Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

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.

6

6

6

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]

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.

Ex

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. ternal 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,

6

either everything would be left, or else nothing; for in that conventional sense the words 'Austrian' and words Austrian' and Austro-Hungarian mean the whole extent of the possessions of the common ruler of Austria and Hungary. They do not mean one part more than another. In that sense there is no central Austria' from which the non-Austrian parts can be cut off. Austria,' in that sense, might indeed be dissolved into its component elements. It could not, like the other powers, have its excrescences cut off from the centre, because there is no centre from which to cut the excrescences off.

6

6

6

Now all this does not of itself prove that it is for the good of Europe, that it is for the good of the kingdoms and lands' with their various nationalities,' that the existing Austrian dominion should be thus broken up, thus dissolved into its component elements. It is a perfectly fair subject for argument whether such a change is to be wished for or not. There may be special reasons to show that it is right and expedient that a scrap of Germany, a scrap of Italy, a scrap of Poland, a scrap of Russia, a scrap of the Rouman and Servian lands, a few stray counties and lordships, here a suppressed commonwealth, here a stolen haven, should be joined with the kingdoms of Hungary, Bohemia, Croatia, and Dalmatia, to make up together an Austro-Hungarian monarchy.' On the other hand, there may be reasons to show that it is right and expedient that so strange a collection of atoms should again be parted asunder. The burthen of proof may be made to lie either way. It may be held that whatever is should be held to be right until it is proved to be wrong. Or it may be held that a power so strange at first sight, so unlike all other powers, should be held to be wrong till it is proved to be right. This is not our present question. What is proved

is that the Austrian power is something wholly different in its nature from the other five powers. What is proved is that the kind of language which is applied with more or less of truth to all the other powers, becomes misleading when it is applied to Austria. Words like 'interest,' 'policy,' 'wishes,' and the like, when applied to Austria do not mean what they mean when they are applied to England or France. They do not mean the interest, the policy, &c., of a nation, but simply the interest or policy of the common ruler of a crowd of nations or scraps of nations. And to speak of 'national feelings,' 'national independence,' 'national honour,' and the like, as applied to the Austrian power, is not merely misleading it is simple nonsense. There cannot be 'national feelings,' and the like, where there is no common nationality, and there is no common Austrian or Austro-Hungarian nationality. It may be deemed in Vienna a point of national honour to keep possession of Trent. Trent itself may think otherwise. What the Magyar looks on as national independence, the Serb and the Rouman may look on as national bondage.

The formation of the Austrian power is one of the oddest pheno

mena of history. It has something in common with the formation of its neighbour and rival Prussia. But it has points which are quite peculiar to itself, as the growth of Prussia has other points which are no less peculiar. In both cases a power has grown up, resting on no genuine national basis, but consisting of all the possessions which have by any means, fair or foul, peaceful or violent, come into the hands of a certain ruling house. Such powers have existed before, but they have seldom been so lasting. The Angevin dominion in the twelfth century, the Burgundian dominion in the fifteenth, were essentially of the same kind; but they lasted only for two or three reigns each. Prussia and Austria have been far more long-lived. The characteristic of powers of this kind is that they mark simply the advance of a dynasty, not that of either a nation or a city. But the difference between Prussia and Austria has been this, that Prussia has had a quasi-national character about it, while the career of Austria has been purely dynastic. The rulers of Prussia-I mean of course since the word Prussia began to take its present meaning-have held, and still hold, both German and non-German territory. But the German element has always been so predominant as to give its character to the whole, and to allow Prussia to grow in the end into the national head of Germany. Austria, on the other hand, starting from a more purely German origin than Prussia, has often tried to Germanize her non-German territories; but in by far the greater part of these she has never succeeded. Her last development has been the exact opposite to the German headship of Prussia. It has taken the form of the 'dual' state of Austria-Hungary,' in which the two dominant races, German and Magyar, have agreed to sit side by side as dominant races, among the various nationalities of the endless kingdoms, duchies, counties, and lordships, which are held by the common sovereign of Austria and Hungary.

6

This

The history of the mere name of Austria is remarkable. The German mark or frontier-land on the Danube, the bulwark of the German realm against the Magyar, took its name from its geographical position. It was the Marca Orientalis, the Eastern mark. It was the Oesterreich, a name which our forefathers cut short into Ostrich, but which we now call by the Latin form Austria, a form which might easily suggest a wrong point of the compass. Austria was not the only land so named. There was more than one Austria in other parts of Europe; the word had a kind of technical use wherever a land was divided into an eastern and a western portion. The eastern part of Lombardy was Austria, a fact which may now be safely proclaimed: twenty years ago or less, dangerous arguments might have been founded on it. So the eastern part of the old Frankish realm was Austria or Austrasia, two forms of the same word. And in both these cases the rest of the land, that which was not Austria, was known by the negative name of Neustria. We get the same division in the Ostro- or East-Goths, though their western fellows did in this case gain a positive and not a negative

« AnteriorContinuar »