ARTICLE IX.-UNDERGROUND RUSSIA.

Underground Russia. Revolutionary Profiles and Sketches from Life by STEPNIAK. Translated from the Italian. Charles Scribner's Sons: N. Y., 1883.

STEPNIAK'S book is to me a most refreshing bit of reading. I wonder why so little has been said about it. Its preface, written by Lavroff, is dated London, March 4, 1882. There has certainly been time for its merits to become known, but I do not find that it has been adequately noticed. What is Nihilism and what are the Nihilists? Stepniak undertakes to answer these questions. It is worth while to know what Nihilism means, but how thoroughly the novelists and reporters have obscured the subject! Nihilism is a philosophical system or it is a set of blood-thirsty assassins. One who reads Turgheneff and the newspapers makes his choice or decides that the whole subject is unintelligible. But the author of "Underground Russia" speaks from his own knowledge and to the point.

Under the pseudonym of Stepniak, an energetic actor in the Russian revolutionary movement shares his experiences with the public. Of course he writes with enthusiasm and with a purpose. There is ever so much strong, personal feeling evident in his descriptions, and emphasis is laid upon such portions of his theme as are intended to call forth sympathy in the reader. However, this fact adds to the value of the book as literature; and indeed in its design and in the happy delineation of character "Underground Russia" is very good literature. It is to be regretted that the translation is not better. For example, one notices "polemist," "sentence of a jury," "interned," "long eyebrows," and a lack of taste throughout.

Lavroff claims for Stepniak's book an unique place among all the attempts which have been made to describe Nihilism. He says that of previous writers, those attached to the Russian press have failed to publish the whole truth; that such candid

writing as has appeared is still inaccessible to the European public, being in the Russian or Ukrainian language; that, as for the few European scholars who know the Russian language, the materials furnished by the revolutionary press are quite insufficient for them, and do not save them from great blunders. A perfect knowledge of Russia and of the conditions of the Russian people must be presupposed, which it is almost impossible for a foreigner to possess. The progress of the revolutionary movement must have been followed step by step, and on the spot, in order to understand the substitution, within a very brief period, of other theoretical and practical questions for those formerly in vogue.

In the progress of the revolutionary movement there are three steps to be distinguished. First in point of time came Nihilism; next, Revolutionary Socialism; last, the present phase, namely, Terrorism. The genuine Nihilism was no more than a philosophical and literary movement, which flourished in the first decade after the emancipation of the serfs; that is to say, between 1860 and 1870. The fundamental principle of Nihilism was absolute individualism. It was the negation of all the obligations imposed upon the individual by society, by family life, and by religion. Nihilism was a reaction, not against political despotism, but against that moral despotism which weighed upon the private and inner life of the individual. Nihilism attacked religion and the victory was definitely, absolutely gained. "Among people in Russia with any education at all, a man now who is not a materialist, a thorough materialist, would really be a curiosity." Nihilism proclaimed war not only against religion, but against everything not based upon pure and positive reason-for example, Art, together with everything which excites the sentiment of the beautiful. A shoemaker is superior to Raphael, because the former makes useful things while the latter makes things of no use at all! Nihilism attacked the prejudices respecting woman. Mr. Schuyler tells us that in the time of Peter the Great "except as a wife a woman's existence was scarcely recognized," and much of that tradition had come down to our days. How fully the purpose of emancipation was effected is seen in such terrible examples of devotion and heroism as

Sophia Perovskia and Vera Zassulic. "The almost religious fervor of the Russian Revolutionary movement must in great part be attributed to women."

The change from Nihilism to Revolutionary Socialism was a result of the example set by the Paris Commune. With 1871 came the more active phase of Russian socialism. The Nihilist sought his own happiness and his ideal of a reasonable and realistic life; the Revolutionist sought the happiness of others, sacrificing his own. His ideal is a life full of suffering and a martyr's death. The former, owing to inferior activity, was never known outside his own country; the latter has acquired a terrible reputation and is called in the world by the name of the former. The former argued in favor of individual freedom; the latter agitated in favor of political reforms. It was a change from words to deeds. The whole Russian social edifice was pronounced rotten and the reforms of Alexander II. inadequate. All the abundant enthusiasm of the Russian character was enlisted. Men and women devoted their lives, in every sense of the term, to the propaganda. As yet the means employed were comparatively harmless, but the devotion lavished upon the effort to make converts to the new social doctrines was unexampled. Not only young men and women of the most aristocratic families labored for fifteen hours a day in the factories and workshops and fields, in order to reach and influence the masses, but those in secure and honored positions were not less ardent. In 1877-78 came the trials of the agitators-public trials, designed to intimidate. The contrary effect was produced. Fanaticism was intensified and took a new form. The government must be attacked, but no longer with argument merely. Socialism became Terrorism. A revolution, as that is understood in western Europe, was impossible. The disproportion between the material forces at the disposal of the revolutionary party and those of the government was too great. Even a rising of importance, like those of Paris, was out of the question. Many of those who would sympathize in such an effort were scattered throughout the villages and small towns. There was no controlling city population. Secret attack was resolved upon, as the only resort left to the Revolutionists.

The first sanguinary events took place a year before Terrorism was erected into a system. They were isolated cases without political importance, but they clearly showed that the 'milk of love' of the socialists of the previous luster was already being changed into the gall of hatred-hatred directed first of all against the more immediate enemies, the government spies. In various parts of Russia some half-dozen of these were killed.

These first acts of bloodshed could not stop here. If time were consumed in killing a vile spy, why allow the gendarme who sent him forth to live unpunished? or the procurator? or the head of the police? and so on mounting by degrees to the person of Alexander II. The Russian has the courage to be logical. It is in fact one of the most striking peculiarities of the Russian character that it never hesitates before the practical consequences of a chain of reasoning.

On January 24, 1878, Vera Zassulic shot General Trepoff, who had ordered a political prisoner to be flogged. Two months afterwards she was acquitted by a jury. The press. and the public were unanimous in confirming the verdict of the jury; but the Emperor went in person to visit Trepoff and ransacked the whole city in search of the acquitted Zassulic, in order to put her in prison. The general discontent grew beyond measure. The liberal party, which had sought reform by means of the existing political organization, turned in despair to the Socialists and joined hands with them in the struggle against despotism. The Emperor went so far as to annul the decision of his own Senate which had granted the petition of pardon of the accused in the trial of the 193. In a word, the government was not supported by the nation, by any class, or by the laws which had made itself. Against such a government everything is permitted.

Everyone knows what events followed when all hope had been placed in assassination-the events of 1878-1882. What of the actor in this drama of blood, the Terrorist? Stepniak's admiration is unqualified. He is noble, terrible, irresistibly fascinating, for he combines in himself the two sublimities of human grandeur-the martyr and the hero.

But the value of what Stepniak has written about the Ter

rorist is not lessened by this outspoken partisanship. Our author expressly disclaims all political significance for the book, and the absence of effort to be or appear impartial or philosophical increases its value as well as its interest. It is candid.

In the sketches of character which follow the introductory matter, of which the substance has now been given, the author is speaking about friends or giving personal experience. These sketches have, in part at least, the value of memoirs. Strong, vivid, intensely personal, they are to be commended just as they stand. I should like to say only that the author's female friends are handled with so much confident skill, while men are treated with a deference just perceptible; the color of men's eyes and the dress and presumable age of women are noted so particularly, that there is some force in the suggestion, Is Stepniak a woman?

In these sketches the reader is introduced not only to some of the leaders in the organization for the overthrow of the government, but the system and practical working of that organization are described by a specialist. Newspaper reporters have made the public familiar with the details of the several plots for the assassination of the Emperor those at least which have been discovered. These may be passed over: but it is certainly entertaining to be introduced to the Ukrivateli (concealers), who combine with their ostensible, nonexplosive occupations, an auxiliary service in the cause of Terrorism. "They are a large class, composed of people in every position, beginning with the aristocracy and upper middle class and reaching even to the minor officials in every branch of the government service, including the police, who, sharing the revolutionary ideas, take no active part in the struggle, for various reasons, but making use of their social position, lend powerful support to the combatants by concealing, whenever necessary, both objects and men." It is interesting to read an editor's description of the secret pressso secret that only one of the several editors of an influential paper knows where the office is situated.

It would be useless to undertake to calculate the numerical strength of the Socialists. The party is very large, numbering