Bolshevism | Page 7

died, at the end of 1894, both movements had developed considerable
strength. Working in secret and subject to terrible measures of
repression, their leaders being constantly imprisoned and exiled, these
two wings of the Russian revolutionary movement were gathering
strength in preparation for an uprising more extensive and serious than
anything that had hitherto been attempted.
Whenever a new Czar ascended the throne in Russia it was the fashion
to hope for some measure of reform and for a degree of liberality.
Frequently, as in the case of Alexander III, all such hopes were
speedily killed, but repeated experiences of the kind did not prevent the
birth of new hopes with the death of successive Czars. When, therefore,
Alexander III was succeeded by his son, Nicholas II, liberal Russia
expectantly awaited the promulgation of constitutional reforms. In this
they were doomed to disappointment, just as they had been on the
occasion of the accession of the new Czar's immediate predecessor.
Nicholas II was evidently going to be quite as reactionary as his father
was. This was made manifest in a number of ways. When a deputation
from one of the zemstvos, which congratulated him upon his ascension
to the throne, expressed the hope that he would listen to "the voice of
the people and the expression of its desires," the reply of the new Czar
was a grim warning of what was to come. Nicholas II told the zemstvos
that he intended to follow the example of his father and uphold the
principles of Absolutism, and that any thought of participation by the

zemstvos or other organizations of the people in state affairs was a
senseless dream. More significant still, perhaps, was the fact that the
hated Pobiedonostzev was retained in power.
The revolutionists were roused as they had not been for a decade or
more. Some of the leaders believed that the new reign of reaction
would prove to be the occasion and the opportunity for bringing about a
union of all the revolutionary forces, Anarchists and Socialists alike,
peasants and industrial workers. This hope was destined to fail, but
there was an unmistakable revolutionary awakening. In the latter part of
January, 1895, an open letter to Nicholas II was smuggled into the
country from Switzerland and widely distributed. It informed the Czar
that the Socialists would fight to the bitter end the hateful order of
things which he was responsible for creating, and menacingly said, "It
will not be long before you find yourself entangled by it."
IV
In one respect Nicholas II differed from Alexander III--he was by
nature more humane and sentimental. Like his father, he was
thoroughly dominated by Pobiedonostzev's theory that Russia, in order
to be secure and stable, must be based upon Nationality, Orthodoxy,
and Autocracy. He wanted to see Holy Russia homogeneous and free
from revolutionary disturbances. But his sensitive nature shrank from
the systematic persecution of the non-orthodox sects and the Jews, and
he quietly intimated to the officials that he would not approve its
continuance. At the same time, he was not willing to face the issue
squarely and openly announce a change of policy or restore religious
freedom. That would have meant the overthrow of Pobiedonostzev and
the Czar's emancipation from his sinister influence, and for that
Nicholas II lacked the necessary courage and stamina. Cowardice and
weakness of the will characterized his reign from the very beginning.
When the officials, in obedience to their ruler's wishes, relaxed the
severity which had marked the treatment of the Jews and the
non-orthodox Christian sects, the change was soon noted by the victims
and once more there was a revival of hope. But the efforts of the Finns
to secure a modification of the Russification policy were quite fruitless.

When a deputation was sent from Finland to represent to the Czar that
the rights and privileges solemnly reserved to them at the time of the
annexation were being denied to the people of Finland, Nicholas II
refused to grant the deputation an audience. Instead of getting relief, the
people of Finland soon found that the oppression steadily increased. It
was evident that Finnish nationality was to be crushed out, if possible,
in the interest of Russian homogeneity.
It soon became apparent, moreover, that Pobiedonostzev was to enjoy
even more power than he had under Alexander III. In proportion as the
character of Nicholas II was weaker than that of his father, the power of
the Procurator of the Holy Synod was greater. And there was a
superstitious element in the mentality of the new Czar which
Pobiedonostzev played upon with infinite cunning. He ruled the
weak-willed Czar and filled the ministries with men who shared his
views and upon whom he could rely. Notwithstanding the Czar's
expressed wishes, he soon found ways and