Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

'Austrian.' As there is an English, a French, a German, an Italian, and a Russian language, so there is also a Turkish language. But there is no Austrian language. That is to say, in the most marked outward sign of nationality the Turks themselves make a nearer approach to nationality than the so-called 'Austrians.' Looking at Europe only, we should say that the Turks-it is better in such discussions to say the Ottomans-have no right to be called a nation. In Asia they undoubtedly have such a right. In Europe, in large parts of Asia, they are simply foreign intruders in the lands of other nations; but in other large parts of Asia they are really the people of the land. I have said before now that, while we cannot put up with a Sultan at Constantinople, we should have no quarrel with a Sultan at Iconium. The actual rule of the ring at Constantinople is quite as oppressive, though not quite in the same way, to the settled national Turk as it is to the Christian; still to the one it is the oppression of a native sovereign; to the other it is the oppression of a foreign invader. We may fairly say that there is an Ottoman nation. What we complain of is that a certain part of the Ottoman nation intrudes itself as a ruling order, caste, or gang, into the lands of other nations. Our traveller would, in any part of Turkey,' have found some people who spoke the Turkish language; in some parts of Turkey' he would have found the Turkish language the only language spoken. But there is no part of Austria' in which he would find any Austrian language spoken at all. greater accuracy of speech, instead of going to the Austrian language, he had gone into 'Austro-Hungary,' to seek for the Austro-Hungarian language, one can only guess that his fate might be the same as if he had gone forth in any age of English history to seek for a live Semi-Saxon.

6

And if, armed with Austria' to seek for

Now it may here be objected that, if Austria or Austro-Hungary is not a national power, so neither are some at least of the other five powers. If the test of language be taken, it may be said that, out of all the five, Italy alone can stand the test. Those parts of the kingdom of Italy which do not speak Italian are certainly so small that, in a general view of Europe, or even of Italy, it needs a strong magnifier to see them. It may be said that everybody in England speaks English; but if, for the somewhat inaccurate, or at least. inadequate, name of England, we substitute the United Kingdom, or even Great Britain, or even England and Wales, there are within any of these limits some people who do not speak English at all; there is a perfectly visible proportion to whom English is not their natural tongue. So in France there are perfectly visible corners which speak other tongues than French. In the German Empire there are not

I am here assuming, in a slighter and more general way, the results of the inquiry which I have made in the article headed Race and Language,' in my Third Series of Historical Essays. I have there spoken of some Austrian' and 'Turkish' questions in a more minute and scientific fashion than I can do here, and I have drawn some distinctions which I must here take for granted.

No. 607 (No. CXXVII. N. s.)

D

ners

[ocr errors]

only visible corners which speak other tongues than German, but visible corners which would be glad to be separated from the German Empire. And if all people in France do not speak French, if all people in Germany do not speak German, still less do all people in Russia speak Russian. It is quite certain that none of the powers, not even Italy, exactly answers to a nation as defined by language. But three, perhaps four, answer to nations as defined in other ways. The strongest Home Ruler in Ireland does not ask that Ireland shall be so separated from Great Britain as that Great Britain and Ireland shall cease to form one whole in the face of other powers. Up to the changes of 1860 and 1871, one might have said that no one in France wished to be separated from France, and that no one out of France wished to be joined to France. This can no longer be said with the same exclusive truth; but it is still perfectly true that those of France which speak some other tongue than French have not the faintest wish to be separated from France. The German Empire is far from containing all Germans, and it contains some who are not Germans; still it contains so great a majority of the German-speaking people everywhere, it contains so overwhelming a majority of Germanspeaking people within its own borders, that not only is it essentially a German state, but it is the representative state of the Gerinan people everywhere. In the Russian Empire, even in European Russia, the non-Russian elements are far greater and more important, and one element, perhaps more, would gladly part asunder from the others. Still the moving power of the Russian Empire is Russian, and though there is, as we shall presently see, a Russian population outside the Russian Empire, that population is not to be compared for a moment to the German population outside the German Empire. Thus, in all these cases, even in that where the political power is furthest from coinciding with a nation as defined by language, there is one race, one language, which is manifestly dominant, and which gives its national character to the power of which it is the head and centre. In Austria 'there is none such. In Hungary taken alone there is; but in Austria' or ' Austro-Hungary' there is none. There is no one dominant race, no one dominant language. Two races, two languages, are dominant in the sense of bearing rule over the others; a third race, a third language, is dominant in the sense of forming the great majority of the whole. In the kingdom of Hungary the Magyars form a ruling race among a majority of non-Magyar races, Slavonic, Rouman, and German. In the whole Austro-Hungarian dominions, Magyars and Germans side by side form two dominant races among other races more numerous than either.

Now it is well to learn from an enemy, and there is one enemy who gives us his teaching day by day. This is the Vienna correspondent of the Times,' in whose letters we daily see what the official Austrian spirit has become under Jewish and Magyar ascendency. Nowhere do we see a a more bitter and remorseless hatred towards the struggling nations of South-Eastern Europe,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

whether under Austrian or under Turkish rule. But no one better understands the facts of the case. With him, if we ever find confusion of language, it does not mark confusion of thought, but is a sign of the fact that confusion of language is sometimes expedient. Something may in this way be learned almost every day from the Vienna correspondent's despatches. But there was one despatch which, though now more than a month old—it appeared in the course of May—is worth as long a life as we can give it. The correspondent is speaking of those who had ventured to hint that the Austrian power might possibly be thinking of an extension in the Southeastern lands beyond the limits of Bosnia and Herzegovina. For the benefit of such pestilent persons the correspondent, in his more than official, his almost imperial manner, kindly explained the ethnological condition of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy with a clearness which left nothing to wish for.

Those who make this insinuation, if they are not actuated by illwill, can have but an indifferent idea of the special character of the AustroHungarian Empire, which, unlike the other great empires of the Continent, with their compact nationalities, is formed of an union of a number of kingdoms and lands, inhabited by various nationalities. This constitution alone seems a bar to extension, which would infallibly lead to a disturbance, if not to the overthrow, of the existing organisation. If, however, this spirit of aggression and extension seems to be altogether out of the question, the duty of self-preservation and self-defence does not allow the Empire to look with indifference at the feeling of insurrection which is rising in the neighbouring Turkish Empire. All along the southern and south-eastern frontier of Austria-Hungary dwells a kindred population, so that any changes which this process of fermentation may produce in the Balkan Peninsula must needs react on the Austro-Hungarian population on the frontier, a large portion of which consists of refugees who came over in the last century and have settled there. Austria has no wish or interest to prevent the free development of these neighbouring populations, &c.

The difference between “ Austria-Hungary' and other European states is here as clearly set forth as one could wish. But some questions arise. How is it that “this constitution' can be "a bar to extension,' when the power so constituted’ has always extended itself whenever it has had a chance, down to the last filching of poor little Spizza ? But let this pass. The instructive questions which arise out of this passage are these. What is the “ Empire' spoken of in one place, and the Austria’spoken of in another? The Empire has duties,' duties of self-preservation and self-defence;' it has feelings too; it cannot look with indifference,' and the like. Austria’ again has wishes' and 'interests;' at least she has no wish or interest' in a particular way, which implies that she may have wishes and interests in another way. So, further on in the same despatch, we read how Austria-Hungary cannot claim,' cannot allow;' we read of the policy of Austria-Hungary,' of Austrian interests, and so on, in a string of sentences in which personified · Austria' does, wishes, feels, hopes, fears, this and that. The question

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"

·

6

"

is, who does all this which is attributed to the Empire,' to ' Austria,' to Austria-Hungary'? If we read that France' did all this, we need ask no questions. France' would simply mean the French nation, and the French Government as acting on behalf of the French nation. There is a vast range of subjects, all matters of foreign policy among them, on which all France, from Britanny to Provence, has the same duties, interests, wishes, feelings, and so forth. We cannot conceive one part of the country having duties, interests, &c., different from any other part. We cannot conceive a French government having interests, wishes, &c.-at all events it cannot have duties-different from the interests and wishes of the whole French nation. If it has any such interests and wishes, it at once forfeits its right to exist as a French government. But when the same kind of language is applied to Austria,' the meaning is less clear. What is Austria'? It clearly does not mean simply the German archduchy to which that name properly belongs. It means something greater even than the German circle to which that name was afterwards extended. It seems to take in the whole mass of the 'kingdoms and lands inhabited by various nationalities' which have come together under the rule of the ruler of Austria. But can we say anything for certain about those various nationalities as a whole? Can we say that they have any common interests, common duties, common feelings, and the like? No one supposes that there is any difference in interests or wishes between Rennes and Marseilles, between Lille and Bayonne. But can we be sure that there is the same community of interest and feeling between Prag and Spizza, between Trent and Tzernovitz? Among the kingdoms and lands inhabited by various nationalities, can we be sure that all have the same ideas even on the subject of self-preservation and self-defence'? It is just possible that a course which to the German or the Magyar might seem a course of self-preservation, might seem a course of self-destruction to the Italian or the Serb. The truth comes out in the passage which follows the words about self-preservation and self-defence. It is not the self-preservation and selfdefence of any of the nationalities within the so-called 'Empire' which is at stake, but only the self-preservation and the self-defence of the so-called 'Empire' itself. That is to say, the interests, the policy, the wishes, and so forth, attributed to the personified being called Austria' or Austria-Hungary' mean the interests and policy, not of the nations concerned, but simply of their common master. The whole talk about interest, duty, policy, and what not, turns out to mean simply that the master of all the kingdoms and lands spoken of wishes to keep them together, if he can. From his point of view, this is doubtless a matter of self-preservation and self-defence. Whether the kingdoms and lands themselves, with their various nationalities, look on the matter in the same light, is another question. While it is their ruler's interest and policy to keep them together, it is quite possible that it may be their interest and policy

to part company. It certainly is not clear that the people of Bukovina or Transsilvania lost anything when Milan and Venice were restored to Italy. It is not clear that they would lose anything if Trent and Aquileia were restored also. It is not clear that the people of Bohemia or Galicia gained anything by the filching of Cattaro or of Spizza. It is not clear that they would lose anything, if Montenegro won back her own at Spizza and at Cattaro too. Our teacher unwittingly tells us a great deal. He teaches us that when the words “interest,’ ‘policy,'' wishes,' and the like are coupled with the words. Austria’or · Austria-Hungary,'they have no reference whatever to the interests and wishes of the kingdoms and lands which are meant to be included under those names, but that they mean simply the interests, wishes, policy, and so forth, of the prince and the dynasty under which those lands have been so strangely brought together. We mean something different from this when we speak of the interests or policy of England or France.

These unwitting revelations lead us at once to the great difference of all between Austria' and the other five great powers, or rather, between · Austria’ and all the other European powers, great and small. It is the only one about which the question can be raised whether it ought to be a power at all. England, France, Italy, Germany Russia, must exist, must be powers. Men, within or without their territories, may see much in the internal condition or in the outward position of any of those powers which they might wish to see otherwise; but no sane person wishes that any of those powers should cease to exist. Frenchmen differ widely as to the form of government which they wish to see prevail in France; but every Frenchman wishes that there should be some government of France, with a boundary at least not narrower than France has at this moment. External or internal enemies may wish that certain lands should be detached from Germany or Russia ; no

sane person wishes that Germany or Russia should be blotted out of the map of Europe. But it is a perfectly intelligible doctrine, on behalf of which sober arguments might be brought, that it would be better for Europe and for the nations concerned, if Austria' or Austria-Hungary' were blotted from the map of Europe. Such a doctrine might imply “illwill' towards the dynasty which rules those nations; it might be put forth in the purest good will towards the nations themselves. Look at the case in this way.

The worst that a reasonable enemy of Germany or Russia could ask would be that those powers should lose all their territory which is not German or Russian. Germany might undergo that loss without the slightest lessening of her real power and greatness. To Russia such a loss would be real and frightful; but it would still leave a Russian nation, a Russian power.

But try the same process on · Austria.' Cut off from · Austria’ whatever is not Austrian. If the word " Austrian’ is here used in the strict sense, something would be left, namely, a single German duchy. But in the conventional sense in which the word is commonly used,

[ocr errors]

6

« AnteriorContinuar »