The Origins and the
Ethical Challenges of a
Nation
Helena P. Blavatsky
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
A 2012 Editorial
Note:
Helena P. Blavatsky’s
views in the
following article have significant
points in
common with the
philosophical Slavophilism
which permeates some
writings of Fiodor
Dostoievsky and
influences those of Leon Tolstoy.
H.P.B. also shows in it that
the lack of social Ethics
was a central factor in
the origin of Russian nihilism.
The original title of
the article, “The History
of a Book”, is a reference to the novel “Fathers
and Sons”, by Ivan S. Turgenev
(1818-1883).
The text was first
published by the daily
newspaper “The Pioneer”, in Allahabad , India ,
on March 12th, 1880. Editor
Boris de Zirkoff writes
in a footnote in “Blavatsky Collected Writings”
(TPH, vol. II, p. 351) that
the article appeared “the
day before the
assassination of the Emperor
Alexander II, which took
place March 1st, according
to the so-called
“old-style” or Julian Calendar”. This
circumstance and the
contents of the article seem
to suggest that such a act
of violence did not come
as a complete surprise
to H.P.B.
We reproduce the text
from the volume “A Modern
Panarion”, by H. P. Blavatsky, Theosophy Co., Los
Angeles, 1981 (a facsimile of the 1895 edition), 504 pp.,
pp. 229-236. In order to make the reading easier, we
divided some longer paragraphs
into smaller ones.
(C. C. A.)
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
As the indications in the
press all point towards a Russian reign of terror, either before or at the
death of the Czar - most probably the former - a bird’s-eye view of the
constitution of Russian society will enable us to better understand events as
they transpire.
Three distinct elements compose what is now known as
the Russian aristocracy. These may be broadly said to represent the primitive
Slavonian, the primitive Tartar, and composite Russianized immigrants from
other countries, and subjects of conquered states, such as the Baltic
provinces. The flower of the haute
noblesse, those whose hereditary descent places them beyond challenge in
the very first rank, are the Rurikovitch,
or descendants of the Grand Duke Rurik and [the ruling families of] the
aforetime separate principalities of Novgorod, Pskof, etc., which were welded
together into the Muscovite empire. Such are the Princes Bariatinsky,
Dolgorouki, Shonysky (now extinct, we believe), Tscherbatow, Ouroussov,
Viazemsky, etc.
Rurik, as is well known, was not a Slav by birth, but
a Varyago-Roos, though his nationality,
as well as that of his people who came with him to Russia, is very much
questioned unto this day, having been a matter of scientific dispute for
several years between the two well-known professors of St. Petersburg,
Kostomarof and Pogodine -the latter now dead.
Implored by the Slavs to come and reign over their
country, Rurik is reported to have been addressed by the delegates in these
ominous words: “Come with us, great prince ……for vast is our mother land; but
there is little order in it” - words which their descendants might well report
with as much, if not more, propriety now as then.
Accepting the invitation, Rurik came in A.D. 861 to Novgorod , with his two
brothers, and laid the foundation of Russian nationality. The “Rurikovitch”,
then, are the descendants of this prince, his two brothers and his son, Igor,
the line running through a long succession of princes and chiefs of
principalities. The reigning house of Rurik became extinct at the death of
Fredor, the son of Ivan the Terrible. After a period of anarchy, the Romanoffs,
a family of petty nobles, came into power. But, as this was only in 1613, it
was not without reason that the Prince P. Dolgorouki, a modern historian of
Catherine II (a book prohibited in Russia ), when smarting under the
sense of a personal wrong, taunted the present Emperor with the remark:
“Alexander II must not forget that it is little more
than two centuries since the Romanoffs held the stirrups of the Princes
Dolgorouki.”
And this, despite
the marriage of Mary, Princess Dolgorouki, with Michael Romanoff after he
became Czar.
The Tartar princely families descend from the Tartar
Khans and Magnates of the “Zolotaya Orda” (Golden Orda) of Kazan ,
who so long held Russia
in subjection, but who were made tributary by Ivan III, father of Ivan the
Terrible, in 1523-1530.
Of the families of this blood which survive, the
Princes Dondoukof, whose head was formerly Governor-General of Kiev, and more
recently served in Bulgaria
in a similar capacity, may be mentioned. These are, more or less, looked down
upon by the “Rurikovitch”, as well as by old Lithuanian and Polish princely
families, who hate the Russian descendants of Rurik, as these hate their Roman
Catholic rivals. Then comes in the third element, the old Livonian and Esthonian
Barons and Counts, the Kourland nobles and freiherrs
[1] who boast of descending from the first
Crusaders and look down upon the Slav aristocracy; and various foreign families
invited into the country by successive sovereigns, a Western element engrafted
upon the Russian stock. The names of the latter immigrés have been Russianized in some cases beyond recognition;
as, for instance, the English Hamiltons, who have now become the “Khomoutoff!”
We have not the data which would enable us to give the
numerical strength of either of the above classes; but an enumeration, made in
the year 1842, showed a total of 551,970 noblemen of hereditary, and 257,346 of
personal rank. This comprised all in the empire of different degrees of noble
ranks, including the princely families and the understratum of nobility. There
is an untitled nobility, the descendants of the old Boyars of Russia, often
prouder of their family record than those who are known as princes. The
Demidoff family, for instance, and the Narishkine, though frequently offered
the ranks of prince and count, have always haughtily rejected the honour,
maintaining that the Czar could make a prince any day, but never a Demidoff or
a Narishkine.
Peter the Great, having abolished the princely
privileges of the Boyars, and made the offices of the empire accessible to all,
created the Tchin, or a caste of
municipal employés and government
officials, divided into fourteen classes, the first eight of which confer
hereditary nobility upon the person holding one of them, and the six latter
give but a personal nobility to the incumbent, and do not transmit gentility to
the children. Office does not increase the nobility of incumbents already
noble, but does lift the ignoble into a higher social rank (Tchinovnik, government employé, was for years a term of scorn
in the mouths of the nobles). It is only since Alexander came to the throne
that an old edict was done away with, which deprived of noble rank and reduced
to the peasantry any family which, for three successive generations, had not
taken service under the government. Those were called Odnodvortzi, and among them some of the oldest families found
themselves included in 1845, when the Emperor Nicholas ordered the examination
of the titles of nobles. The nice distinctions among the above fourteen classes
are as puzzling to a foreigner as the relative precedence of the various
buttons of Chinese Mandarins, or the tails of the Pachas.
Besides these conflicting elements of high and low
nobility, the direct descendants of the Boyars of old - the Slavonian peers in the palmy days of Russia,
divided into petty sovereignties, who chose for themselves the prince they
wanted to serve and left him at will, who were vassals, not subjects, had their
own military retinue, and without whose approval no grand-ducal “ukase” could
be of any avail - and the ennobled Tchinovniks,
sons of priests and petty traders, there are yet to be considered 79,000,000 of
other people. These may be divided into the millions of liberated serfs (22,000,000),
of crown peasants (16,000,000), who inhabit cities, preferring various trades
and menial service to agriculture. The rest comprises - 1) the Meshtchanis, or petty bourgeois, one
step higher than the peasant; 2) the enormous body of merchants and traders
divided into three guilds; 3) the hereditary citizens, who have nothing to do
with nobility; 4) the black clergy or the monks and nuns; and the secular
clergy, or married priests - a caste apart and hereditary; and 5) the military
class.
We will not include in our classification the
3,000,000 of Mohammedans, the 2,000,000 of Jews, the 250,000 Buddhists, the
pagan Izors, the Savakots, and the Karels, who seem perfectly well satisfied
with the Russian rule, thoroughly tolerant to their various worships. [2] These, with the exception of the
higher educated Jews and some fanatical Mohammedans, care little as to the hand
that rules them. But we will remind the reader of the fact that there are over
one hundred different nations and tribes, who speak more than forty different
languages, and are scattered over an area of 8,331,884 English square miles [3]; that the population of all Russia,
European and Asiatic, is not above ten to the square mile; that the railroads
are very few and easily controlled, and other means of transport scanty.
How far it would be possible to effect a complete
revolution throughout the Russian Empire, may well be a subject of conjecture.
With so little to bind the many nationalities into one movement, it would seem
to a foreigner an undertaking so hopeless as to discourage even an
Internationalist or a Nihilist. Add to this the unquestionable devotion of the
liberated serfs and peasantry to the Czar, in whom they see alike the
benefactor of the oppressed, the vicegerent of God, and the head of their
Church, and the case seems yet more problematical. At the same time, we must
not forget the lessons of history, which has more than once shown us how the
very vastness of an empire and the lack of a common unity among its subjects
have proved at some supreme crisis the most potent elements of its downfall.
“Russian
society slumbers, or rather it feels heavy and somnolent. It lazily nods, only
now and then opening its lifeless eyes, as might one who, after a heavy dinner,
forced to sit in an unnatural position, cannot resist a lethargic drowsiness,
and feels that he must either unbutton his uniform and draw a full breath, or -
suffocate. But the dinner is an official one, and his body pinched in a state
uniform too tight for him. The man is overcome with an irresistible somnolence;
he feels the blood rushing to his head, his legs tremble and his hand
mechanically fumbles the button of the uniform to get one gasp of breath that would
interrupt the unendurable torture. Such is the present condition of our
society.”
“But
while it is nodding under its threatened apoplexy, from a surfeit of
indigestible food, those carnivorous jackals, who are always ready to eat and
drink, and can digest whatever they pick up, do not sleep. The violation of the
seventh commandment, intellectually as well as physically, having debased body,
mind and soul, is nestling in the very heart of the public. Adulterers of body,
adulterers of thought, adulterers of knowledge and science, adulterers of
labour - reign in our midst, are creeping out from every side as the
representatives of society and the public, boasting of their brazen hardihood,
successful wherever they go, having flung away all shame, cast aside every
concern to at least conceal the nakedness of their deeds, even from the eyes of
those from whom they squeeze all that can be squeezed only from such a fool as
- man. Government and treasury pilferers; embezzlers of public and private
properties; blacklegs and swindlers subsidized by numberless bubble companies,
by stock companies and fraudulent enterprises; thimble-riggers and violators of
women and children whom they debauch and ruin; contractors, money-lenders,
bribed judges and venal counsel, bucket-shop keepers and sharpers of all
nationalities, every religion, every social class. This is our modern social
force. Like beasts of prey, hunting in packs, this force, gloating over its
quarry, satiating itself, noisily crunching its restless, tireless jaws,
imposing itself upon everyone, dares to offer itself as the patron of
everything - science, literature, arts, and even thought itself. There it is,
the kingdom of this world, flesh of the flesh, blood of the blood, made in the
image of the animal from which the first germ of man evolved.”
Such are the social ethics of our contemporary Russia , on
Russian testimony. If so, then it must have reached that culminating point from
which it must either fall into the mire of dissolution, like old Rome , or gravitate
towards regeneration through all the horrors and chaos of a “Reign of Terror”.
The press teems with guarded complaints of “prostration
of forces” among its representatives, the chronic signs of fast-impending
social dissolution, and the profound apathy into which the whole Russian people
seem to have fallen. The only beings full of life and activity, amid this
lethargy of satiety, seem to be the omnipresent and ever-invisible Nihilists.
Clearly there must be a change.
From all this social rottenness, the black fungus of
Nihilism has sprung. Its hot-bed has been preparing for years, by the gradual
sapping of moral tone and self-respect and the debauchery of the higher class,
who always give the impulse to those below them for good or evil. All that
lacked was the occasion and the man. Under the passport system of Nicholas, the
chances for becoming polluted by Paris
life were confined to a mere handful of rich nobles, whom the caprice of the
Czar allowed to travel. Even they, the privileged of favour and fortune, had to
apply for permission six months in advance, and pay a thousand roubles for
their passport, with a heavy fine for each day in excess of the time granted,
and the prospect of confiscation of their entire property should their foreign stay
exceed three years. But under Alexander everything was changed; the
emancipation of the serfs was followed by numberless reforms - the unmuzzling
of the press, trial by jury, equalizing the rights of citizenship, free
passports, etc.
Though good in themselves, these reforms came with
such a rush upon a people unaccustomed to the least of these privileges, as to
throw them into a high fever. The patient, escaping from his straitjacket, ran
wildly about the streets. Then came the Polish Revolution of 1863, in which a
number of Russian students participated. Reaction followed and repressive measures were
readopted one by one; but it was too late. The caged animal had tasted liberty,
though ever so brief, and thenceforth could not be docile as before. Where
there had been one Russian traveller to Paris , Vienna and Berlin
under the old reign, now there were thousands and tens of thousands; and just
so many more agencies were at work to import fashionable vice and scientific
scepticism.
The names of John Stuart Mill, Darwin, and Büchner,
were upon the lip of every beardless boy and heedless girl at the universities
and colleges. The former were preaching Nihilism, the latter Women’s Rights and
Free Love. The one let their hair grow like moujiks,
and donned the red national shirt and kaftan
of the peasantry; the other clipped their hair short and affected blue
spectacles. Trades Unions, infected with the notions of the International,
sprang up like mushrooms; and demagogues ranted to social clubs upon the conflict
between labour and capital. The cauldron began to seethe. At last the man came.
The history of Nihilism can be summed up in two words.
For their name they are indebted to the great novelist Turgenev, who created
Bazarof, and stamped the type with the name of Nihilist. Little did the famous author of “Fathers and Sons”
imagine at that time into what national degeneration his hero would lead the
Russian people twenty-five years later. Only “Bazarof” - in whom the novelist
painted with satirical fidelity the characteristics of certain “Bohemian”
negationists, then just glimmering on the horizon of student life - had little
in common, except the name and materialistic tendency, with the masked
Revolutionists and Terrorists of to-day.
Shallow, bilious, and nervous, this studiosus medicinæ is simply an unquiet
spirit of sweeping negation; of that sad, yet scientific scepticism reigning
now supreme in the ranks of the highest intellect; a spirit of Materialism,
sincerely believed in, and as honestly preached; the outcome of long
reflections over the rotten remnants of man and frog in the dissecting room,
where the dead man suggested to his
mind no more than the dead frog.
Outside of animal life everything to him is nihil; “a thistle”, growing out of
a lump of mud, is all that man can look forward to after death. And thus this
type - Bazarof - was caught up as their highest ideal by the university
students. The “Sons” began destroying what the “Fathers” had built. . . . And
now Turgenev is forced to taste of the bitter fruits of the tree of his
planting. Like the creator of Frankenstein, who could not control the
mechanical monster that his ingenuity had constructed out of the putrefactions
of the churchyard, he now finds his “type” - which was from the first hateful
and terrible to him - grown into the ranting spectre of the Nihilist delirium,
the red-handed Socialist. The press, at the initiative of the Moskovskye Vyedomosty - a centenarian
paper - takes up the question and openly accuses the most brilliant literary
talent of Russia ,
one whose sympathies are, and always have been, on the side of the “Fathers”,
with having been the first to plant the poisonous weed.
Owing to the peculiar transitional state of Russian
society between 1850 and 1860, the name was hailed and adopted, and the
Nihilists began springing up at every side. They captured the national
literature, and their new doctrines were fast disseminated throughout the whole
empire. And now Nihilism has grown
into a power - an imperium in imperio.
It is no more with Nihilism with which Russia struggles, but with the
terrible consequences of the ideas of 1850. “Fathers and Sons” must henceforth
occupy a prominent place, not only in literature, as quite above the ordinary
level of authorship, but also as the creator of a new page in Russian political
history, the end of which no man can foretell.
NOTES:
[1]
Note From the Editor: “Freiherr” is a term broadly
equivalent to “baron” in German language. (C. C. A.)
[2] Note by H.P. Blavatsky: “By the last statistics, the
Mohammedans have 4,189 mosques and 7,940 muftis and mulahs in the Empire of
Russia; the Buddhists 389 places of worship and 4,400 priests; the Jews 445
synagogues and 4,935, etc.”
[3] Note by H.P. Blavatsky: “According to the calculation made
in 1856 by G. Schweitzer, Director of the Observatory of Moscow.”
00000000000000000000000000000
Always
visit www.Esoteric-Philosophy.com , www.TheosophyOnline.com and www.FilosofiaEsoterica.com .
If you
want to have access to a daily study of the original teachings of Theosophy,
write to
lutbr@terra.com.br and ask for information on the e-group E-THEOSOPHY.
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
