesy the name “Sloveni” is invariably adopted. As a matter
of fact, the local names arose from the political and historical
distribution of the race.

The geographical position of the Balkan Peninsula, as well as the
two currents of civilization which flowed in upon the Southern Slavs
from either side, prevented the formation of a United Southern Slav
State. They split up into several lesser states, which soon lost their
freedom, and submitted to foreign rule. Carniola was the first to fall
a victim, for she passed under German rule as early as the eighth
century.

Towards the end of the seventh century the Finnish tribe of the
_Bulgars_ conquered the Slav tribes north and south of the Balkan range
and incidentally adopted the Slav language as their own. They merely
retained their original name, and their distinctive, coldly methodical
genius for organization—a racial characteristic which is totally absent
in the other Southern Slavs. In a short time the Bulgars also conquered
the Slav tribes in Macedonia, Epirus and Thessaly, and subjugated the
whole country as far as the Morava. In the ninth century the Bulgarian
Empire reached from the Carpathians in Hungary to the Pannonian Valley,
and, as a matter of fact, Budapest, the capital of Hungary, was founded
by the Bulgars. The Bulgarian Tsar Boris was baptized by the apostles
Cyril and Method, who also introduced the Slav liturgy in Bulgaria. The
Slav dialect spoken between Constantinople and Salonika was adopted
as the literary language, and the _Glagolitza_ (Glagolithic alphabet)
and eventually the _Cyrillitza_ (Cyrillic alphabet) were introduced.
This fact is of world-wide importance, for on this foundation rests
the whole subsequent intellectual development of Russia and the Balkan
Peninsula—in fact, of Eastern Europe. Under Simeon the Great (893-927)
Slav literature reached its zenith—its golden age. The Moravian monks,
who were driven out by Svatopluk, found a hospitable welcome in the
monasteries around the Lake of Ochrida, and developed great literary
activity. The Southern Slav monasteries sent monks and books to Russia,
and thus they became the first instructors of their mighty brothers
in the North. Still later, the Macedonian Empire was founded and the
Emperor Samoilo resided in Ochrida. He, however, was soon overthrown
by the Byzantine Emperor Basil II. in the Battle of Belassitza (1018).
But the Bulgarian Empire recovered again under Tsar Ivan Asen II.
(1218-1271) and had reached the zenith of its power when it was
shattered for centuries by the invading Turks (1391).

The central Southern Slav (Serbian) countries—Illyria, Moesia, and
Dalmatia—for a long time remained broken up into separate counties.
Not before the twelfth century did Rasa become the centre of a Serbian
state, founded by Stefan Nemanya (1165), to whom the Serbs owe the
famous Nemanya dynasty. After their victory over the Byzantines
at Kossovo the Serbs penetrated further and further south towards
Macedonia. Under Dušan Silni (1331-1355) Serbian power reached its
meridian. He organized the nation into a state and gave the people
good laws. In his time Serbia reached from the Save and the Danube to
the Gulf of Corinth, and from the Adriatic to Mesta on the frontiers
of Thrace and Macedonia. After the battle of Belbushde (1330) even
the Bulgars had to acknowledge the supremacy of Serbia. The Serbian
Metropolitan of Petcha was made Patriarch, the National Serb Church
was founded, and, in the Macedonian town of Skoplye, Dušan Silni
proclaimed himself Tsar of the Serbs, Bulgars and Greeks. With an army
of 100,000 men he marched on Constantinople in order to establish his
throne there, and to be revenged upon the Greeks who had a few years
previously called the Ottoman Turks to Europe.[11] But he died on the
way,—it is said that he was poisoned by a Greek.

Architectural and literary monuments from the age of the Serbian rulers
in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries still clearly show traces of
the high degree of culture that had spread from Byzantium, Venice and
Florence. But these are merely sparks which the Serbian discriminative
genius and natural ability would doubtless have kindled into a bright
flame had not the advent of the Turks frustrated the great plans of
Dušan Silni. Constantinople would have remained in the hands of a
Christian people who love art and progress. No other nation was so
well fitted as the Serbs to infuse new life into the culture of the
ancients. The presence of this sane and strong young nation would have
saved the humanists their flight from Byzantium.

After the death of Dušan Silni the great Serbian Empire crumbled into
a large number of small states, whose rulers played a dangerous game,
and intrigued one against the other, whilst the Turks were conquering
Thrace. The Macedonian despots became vassals to the Turks, and only
a few countries like Zeta, Bosnia, and the empire of Prince Lazar (the
Serbia of to-day) maintained their independence. So long as these
countries were free, the Ottoman invasion of Europe was delayed,
because in the Kossovo polje (the field of Kossovo) Serbia held the key
of Europe. The Turks knew this and constantly prepared their attacks
accordingly. On Vidovdan (St. Vitus Day, 1387) 100,000 Serbs and
300,000 Turks met in battle on the Kossovo. The battle was fierce and
the losses on both sides were enormous. The Serbs lost their Prince
Lazar and all their nobility; the Turks the greater part of their army
and their Sultan Murat I. In Europe the report spread that the Serbs
had been victorious; in Florence and Paris all the bells were rung for
joy, and a service of thanksgiving was held in Notre Dame, which was
attended by Charles VI. with all his Court.

Murat’s successor, Bayazit did not penetrate further; he permitted the
Serbs to retain their own laws, but they had to acknowledge him as
their suzerain. In 1459 Serbia was finally crushed and fell completely
under Turkish rule. Soon after (1463) the same fate befell Bosnia
and Hercegovina. Only the mountain fastnesses of Montenegro remained
unconquered.


III.

When Serbia began her life as an independent State, she was still
bleeding from the many wounds inflicted upon her through centuries of
slavery, and first of all these wounds had to be tended. The Serbian
nation, intellectually and economically bankrupt from long Turkish
misrule, was in the position of a merchant—an honest fellow, but robbed
to his last farthing, whose ruined shop is being restored to him, and
who is expected to work up the old business to its former prosperity
out of these ruins. Years had to elapse ere the people got accustomed
to the new order of things, and, out of the welter of beginnings,
found the way to sound civic development. In those days Serbia fell
a victim to every political infantile disease, but on the other hand
she was inspired with a poetic, truly Slav patriotism. Their golden
freedom, which they had so long yearned and fought for, and had now
at last won, affected the nation not as a political event but as a
great _family festival_, in which all the members were united in
love and joy. They _revelled_ in their new-found freedom; the sordid
considerations of the day were put off till the morrow, or left to the
care of a small body of “cold-blooded” men. Civic law and order, and
regularity in the administration—unheard of under Turkish rule—were
first looked upon as purely miraculous, and then tacitly accepted as
the inevitable consequences of freedom. The idea of a _free State_ is
only of theoretical value to the Serbs, the main thing for them is
that they should be a _free people_. As a free people they followed
their leaders—not as superiors, but as children obey their fathers.
With childlike simplicity they gathered round their rural magistrate
to hear his instructions, and in the same spirit they assembled under
the ancient plane-tree in the Topchider Park to hear Miloš, their first
Gospodar and Prince, dispense wise counsel and even-handed justice. But
in these council-meetings between ruler and people was sown the seed of
the true constitution of the State, and, like the empire of Dušan Silni
in days gone by, modern Serbia has grown up out of her own people. And
this is why Serbia is an _eminently nationalistic_ state, free and
independent of foreign influence. Perhaps in some ways this has been a
drawback, but it has also been a great source of strength to Serbia.
The intimate connection between the reigning house and the people
proved a bulwark against foreign attempts at denationalization, and
gave Serbia the necessary strength to keep herself free from Germany’s
corroding influence to this day.

In every way the patriarchal state of Prince Miloš proved the best
possible preparation for Serbia’s political future. She matured slowly,
like an apple in the sun, and fortunately was not compelled to ripen
unnaturally. Moreover, the inborn gifts of the Serbian people, which I
have already mentioned, proved a great help to this process. They began
to see that poetry has its limitations, that a free people must become
an organized state, and that political order, though it cannot be set
in verse, is the only guarantee of prosperity to the nation. Of course,
legal decisions and taxes were vexatious matters, but their good effect
on the community was recognized. The law expressed the will of the
people and was no longer resented as an imposition.

It was fortunate for the young State that _Dositij Obradović_, the
greatest educational genius of Serbia, had lived before this critical
time. He laid the foundations of a national educational system—that
most necessary discipline for a young nation—and was beyond doubt one
of the greatest men the Southern Slavs have produced in modern times.
In Serbia he is called “_the great sower_.” He truly sowed the seed of
enlightenment, not only in Serbia but wherever Serbs and Croats live.
Dositij Obradović has not educated individuals, but whole generations,
and through them the entire nation. And if the modern State is
synonymous with civilization, then Dositij Obradović was the true
founder of Serbia. He sowed the seed, all others have only been reapers.

Prince Miloš, who abdicated in 1839, was succeeded by his son Milan
Obrenović II. He died, however, within a month of his accession.
His successor and younger brother, Michael, was soon involved in
serious differences with the Senate, and had to quit the country in
1842. Serbia now elected Alexander Karagjorgjević, son of the Black
Kara-Gjorgje, who headed the insurrection against Turkey in 1804.
In spite of his great gifts as a statesman, he failed to maintain
himself on the throne on account of his leanings towards Austria. The
nation, who instinctively scented their ancient enemy, mistrusted him,
and matters finally came to a crisis in 1858. The Serbian Skuptchina
(Parliament) formally deposed Alexander and again elected an Obrenović
to the throne of Serbia. This was Miloš Obrenović, whose short reign
was not remarkable for any striking events. His son Michael succeeded
him in 1860.

_Michael Obrenović_ was a brilliant, broad-minded, noble-hearted man.
He found the national harvest already well grown, and courageously
continued the work of his early predecessors. He thoroughly understood
his people, with all their gifts and limitations, and, above all, he
realized that the moment had arrived for Serbia to become “westernized”
without sacrificing her national qualities. He “Europeanized” the State
and made it respected at home and abroad. The educational system made
great strides and was modernized in his reign. The finances of the
country were placed on a sound basis, agriculture was developed on
modern, rational lines, and industrial enterprise and foreign trade
made their first appearance. Under the strong guiding hand of their
prince, the organization of the _army_ kept pace with the economic
development of the nation. He initiated Serbian foreign policy[12] and
was the best and wisest diplomat of his country. His policy towards
Russia resulted in the Russian protectorate, which has proved so
powerful to this very day, but it also aroused the jealousy of Austria.
Above all things Michael Obrenović was a Serb, and his Slav policy was
not only carried on in the interests of the nation, but dictated by his
heart. He evolved the idea of a Serbia with a seaboard on the Ægean
as well as the Adriatic. He knew that the future of his country will
never be secure until all Serbs and Croats are united, and the ways
open which will permit of a corresponding economic prosperity. Serbia’s
demand for a seaboard is _not_ mere aggression, but the recognition
of a vital problem which will be disposed of as soon as her minimum
requirements are satisfied.

Under the next Obrenović, the jovial Prince Milan (subsequently King
Milan), Serbian policy occasionally deviated from the lines laid down
by Prince Michael. Unfortunately, the good services which _King_
Milan undoubtedly rendered his country are overshadowed by his many
serious mistakes. At first his genial personality and great popularity
seemed to fit him very well for the continuation and completion of
the work _Prince_ Milan had begun. But apparently his ambitions did
not lie that way, for his reign presents a long record of discord
at home and abroad. The party-spirit in civil and military affairs
assumed formidable dimensions, and the State repeatedly barely escaped
shipwreck. Milan was a spoilt man of the world. He preferred to live
abroad and often left the administration for long periods wholly in
the hands of the Cabinet of the moment, who, in the absence of the
ruler, often found it most difficult to maintain their authority in
the face of opposing factions. Abroad the king became acquainted with
eminent foreign nobles and statesmen, and, as in most cases these were
Austrians, he fell under the influence of the Monarchy. The tide of
German pressure towards the East began to filter through into Serbia,
and at times the official policy was frankly pro-Austrian. The King
was still popular, but the people gradually lost confidence in him,
and on several critical occasions he was fain to “save” himself by
brilliant addresses to the people.[13] But the Royal blunders became
increasingly frequent, and were further aggravated by intolerable
domestic dissensions which finally led to the divorce of Queen Natalie.
Fortunately Serbia possessed singularly able statesmen during the
reign of King Milan, and it is solely due to their efforts that the
country escaped public disaster. The present Serbian Premier, Nikola
Pašić, already played a prominent part in those days, and repeatedly
saved his King and country in times of imminent danger. But presently
matters became intolerable, and King Milan abdicated in favour of his
son Alexander, who was still under age. The reign of Alexander is the
darkest period in the history of modern Serbia. During his minority
the country was governed by a regency, and all went well; but when
Alexander assumed the sceptre himself, the state began to crumble in
its very foundations. Mentally deficient, and therefore dangerous in
all his actions, he inaugurated a rule of autocracy, tolerated no
opposition, and endowed every one of his mistakes with the distinction
of a “supreme command.” The rift between King and people grew wider
and more impassable, and finally became an abyss when he insisted
on raising his mistress Draga Maschin to the position of legal wife
and Queen of Serbia. But even this was not all. The new queen, with
all the blind conceit of a _parvenue_, introduced the worst type of
petticoat government at court and in politics, which showed itself in
graft, corruption, unblushing exhibitions of contempt for the people,
and insults to statesmen, scholars and especially to the officers of
the army. When the scandal about the supposititious birth of an heir
occurred, the wrath of the people turned to fury, and, in the night of
May 28th, 1903, the garrison of Belgrade carried out the sentence of
the nation upon the King and Queen.

       *       *       *       *       *

The accession of the Karagjorgjević dynasty, who were really entitled
to the crown, opens a new national and political era for Serbia.
An old man was called to the throne, but a _grand seigneur_ of the
best French school—a school which did not produce debauchees and
Boulevard-trotters, but soldiers and statesmen of the first order. King
Peter was a Western European in the best sense of the word. He was
not only of the blood of the black Karagjorgje, the scion of a house
of heroes, but an experienced soldier and statesman. During the long
years of his exile he was an officer in the French army, and in virtue
of his social position had every opportunity of garnering valuable
experience both in peace and in war. All this time he was emphatically
the “one who looked on” and watched the development of his country
from afar—her struggles and her trials. Although he never resigned his
pretendership to the Serbian throne he was often, surely very often,
convinced that he himself would never be called to ascend it. But
his heart and his love ruled with the Serbian people, and probably
he felt the misfortunes of his country more keenly than any other
Serbian. It is absurd to hold King Peter responsible for the murder
of his predecessor. Any one privileged to know him would indignantly
repudiate the thought. His accession to the throne was merely a
consequence and in no way a cause of the Obrenović tragedy. But Europe
was too horrified at the murder to discriminate at the time, and would
accept neither reasons nor explanations proving the necessity of
making a fresh start—and this quite apart from the circumstance of the
murder. Europe regarded the _deed_ and not the _causes_ of the deed;
and refused to search her own histories for similar deeds provoked
by similar causes. Thus King Peter was confronted with a two-fold
difficulty. On the one hand both he and his country had forfeited the
sympathies of Europe, and on the other he succeeded to the government
of a country demoralized by the previous reign, and torn by party
dissensions. It was a most difficult situation, so many conflicting
interests had to be reconciled! Truly a very weighty task for an
elderly and perhaps already world-weary man.

But King Peter did not come to Serbia as a pretender who has at last
gained the crown he has coveted; he came as the champion of the
Serb ideal of the past—whose last representative had been Michael
Obrenović,—the ideal of national expansion, of a Serbian future. He
recognized his difficulties but attacked them without flinching. For
the Serb nation—impulsive, tempestuous and sensitive—it was a blessing
to pass under the guidance of a calm, wisely deliberate king. He went
his way step by step, firmly, and without illusions. Amid the tumult
of acclamations that greeted him in Belgrade his was probably the only
heart heavy with care. He knew only too well that the violent _coup
d’état_ was not the solution but merely the beginning of the problem.
This consciousness and his patriotic ideal have been the ruling motives
of his reign from the very first. One of King Peter’s first tasks was
the rehabilitation of Serbia in the eyes of Europe. Unjustly enough the
entire responsibility for the loss of Serbia’s prestige was laid to his
charge, and it was uphill work to alter the opinion of Europe, but he
refrained from protestations and excuses. He realized that Serbia must
be regenerated in such a fashion as to win back the full confidence
of Europe. By the wisdom of his policy and with the help of able
statesmen—principally Nikola Pašić—he steered Serbia’s foreign policy
back into a healthy, normal channel, and within a few years the country
once more took her position as a well-ordered European State—apart
from the calumnies and enmity of Germany and Austria. In fact, this
successful reconstruction was proof in the eyes of Europe that the
dynastic change was a necessity for Serbia, and that in the solution of
the Balkan problem she might certainly be trusted to take her part of
the burden as a civilized State. She proved her mettle soon afterwards
in the first Balkan War, for in this war the ideal of the King—which
he shares with his people—scored its first great success, when the
hard-pressed nation displayed a high degree of valour, statesmanship
and true nobility.

In his ten years’ reign King Peter has gone far to restore to Serbia
her ancient glories. During his reign her politics have become more
settled at home and abroad. Agriculture, trade and industry have
improved and expanded. Literature and art have made miraculous strides,
so that Serbia may fairly consider herself the equal of the Western
nations; and the Serbian army has now demonstrated its excellent
organization and great military value in three successive wars.

King Peter, whose short reign became so stormy towards the end, may
look back on the results of his labours with the same calm assurance
with which he took up the sceptre. He has quickened the new soul of
Serbia, and although he retired shortly before the outbreak of the
present war, and entrusted the sceptre to his son, his spirit still
lives in his people and army and—please God—will lead them both to
victory. IV.

Serbian relations with Austria have been an important, and indeed the
decisive, factor in recent Serb history; and the events which are the
outcome of these relations will either bring about the territorial
consolidation of Serbia or her final ruin. Austria-Hungary was never
a well-wisher of Serbia, although she has often brazenly posed as her
benefactor. It has always been Austria’s aim to detach Serbia from
Russian influence, and to bring her under the soul-saving protectorate
of the Monarchy. The nearest road to Salonika lies through Serbia, and
at all costs this route had to be secured. If only Serbia could be made
dependent upon Austria-Hungary, it would be much better for the aims
of Germanistic expansive policy; it would also paralyse the Southern
Slavs in the Monarchy. Knowing that the Great Powers, especially
Russia, would never permit an effective occupation of Serbia, Austria
sought by intrigues in the spirit of Metternich to make her influence
predominant in Serbia, also economically to weaken her as a state,
by vexatious commercial treaties in the hope of rendering her more
amenable towards the Monarchy. Serbia bravely resisted all these
attempts and suffered considerable material loss; but she stood firm
in the knowledge that she is the first and strongest fortress in the
way of German pressure towards the East, and staunchly believed in the
ultimate success of her cause. The brave little country had a mission
to fulfil, not only in her own interest, but in that of the Slav race
and the whole of Europe. Vienna and Berlin knew that Serbia was a very
hard nut, but they felt confident of cracking it in the end. When open
aggression failed, they put a good face on the matter, and assured the
hard-pressed Serbs of their kind intentions. The occupation of Bosnia
and Hercegovina was the first tangible proof of these kind intentions,
for on that occasion Austria “delivered” two million Serbs and Croats
from Turkish bondage. Unfortunately Serbia did not in the least
appreciate this “benefit,” whereby a large number of her kindred were
handed over to the tender mercies of Austria, whose solicitous care of
her Southern Slav subjects was only too well known—in fact, instead of
being grateful, Serbia never ceased to point out her own national and
territorial claims upon Bosnia and Hercegovina. Naturally this insolent
attitude on the part of Serbia provoked the animosity, and presently
the official disfavour, of Austria. This disfavour was displayed on
every possible occasion although it always wore a sanctimonious garb.
Serbia was too weak and unprepared to retort aggressively upon this
animosity; her defence was limited to diplomatic measures and the moral
support of Russia. It was a marvellous achievement on the part of
her statesmen that in the face of strong popular feeling they so long
staved off an open rupture; and that they did not let the thirty-five
years of misgovernment in Bosnia and Hercegovina, or the oppression of
the Southern Slavs, drive them to a desperate decision. The influence
of European diplomacy was doubtless very helpful; still, the Serbian
people displayed admirable restraint under constant provocation.
Germany and Austria, who are able to corrupt the greater part of their
own Press, and even many foreign newspapers, and can command a whole
staff of political agitators, never relaxed their campaign of abuse and
calumny against Serbia, and everywhere represented her as an incapable,
barbarous, and dangerous State. In this they were only too successful.
Unfortunately the condition of Serbian home politics has often been
deplorable, and in addition to this the murder of the King and Queen in
1903 provided ample material for biassing public opinion in Europe. On
the whole Europe endorsed these calumnies and refused to listen to the
counter-protestations of Russia and other Slavs, because the testimony
of barbarians and troglodytes was obviously valueless. Serbia was
frequently reduced to desperate straits. She was really defending the
cause of civilization by stemming the tide of Germanism in the East—she
was _preparing_ a great world-work, and her reward was merely contempt
or a pitying smile. Without Russia’s moral support she must have been
swamped by Austria long ago.

With the annexation of Bosnia and Hercegovina in 1909 and the
disgraceful circumstances that preceded it (which I shall touch upon
in a later chapter), the mutual enmity between Austria and Serbia
reached its height. War between Austria-Hungary on the one hand and
Russia and Serbia on the other, seemed imminent, and was only averted
by the intervention of European diplomacy, especially by the efforts
of Sir Edward Grey. In a declaration dated March 31st, 1909, Serbia
acknowledged the annexation as an accomplished fact, and promised
henceforth to conduct her policy in a neighbourly and friendly spirit
towards Austria. This was the last act of self-abasement extorted from
the unhappy country, but by no means the end of hostile agitations.
On the contrary, these only became more virulent, because Austria
considered the annexation of Bosnia and Hercegovina merely a prelude
to the invasion of Serbia. Hence the necessity of representing Serbia
as a menace to the peace of Europe, and especially to the position
of the Monarchy as a Great Power. Serbia’s prestige declined still
further. But suddenly a new contingency arose, and the _Balkan War_
of 1912 brought to light a series of glorious proofs of heroism,
self-control, statesmanship, and military and national ability on the
part of Serbia. The contempt of Europe was transformed into admiration,
and Serbia suddenly found herself appreciated at her true value. This
was a blow Austria could not forgive, and still less the fact that
the criminal blunder of the second Balkan War, whereby she fondly
hoped that Serbia would be crushed, proved unsuccessful. A strong and
respected Serbia was a thorn in the flesh to Austria and a disquieting
influence among her Southern Slav subjects. Henceforth the Viennese
Foreign Office concentrated its efforts on the destruction of Serbia
at all costs. First of all Serbia was confronted with a demand for
such trade concessions as would render her economically dependent upon
Austria, and the next commercial treaty was to have placed Austria
in the position of a “most favoured nation.” In politics Austria had
recourse to the invention of the spectre of a “Greater Serbia,”—an
idea which hitherto had merely possessed intellectual significance,
and whose representatives were a few hot-heads quite unconnected with
Serbian official policy. To make this new propaganda convincing Austria
employed a large number of _agents provocateurs_, whose masterpiece
appears to have been the attempt upon the Archduke Francis Ferdinand
at Serajevo, June 28th, 1914. Truly, when all the side-issues are
taken into account, it seems more than likely that the _attempt_ at
least was staged by Austrian agents. Was the assassination merely
an accident?[14] It is to be feared that this is one of the unhappy
mysteries which will never be fully cleared up.




CHAPTER VII.

MONTENEGRO.

  The Country of the Black Mountain—Women Warriors—King,
    Poet and Farmer—Historical Sketch of Montenegro—Petar I.,
    Petrović—Petar II.—Pro-Russian Policy—A Royal Poet—Nikola I.


All I have said about Serbia applies equally to Montenegro. The nations
are one and the same: they are identical in every respect and only
geographically divided. Montenegro is the Serbian advance guard on
the Adriatic. It is the eagle’s nest of Europe, the loftiest symbol
of freedom and independence. Nature herself has given this people an
impregnable fortress, and placed in their hands the keys of Southern
Slav liberty. From the height of their barren Black Mountains the
valiant high-spirited Montenegrin has looked down for centuries on the
rise and fall of his kinsmen all around him. In all the tragedies that
have passed in the shadow of his eyrie he has played his part, both
as dauntless warrior, and the bard of freedom who from his mountain
heights sang the song of the future to his enslaved brothers. The
Montenegrin has always been the same. In war-time he is a warrior,
in times of peace a shepherd armed to the teeth. He is inseparable
from his weapons, but only uses them against his enemies. Though his
aspect is martial and his glance fierce, he bears a kindly, loveable
heart. Comparing his outward appearance with his soul, one might call
him a lion with the heart of a dove. A friend, whoever he may be, is
welcomed with open arms, and his rough, powerful hand can be gently
caressing as a child’s. But an enemy will be crushed by its weight;
for the Montenegrin _hates_ his foe, hates him passionately, fiercely
and implacably, and he is ever on the watch for him. Even at tender
age the children are decked with weapons and have to learn the use
of them under the eyes of their elders. And the enemy is always the
“Schwabo.” The women are just as efficiently trained to arms as the
men, and it has often happened that the Montenegrin Amazons played a
decisive part in warfare; and, when weapons were scarce, the women
rolled mighty rocks from the heights down upon their enemies. Fighting
is a grim pleasure to the Montenegrin in war-time, and his recreation
in times of peace. Whoever has travelled in the Montenegrin mountains
cannot fail often to have noticed two goatherds in the midst of their
herds, fencing with their “Handzars” (the sheathless scimitar of the
Montenegrins) and not far off two goat-girls similarly engaged.

The Montenegrin is not a great farmer. The soil is poor and barren;
yet every patch of fertile ground is utilized to the utmost of its
resources, and good soil is often carried from a great distance and
deposited in the stony corries for the cultivation of a little maize
and corn. But the Montenegrin cares less for a full stomach than for a
light heart. It is a people that is for ever singing, and the wealth of
Serbo-Croat folk-songs provides them with ample material.

The relations between the Montenegrins and their rulers is without
parallel in Europe. Certainly the King is the “Gospodar” (ruler), but
he is really only the chief warrior, the chief farmer, and the chief
poet of his country. The dynasty is descended from Montenegrin farmers
and is deep-rooted in the people themselves. The Montenegrin does not
consider his King so much the head of the State, as the leader of the
nation, and relations between them are familiar and fraternal. The
King is the father, and the people are his children in a perfectly
patriarchal sense. There is no trace of Western European formality
in their intercourse. The familiar “thou” is used on either side,
and the simplest peasant shakes hands with the King as a matter of
course. But in war time the King’s word is law, and the unquestioning
discipline of the people is founded on their mutual relations in times
of peace—founded on the love of the people for their ruler.

The Montenegrins are Serbs by nationality, and their Royal House, like
that of Serbia, has sprung from the people. Neither country has ever
been ruled by a foreign prince.

In olden times it was the custom that the elders of the nation, without
special regard to diplomatic qualifications, should guide the fate of
their country by the rules of ancient custom. Chief among them was
the Vladika,[15] who possessed no special privileges as ruler but
merely took precedence in virtue of his ecclesiastical dignity. His
education was limited to what was necessary for his clerical duties,
and he knew little or nothing of state-craft. The character of a given
reign depended mainly on the prevailing relations with the Turks,
and Montenegrin affairs prospered in proportion to the peaceable
or aggressive attitude of these neighbours. A well-ordered state,
enlightenment, and education were luxuries no one desired or required,
and the people lived and fought merely for the needs of the day. But,
although they are naturally gifted, the nation could not develop
without any means of education; and, apart from the art of war they
were simple and unlettered as children. Mere adventurers have several
times taken advantage of this simplicity. The most flagrant instance
was that of Stjepan Mali, a Russian swindler, who gave himself out to
be a scion of the Vojevode family Petrović and proclaimed himself lord
of Montenegro.

Affairs improved when Vladikas of Crnojević family were succeeded by
Vladikas of the true Petrović stock in the leadership of the country.
The first of these, Petar I., Petrović, was still content to follow
in the footsteps of his predecessors, and influenced the education of
his people only in so far as he himself was cultured. His immediate
successor Petar II., Petrović Njegoš, earned undying fame in the
history of Montenegro.

Petar II. became Vladika and Gospodar of Montenegro at the age of
seventeen. At the time of his accession he was scarcely more than
a Montenegrin peasant lad, accustomed to dealing with attacks from
the Turks, but otherwise without education. The young ruler knew
nothing whatever of system or the deeper meaning of learning and
education, when he took the helm. Times were troubled and difficult,
for, even in Montenegro opinions were divided. There were several
other pretenders—not so much because of internal dissensions as in
consequence of foreign intrigue. It was not a matter of indifference
for the neighbouring states whether the ruler of Montenegro was their
friend and tool, or whether he was a man of independent personality
and inclined to follow Montenegrin tradition in considering Russia.
The Sandjaks of Skutari and Hercegovina (at that time still the
Sandjak Novipazar) were Montenegro’s vulnerable point. For nearly a
century Montenegro had already sought ways and means of extending
her territory as far as the frontier of modern Serbia. Moreover, from
the days of Peter the Great an idea had existed that, with the help
of the Serbs of Old Serbia, and the Serbs and Croats of Bosnia and
Hercegovina, Montenegro should prepare the way for the emancipation
of her kindred from the Turkish yoke. Poverty, however, lack of
numbers on the part of Montenegro, and the vacillations of Russian
diplomacy frustrated these plans, and Vladika Petar I. did not feel
strong enough to embark on this enterprise. Petar II. realized that,
before Montenegro could hope to attempt this task, she would have to
strengthen her hands—and those of her brothers awaiting liberation—by
a thorough-going pro-Russian policy, which would secure them the
protection of the Russian Empire. She must also provide her children
with the means of education. He knew well that nothing can be done with
an unlettered people. The lines laid down by him were quite correct.
Russian society understood the Prince’s aims and gave him sufficient
financial assistance for the foundation of schools, etc., and Russian
diplomacy supported him strongly in his politics. Petar II. set about
his educational mission with devotion and perseverance, and even
found time to complete his own studies. When he attained to man’s
estate he was already famous as one of the finest of the Southern Slav
poets, and as one of the patrons of culture among the oppressed Slav
peoples.[16] But his path was by no means strewn with roses. The very
strength of his independent personality laid him open to insidious
intrigues. True, he followed Russia’s advice, but, while he was still a
youth, full of the healthy, impetuous ardour of his mountain home, he
often transgressed the rules of European diplomacy. Diplomacy failed
to understand his actions, and he, being a true Montenegrin, could
not wait with his hands folded to see what diplomacy might achieve,
while the Turks were harrying his borders. Even the Russian Consul in
Dubrovnik (Ragusa) often complained to his Government that the Prince
“was better fitted for a grenadier than for a Vladika” (Bishop). And,
of course, Vienna always stirred up enmity against him. But Petar
II. remained a staunch Montenegrin warrior, and the older he grew
the less he was able to adapt himself to the wiles of diplomacy. He
devoted himself to his people, who loved, honoured, and revered him.
But foreign intrigue began to tell upon him. Disappointments increased
with advancing years, and he found little but bitterness in the onerous
duties of a prince; this bitterness and disappointment find eloquent
expression in his poems. At last circumstances became so unendurable
to him that he thought of abdicating, and was probably only deterred
from his purpose by his ardent love for his people. For, despite all
vexations, he cannot have failed to see that his presence was not
useless and that his work and activities were bringing a blessing to
his people and laying the foundations of the future.

His nephew and successor, Danilo I., was the last “Vladika” on the
Montenegrin throne. He was far better versed in the arts of diplomacy,
but his reign will never rival that of his uncle in importance. He fell
a victim to assassination in 1860 at Kotor (Cattaro) and was succeeded
by his nephew Nikola I., the first secular prince of Montenegro.

In Nikola I. fate bestowed upon Montenegro a ruler with a remarkably
strong character and first-rate diplomatic talent. The country was
re-organized from within, without giving offence to any of the sacred
traditions of the Montenegrins. In Nikola’s foreign policy veritable
masterpieces were achieved from time to time. Without departing from
the traditional pro-Russian policy Nikola established excellent
relations with all non-Slav states, especially with Austria, and made
the utmost use of every opportunity whereby his country and people
might benefit. A man of great personal charm, highly cultured and
refined, Nikola I. has enthusiastic friends and admirers in every part
of the world. The unity of the Southern Slavs is one of his favourite
ideals, and he has laboured unceasingly to promote this cause. His
personal relationship to several of the Royal Houses of Europe made it
possible for him to work effectively and win friends for the Slav cause
where another might have failed to do so.

What Nikola I. has done for Montenegro during the fifty years of his
reign is more or less generally known. The education of the people,
which began under Petar II., has made splendid progress under Nikola
I., and to-day Montenegro can boast a large number of statesmen, poets,
scholars and men of letters for so small a country. When the Balkan
crisis arrived, Nikola, then already King of Montenegro, true to the
spirit of his fathers, unhesitatingly and enthusiastically placed
himself and his people at the disposal of Serbia and won glorious
victories, in consequence of which his territories were considerably
enlarged. After the Balkan War, King Nikola surely looked forward
to a time of peace and prosperity. But his hopes were doomed to
disappointment, for recent events have called him to another and more
important task.




CHAPTER VIII.

THE SOUTHERN SLAVS OF THE DUAL MONARCHY.

  I. A Homogeneous People—A Militant Past—The Bogumili—National
       Bondage—Napoleon—Illyrism—Agreement with Hungary—Count
       Khuen-Hedervary.

  II. The greatest representative of the Southern
        Slavs—Strossmayer’s generosity and courage—Fall of
        Count Khuen-Hedervary—Death of Strossmayer.

  III. False Dawn—Conference of Fiume—Ban Paul Rauch—Monster
         Trial in Zagreb—The Friedjung Case—Cuvaj—Frano Supilo.

  IV. Dalmatia, Istria, Carniola—The Italian
        Element—Bosnia-Hercegovina—Conclusion.


I.

The whole south of the Dual Monarchy is inhabited by Slavs. The
Kingdoms of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia, with the Duchy of
Carniola, Istria, and Bosnia-Hercegovina—these, comprising a population
of about seven millions, belong almost exclusively to one race. Whereas
in all other countries of the Monarchy (especially in Hungary and
Bohemia) the different races are represented in varying percentages,
the non-Slav population in Croatia, Slavonia, Bosnia and Hercegovina
amounts only to about 5-1/2 per cent., in Carniola and Istria to 4 per
cent., and in Dalmatia only to 2 per cent. The considerable number of
Croats and Slovenes (750,000) living in Southern Hungary (in Torontal,
Bacs-Bodrog and Temes) must be added to the above-mentioned seven
millions.

Ethnologically speaking, the inhabitants of all these countries form
one people, and are a brother nation to the Serbs in the Kingdoms
of Serbia and Montenegro. Their language, customs, historical past
and achievements in art, science and literature, are identical. The
sole difference between them is that the Croats and Slovenes are
Catholics, while part of the inhabitants of Bosnia are Mohammedans.
Those confessing the Serbo-Orthodox faith (more than a third of the
population) also own to the national name and call themselves Serbs.
This compact and homogeneous national body would certainly have become
a most important factor in the Monarchy had they not been cut in two by
administrative policy. Here as elsewhere throughout all her dominions
Austria has applied her principle of dividing and dismembering,
and the Southern Slav provinces were shared between two spheres of
power. Croatia and Slavonia were allotted to the Hungarian; Carniola,
Dalmatia and Istria to the Austrian sphere, and a mixed Austrian and
Hungarian administration was introduced in Bosnia and Hercegovina.
This system made a unanimous political rally of the Southern Slavs
quite impossible, and provided German and Magyar propaganda with a more
manageable field of operations. In both spheres unremitting efforts
were devoted to the task of eliminating the Southern Slav element,
stifling Slav thought, and transforming the Slavs into _slaves_.
But the Southern Slav is endowed with unusual tenacity; the most
zealous efforts on the part of the Government were frustrated by his
dogged resistance, and they merely defeated their own ends. German
“kultur” and Magyar _lack_ of culture were held in equal abomination
by the Slav nations upon whom they were to be inflicted, and the
ruthless spoliation to which they were likewise subjected engendered a
deep-seated animosity. The Northern Slavs, who possess more practical
business capacity than the Southern, did not allow themselves to be
economically strangled, and even contrived to hold their own in this
respect; whereas the Southern Slavs, being mainly an agricultural
people, found themselves the helpless victims of Austrian and Hungarian
rapacity. Dalmatia, one of the loveliest spots in Europe, has for
the last century known no privilege except that of paying taxes, and
Austria’s mal-administration of that country has become proverbial.
Croatia and Slavonia fare little better. They have to pay 56 per
cent. of their revenues to Hungary. This tax figures under the head
of “contributions to mutual interests,” chiefly represented by the
railways and the postal system. The net annual income from these two
sources amounts to 250 million Kr., but of this Croatia never receives
a penny! The net profit _all_ goes to Hungary who brazenly employs
it to subvention the Magyar propaganda in Croatia. The condition of
Carniola and Istria is almost as deplorable as that of Dalmatia, and
in Bosnia and Hercegovina the Austro-Hungarian Government has for
thirty-five years built villages “after the pattern of Potemkin,”
for the edification of foreign journalists, while the people have
been left to starve, or sink into poverty and ignorance. The numerous
foreign tourists who have travelled in these beautiful countries have
seen nothing of Austria’s “work of civilization,” as they are kept to
the beaten tracks specially prepared for them, and they only see the
country like a carefully staged panorama on the films of the Royal
and Imperial State Cinematograph! But had these travellers caught a
glimpse of the abject misery of the people, their pleasure in these
beautiful countries would have been spoilt, and they would have better
understood why the inhabitants are rebelling against the “blessing” of
Austro-Hungarian rule.

It is much easier to understand why the political horizon in the
Southern Slav corner of Europe is always clouded if one is given a
clearer view of the _Chartered rights_, as opposed to the _actual
position_, held by the Southern Slavs in the Monarchy; but this view
is not usually obtained through the official channels of Vienna and
Budapest. According to these, all ancient _charters_ of liberty are
so many “scraps of paper,” and the actual law merely the right of
the strongest. The Hapsburgs did not come as victors with the rights
of a conqueror to the Southern Slav provinces. They became rulers of
these countries in virtue of voluntary treaties, and they themselves
issued manifestos and bulls, in which the integrity and independence
of the Southern Slav countries are incontestably guaranteed. Centuries
ago, while the Hapsburg dynasty was endangered by constant wars,
and especially during the Turkish invasion, these guarantees were
faithfully observed. But with the altered conditions of affairs the
Southern Slavs had to wage a bitter struggle for their rights.

Of all this group Croatia-Slavonia alone still retains the slightest
degree of autonomy, while the countries belonging to Austria have
been deprived of every vestige of self-government, and only appear
to be distinct dominions in the State by their mock Landtags, whose
decisions are almost invariably disregarded. Croatia-Slavonia, which
belongs to Hungary, has to this day at least theoretically maintained
her political independence. Croatia was once more guaranteed this
independence by the agreement between herself and Hungary in 1868.
When the Hapsburg Empire was reconstructed in 1867 the constitutional
independence of Croatia could not be set aside, especially as this
reconstruction was founded on the Pragmatic Sanction, which provided
for the separate constitutional independence of Croatia under guarantee
of the Royal Oath. Moreover, the events of the revolution of 1848 were
still too fresh in the memories of the Hungarian statesmen who had
laboured for the establishment of Hungary’s State Constitution from
1861 till 1867, and in their dealings with Croatia they did not dare
to repeat the mistakes they had made in 1847 and 1848. Francis Deak,
the chief of these statesmen, knew very well that the catastrophe
that overtook Hungary in 1848 would never have been so great, if the
Croatian national forces had fought side by side with Hungary. Thus it
was his wish to conclude a lasting peace with Croatia on a just basis.
Under Deak’s influence, and with the co-operation of Croatia’s leading
representatives, an agreement was concluded which assured Croatia the
position of a State enjoying equal rights with Hungary, with complete
self-government as regards her internal affairs, a separate legislative
parliament, and her own army; only the railways and the postal and
financial systems were to be under mutual control, and Croatia was
guaranteed a proportionate share of the revenues from these sources.
The Croatian tongue was to be the official language in the Landwehr,
and in all courts of law, whether joint or autonomous. The important
Croatian seaport Fiume was declared a “corpus separatum adnexæ _rex_,”
and thus constituted a joint open port. I shall presently show how
Hungary kept her side of the bargain.

       *       *       *       *       *

A Southern Slav patriot has said that no greater misfortune has
befallen the Southern Slavs, than to pass under the dominion of
civilized Austria. Had they been obliged to share the fate of their
brothers, the Serbs and Bulgarians, they would certainly have tasted
all the misery of the Turkish yoke, but to-day they would be free,
as an independent State with a right to their own national and
intellectual development. The one thing Turkey has left untouched in
the Serbs and Bulgars—_the heart of the people_—is the very thing that
Austria has sought to destroy in her Southern Slav subjects. Turkish
captivity has steeled the hearts of the Slavs she oppressed, but
Austrian captivity has cankered them and made them effete.

In many respects this pessimistic view is justified. The struggle of
the Southern Slavs for national life has passed through many phases,
and has exhausted itself in many more. For centuries the Southern Slav
stood under the protection of “Heaven militant,” and his motto was
“For Faith and Freedom,” for with him faith was always first. All his
culture consisted in imaging the Christ as the “Otac i voyskovodya
illyrskyh Kralyeva” (Father and leader of the armies of the Kings of
Illyria). The Holy Cross was transformed into a standard of war, and
his enthusiasm for this false ideal led him so far astray, that the
_baptized_ arch-enemy was nearer to him than his own _unbaptized_
brother, and the Church dearer to him than his country. But these
traits do not originate in the character of the Southern Slav. He
was educated into them and impregnated with them from without, and
always by his greatest enemies, the Germans or the Turks. The Germans
made a national mission of the Crusades, and the Turks usually went
to war on religious grounds and called their armies the Hosts of the
Prophet. Following the example of the Turks, and imitating the Germans
in their appropriation of the Deity, Slav Christianity was infected
by the fanaticism of the Church of Rome, and became synonymous with
militancy and the spirit of the _condottieri_. The heart of the nation
grew vitiated, and the Illyrians callously neglected their lovely
land, which ought to have been a Garden of Eden. And those who were
so liberal with their promises of Heaven and constantly cried, “Thy
Kingdom is not of this world!” were well pleased that these things
should be so, for they coveted the lost Empire of the Southern Slavs
for an earthly paradise of their own.

Unfortunately this dark page in the history of Southern Slavdom
followed directly upon one of the most brilliant periods in the
intellectual development of Southern Slav culture. It was a period
when the national culture of the Southern Slavs put forth some of its
most vigorous, fairest and sanest blossoms—the time of the Bogumili
(“beloved of God”) whose work of enlightenment spread from Bulgaria
over the whole of the Slav South. The Bogumili were strongly opposed
to the poetic glorification of the Crusades, because they grasped
the fact that the extolling of such an ideal can never open the mind
to _heretic_ culture—the culture based on _free choice according to
conscience_—which was eventually to undermine the foundations of
the sacrosanct Roman Empire and lay the first solid foundations of
_true_ culture. The Bogumili taught that true culture is not spread
by crusades, but springs from Christian, human contemplation. They
deprecated personal worship, and replaced it by a worship of ideals,
of spirit, and of thought. Wyclif, Huss and Luther are always quoted
as the foremost apostles of the _heretical_ culture. But in the
Hungarian Crusaders the Bogumili found bitter enemies. Bogumilist
activity in Bosnia and Croatia was stifled in blood, and the people,
who were beginning to protest against the lying cult of Cæsarism
wedded to Papistry, were simply butchered in the name of the Cross.
The blood-baths on the fields of Bosnia filled the people with
consternation, but could not stifle Bogumilism. True, its progress
was checked in the Southern Slav region, but it secretly penetrated
westward, whence the Patarenes in Italy and the Catharists, Albigenses
and Waldenses in France spread it all over the world. It is interesting
to note that at the very moment when Bogumilist culture was destroyed
among the Slavs themselves, they bequeathed this very Bogumilism to the
rest of Europe—the first and only gift from the Southern Slav race _as
a whole_ to the spiritual life of Europe. It was the true “antemurale
Christianitatis”—the outworks of Christianity—purified from Byzantine
and Roman elements. _What they gave_ was perhaps not so very much their
own as the _vigour_ with which they transplanted the ideal and the
doctrine of a spiritual life, from the mountains of Asia Minor to the
West. Theirs was the work of emissaries and outposts.

To resume, during the time of Turkish power, the Southern Slavs had
ceased to be the “outworks of Christianity” and had become merely a
_soldatesca_ in the service of the foreigner, fighting indifferently
for Cross or Crescent. It was a terrible time of national abasement,
more especially because it followed so closely upon the great era of
spiritual exaltation. The gradual loss of Southern Slav independence
likewise dates from this period, and from that time until quite
recently they were unable, _as a race_, to produce a truly Southern
Slav culture. Only those among them who travelled westward, where
Bogumilism continued to thrive and flourish, found the way of true
culture. Among these exceptions were Marko Marulić (Marcus Marulus), a
Spalatine noble, whose works were translated from the Latin into all
the principal European tongues, and Flavius Illyricus, whom, after
Luther, Germany considers one of her greatest teachers. In their souls
these men were merely Bogumili and nothing more. With them we may also
class John of Ragusa, who led the whole Council of Bâle against the
Pope and proposed to negotiate calmly and justly with the Hussites and
Manichees. Just such a man was Bishop Strossmayer in our own day, a man
of whom I shall presently speak further.

Their liberation from the Crescent put an end to the period of
religious militancy among the Southern Slav people. The warlike
element is perhaps of great historic moment. It certainly fended the
Southern Slavs over the abysses of Turkish barbarism to freedom in
the Christian sense of the word, but by no means to national freedom.
When the Turkish invasion was rolled back and the everlasting wars
were over, the symbol of the sword was exchanged for that of the
plough, and God as God was no longer adorned with weapons, but imaged
in a nobler spirit as the highest conception of _peace_. And, as the
people accustomed themselves to peace, and once more came in touch
with the soil, a new spirit grew up within them, or rather it was the
re-awakening of an old spirit that for a while had been silenced by
the clamour of weapons—the spirit of love for the homestead and the
community. Nationalism still slumbered but, like a guardian angel, the
_national tongue_ watched over its slumbers. Through storm and stress,
in spite of travels and intercourse with foreign-speaking mercenaries,
this language has remained pure and unalloyed. This was the seed of the
future from which sprang the great awakening; for so long as a people
preserves its language it possesses a Nationality.

Liberty of conscience, and the transformation of the warrior into a
husbandman, were also the beginning of a change in the souls of the
people, which, while groping its way back towards its own essential
beauty, began to feel the hidden wounds within, and strove to rid
itself of the canker. The old beautiful mode of life, the patriarchal
family feeling and the bond of union in the community were restored,
and the gentle, plaintive melodies echoed once more in farm and field.
And this regeneration grew and expanded until it brought the revelation
of national union, patriotism, and finally the love for all that
belongs to the Slav race.

       *       *       *       *       *

The Napoleonic era found this people already fully developed. They had
found their soul and knew what they wanted. Napoleon, who treated
most of the people he conquered without much consideration, was filled
with unusual admiration for the Southern Slavs that came under his
rule. By the peace of Schönbrunn (October 14th, 1809) he acquired
Triest, Görz, Carniola, part of Carinthia, Austrian Istria, the Croat
seaboard with Fiume, and all Croatia south of the Save. Napoleon united
all these countries with French Istria, Dalmatia and Ragusa into one
“Province of Illyria,” and thus for one short moment fulfilled the
dearest wish of all the Southern Slavs. Illyria was organized as one
military province divided into six civil provinces; Maréchal Marmont
was appointed Governor and in the name of Napoleon carried out sweeping
reforms throughout the country. Trade and industry were signally
improved and the people were granted far-reaching national liberties.
The use of German as the official language was abolished in the schools
and law courts and Serbo-Croatian introduced in its place. Special
attention was devoted to road-making and education, and the Croats
were permitted to edit their own newspapers in the Croat tongue, which
would have been considered high treason under Austria. Although the
French rule was only of short duration (till 1817) _it did more for
the Southern Slav lands in three years than Austria did during the
century that followed_. But the main thing was that this rule aroused
the national thought so effectively that henceforth it ceased to be a
dream and became a factor to be reckoned with. From that time dates the
unremitting struggle against Germanism and Magyarism, and the agitation
for a national union of all the Southern Slavs.

The first-fruits of the complete national regeneration were seen in
the great movement started in 1835 and known by the name of Illyrism.
Illyrism began with a small group of patriots and poets whose leaders
were Ljndevit Gaj and Count Janko Drašković. They founded newspapers
and periodicals, published patriotic books and poems, and roused the
national enthusiasm of the people to the highest pitch. In this mission
they successfully sought help and advice from other Slavs, especially
the Csechs and Serbs; they were also the first to come into touch with
Russia. Austria-Hungary tried sharply to repress this movement, and
for the first time found herself confronted by a united nation bent on
going its own way. The Illyrist movement cannot point to any positive
political results, but it laid a foundation for future political and
national activity and did an incalculable amount of pioneer work which
would have been most difficult to carry out under the conditions that
followed. In 1843 the name of Illyrism was prohibited by an Imperial
edict, and it was hoped by the Austrian authorities that this would
be the end of the patriotic movement. But their labour was lost. In
fact, under the spur of persecution the patriots passed from their
idealistic literary campaign to more tangible activities. By the
prohibition of the Illyrian name the motto of the poetic propaganda
was lost, and it became the duty of the patriots to lead their
politics into less sentimental paths, and enter upon a campaign of
cold reasoning in place of poetic sentiment. This was all the more
necessary as the national cause was greatly endangered by several new
regulations. Following closely upon the prohibition of the Illyrian
name came an order for the introduction of the Magyar tongue in the
Croatian law courts. When the Croatian counties protested in Vienna
that Croatia was privileged to choose her own official language, and
that no one had the right to interfere with this privilege, they met
with a brusque rebuff. Up to now the Government had hardly dared to
attempt the Magyarization of Croatia, but now they decided to enforce
it in spite of the newly-awakened national consciousness. The Croats
now realized that it was a case of war to the knife. The Hungarian
Government proclaimed that all countries and nationalities subjected
to the crown of St. Stephen must be made one people, one state, and be
taught to speak _one_ language—in short, they were to become Magyars.
They were determined to break the national resistance of the Serbs
and Croats by force, or preferably, by corruption. In this enterprise
Hungary found an able assistant in Ban Haller. A “Magyar party” was
organized in Croatia with a view to reconciling the people to Magyar
demands, but, unfortunately, it consisted chiefly of adventurers and
social riff-raff; the work of Magyarization made no progress, but only
further incensed the Southern Slavs. One of the consequences of this
hatred was that in 1848 the Croats and Serbs enthusiastically followed
Ban Jellacić in the campaign against Hungary.

       *       *       *       *       *

After the conclusion of peace between Hungary and the Crown the Croats
were rewarded in a truly Austrian fashion for their assistance in
putting down the rebellion: once more they were handed over to the
tender mercies of Hungary. This ingratitude roused a perfect tempest
of indignation, but at the same time the Southern Slavs finally
learnt their lesson. Henceforth they would look for help to no one
but themselves, and they resolved that the coming struggle must be
fought to a finish. The Southern Slav leaders knew very well that
nothing could be done by revolutionary propaganda, but that their first
task must be to establish a footing from which they could conduct a
constitutional campaign. They formed a strong Nationalist party in
Croatia, which co-operated with the Dalmatine and Slovene parties,
laid down their programme on a broad national basis, and organized
a campaign of passive resistance among the people. Of course the
success of these labours was largely due to the fact that Hungary was
weakened by the revolution and inclined to be somewhat less aggressive.
Croatia, on the other hand, was fresh, strong, and self-reliant. Of
course the results were not apparent at once, but the agreement of
1867 was a consequence of Croatia’s united stand. This agreement by
no means satisfied all the aspirations of the Southern Slavs, but it
gave them the required footing against Magyar oligarchy. Upon the
conclusion of the agreement, Croatia received her first constitutional
Ban, who was henceforth to be responsible to the _Croatian Parliament_.
Unfortunately the King made this appointment upon the recommendation
of Hungary, who saw to it that the first Ban, Baron Levin Rauch,
should be a mere exponent of the Hungarian Government. Contempt
of the constitution, and corruption, were the first-fruits of the
agreement under Hungarian influence in Croatia, with the result that
all Croatian patriots—including those who had helped to conclude the
agreement—passed over to the Opposition. This Opposition worked on
rigidly constitutional lines, and, as more radical parties arose,
they formed the constitutionally correct, though barren, Croatian
Constitutional party. Space forbids me to enumerate all the means by
which the first “constitutional Ban” strove to carry out his orders
from Budapest. By suddenly imposing a new election law he secured
a large and obsequious majority in Parliament, which effectively
barred the co-operation of the Opposition in national affairs. But the
Opposition attacked the Government _outside_ Parliament, through the
press. When this systematic corruption and disregard of the agreement
had gone too far, M. Mrazović, the leader of the Opposition, published
a sensational indictment against Baron Rauch, accusing him of underhand
dealings. Baron Rauch took proceedings against Mrazović for libel
in the military courts, but Mrazović substantiated his accusations
and was acquitted. Baron Rauch resigned, and the Nationalist Party
scored its first victory. He was succeeded by Ban Bedeković, another
Hungarian nominee, who was, however, unable to prevent a triumphant
Nationalist victory in the election of 1871. The Hungarians asserted
that this victory had been subsidized by funds from Russia and Serbia,
and this accusation contains the substance of all subsequent charges of
high treason. The Opposition replied with a manifesto, in which they
clearly set forth the gravity of the numerous infringements of the
constitution. Because of this manifesto, the Government wished to take
proceedings against the leaders of the Opposition for high treason, but
they refrained through fear of offending European public opinion. At
this time the Constitutionalist Kvaternik, a good patriot but wholly
unpractical, started an armed rebellion among the peasantry in the
Rakovica district. It was put down by a strong military force, and
Kvaternik lost his life. The October manifesto, in conjunction with
the rebellion in Rakovica, afforded Andrassy (then Minister of Foreign
Affairs) a pretext for opposing every form of Slavophile policy and
ascribing both the manifesto and the rebellion to Russian influence.

The policy then inaugurated remains in force to this day. Brutal
Imperialism is rampant in Croatia, and the Agreement has become a
mere “scrap of paper.” But oppression begets opposition, and during
these critical times the Southern Slavs found not only their greatest
tyrant but their greatest patriot. From 1883 to 1903 Count Carl
Khuen-Hedervary was Ban of Croatia, and the twenty years of his
administration have been the blackest period as regards political,
economic and personal thraldom. Countless Magyar schools were scattered
throughout the country to promote the denationalization of the people;
espionage and Secret Police flourished as in Darkest Russia. The
archives of the State, with the Constitutional Charters of Croatia,
Slavonia and Dalmatia, were incorporated with the State archives in
Budapest, and, _last but not least, the Agreement itself was falsified
by the pasting of a slip of paper over the specification of Fiume as a
“Corpus separatum adnexæ rex”_ converting it into a “corpus separatum
adnexæ _Hungariam_,” whereby this important Croatian seaport became
exclusively Hungarian property. But this same period also witnessed
the labours of the greatest of all Southern Slavs, the benefactor and
father of his people, Bishop Josip Juraj Strossmayer.


II.

Bishop Strossmayer (1815-1905) was the most generous benefactor of
his people, their greatest patron of science and art, and the very
incarnation of their political programme. He was the first to break
down the local artificial barriers between Serb and Croat—the first
to preach the gospel of united Yougoslavia. Labouring in a period
when all national effort was suppressed in every possible way, when
Slav sympathies were accounted high treason, he rose to a position
of unassailable eminence, which enabled him to set the mark of his
powerful personality like a leitmotive on the whole nineteenth-century
history of the Southern Slavs. Born of peasant stock and, like all
gifted Slav boys, destined for the church, Strossmayer began his
patriotic activity, while he was still a student and youthful priest,
by joining the Illyrist movement. His exceptional abilities were soon
noticed in connection with the national movement, and Vienna and
Budapest awoke to the dangerous possibilities of his personality.
Determined to put an end to his patriotic labours they appointed him
court chaplain, and trusted that the society of the court with all its
splendour and gaiety would dazzle the handsome young priest, and wile
him away from the service of his country. But Strossmayer made a most
unexpected and highly diplomatic use of his position. He brilliantly
succeeded in deceiving his surroundings as to his sympathies, and when
barely over thirty he secured his appointment to the Episcopal See
of Djakovo. Hereby he also became Vladika of Bosnia and Syrmia, and
shortly afterwards was created governor of the Virovitica district.

At this point Strossmayer’s life-work for his people began in earnest.
Holding a most distinguished position, and with the vast revenues
of his bishopric at his disposal, he opened the flood-gates of his
activities, and Vienna and Budapest saw with horror and amazement
the mistake they had made. Strossmayer assumed the leadership of the
Nationalist party; and in Parliament, where he took his seat in the
double capacity of bishop and elected deputy, he showed himself a
brilliant orator, a subtle politician, and an astute diplomat. He was
the incarnation of a keen, but determined and wise Opposition. He also
became an intellectual leader of his people and accomplished more
than anyone else before him. He founded the Southern Slav Academy of
Science and Art, which in the very terms of its foundation embodies the
intellectual unity of the Southern Slavs. He also founded the Croatian
University; and, being a great art connoisseur, he spent years in
accumulating an exceedingly fine private collection, which he presented
to the nation. He built the Cathedral at Djakovo, and at his own
expense sent hundreds of young Serbs and Croats to foreign art schools
and universities. Every intellectual enterprise, whether literary,
artistic or scientific, found in him a munificent patron. His entire
income was devoted to the welfare of the nation, and the sums that
Strossmayer spent in adding to the greatness and fame of his country
amounted to many millions during the long years of his office. But his
dearest wish was the realization of the Yougoslav ideal, the breaking
down of all local barriers between Serbs and Croats, and the creation
of a united people. With this end in view, and in spite of his position
in the Roman Catholic Church, Strossmayer went so far as to advocate
that the Serbian Græco-Orthodox, and the Croatian Catholic, Churches
should unite and become one National Church. He knew that the future of
his people could never be realized within the confines of the Monarchy,
but that it must be identified with that of all the other Southern
Slav nations, and founded upon a purely Slav basis. Strossmayer did
not confine his efforts to winning converts among his own people for
this idea. He knew too well, that at the decisive moment the nation
would require strong support from without, and, at the risk of being
accused of high treason, he entered into friendly relations with
Russia, which should bring the big and powerful brother of the North
nearer to his down-trodden little brother in the South. He succeeded in
finding influential friends in Russia as in other countries, and his
nation is still proud of his friendship with the Tsar Alexander III.,
Leo XIII., Gladstone, Crispi and Gambetta. Before Strossmayer entered
the lists no one in Europe had taken the slightest interest in the
Southern Slav problem. The slippery diplomacy of Vienna—which is only
equalled in duplicity by that of Turkey—had for centuries successfully
diverted the attention of Europe from the Southern Slav peoples in the
Monarchy, and the general assumption about them was that they were a
horde of uncivilized semi-barbarians, fed by Austria at great sacrifice
and treated by her with the utmost forbearance. The spectacles through
which Europe viewed these nations were made in Vienna and Budapest, and
no one took the trouble to bring an independent, unbiassed mind to bear
upon the problem. Many Southern Slav patriots made desperate though
vain efforts to bring even a grain of truth before the European public;
a Jesuit Vienna and a Judaized Budapest were too strong for them. The
world thought more of the colourless anational Austrian culture, and
the borrowed pseudo-culture of the Magyars than of the culture of the
Slavs, which for a thousand years has been the spontaneous expression
of their national individuality, with a literature worthy of the lyre
of Homer. Not only Austro-Hungarian politics, but the age itself was
unpropitious to the Southern Slavs. They possessed no importance for
the European balance of power; and it is one of the bitterest ironies
of history, that for a very long time the Southern Slavs fought less
for their own advantage than for the interests of Europe. For, even as
the Southern Slavs were for centuries the bulwark against the tide of
Ottoman invasion _from_ the East, they subsequently became an equally
strong bulwark against the rising tide of Germanism _towards_ the East.
With every fibre of their being they kept the gate of the East fast
closed against either foe—not only for themselves, but in the interests
of European civilization.

Strossmayer was the first who succeeded in re-awakening the interest of
Europe in this struggle, and, even if his efforts were not crowned with
immediate practical success, he at least contrived to cast a doubt on
the complacent assurances of Vienna and Budapest. Strossmayer was a man
with a tremendous personality, and his word was invariably accepted. He
was also past-master in the art of _not saying too much_—thus avoiding
the appearance of exaggeration. Even in his world-famous speech in
the Council of the Vatican (1871, under Pius IX.), when he spoke in
Latin for sixteen consecutive hours against the doctrine of Papal
infallibility, he left some things unsaid, for he was interrupted in
“the midst of his speech” by the Archbishop of Paris, who embraced and
kissed him, and assured him that what he had already said was amply
convincing.

Strossmayer’s activity was pursued with ruthless enmity in Vienna
and Budapest, and, even as he was the best-loved man among his own
people, he was the best-hated enemy of the Germans and the Magyars.
They tried by every possible means to minimize his power, and agitated
in the Vatican for his recall to Rome. But Leo XIII. was not only the
personal friend of Strossmayer, but also the friend of the Slavs, and
Viennese diplomacy failed in its object. Then followed disgraceful
intrigues, and endeavours to represent Strossmayer as a traitor. Among
other accusations, it was alleged that he had exchanged incriminating
telegrams with the Tsar, in which he was said to have advocated the
detachment of the Southern Slav provinces from Austria. Strossmayer’s
reply to these insinuations was truly characteristic. Several years
after this alleged exchange of telegrams the Emperor Francis Joseph
came to Croatia for the grand manœuvres, and Bishop Strossmayer was
one of the guests at the great reception in Belovar, where the Emperor
had his headquarters. The Emperor took the opportunity to sharply
reprimand the Bishop for his conduct. Strossmayer retorted with equal
sharpness “My conscience is clear, your Majesty,” then brusquely turned
his back and ostentatiously walked out of the hall. Circumstances
made it impossible to celebrate Strossmayer’s courage, but the people
rejoiced in this new proof that their champion feared no risk when it
was a case of defending the freedom and interests of his people.

Strossmayer was no dreamer, but above all things a practical statesman.
He knew that whoever hopes to win a final success must first carefully
prepare the ground. Any attempt to detach the Southern Slav Kingdoms
from the Monarchy by force would have been unadvisable, and moreover,
a dangerous and futile enterprise. Therefore, the political party of
which Strossmayer was the leader made it their business to see that the
stipulations of the Agreement were scrupulously observed, knowing well
that a strict observance of the Agreement—if only for a time—would give
the nation the much-needed chance of economic improvement, and thus
pave the way to future independence. In this policy they were supported
by the entire nation, who by their very unanimity proved their
political fitness. Twenty years’ martyrdom under Count Khuen-Hedervary
had not enervated the nation; on the contrary, they grew strong through
adversity; and, with their eyes fixed upon their spiritual guide
and protector, they steadfastly went forward towards their goal.
Khuen-Hedervary’s bribery, intimidation, everlasting trials for high
treason, prison and the gallows, all these had only incited them to
further resistance. When, bowed with age, Strossmayer finally had to
resign his active part in politics, we saw the people whom his spirit
had inspired suddenly turn upon their oppressors. In 1903, the whole
country rose in rebellion as one man, and Khuen-Hedervary’s power was
broken. Even he had to admit that his twenty years’ rule of ruthless
oppression had merely defeated its own object, that it had united the
people whom he had sought to weaken, and strengthened that which he had
hoped to destroy.

Strossmayer lived to see Khuen’s resignation, and his last days were
cheered by a gleam of light—which alas! proved only illusory—shed
upon the path of his country; yet as he closed his eyes for ever, he
realized that he had not given his all to Croatia in vain, and that the
hour was not far off when his ideals should become realities.

He died in 1905, but his spirit lives on in his people and his memory
shines among them like a guiding star to point the way.


III.

The popular rising in 1903 opened new channels for the national
struggle; it was also the prelude to the hardest and bitterest time
that the Southern Slav people have yet been called upon to face.
Khuen’s successor was Count Theodore Pejacsević, a Croatian noble, who
was no great statesman, but at least a good administrative official.
He gave the distracted country a brief time of quiet, equitable
government, and deserves great credit for abolishing Khuen’s system
of corruption. Meantime the strongly Nationalist parties in Croatia
had formed a block,—the _Serbo-Croat Coalition_,—and Count Pejacsević
found it impossible to raise a pro-Hungarian majority in Parliament.
Shortly afterwards the Hungarian Opposition also rose into conflict
with the Crown, and the situation became involved both in Hungary
and Croatia. The Hungarian Opposition applied to the Serbo-Croat
Coalition for support in their struggle and promised that, if their
party were returned, they would grant all Croatia’s demands as embodied
in the Agreement of 1867. Negotiations were carried on by Francis
Kossuth and Geza Polonyi on behalf of Hungary, and by Frano Supilo as
delegate of the Serbo-Croat Coalition. These negotiations resulted in
the _Resolution of Fiume_ (October, 1905), which stipulated for the
political co-operation between the Hungarian and Serbo-Croat parties,
and secured considerable advantages to Croatia in the event of success.
The Resolution of Fiume was in every way a masterpiece of policy and
diplomacy, and was in all its details the achievement of Frano Supilo,
who was the popular leader in Croatia at the time. In the election
of 1905 the Coalition won a brilliant victory. Not one Government
candidate was returned, and the small Opposition consisted of partizans
of Ante Starćević’s one-time idealist, patriotic constitutionalist
party, which however, since his death, had passed under the control
of Jewish solicitors, and was so committed to a purely Austrian
_Christian-Socialist policy_. As the Hungarian Opposition had likewise
scored a victory, the Croatian Cabinet was composed of representatives
of the Serbo-Croat Coalition, with Count Pejacsević retained in office
as “ut conditio sine qua non.” Croatia enjoyed a short respite and
began to look forward to better times. But her hopes were once more
doomed to disappointment. The perfidious Magyars once more failed to
keep their word. So long as they _needed_ the Serbs and Croats they
were full of love and brotherliness, but when they had gained their
point, they discarded the mask of false friendship. Francis Kossuth,
having become Handelsminister (Minister of Trade) in the Hungarian
Cabinet in 1907, introduced a bill on the control of the Railways which
was the most _flagrant_ and _outrageous_ infringement of the Agreement
as yet attempted. It provided that thenceforth the language used on
the railway-system, even in Croatian territory, was to be _Hungarian_,
although it had been specially stipulated in the Agreement—which
stands in the place of a fundamental constitutional law—that _Croatian_
was to be official tongue in all joint offices within Croatian
territory. The Serbo-Croat Coalition, which is represented by forty
members in the Hungarian Parliament, rose in wrath against the
Bill, and declared war to the knife upon the Hungarian Government.
The conflict in the Hungarian Parliament is known all over Europe.
The Croats and Serbs pursued a policy of obstruction, which fairly
paralyzed the House and made parliamentary discussion of the Railway
Bill quite impossible. To get it passed Kossuth so worded his Bill that
it was contained in one paragraph, empowering the Government to deal
with the Pragmatic (administrative business of the country) at their
discretion as part of the Order of the Day.

The rupture with Hungary was now complete. The Serbo-Croat Coalition
transferred the conflict to Croatia, and the nation began to agitate
for detachment from Hungary. The Parliament was dissolved, but the
Coalition was again victorious in the election. On the resignation of
the Croatian Government, Alexander v. Rakodczay was appointed Ban,
but failing to raise a party friendly to the Government he was forced
to resign his office in two months. The next Ban to be appointed was
Baron Paul Rauch, who boldly entered his capital town of Zagreb, but
was received with hostile demonstrations and showers of stones. It
speaks well for his courage that he was not affected by this reception,
and even introduced himself to the Parliament with great pomp. His
reception in Parliament was one great demonstration of hostility,
so that he could not even read the Royal message. He had to fly the
building with his Ministerial staff, and Parliament was officially
dissolved the same day. Baron Rauch formed a Government party of venal
upstarts and discredited characters, secured the support of the now
thoroughly demoralized “constitutionalist party,” and ordered a new
election. _Everything_ was done to intimidate the electorate, with the
result that not one of Rauch’s candidates was returned. This Parliament
was dissolved without even having been summoned, and Rauch embarked on
a reign of terror which can only be compared to that of Germany in the
Cameroons. He organized the Jewish-constitutionalist party into bands
which went by the name of the “Black Hand.” Their motto was “For the
Emperor, and for Croatia,” and their weapons were murder and assault,
which they were allowed to use with impunity against their opponents.
At the same time an organized judicial persecution of the Serbs was set
on foot. But even this tyranny could not break the national resistance.

At this juncture a new contingency arose. The Monarchy was preparing to
annex Bosnia and Hercegovina, and a suitable pretext had to be found.
The Government accordingly invented the “_Greater Serbian agitation_.”
The heroic struggle of the Serbo-Croat Coalition was represented as
being the outcome of a Greater Serbian agitation, and Baron Rauch was
commissioned to unmask this “widespread criminal conspiracy.” In the
summer of 1908, to the amazement and consternation of the people,
large numbers of Serbs, chiefly priests, school-masters and business
men, were arrested, and the official Press triumphantly announced
that a horrible, widespread and highly treasonable propaganda had
been discovered! The preliminary investigations lasted a long time,
and March 3rd, 1909, saw the opening of the proceedings against the
“traitors” who had conspired with Serbia for the detachment of all the
Slavonic South from the Monarchy. The trial lasted till October 5th,
when all the accused parties received very heavy sentences. Immediately
afterwards the Austrian historian Dr. Heinrich Friedjung stated in
the Viennese _Neue Freie Presse_, that the leaders of the Serbo-Croat
Coalition were also implicated in this conspiracy, especially Frano
Supilo, Grga Tuškan and Božidar Vinković, and that his accusation
was founded on documentary evidence. Hereupon the whole Serbo-Croat
Coalition took proceedings against Dr. Friedjung for libel. The result
of this case, which was fought in Vienna, caused a European sensation.
_It was conclusively proved that all the documentary evidence against
the Coalition, both in the Zagreb and the Viennese trials, had
been forged by order of Baron Aehrenthal, the Minister for Foreign
Affairs, and Count Forgach, the Austrian Ambassador in Belgrade._
Friedjung himself confessed as much in court. The consequence of this
unparalleled _exposé_ was, that the King-Emperor had to rescind the
sentences already passed in the Zagreb trial.[17] Meantime, however,
the desired object had been gained, and Bosnia-Hercegovina was annexed
contrary to the will of all the Slavs.

But, with scandalous details incidental to the annexation, Baron
Rauch’s mission had been brilliantly fulfilled. Soon afterwards
Kossuth’s perfidious Government was turned out and Croatia’s old
oppressor, Count Khuen Hedervary, became Premier. Khuen, however,
was a personal enemy of Rauch, and occasioned his recall. In his
place Nikolaus von Tomašić was appointed Ban of Croatia—a most
eminent and highly-respected Croatian scholar, but politically a
satellite of Khuen. He did his best to restore order, and to this end
negotiated with the Serbo-Croat Coalition. Frano Supilo protested most
emphatically against this. He had already had exhaustive experience
of Magyar perfidy, and had no desire to see his people once again
walk into the trap. But the Coalition was perhaps weary of the
struggle—perhaps they still hoped for fair dealing, and accordingly
entered into a compact with Tomašić which made peaceful government
possible so long as the rights of the nation were respected. On the
strength of this compact several Government candidates were returned at
the next election; after which Tomašić promptly ignored the Coalition
and governed only with his own party. Supilo’s prophecy was fulfilled,
and the Coalition had once more to join the Opposition. Tomašić was
overthrown but the Austro-Hungarian Government replied by sending Herr
von Cuvaj, the Terrorist Commissioner, and suspending the Constitution.
These were the days of bitterest misery and unscrupulous tyranny
in Croatia. Cuvaj ruled with the knout, and the knout only. Police
espionage flourished, and all personal, political and civil liberty
was set at naught. All this time the Balkan War was raging, and woe
to the Serb or Croat who dared to rejoice at his brother’s victories.
But, when the Balkan Alliance was victorious, the Southern Slavs knew
that from henceforth they could rely on a measure of support from their
kinsmen. Vienna and Budapest were equally perspicacious and realized
the advisability of changing their tactics. Cuvaj was recalled and
Count Stephen Tisza, one of the most inveterate enemies of the Slavs,
sent Baron Skerlecz to Croatia with instructions to conciliate the
Croats. The effete Serbo-Croat Coalition was once more cajoled, and,
for the third time, it entered into a disastrous compact with Hungary.
This time one of the consequences was the expropriation of the Croatian
sea-board in favour of Hungary. Moreover, the present crisis found the
Coalition helplessly committed to the Government.

But the people had stood firm. The dire sufferings of recent years
have begotten a new and healthy movement, which includes the entire
youth of Croatia. The younger generation has lost faith in political
parties, and begun to go its own way along the path which leads
away from Hungary and away from Austria, back to union with their
scattered kindred. Their aim is the establishment of a great, free and
independent Southern Slav State. At the head of this younger generation
stands a man of magnetic personality—Frano Supilo.


IV.

The Southern Slavs in Dalmatia, Carniola and Istria fared little better
than their brothers in Croatia and Slavonia. I have already alluded
to the economic neglect of Dalmatia. In politics, Germanization was
practised in much the same way as Magyarization in Croatia. Dalmatia
unfortunately does not enjoy independence, even on paper, and thus her
oppression could wear a perfectly constitutional guise. The Dalmatian
“Sabor,” like that of Istria and Carniola, is an assembly quite at
the mercy of the viceroy for the time being, who would never dream
of convoking it, unless he had made quite sure that no inconvenient
resolutions would be passed. As a rule these “Sabors” enjoy prolonged
periods of rest, and the people are only represented by their delegates
in the Viennese Reichstrat. There these delegates certainly make a
brave fight, but they are too few, and their voice is drowned by the
huge German majority. Because of this and also through the fault
of the Slovene Roman Catholic party, Carniola has become strongly
Germanized, especially as regards the administration of the schools.
But the Dalmatians and Istrians are a sturdy, progressive people, Slav
to the backbone, and all attempts at Germanizing them have proved
as futile as the beating of waves upon the shore. Beside the German
danger, this people also has the Italian danger to contend with. For
opportunist reasons the Austrian Government has always favoured the
Italian element (4 per cent. in Istria and 2 per cent. in Dalmatia)
and granted them concessions, which have given rise to the most absurd
anomalies. For instance, the election law in Istria is so framed,
that 96 per cent. Slovenes and Croats send fewer delegates to Vienna
than 4 per cent. Italians. The same injustice prevails in the Parish
Council election law, but in spite of this the Italians would never
secure their majority, if special Government regulations did not compel
all officials and State employees to vote Italian. _If to-day Italy
is apparently able to claim a sphere of interest in Istria, this is
the outcome of a chance state of affairs, arbitrarily created by the
Austrian Government._ As an instance of this policy, I will state
that shortly before the outbreak of the war the Government seriously
contemplated the foundation of an Italian University for a population
of 700,000 souls, while strenuously opposing the foundation of a
Slovene University for 1,400,000 Slovenes and Croats in Carniola and
Istria. Of course this policy made the Italians aggressive, and they
continued to extend their sphere of interest until it actually included
the Quarnero Islands, although these islands do not possess one single
Italian inhabitant, and _these very islands are the most sacred
possession of the Southern Slavs_. THEY ARE THE ONLY SPOT IN SLAV
TERRITORY WHERE THE OLD SLAV TONGUE IS STILL SPOKEN BY THE PEOPLE. This
fact is amply borne out by publications of the Southern Slav Academy,
and also of the Russian Academy, which sends its scholars year by year
to these islands to study the language. In the province of Dalmatia
the populace have themselves dismissed the Italian question from the
order of the day, and the local government of Zadar (Zara) is the only
possession—and a very problematical one at that—which the Italians
might claim, and that only because of the truly mediæval election
laws. For, as soon as vote by ballot for the Parliamentary elections
was introduced in the Austrian Crown lands, the Croatian candidate was
returned by a majority of 7,000 votes over his Italian colleague.

The pro-Italian attitude of Austria was and is as insincere as the
rest of her policy. It is simply dictated by the “_divide-et-impera_”
principle, because an alliance between Slavs and Italians would have
been fatal to the Government. One nationality was played off against
the other, and the Italians proved willing tools in the hands of
Austria. The influence of Italian culture, which has for centuries been
received with love and admiration by the Southern Slavs, has created an
Italian-speaking zone of culture in the coast-lands of the Adriatic;
and the Italians, assisted by the Austrian Government, have made the
most of this zone until they have actually had the audacity to include
it in their sphere of _national_ aspirations. Thus Austria created an
enemy both for herself and the Slav peoples, an enemy with whom the
Southern Slavs have never before had any real quarrel. Antagonism led
to bitter conflicts, and if the Slav population in Dalmatia and Istria
have begun to detest the Italian zone of culture it has been purely
in self-defence and for fear of having to pay with their national
existence for the amity and admiration of centuries. Nowadays, the
Italians themselves admit that Dalmatia and Istria are indigenously
pure Slav countries. Probably the present struggle has also revealed to
them the true value of Austria’s favours.

In Bosnia and Hercegovina, Austria pursued the same heartless
policy. Out of the three religions of _one_ people she made _three_
nationalities, and then fostered dissensions between them. Her policy
was especially bitter against the Serbs, who are in the majority and
also the more highly-educated element of the population and therefore
more able to give effective support to the just claims of Serbia.
Austria was not in the least interested in the prosperity of the
country, and merely created an intolerable chaos by her political
intrigue in a land that had already suffered beyond endurance. Her
evidences of civilization exhibited before Europe were pure humbug, and
the annexation of Bosnia-Hercegovina one of the most flagrant acts of
injustice ever perpetrated on a nation.

If the present war is decided in favour of the Allies—and this is
the prayer of _all_ the Slavs—it will become necessary to settle
the Southern Slav problem once and for all. This can only be done
_satisfactorily_ by respecting the principle of nationality, and
by a just delimitation of the various national zones. In disputed
territories, such as Istria or the Quarnero Islands, a referendum ought
to decide.

The Slavs have been tortured long enough. For centuries they have
guarded European civilization against the inroads of _Ottoman Islam_,
which has always been synonymous with bigotry, barbarism and sloth,
and should never be confounded with _Arab Islam_, or _Hindu Islam_,
to whom the whole world of science, art and philosophy is eternally
indebted. Austria and Prussia are the natural heirs of Ottoman Islam,
and the Southern Slavs have made a heroic stand against this latter-day
_Prussian Islam_.

Civilization owes them a debt of honour, and it is only their due that
Europe should give them justice.




EPILOGUE.

“BURIED TREASURES.”

BY DIMITRIJ MITRINOVIĆ.


Speaking generally, the Southern Slavs are divided into Slovenes,
Serbo-Croats, and Bulgarians, but of these three branches only the
Slovenes and Serbo-Croats are racially identical. In speaking of a
political Southern Slav State, a state which would in the future
dominate the _whole_ of the Balkan Peninsula, it would be wrong not
to include the Bulgarian nation. However, the Serbo-Croats form the
principal cultural “unit” among the Southern Slavs, and after them come
the Slovenes. The nucleus, the life-giving element of the Southern Slav
family and its culture, is formed by the Southern Slavs of Serbia, Old
Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Hercegovina, Croatia, Dalmatia and Serbian
Hungary, or, to give them their collective name, by the Serbo-Croats.
The Serbo-Croats, and more especially the Serbians proper (Serbians of
Old Serbia and Serbia), have always led the vanguard of Serbo-Croatian
political life; the two greatest cultural achievements of the Southern
Slav race, to wit, the national poetry and the individual architecture
and sculpture of Ivan Meštrović, have always been associated with the
Serbians of Serbia. The fall of the Serbian Empire forms the chief
theme of Meštrović’s art, no less than of Southern Slav national
poetry—and thus it has become usual, if not strictly correct, to speak
of all Southern Slav poetry as Serbian national poetry, and of the
great Southern Slav artist as the great Serbian artist.

We speak of the Southern Slav poetry and of Ivan Meštrović, our
Southern Slav Michelangelo, as “buried treasures.” In a sense, all
Slav civilization may be called a buried treasure. Russian and Slav
literature as a whole, is far greater than its reputation in Western
Europe. Ottokar Brezina, the celebrated Csech poet, is translated and
read in Slavophobe Germany, but not in allied France and England;
because in these days nations are more often brought into contact by
war and travel than by civilization and our common humanity.

Western Europe has been even less just to the Southern Slavs than to
any other Slav nation; and they who have paid so dearly in blood and
suffering for their freedom are less known and recognized than any
other European nation, in spite of the great historic merit of the
Serbians, and the importance of their culture;—the consideration shown
by Europe to a dynasty has been greater than her justice to a portion
of mankind. A universal conflagration and a breaking-up of the old
order of things was necessary, ere Europe learned to value millions of
human beings more highly than the principle of a bygone generation, or
the pathos of old age. In the future we may hope to see a just Europe
which will not look upon the Serbians as a nation of regicides, but
as a people revolting against secret treaties with the Hapsburgs, and
upon the Southern Slavs, not as traitors, but as a democratic people
refusing to be destroyed. When the Slovenes of Istria, Carniola,
Styria, and Carinthia, together with the Serbo-Croats, form a strong,
prosperous and free, though small State, their culture will be
developed to the full, crowning and unifying Southern Slav life.

This growing civilization of Greater Serbia, which may be called
_Yougoslavia_, will gather up the scattered threads of the history of
Serbian art in the past. We shall then no longer speak of “Slovene
painting,” “Croatian drama,” “Old Serbian tapestry,” “Serbian
folk-lore.” The literature of one and the same people will cease to
be broken up into “Literature in Ragusa,” “Dalmatian Island and Coast
Literature,” “Bosnian,” “Croatian,” and “Serbian” literature. All this,
together with the national life to the State, will form the _totality
of the Southern Slav nation_. The two zones of culture: the Western
European zone of the Croats and Slovenes, and the Eastern-Byzantine
zone of the Serbians; the three religions: Orthodox, Catholic and
Mussulman; the two forms of script: the Latin of the Croats, and the
Cyrillic of the Serbians; all these, as well as a few differences of
speech, will only add to the wealth and originality of Southern Slav
culture. When this Greater Serbia or _Yougoslavia_ shall stand for
the third great civilization of the Balkans (the first was Hellenic,
the second Byzantine), the Southern Slavs will become a new factor
in European civilization and politics, and the great art of Serbian
national poetry, and the work of the Yougoslav artist, Meštrović, will
no longer be buried treasures. Serbian music, literature and science,
although they have existed and still exist, will only then be known and
recognized.

       *       *       *       *       *

It has been the fate of the Southern Slavs to fulfil a mission in
European history; Serbia and the Serbo-Croat race constituted a bulwark
for Europe and Christianity against the invasion of Turkish barbarians
and Islam. The martyrdom of the Southern Slavs lasted for centuries;
it was a most humiliating thraldom to the barbarous Mongolism of the
Ottoman Turks, and a hard, incessant fight for the dignity of humanity.
It was a period of indescribable suffering from the barbarities of a
lower race, one of the hardest struggles for existence the world has
known. It was impossible to continue or to realize the plans of the
great Nemanjić rulers. All attempts at union between the peoples of
Croatia and Bosnia were fruitless: _never in the history of Europe
has a nation lived for so many centuries in such terrible political
impotence and disunion as the Serbo-Croat and Slovene nation_. Italy at
the time of the Renaissance, and Germany before the liberation, were,
in comparison with the Southern Slavs, in a well-organized and healthy
condition.

Thus it has come about that we have no Serbian history of art, only
various provincial histories—Old Serbian, Macedonian, Dalmatian,
Bosnian, History of Serbian art in Hungary, Slovene and New Serbian.

The bitter enmity of Austria-Hungary towards Serbia, which deepened
steadily, and finally became the direct cause of the European War,
began with the Russophile and Southern Slav trend of Serbian policy
after the series of Southern Slav Congresses, which took place
in Belgrade at the time of the coronation of King Peter in 1904.
Serbia’s new policy, after the suicidal and humiliating pro-Austrian
policy of the Obrenović dynasty had been abolished, was a _racial
policy_, pro-Russian, pro-Bulgarian and democratic, which restored the
stability and order of the State, and led to the foundation of the
Balkan Alliance in 1912. Serbia regenerated, sought to consolidate
a scattered, provincial culture into one great culture of a Greater
Serbia, or of all the Southern Slavs. For this reason it has only quite
recently become possible to speak of the united cultural efforts of
the Serbo-Croats.

The consolidation of Southern Slav history and culture are only now
beginning, and the appearance of the artist-prophet Ivan Meštrović,
a Dalmatian Catholic, is the central event in Southern Slav history
of art. He is the prophet of the third, or Southern Slav Balkan,
State, who proclaims that it is the historical task of Serbia to free
the Southern Slavs and unite them, not only in a political, but in
a spiritual, sense; and he has symbolized this ideal in his great
art, which is the living soul of the architecture and sculpture of
the _Temple of Kossovo_, and of all the Southern Slavs. When the
Balkans are freed from Ottoman Islam and the Turks, when a strong and
progressive Federation of Southern Slavs, including Bulgaria, Roumania,
Greece and even Albania, is established, then we may see the triumphant
rise of a mature and typically Southern Slav culture. When all nations
shall receive their due, when they are allowed to develop freely, then
and only then, the blood-drenched Peninsula will be at peace. A strong
and prosperous Yougoslavia will interest the world both politically and
economically; the opinion that the Southern Slavs are an uncivilized
race will cease, and the great services rendered to art and letters by
the Serbo-Croats and Slovenes will be recognized and appreciated at
their true value. If we include Meštrović’s _Temple of Kossovo_ among
these achievements, we may fairly claim to have contributed to the
greatest possessions of human culture for all time.

The life-work of the Serbian Monarchs of the Nemanjić dynasty, who
aimed at the inclusion of Serbia within the zone of the then-civilized
nations of Europe, failed of its fulfilment, owing to the fall of the
Serbian Empire before the Turks. The Serbo-Byzantine architecture
of the convents and churches which abound in Macedonia and Serbia,
affords admirable proof of the results of this work, the most important
examples being Studenitza (1198), Dečani (1331), and Gračanica (1341).
A few years later culture made great strides in Dalmatia, but it
was not a spontaneous, national growth, but rather the offspring
of Slavicized Latin culture, and savoured more of Venice and the
Renaissance than of Dalmatia and the Southern Slavs. Furthermore, the
artists, scientists, philosophers and writers of Dalmatia went to Italy
and were lost to their nation. The poor, down-trodden, uncivilized
Southern Slav countries could not provide their artists with a
livelihood. The celebrated mathematician, philosopher and astronomer,
Roger Bošković, went to Rome, Paris, and London; Nikolo Tomasso, a
Serbian from Sevenico, founded the Italian literary language. Julije
Lovranić (Laurana), an eminent architect of his time, was a Serbian
from Dalmatia, and at one time the teacher of Bramante; and Franjo
Laurana, of Palermo, a kinsman of Julije, earned a high place in the
history of art through his sculpture; he was especially celebrated for
his beautiful female portrait busts. In like manner many Serbians found
their way to other countries. For instance, Peter Križanić, a Croatian,
was the first Pan-Slavist; he was exiled to Siberia for his schemes of
reform and European propaganda in Russia. To this day the Dalmatian
ships’ captains are not the only representatives of that country all
the world over, but great scientists and inventors like Pupin and
Nikola Tesla.

Whenever a part of Serbian territory became independent, or even for
a short time found tolerable conditions, an intense creative culture
grew up swiftly, even after the fall of the Empire and during the
time of slavery. For generations the greater part of the Serbians
have lived, and still live, in slavery. The Serbians under Turkish
rule were liberated only two years ago, and the liberation of the
Slavs of the Hapsburg Monarchy is only just beginning. In accordance
with the changes in the political fate of the Southern Slavs, and
as the material conditions of the people grew better or worse, the
centres of Slav literature moved from place to place. This unfortunate
disorganization and consequent impotence were the bane of Serbian or
Southern Slav literature. Ragusan literature; the literature of the
Dalmatian coast and its islands, with its original creations, and
many fine translations of the Greek drama—Homer, Virgil and Horace,
Dante, Petrarch, Boccaccio, Tasso, Ariosto—none of these counted in
the later development of literature in Croatia, Serbian Hungary,
Bosnia or Serbia. As things now stand, Slovenian literature bears no
recognized relation to Serbo-Croat literature, which has to a certain
extent become unified. The great Croatian poets, Peter Preradović, Ivan
Mažuranić, and Silvije Kranjčević are scarcely read in Serbia, owing
to bitter political disagreements and the Austrian _divide-et-impera_
policy. For this reason, too, the Croatians scarcely know the greatest
Southern Slav poets such as the Montenegrin Petar Petrović Njegoš, or
the Serbian from Hungary, Lazar Kostić. The historian and philosopher
Boža Knižević and the metaphysician Branislav Petronijević are scarcely
known in Bosnia owing to their being Serbians from Serbia, that is to
say, from anti-Austrian Serbia. Thus it is scarcely surprising that
Southern Slav culture is unknown in Europe, when it is practically
unknown even in Yougoslavia; when Meštrović, the immortal artist of
Yougoslavia, the architect and sculptor of the Serbian Acropolis, is
unknown to his own countrymen beyond the frontier.

       *       *       *       *       *

At present the nation is fighting for its very life. _Inter arma
silent musæ_, and when a nation has to bear first the occupation and
then the annexation of the heart of its territory; when it has to
wage an incessant war, even in times of so-called peace, against an
implacable neighbour like Austria-Hungary; when the strength of the
nation is absorbed in the mere struggle for _existence_; then it is
impossible to realize the possession of a great artist. The Serbian
nation has waged three wars of life and death, and always against
an enemy stronger than herself; first against Turkey, then against
Bulgaria, and now against Austria—all within three years. At such a
time it is impossible to create a great civilization, and still less
possible not to appear to the world as a nation created solely for war.
Diplomatic Europe is interested in Serbian politics—_not_ from motives
of humanity and justice. And to the Europe of civilization, philosophy,
science, art and ethics the spirit of Yougoslavia is not even a name.
Who knows that even apart from Meštrović—who, as the peer of Phidias
and Michelangelo, cannot be compared with mere mortals—the finest
architect of the present day is a Southern Slav—a Slovene—the son of a
small nation of three million people? This great architect of modern
Europe is Josip Plečnik; he was director of the Arts Academy in Prague,
and a few months ago was promoted to the Vienna Academy. Downtrodden
Dalmatia boasts such powerful writers, thinkers and scientists as
Count Ivo Vojnović, Antun Tresić-Pavićić, the philosopher Petrić, and
the historian Nodilo. At the time of Carducci and Swinburne Bosnia
possessed a typical poet, Silvije Kranjčević, and at the present
time Serbia has in Borislav Stankovi a novelist worthy to rank with
Leonid Andreeff. In Yougoslavia there are to-day splendidly edited
reviews, particularly good theatres and opera (as for instance the
Opera at Zagreb), and good universities with distinguished professors
and scientific men. Assuredly the Southern Slavs are not to blame if
the whole world has seen this gifted and important nation through
the spectacles of the Viennese Press, a nation which is worth more
to the human race than the whole of the Hapsburg dynasty—or _was_,
until the outbreak of the present war.... In all their poverty and
slavery, and without the help even of Serbia, they undertook a campaign
of enlightenment in the European Press, organized art exhibitions,
and by concerts, lectures, and translations made known their art and
literature to the world. English literature has greatly influenced
Serbo-Croat literature; and not only Shakespeare, Dickens, Byron and
Shelley are translated into Serbian, but Carlyle, Buckle, and Draper
have also exercised great influence upon Serbian culture; and the most
modern literature of Britain has found worthy translators and admirers.
The poems of Rossetti, Browning, Keats, Swinburne and Walt Whitman, the
novels of Wells, and the plays of Bernard Shaw have been translated
into the beautiful tongue of the “Belgrade regicides.”

       *       *       *       *       *

To resume, it is not surprising that Western Europeans do not know
Southern Slav civilization, when many rich fields of this culture
still remain “buried treasures” to the Southern Slavs themselves. The
Serbo-Croat and Slovene poets, such as Gundulić, Ranjina, Palmotić
and Gjorgjić from Ragusa and Dalmatia, compare favourably with the
exponents of Western literature, and among modern Serbo-Croat poets
Petar Petrović Njegoš, Lazar Kostić and Silvije Kranjčević are great,
even when compared with the greatest. Yet it is not so much the artists
and their individual works, but the _nation_, and the _collective
artistic worth_ of the national spirit that is of priceless value. The
music of the Southern Slavs, more especially the music of Old Serbia
and Bosnia, possesses great melodic beauty and emotional depth, and
when it finds its modern exponent it will take its proper place in the
history of music. This great art of the Serbian nation however, is
not only absolutely unknown to Europe and the rest of the world, but
even in Serbia, although universally known, it is cultivated little
or not at all. The Serbian State, which since its re-birth under
Karagjorgje Petrović has waged continual war for the liberty and union
of the Southern Slavs, could not devote itself to music, art and
beauty; and that part of the nation which remains under the yoke of
the Ottoman Turks and the Hapsburgs felt still less inclined to do so.
The priceless treasures of popular song have not yet been artistically
exploited. Thus their own creation is a buried treasure to the Southern
Slavs; in a sense, one may even say, that there is no Serbian music.
Europeans cannot value this beautiful and noble music because they do
not know it; neither can they value the national textile art of Old
Serbia, Dalmatia and Croatia, since it is equally unknown. For three
consecutive years the Serbian Government has had to arm the State, and
has had neither time nor money to turn the Southern Slav textile art
into a modern industry.

What the Serbo-Croats and Slovenes, and even the Bulgarians, do
cultivate, and are proud of, is the Southern-Slav or Serbian national
poetry, the ballads and legends which the people have invented and
sung during centuries of slavery. Goethe, the great “citizen of
the universe,” and the first to predict the foundation of a modern
universal literature, assigned Serbian national poetry a very high
place among the literatures of the world, and many of the poems have
already been translated into different languages.[18]

To understand Ivan Meštrović, the creator of the _Temple of Kossovo_,
one must feel Serbian music and appreciate Serbian textile art; and
above all one must learn to know this noble nation of Christians and
Slavs through their national poetry. It is not arrogance on our part
to call Meštrović and the _Temple of Kossovo_ the eternal art of the
present generation. Every divinely-inspired artist creates not only
beauty, but life,—for the mind is the life—and this great regenerator
of European art is the son of a small nation of the blood-stained
Balkans, and also the son of the great race which has produced
Dostoievski.

       *       *       *       *       *

Europe and mankind in general must accord justice to the Southern
Slav spirit, and the historic merit and achievements of the Serbian
nation. The knowledge of Serbian music and especially of Serbian poetry
can only be a gain to the Europe of the future. For this Serbian art
is a _truly Slav art_, wonderful and deep, equal to that of ancient
Egypt and India. It was not because Miczkiewicz, the great Polish
poet, was himself a Slav, that he sang the praises of this beauty so
enthusiastically, but because he understood the moral of this beauty.
This poetry has been for centuries a life-force of the Southern Slav
nation, because morality and life are one, and because the spirit of
Serbian beauty—barbaric and god-like—is a religion in poetry and a
moral in art. Without fear we may say that Serbian ethics are the
most wonderful in the history of humanity. If it may be said of any
nation that it is great and noble, it may be said of the Southern
Slavs. Europe does not realize the monstrous injustice she has done
these “barbarous” peoples. They are rather a heroic and mythical than
a barbaric people. It is only Austria-Hungary who regards them as a
nation of anarchists and regicides.

What is the Serbian spirit? It has been twice manifested. Once
through a man, Ivan Meštrović, the prophet of the Slav Balkans,
and again through the whole nation, in the thousands of legends,
fairy-tales, ballads and songs which have been collected by Vuk
Stefanović-Karadžić.[19] The occupation of Bosnia, then the national
catastrophe of the annexation of Bosnia, and finally the Balkan War
have already become the subjects of poetry, and our own time will see
the latest and greatest war of the Southern Slavs sung in all its
heroic reality.




FOOTNOTES:

[1] The reason for this “cultural” ostracism of Russia is both
racial and geographical. There has never been any desire in England
to belittle the Slavs, least of all Russia. On the contrary, a long
succession of traditions, as far back as the Viking Age, binds the
extreme West to the extreme East of Europe, and has now reached a great
ethical and practical expression in the Triple Entente. But between
Western Europe and the Slavs lies Imperial Germany, who has acted not
only as a barrier, but also as a distorting glass, through which the
western and eastern races of Europe were compelled to look at each
other. [Footnote by the translator F.S.C.]

[2] History has recently cast a doubt on Rurik’s Norse origin, but
tradition is quite positive on the subject. Certainly the name
Rurik—recalling the Norse-Scottish Roderick-Rory—is in its favour,
and it is interesting that the Scandinavian origin of Rurik, and
even the Russian origin of Scandinavians has been championed by some
Scottish writers—perhaps to explain the undoubted Scottish sympathy
with the Russian people.[3] (_See_ Piazzi Smyth’s “Three Cities in
Russia.”)—F.S.C.

[3] In connection with this, it is interesting to know that several
Slav historiologists assert that the Scotch are of Slav descent.—S.T.

[4] Dostoievski, who really only knew Russia and his own people, was
of course justified in crediting the Russian nation alone with these
qualities. If he could have studied the British in their own country,
he could not have failed to discover many points of resemblance between
the two nations.—S. T.

[5] The Tatar scriptures.

[6] It cannot be too strongly impressed on the British reader who has
not made a study of mediæval politics on the Continent, that this
acknowledgment of the rule of certain royal Houses _was voluntary_, and
not at all brought about by conquest. If these elected rulers chose
to abuse their privileges, the nations who had chosen them reserved
to themselves the right to protest and even repudiate their authority
(_cf._ the Swiss Rebellion against Austria [William Tell] and the Rise
of the Dutch Republic).—Translator’s Note, F.S.C.

[7] The Expropriation Law provides facilities for German colonists
in Polish territory whereby Polish land and private property may be
summarily _expropriated_ for the benefit of German colonists.—S. T.

[8] This statement has been endorsed by many foreign Slav scholars.
Both Serbia and Croatia have adopted the colloquial tongue of
Hercegovina as their literary language.—S. T.

[9] A derisive term for “German.”

[10] Taken from Niko Županić. (Delo, 1903).

[11] This fact is the first proof in history that the Southern Slavs
have from the very beginning been the bulwark of Christianity, and
thereby also the bulwark of European civilization.

[12] It is due to his diplomacy that Serbia was freed from the Turkish
garrisons in her territory.

[13] King Milan was a fascinating orator, and often the populace, who
had assembled with the intention of demonstrating against him, were so
carried away by his oratory that their abuse was converted into cheers.

[14] See the articles in No. 16 of “the Round Table.” (Meantime the
sentences in the Serajevo murder trial have been passed, and it
is significant that five Serbs who had no part in the murder have
been condemned to death, whereas the actual murderer, Princip, and
the bomb-thrower, Cabrinović, were merely sentenced to terms of
imprisonment.)—S. T.

[15] The Bishop as spiritual and temporal head of the State.

[16] His collection of poems, “Gorski Vienac,” is a lasting monument of
the Southern Slav literature of the last century.—S. T.

[17] This trial has been described at length in Seton Watson’s
admirable book, “_The Southern Slav Question_.”

[18] Goethe’s studies referred to appear in Goethe’s Works Vol. vi.,
Stuttgart, 1874.

[19] Among English translations of Serbian poetry should be mentioned
one by Bowring (1826) and that by Madame Elodie Lawton Mijatović,
“Kossovo, Serbian National Song about the Fall of the Empire” (London,
Isbister, 1881). The most recent English edition of Serbian poetry
is entitled “Hero Tales and Legends of Serbia,” by Voislav Petrović
(London, 1914).


_Printed in Great Britain by Wyman & Sons Ltd., London and Reading._



***