Page:The Spirit of Russia by T G Masaryk, volume 1.pdf/156

130 than a manifestation of aristocracy. However absolute his power, the tsar is merely par inter pares, and in ultimate analysis, as Uvarov clearly indicates, loyalty is nothing but loyalty upon conditions.

Nicholas was well aware of this, hence his Alexandrine vacillation in these ostensibly humanitarian designs, which were in truth the outcome of economic considerations. For his dread of democracy, Kiselev was rewarded with the title of count, and a prudent calculation led Nicholas to favour the interests of the nobles. During his reign a system of entail was established (1845), and it was characteristic of Nicholas that he was exceptionally free-handed in the distribution of the princely title.

The peasants likewise understood the motives actuating their sovereign, and the consequence was that, side by side with the philosophic and political opposition of the progressive aristocracy, a social opposition came into existence, the opposition of "Orthodox" Russia, the opposition of the mužik.

Among the peasantry there arose a movement against the aristocratic great landlords, a movement that was not simply revolutionary, for it had definite social aims. During the reigns of Alexander I and of Nicholas there was persistent ferment among the peasantry, and it is unquestionable that many peasants sympathised with the liberal opposition and with the revolutionary movement. This is especially clear as far as the decabrist rising is concerned. The peasants were influenced by the opposition sentiments of the intelligentsia and the aristocracy, but their own economic and social distresses were yet more potent causes of discontent. Year after year, in the most widely separated districts, landowners were killed by the peasants, their mansions burned.